The OAO Vice Presidential Debate Thread

[bob_barron 0]

He needed to do much more in his time allowed than say "Everything that man said next to me is wrong" without elaboration. He had a chance to delve further into the topic with the next question, but instead chose to go after John's voting records.

 

As Mike said- he only had 30 seconds. Edwards only brought up Haliburton during his 90 second rebuttals. What was Cheney supposed to do? Do what Edwards did and completely ignore questions just to babble on about health care?

 

Ah, but he did give out the wrong one. And now he needs to rely on the post-news coverage to help him out of a hole? First off, there probably isn't a wide percentage of people who, after watching the debate, were willing to go to that website. Second, if they wanted to - and were unable to access it - you now expect them to reasonably sit in front of the television and wait for Tom Brokaw to give them the right web address?

 

Cheney screwed up majorly here if he was looking to fight against the Halliburton charges.

 

Again- if that's his biggest mistake then he did a great job. I didn't expect them to do anything. I just think a lot of people probably watch the post debate analysis where they immediately go over the facts. He screwed up. Big deal. Still kicked Edwards ass.

 

He had only 30 seconds to rip Edwards apart. That's not a lot of time.

 

 

 

 

 

No, no. Edwards did good in other aspects as well.

 

He didn't do too badly on domestic issues- but Edwards kept trying to give rhetoric-Cheney kept giving facts.

 

 

His opinion couldn't be an opinion that a good percentage of Americans also share? That, while granting a gay couple complete marriage rights may be unnecessary, they should still be given SOME rights, without a consitutional amendment to completely stand in the way? Just because Edwards gave the politically-correct answer doesn't mean he doesn't believe in it, and it's quite foolish of you to even suggest that. Kerry and Edwards picked what many feel is the right stance on the issue! What the hell are you even arguing here?

 

I think the answer given by Kerry and Edwards is just their attempt to try and pander to everyone so they don't offend everyone. Against gay marriage, for the same rights, blah blah. They're too afraid to lose swing conservative voters so thye just try to please everyone. At least Bush has a stance on the issue.

 

 

Hooray. Now if that had an actual effect on its status in the country, then things might look a little better. But the way it stands now, that means absolutely nothing.

 

What can Cheney do exactly? He's given his stance on the issue.

 

 

The hypocrisy of the Bush administration. How Dick Cheney has a gay daughter, yet will stand by and allow Bush to block certain rights that gays have in this country. Edwards didn't mention her name in a sleazy way - he mentioned her name in order to prove a point. It accomplished something. It left Cheney without any platform to stand on when it came to hurting civil rights for homosexuals in this country. It left him without anything to say to combat John's charges. It did a pretty damn good job of that.

 

CHENEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING. He can't vote on anything (unless it's a tie), he can't block a bill. Should he resign cause he disagrees with President Bush on one issue? Edwards obviously had no real stance on gay marriage so he tried to bring a man's personal life into the forefront to make a point. He failed.

 

 

Ask Mike and GreatOne. They were just salivating over this topic.

 

Still waiting for a source.

 

 

 

Untrue. He only went back on it a few times to fight against the image that Cheney was trying to paint of him - someone that just wouldn't know WHAT to do with Health Care. Edwards wanted to prove him wrong, which is why he wished to go back and correct his statement. In actuality, this was another weakness of the Bush administration, and Cheney wanted to go back to highlight it.

 

Besides, if he did this a "pathetic" amount of times, then what would you consider Cheney's constant off-topic attacks on Edwards' voting records to be about? Those not only didn't answer ANY questions that the moderator was laying out, but he went back on those far more than Edwards mentioned health care.

 

He shouldn't have gone back to the issue once. Answer the fucking question and wait for them to ask about health care. I didn't really get Edwards' plan and he seemed to have trouble refuting Cheney and the Medicare Bill.

 

The attacks weren't off topic. Cheney was absolutely right in bringing up the fact that Edwards has a weak voting record. (Well when he showed up)

 

Cheney kept pointing out that Edwards and Kerry have questionable voting records- that's important.

 

 

Oh, but Edwards DID have facts - and Edwards DID have points. Go back and rewind your VCR if you don't believe me.

 

Which were all soundly debunked time and time again by Cheney. But Edwards does score points since Cheney could not refute the fact that Edwards' father learned to read from watching TV.

 

 

Ugh, you clearly didn't understand the point of his closing statements.

 

Actually I do. The point is to sum up everything you've said during the debate and say why the American public should vote for you.

 

I learned that Edwards' father watched TV.

 

The beginning anecdote of the statement was to address the ideals on which this country was built upon. How his father could sit in front of the television to learn mathematics and better improve his status in the country. How America actually gave him the opportunity to help fix his OWN education, and how certain people like John's father did their best to seize this chance. He then related this to the America of today, and how the two timeframes of the United States don't correlate nearly enough. How, under the administration of Bush and Cheney, this chance to improve status has disappeared. How - with taxes, outsourcing of jobs, the falling economy - these ideals are starting to falter. He then closed it out by saying that, if John Kerry and John Edwards were elected, they would try to change this worrying trend, and bring the country back to where they were before.

 

Edwards had no idea what he was talking about since despite the evilness of the Bush administration- you can still learn to read from TV.

 

The light is flickering? The hell?

 

And it doesn't seem like the economy is starting to falter at all.

 

Edwards didn't make any points. He didn't leave an impression on the American voter. Anecdotes are useless. Tell me the facts.

 

This speech had a great flow. This speech had emotion. And, most importantly - this speech had a POINT!

 

No it didn't. Edwards is Bill Clinton-lite. He comes off as a lawyer trying to give a convincing closing argument.

 

Coincidence?

 

No.

 

Cheney spoke in a cold, somber tone during his final presentation. He didn't offer anything new to the public, he didn't try to reach out to them on a face-to-face basis - he suffered under the same weaknesses he almost always falls under. His closing statements appeared flat because they just weren't powerful enough to convince people that Bush and Cheney would be the absolute BEST choice for the next four years.

