Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Veep Debate thread (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/71561-veep-debate-thread.html)

I thought that this debate was exactly the same thing that happened in the first presidential debate, except Cheney was Kerry. He had all the facts, and knew where to pull them from so that they would be most in his favor. Edwards just looked stupid. He didn't have very many facts and just didn't come off as very intelligent, at least in my opinion.

/still not gonna vote for Bush

In the end the undecideds are still undecided. For Bush to put it away he needs to really make a case for why the Kerry approach to the war on terror will fail. This election will be about security. Kerry needs to make something stick for him to win in November. He hasn't done it. The longer it takes for it to happen the more likely the undecideds will go with Bush.

As far as the debate itself, it was like the Presidential debate. Cheney won on substance and Edwards looked good for the camera. Hell, Edwards couldn't even come close to following the rules of the debate. He completely failed to answer several questions, couldn't go 90 seconds without mentioning Kerry's name despite the "rule" not to, broke into Cheney's response to one question attempting to shout over him, and continually went back to old questions rather than answering the current question put to him (Cheney did this as well but not until Edwards had done it two or three times). The moderator for this debate was horrendous.

The moderator was

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Quotes for example:

In case anyone wonders why I'm just hanging back from the politics board for the most part until after the election is over, its because as the election nears the 'kid' factor will become a bit more pronounced and emotions will run higher. Rather then insulting the lack of intelligence of some of the posters which is tempting to do when logic fails to make a dent in their posting, its most likely best to step back.

must.....resist....urge.....to.....respond.......ungh!

I agree with you Art. I think Americans would do very well if they started to vote on the issues instead of voting for who had better posture, was more pleasing to look at or who seemed to hold their composure better when put on the spot.

thought this was intresting in regards to this line

Quote:

"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."

--Dick Cheney

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/11163/2940

Now this is funny! http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ney_blunder_dc

Quote:

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" on Wednesday morning was redirected to the site of anti-Bush billionaire investor George Soros that had a banner message saying "Why we must not reelect President Bush."

The GeorgeSoros.com site later put up a notice saying that it does not own factcheck.com and was not responsible for directing readers from that site to the Soros message. "We are as surprised as anyone by this turn of events," it said.

A lawyer for the factcheck.com site was not available for comment.

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.

i believed him. he said it like it was his weekly coffee group with the boys. old people like their coffee time.

i guess he could still stop in at times, even if not presiding...but it looks like we may have another strech. maybe edwards wasn't around the senate enough to call him on it. amazing that they ever ran into each other at all.

I'm going to say this once and only once, and this is to everyone. This discussion will be civil. There is no high ground in backhanded insults, and if you find there is something that needs moderation, report it and leave it be. If anyone else turns this thread into a pissing match, temp bans will be issued.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

In what way?

By saying that he has donated his stock payouts to charity, and that his other income was completely insulated from the success or failure of Halliburton.

From what I read, before he joined on as the VP candidate in 2000, Cheney bought an insurance policy substituted for his income from Halliburton based on stock options, so that he could still get the income that he earned, but it would be guaranteed and independent from whether the company's stock went up or down. Therefore, any actions taken by the government in helping Halliburton would not change Cheney's income. If Halliburton had not been given in business from the US in Iraq, and Halliburton's stock price fell, Cheney's income would have remained the same. If the Fed. government had given Halliburton any other business and the stock price had increased, Cheney would not have benefitted. He has also donated to charity any after-tax profits that he made from exercising stock options. I remember being somewhat surprised to find that there werwe insurance companies that frequently organized these type of deals when executives of one company, whose promised income is based in part on stock performance leave the company for another or for government service.

In addition, Halliburton has been criticized for being the only company that bid on many of the contracts for Iraqi reconstruction. However, it was actually Kellog, Brown and Root, a company Halliburton bought, that is the only company that does that sort of thing. Kellogg Brown and Root was given much of the contracts involving supplying American trops in Vietnam, too. In fact, there are even conspiracy theories I've heard about LBJ's involvement with Brown and Root (its name back then, I think) and JFK's death. It makes me think that these conspiracy theories, whether they involve allegedly corrupt Republicans or allegedly corrupt Democrats, are just likely to occur given the nature of Brown and Root's business of civilian support for military actions.

