* Updated *
The current issue of Barron's shows John Edwards combing his coif most admiringly while gazing into a handheld mirror.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Note, Gentle Reader, that all the presidential candidates on the Barron's cover are looking at you -- except Edwards who is looking at himself. Everyone looks the part of a candidate -- except Edwards who, if anything, is looking at the part in his hair (let alone a part in the election). There's no crescent-and-star bling on Barack (Hussein) Obama, no dour 1984-imagery draped over Big Sister Hillary, no
flip-flops making flippy floppy around "Mitt Happens" Romney. More than those flung at any other candidate, the Rightosphere's select epithets for this presidential pretender from North Carolina -- insinuations of "Breck girl" and even "silky pony" -- are gaining traction in the MSM. It's time for the Rightosphere to take a bow.
Also implied in this Barron's cover is the value that remains to be teased out of Ann Coulter's four-month old faggot "rehab" joke. In keeping with my commentary (from day one here and last week here), despite some ugly suggestiveness of the word "faggot," the joke's manifest value has very little to do with whether John Edwards has, ever has had, or ever will have sex with men. Nor should it -- unless, as we learned from Jim McGreevey (scroll down in link), it can compromise something as private as national security. The joke's value has nothing to do with liberals' haste to impute to Coulter status as the GOP's "bigoted id," as if she had a glaring intent to bully gays (scroll through here), nor with conservatives' haste to enumerate an almost sublime sense of their accepting nature -- while repudiating one of their own. As if the force of contemporary conservatism can (or ought) to be reckoned apart from Coulter's sophisticated satire....
Previous: "Boo Frickin' Hoo, Liz"
* * *
As the 2008 primary season gets into high gear (a 2007 fundraising season, mostly), let's recall the first close-up look most of us ever had of John Edwards, as reflected in the comments (and rebuttals) of Dick Cheney. From their 2004 vice-presidential debate:
.
EDWARDS: There is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks
of September 11th -- period....
CHENEY: I have not
suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's
clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror. And the point is that that's the place where you're most likely
to see the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction,
the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used
over the years.
* * *
EDWARDS (at one point): The president and the vice president have not done the work to
build the coalition that we need.
EDWARDS (at another): [If John Kerry and I are elected,] we will not outsource
our responsibility to keep this country safe.
* * *
EDWARDS: We've taken 90 percent of the coalition casualties. American taxpayers have borne 90 percent of the costs of the effort in Iraq. And we see the result of there not being a coalition: The first
Gulf war cost America $5 billion. We're at $200 billion and counting....
CHENEY: When you include the Iraqi security forces that have suffered
casualties, as well as the allies, they've taken almost 50 percent of
the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with 50
percent, not 90 percent. With respect to the cost, it wasn't $200 billion. You probably
weren't there to vote for that. But $120 billion is, in fact, what
has been allocated to Iraq. The rest of it's for Afghanistan and the
global war on terror. The allies have stepped forward and agreed to reduce and forgive
Iraqi debt to the tune of nearly $80 billion by one estimate. That,
plus $14 billion they promised in terms of direct aid, puts the
overall allied contribution financially at about $95 billion, not to
the $120 billion we've got, but, you know, better than 40 percent.
* * *
CHENEY: Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not
very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the
Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the
Intelligence Committee. You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on
Medicare reform. Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone."
You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States
Senate. Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of
Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays
when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage
tonight.
* * *
MODERATOR: The next question goes to you, Mr. Vice President. I want to read something you said four years ago at this very
setting: "Freedom means freedom for everybody." You said it again
recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And
you used your family's experience as a context for your remarks. Can you describe then your administration's support for a
constitutional ban on same-sex unions?
CHENEY: Gwen, you're right, four years ago in this debate, the
subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom
does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose
any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business. That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not
government should sanction or approve or give some sort of
authorization, if you will, to these relationships. Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have
regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.
In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially
in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had
the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of -- the legislature
of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage. And the fact is that the president felt that it was important to
make it clear that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's
concerned. Now, he sets the policy for this administration, and I support
the president.
MODERATOR: Senator Edwards, 90 seconds.
EDWARDS: Yes. Let me say first, on an issue that the vice
president said in his last answer before we got to this question,
talking about tax policy, the country needs to know that under what
they have put in place and want to put in place, a millionaire sitting
by their swimming pool, collecting their statements to see how much
money they're making, make their money from dividends, pays a lower
tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for
serving on the ground in Iraq.
Now, they may think that's right. John Kerry and I do not. We don't just value wealth, which they do. We value work in this
country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and
us. Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice
president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her
very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that
they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter,
the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there
are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want
their children to be happy.