 

Cheney did what he had to do. He stuck to what he focused on throughout the debate and reiterate what he had been saying all along.

 

I'm sorry he didn't try to speak in a somber tone or pander to the lowest common denominator. Cheney spoke the truth and told everyone why it was important to vote for him.

 

Either you didn't understand the point of John Edwards' speech, or you just tried hard not to.

 

I understood what Edwards was trying to do. But he failed. Miserably.

 

 

 

Could it have anything to do with the idea that Cheney is used to this high-profile attention by now, while this was the first MAJOR, MAJOR debate that John Edwards has ever been involved in? Could it have anything to do with Edwards being a human being like all of us, and getting nervous just because he was doing something that he was admittedly inexperienced at, while Cheney clearly knew what he was doing?

 

Oh God.

 

That's your best defence for Edwards?

 

He was 'nervous'? If Kerry wins- Edwards is a heartbeat away from being president. I don't want a guy as president who gets nervous and lets it affect a simple debate. Come on now. I'm sure Cheney was kind of nervous as well. But he can obviously handle the pressure. Edwards can't.

 

 

As I've said, Cheney DID go off-topic to attack Edwards on his voting records. Edwards, defending himself, went back and unleashed a nice string of criticisms on Dick's voting record as well.

 

And if you want to talk about on the defensive - rewatch Cheney throughout the entire domestic issues debate. Not only did he have to backtrack several times and cover valid points that Edwards kept bringing up, but he often found himself unable to find the words to debate against certain topics.

 

No he didn't. Cheney used facts and figured and Edwards' own record against him. Edwards just tried to use the same shit he's been talking about on the campaign. And it didn't work.

[Justice 0]

So, wait... Who is in over their head in this argument?

 

And I do have to say that the "Daughter" comment is below the belt. It was completely unwarrented. It had no point other than to try and get a reaction from Cheney (Which it failed miserably at). I can't believe you'd defend that sort of low blow.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

He was joking that Edwards was NEVER AROUND TO VOTE SO HE FEELS LIKE HE HAS NEVER MET HIM.

 

Christ on a damn cracker.

 

It was a funny line, I got it and I think Cheney is a dickhead.

 

Wow, this is really sad since I've seen people at various other sites latching onto this and screaming, "SEE! HE'S NOT FIT! HE'S NOT FIT! EDWARDS WON!"

he already made several references to that. I mean, it's not like Cheney said that he took the initative in creating the Internet or anything like that.

 

On further checking, Cheney presided over two Tuesday sessions since 2001. Edwards presided over two Tuesday sessions as well. But, that does back up the idea that Cheney shows up and hangs out with Republicans, which would make it a bit hard for him to meet Edwards.

 

Granted, Cheney's sense of humor is very dry too, so it's probably not extraordinary that he slips from "joke" to "serious" without anybody noticing.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

One more thing about Edwards attendance. It's a shame there isn't an online monitor of this (that I know of) but his record before 2004 (or this session) was good. His current record may not be too bad, but I don't know what his 79% attendance record is really like compared to others

[Guest Loss]

Anyone who can't see the patronizing tone behind "I'm sure you love your gay daughter"-type speak thinks in a way I totally don't understand. It was a low blow, a cringe moment even. Edwards has a lot of charisma, but putting a scoop of ice cream on cow dung doesn't equal dessert.

[NYU 0]

As Mike said- he only had 30 seconds. Edwards only brought up Haliburton during his 90 second rebuttals. What was Cheney supposed to do? Do what Edwards did and completely ignore questions just to babble on about health care?

 

Well, it seems to me that Cheney had no problems going off-topic at certain points throughout the debate. In fact, I distinctly remember Cheney being asked a question about the situation in Israel, saying that he "wanted to go back to the previous question" that referred to Halliburton, then launched into a nonsensical personal attack on Edwards' voting records. He already went completely off-topic in this response from the original question. Why not use that time to actually address something in the debate - LIKE the Halliburton charges brought up only a moment ago - instead of going for the cheap low blow, which had become a trend throughout the night.

 

And, if we're even going to assume that Cheney had ONLY those 30 seconds - which is the completely wrong mindframe anyway - he could have done more in that short amount of time. Obviously, at this point, he should have it down pat just why all those charges against Halliburton are false, and he pretty much should be able to recite these reasons quite quickly. Instead, he said that Kerry and Edwards are putting up a "smokescreen" - a comment that was repeated incorrectly several times throughout the night - and gave the public the wrong web address.

 

He failed with this subject.

 

Again- if that's his biggest mistake then he did a great job. I didn't expect them to do anything. I just think a lot of people probably watch the post debate analysis where they immediately go over the facts. He screwed up. Big deal. Still kicked Edwards ass.

 

You're still assuming a lot. You can not take for granted that people tuned into the post debate analysis long enough to get the correct website - especially since it's not a guarantee that this analytic shows even released the correct web address anyway.

 

Still kicked Edwards ass? Hardly.

 

He had only 30 seconds to rip Edwards apart. That's not a lot of time.

 

It seems to me he had the rest of the night to do that if he wished. Perhaps he just didn't know how.

 

He didn't do too badly on domestic issues- but Edwards kept trying to give rhetoric-Cheney kept giving facts.

 

This is a myth that I'm afraid people around here are beginning to believe. Edwards brought quite a few facts into this debate, and it'd be nice if you bothered to listen to them.

 

After Cheney tried to attack Edwards on his voting record, John was able to come back with his own criticisms. Like how Cheney voted against making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a national holiday.

 

Or when Cheney called against the release of Nelson Mandela.

 

Or when Cheney voted against Head Start.

 

How about when Dick was against the Meals for Wheels senior program?

 

Edwards mentioned certain facts about the Halliburton deal that, in this debate, were not contested at all. How the company got a $7.5 million no-bid contract in Iraq, and instead of part of their money being withheld, which is the way it's normally done, because they're under investigation, they've continued to get their money. Certainly something that could remain with the American public.

 

When Cheney brought up the benefits of the No Child Left Behind Act, Edwards made sure to mention that they didn't fund the mandates they put in schools all over the country. As a result, over 800 teachers had to be laid off in Cleveland alone.