From everything I have read in print, Cheney acted completely above board, and should have done a better job of conveying this last night.

edit: I've also read that Cheney profitted from the insulation of his income from Halliburton's stock price. Halliburton stock fell alot after Cheney took office, because one of Cheney's acts as CEO was to acquire another company whose name elludes me right now. Unknown at the time, that company came with lots and lots of asbestos related litigation it had to defend/settle, and that was why the stock price went down. Cheney therefore, by doing the right thing, profited from a bad business decision caused by trial lawyers. Ironic, isn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

Now this is funny! http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ney_blunder_dc

3 things come to mind:

1) Cheney did that knowing the GOP would link it to Soros' site so that it LOOKS like the Dems and Soros are guilty.

or

2) a self made Billionaire is truly very stupid and did this without thinking he'd ever get bad press.

or

3) the Dems did it thinking they could blame Soros and get away with it.

I tend to believe 1. The GOP can bitch and claim foul. The GOP can claim that Factcheck.com is now 100% undeniably biased and therefore the facts presented there are to be questioned.. Most people would hear where the people were sent and who owned the website and use guilt by association and not even think about who really is responsible.

The Dems don't need ANY bad press because Kerry is warming up and it would be suicide to do. Soros is too smart to have linked it to his own website, if he had done it I truly believe he would have used a dummy website that ownership for was very hard to find.

The games politicians play...... nothing there that helps the nation at all but adds divisiveness.

Or if you really want to get paranoid you could say the Dems did it to make people think the GOP did it to make people blame the Dems for it. Or the Gop did it to make people think the Dems did it to make people think the GOP did it to blame the Dems for doing it.

This whole election is getting pathetic.

Or it could have been some jerkoff hacker type trying to play games with the people.

Cheney clearly won vs. Edwards imho. Bush lost severly to Kerry. Candidates from other national parties such as the Libertarians, Greens etc. should have been included. A real debate involving say 4 candidates would be so refreshing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

This whole election is getting pathetic.

Or it could have been some jerkoff hacker type trying to play games with the people.

I think these two statements, at least, are true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sippy

A real debate involving say 4 candidates would be so refreshing.

I agree completely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sippy

I don't know if there was any national press I haven't see n (although C-Span was supposed to be there), on the other side of Cleveland the other 4 parties VP candidates were having a debate. I want to say it was at Baldwin Wallace but I'm not sure.

Warnings have been issued for some responses on the first page of this thread.

One is moved to wonder what it takes to get consistently constructive responses from some folks. We have repeated this often. Yet acceptable compliance is still not achieved. It is in your interest not to cross the line again.

This came off the Green Party website (it was at BW):

Vice presidential debate (only one):
7PM, Tuesday October 5
Baldwin Wallace College
John Patrick Theatre (500 seating capacity)
Cleveland, OH

Listen to the debate LIVE: www.WBWC.com
Listen to a Pacifica interview with Pat at 8:40PM EST www.Pacifica.org
6PM Doors Open
7-8:30PM Debate
Intermission
9-10:30PM Live Screening of the Televised Debates
10:30PM Excluded Candidate Rebuttals

Join Pat LaMarche and supporters in Ohio for a real debate among third-party candidates, including our candidate Pat LaMarche as well as the Libertarian, Consitution and Nader's vice presidential candidates. This exciting debate will be the concluding event in her unprecedented "Left Out Tour." For information on this outstanding event, please email Jason Neville (National Field Director). For advance tickets (free) or on-sit

From what I have heard it was a good debate, lots of issues and substance were discussed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Or not.

FactCheck.com is owned by a company that sells encyclopedia's. They noticed a massive increase in visitors, which negatively affected advertisers on their site. As the owners had to do something to remove the negative impact to their advertisers, and as they do not support Bush, they redirected the domain to Soros' site. Soros' has a notice about their non-association with factcheck.com and a link to factcheck.org.

I heard this on NPR, here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4074032

So Cheney got seriously burned. What is suprising is that Cheney would even mention factcheck at all, as the previous item on their homepage, from the 4th of October, is a description of how Bush misrepresents Kerry's health plan. I think he was going for the brush-off tactic: attempting to point to a 3rd party as evidence that his association with Halliburton is a non-issue, expecting that people would essentially take his word for it if they decided not to dig deep into FactCheck or accept the FactCheck article about completely different Halliburton issues. That FactCheck now states that Edwards' Halliburton accusations are essentially correct is poetic justice.

Opie,
Thanks for the info. It's interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dy156

I was really struck by the fact that both Cheney and Edwards were poor growing up and have made it on their own, compared to Bush and Kerry who both had the best upbringing and attended the best schools and came from the best families in America.

