posted
She's definitely repeated at least three of the questions. And what was that deal where she didn't know who was supposed to be answering, and then misquoted who had said what a minute earlier? Hmmpf.
posted
Yeah, and she's not keeping a very tight rein on them when they start talking about things they weren't asked. I was definitely more impressed with Lehrer.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess in terms of "winning," I'm really thinking of that group of undecided voters and trying to put myself in that very strange world they live in. ( ) I think for people still making up their minds Cheney had the edge - and face it, those are the people who count the most.
Actually, I'm not so sure. My initial impression was that Cheney was beating up on Edwards. But that's thinking of it in more high school terms. When I try to put myself in the shoes of undecided voters, yeah, Cheney, is taking his shots, but he's coming off like a pr*ck doing it. He's not getting the "hmm, he's right" moments, but rather, the "OMG, did you SEE what he just said?! Smackdown!" Certainly he's making dyed in the wool republicans happy, but I'm not conviced he's winning over undecided voters.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This moderator definately dropped the ball. She should be ashamed of herself. She's been asking partisan and irrelevant questions and has made rules mistakes. This is kinda ridiculous.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm going to say it's a tie. Edwards looks friendly and earnest, and Cheney looks tough and somewhat bored with this debating nonsense.
Obviously someone is lying about all of these different numbers that keep getting thrown around, but who you believe is lying depends on what you believed going into it.
You can, however, clearly state that the moderator LOST. Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a Democrat, I have to say that I think this debate clearly went to Cheney. Was on on-topic way more than Edwards, it seemed like, and he presented his rhetoric in a much more calm fashion than Edwards, whom you could see sweating a little and getting flustered. Edwards very annoyingly was Bush-like in just sticking to one point no matter what the question--Bush and Cheney are liars!
The only positive aspect of this for Dems is that Cheney really makes Bush look bad and drives home what a poor grasp Bush seems to have on the issues.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of moderation, I thought the topic of tonight's debate was foreign policy? What the hell is up with all that weirdness in the questions? Why on earth was Edward's lack of experience made into one whole question?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tonight's debate was intended to be on both domestic and foreign policy.
You're right about Edwards sticking to the same points no matter what the question. He did the same thing in the primaries, repeating what was basically phrases from his stump speech over and over. They're good points, but it's tiresome since there are so many other valuable points that he could be making.
And wow, did Edwards drop the ball on the question about his experience. It wasn't a very fair question to begin with, but he could have come up with something better than to talk about Kerry instead.
Posts: 4292 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cheney definitely won this one. I still can't believe it -- I mean, jesus, exactly how much further can the playing field be tilted? Edwards had four years of gross incompetence and corruption to work with -- but he won.
Probably due to Edwards' failure more than to his own success. Christ, John, let's repeat a few more keywords, huh? Gah, his points were so goddamn inane -- I could've handled that better, with any degree of preparation.
I want Paul Krugman for president.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As an addendum, I don't think Cheney won because he spouted more truth -- heh -- but because he at least appeared like he did, while Edwards was constantly falling back on the same tired old Kerry-was-in-'Nam bit. For god's sake, guy, go after the four years of miserable failure that characterizes the Bush administration. Call him on his numbers, go after the disparity in treatment between the elite and the citizenry, do something. So much to work with and so little actually said, it's ridiculous.
posted
Storm, you have never struck me as a democrat. Are you a dixiecrat, or a conservative democrat?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edwards' closing statement was *awesome*. I thought Cheney's was ridiculously obscure. Regardless of the rest of the debate....Edwards won the end.
Plus, damn, he's cute for being 55...
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Edwards' wrapup came close to giving me chills. Very cool. Cheney came close to putting me to sleep. Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least Cheney is an adult. I wish that that Cheney could substitute in for Bush on these last two debates. It'll force Kerry not to play down, and give everybody a clearer picture on what these four have in store for the next four years.
Edwards was Edwards. It's a vice-presidential debate geared up to talk about vice-presidential issues. I don't know how many purely vice-presidential issues there are.
If for no other reason than Cheney seemed credible whereas Bush was just an embarrassment, I can give this debate to Cheney, but there is not one thing, not one statement, that makes me think that Cheney likes people. And there is something wrong with a politician who doesn't like people. He is comfortable talking about the economy, education in terms of the economy and health-care with respect to the economy, but this guy doesn't like people.
posted
Ha. That's funny. I am very socially liberal and a fiscal moderate. Did anyone else think I was a Republican?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I thought overall the debate was fairly even. But Edwards really hurt himself when he broke the "don't mention your boss" rule. The mod was clearly trying to nail down each VP candidate's qualifications. Edwards, instead of telling us why he should be VP, resorted to his stump speech regarding how wonderful Kerry is. That lost a lot of points in my book.
This was a very lively and entertaining debate. A lot of "GASP! I can't believe he said that" moments. This will bring even more interest to the next debate, which, as someone pointed out, might not be the best thing for Bush.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Edwards down right pissed me off. I thought he did horrible from the 20 minutes I saw of the Debate.
Edwards was 10 times farther from answering the question, than Cheney was, and He kept talking about how great Kerry was, which I didn't think was helpful at all.
And then when he kept talking about how great Kerry was when he was specificlly asked NOT TO, and he kept saying Me and John Kerry oh sorry We.