 

Stop with the rhetoric that Edwards didn't have facts.

 

I could bring up more if you'd like. He had facts about Cheney's voting record. He had facts about the Bush/Cheney policies.

 

You're spouting the "Edwards had no facts" line so much that I'm afraid you might be believing it.

 

I think the answer given by Kerry and Edwards is just their attempt to try and pander to everyone so they don't offend everyone. Against gay marriage, for the same rights, blah blah. They're too afraid to lose swing conservative voters so thye just try to please everyone. At least Bush has a stance on the issue.

 

If the Kerry/Edwards stance on the issue is the one that pleases the most people, why is that a problem?

 

Bush is dividing the country on the issue of gay marriage by taking such a hard, one-sided viewpoint on it. Not only does he want gays to NOT have the right to marry, he wants to make it a constitutional amendment that it not be allowed. He doesn't want gay couples to have any of the same rights that opposite-sex couples have at this point.

 

And why is this? Because of his religious beliefs. Don't even get me started on that.

 

You can't fault Kerry and Edwards for trying to give the right answer. To try to give the answer that would offend the least amount of Americans.

 

And, like I've said before, it's ridiculous for you to just assume that it isn't what they believe in the first place.

 

What can Cheney do exactly? He's given his stance on the issue.

 

So then you shouldn't note that Cheney has broken ranks with the President on gay marriage. Not only does it not accomplish anything, but it makes Bush look even worse that he plans to move on with the idea to step on gay rights, despite the fact that his own Vice President has a gay daughter. Miscommunication all around.

 

CHENEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING. He can't vote on anything (unless it's a tie), he can't block a bill. Should he resign cause he disagrees with President Bush on one issue? Edwards obviously had no real stance on gay marriage so he tried to bring a man's personal life into the forefront to make a point. He failed.

 

Again, there was an actual reason behind bringing the man's personal life into the topic. Can you not see that there is a problem with our President if he blatantly disregards the fact that his own Vice President has a homosexual daughter? Can you not see that there is a problem if our Vice President is not taking a bigger stand to rally for his daughter to actually have some rights as a gay American?

 

Edwards brought Cheney's daughter into the debate for just a moment, to show the unique hypocrisy that is facing the Bush administration.

 

He succeeded.

 

Still waiting for a source.

 

Look in other threads then.

 

Mike and GreatOne - who I'm convinced are the same person - couldn't wait for Cheney to thrash him on the subject of health care.

 

Didn't quite happen that way.

 

He shouldn't have gone back to the issue once. Answer the fucking question and wait for them to ask about health care. I didn't really get Edwards' plan and he seemed to have trouble refuting Cheney and the Medicare Bill.

 

Then there's a double standard here. If it's okay for Cheney to go off the topic to answer something else, then it should certainly be okay for Edwards to do it.

 

Also, I don't see where you got this notion that Edwards kept going back to talk about health care. I believe he only did it one more time after the question had passed. He really didn't go back and constantly harp on it, so I don't know where this is coming from.

 

The attacks weren't off topic. Cheney was absolutely right in bringing up the fact that Edwards has a weak voting record. (Well when he showed up)

 

Cheney kept pointing out that Edwards and Kerry have questionable voting records- that's important.

 

It was off topic from the question being asked. If the moderator is asking you a question about the Israeli situation, there is no reason that Cheney should have gone into an attack on Edwards records.

 

Especially since some of those attacks were quite misleading.

 

Cheney said Kerry once vowed to allow a veto by the United Nations over U.S. troops. This statement was made 35 YEARS AGO, only ten months after Kerry had returned from Vietnam angry and hurt by his experiences there. Of course, Cheney tried to paint the picture that it was something that happened recently. Nice.

 

Cheney said Kerry's tax-cut rollback would hit 900,000 small businesses. This is also misleading. According to IRS data, a tiny fraction of small business "S-corporations" earn enough profits to be in the top two tax brackets. Most are in the bottom two brackets.

 

Cheney charged that Kerry voted 98 times to raise taxes. But factcheck.org - the same site that Cheney TRIED to advertise during the debate - said that nearly half of those motions weren't necessarily for tax increases, but just to continue the procedural motion.

 

Let's not forget that Cheney also said Kerry and Edwards were opposed to the No Child Left Behind Act when, in fact, both men voted for the law and supported modifications to fund billions of dollars in order to support the program.

 

Cheney not only went off topic when he tried to attack Edwards.

 

He was misleading and wrong when he did it!

 

Which were all soundly debunked time and time again by Cheney. But Edwards does score points since Cheney could not refute the fact that Edwards' father learned to read from watching TV.

 

Quite witty. Quite witty but inaccurate.

 

There were several points in the debate where Cheney found himself unable to combat claims by Edwards. These are all topics that were covered before.

 

And like I've just said, some of the "debunking" that Cheney did was just flat-out wrong.

 

And now we're back to the fact that you didn't understand Edwards closing statements.

 

Actually I do. The point is to sum up everything you've said during the debate and say why the American public should vote for you.

 

I learned that Edwards' father watched TV.

 

Let me give you a lesson about speech-writing.

 

To get the audience's attention early and in a powerful way, it's often good to begin with a personal anecdote. Edwards did this by noting how his father used to sit in front of the television and try to learn mathematics, with the hope that he could improve his own status. The American Dream is to have the opportunity to improve yourself in this country, and Edwards father was trying to do that. Edwards then shifted the statement smoothly to show that the Bush administration has not kept this American Dream idea thriving like it once was.

 

I hope I don't have to sum up the message of the speech for you a third time.

 

Edwards had no idea what he was talking about since despite the evilness of the Bush administration- you can still learn to read from TV.

 

The light is flickering? The hell?

 

And it doesn't seem like the economy is starting to falter at all.

 

Edwards didn't make any points. He didn't leave an impression on the American voter. Anecdotes are useless. Tell me the facts.

 

It was mathematics, Bob. If you're going to be highly critical of the speech, try to get it right.

