VP Debates...

[Taco John]

15 minutes in...

Ok... I've seen enough... This is lame.


Edwards sucks. He's constatnly on the defensive and his offense has been nothing but sound bytes... Cheney is unlikable, but got in the best digs.

Overall, from the small amount I've seen, I'll give the debate to Cheney.

However, an observation that I don't think will escape many Americans is the juxtaposition between watching Cheney on his feet, and seeing Bush on his feet. It's like day an night. Cheney is in full control of the situation, and is cool, calm, and collected.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Pretty even so far. But as you said Cheney is far superior to Bush when it comes to articulating a thought.

[SJ Bronco]

Ok, Cheney just got delt a blow by the mod...LOL

[SJ Bronco]

I'd say its even based on just pure irrelevency. Edwards is a debate rookie. Im not sure he understands how it works. He is attacking too much, its making him look scared.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ok, Cheney just got delt a blow by the mod...LOL
He was stunned for a few seconds :crazy:

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Edwards is a trial lawyer, he knows what to do, or at least that's what Hogan's said for months.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Ok, Cheney just got delt a blow by the mod...LOL

If that's all you have to celebrate, then Edwards is getting punked tonight.

[Garcia Bronco]

Edwards sounds like a damn idiot.

[SJ Bronco]

Who's celebrating, I thought it was funny. Easy there Joe Republican.

BTW-Whomever said Edwards would win cause he's a lawyer, has never ben in an organized debate. Two seperate things. Cheney has a huge advantage....

[Taco John]

Edwards just boxed Cheney's ears on his own record...

[SJ Bronco]

Edwards sounds like a damn idiot.


I agree, he has good points, but his delivery sucks.

Damn, now Edwards got shot down...LOL the mod is on a roll!!!

[Hercules Rockefeller]

BTW-Whomever said Edwards would win cause he's a lawyer, has never ben in an organized debate. Two seperate things. Cheney has a huge advantage....

Tell that to Hogan, he's been saying Edwards will kill Cheney in this debate since even before JE was announced as the Kerry's Veep nominee.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Bad move Cheney, bringing up NCLBA.

Edwards whipping the stats on him now since Cheney didn't address the question.

[WaffleBoy]

I agree, SJ. I see the debate even thus far. Edwards rebuttals have been pretty good. In fact, one of his rebuttals left Cheney tongue twisted.

The Boy Wonder ;)

[SJ Bronco]

Personaly, I thought edwards would be better too, but I knew Dick has ben through too many of these to get beat by a relative newbie.

Edwards needs to calm down and stop acting like its personal. Its a debate, debate the issues.

[SJ Bronco]

Bad move Cheney, bringing up NCLBA.


I missed that, I was typing, what did he say?

[Taco John]

Cheney voted against MLK day?

Really? What a jackass...

[SJ Bronco]

Too bad for Bush that cheney can't do the last two debates for him....

[SJ Bronco]

Cheney voted against MLK day?

Really? What a jackass...

I didn't know that either.... Cheney is starting to do what bush did. He is ignoring the question and just repeating the party line.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I missed that, I was typing, what did he say?
That's Cheney's plan to address the employment situation. Education (NCLBA) which Bush has never funded.

[SJ Bronco]

I think edwards just made a very good explination of the tax cuts. Now Cheney seems defensive... Hummm, has the tide turned?

[SJ Bronco]

Cheney just said that he disagrees with the president on gay marraige constitutional ban.

[SJ Bronco]

Edwards needs to leave Cheneys family out of the debate...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Bad subject for Cheney, gay marriage.

[WaffleBoy]

I think Edwards is doing a pretty good job. I think 'it's hard work' defending Kerry’s stellar 20 year record in congress. Hilarious!

The Boy Wonder ;)

[SJ Bronco]

Edwards just called out Bush for using the entire gay marraige ban as a deversion!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I think Edwards is doing a pretty good job. I think 'it's hard work' defending Kerry’s stellar 20 year record in congress. Hilarious!

The Boy Wonder ;)
He's doing better than I thought he would up against the veteran Cheney.

[SJ Bronco]

Cheney came off good on the gay marriage thing, but he made GW look bad...wich isn't good for him in a round about way.

[WaffleBoy]

Edwards is getting stronger and Cheney is getting weaker.

The Boy Wonder ;)

[SJ Bronco]

Edwards needs to stay away from his ACUAL cases.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Edwards is exactly right about conglomerates. The only thing they understand is money.

[Taco John]

Momentum has shifted... But it won't matter. America has largely tuned out, and Cheney was thumping him at the beginning...

[SJ Bronco]

Edwards has turned this thing a bit, but I still think cheney isn't any worse for wear, I think he's hindered by Bushes polocy wich it seems he doesn't agree with...

[SJ Bronco]

Cheney won the medicare debate...

[SJ Bronco]

Wait...that may not be true!...Edwards strikes back!

[SJ Bronco]

Cheney bought himself some time, he has no answer to the Aids question, Bush could learn from him...

[watermock]

Who's celebrating, I thought it was funny. Easy there Joe Republican.

BTW-Whomever said Edwards would win cause he's a lawyer, has never ben in an organized debate. Two seperate things. Cheney has a huge advantage....

You have to be kidding me. Many lawyers have been debating since High School. Most if not all have Mock and compeditive debates in College and Law School. It's all they do unless they are a Business Lawyer.

[Taco John]

It's just striking to see Cheney on his feet in comparison with George...

Cheney called AIDS an epidemic, and then reconsidered... "A pandemic, really."

No way could Bush make that kind of correction...

[WaffleBoy]

I think Edwards made his points clearer on Medicare, SJ.

The Boy Wonder ;)

[SJ Bronco]

You have to be kidding me. Many lawyers have been debating since High School. Most if not all have Mock and compeditive debates in College and Law School. It's all they do unless they are a Business Lawyer.


Yes, but this one hasn't, and im sayng, one doesn't lead to the other. Just because your a lwayer, doesn't make you good in an organized debate.

[SJ Bronco]

He did, but I called it before the rebuttal, my bad...

[Hercules Rockefeller]

It's just striking to see Cheney on his feet in comparison with George...

Cheney called AIDS an epidemic, and then reconsidered... "A pandemic, really."

No way could Bush make that kind of correction...

Straight from the Dem talking points...

If Edwards gets smoked just talk about how bad Cheney makes Bush look...

[SJ Bronco]

TJ isn't a dem, and niether am I, and we are the ones that are doing that...can't you just discuss the debate and not make this a partisan shouting match, jeez...

[SJ Bronco]

I've given chaney props and I've given Edwards props and I've torn them both down, all you want to do is attack. Enter the discussion bro, thats what this is.

[SJ Bronco]

You knew he'd go to the Brimmer card...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Edwards struggling some here at the end.

[SJ Bronco]

Edwards is getting crossed up with attack verse the issues again. Kerry is much better at this.

[Taco John]

Straight from the Dem talking points...

If Edwards gets smoked just talk about how bad Cheney makes Bush look...



What the hell? I swear to God a Bush supporter just said the same thing to me verbatim on the Chiefs forum... And you want to talk to me about "talking points?"


Fact is, my observation between Bush and Cheney are dead on truth. So say what you want about "talking points." But the difference is striking.

[Taco John]

Ah, no wonder... You plagerized him... Just cut and pasted his response to me... I see now...

[SJ Bronco]

Suprise! A unification question...