I thought he sucked totally for the 20 minutes I saw.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ifill did fine. She made a woops, but I'm over it. Anytime you can make the sitting vice-president say, "Geez, Gwen, I didn't know it was that bad." You've done a good job. I like that she wasn't aggressive on the time. These men are an unlucky bullet or burger away from the presidency, let them talk as long as they like, but I did like that she wasn't taking anybody's guff. Cheney made some overly familiar reference to her, and I'm not as mature as she is, but I would have called him Richard instead of Mr. Vice-President. I can't remember the context, but she held her cool.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I totally don't see how you can definitively call the winner of a 90 minute debate from watching 20 minutes of it. Please.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I liked Cheney's closing statement a lot more than Edwards. I really dislike "when I was a child" type of speeches. It is a tired tactic to manipulate voters and it tells me close to nothing about the candidate.
Cheney's closing statement is straightforward: Look, I'm old, I'm crusty, I have no political agendas. I'm not huggable, in fact, if you hug me I'll probably punch you out. I'm a prick, but you need pricks to fight pricks. I'm Dick Cheney and I AM the president.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, I feel like that kind of attitude is what got us into this whole mess in Iraq to begin with.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edwards shouldn't have spoken about Cheney's daughter. This isn't an excuse for anyone to vote against Kerry. If you are going to use this as an excuse, I don't want to know you anyway, but there was something seedy and not at all good about all of the accolades Edwards layed on Cheney's daughter.
posted
Well, this debate didn't really accomplish much for either side I think. There was too much smoke on the battlefield, so to speak, to figure out what was true and what wasn't. Furthermore, it was fairly boring, despite all the attacks. I'm betting a lot of people lost interest.
The one thing that made me think Edwards did a bit better is that he did a really good job of refuting the whole "global test" complaints coming out of the republican camp. That was early on and it stood out as a particularly clear response.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked these debates alot better than the Presidential one last Thursday.
Take this with a grain of salt, but I think Cheney looked like the veteran and Edwards looked a little "green around the ears" in an eager puppydog sort of way (like how he couldn't stop saying John Kerry's name came off a little puppy dogish).
There definately was an experience gap played up.
I felt that Cheney presented more "figures" and "records" in rebuttal to Edwards where in the past debate it was a debate about "past principles".
Of course I am biased (aren't we all?) but I give Cheney the small victory in this one. Not near the margin that Kerry won over Bush in the last one, but a small victory considering his age, looks, etc.
posted
I liked how Cheney showed how Sadaam himself directly supported terrorism (giving money to suicide bomber families in other countries) which is the sponsoring of international terrorism, and also how Zarqawi was in Afghanistan, but then moved to Iraq BEFORE the invasion occurred...
That was a bit of news I didn't know. I knew he wasn't even an Iraqi but a Syrian (or is it Jordanian? can't remember) but I didn't know he was an Afghan tranied terrorist.
It begs the question. If he is a terrorist in Iraq, and Sadaam was a terrorist, and Kerry (and Edwards confirmed tonight) promised to hunt down and kill the terrorist "wherever they may be", does that mean Kerry would have invaded Iraq as well WMD's or no?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did find it funny that Cheney pointed out John Edwards got out of $600,000 thousand dollars in taxes through a legal loophole, considering Halliburton has been basing it's 29 littler companies on off-shore addresses.
..but Hey, if people don't care that he was CEO for the company, they ain't gonna care that he was CEO for the company.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saddam wasn't a terrorist though, anymore than Bush is a terrorist for terrorists entering the U.S. during his watch.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked how Edwards claimed they were going to stop companies from outsourcing to foreign countries. Then he went and said he would make it legal for everyone to import drugs...from other countries (which sends money "out" of the country).
Now if they stop these companies from producing pills abroad, how are you going to import them for cheaper cost?
quote: Saddam wasn't a terrorist though, anymore than Bush is a terrorist for terrorists entering the U.S. during his watch.
Actually, Sadaam paid cash money to the families of suicide bombers. You know, the ones that get on buses and blow up only civillians.
That makes him a terrorist. That he funded it in another country makes him an international terrorist.
Also, Cheney alluded to Sadaam actually intervening personally to oversee the release from prison of Zarqawi associates. Why would he do that? I had never heard of that either.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
CStroman, I don't know how you are going to get around the fact that Cheney doesn't like people.
quote:Edwards: The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.
He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa.
That's America, folks. This is about our character.
posted
Yes, and U.S. officials paid money to Al Qaeda to commit terrorism against the Soviet Union... are they terrorists too?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, isn't Allawi sort of a terrorist too? I read somewhere that he recently cut off a man's hand and executed several insurgents himself by shooting them in the head.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, one thing that will make a lot of the news stories to know is the major "big lie" of the evening. On MSNBC, they played Cheney's statement tonight in which he denied ever saying Iraq had a role in 9/11. They then pulled up a tape of an appearance by him from "Meet the Press" about a year ago in which DID say that.
I'll probably be able to get the quotes tomorrow morning - I'm sure they'll be on the MSNBC site.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Saddam wasn't a terrorist though, anymore than Bush is a terrorist for terrorists entering the U.S. during his watch. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Sadaam paid cash money to the families of suicide bombers. You know, the ones that get on buses and blow up only civillians.
So we arrested Saddam.
...and his country is now kinda like your car if you get busted in the U.S., IMPOUNDED.
We've Impounded Iraq.
Iraq is just an expensive car, no?.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Allawi just has that Sharon/Cheney thing going. I'm not saying that they are interchangeable, but they are kind of interchangeable. Contrast them with Karzai in Afghanistan.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