 

The point was that Edwards dad was looking to study math on the television in order to try to move up in the country. Long ago, his dad had the hope that, in the United States, there was still the chance for upward mobility.

 

For many, that hope has disappeared in the United States under the Bush administration. Many are without jobs - those jobs, of course, being outsourced into other countries. Many are suffering when it comes to the financial situation, and thus it's nearly impossible for them to try to get out of the rut they currently sit in. And, of course, many feel the stranglehold that the rich have in this country is an insurmountable mountain to climb.

 

This wasn't the viewpoint years ago. Years ago, there was the viewpoint that anybody could succeed as long as they had a steady job and the desire to move upwards.

 

That viewpoint has changed.

 

Whether you agree with the idea is up to you. But that is the message Edwards was trying to convey, and I think it was a valid one.

 

With the closing statement, it was time to leave an impression on the American audience. Edwards already usd a wide array of facts throughout the entire debate - now it was time to really drive home the point.

 

I believe he did it with flying colors.

 

Oh God.

 

That's your best defence for Edwards?

 

He was 'nervous'? If Kerry wins- Edwards is a heartbeat away from being president. I don't want a guy as president who gets nervous and lets it affect a simple debate. Come on now. I'm sure Cheney was kind of nervous as well. But he can obviously handle the pressure. Edwards can't.

 

You really are grossly misinformed.

 

These candidates are human. You can not fault a man like John Edwards to be somewhat nervous in the biggest night of his life thus far. Simple debate? Many were saying that the entire foundation of both campaigns could rely on this debate. If the Bush/Cheney ticket fell again in this debate, the Kerry/Edwards one could have gotten a measure of momentum that would have been difficult to come back from. If Kerry/Edwards completely failed here, that could have been the end of the election for them. There was a lot of pressure placed on this debate and Edwards, who had never been in this type of situation before, felt a little nervous about it.

 

Was he sweating bullets? Hell no.

 

Bob, you are quite the amazing man if you were never anxious about publically speaking to a larg amount of people before.

 

Perhaps John just doesn't have the poise you do.

 

Just because he was nervous at certain pointsi in this debate certainly doesn't mean he is unfit to be the Vice President of the country.

 

Why, look at George W. Bush after all, then. I don't think there was ever a President that ever stumbled over his own words more, looked more dumbfounded during speeches and debates, and was just a worse public speaker.

 

But I guess we don't include him, huh?

 

No he didn't. Cheney used facts and figured and Edwards' own record against him. Edwards just tried to use the same shit he's been talking about on the campaign. And it didn't work.

 

A matter of opinion then.

 

I felt it worked. And there are many others that agree.

 

It's a shame your bias steps in the way of seeing the truth.

 

Hopefully, you'll eventually get that cleared up.

 

Anyone who can't see the patronizing tone behind "I'm sure you love your gay daughter"-type speak thinks in a way I totally don't understand. It was a low blow, a cringe moment even. Edwards has a lot of charisma, but putting a scoop of ice cream on cow dung doesn't equal dessert.

 

Edwards brought it up in a polite tone, just to point out the complete background behind the situation. I didn't think it was cringeworthy at all.

 

So, wait... Who is in over their head in this argument?

 

Certainly not me.

[NoCalMike 0]

Come Friday, and this entire thread will be a moot point. Bush had some big speech today, feeling cocky and shit, spouting off one-liners left and right, I bet he is ready for the debate big time.....

 

Of course when he looks down at the podium or table on Friday night and there isn't a paper with a speech written for him, I fully expect his "deer in the headlights" look to re-appear only to be topped with his "it's hard work" explanation for the mess in Iraq.

[Guest GreatOne]

NY and NoCal are political experts now. Bush is doomed!!!!!!!!!

 

BTW NYFluffable, you might notice a couple differences between me and Mike:

 

1)He's been posting here a BIT longer than I have, almost 2 1/2 years.

2)I'm in Eastern Washington, he's in South Carolina

 

Sorry.....................

[Justice 0]

As Mike said- he only had 30 seconds. Edwards only brought up Haliburton during his 90 second rebuttals. What was Cheney supposed to do? Do what Edwards did and completely ignore questions just to babble on about health care?

 

Well, it seems to me that Cheney had no problems going off-topic at certain points throughout the debate. In fact, I distinctly remember Cheney being asked a question about the situation in Israel, saying that he "wanted to go back to the previous question" that referred to Halliburton, then launched into a nonsensical personal attack on Edwards' voting records. He already went completely off-topic in this response from the original question. Why not use that time to actually address something in the debate - LIKE the Halliburton charges brought up only a moment ago - instead of going for the cheap low blow, which had become a trend throughout the night.

Ugh, you are hopeless.

 

1) All the claims Edwards made about Haliburton would take MUCH longer than 30 seconds to address. There's no point in wasting time on something that he couldn't possibly explain in 30 seconds.

 

2) He directed them to a third-party observer rather than defend himself. Instead of him looking like he's trying to explain himself, he's saying "These people have the facts and are non-partisan. Look to them for real answers." Using non-partisan observers as proof lends to the credibility of one's self. Hell, even saying that it was the University of Pennsylvania that was doing it helps him out a little as it makes it seem professional and unbiased.

 

I don't see your huge problem with him going off-topic. He never seemed too off-topic to me. How can you even defend Edwards going back to Halliburton when he got completely called out on Medicare?

 

And, if we're even going to assume that Cheney had ONLY those 30 seconds - which is the completely wrong mindframe anyway - he could have done more in that short amount of time. Obviously, at this point, he should have it down pat just why all those charges against Halliburton are false, and he pretty much should be able to recite these reasons quite quickly. Instead, he said that Kerry and Edwards are putting up a "smokescreen" - a comment that was repeated incorrectly several times throughout the night - and gave the public the wrong web address.

 

Completely wrong mind-frame? It's a waste of time to use 30 seconds to try and explain something that'll take a full 2 minutes. He did the right thing: Punt to a 3rd-party source to defend him so he doesn't come off as looking partisan.

