Veep Debate thread
 

Does anyone care enough to comment?

He (Cheney) totally ignored the opening question...

pretty early and even right now.

Cheney certainly seems more confident then Bush was, although that is hardly a revelation.

Waiting for Edwards to pull the Halliburton ace from his sleeve....

Cheney diverting already...

It's strange to see a debate between professional apologists...

Bush and Cheney are really attacking the "global test" statement from Kerry, don't they understand that there IS a court of world opinion, to quote Stevenson, and that the U.S. is failing in that court.

Hehe, the actions of the US in Central and South America during the 80's were hardly shining examples of humanitarianism.

They are both better sparrers then their "better halves."

Edit: I guess my perception comes from their relative lack of rhetoric...they are sniping on the details.

Oh no...it's the flip-flop card!

Cheney will have a heart attack almost any minute. He is a very angry man.

I think Cheney is kicking some ass early in this debate

Ahh, here comes the truth at last...Cheney also wanted to dissolve many of the same weapons systems that Kerry did.

It looks like it's gonna be "flip-flop" all the way through.

OMG!! Get off the f'n flip flop bs...Nobody "flip flops" more than Bush....Pathetic.

Cheney repeating himself just like Bush....Edwards keeps calling Cheney liar just like Kerry did

It's like a mini-me of the first debate (I guess that's to be expected)

That pretty much sums it up... seems pretty close still but Im waiting for more flip-flop references and defences

errrr, Cheney just said our coalition in the current Iraq war was equal to the 1991 gulf war coalition? What's he smoking? Poland is not Germany or France or Spain or etc.

Not to mention that a normal person who doesn't "flip flop" is consdiered a stubborn asshole.

off topic: The more Cheney talks, the more constipated he looks.

The moderator herself keeps stumbling over her words....kind of annoying

Lets ignore Iraq. Lets ignore no WMD's. Lets ignore 200 billion. Lets ignore no Osama. Lets ignore no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. The only thing that is important here is that Kerry is inconsistent, therefore vote Bush again.

Here it comes, Haliburton, Haliburton, Haliburton.

There we go, bring out the Cheney flip-flops
Call him a hypocrite!

"Well thats all you got", LOL!

LOL!!! Cheney accusing Edwards of a smokescreen? Oh, the hypocricy!

So is Edwards suggesting we invade Iran? I just want a clarification about that. However, we do have two able launching platforms to strike quickly and furiously in a pincer move upon Iran...

The Bush ticket shouldn't be accusing anyone of being absent...don't we all need to clear a little brush occasionally?

Should ask Sen. Leahy what it's like to meet Cheney on the Senate floor.

Where Bush and Kerry seemed to be civil and actually respect each other... Cheney looks like he wants to kill Edwards. He keeps with these "you dumbass snot nosed kid" looks. And Edwards looks like he wants to say "bring it Dick".

I don't know these 2 men are showing me they are both hotheads (Cheney by far moreso).

Makes me glad it's Kerry and Bush and not Cheney and Edwards.

My take Cheney is a very greedy, angry man who does not like to be questioned and is constantly on the attack. Edwards is a little laidback homey type that is prepared to defend what he believes in.

IMHO ONLY..... IT's like watching a self righteous Archie Bunker debating Sheriff Andy Taylor. No matter how deep a hole Cheney/Archie refuses to accept any responsibility for anything. And Edwards/Andy is trying a down home folksy approach but can't get to a point and hammer it down.

Think Kerry and Bush need to switch running mates to match their style better.

Kerry/Cheney vs. Bush/Edwards

Cheney is owning this debate, he keeps putting Edwards in his place. It is so funny to see Edwards keep trying to interupt.

Edwards theatrics are amazing. He must think he is in the court room.
He comes off so fake.

Look on cheney's face "oh shit....I voted for that?"

Cheney keeps ignoring the questions asked him.....and just randomly speaking

Good stuff from Edwards
voting for evil > not voting
This debate is...
http://humour.blague.free.fr/page/ph...nde/sniper.jpg

Realistically there is no way we could win a conventional war against Iran by ourselves. Considering the nuclear capabilities of Iran you can pretty much kiss Jerusalem goodbye if we invade Iran.

Apparently everything "speaks for itself" when it comes to Cheney, I dont see how that is winning the debate

But with Poland on our side...

thats funny. I mean Really Funny.

Yep...taxes are about percentages of income, not gross amounts.

Neither one of these guys wants to back gay marriage.

Edit: Would marriage by any other name smell as sweet?

Cheney's daughter: Thanks for stepping up for family, Dad.

answer the trial lawyer question, Dick.