And I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so
does John Kerry. I also believe that there should be partnership benefits for gay
and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships. But we should not use the Constitution to divide this country. No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another
state's marriage. This is using the Constitution as a political tool, and it's
wrong.
MODERATOR: New question, but same subject. As the vice president mentioned, John Kerry comes from the state
of Massachusetts, which has taken as big a step as any state in the
union to legalize gay marriage. Yet both you and Senator Kerry say
you oppose it. Are you trying to have it both ways?
EDWARDS: No. I think we've both said the same thing all along. We both believe that -- and this goes onto the end of what I just
talked about -- we both believe that marriage is between a man and a
woman. But we also believe that gay and lesbians and gay and lesbian
couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be
treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits.
For example, a gay couple now has a very difficult time, one,
visiting the other when they're in the hospital, or, for example, if,
heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even
arranging the funeral. I mean, those are not the kind of things that John Kerry and I
believe in. I suspect the vice president himself does not believe in
that. But we don't -- we do believe that marriage should be between a
man and a woman.
And I want to go back, if I can, to the question you just asked,
which is this constitutional amendment. I want to make sure people understand that the president is
proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is
completely unnecessary. Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state
has been required to recognize another state's marriage.
Let me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina
would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts,
which you just asked about. There is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this
amendment. It's nothing but a political tool. And it's being used in
an effort to divide this country on an issue that we should not be
dividing America on. We ought to be talking about issues like health care and jobs and
what's happening in Iraq, not using an issue to divide this country in
a way that's solely for political purposes. It's wrong.
MODERATOR: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.
CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind
words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that
very much.
MODERATOR: That's it?
CHENEY: That's it.
* * *
MODERATOR: [The next question] goes to you, Senator Edwards, and you have two minutes. Ten men and women have been nominees of their parties since 1976
to be vice president. Out of those ten, you have the least
governmental experience of any of them. What qualifies you to be a heartbeat away?
EDWARDS: The American people want in their president and in
their vice president basically three things: They want to know that
their president and their vice president will keep them safe. They
want to know that they have good judgment. And they want to know that
you'll tell them the truth. John Kerry and I will tell the American people the truth....
MODERATOR: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.
CHENEY: You want me to answer a question about his
qualifications?
MODERATOR: That was the question.
CHENEY: I see. Well, I think the important thing in picking a vice president
probably varies from president to president. Different presidents
approach it in different ways. When George Bush asked me to sign on, it obviously wasn't because
he was worried about carrying Wyoming. We got 70 percent of the vote
in Wyoming, although those three electoral votes turned out to be
pretty important last time around.
What he said he wanted me to do was to sign on because
of my experience to be a member of the team, to help him govern, and
that's exactly the way he's used me. And I think from the perspective of the nation, it's worked in
our relationship, in this administration. I think it's worked in part
because I made it clear that I don't have any further political
aspirations myself. And I think that's been an advantage. I think it allows the president to know that my only agenda is
his agenda. I'm not worried about what some precinct committeemen in
Iowa were thinking of me with respect to the next round of caucuses of
2008.
* * *
MODERATOR: Mr. Vice President, picking up on that, you both just
sang the praises of the tops of your ticket. Without mentioning them by name at all, explain to us why you are
different from your opponent, starting with you, Mr. Vice President.
CHENEY: Why I am different from John Edwards. Well, in some
respects, I think, probably there are more similarities than there are
differences in our personal story.
I don't talk about myself very much, but I've heard
Senator Edwards, and as I listen to him, I find some similarities. I come from relatively modest circumstances. My grandfather
never even went to high school. I'm the first in my family to
graduate from college. I carried a ticket in the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers for six years. I've been laid off, been hospitalized without
health insurance. So I have some idea of the problems that people
encounter. So I think the personal stories are, in some respects,
surprisingly similar.
With respect to how we've spent our careers, I obviously made a
choice for public service. And I've been at it for a good long time
now, except for those periods when we lost elections. And that goes
with the turf, as well, too.
I'm absolutely convinced that the threat we face now, the idea of
a terrorist in the middle of one of our cities with a nuclear weapon,
is very real and that we have to use extraordinary measures to deal
with it. I feel very strongly that the significance of 9/11
cannot be underestimated. It forces us to think in new ways about
strategy, about national security, about how we structure our forces
and about how we use U.S. military power.
Some people say we should wait until we are attacked before we
use force. I would argue we've already been attacked. We lost more
people on 9/11 than we lost at Pearl Harbor. And I'm a very strong
advocate of a very aggressive policy of going after the terrorists and
those who support terror.
MODERATOR: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds.