 

You're still assuming a lot. You can not take for granted that people tuned into the post debate analysis long enough to get the correct website - especially since it's not a guarantee that this analytic shows even released the correct web address anyway.

 

Still kicked Edwards ass? Hardly.

 

"Hi! I'm grasping for straws! What are you doing?"

 

Just because he directed them to the wrong website means crap. This shows how desperate you are to believe that Edwards didn't get schooled last night. He gave a wrong web-address. It happens. If it was the worst mistake of the night, he is perhaps one of the best debaters around today. I can't believe you are trying to cling on to this weak, weak criticism as though it is salient.

 

He failed with this subject.

 

No, you are just searching for something to cling to right now. Very poor form.

 

It seems to me he had the rest of the night to do that if he wished. Perhaps he just didn't know how.

 

But... it was never asked as a question. He gave his answer and tried to stick to the topics. I thought you didn't like him getting off topic?

 

This is a myth that I'm afraid people around here are beginning to believe. Edwards brought quite a few facts into this debate, and it'd be nice if you bothered to listen to them.

 

After Cheney tried to attack Edwards on his voting record, John was able to come back with his own criticisms. Like how Cheney voted against making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a national holiday.

 

Or when Cheney called against the release of Nelson Mandela.

 

Or when Cheney voted against Head Start.

 

How about when Dick was against the Meals for Wheels senior program?

 

*Weeps* Too bad that's the only record he has, right? Oh wait, he has that whole VP thing...

 

Frankly, these are weak criticisms. Consider Washington and Lincoln technically don't have national holidays, why should MLK? They were President, weren't they? No offense to the greatness that MLK represents, but frankly there are others who might be in line before him to get a holiday. It's a pretty weak criticism.

 

The other three are just extraneous. It doesn't tell me anything on his own policy decisions. Frankly, Cheney's criticisms were more focused on the topics at hand, with his brilliant smack on Kerry voting for the Medicare thing in 1997 to his complete diss on Edward's attendance. Edward's attacks were weak because they had no focus and no real substance with the subject matter at hand. Cheney looked like a prize-fighter with his jabs and punches while Edwards came off amateurish with wild, unfocused punches.

 

Edwards mentioned certain facts about the Halliburton deal that, in this debate, were not contested at all. How the company got a $7.5 million no-bid contract in Iraq, and instead of part of their money being withheld, which is the way it's normally done, because they're under investigation, they've continued to get their money. Certainly something that could remain with the American public.

 

I believe I linked the article a previous post. Anyways, if you want to focus on bullshit Edwards was handing out in desperation.

 

And on the no-bid: The Army did that, not Cheney. In all likelihood it probably has to do with the fact that, well, Halliburton did the job in the first Gulf War, why not give it to them again?

 

And I'm fairly sure that they're no longer under serious investigation, but I could be wrong.

 

When Cheney brought up the benefits of the No Child Left Behind Act, Edwards made sure to mention that they didn't fund the mandates they put in schools all over the country. As a result, over 800 teachers had to be laid off in Cleveland alone.

 

The main problem with the mandidates is actually that many schools didn't send in the proper paperwork in on time, meaning a lot of schools that would have gotten funding didn't because their principal didn't get off their ass. I get this from my mother who works for Detroit Public Schools.

 

Article

 

Of course, this suggests that it was property costs going down, health care rising, and state-aid going down (Since NCLB is Federal, isn't it?), that kind puts a damper on that stuff.

 

Stop with the rhetoric that Edwards didn't have facts.

 

Okay, how about this? He brought facts that didn't mean anything in the context of the actual debate at hand. That better?

 

I could bring up more if you'd like. He had facts about Cheney's voting record. He had facts about the Bush/Cheney policies.

 

The voting record is very weak. It didn't do anything because those policies don't mean anything in the context of the debate. It came off as Edwards looking desperate and trying to pin heat on Cheney because he had nothing legitimate to bring up about him.

 

If the Kerry/Edwards stance on the issue is the one that pleases the most people, why is that a problem?

 

Bush is dividing the country on the issue of gay marriage by taking such a hard, one-sided viewpoint on it. Not only does he want gays to NOT have the right to marry, he wants to make it a constitutional amendment that it not be allowed. He doesn't want gay couples to have any of the same rights that opposite-sex couples have at this point.

 

And why is this? Because of his religious beliefs. Don't even get me started on that.

 

You can't fault Kerry and Edwards for trying to give the right answer. To try to give the answer that would offend the least amount of Americans.

 

And, like I've said before, it's ridiculous for you to just assume that it isn't what they believe in the first place.

 

The entire criticism is that their beliefs don't change a fucking thing! You obviously don't understand the entire nature of the debate on Gay Marriage: You can't have civil unions with benefits. It just doesn't work that way; there are too many laws and other such things that would have to be re-written. It just wouldn't work. It's Marriage or bust. Kerry straddling the issue, try to play both sides just makes him look pandering.

 

Does it offend the least amount of Americans? Yes. Does he look like he's doing it with honest intentions? Hell no, and that's what Bob and I find sleazy about it.

 

So then you shouldn't note that Cheney has broken ranks with the President on gay marriage. Not only does it not accomplish anything, but it makes Bush look even worse that he plans to move on with the idea to step on gay rights, despite the fact that his own Vice President has a gay daughter. Miscommunication all around.

 

...?

 

Seriously, the only power he to do is give the President his opinion. I'm sure he has more than once. Just because the President *gasp* take on his opinion doesn't mean that there is upheaval in the White House, or that Cheney isn't accomplishing anything, it just means they differ on ONE ISSUE. Jesus, make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

And step on Gay Rights? What can he do with them? Con Amendment didn't pass, and will never pass, so what else can he do? It's all up to the courts now. Frankly, no one's stance on Gays matters right now outside of the SCOTUS's. Unfortunately you just don't understand that.

 

Again, there was an actual reason behind bringing the man's personal life into the topic. Can you not see that there is a problem with our President if he blatantly disregards the fact that his own Vice President has a homosexual daughter? Can you not see that there is a problem if our Vice President is not taking a bigger stand to rally for his daughter to actually have some rights as a gay American?