[SJ Bronco]

Bush reached across the isle?? When?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Cheney is not sure why there is so great of divide ???

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Ah, no wonder... You plagerized him... Just cut and pasted his response to me... I see now...

had to, you cut and pasted the same post from that board, so I felt compelled to cut and paste someone's response.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Edwards drills him on Healthcare and Cheney goes back to Medicare.

[SJ Bronco]

Wow, Edwards got him on the precription drug issue...wow!

[Taco John]

Yeah... Wingleader's typical response when you make an observation that puts Bush in a negative light is to say it came straight from the Democratic talking points... Even when the observation is made on the fly.

You're better than Wingleader. You shouldn't be plagerizing his stuff...

[SJ Bronco]

Draw...I think both did well. I think Cheney wins on demenor and issue walking, Edwards made good points and did a good job pumping his canidate, wich was cheneys biggest weak point.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Ahhh. . . who responded was irrelevant, I saw the same post on both threads so I wanted to cut and paste the response.

[SJ Bronco]

I find it funny that the reps don't think Bush can do wrong. Sometimes, the other guy is right you know. It happens.

[Taco John]

Advantage Cheney... He worked two people tonight.

Edwards and Bush...

[SJ Bronco]

Draw, the canidates will decide this one, I guess thats the way it should be.

[SJ Bronco]

ards and Bush...

Yeah, that was weird, cheney shredded Bush.

[SJ Bronco]

you know, I've never seen edwards' wife before....

[SJ Bronco]

Anyone else want to give thier impression on this debate?

[Antilles]

I score this one 48-52 for Dicky. Man... I expected so much from Edwards. Maybe I went in with artificially high expectations. But i expected nothing from Dick, and he came off as articluate, and almost likeble, despite the fact that I disagree with just about everything he said. Was it just me or did it seem like Edwards dodged an abnormally high number of questions? He also came off as slighty condescending, particularly toward the moderator. Dick definately dodged the gay marriage question, but I guess that's understandable considering that he doesn't agree with W. At least for tonight, I'm glad that guy is not at the top of the ticket...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Cheney debated what Bush couldn't and should have. Edwards did well overall.
Friday will be interesting.

[SJ Bronco]

I score this one 48-52 for Dicky. Man... I expected so much from Edwards. Maybe I went in with artificially high expectations. But i expected nothing from Dick, and he came off as articluate, and almost likeble, despite the fact that I disagree with just about everything he said. Was it just me or did it seem like Edwards dodged an abnormally high number of questions? Dick definately dodged the gay marriage question, but I guess that's understandable considering that he doesn't agree with W. At least for tonight, I'm glad that guy is not at the top of the ticket...

I agree, I hated Cheney before this, but he realy came off very well. Bush is damn lucky that man is on his ticket.

[Exile_In_SJ]

I'd have to agree with what Chris Matthews just said on hardball, to paraphrase,

Edwards would take some shots with a squirt gun and Cheney would respond with a howitzer.

Cheney wins, he was more prepared, more knowlegeable, had more gravitas. I'd say a 55-45 wn for Cheney

[Exile_In_SJ]

Bush reached across the isle?? When?


No child left behind, medicare reform, the war resolution, the patriot act.

[SJ Bronco]

The patriot act?

Thats the first thing the dems will get rid of, trust me, thats my biggest sore point.

Bush has made many false attemps at unification, but he has no real desire to do so. In all fairness though, Im not sure anyone in politics cares about it, but Bush has managed to divide this whole nation, I thought that was a weird statement by cheney.

[BroncoInferno]

I'd say Cheney got a win here...probably 52-48 or so. Cheney just had a bit more experience. The question is, will this have any impact on the race? Most pundits say it won't. I'm not sure. Friday will certainly be the biggest indicator.

[Exile_In_SJ]

not a slam against Edwards, but his experience is as a trial lawyer where he can prepare extensively You don't ask a question in court unless you already know the answer.

When he doesn't know the questions beforehand, being a trial lawyer is no benefit.

[SJ Bronco]

Thats what I've ben saying all along Exile. I think it hinders him. It was clear who the "rookie" was today.

[Exile_In_SJ]

the patriot act was done bipartisanally after the 9/11 attack. You asked what Bush has reached across the aisle for. I gave you 4 examples.

[Exile_In_SJ]

I think the debate format used here is the best. both guys sitting in close proximity.

[SJ Bronco]

Yes, but I think those very issues now divide them now. Most of that was in the aftermath of 911. I'd say 911 united us, not bush. Bush has intentionally thrown out issues that were ment to divide in order to distract from issues that were losing him poll points. IE: Gasy marriage... And Cheney all but said that tonight himself.

[SJ Bronco]

I thought the sitting favored Cheney. It was more relaxed wich is cheneys style. Not to say it effected anything, but you saw in the pres debate how standing hurt Bush.

[Exile_In_SJ]

I liked the moderator better too, she seemed more fair and calmer. I'd have liked to see her for the next 2. I think a relative nobody can do a better job. ~shrug~

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Who won Tuesday night's vice presidential debate?

a. Vice President Cheney (13%)


b. Senator Edwards (17%)


c. I did not watch (3%)


d. None of the above (67%)
http://www.foxnews.com

Who do you think won the vice presidential debate?

Dick Cheney 14% 7708 votes

John Edwards 82% 44745 votes

Evenly matched 4% 2071 votes
Total: 54524 votes
http://www.cnn.com/

[Exile_In_SJ]

Gee is Chris matthews turning republican? He just said Cheney came hunting for squirrel and he found and shot squirrel...

[SJ Bronco]

Who did they poll, the DNC?

[SJ Bronco]

The mod did very well, she did a good job staying neutral.

[Exile_In_SJ]

wow, I don't see that 82% think Edwards? lol, not even close. Cheney won, 55-45

[SJ Bronco]

Gee is Chris matthews turning republican? He just said Cheney came hunting for squirrel and he found and shot squirrel...


Mathews gets alot of crap, but he's always told the brutal truth even if he doesn't like it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

NEWS POLL
Who won the vice presidential debate?


Vice President Dick Cheney:
10%
Sen. John Edwards:
87%
It was a draw:
3%

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2831802

[SJ Bronco]

Yeah, 82% is rather inflated. I'd love to see Edwards as the winner, but I can't,

[Exile_In_SJ]

So now they scheduled the next one for friday night. Di they expect to have much of an audience?

[Hogan11]

I see it as a draw.

I came away more disappointed with Edwards not relying upon his background as a lawyer to grill Cheney like he could have.....he held back and IMO, it cost him a KO.

[BroncoInferno]

Exile--Matthews is always fair even if he doesn't like it. You bashed him on the Malkin chick, but he ripped her because she deserved it on her baseless allegations.

I thought Cheney had a slight win--only slight--but these quick polls with Edwards ahead are interesting.

[Exile_In_SJ]

Like I said before, his lawyer background really doesn't helphim in a debate format. He didn't know the questions and therefore had no chance to use his lawyer skills. A lawyer doesn't ask a question unless he knows the answer. You don't want to be surprised in court.

I thought he looked like a deer caught in the headlights when the 'global test' question came up, he really didn't defend or refute that.

[Crushaholic]

This is why the Bush-Cheney ticket works. Bush scores points on the "likeable" and Cheney scores points on the "credibility". Cheney remained cool, calm and collected and Edwards just had to make sure to get his "talking points" in.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Who won the debate? * 316409 responses


VP Dick Cheney 29%
Sen. John Edwards 71%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

[Exile_In_SJ]

I'll say Matthews surprised me here tonight and give him the benefit of the doubt.