I actually didn't know that Cheney was a self-made man. hmm, that's interesting.

But, I think Edwards didn't do what some people expected (in terms of being the paid debater, etc.) because I suspect his job in this election is to bring the down-home drawl to effect. Kerry has been criticized for being non-personal, so it stands to reason that edwards is supposed to represent charisma moreso than issues (which kerry can more than adequately get across).

And if we look at the flash polls, the tactic seemed to work. The people seem to be answering inversely like they did with the pres debate--kerry dry on personality, strong on facts and bush strong on likeability, lacking in facts. edwards not so factual, long on likeabilyt, cheney long on dry and factual, not so on persona.

Was the fact check thing the first time anyone refered anyone to a web site in a presidential (or VP) debate? will it be the last cause of the ensuing snafu? that aside, refering someone to a non present third party during a debate seems evasive to me, rather than answering the question

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire

kerry plugged his own site during the debate :)

he said that he could answer the war plan Q, but if you want specifics and details (given he only had 90 seconds, I actually view this as fair and not evasive) go to johnkerry.com.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dunkelhelmut

For the record, I'm a Libertarian, so my party was obviously not represented in this debate, and my opinion isn't as biased as other opinions here.

As others pointed out, it seems like this was a battle of style vs substance. It was an amusing debate to watch, and seemed relatively even. Both sides appeared sharp and made some good points, and missed good opportunities to strike back.

For style, Edwards definately won. He's the younger, friendlier politician, and carried a better vibe during the whole debate. That's why people voted twice for Clinton.

For substance, Cheney appeared to win. He was very sharp, drew facts from his knowledge and memory, and was able to defend his statements better. He provided numbers and facts instead of rhetoric.

On a superficial level, I could see how people liked Edwards better. Cheney, while sharp and cunning, doesn't come across as a likable person. He does seem mean and irritable. Edwards appears to be a likable person, although I can't say that I think he's honest since he was a lawyer.

Since a President and VP's success depends much more on substance than style, I like Cheney's performance much better than Edwards'

If Newsweek's reporting on Cheney's veracity on national security issues
in statements he made during the debate is accurate, is there any line that
the sitting VP would cross before you-(Bush/Cheney supporters) would decide that he lacks credibility regarding the reasons why the U.S. attacked and occupies Iraq ?

Quote:

Rewriting History
In his debate with John Edwards, Dick Cheney had a brand-new version of the events that led to war
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball - Newsweek
Updated: 4:32 p.m. ET Oct. 6, 2004

Oct. 6 - With virtually all of the administration’s original case for war in Iraq in tatters, Vice President Dick Cheney provided shifting and sometimes misleading arguments in last night’s debate with John Edwards about Saddam Hussein’s ties to terrorists and his access to weapons of mass destruction.

Cheney, responding to moderator Gwen Ifill’s first question, said that “concern” about Iraq before the war had “specifically focused” on the fact that Saddam’s regime had been listed for years by the U.S. government as a “state sponsor of terror,” that Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal operated out of Baghdad, that Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and that he had an “established relationship” with Al Qaeda.

But except for the allegation about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda—a claim that is now more in question than ever—the other examples cited by Cheney in Tuesday night’s debate never have been previously emphasized by Bush administration officials, and for good reasons.

When Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the administration’s case last year before the United Nations Security Council, for example, he said nothing about Iraq being cited by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. The claim would have been especially unimpressive to a fellow member of the Security Council, the ambassador from Syria, whose country has been on the same list for years, as well as five other General Assembly members that are also on the list.

Powell also never brought up Abu Nidal living in Baghdad—most likely because Nidal, who hadn’t been associated with any terrorist attacks in years, was already dead. (He was shot under mysterious circumstances in 2002.) And while Powell made a brief mention of Iraq funneling money to the families of suicide bombers, this was never a prominent part of the Bush administration’s case for war—in large part because a number of other nations, most notably Saudi Arabia, have for years provided similar financial support to the families of Palestinian “martyrs.”

Cheney’s claims about an “established relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda were always a principal part of the administration’s case for war, cited by Powell at the United Nations and, most forcefully, by Cheney in numerous speeches and TV interviews before and after the invasion. But it is also a contention that has been seriously undermined by a series of recent U.S. government reports, including the September 11 Commission report, which concluded there was no “collaborative operational relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Another is a recent CIA analysis, disclosed for the first time this week, raising questions about whether Jordanian terrorist Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, had been harbored by Saddam’s regime before the war.