Malpractice insurance rates are correlated to interest rates NOT lawsuit winnings. Insurance companies are basically big investment houses, that's where the problem lays.

Actually, we know where all of their nuclear facilities are, hell, you can even bring up most of that information on fas.org so it would be rather easy to strike at the facilities quickly, plus, spotting silos and SCUDs is easy. It's not as hard as you think it is. The DoD even has a plan on file for invading Iran, and it's first operation is striking at the facilities, and seeing where SCUDs and missiles are and taking those out. The next step is establishing beach heads with amphibious landings from the Persian Gulf. Tricky thing is getting tanks and conventionals up on the elevated landscape, a little less harder than Afghanistan though.

Edit: I did laugh at that Poland comment though.

I wish I could see this.

I can't believe I'm so interested in the US election. Wierd.


Mr Mephisto

Sure you can have airstrikes till the cows come home, the problem comes when we send our kids in against veteran religious fanatics in their mountainous home turf. Our kids have been raised on Pokemon and Nintendo, their kids are raised on Allah and Kalashnikov (sp?).

Extreme generalization on both sides...dont you think?

I'm glad they have the guts to actually come out and say "flip flop" and I'm glad Edwards is pointing out all of their flip flops as well.

Yes, absolutely.

Also, now that the flip-flop thing is going both ways they need to drop it

Yes. Just like the presidentail debate. However, this is a much more intelligible debate than the presidentail debate. Amazing! Two politicians that can speak in sentances!

Do you think they are picturing us naked?

She's a lousy moderator.

Wow, bad moderation.

This moderator SUCKS!!

Overall I thing both candidates carried themselves rather well.

Cheney's not sure why bipartisan bills haven't been passing!? Maybe if he wasn't telling Senators to "fuck off" on the senate floor...would be a start...

Ah, but you fail to realize the beneficial results of logging an incredible amount of time on SOCOM and SOCOM II. :lol:

Cheney really has no idea why there is not a spirit of bipartisanship in Congress?

Really?

Edwards: First I want to thank you and the Vice President for being here....
Cheney: Gwen, I want to thank you.....Senator Edwards, go fuck yourself....

Was Cheney's secret gay sister on the stage afterwards? I'm not sure what she looks like. ??? Might upset the conservative base who demand she be disowned for her sex life.

COVER ME!
I'VE GOT POINT!

Is it over?

Who won?

:)


Mr Mephisto

Really enjoyed this debate. The antithesis of the Presidential Debates. Substance over Style. Both camps did themselves proud. Edwards extremely poised and articulate; Cheney, like Spock - pure logic & pragmatism. In the end, Cheney's experience, authority, cold hard logic and realism won him the debate in my opinion. Very glad to hear both candidate's strong backing of Israel. Here's hoping the remaining Presidential debates will maintain this high standard.

LOL.
It really did come off that way.
I like how at the end Cheney kept sitting when Edwards shook his hand but gave Gwen the double arm stand up hand shake.

It was awesome.

Cheney really won this.

The thing is will the American people win?
I really wish there was a way to take the best of both parties.

I think Cheney came out strong, while Edwards missed several opportunities to respond to charges, especially about voting "for the war" and the 87 billion vote.

As they moved to domestic issues, however, Edwards clearly found his footing and took over the debate. Near the end, it was all Edwards. Edwards' closing statement was masterful and Cheney was terrible following it.

Overall, I think Edwards won handily, but if people tuned out early, they'll probably see it as a draw.

It really depends on who you ask. The spin doctors are now hard at work, giving themselves strokes trying to be the first to say that their candidate won.

I think it was close. They both did a good job; they both seemed confident and comfortable, yet Cheney - in his robotic fashion - got in more effective pot shots at Edwards. I'd give the edge to Cheney, but I think it's a slight edge.

Either way, most people don't believe that the vice presidential debates have much effect on the outcome of the election. Though I think more people paid attention to this vice presidential debate than any in recent history.

According to CBS Edwards won. I think it was 42% Edwards, 29 % Cheney and 29% undecided.

It was important because Kerry won the last debate so convincingly that he clawed back siginificant gains in the polls.

The last debate will be even more interesting.

Either way, despite being a Kerry supporter, I think Bush will win. Oh well...


Mr Mephisto

ABC said Cheny won but also admitted it oversampled republicans so their poll is worthless

I wonder what Fox says?

ROFL


Mr Mephisto

Cheney retreated to "so wrong I can't respond" type comments repeatedly, he should be able to answer for his record. I'd give Edwards the win because I liked his positions and he wasn't afraid to mention Kerry. I don't recall Cheney using Bush's name as freely or at all.

Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan (someone I respect) is slagging Cheney for not having the answers on cspan2.

I'll admit I'm for sure biased. I think Cheney handled it, if anything it was a draw, no way Edwards out did Cheney on substance or style. Cheney took a very good route with the old school hawk putting the young spring chicken in his place continuely.

maybe 65- 35 Cheney.

I think this was a great debate - lots of substance this time around. Those guys had a million numbers at their fingertips... I do think that it was close, with Edwards stronger (perhaps too polished for his own good?) on style and Cheney ahead on substance. I especially enjoyed the bit where they were after each other on voting records and absences. I don't mind things being personal when they are talking to each other and not letting their lap dogs do the fighting. So, in the end, Cheney by a nose.

Seemed like a draw to me, overall. I think Cheney came out ahead on the foreign policy, mainly because Edwards didn't push the right things at the right times, not because Cheney had much substance in that area. On the National front, Edwards came out ahead - though he could have gotten more points if he had pointed out the similarities between his and Cheney's opinions on Gay Marriage and how they both differ completely from the Bush/Cheney platform opinion on that issue.

Ultimately, the most telling and, in my mind accurate, statement came from Edwards - pointing out that liberals value hard work and conservatives value wealth. Spot on. Perfect.

The Bush/Cheney campaign needed more than a draw to recover from the Bush failing from last week.

Polls on news channels indicate Edwards won.
Before cnn.com pulled their poll of their site a few moments ago,
(11:40 pm edt) Edwards led 120,000 to Cheney's 27,000

Even on Bush broadcasting, inc. www.foxnews.com, Edwards led
Cheney as the debate winner 33,000 votes to 30,000 for Cheney.

<a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#survey">msnbc.com is 69% Edwards 31% Cheney</a>

all I can say is this. Many will make their side look like the winner no matter the outcome.

Most are looking for what's good about their candidate, what's bad about their rival, and the rest is details lost in the wind.

From what I've read already, it looks like we know who are republicans and who are democrats here.

I thought it was a tie, but apparently looks like most people picked Edwards, i think it has more to do with likeability in the end.

I thought it was really close but I give edwards the edge for not coming off as cold as cheney.

I think Cheney lost because of his demeanor. He seemed very unapproachable, stiff and just his way or go fuck yourself.

Edwards was homey and likeable talked to people not at them.

Like I said it was Archie Bunker and Sheriff Andy Taylor debating.

I'm sure the GOP has some sort of whammy to hit Kerry with to stop the hemoraging.... maybe a new 527 group to run something new into the ground.

i haven't heard from either of these guys lately.

i think it's cool how cheney talks like my grandpa. tally-ban and whatnot. but the guy knows his stuff, although i thought including iraqi deaths to counter edwards' 90% figure was pushing it. i liked his simple thank-you response to edwards comments on gay marriage and how he claimed to have never seen edwards in the senate before.

edwards did miss opportunities, sometimes opting to make a broad attack on the administration rather than address the particular issue. it seemed like kerry spoke with more clarity on the international issues. still he was no pushover and held his own. i stopped watching after the first hour, so i may have missed his stronger performance. none of the domestic issues mentioned (aside from the huge deficit) really matter to me, though.

so i'll call it a draw as well.

senators have a tough time becoming president. only 2 (Kennedy and Harding) have jumped directly from the senate to the chief executive, at least partially due to the fact that opponents can pick at voting histories.

If I had to pick a winner, I would most likely select Cheney. I say that because even though many of his statements and "facts" are inacurate and seriously debatable, he presented them in a matter of fact and clear manner that makes them seem like the truth. Edwards was a bit too excitable and ready to jump into the fray, making him appear inexperienced. Overall, I would say that Republicans generally thought Cheney won and vice versus. I do, however, think that neither side is particularly hurt or helped by this debate. What I find interesting is that CBS, MSNBC, CNN and FOX all have flash polls that say Edwards won. The closest was FOX, showing 54% for Edwards (this will change), but many polls show him well ahead of Cheney. It will be interesting to see the results in a day or two. Many, even many within the Democratic party, underestimate the connection Edwards makes with people. It may be that the polls are showing that while "experts" and policy wonks don't see him as completely credible, the general public does.

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'

It was close, but ill go with Edwards since Dick choose not to respond to a few of the senator's comments.

Well I learned nothing new tonight. Same old garbage from both camps.

I don't know who "won;" I guess I'll let the polls tell us that. Edwards had to at least look like he knew what he was doing and handle himself well, and he did that. He presented himself as a solid candidate for vice president, despite Cheney's efforts to paint him as not up to the job.