 

Edwards brought Cheney's daughter into the debate for just a moment, to show the unique hypocrisy that is facing the Bush administration.

 

He succeeded.

 

You are unbelievable. I can't believe that you would regard Cheney's daughter as fair game. You just don't get it, do you?

 

That's Cheney's personal business. Between him and his family. Edwards trying to bring that up was a sleazy Trial Lawyer trick. What if Cheney decided to use Edwards' son as a reason behind the ligitation crisis? That's unfair because it's bringing up something very personal and private out onto the playing field. It's sad to see a Democrat so desperate that he would try to call victory on Edwards bring up Cheney's daughter.

 

Then there's a double standard here. If it's okay for Cheney to go off the topic to answer something else, then it should certainly be okay for Edwards to do it.

 

Also, I don't see where you got this notion that Edwards kept going back to talk about health care. I believe he only did it one more time after the question had passed. He really didn't go back and constantly harp on it, so I don't know where this is coming from.

 

He went back to it like Bush went back to "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time". He didn't go back to it because it was part of the subject, he went to it because he couldn't defend himself in the subject area and had to retreat to his Safety Blanket issue (Which he got called out on big-time with the entire 1997 vote).

 

I'll get the middle section in a little bit. I'm trying to finish this before I rush off to class...

 

Quite witty. Quite witty but inaccurate.

 

There were several points in the debate where Cheney found himself unable to combat claims by Edwards. These are all topics that were covered before.

 

And like I've just said, some of the "debunking" that Cheney did was just flat-out wrong.

 

And now we're back to the fact that you didn't understand Edwards closing statements.

 

...

 

Seriously, his closing statement was horrid. It was just Trial Lawyer bullcrap trying to draw a cheap pop. This is exactly what Bob means when he is all rhetoric, no substance.

 

Just about everyone here admitted that Cheney was in control the entire debate. While Edwards got in maybe a decent shot or two, Cheney took him to task many, many more times than Edwards did Cheney. The fact that you are fighting this so virulently is amazing. Truly amazing.

 

Let me give you a lesson about speech-writing.

 

To get the audience's attention early and in a powerful way, it's often good to begin with a personal anecdote. Edwards did this by noting how his father used to sit in front of the television and try to learn mathematics, with the hope that he could improve his own status. The American Dream is to have the opportunity to improve yourself in this country, and Edwards father was trying to do that. Edwards then shifted the statement smoothly to show that the Bush administration has not kept this American Dream idea thriving like it once was.

 

I hope I don't have to sum up the message of the speech for you a third time.

 

Frankly, it wasn't that effective. It came off as a card-trick to try and distract everyone from the fact that the only thing they have a 'planned' is continually saying 'we have a plan'. It was all fluffy goodness. Cheney brought facts and intelligence to his, which made his more substantial and, frankly, more effective. He brought up pertinent subjects (War on Terror as per usual) and frankly, it had more value than Edward's sob story. I guess, though, you can't see through the weak emotional appeal, though.

 

Alone, it might be good. But after getting stomped in the debate, it came off very weak.

 

Blah blah blah meaning of the speech blah blah blah

 

I'm fairly sure Bob picked up on the real meaning of the speech, or what it was supposed to mean. I highly doubt that you are his intellectual superior.

 

blah blah blah I'm not copying this entire thing about Edwards being excellent and in control at the debates blah blah blah.

 

The fact that you think Edwards used a wide-array of facts throughout the debate shows how badly biased you are. Cheney came off as far more informed as Edwards.

 

Edwards came off as much more nervous than Cheney. Sometimes he seemed very desperate to change the subject (Kerry voting for the 1997 Medicare thing and how he himself avoids taxes, which immediately turned into a Halliburton attack). He didn't seem like he could focus anything he had to create a coherent message against Cheney; Cheney made cutting and clear arguments, Edwards didn't.

 

Not only this, it seemed like every time Cheney answered a question, he brought something new and interesting. Edwards seemed to constantly look back at talking points from the last debate. He looked like Bush from the last debate in that regard. Hell, he even broke the damn rules, somethign that made him seem desperate and very inexperienced.

 

Frankly, Edwards came off as an amateur. Cheney came off as a master debater.

 

A matter of opinion then.

 

I felt it worked. And there are many others that agree.

 

It's a shame your bias steps in the way of seeing the truth.

 

Hopefully, you'll eventually get that cleared up.

 

Too bad you can't do the same. You are one of the few, proud liberals who REFUSES to conceded defeat even after his candidate got soundly schooled in how to debate. Too bad.

 

Edwards brought it up in a polite tone, just to point out the complete background behind the situation. I didn't think it was cringeworthy at all.

 

The fact that he brought it up at all was extremely low. I'm sure if he brought up Edwards' son, no matter how 'politely' he did it, he'd be chastised for it. John Edwards seriously lost my respect with that remark.

 

Certainly not me.

 

You keep believing that, buddy. Hope is on the way, right?

[Guest GreatOne]

I don't think Edwards emphasized HIS PLAN!~ enough

[snuffbox 0]

It looks like the public polls so far are showing an Edwards victory last night...

[Guest GreatOne]

You mean like the same people who flooded MSNBC's?

 

And in further news, WWE.com shows that Shawn Michaels/HHH is the most popular main event choice for Taboo Tuesday--it has the same relevance here, which is......none

[cbacon 0]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) probably did not intend to direct millions of television viewers to a Web site calling for President Bush (news - web sites)'s defeat but that's what a slip of the domain achieved.

 

 

Anyone who heeded Cheney's advice and clicked on "factcheck.com" was greeted on Wednesday morning with a message from anti-Bush billionaire investor George Soros entitled "Why we must not reelect President Bush."

 

 

"President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests, and undermining American values," Soros' message said.

 

 

Defending his record as Halliburton's chief executive, Cheney said in the Tuesday night debate that Democratic vice-presidential challenger John Edwards (news - web sites) was trying to use Halliburton as a smokescreen. Any voter who wanted the facts, Cheney said, should check out factcheck.com -- which led to the Soros site.

