As I was reading through the coverage of last night's debate, it struck me that Cheney's relative strength might not have been good for Bush. Here's what I mean:
When even the most rabid of BushCo. supporters admit that their boy-king had some difficulties last week against Kerry, you know that his performance was - at best - very weak. If you look at it minus the rose colored glasses that Republicans have super-glued to their faces, you know that his performance was abysmal. Along comes Darth Cheney who gives a credible, tough performance against the very likeable and believable John Edwards. What does that say to the voters, especially those who have been defending the President?
How can they not see that the man leading their ticket is nothing but an empty head atop an empty suit? How can they conclude otherwise, than that the real power in this duo is - as many on the left have been saying for years - Cheney. Doesn't the possibility that the person they think is so strong and resolute being controlled from "behind the curtain" diminish him in their eyes? For those who are not blindly behind BC'04, it must pain them to see Bush exposed as the weak minded, weak willed individual he is.
To those somehow still stuck in the middle, it should provoke a rational move to Kerry/Edwards. And remember, the first debate was supposedly on aWol's strong suit. What will he show us all when talking about domestic issues and unscripted questions from voters? Issues about which he has little interest or knowledge - based on his performance the past three and half years.