Vice Presidential Debate

Remove all ads!

Well... the debate isn't over yet, but I got so antsy I had to post here. It seems to me that Edwards was doing quite well, UNTIL Cheney attacked him on his Senate attendance record, specifically the Judicial Committee (32 out of 34 or so absences). Edwards looked visibly shaken and his initial response was simply to open his mouth and shut it -- you could hear a pin drop in that audience. When he did speak, instead of defending himself, he attacked Cheney on his voting record -- total mismatch of issues and clearly a "covering" tactic. It seemed to me that it took Edwards quite a few questions to recover and so far, I see it as a major turning point in the debate. I'm a HUGE Edwards supporter, so this just made me grimace and shake my head. I thought he was better at thinking on his feet and firing short bursts when needed -- not spraying the bushes, hoping he'll make a hit. :/

Back to the debate......

 

Yeah, that was a vicious hit...but long-term, I think Edwards will take more damage from Cheney's repeated claim that Edwards was "demeaning" the Iraqi security forces for not deigning to include them in the casualty count. Edwards didn't have a good response either time that Cheney attacked him with that.

The only time Cheney looked ruffled came from the two questions about homosexual marriage. The rest of the evening he was systematic, centered, calm, and ruthlessly on-target.

I think Edwards did a fine job, and he did recover after the Senate-absence bit. But anyone would be hard-pressed to out-debate Cheney.

 

That was possibly the most boring debate I've ever seen! I sat there for over an hour and half waiting to see someone make an idiot of themself... but it never happened! (Why couldn't they deliver like Bush did last Thursday?)

I'm a Kerry/Edwards supporter, but I'd like to think of myself as an objective individual. Both made good points and both avoided any major disasters - I say it was a tie - and that is how the cable stations seem to be reporting it. CNN and MSNBC polls are showing that poll participants favor Edwards (who is hovering at around 70%). Even the right-wing outlet Fox News shows an Edwards lead of 56% to Cheney's 42%. Very strange. I felt Cheney did better than that.

Both Edwards and Cheney are guilty of continually using voting records as a means of putting down the other. "You voted against the troops," and the like. It is my understanding that these bills can be very complex with many 'riders' attached to them. And explaining why one votes for or against a bill may require a complicated explanation - an explanation that takes far more time than is allotted.

The only laugh was when Edwards pointed out that Cheney voted against 'meals on wheels'. Ha! It made him look like a heartless bastard.

 

I think it was fairly even. They both did amazingly well, and both were impressively well prepared. They both nailed each other an equal number of times I think. It'd be hard to pick a clear winner. However, Cheney did create a few good sound bites that certainly hurt Edwards, and those will probably be the ones circulated in the media more than Edward's jabs.

Regardless, I don't think this debate will effect the outcome either way. The next 2 debates will highlight the man we'll really be voting for, and there needed to be a clear, brutal victory of one of the contenders tonight to effect that in any significant way. If anything, this debate tonight proved that there are 3 men in this race who've been doing their homework - and Bush ain't one of them. The side effect of Cheney looking so prepared tonight is that Bush looks less like he's really the one wearing the pants.

edit - I'd just like to add 2 things. First, there couldn't be 2 more different people than Cheney and Edwards - that really speaks for itself. And second, that while I think tonight might have hurt Bush a little (and by little, I mean teansy tiny), I don't think it will hurt Kerry much at all. On to friday.

2nd EDIT: Remember when Cheney was getting all defensive about Halliburton and said "you can go to factcheck.com and check it out for yourself"...what he meant to say was the Annenburg foundation at factcheck.org.

G'head...type factcheck.com into your browser, and then listen for that loud, ear-shattering slapping sound off in the distance...the sound of Dick Cheney's palm meeting his forehead with enough force to split atoms.

DOH!

[ October 06, 2004, 06:54: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

ROFL. Nice catch, DR!

 

I don't think Edwards did poorly, necessarily--but Cheney's performance was much better, overall.

Which annoys me a great deal

 

AMaster -- I agree. As much as I hate to admit it, Cheney won that debate, imo. He was collected, calculating and more or less unflappable, going for Edward's juglar quite successfully. Edwards came back a few times, but for the most part, was in defense mode for the entire second half of the debate.

 

I'm hard pressed to pick a winner. However, as Death Rabbit point out, I doubt it will have any impact - positively or negatively - on either canidate. Not only do the vice-presidential debates have far fewer viewers than the presidential ones, the vice-presidential debate was further handicapped by going head-to-head with the first day of the MLB playoffs. I'm sure most Yankees fans (which seems like about 1/2 the country) were watching the game, and not the debate.

Anyway, Ankiseth, if you were waiting for someone to make a fool of themselves, I can think of no better option than this statement by Cheney:

"I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11"

Really, Mr. Vice-President? This I think, should come as a surprise to anyone who has been living outside a cave for the past two years.