I've never really seen Cheney in action other than on a podium, and this debate gave me a really clear picture of who he is. I have met guys like him before, in business and in government. They have the ability to talk endlessly and relentlessly and to counter any point someone raises against them with a torrent of counterpoints. They win by wearing down the other side, if the other side is less confident in their answers.

The thing is, such guys often have the wrong answer to complex problems, because they're not in the habit of accepting advice: conflicts with their Iron Man image. They never falter, never deviate from their paths, and never admit past mistakes except to say that they were unimportant (or that your recollection is wrong). Such tactics will absolutely win the battle in any bureaucracy, where sheer force of will matters less than facts.

And guys like this can absolutely take an organization right off a cliff, when they're wrong. After they win the bureaucratic battle, nobody challenges anything they say anymore. They're in complete control.

The fun thing about these guys is, often they're not the number 1 guy in the organization. More likely they're number 2, and number 1 is a doofus who they control. I know it sounds like I'm trying to tailor my argument to the situation, but it's true. At least, I've worked in two organizations like this, where #2 was a feared and disliked Master of the Bureaucracy with all the answers, and #1 was just a figurehead who relied on the bounteous flow of information and advice from #2.

The first time I ever met you was tonight at this debate....
 

Lie, or just forgetful?
http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archi...ey-Edwards.jpg
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT
According to Sidoti, Cheney actually thanked Edwards by name at the Senate prayer breakfast, where they sat next to each other for about two hours. On top of that, they met again when Elizabeth Dole was sworn in by Cheney almost two years ago.
It's ok Dick, you're old, we can blame it on dementia.

Being a Bush supporter, but one based in reality ( easy...that's not meant to be flame bait ), it was clear that during the first presedential debate, Bush was handed his ass fairly early on ( like with the opening salvo ).
I honestly believe that during this singular vice-presedential debate, Edwards was handed his ass completely. Which is odd, because I truly expected Edwards to run away with it. He's a paid debater. Yes, Cheney has been in politics for years, but Edwards has a track record of being a good enough debater ( read trial lawyer ) to make millions.
After Bush's dismal performance, any sort of oratory competence is to be lauded and basked in ( at least by those of us on the right ).
Did it reverse Kerry's poll surge? Doubt it.
Did it change any hearts and minds? Doubt it.
Did it offer any new ideals? Nope.
Did it make me feel better? A little.

The negative? Well, it really sucks to have your non-debater Veep sweep the floor with his opponent when you can't convince a kid to eat candy!

ARGH!

nevermind...i quit, and forgot

(Double Standard card)

So Kerry can over emphasize and dramatize war crimes, but it's not ok for Cheney to make on over stated point, one that still holds, i.e. Edwards has missed a lot of time in congress.

At any rate I'm sure the left will make a big deal of this non-issue.

Edwards shoudl have answered to why he was absent from congress so much. I don't give him a pass but he HAS been campaigning for the Presidency for the past two years. The fact is our legislature is the main breeding ground for presidential candidates. If they want to have a chance to win, to gain some name id, they have to be out there getting to know people and vice versa.

I also wish Cheney had made an attempt to answer to John's statements of Cheney voting against: Headstart, nelson mandella, MLKjr day, meals on wheels etc.. Course anything beyond "I'm a douchebag" really isn't honest.

if you were to read the debate transcript, cheney won.

if you were to watch the debate w/out sound, edwards won.

if you were to watch and listen, close to a tie.

Except for the part about his facts being inaccurate and seriously debatable, I actually pretty much completely agree. All the MSNBC hardball guys pretty much said Cheney won, and I thought he did an A- job, but after talking to my wife and mother-in-law, they too just said they like Edwards because he seems nicer.

Cheney could have done better defending Halliburton, or talking about some mom and pop restaurant or other small business that would be hurt by the repeal of the tax cuts for those "earning" over $200,000. He mentioned this, but it's a winning issue, and should have emphasized it more. Some will be critical of his dropping arguments and declining to comment further, but I think it was actually smart. Had he said, "I voted against MLK day because we I didn't think we needed another Fed. holiday in Feb." or a similar defense of his votes, it would have damaged the campaign more by creating a side issue that has nothing to do with Bush. Similarly, his carefully worded but classy statement on the marriage amend. (which I too am against) was all he needed to say. Sometimes just shutting up is a good thing.

Maybe it's just me, but I thought this debate was far superior to the first one and would have been better for undecided voters to really become informed about the campaigns. I concede that Bush SUCKED in the first one, but Kerry had so many okay-come-on-Bush-knock-that-out-of-the-park-it's-so-easy statements that I don't think you could say he did well. The first debate was just plain ugly, like that Cowboys-Redskins Monday night game.

