VP debate - taking early bets

[Flyguy]

I just read a piece on msnbc.com about Tuesday's debates that are scheduled. Apparently, the GOP is depending on Cheney to stop the GOP's slide in the polls after debate #1. Regarding the two contenders, it comes down to this:

Edwards: A trial lawyer who has years of experience debating case after case after case and defending his position.

Cheney: A GOP veteran who got the VP slot basically because he's buddy buddy with Bush and was a CEO of one of the more questionable operations now in Iraq.

Any takers?

[SecretMethod70]

Edwards EASILY. The only thing he could do wrong is come off TOO MUCH as a trial lawyer. Aside for that I don't see anything negative coming from him in this debate. There's pretty much nothing Cheney can do to trump him as far as I can tell.

[mattevil]

this will at least be more even than the last debate but unless something phenomanal happens(and thus it gets lots of coverage) i don't think it'll sway the votes much either way. I just don't think the average public cares about this one( I do though).

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Cheney is an old school politician, and I don't care that Edwards was a trial lawyer, his ass will be taken to school.

[LewisCouch]

This will be a draw whose historical notoriety is widely recognized for understatement. Edwards is a six year senator and twenty year trial lawyer vs. Cheney, a five term congressman and former secretary of defense who also held myriad positions within four previous administrations. Two intelligent men with different agendas.

Don't rule out political experience, Cheney has an overabundance beginning in 1969 as well as a degree in political science; Edwards entered the senate in 1998. Personally, I think this will be a pretty interesting contest and honestly, I hope the best man wins.

[matteo101]

I think that Edwards will win the debate, depending on how knowledgable he is on the facts, he is a better debater I can bet you that, but if he doesnt know what hes talking about in and out then it could be alot closer.

[martinguerre]

i don't think cheney is going to roll over and die...he's an excellent hatchet man, and may be able to get edwards and kerry bleeding. but i think in the end, edwards has the upperhand through his trial experience. i could see a lot of the prosecutor in kerry's debating...and edwards has even more court time to his name. cheney has one important liability...he's not telegenic...and edwards is.

[smooth]

Originally Posted by LewisCouch

This will be a draw whose historical notoriety is widely recognized for understatement. Edwards is a six year senator and twenty year trial lawyer vs. Cheney, a five term congressman and former secretary of defense who also held myriad positions within four previous administrations. Two intelligent men with different agendas.

Don't rule out political experience, Cheney has an overabundance beginning in 1969 as well as a degree in political science; Edwards entered the senate in 1998. Personally, I think this will be a pretty interesting contest and honestly, I hope the best man wins.

I agree except for the fact that I've heard that Edwards is known for speaking eloquently off the cuff whereas I always see Cheney reading from his notes.

That's it, but I do really have a lot of respect for Edwards as he comes from a family that is most like a lot of people I know.

[Stare At The Sun]

I gotta give this to edwards. Doesn't even seem fair.

[irateplatypus]

cheney has that old man strength... he's a salty old guy that knows where he stands on every issue and does a whole lot better than the President at articulating it on the fly. no one will end up liking cheney at the end that didn't like him before. even though he may not sway many votes... he'll chew edwards up and spit him out.

my .02

[dy156]

Edwards is a gifted speaker, but I think y'all overestimate how much his courtroom time will help him here. openings and closings are well rehearsed in big cases like he tried, and he knew ahead of time what was going to be said, and had 20 minutes to make his case.
Cheney has far more experience going on Sunday morning talk shows, and I think that that will be more helpful in this debate format.

[filtherton]

Edwards just has to bait cheney into saying the f-word. We all know how difficult that can be.

[timalkin]

Originally Posted by Flyguy

Regarding the two contenders, it comes down to this:

Edwards: A trial lawyer who has years of experience debating case after case after case and defending his position.

Cheney: A GOP veteran who got the VP slot basically because he's buddy buddy with Bush and was a CEO of one of the more questionable operations now in Iraq.

Wow, what a fair and balanced way to start things off.

Cheney will eat Edwards' lunch unnecessary comment removed by lebell

Bilateral talks with North Korea? Bush didn't try to build a coalition before invading Iraq? There isn't a clear strategy for winning the war in Iraq? You gotta be shittin me.

[DelayedReaction]

Cheney will win. Given how scripted the debates are, we really need a scene where evil triumphs for a bit. Makes the ending more climactic and whatnot.