These quick polls are basically worthless. Terry McAuliffe sent out an e-mail asking supporters to flood the sites which have after debate polls. Since i imagine more Republicans have better things to do, the quickj polls are skewed.

[baja]

OK I have lost two long posts about the debate, when there is a new page added to a thread is it refreshed automatically, causing to lose a post that had not yet been posted?

[Exile_In_SJ]

So is anyone going to watch the friday night debate?

[Hogan11]

This is why the Bush-Cheney ticket works. Bush scores points on the "likeable" and Cheney scores points on the "credibility". Cheney remained cool, calm and collected and Edwards just had to make sure to get his "talking points" in.

W is far from "likeable" and Cheney is far from "credible"

The fact that Edwards held his own in spite of not using his background skills to their fullest possible potential is reason enough to breathe a sigh of relief if your the DNC.

It was a draw, it revealed absolutely nothing....onto round two Friday between the heavyweights.

[BroncoInferno]

Who won the debate? * 316409 responses


VP Dick Cheney 29%
Sen. John Edwards 71%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Interesting poll. It will be interesting to see if it sticks, to see if the people fall for the so-called liberal biased media which is declaring Cheney the winner. I also think Cheney had a slight--slight--win, but it will be interesting to see if these quick polls are accurate.

[Exile_In_SJ]

OK I have lost two long posts about the debate, when there is a new page added to a thread is it refreshed automatically, causing to lose a post that had not yet been posted?


when you do a long post, use the copy feature to copy what you've typed, that way if there is a page break or you get some other animoly, you can just paste it into a new window after you refresh... it's happened to me a few times and it's annoying

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'll say Matthews surprised me here tonight and give him the benefit of the doubt.

These quick polls are basically worthless. Terry McAuliffe sent out an e-mail asking supporters to flood the sites which have after debate polls. Since i imagine more Republicans have better things to do, the quickj polls are skewed.
Right..Looks like his email made it to Fox ..............
Who won Tuesday night's vice presidential debate?

a. Vice President Cheney (13%)
b. Senator Edwards (17%)
c. I did not watch (3%)
d. None of the above (67%)
http://www.foxnews.com

[Antilles]

Like I said before, his lawyer background really doesn't helphim in a debate format. He didn't know the questions and therefore had no chance to use his lawyer skills. A lawyer doesn't ask a question unless he knows the answer. You don't want to be surprised in court.

I thought he looked like a deer caught in the headlights when the 'global test' question came up, he really didn't defend or refute that.

I disagree. The "global test" question was the one question EVERYONE KNEW was going to be asked. There was no way that Edwards was unprepared for that (not after how impeccably prepared Kerry was). I think that he did a decent job addressing it, given that it was simply a phrase taken out of context. I think that spending anything more than a passing glance would lend credence to the spin that has been attached to the phrase. It may have been an unfortunate choice of words, but all partisanship aside, did anyone who watched the first debate honestly believe that Kerry was saying that France, Germany et al. should have veto power over American foreign policy?

Also, I think that saying that Edwards background as a trial lawyer didn't help him underestimates the job that Chaney did tonight. Debates, like trials, are about charming your audience and conveying your message effectively. Paradoxically, Dick was the better trial lawyer tonight. Slightly.

[baja]

Basically Chaney lacked convection of his own words and I think the people watching did pick up on that. He came across as a man out of touch with Joe citizen. Chaney seems to have a difficult time praising Bush and rarely tried . His closing statement was flat and uninspiring.

[Exile_In_SJ]

Most of us here think it was either a draw or a slight to better than slight Cheney win, yet some of those polls have Edwards winning 82%... makes you wonder a bit..


loo, I doubt McAuliffe would send anything but a stink bomb to fox news.... I saw a copy of the enail McAuliffe sent out over at LGF, someone was on the DNC email list and got it..

[chanesaw]

I agree with the majority on this board. Even, but if I had to pick a winner it would be Cheney.

[WaffleBoy]

I thought it was pretty even. I didn't hear anything new from either candidate to swing some momentum to one side or the other. However, I would add that I am not surprise by the poll numbers. Edwards connected more with a television audience.

The Boy Wonder ;)

[Crushaholic]

Basically Chaney lacked convection of his own words and I think the people watching did pick up on that. He came across as a man out of touch with Joe citizen. Chaney seems to have a difficult time praising Bush and rarely tried . His closing statement was flat and uninspiring.

Cheney didn't make empty promises like Edwards did as far as health care or jobs. If that's "out of touch"...well...ok...

I don't want another politician who will promise the world and deliver nothing and I feel we would be going down that path with Kerry-Edwards. We have to make something priority number one and Kerry already said that he'll continue the war on terror. These domestic "idealistic" issues will HAVE to be put on the backburner and the Democratic ticket is unwilling to admit that.

[Exile_In_SJ]

Basically Chaney lacked convection of his own words and I think the people watching did pick up on that. He came across as a man out of touch with Joe citizen. Chaney seems to have a difficult time praising Bush and rarely tried . His closing statement was flat and uninspiring.


funny how we both saw the same presentation and had totally different conclusions. I thought Cheney connected with the average joe. And he sounded very strong in his own convictions.


OT and totally meaningless, but did anyone else think thet Edwards had disproportionately small hands? Maybe it was the angle, but to me they looked tiny.

[baja]

Edwards was articulate, inspired, believable and credible. He looked at the camera at the appropriate time. Had substance and conviction. Spared well with the more experienced Chaney.


I thought TJ brought up an important point in that Chaney clearly stood in contrast to the juvenile and embarrassing display put forth by Bush last Thursday.

[BroncoInferno]

Most of us here think it was either a draw or a slight to better than slight Cheney win, yet some of those polls have Edwards winning 82%... makes you wonder a bit..

I agree...it goes back to the populous wanting the man they feel most comfortable with. The early indication is that most people felt more comfortable with Edwards.

[Hogan11]

Cheney didn't make empty promises like Edwards did as far as health care or jobs. If that's "out of touch"...well...ok...

I don't want another politician who will promise the world and deliver nothing and I feel we would be going down that path with Kerry-Edwards. We have to make something priority number one and Kerry already said that he'll continue the war on terror. These domestic "idealistic" issues will HAVE to be put on the backburner and the Democratic ticket is unwilling to admit that.


It's obivous that those "idealistic" domestic issues don't effect you too much then....like it or not, but the fact is that the war on terror takes a backseat when you don't have a job, can't feed your family and have no health care when you're sick.....ask those there in Cleveland if you doubt it any.

[errand]

Bush reached across the isle?? When?

As governor of Texas he got Dems and Republicans alike on the same page, and has tried to do like wise as prez....or have you forgotten who worte the majority of the education bill? (Ted Kennedy)

[Exile_In_SJ]

the majority of the country is employed

[SJ Bronco]

I think the biggest winner was Kerry. Edwards (if nothing else) did a good job of refering to his canidate as much as possible, were as Cheney seemed to almost distance himself from Bush.

[Crushaholic]

It's obivous that those "idealistic" domestic issues don't effect you too much then....like it or not, but the fact is that the war on terror takes a backseat when you don't have a job, can't feed your family and have no health care when you're sick.....ask those there in Cleveland if you doubt it any.