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'll go further out on a limb and say that I wish both tickets were reversed. Not only do I have greater respect for self-made men, but they are more articulate than their top of the ticket partners, and I think either vp candidate would do a better job running the country. Let the super privileged men attend funerals and fulfill diplomatic and ceremonial duties. It's an interesting sociological observation that maybe you can go a long way in America on your own, but where and to whom you are born still has such a dramatic effect. (Well, maybe Clinton is an exception) Maybe it's just me and my personal biases, though. Now that I've goten completely off-topic, I'll just say again that I thought it was a good debate, and if they're going to attack each other, I'm glad they did it face to face, and I think Cheney won, but it was close.

It was an interesting debate and they both were well matched, in the end Cheney is a loathesome and power crazed man. His attempt to reign that in was superhuman but neither I nor the majority of people who chose Edwards as the winner can ignore who he really is. You only could think he won the debate if you could believe the endless misderection he engaged in. I have had the same expeirience as rodney :

Many Americans buy the strength argument because it makes them feel safer that daddy is taking care of them, but you are actually "heading right off a cliff".

What? The legislature is the main breeding ground for failed presidential candidates. Historically, it is nearly impossible to win without executive experience. You're much more likely to reach the presidency from a governorship than the Congress. There hasn't been a legislator direct to the Presidency since JFK, and before that Harding.

I'm not a Bush supporter, but no honest Democrat can defend the Kerry/Edwards attendance record. Both have essentially abandoned their posts. Since Kerry was re-elected in 2002 (when he obviously was planning to run), he missed 64% of the votes in the first year, and over 80 or 90% in the current term. As one of his constituents, that pisses me off.

Edwards hasn't done much better. As a member of the Judiciary committee, his 107th attendance record (pre-campaign!) was tied with Strom Thurmond, who was 99 years old and dying.

Cheney made the same mistake that Bush did. He hunched over, allowing his taller opponent to stand over him even more than usual. The Republican people need to address that before the next debate.

This was a good discussion of the issues. Both men did very well.

As you know, I have no interest in the theatrical and rhetorical craft of debating. I think it is a puerile and entertainment-based way of trivializing any issue. To speak of winning and losing in an intelligent discussion of any issue is to speak as if a crucial matter is no more than a game.

Hopefully more than a few people see things this way.

In what way?

Well,,,,fauxnews dropped their Edwards - Cheney debate poll from last night,
probably because Edwards was leading 56% to 44%. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111576,00.html">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111576,00.html</a> Today, they re-worded it and Cheney now enjoys an overwhelming lead. (Last night's poll simpky asked whether you think Cheney or Edwards won the debate.)
<p><br>

cnn.com VP debate poll resurfaced today, and......instead of the 120,000 votes for Edwards and 27,000 for Cheney that were displayed before cnn
pulled the poll last night, today's "results" show 40,000 for Edwards and
23,000 for Cheney.<br>

All of the news media websites that displayed online poll results of visitors' opinions last night, displayed results that showed Edwards to be the debate winner, overwhelmimgly, except for fauxnews 56% to 44% pro Edwards results. However, the media doesn't want to accept public opinion, or it hides it from view. Before the Bush cheerleaders offer excuses....there were
concerted efforts on both sides to flood online polls with "hits".
<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1236413/posts">http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1236413/posts</a>

That "the first time I ever met you" line was not the only lie told by Cheney. It's just funnier because of that picture of Edwards and Cheney sitting next to each other for 2 hours.

Most of the "good points" that Cheney made in last night's debate were simply untrue. Unfortunately, Edwards let many of them stand without a rebuttal, leading some people to actually think Cheney won the debate. If one of the rules to the debate had been "no distortions/lies", Cheney would have been DQ'd and Edwards would have won hands down.

But don't just take my word for it, take a look at the nonpartisan factcheck.org (link), which Cheney himself urged us to do in order to refute points Edwards made about Cheney and Halliburton. Of course, he couldn't even get that right, calling it factcheck.com (which, thanks to the internet gods, now points to a George Soros site). To make matters worse, factcheck.org says that Cheney "wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton."

Looking further on that page you will see numerous instances in which Cheney committed clear lies/distortions, while Edwards only committed a couple partial/unclear distortions. And it looks like they just stopped listing Cheney's lies in order to make it look less one-sided.

The Bush/Cheney talking point has been substance over style, but if that substance is all lies, does it really even exist?

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.

Ustwo can you please grow up. Noone here appreciates your superior than thou attitude.
If you can't come on here and show respect to this community, don't come back.
Everything about that post was condescending and smarmy.