 

 

The Web site Cheney had in mind, factcheck.org, was not amused when the vice president proved that he was not master of the factcheckers' domain.

 

 

Factcheck.org, run by the Annenberg Center of the University of Pennsylvania, said on its site on Wednesday that Cheney not only got the domain name confused, he had mischaracterized its fact-finding.

 

 

"Cheney ... wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton," the site said on Wednesday.

 

 

"In fact we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq (news - web sites) contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right."

 

 

The White House Web site annotated the debate transcript, parenthetically noting that Cheney meant factcheck.org, not factcheck.com. It linked the transcript to factcheck.org.

[snuffbox 0]

You mean like the same people who flooded MSNBC's?

 

And in further news, WWE.com shows that Shawn Michaels/HHH is the most popular main event choice for Taboo Tuesday--it has the same relevance here, which is......none

CBS Poll has Edwards winning (I know this will incite Republikid whining, but Danny Rather doesnt run the polling...and Viacom head Sumner has endorsed George Bush)...

 

MSNBC online poll got nearly a million responses...it couldnt have all been shenanigans...

 

New state polls show Kerry now winning Ohio, New Mexico, and Iowa...

[2GOLD 0]

If anyone thinks Edwards won last night, not only are they deaf but they are blind as well.

 

And if anyone accuses me of being a Republican, then you obviously have more issues than I thought possible. I think Cheney is a monster asshole prick and even I KNOW he reamed Edwards last night. I'm surprised that Edwards didn't run off the stage crying after that beating.

[snuffbox 0]

Yes, I felt that Cheney got a close victory last night in the debate...

 

But I also saw many things that the American public might see differently (gestures, presentation, Cheney's inabillity to answer many questions)...and its pretty hard to argue the sentiments of a majority...We havent gotten the full scope of what people are saying yet, but its not looking to good for Bush/Cheney here in the first 24 hours after....

[bob_barron 0]

RCP averages still have Bush winning Ohio and Iowa. Kerry is winning New Mexico.

 

I have no idea anyone is stupid enough to think Edwards won. Well except for NY Untouchable- but I'll respond to him after the Braves game is over.

[Special K 0]

I couldn't even watch that debate last night. All it was was attack attack attack. Neither person would rebut those claims, they'd just attack right back. It was completely uninspiring.

 

For the time I watched I think Cheney definitely won, though.

[Guest MikeSC]

Dick Cheney: "I've been head of the senate for four years now, and the first time I met you was tonight, on this stage."

 

 

 

 

What's even funnier about that statement is that if you head over to the Drudge Report, they have pictures and facts of Cheney meeting and praising Edwards at least three times.

 

Just sayin.

So Edwards made absolutely NO impact on Cheney whatsoever.

 

That's praise?

-=Mike

...Yes, hyperbole is lost on people...

[bob_barron 0]

Come on Mike- shouldn't you be watching the game?

[Guest GreatOne]

To the 'but Cheney and Edwards met way back when' crowd, what the fuck would Cheney have had to do to Edwards to make the point, wave his hand and say 'You can't see me'?

[snuffbox 0]

To the 'but Cheney and Edwards met way back when' crowd, what the fuck would Cheney have had to do to Edwards to make the point, wave his hand and say 'You can't see me'?

the fuck?

[Guest MikeSC]

Come on Mike- shouldn't you be watching the game?

*looks at score*

 

Nope.

-=Mike

[NYU 0]

I have no idea anyone is stupid enough to think Edwards won. Well except for NY Untouchable- but I'll respond to him after the Braves game is over.

Barron, if I were you, I would definitely hold off on the immature insults in this discussion. All the material I could use on you would last me a lifetime.

 

I'm done with this thread. I've made my points, and I believe I've backed up those points well with solid facts. I don't see the point in responding to yet another long-winded Pro-Cheney post with an equally long-winded Pro-Edwards post. This carousel is just going to keep continuing circling repeatedly, with no one getting won over in the end. My opinion is known, I have backed up that opinion, and it would be foolish for me to spend another hour writing a ridiculously long post to defend that opinion yet again.

 

Let's just let the facts speak for themselves. Opinions on the debates last night have been mixed. Some feel Cheney came out as the winner. Some feel Edwards came out as the winner. Many feel that the debate turned out to be a tie. It's only when you walk into the TSM Current Events folder that the results become considerably skewed to the right. This folder does not represent the standard judgment of the Vice Presidential Debate. Opinions HAVE been mixed - look at all the news sources if you don't believe.

 

While I've enjoyed participating in this thread, there are still some problems that need to be addressed. Calling people "stupid" or "morons" for having a perfectly valid opinion is just ridiculous, and it hurts the quality of the discussion as a result. If posters would just hold off on the needless insults and the unfunny jokes - GreatOne, I'm staring right at you - debate in this folder would be much more intelligent. Some of the discussion in this thread worked out well, but it could have worked out better.

 

Either way, I'm done for this particular thread. I've made my point, and it would just be silly for me to type out one more incredibly long response about this debate. Why should it come to that? The next Bush/Kerry debate is coming up fast, and I'm sure discussion in that thread will be just as heated. Should be fun once again.

[bob_barron 0]

I actually have limited the personal attacks on you for the most part.

 

YOU'RE the one who came in here saying I was in over my head.

 

But of course you realised you're overmatched by people more intelligent then you so you run. I'll still be responding though. Especially since it's now 6-1.

 

I can't watch Friday's debate sadly.

[Guest GreatOne]

While I've enjoyed participating in this thread, there are still some problems that need to be addressed. Calling people "stupid" or "morons" for having a perfectly valid opinion is just ridiculous, and it hurts the quality of the discussion as a result. If posters would just hold off on the needless insults and the unfunny jokes - GreatOne, I'm staring right at you - debate in this folder would be much more intelligent. Some of the discussion in this thread worked out well, but it could have worked out better.

Don't stare too hard, wouldn't want you to kill what little brain cells you have.

 

Of course, nevermind the fact that all the shit you accuse me, Mike, Bob, etc of you have no problem doing yourself.