 

"I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11"

Whoa!! I didnt watch it, dont even think it's on TV over here, but that quote is SAYING, with the authority of the Vice President, that they invaded for no reason. WAsnt the idea that Iraq would give WMD to terrorists? Wasnt the idea that Hussein was in bed with Al - Quaeda? (sic) If it was just to get rid of WMD, then they should right now invade Norh Korea and Iran and I dont see that happening.

 

IMO, Edwards won. He talked about the issues that were important to liberals and progressives: healthcare, education and jobs. Cheney didn't have a good answer on any of these issues, because they don't matter much to him. Here's the thing: these two guys really spoke to their political bases. If one is conservative, than Cheney probably looked strong; to progressives, Edwards spoke for issues that are ignored by some of the large media pundits.

As usual, Cheney was tough and nasty, and came across stronger, on the surface at least, on the war on terror and Iraq. But Edwards spoke much better to the domestic issues that a lot of Americans (not just progressives) have concerns about. For some of us, there's more than just Iraq.

[ October 06, 2004, 16:29: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

By the way, for those of us who missed the debate, does anyone have a link to see the whole thing somewhere? I did want to see it, but a combination of a school presentation due today and not remembering when it was made me miss it.

 

@BTA

But don't you think that saying a senior Iraqi Intelligence Officer is meeting with members of al Qaeda is in fact "suggesting" there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq? He may never have come out and said, "Iraq is in league with al Qaeda" but he has certainly suggested it. Saying that a senior Iraqi official had contact with the group known to have committed the 9/11 attacks is directly associating the two, and is certainly suggesting a connection.

Here's some Cheney quotes I have come up with:

From Meet the Press - this was a long time ago, before the Iraq invasion even occurred, it was done on December 9, 2001.

I think this certainly meets the "suggests" criteria. If it didn't, he would not have mentioned the part about "before the attack".

Here's another from "Meet the Press" - this one comes from just before the invasion of Iraq, and is dated March 24, 2002.

Again, he didn't come out and say it, but given the contect it certainly is "suggested".

"Meet the Press" - on Sept. 8, 2002:

And this one goes beyond mere suggestion (it's Meet the Press again, although it wasn't specifically dated - it just was October 2003):

If this doesn't count as "suggesting" I don't know what does!

And finally, of you want something very recent, we'll take last night's debate. This is from MSNBC today:

I think this establishes suggestion. If Saddam Hussein, had "an established relationship with al Qaeda", then it is only reasonable to say that this suggests that Iraq had a connection to al Qaeda, and therefore the 9/11 attacks.

 

@BTA

Are you actually reading what you're typing?

Let's review from Cheney said last night:

"I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11"

Establishing a connection and assigning responsibility are two entirely different statements. If Cheney had said, "I have not stated that Iraq perpetrared the 9/11 attacks" then his statement would have been factually accurate. But to say he never suggested a connection between the two, I think is putting blinders on. Look, maybe you're unusual, or maybe I'm unusual, but if you can't see that Cheney suggested a connecetion between 9/11 and Iraq based on the quotes I listed, then I guess there is simply no way to convince you.

 

*sigh*

I will try once more the convince you, and I wont use quotes this time. I think the problem is I see a fundamental difference in the statements "suggesting a connection" and "perpetrated the attacks", whereas you seem to think the two a functionally equivalent.

To me, if Iraq supports and harbors terrorists and if some of these same terrorists were members of al Qaeda, and furthermore that al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, then you are establishing a link between the two groups. I mean, you are aiding and abetting a terrorist organization, to me, that's a link.

Maybe I should use a hypothetical example. Person A is walking down the street and is shot and killed by Person B. Person B runs down to the corner and jumps into the getaway car driven by Person C. In such a scenario Person B is the murderer, and Person C is an accomplice. Now, let's say the two split up after that, and Person C seeks refuge from the police in my house. I knowingly let an accomplice to murder into my house and hide him from the authorities. If I am caught, not only can it be "suggested" that there is a connection between me and the murderer (even though I've never helped the actual murderer) I can be charged and put in jail for my actions.

 

I watched this in a packed student lounge, and this line from Cheney drew the best laughs of the night.

I have problems seeing how Cheney came off well last night. He tried to seem uber-capable, in charge, avuncular, etc., but ended up seeming tired, irritable, defensive, and mean. He also avoided answering most questions, which was probably a good tactic given the lack of accomplishments his administration could point to.

I wonder to what extent Edwards will be hurt by seeming younger than his years; it's hard to believe that he's only what, 12 years younger than Cheney.

Debates in the US are truly pitiful, I think. They seem to be more about image, talking points, and damage control than about serious debate. I wonder how well using such a measure of a candidate's capability to be president serves the country.

In the end, the debate will be won or lost by the news agencies, and which exit poll they decide to hype. ABC says Cheney won, but their poll samples more Repubs than Dems. CBS says Edwards won, and their poll just tracked "representative undecided voters," whatever that means.

 

The basic idea is that Cheney is not a chimp. Not like I like him. Of course, both sides will claim victory now and brag about it. Representative uncided voters? Perhaps they should poll representative Kerry supporters and representative Bush supporters to check who won...

Dick, meet Ragusa. Ragusa, meet Dick.