OK...if they are really important, my assertion stands that Kerry won't be able to get those things done AND fight the war on terror. He's not being straight with the public in this manner. He can only tax "the rich" so much before employees start losing more jobs. This is a trickle-down economy and punishing employers will hurt "regular people". So, I don't know where he's going to get the money for all these programs that he wants. That's why I am convinced they are empty promises.

[Exile_In_SJ]

anyway, I agree with Chris Matthews on this one. Cheney won, and fairly easily. But i doubt it'll make much difference on who votes for whom.

[baja]

I think the biggest winner was Kerry. Edwards (if nothing else) did a good job of refering to his canidate as much as possible, were as Cheney seemed to almost distance himself from Bush.

I think this is a good point!

[Exile_In_SJ]

Damn, Rodney Dangerfield is dead.

[Taco John]

I thought Cheney connected with the average joe. And he sounded very strong in his own convictions.




Dude... You've got to have a lot of bias to come up with that conclusion... Cheney connects with the average Joe like Brian Griese connects with receivers 60 yards downfield...

[Hogan11]

OK...if they are really important, my assertion stands that Kerry won't be able to get those things done AND fight the war on terror. He's not being straight with the public in this manner. He can only tax "the rich" so much before employees start losing more jobs. This is a trickle-down economy and punishing employers will hurt "regular people". So, I don't know where he's going to get the money for all these programs that he wants. That's why I am convinced they are empty promises.

And I'm saying that to those who are unemployed, without health care and wondering where the next meal is coming from....the war on terror is a secondary concern.........advantage: Kerry/Edwards, period.

[Exile_In_SJ]

Dude... You've got to have a lot of bias to come up with that conclusion... Cheney connects with the average Joe like <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/12409" target="_blank">Brian Griese</a> connects with receivers 60 yards downfield...


I dunno, I'm an average Joe and he connected with me.

[SJ Bronco]

I agree with Exile, this debate will make little to no diffrence in the outcome of the election.

[SJ Bronco]

Hogan is right, there are ALOT of people that want to know more about the domestic issues. Im one of them, funny part is, it might be the war that undo's Bush when a few months ago, it was his strong point.

[Exile_In_SJ]

And I'm saying that to those who are unemployed, without health care and wondering where the next meal is coming from....the war on terror is a secondary concern.........advantage: Kerry/Edwards, period.


in the great scheme of theings, that's not very many at all. No tangible advantage to Kerry / Edwards..

[BroncoInferno]

Dude... You've got to have a lot of bias to come up with that conclusion... Cheney connects with the average Joe like <a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/12409" target="_blank">Brian Griese</a> connects with receivers 60 yards downfield...

No doubt...Cheney was oblivious on issues dealing with the middle class...which is why i think early polls give Edwards the edge regardless of what the so-called liberal media bias says...add MSNBC poll that gives the edge to Edwards...to the tune of 69% for Edwards.

[Hogan11]

in the great scheme of theings, that's not very many at all. No tangible evidence to Kerry / Edwards..

Oh, sometimes you're so naive

[errand]

funny how we both saw the same presentation and had totally different conclusions. I thought Cheney connected with the average joe. And he sounded very strong in his own convictions.


OT and totally meaningless, but did anyone else think thet Edwards had disproportionately small hands? Maybe it was the angle, but to me they looked tiny.

Cheney wiped the floor with Edwards...all Edwards said was how he and Kerry had a better plan, again with no specifics given. Well, hells bells, I got a better plan than those two, so why not vote for me.

the libs point to bush's facial expressions...did you see how red faced Edwards got when Cheney pointed out that because of the tax loopholes Edwards who's constantly crying about rising healthcare costs avoided having to pay a few hundred thousand dollars in medicare taxes?

And, are you sure his hands looked small...or did his head look big?

[SJ Bronco]

Not many unemployed, but many who are effected, by relatives, or by just plain old stock and gas prices.

[Exile_In_SJ]

not naive at all, the percentage of the people you describe is very small in the whole electorate. If they were larger, then Democrats and the far left would never lose an election. As it is, they are a tiny minority.

[Exile_In_SJ]

Not many unemployed, but many who are effected, by relatives, or by just plain old stock and gas prices.


agreed, but it's wrong to assume they'd be Kerry/ Edwards supporters.

[errand]

And I'm saying that to those who are unemployed, without health care and wondering where the next meal is coming from....the war on terror is a secondary concern.........advantage: Kerry/Edwards, period.

Just curious...anyone on this board unemployed? without healthcare? wondering where their next meal is coming from?

[Exile_In_SJ]

anyway, paperwork beckons. be well friends and adversaries.

[SJ Bronco]

True, but its the reason that many people are centering on domestic issues, that was my only point, sorry, gotta clear that up. I think Kerry/edwards attracts those that are centered on domestic issues though. I have no numbers to back that up. You and I live in the same place, you know how it is around here. Its pro left and if you have to work hard to keep centered.

[Hogan11]

Just curious...anyone on this board unemployed? without healthcare? wondering where their next meal is coming from?

Maybe not on this board....but if you think (like Exile does) that it's an insignifigant percentage...you're gravely mistaken.

[SJ Bronco]

Just curious...anyone on this board unemployed? without healthcare? wondering where their next meal is coming from?

No, but I personaly know many who are. Does that help you?

[WaffleBoy]

Just curious...anyone on this board unemployed? without healthcare? wondering where their next meal is coming from?

I bet those questions won’t be asked by the Republican party to the public in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. ;D

The Boy Wonder ;)

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Oh, sometimes you're so naive

and you're desperate to somehow spin this as an even debate after you've discussed for so long how Edwards would clean Cheney's clock. He held back? You wish. This was the only debate between the two and neither have been getting much press attention the past few weeks b/c they're not on top of the ticket. Like you admitted you overestimated Edwards (severely) and underestimated Cheney. He beat Lieberman too four years ago.

I expected more then "holding back" as your spin for Edwards, after your 6 months of hype.

[-Slap-]

I missed the whole thing. Watched Johan Santana shut down the Yankees instead. I'm confident I made the right decision.

[errand]

Maybe not on this board....but if you think (like Exile does) that it's an insignifigant percentage...you're gravely mistaken.

I've asked hundreds of people these same questions and none of them say they face these problems. I don't have healthcare, but then again I choose not and gave my reasons why in another thread debating LABF and his cronies about it. I invest whatever money I'd spend on healthcare, and barring a catastrophic illness like cancer hitting me in the next decade, I've been able to pay my doctors in full after every visit, and I have the freedom to choose whoever and whereever I want for my care.

anyways, back to the starving masses.....

I just don't see the soup lines that Kerry and Edwards claim to be seeing...where are they?

and as Exile noted, if the pct of people who fell under these categories was huge like you claim, the Dems would never lose an election.

This nation is very compassionate....hell even homeless people can get food stamps, so to say people are wondering where there next meal is coming fom is not factual.

Healthcare? amazing I saw several people being interviewed at a mall about healthcare costs and whether or not they have it, and each of them had bags from some top notch clothing stores, and had cell phones but they didn't have healthcare? What's wrong with this picture? You can afford $200 phones and wireless plans, and GAP and Tommy clothes, but healthcare is unattainable for you?

these people can afford it...but choose not to spend the money because it isn't important to them...either that or they're waiting on the Dems to provide it for them. (Don't hold your breath guys)

People out of work...sure there are, but reality is that not all who lost their jobs are victims...some people deserve to be fired. I wonder how many unemployed people on the books were fired because they failed a drug test, or stole from their company, or were incarcerated for a crime and missed work? how many of them just quit and decided to start their own businesses? Or went back to school? BTW, the number of unemployment benefit claims has gone down each month. and if Kerry was sooo concerned for those who were out of work, why didn't he make it to congress to vote on that extra 13 week extension that was killed by ONE SOLITARY VOTE?