 

So maybe after saying three different times that you're 'done with this thread' you might actually mean it.

[Guest MikeSC]

I have no idea anyone is stupid enough to think Edwards won. Well except for NY Untouchable- but I'll respond to him after the Braves game is over.

Barron, if I were you, I would definitely hold off on the immature insults in this discussion. All the material I could use on you would last me a lifetime.

Or, to translate, "Don't call me stupid, you moron!"

I'm done with this thread.

Toodles. You will be missed.

I've made my points, and I believe I've backed up those points well with solid facts.

Don't feel bad. When I was 5, I believed Santa Claus was real. People believe ridiculous things every so often.

Let's just let the facts speak for themselves. Opinions on the debates last night have been mixed.

Not really. Way to hold on to that hope, though.

Some feel Cheney came out as the winner. Some feel Edwards came out as the winner.

The latter are the ones referred to as "blind morons"

Many feel that the debate turned out to be a tie. It's only when you walk into the TSM Current Events folder that the results become considerably skewed to the right.

As opposed to Kerry laying the most righteous beating on Bush in the first debate? God knows THAT canard hasn't been beaten into the ground enough around here.

This folder does not represent the standard judgment of the Vice Presidential Debate. Opinions HAVE been mixed - look at all the news sources if you don't believe.

If I did that, then Bush/Kerry I was a total draw.

While I've enjoyed participating in this thread, there are still some problems that need to be addressed. Calling people "stupid" or "morons" for having a perfectly valid opinion is just ridiculous, and it hurts the quality of the discussion as a result. If posters would just hold off on the needless insults and the unfunny jokes - GreatOne, I'm staring right at you - debate in this folder would be much more intelligent. Some of the discussion in this thread worked out well, but it could have worked out better.

Contributing to the problem was not beneficial.

-=Mike

[UZI Suicide 0]

Just wanted to point out how you can say anything in these things and get away with it. Cheney's allegations about Edwards hardly ever showing up at the Senate, while Cheney presides over the Senate "most Tuesday's"...uh, bullshit.

 

 

2001

January 30 - Enzi

February 6 - Chafee

February 13 - Chafee

February 27 - Allen

March 6 - Burns

March 13 - Reid

March 20 - DeWine

March 27 - Chafee

April 3 - Smith

April 24 - Chafee

May 1 - Chafee

May 8 - Chafee

May 15 - Frist

May 22 - Chafee

June 5 - Enzi

June 12 - Byrd

June 19 - Carper

June 26 - Bayh

July 10 - Nelson

July 17 - Clinton

July 24 - Byrd

July 31 - Stabenaw

September 25 - Wellstone

October 2 - Clinton

October 9 - Clinton

October 16 - Edwards

October 23- Byrd

October 30 - Bingaman

November 13 - Murray

November 27 - Jeffords

December 4 - Stabenaw

December 11 - Carnahan

December 18 - Nelson

 

2002

Tue 1/29 - Nelson

Tue 2/5 - Kohl

Tue 2/12 - Stabenow

Tue 2/26 - Landrieu

Tue 3/5 - Edwards

Tue 3/12 - Landrieu

Tue 3/19 - Miller

Tue 4/9 - Cleland

Tue 4/16 - Reed

Tue 4/23 - Wellstone

Tue 4/30 - Nelson

Tue 5/7 - Miller

Tue 5/14 - Cleland

Tue 5/21 - Nelson

Tue 6/4 - Durbin

Tue 6/11 - Corzine

Tue 6/18 - Dayton

Tue 6/25 - Landrieu

Tue 7/9 - Reed

Tue 7/16 - Corzine

Tue 7/23 - Reed

Tue 7/30 - Clinton

Tue 9/3 - Reed

Tue 9/10 - Corzine

Tue 9/17 - Reid

Tue 9/24 - Stabenow

Tue 10/1 - Miller

Tue 10/8 - Miller

Tue 10/15 - Reid

Tue 11/12 - Cheney

Tue 11/19 - Barkley (MN)

 

2003

Jan 7 Cheney

Jan 14 Stevens

Jan 22 Stevens

Jan 28 Stevens

Feb 4 Stevens

Feb 11 Stevens

Feb 25 Stevens

Mar 4 Stevens

Mar 11 Stevens

Mar 18 Stevens

Mar 25 Stevens

Apr 1 Stevens

Apr 8 Stevens

Apr 29 Stevens

May 6 Talent

May 13 Ensign

May 20 Alexander

June 3 Stevens

June 10 Stevens

June 18 Murkowski

June 24 Coleman

July 8 Stevens

July 15 Stevens

July 22 Chaffee

July 29 Stevens

Sept 2 Stevens

Sept 9 Stevens

Sept 16 Stevens

Sept 23 Stevens

Sept 30 Sununu

Oct 21 Stevens

Oct 28 Stevens

Nov 4 Stevens

Nov 11 Warner

Nov 18 Stevens

Dec 9 Stevens

 

2004

1/20 - Stevens

1/27 - Enzi

2/3 - Stevens

2/10 - Stevens

3/2 - Stevens

3/9 - Hagel

3/16 - Sununu

3/23 - Stevens

3/30 - Ensign

4/6 - Cornyn

4/20 - Stevens

4/27 - Chambliss

5/4 - Stevens

5/11 - Stevens

5/18 - Stevens

6/1 - Stevens

6/8 - Hutchinson

6/15 - Stevens

6/22 - Allard

7/6 - Burns

7/13 - Stevens

7/20 - Enzi

9/7 - Stevens

9/14 - Chafee

9/21 - Enzi

9/28 - Stevens

10/05 - Stevens

 

Taken from: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html by http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/11163/2940

[Guest MikeSC]

Good ol' Kos --- clutching for the paranoid conspiracy straws that most people would lack the guts --- or possess too much intellect --- to do.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

aw yes.. the paranoid "Cheney didn't preside over the Senate" conspiracy.

 

Granted.. how the hell that would be a conspiracy.. I don't know. Cheney probably got the Queer Eye guys to make over Ted Stevens so he looked like Dick Cheney, or something