Cheney said last night that Zarqawi, who once ran a terror camp in Afghanistan with loose links to Al Qaeda, had “migrated to Baghdad” after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 and “set up shop” there, overseeing a “poisons facility” at Kurmal, in northern Iraq.

In fact, U.S. intelligence officials tell NEWSWEEK, after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Zarqawi went first to Iran—a country that many officials have long believed had far more consequential relationships with terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, than Saddam’s regime. And while the new CIA report confirms that Zarqawi unquestionably did later move to Baghdad—and received medical treatment there before the war— there is still no hard evidence on whether he was being supported or assisted by Saddam’s regime. “The information on that is not clear,” said one U.S. official familiar with the report. “It’s still being worked.” Cheney also left out the fact that the alleged poisons facility that Zarqawi allegedly supervised was in a part of northern Iraq not controlled by Saddam's government.

Cheney, challenged by Edwards, insisted last night that “I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11.” But that claim is belied by an array of interviews and public comments in which Cheney has done precisely that—by repeatedly invoking claims that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence agent. That allegation was also debunked by the 9/11 commission after the panel found abundant evidence that Atta was actually in the United States at the time the rendezvous supposedly took place.

Cheney, for example, called the claim of an Atta meeting with an Iraqi official in Prague “pretty well confirmed” in a Dec. 9, 2001, “Meet the Press” interview. In a Sept. 8, 2002, “Meet the Press” appearance, just weeks before the congressional vote on authorizing President Bush to go to war, Cheney again returned to the issue: “We’ve seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center.” Even after CIA and FBI officials had already concluded the claims of the meeting were almost certainly false, Cheney was still referring to it in a Sept. 14, 2003 “Meet the Press” appearance. “The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraq intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.”

Republicans last night were able to point to their own lengthy list of instances when Edwards misspoke or made “inaccurate” claims during the debate. Among them: that Edwards inflated the cost of the Iraq war (by saying it was $200 billion rather than $120 billion), by claiming that the United States has absorbed 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq (by leaving out uniformed Iraqi casualty deaths that would bring the figure down to 50 percent) and, perhaps most importantly, by saying that his running mate, John Kerry, had been “absolutely clear and consistent from the beginning about Iraq.” (Edwards himself had claimed during the primary season that Kerry’s explanations for his vote on authorizing the war in Iraq were “not clear to me … I think he’s said some different things at different points in time. So I think there there’s been some inconsistency.”)

But Cheney’s miscues on Iraq are especially notable because he has been perhaps the single most vigorous advocate—both internally and in public—for the war. And the new questions about his previous statements come at a particularly awkward time for the administration. In a 1,000-page report released this afternoon, Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, concludes once and for all that Iraq had no chemical or biological weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion. In fact, the report says, Iraq had destroyed the stockpiles it did have after the first Persian Gulf War under the pressure of U.N. sanctions.

As for administration claims that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program—claims that had been championed by Cheney more than any single high-level official—Duelfer found that Saddam had actually abandoned his nuclear efforts years earlier. “He was getting further away from nuclear weapons,” a U.S. government official familiar with Duelfer’s report told reporters yesterday. “He was further away from nuclear weapons in 2003 than he was in 1991.” The nuclear program wasn’t reconstituting, the official said. It was “decaying.”

In last night's debate, Cheney largely skirted the administration's prewar claims about Iraqi WMD, although he did at one point refer to a presumed nexus between terrorists and Iraqi unconventional weapons. "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," he said. The claim that Saddam's agents had instructed Al Qaeda terrorists in making "poisons and gasses" had in fact been a prominent feature of the administration's prewar assertions, highlighted by Powell in his Security Council speech and Cheney repeatedly in his TV appearances and speeches. But the allegation was almost entirely based on the claims of one high-level Al Qaeda detainee—first identified by NEWSWEEK as Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi—who, according to the 9/11 commission, has since recanted his story. Asked if Duelfer's team had found any evidence that Iraq had provided such training for terrorists, the U.S. official familiar with Duelfer's report shook his head and said simply: "No."
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek/</a>

Quote:

Cheney Overstates Iraq Resolution

Cheney repeatedly said Edwards had voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops," when in fact the Iraq resolution that both Kerry and Edwards supported left the decision to the president and called for intensified diplomacy.

The resolution for which Edwards and Kerry voted said, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate."