[Hogan11]

and you're desperate to somehow spin this as an even debate after you've discussed for so long how Edwards would clean Cheney's clock. He held back? You wish. This was the only debate between the two and neither have been getting much press attention the past few weeks b/c they're not on top of the ticket. Like you admitted you overestimated Edwards (severely) and underestimated Cheney. He beat Lieberman too four years ago.

I expected more then "holding back" as your spin for Edwards, after your 6 months of hype.

Desperate? Ha! That's a hot one....I admitted I was disappointed with Edwards performance...Instead of KOing Cheney (like he could have) he played nice guy and didn't...I can, at least, be fair enough to admit a subpar performance when I see one.....which is more than some W worshippers around here can ever do.

[errand]

I bet those questions won’t be asked by the Republican party to the public in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. ;D

The Boy Wonder ;)

Wow, 3 states having employment problems...so tell me how are the other 47 doing? BTW, will the Dems explain how when Bush wanted to extend their unemployment benefits an extra 13 weeks, Kerry missed the vote and it died by one measly vote?

[errand]

No, but I personaly know many who are. Does that help you?

That's odd, because I couldn't name one person I personally know that is struggling with finding work, getting healthcare or feeding their families.

[WaffleBoy]

Wow, 3 states having employment problems...so tell me how are the other 47 doing? BTW, will the Dems explain how when Bush wanted to extend their unemployment benefits an extra 13 weeks, Kerry missed the vote and it died by one measly vote?

Those three little states will have the most impact in deciding this election.

The Boy Wonder ;)

[Hogan11]

Wow, 3 states having employment problems...so tell me how are the other 47 doing? BTW, will the Dems explain how when Bush wanted to extend their unemployment benefits an extra 13 weeks, Kerry missed the vote and it died by one measly vote?

Your long winded post aside...the point is the swing states are not doing well and they can determine the election...until circumstances improve in those states...the whole election, regardless on how the rest of the nation is doing, is up in the air....domestic issues are huge there and on that front, the GOP is not very strong at all.

[SJ Bronco]

Just because you don't know them errand, doesn't mean they don't exist. Does it matter if you know any or not? im puzzled by that. The FACT is, its a problem more now than it was 4 years ago. How you believe that happened is up to you, but you can't debate the fact that it is a problem.

[errand]

I don't see that many people holding up "will work for food" signs these days....

I never said that they don't exist....I'm questioning the number of that that do exist. you seem to think there are enough of them to swing this election...I doubt that's true.

and sure these swing states will help decide the election, but the fact remains Bush's poll numbers are better than Kerry's in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

John Skywalker vs. Darth Cheney

VP GoFyourself basically lied through his teeth for 90 minutes. Fortunately, John Edwards was there to bust him on those lies.

Just like bush, Deferment Dick couldn't deny most of the charges that were leveled against him and his crooked administration--he merely went for the deflection and the 15 second soundbite repetition "strategery."

Wall St. Journal poll:

Dick Cheney
360 votes (5%)

John Edwards
6862 votes (94%)

http://discussions.wsj.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=wsjvoices&tid=3301&vote=2&submit=Vote

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Cheney claims he never met Edwards before

I wonder if Cheney is capable of ever telling the truth?

"Congressman Wamp, Senator Edwards, friends from across America, and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world: Lynne and I are honored to be with you all this morning."

http://atrios.blogspot.com

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Edwards Nailed Him To the Wall About Halliburton.

They're still getting money despite the fact they are under investigation which is itself illegal.

Cheney acted just like Smirk, e.g., voice shaky, repeating himself over and over again. No substance. The only difference is that Smirk looked like a deer in headlights while Cheney's demeanor was that of a creepy, mumbling ghoul who drones on in a weird monotone and constantly looks down when speaking.

[SJ Bronco]

I didn't say poor people would be the swng vote. I dare you to quote me.

I said there are enough people effected by others financial troubles that it gives them an interest in domestic issues. Thats it. Stop reading into things so much there sparky.

[Nuggets4]

II just don't see the soup lines that Kerry and Edwards claim to be seeing...where are they?

Originally posted on bash.org (http://www.bash.org/?38815)
rhraz_w3rk: recession? pshh, i haven't seen one hobo yet!
ESD-Wyrk: that's cause you need to go outside to see one
ESD-Wyrk: most of them aren't 'online'

[RunByDesign]

Man, I wish I would have got to watch the VP debate. :-/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Edwards clearly had Cheney shaking and nervous and looking away most of the time. The fact that Edwards repeatedly pointed to Cheney's lies and distortions and general malfeasance in office and relentlessly went after Cheney's and Bush's deceptions was a very good move. The fact that he did it without being "mean" was great too. He just calmly and forcefully recited the facts while Cheney looked more and more bilious; indeed, he was quite yellow on my split screen, shading somewhat to green. The fact that he seemed afraid to look at Edwards much of the time was... interesting.

Gwen was awful, just awful, and was certainly trying to give Cheney the advantage. The fact that Cheney came across as bad as he did despite her help shows what foul creeps this whole regime and its enablers really are. Gwen has been a primary enabler, always toadying to the perception of power.

The CBS focus group gave the contest to Edwards, most of the online polls give it to Edwards in a blow out. The pundits are on Cheney's side but, because they have no credibility with anyone, seem to be hedging for the most part, calling it a draw. Edwards won on optimism and hope (which will be spun as "emotionalism.") Cheney was less venal and foul and vicious than he usually appears, and seemed both tired and frustrated through most of it, since his lies take a toll even on him. Those media lapdogs who are claiming Cheney was a clear winner are simply throwing out BFEE spin hoping for a cushy position when in exile. It's pathetic.

[baja]

I am now watching the replay of the debate and Chaney is doing much better early on that he did in the last 60 minutes. I now call this 60 - 40 Edwards

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Cheney's main tactic is to bore you to death and put you to sleep while he's lying to you in the hope that you won't notice the lies.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

During the VP debate, Cheney suggested that viewers should go to "factcheck.com" to get the facts.

I -HIGHLY- suggest that you do as Dick sez.

You'll wet your pants laughing.

(Pass it on!)

[JCMElway]

I dunno, I'm an average Joe and he connected with me.

He connected with you because you're a Republican! And that shocks who?......