Honestly I'm looking forward to this one. It offers a fresh perspective on the administration, and from what I've heard both men are experienced speakers.

[Paq]

i would say edwards will chew cheney up and spit out the bones after hearing him speak in person on few occassions...buuut, cheney is "cheney" so it won't be a pushover or landslide for either candidate...i'm really looking forward to it.

on the other hand, cheney will have his fifth heart attack on stage and insure bush's re-election...

[aceventura3]

You have to say the guy with the nicest hair, and biggest smile. Substance has no meaning. On the morning after Edwards will be declared the winner. On election day we will see that it was Cheney.

One question for Edwards: As a trial attorney how did you justify taking up to 40% of the judgements won by the victims you represented?

[maximusveritas]

Cheney will be more than content to just turn the thing into a snoozefest and call it a draw.
If Edwards can get his energy level way up and successfully contrast his youthful optimism with Cheney's lifeless cynicism, he'll win the debate in the eyes of the viewers

[dy156]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You have to say the guy with the nicest hair, and biggest smile. Substance has no meaning. On the morning after Edwards will be declared the winner. On election day we will see that it was Cheney.

One question for Edwards: As a trial attorney how did you justify taking up to 40% of the judgements won by the victims you represented?

I know this is completely off-topic, but allow this Bush voter to get on my high horse here for a minute.

Because he invested $100,000 + in most of those cases, in his money, not even counting his time; without his investment of time and money the insurance co.s would not have paid the victims anything, and because a good plaintiff's attorney knows how to increase the value of a case so that it's worth enough that the jury or defendant decides to award the plaintiff enough that even with taking 33% out, the victim is well compensated. Yeah, it's brutal, but trust me, ins. cos. screw alot more people, alot more often than any plaintiff's attorney ever thought about.

I still think Cheney will deliver a better performance.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by dy156

I know this is completely off-topic, but allow this Bush voter to get on my high horse here for a minute.

Because he invested $100,000 + in most of those cases, in his money, not even counting his time; without his investment of time and money the insurance co.s would not have paid the victims anything, and because a good plaintiff's attorney knows how to increase the value of a case so that it's worth enough that the jury or defendant decides to award the plaintiff enough that even with taking 33% out, the victim is well compensated. Yeah, it's brutal, but trust me, ins. cos. screw alot more people, alot more often than any plaintiff's attorney ever thought about.

I still think Cheney will deliver a better performance.

Cheers, man.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by dy156

I know this is completely off-topic, but allow this Bush voter to get on my high horse here for a minute.

Because he invested $100,000 + in most of those cases, in his money, not even counting his time; without his investment of time and money the insurance co.s would not have paid the victims anything, and because a good plaintiff's attorney knows how to increase the value of a case so that it's worth enough that the jury or defendant decides to award the plaintiff enough that even with taking 33% out, the victim is well compensated. Yeah, it's brutal, but trust me, ins. cos. screw alot more people, alot more often than any plaintiff's attorney ever thought about.

I still think Cheney will deliver a better performance.

I am a pure capitalist and I agree that people should be paid for their work, and if your customers are foolish enough to overpay that is their problem. I just find Edwards positions on social issues are inconsistent with his real life actions as a trial lawyer. Thanks for helping make my point clearer.

[aceventura3]

P.s - I just wish Edwards and Kerry were honest enough to say that it is a dog eat dog world and that the strong, the smart, the hard working deserve more rewards than the weak, stupid, and lazy.

[KMA-628]

Despite of the performances, most people will declare their side the victor, regardless of how the debate actually goes. We saw that with last week's debate and we will see this again this week.

Having seen both gentlemen answer questions from the hip, I think you all will be very surprised with Cheney. I have said this before, but whether you like Cheney or not, you have to give him credit for his skill and intelligence. The courtroom is Edwards baliwick, politics is Cheney's.

I will watch as objectively as I can, but I would put money on Cheney in this horse race. I will promise, however, that if Cheney gets his ass handed to him, that I will acknowledge that here in this forum. I have had to eat my words before, so I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong. I doubt that I will have to do that, though.

/original post almost made me close the thread and ignore it. That type of stuff is getting really tiring in this forum.

[OpieCunningham]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

P.s - I just wish Edwards and Kerry were honest enough to say that it is a dog eat dog world and that the strong, the smart, the hard working deserve more rewards than the weak, stupid, and lazy.