EDWARDS: Mr. Vice President, we were attacked. But we weren't
attacked by Saddam Hussein. And one thing that John Kerry and I would
agree with you about is that it is....
MODERATOR: You just used John Kerry's name.
EDWARDS: Oh, I'm sorry. I broke the rule.
One thing that we agree about is the need to be offensive in
going after terrorists. The reality is that the best defense is a good offense,
which means leading -- America returning to its proud tradition of the
last 75 years, of once again leading strong coalitions so we can get
at these terrorist cells where they are, before they can do damage to
us and to the American people. John Kerry made clear on Thursday night that -- I'm sorry, I
broke the rules. We made clear -- we made clear on Thursday night
that we will do that, and we will do it aggressively.
But there are things that need to be done to keep this country
safe that have not yet been done. For example, three years after 9/11, we find out that the
administration still does not have a unified terrorist watch list.
It's amazing. Three years. What are we waiting for? You know, we
still don't have one list that everyone can work off of to see if
terrorists are entering this country. We're screening our passengers going onto airplanes, but we don't
screen the cargo. There are so many things that could be done to keep this country
safe. You have to be strong, and you have to be aggressive. But we
also have to be smart. And there are things that have not been done
that need to be done to keep the American people safe.
MODERATOR: Would you like to respond? Thirty seconds.
CHENEY: No.
* * *
MODERATOR: As previously agreed, we'll go to closing statements now,
two minutes each. Coin toss, Senator Edwards, you begin.
EDWARDS: Thank you. Thank you, Gwen. Thank you, Mr. Vice President, for being here.
You know, when I was young and growing up, I remember coming down
the steps into the kitchen, early in the morning, and I would see the
glow of the television. And I'd see my father sitting at a table. He wasn't paying
bills, and he wasn't doing paperwork from work. What he was doing was learning math on television. Now, he didn't have a college education, but he was doing what he
could do to get a better job in the mill where he worked. I was proud
of him. I'm still proud of him. And I was also hopeful, because I knew that I lived in a country
where I could get a college education.
Here's the truth: I have grown up in the bright light of
America. But that light is flickering today. Now, I know that the vice president and the president don't see
it, but you do. You see it when your incomes are going down and the cost of
everything -- college tuition, health care -- is going through the
roof. You see it when you sit at your table each night and there's an
empty chair because a loved one is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
What they're going to give you is four more years of the same.
John Kerry and I believe that we can do better. We believe in a
strong middle-class in this country. That's why we have a plan to
create jobs, getting rid of tax cuts for companies outsourcing your
jobs; give tax cuts to companies that'll keep jobs here in America. That's why we have a health care plan. That's why we have a plan
to keep you safe and to fix this mess in Iraq. The truth is that every four years you get to decide. You have
the ability to decide where America's going to go. John Kerry and I
are asking you to give us the power to fight for you, to fight to keep
that dream in America, that I saw as a young man, alive for every
parent sitting at that kitchen table.
MODERATOR: Vice President Cheney?
CHENEY: Gwen, I want to thank you.
It's been a privilege to serve as your vice president these last
four years and to work alongside President Bush to put our economy on
an upward path. We've cut taxes, added 1.7 million new jobs in the last year, and
we'll continue to provide opportunities for business and for workers. We won't be happy until every American who wants to work can find
a job. We believe that all Americans ought to have access to available
-- to medical care and that they ought to have access to the finest
schools in the world. We'll do everything we can to preserve Social Security and to
make certain that it's there for future generations.
I've worked for four presidents and watched two others up close,
and I know that there's no such thing as a routine day in the Oval
Office. We saw on 9/11 that the next president -- next decision a
president has to make can affect the lives of all of us. Now we find ourselves in the midst of a conflict unlike any we've
ever known, faced with the possibility that terrorists could smuggle a
deadly biological agent or a nuclear weapon into the middle of one of
our own cities.
That threat -- and the presidential leadership needed to deal
with it -- is placing a special responsibility on all of you who will
decide on November 2nd who will be our commander in chief. The only viable option for winning the war on terrorism is the
one the president has chosen, to use the power of the United States to
aggressively go after the terrorists wherever we find them and also to
hold to account states that sponsor terror. Now that we've captured or killed thousands of Al Qaida and taken
down the regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, it's important
that we stand up democratically elected governments as the only
guarantee that they'll never again revert to terrorism or the
production of deadly weapons.
This is the task of our generation. And I know firsthand the
strength the president brings to it. The overall outcome will depend upon the ability of the American
people and the strong leadership of the president to meet all the
challenges that we'll face in the days and years ahead. I'm confident we can do it.