J

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Tracking Cheney's Debate Lies

Cheney vs. Reality

IRAQ

CHENEY: "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." – Dick Cheney [Presidential Debates, 10/5/04]

REALITY:

Cheney Made That Claim repeatedly before and after the war

Cheney: “His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists.” [Cheney Remarks, 12/2/02]

Cheney: “I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government.” [National Public Radio, “Morning Edition,” 1/22/04]

FACT: 9-11 Commission Report Said No “Collaborative Operational Relationship” Existed Between Iraq and Al Qaeda. “We have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.” [9-11 Commission Final Report, 7/22/04]

FACT: Senate Intelligence Committee Report Found No “Established, Formal” Relationship Between Iraq and Al Qaeda. “The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report said CIA analysts were reasonable in their conclusion that there was no ‘established, formal’ relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, nor proof that the two had collaborated in attacks. The committee noted that no new information had emerged since the CIA’s key reports to suggest otherwise.” [LA Times, 7/10/04]

FACT: Secretary Rumsfeld Said On October 4, 2004, that He Had No “Hard Evidence” to Link Two. “…To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.” [Donald Rumsfeld at Council on Foreign Relations, 10/4/04]

CHENEY: “And with respect to this operation, we have seen the situation in which, first, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry. Then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed, body armor, spare parts and ammunition, they voted against it.” – Dick Cheney [Presidential Debates, 10/5/04]

REALITY:

Kerry has been Absolutely Clear on Supporting Our Troops

John Kerry Voted to Fund Iraq’s Reconstruction Through Shared Sacrifice - Not a Blank Check for a Failed Policy. After witnessing the way in which the president went to war - without our allies, without properly equipping the troops, without a plan to win the peace - John Kerry supported a responsible plan to pay for George Bush’s $87 billion Iraq reconstruction plan, co-sponsoring and voting for an amendment to rescind the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans in order to pay for Iraq. The amendment failed, and the Bush administration still has no plan to win the peace or a way to pay the bill. “The best way to support our troops and take the target off their backs is with a real strategy to win the peace in Iraq - not by throwing $87 billion at George Bush's failed policies,” Kerry said. “I am voting ‘no’ on the Iraq resolution to hold the President accountable and force him finally to develop a real plan that secures the safety of our troops and stabilizes Iraq.” [SA 1796, Kerry original cosponsor 10/1/03; Vote #373, 10/2/03; Vote #400, 10/17/03; Kerry statement, Congressional Record, 10/17/03]

This Was A Vote to Protest Bush’s Failed Policy in Iraq - Kerry KNEW the $87 Billion Would Pass: “KERRY: It will get about 90 votes, maybe 85 votes. There's no question it will pass. But I think it is important to make it clear to America this is not the right way. We are--I mean, look, we're spending $30,000 for pickup trucks in this bill. We've got $6,000 cell phones. We're building prisons for them for years to come. We have an extraordinary amount of padding in this expenditure, and we do not have the kind of support on the ground that really protects our troops. There's a better way to carry out this policy, and I intend to stand up and fight for America's interests, for our troops' interests, for the long-term security of our country, and that's what I'm doing with this vote.” [CNBC Capital Report, 10/17/03]

WHITE HOUSE THREATENED TO VETO ITS OWN BILL

White House Threatened to Veto $87 Billion if Congress Made the Funds a Loan. George Bush repeatedly says on the campaign trail that “There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.” But “The White House threatened … to veto its own spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan if Congress made reconstruction aid a loan, taking its most forceful stand on the issue even as more lawmakers supported a reimbursement by Iraq. … ‘If this provision is not removed, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill,’ Joshua B. Bolten, the White House budget director, wrote in a letter to Congressional leaders.” [Bush remarks, 9/13/04; New York Times, 10/22/03]

WAR ON TERRORISM

CHENEY: “We heard Senator Kerry say the other night there should be some global test before U.S. Troops are deployed preemptively to protect the United States.”– Dick Cheney [Presidential Debates, 10/5/04]

REALITY: John Kerry Will Not Hesitate to Use Military Force to Protect America

Kerry Will Never Hesitate To Use Military Force To Preempt Any Imminent Threat to America’s Security. “As president, I will never hesitate to use military force to pre-empt any imminent threat to our nations security. I will never give any country or any international institution a veto over our national security. I will use all of America's power to defeat terrorists before they strike us.” [Associated Press, 9/16/04]

Kerry Has Said He Would Launch Preemptive Strikes Against Terrorists. “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Friday he would be willing to launch a pre-emptive strike against terrorists if he had adequate intelligence of a threat. Kerry offered some support for one of the most controversial aspects of President Bush's national security policy, even as he criticized the president for not reforming intelligence agencies after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. ‘Am I prepared as president to go get them before they get us if we locate them and have the sufficient intelligence? You bet I am,’ he said at a news conference at his Washington headquarters.” [Associated Press, 7/16/04]

Kerry: "The President Always Has The Right, And Always Has Had The Right For Preemptive Strike." [First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04]

CHENEY: “Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror, that they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghdad; he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; and he had an established relationship with al Qaeda.”

REALITY: Cheney’s Halliburton Did Business With Iraq, Iran; Both Were State Sponsors of Terrorism

While Cheney Was CEO, Halliburton Acquired Companies That Held Contracts With Saddam. Despite the fact that Cheney claimed that we've not done any business in Iraq since the sanctions are imposed, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that, under Cheneys leadership, Halliburton acquired two subsidiaries which had signed contracts to sell more than $ 73 million in oil production equipment to Iraq under the oil-for-food program. The subsidiaries, based in France, sold water and sewage treatment pumps, spare parts for oil facilities and pipeline equipment to Baghdad through French affiliates from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000, U.N. records show. The subsidiaries traded with Iraq for more than a year under Cheney, signing nearly $30 million in contracts before Cheney sold off Halliburtons stake in the subsidiaries. [Washington Post, 6/23/01; Petroleum Economist, 6/93; ABC News, This Week, 7/30/00]

Under Cheney, Halliburton Subsidiaries Did Business In Iran. Under Cheneys leadership, Halliburton bought out Dresser Industries in 1998 and, subsequently, acquired Dressers subsidiary Kellogg Iran. A report release by New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson showed that Halliburton had opened an office in Iran under the name Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., its Cayman Islands subsidiary, in February 2000 and forecasts more than $39 million worth of services for 2003. A 60 Minutes report found little separation between Halliburton headquarters and their Cayman subsidiary and that if mail for the Halliburton subsidiary comes here, to this address, they reroute it to Halliburton headquarters in Houston. [Houston Chronicle, 12/15/03; Office of New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, 12/15/03; Halliburton Co. 10-Q, 5/7/04; Halliburton 10-K, 4/5/99; Russian Oil and Gas Report, 6/27/01; ABC, This Week, 7/30/00; New York Times, 9/10/02; CBS News, 60 Minutes, 1/25/04]

IRAN

Q: “After four years of vice president and with Iran having been declared by your administration as part of the axis of evil, do you still believe we should lift sanctions on Iran?

CHENEY: “No, I do not. And at the time I was talking specifically about this question of unilateral sanctions.”

REALITY: Cheney Pushed To Have Sanctions Lifted

While in Canada, Cheney Called for End to U.S. Sanctions Against Iran. In June 2000, Cheney called for an end to U.S. sanctions against Iran. Speaking at the World Petroleum Congress in Calgary, Canada, Cheney said, “I would hope we could find ways to improve [US-Iran relations]. One of the ways I think is to allow American firms to do the same thing that most other firms around the world are able to do now, and that is to be active in Iran. ... We’re kept out of there primarily by our own government, which has made a decision that U.S. firms should not be allowed to invest significantly in Iran, and I think that’s a mistake.” Cheney said Halliburton has some operations in Iran through foreign subsidiaries, but that “we would like to do more than we’re able to do in Iran at present.” [Hart’s Middle East Oil and Gas, 6/27/00; Calgary Herald, 6/15/00]

Cheney Called Getting U.S. Business Into Iran His “Favorite Hobby Horse.” When he ran Halliburton, Cheney “frequently complained about the Iran sanctions. In a 1998 speech he called the topic ‘my favorite hobby horse,’ arguing that unilateral U.S. sanctions aimed at changing other nations’ behaviors usually end up penalizing U.S. companies.” [Dallas Morning News, 9/8/04]

ECONOMY

CHENEY: “We have added 1.7 million jobs to the economy.”– Dick Cheney [Presidential Debates, 10/5/04]

REALITY:

The Economy is 7 million jobs Short of Bush Administration Prediction. The economy needed to create more than 6 million jobs during the Bush administration just to keep up with population growth. In fact, the 2002 Economic Report of the President projected more than 6 million new jobs between January 2001 and August 2004. Instead, we have lost 900,000 million jobs. As a result, we are more than 7 million jobs short of the prediction which President Bush made after 9/11, the tech bubble, and the recession. [BLS and Economic Report of the President, 2002. Note the Economic Report of the President projected an average of 138.3 million jobs in 2004. That corresponds to roughly 138.7 million jobs in August; the actual jobs total in August was 131.5 million.]