What about the strong, dumb and arrogant? Or the strong, lying, greedy scumbags? Do they deserve more rewards? Or the weak, just and hardworking, do they deserve to be squashed?

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Originally Posted by Flyguy

I just read a piece on msnbc.com about Tuesday's debates that are scheduled. Apparently, the GOP is depending on Cheney to stop the GOP's slide in the polls after debate #1. Regarding the two contenders, it comes down to this:

Edwards: A trial lawyer who has years of experience debating case after case after case and defending his position.

Cheney: A GOP veteran who got the VP slot basically because he's buddy buddy with Bush and was a CEO of one of the more questionable operations now in Iraq.

Any takers?

Your ignorance and lack of respect for Cheney will be your down fall.

His career in public service began in 1969 when he joined the Nixon Administration, serving in a number of positions at the Cost of Living Council, at the Office of Economic Opportunity, and within the White House.

When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, Mr. Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.

After he returned to his home state of Wyoming in 1977, Mr. Cheney was elected to serve as the state's sole Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was re-elected five times and elected by his colleagues to serve as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee from 1981 to 1987. He was elected Chairman of the House Republican Conference in 1987 and elected House Minority Whip in 1988. During his tenure in the House, Mr. Cheney earned a reputation as a man of knowledge, character, and accessibility.

Mr. Cheney also served a crucial role when America needed him most. As Secretary of Defense from March 1989 to January 1993, Mr. Cheney directed two of the largest military campaigns in recent history - Operation Just Cause in Panama and Operation Desert Storm in the Middle East. He was responsible for shaping the future of the U.S. military in an age of profound and rapid change as the Cold War ended. For his leadership in the Gulf War, Secretary Cheney was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George Bush on July 3, 1991.

Edwards can't hold a candle to this man in the politcal arena.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

edit sorry

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

What about the strong, dumb and arrogant? Or the strong, lying, greedy scumbags? Do they deserve more rewards? Or the weak, just and hardworking, do they deserve to be squashed?

Hey, I did write the laws of the jungle, I just obey them.

When I was stupid I paid the price. When I was lazy I paid the price. when I was weak I paid the price. Where were you when I needed you? There are consequences for being arrogant, lying, and being greedy sumbags. Should there be consequences for being stupid, lazy, and weak. All I would suggest is that they "eat" last.

[OpieCunningham]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Hey, I didn't write the laws of the jungle, I just obey them.

We don't live in a jungle. We live in a society, an organized group of people able to affect change.

When I was stupid I paid the price. When I was lazy I paid the price. when I was weak I paid the price. Where were you when I needed you?

I was helping as best as I can in a society that increasingly wants to remove that help because they say it's all your fault that you were stupid, lazy and weak.

There are consequences for being arrogant, lying, and being greedy sumbags.

No, there are consequences for being caught - but even then the consequences can be minor if you are strong enough to brush them off. But if you don't get caught! Wow! The benefits are astounding!

Should there be consequences for being stupid, lazy, and weak.

There already seem to be consequences. But I'd love to know how to determine who is stupid lazy and weak vs. unfortunate, over-worked and suffering.

All I would suggest is that they "eat" last.

Well, you let me know who "they" are, and then I'll think about feeding you first.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

We don't live in a jungle. We live in a society, an organized group of people able to affect change.

"Jungle" is symbolic for what it is like to exist in a competitive world. There are limited resources, natural laws (or "law of the jungle" or whatever you call them) determine how those limited resources are going to be controlled and allocated. Never in the existence of life on this planet have those natural laws not been applicable.

I was helping as best as I can in a society that increasingly wants to remove that help because they say it's all your fault that you were stupid, lazy and weak.

Not True. If "stupid" (not as smart as those wanting the same resources you want), one can work harder. If you are "stupid" and not willing to work hard, it is your fault. I agree that there has to be a safety net for the mentally il, children and senior citizens.

No, there are consequences for being caught - but even then the consequences can be minor if you are strong enough to brush them off. But if you don't get caught! Wow! The benefits are astounding!

I tend to think most dishonest people get caught and pay a price one way or another. I also believe everyone has to account to God. You are correct to a degree. However, I believe that people who are honest, compassionate and hard working, develop greater strength and are able to accomplish more than the dishonest, selfish, and lazy.