And Edwards made clear in a statement at the time of his vote that he hoped to avoid war by enlisting broad support from the United Nations and US allies:
<a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272">http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272</a>

Cheney himself cited the above site as a place to "check facts".

Cheney is vice president of a U.S. regime that is responsible for 1066
deaths of American troops in Iraq, serious combat injury to 7000 or more
of our troops, the deaths of more than 10000 Iraqis, continued suffering
and casualties, instability, and an indefinite commitment of 145000 U.S.
troops in Iraq. President Bush himself stated in a nationally televised debate
last week that Iraq is stabalizing and that a security force of 100000 Iraqis
has been trained, when the Pentagon's own current report stated that only
8169 Iraqis had completed an 8 week training course intended to train Iraqi
security recruits, and that<a href="http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=590914&section=news"> 22700 Iraqis</a>, in total, were considered to be adequately trained and equipped. <p>
It is one thing for challengers in debates with the President and the VP to make statements in those venues that are somewhat misleading and contain some inaccuracies, but it is a much more disturbing trend for the top elected officials to be so blatantly misleading and inaccurate concerning execution of their sworn duties that concern matters of life and death. <p>
Bush and Cheney seem to me to provide false and misleading information to the American people and to the world to such an extent that I can't believe any pronouncement that they make about the war in Iraq, or about threats to national security and actions that they say are needed to improve that security. What will it take before you can agree that they have broken the public trust? Will you trust them no matter what proof surfaces to undermine their claims related to justification of sending our troops to make war on Iraq ?

I thought Cheney wiped the floor with him, honestly, and apparently I'm the only one who liked his demeanor better than Edwards'. He came across like an experienced professional delivering a beatdown to an underconfident upstart. I guess that's not what most people find charismatic, but apparently a lot of people think that watching Bush trip over his lines and struggle for words makes him cute and cuddly and "just a regular Joe like one of us", so I guess my finger's just not on the pulse of America.

The debate's not supposed to be a charisma contest. Endless lying loses you points.

I agree, but I still thought Cheney debated better and was more articulate. If Edwards "won" it's because calling Cheney on the Iraq-Al Qaeda non-connection is kind of a silver bullet; there's really almost nothing you can say to that.

I just couldn't believe anything he said, not just on Iraq but also;

health care, a disaster with an expensive medicare drug benefit (60 Billion$$$) when you could save more buying drugs from Canada.

the economy,massive tax cuts for the wealthy and the shill of saying small business will be paying taxes if Kerry's plan is instituted, (utter nonsense, if you earn over 200 thousand profit in a small business it should not be magically exempt from taxation) If Bush says one more time "you can't tax the rich" i'll start ranting ( of course you can't if you make it policy.)

education, their never ending love of school vouchers; read this article about falling property value and tax income in Texas to understand how disconnnection of property taxes from local school districts will result in the collapse of tax income and property values

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/business/07scene.html

and the link of Cheney via Scooter Libby to the outing of the C.I.A. operative, Valerie Plame Check out this link from the Washington Post for more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/business/07scene.html

This does not even begin to discuss the gutting of the clean air act, energy policy and many other things I disagree with this administration on, including an increased connection of church and state, perhaps one of the worst effects of this administration, can you say "jihad"

If you want more real information, not rhetoric I suggest a subscription to Atlantic Monthly, it's cheap, about ten dollars a year and it connects you to some of the best minds in the press and government. Television news has decayed to such a point that it is scarcely news. (saw old Reagan press conference in a documntary and it was like hounds on a fox, that's press)You could have known about the tribal factions and Iraq's natural tendencies towards civil war years before we invaded.

There was a wonderful characterization in the NY Times (buried in an article on about the 13th page). The author said something to the effect that this VP debate was between two candidates - one, Cheney, for whom substance is a form of style, and another, Edwards, for whom style is a form of substance. I think this really captures the strengths of the way these two men portray themselves. I'll say again that I was impressed by both sides.

at first, i was impressed by both men..then the whole factcheck.org thing and I gotta say, I'd be more impressed with cheney if all his "facts" and dodges and little digs weren't lies..well, not all of them, but a good number. It's one thing to back up your answer, defend your position, etc, which i thought cheney did rather well...it's another thing to totally distort the truth when you're doing it...

so at first, i was calling it a draw, but now i'll go back to my original want of Edwards winning..

Quote:

Originally Posted by maypo

Kerry seems to have picked up the ball and run with it on a lot of these things tonight. ;)

Thanks for the information.