CHENEY: “We, of course, have been through a difficult recession and then the aftermath of 9/11 where we lost over a million jobs after that attack..”– Dick Cheney [Presidential Debate*s, 10/5/04]

REALITY:

MANY PRESIDENTS HAVE FACED WAR AND MANAGED TO CREATE JOBS. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George Bush Sr. all faced wars and managed to create jobs. Franklin Roosevelt led America toward victory in World War II, after recovering from a devastating attack upon Pearl Harbor. Yet Roosevelt still managed to create jobs: from 1941 until his death in 1945, FDR created 5,567,000 private sector jobs. Truman led the United States to victory over Japan in World War II, and acted to prevent Communist North Korea from taking over South Korea, yet he managed to create 6,452,000 private sector jobs during his term. LBJ committed the United States to the divisive war in Vietnam, yet managed to create 9,458,000 private sector jobs during his term. Nixon faced the Vietnam War, yet created 7,117,000 private sector jobs during his term.The first Bush’s recession lasted July 1990-March 1991. George H.W. Bush led a victorious world coalition against Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Yet George H.W. Bush created 1,465,000 private sector jobs during his term. [Bureau of Labor Statistics; National Bureau of Economic Research]

FACT: Bush On Track To Become First President Since Hoover To Experience Net Job Loss. Despite the fact the other presidents faced challenges such as Pearl Harbor, World War II, Vietnam, and a number of recessions-and all of whom created jobs during their terms-Bush blames 9/11 for the net job losses during his term in office. Bush has lost 1.6 million private sector jobs since taking office. [Bureau of Labor Statistics]

SMALL BUSINESS

CHENEY: “A great many of our small businesses pay taxes under the personal income taxes rather than the corporate, and about nine hundred thousand small businesses will be hit if you do in fact do what they want to do at the top bracket. That's not smart because 7 out of 10 new jobs in america are created by small businesses. You do not want to tax them. Bad idea to increase the burden on those folks.”– Dick Cheney [Presidential Debates, 10/5/04]

REALITY:

Undoing Tax Cuts Will Have Little Impact on Small Businesses. According to the Wall Street Journal, undoing tax cuts "Will Have Little Impact on Small Businesses" and “Bush Assertion on Tax Cuts Is at Odds With IRS Data,” according to the Washington Post. George Bush uses a misleading definition of small business, a definition that factcheck.org points out would include George Bush himself because “He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise.” The Wall Street Journal says that, “Few of them [small businesses] make enough money to be affected by Sen. Kerry's proposal to undo the Bush tax cuts on those with incomes above $200,000.” Finally, the Bush charges ignore the 35 million small businesses that pay lower taxes under the Kerry proposals – including tax cuts for small businesses that create jobs, provide health insurance, zero capital gains for startup investments in small businesses, and a 5 percent reduction in the corporate rate. [Wall Street Journal, “Undoing Tax Cuts Will Have Little Impact on Small Businesses,” 4/1/2004; Washington Post, “Bush Assertion on Tax Cuts Is at Odds With IRS Data,” 2/24/2004; factcheck.org, “A Bush-Cheney ad says Kerry would raise taxes for 900,000 ‘small businesses’ and ‘hurt jobs.’ It’s a big exaggeration,” 9/23/2004]

EDUCATION

CHENEY: “I think the most important thing we can do is have a first class public school system. I'm a product of public schools much the president's first legislative priority was the no child left behind act, the first legislation we introduced and we got it passed that first summer on a bipartisan basis.” – Dick Cheney [Presidential Debates, 10/5/04]

REALITY:

Cheney Twice Voted Against Creation of Department of Education, Repeatedly Voted Against Education and Head Start Funding. In 1979, Cheney voted against the House passage of the bill and the conference report that created the Department of Education. Cheney also voted against the House version, which passed 210 to 206; the conference report passed 215 to 201. Over his career in Congress, Cheney voted against funding the Department of Education on at least 12 occasions, as well as repeatedly voting against funding for Head Start. [H.R. 2444, 1979 CQ Almanac, p. 87-H, #289; S. 210, 1979 CQ Almanac, p. 137, #468; H.R. 4389, 7998 7205, 3913, 6028, 3424, 5233, 3058, 4783, 4091, 3058, 4783; H.R. 4298, 5145, 5885, 4421]

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

WHAT CHENEY FAILED TO MENTION: ENERGY

WHAT CHENEY DIDN’T TALK ABOUT: HIS SUPPORT FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS AND OPPOSITION TO CONSUMERS ON ENERGY

Cheney Sponsored Energy Act That Would Have Taxed Consumers and Helped Oil Companies. In 1986 and 1987, Cheney sponsored the “Energy Security Policy Act,” that imposed a 25 cents per gallon tax on gasoline, heating oil and other petroleum and, through an import fee, established a price floor for oil. The bill established a price floor by imposing an import fee equal to the difference between $24 per barrel and the international price of crude for the previous four weeks. Shortly after introducing the legislation, Cheney said “Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States.” [HR 5667, 99th Congress, 1986; HR 1066, 100th Congress, 1987; New York Times, 4/6/04]

· Cheney Personally Profited from Rising Gas Prices in 2000. Vice President Cheney sold his stock in Halliburton in June 2000 for $5.1 million and his stock increased $1.4 million in value due to rising gas and oil prices that drove up the value of Halliburton stock. In August 2000, Cheney exercised stock options and sold 660,000 shares between Aug. 21 and 28, 2000 for $35 million; Halliburton shares were soaring because of high oil prices. Cheney made an $18.5 million profit selling his shares for more than $52 each in August 2000. [Washington Post, 7/16/02; Associated Press, 7/25/00; Boston Globe, 7/25/00]

· Cheney Led Administration Energy Task Force; Fought To Keep Details Secret. In 2001, President Bush created an energy task force and appointed Vice President Dick Cheney as its chair. After meeting with a number of industry groups, Cheney refused to give the General Accounting Office details of the meetings. Cheney took his efforts to keep secret the details of the meeting all the way to the Supreme Court. Task force documents that were released revealed that the task force “relied almost exclusively on the advice of executives from utilities and producers of oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy,” according to the Washington Post. [New York Times, 1/30/01, 2/23/02; Financial Times, 8/2/02; Los Angeles Times, 1/17/04, 6/25/04; Washington Post, 3/26/02]

· Lay Had Personal Access to Cheney, Energy Task Force. According to the New York Times, “Lay also had access to the team writing the White House’s energy report, which embraces several initiatives and issues dear to Enron. The report’s recommendations include finding ways to give the federal government more power over electricity transmission networks, a longtime goal of the company that was spelled out in a memorandum Mr. Lay discussed during a 30-minute meeting earlier this spring with Mr. Cheney. Mr. Cheney’s report includes much of what Mr. Lay advocated during their meeting, documents show.” [New York Times, 5/25/01]

[broncogary]

And I'm saying that to those who are unemployed, without health care and wondering where the next meal is coming from....the war on terror is a secondary concern.........advantage: Kerry/Edwards, period.