There already seem to be consequences. But I'd love to know how to determine who is stupid lazy and weak vs. unfortunate, over-worked and suffering.

I don't. Results speak for themselves. If I work hard, but you work harder (all other things being equal), you will get more rewards. I then have a choice, to work harder or to accept what I get.

Well, you let me know who "they" are, and then I'll think about feeding you first.

Again, symbolic. The strong can help the weak. But if the strong can not be sustained and becomes weak, everyone suffers. So, those who are able and willing to help others have to keep themselves in a position to be able to do it.

If you fly you know that in the event of a loss in air pressure, if you can you put your oxygen mask on, you do that before you attempt to help others. Same thing as I stated, but put in a more compassionate way, but it is the same "law of the jungle".

[Superbelt]

Cheney has an anger problem and, I believe, has an inflated ego.

I believe heavy doses of Halliburton throughout the entire debate (That's what got him to go off on Lehey with the F word) with some of his own inconsistencies exposed (He had advocated 50 cent gas tax increase, voted against the same weapons systems that Kerry voted against, thus expose Cheney for a hypocrite when you point out how he had debased Kerry for these things)
This may not bring on a heart attack or spring the F-bomb free (I think he can keep at least that much composure), but it will expose an angry and redfaced man who will start hitting low and could seriously turn off a lot of fence sitters. Dude is already ugly and the exact opposite of likeable and cuddly.

This SHOULD turn into a baiting game and Edwards will serve Mr F up like a turkey.

[kutulu]

Originally Posted by Superbelt

I believe heavy doses of Halliburton throughout the entire debate (That's what got him to go off on Lehey with the F word) with some of his own inconsistencies exposed (He had advocated 50 cent gas tax increase, voted against the same weapons systems that Kerry voted against, thus expose Cheney for a hypocrite when you point out how he had debased Kerry for these things)

That is exactly what Edwards should be doing. If he shot off an fbomb would he have to pay the FCC?

[Superbelt]

No.
Dale Earnhardt Jr fired off a "Shit" on national television this weekend and Powell, who was at the Monday Night Football Game said "context is everything. It wasn't premeditated"

So as long as Cheney really does lose his cool and spout off the F, he will be ok.

Whatever.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

There's a difference between cussing out a two faced senator and cussing out Edwards on national tv in a (Vice) Presidential debate.

All you guys really don't give the anti-christ enough credit.

[Superbelt]

Unlike the Two faced-ness of Cheney politically supporting a man who wants to ensure his daughter remains a second class citizen forever through a constitutional amendment?
Which is another point that Edwards really needs to ram home to piss off Cheney.

[martinguerre]

superbelt...to be fair, Cheney has spoken out against the FMA.

[omega2K4]

Edwards. Edwards needs to keep cramming all the Halliburton issues down Cheney's fat gullet, just to get Cheney's blood pressure to hit critical mass.

I think Cheney will get so pissed off, he will tell Edwards to "Fuck Off" and then Cheney will fall over dead after having a massive heart attack.

[onetime2]

Unless Edwards has been studying up on the world situation a lot lately he will be hard pressed to counter Cheney. Cheney is one of those politicians that has a grasp of the finite details of all the situations going on around him. Edwards can hit on hot button issues but his depth of knowledge seems a bit lacking at times. If Edwards falls back on the crap he's been peddling on the campaign trail Cheney will tear him apart.

If Edwards can get Cheney angry then the public will likely be swayed by Edwards' appearance rather than the substance of what he's saying.

I will put my money on Cheney but have strong doubts that many here will see anything beyond their candidate's VP "winning".

[Superbelt]

Originally Posted by martinguerre

superbelt...to be fair, Cheney has spoken out against the FMA.

Doesn't matter. He is still supporting a man's presidency that is intent on keeping a boot on the neck of her freedom.

[Lebell]

Mojo, Superbelt,

The sarcastic euphamisms start us down an unpleasant road.

[mattevil]

um.... if your a democrat do you guys really want cheney having a heart attack and dying? It would seem like the republicans would turn him into a martyr and that would probably give Bush the edge to win.

[Superbelt]

That would necessitate the america public as a whole not only caring about Cheney's well being, but also having affection towards him.
Outside of those who are already unswerving Bush supporters, you won't find that.
Besides Cheney taking a dive during the debate would be very ugly and be preceded by many vulgar inflections and spittle. Not conducive towards sympathy.