These people are also typically non-voters.

[broncogary]

Anyway, I'm a R, but I only watched the first half-hour of the debate. Basically, I thought Cheney looked a little nervous at first ( a lot of hand-wringing) but started to relax after a while.

From what I saw, they were just taking turns calling each other liars.

[Mile High Shack]

I am now watching the replay of the debate and Chaney is doing much better early on that he did in the last 60 minutes. I now call this 60 - 40 Edwards

your insane

Cheney waxed the floor with that guy

at worst it's a 50-50 split...at the worst

your homerism blinds you.....I can even admit Bush got beat in the debate last week.

aren't you one of the ones that cried how Edwards would just KILL Cheney.....or was it Hogan?

[patteeu]

Bush reached across the isle?? When?

Repeatedly at the beginning of his administration. He became more cautious after he pulled back a bloody stump time after time.

[patteeu]

Yeah... Wingleader's typical response when you make an observation that puts Bush in a negative light is to say it came straight from the Democratic talking points... Even when the observation is made on the fly.

You're better than Wingleader. You shouldn't be plagerizing his stuff...

Hercules is good, but no one is better than RINGLEADER at football forum political debate.

[patteeu]

I'd have to agree with what Chris Matthews just said on hardball, to paraphrase,

Edwards would take some shots with a squirt gun and Cheney would respond with a howitzer.

Cheney wins, he was more prepared, more knowlegeable, had more gravitas. I'd say a 55-45 wn for Cheney

I tend to agree with this, but I don't think Edwards damaged his ticket nor do I think he damaged his prospects for 2008. I don't think Edwards said anything that can be used against him that compares to the "global test" gaffe from Kerry.

[Mile High Shack]

agreed, I take back my statement that Cheney waxed the floor with him

I think it was probably 55-45 as stated above

both had good points and Cheney showed he can think on his feet.

[patteeu]

Yes, but I think those very issues now divide them now. Most of that was in the aftermath of 911. I'd say 911 united us, not bush. Bush has intentionally thrown out issues that were ment to divide in order to distract from issues that were losing him poll points. IE: Gasy marriage... And Cheney all but said that tonight himself.

How on earth can you come to these conclusions?

The patriot act was bipartisan at first, but now it divides us? Whose fault is that? If he reached across the aisle to compromise and develop a bipartisan patriot act, then how can he be faulted when the democrats decide to change their mind (for political reasons in my view, but that's beside the point)?

Same with NCLB. Bush was willing to compromise with democrats (led by Ted Kennedy) on NCLB, but now democrats complain because they didn't get everything they want. That's the nature of compromise, you don't get everything you want. Bush didn't get the school voucher program he (and many of his conservative supporters) wanted. The division here comes from the democrats who accepted the offered hand and then chewed it off.

Bush is dividing us with gay marriage? He isn't the one who pushed this issue to the forefront. He isn't the one who misinterpretted the US constitution and forced the Mass. legislature to amend their state constitution. He isn't the one who started marrying gay couples in contravention of current law. He is reacting to a democrat provocation not provoking the democrats. I'm in favor of gay marriage, but it's not fair to blame this bit of divisivenss on Bush.

Do you not see any acts of disunity from the democrats? Doesn't it take efforts from both sides to actually achieve unity? Bush can make efforts to bring unity, but if he doesn't have a "partner for peace" he can't make it happen.

[Hogan11]

These people are also typically non-voters.

"typically" non-voters.....and you're willing to bank on that in a very close election. That could prove to be a costly error.

[Hogan11]

your insane

Cheney waxed the floor with that guy

at worst it's a 50-50 split...at the worst

your homerism blinds you.....I can even admit Bush got beat in the debate last week.

aren't you one of the ones that cried how Edwards would just KILL Cheney.....or was it Hogan?

Yeah that was me and I addressed my disppointment with Edwards performance a page or two back....I'm not about to do it again.

[Mile High Shack]

Yeah that was me and I addressed my disppointment with Edwards performance a page or two back....I'm not about to do it again.

sorry dude, I didn't read the whole thread, it's my ADD kicking in lol

[patteeu]

I dunno, I'm an average Joe and he connected with me.

You might be an average Joe, but around here you are way above average. :D

I agree with you about Cheney though. As several non-Bush-supporters said earlier in the thread (and I thought Taco was one of them), Cheney is likeable (i.e. he connects). Surprisingly likeable to those who have bought into the false characature of him. Not-so-surprisingly likeable to those of us who had a clearer view to begin with.

[patteeu]

Just curious...anyone on this board unemployed? without healthcare? wondering where their next meal is coming from?

I'm always wondering where my next meal will come from, but I'm not eating what the democrats are cooking.

[baja]

your insane

Cheney waxed the floor with that guy

at worst it's a 50-50 split...at the worst

your homerism blinds you.....I can even admit Bush got beat in the debate last week.

aren't you one of the ones that cried how Edwards would just KILL Cheney.....or was it Hogan?

So am I still insane now that you have flip-floped? :)

[Mile High Shack]

So am I still insane now that you have flip-floped? :)

yeah...I admit I flip flopped

the more I thought about it, the more I think it was closer to a tie, but Cheney held his own and appeared strong, something Bush has to do

[bendog]

I am now watching the replay of the debate and Chaney is doing much better early on that he did in the last 60 minutes. I now call this 60 - 40 Edwards

TrickyDicktheLesser seemed to get tired or worn down. At one pt, Mrs. Dog said "Cheney's losing his color," LOL. Frankly the debate 'forced' me to drink a bottle of cheap merlot.

[Rohirrim]

I thought it was a draw. Both did what they needed to do. After Friday, nobody will remember this. What's interesting is how the poll on women voters suddenly shifted toward Kerry/Edwards. I guess it's the focus on domestic issues, eh ladies? Ha!

[Mile High Shack]

I thought it was a draw. Both did what they needed to do. After Friday, nobody will remember this. What's interesting is how the poll on women voters suddenly shifted toward Kerry/Edwards. I guess it's the focus on domestic issues, eh ladies? Ha!

yeah..that's it

not Edwards charm or "good looks"

:poke:

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I tend to agree with this, but I don't think Edwards damaged his ticket nor do I think he damaged his prospects for 2008. I don't think Edwards said anything that can be used against him that compares to the "global test" gaffe from Kerry.

If Kerry/Edwards loses, Edwards doesn't have much of a shot at winning the nomination in '08. You'll have Hillary and Obama in elected office getting much more media attention, and there's always going to be at least one or two people out there that no one currently knows about, that will beceome stars too. Edwards put all his eggs in his basket by accepting the VP nominee, if they don't win, he's relegated to a status below Gore's of the last 4 years. People usually don't want losers running again, and even if Edwards isn't seen as the cause of Kerry's defeat, he'll still be associated with it.

[Rohirrim]

What surprises me about this so far is that neither side is talking about energy, which I consider one of the biggest problems the U.S. faces in the near future. I'm especially surprised that Edwards didn't bring up Cheney's "secret" energy commission. Oh, well. Maybe they'll go there Friday night.

[bendog]

Exactly, Edwards is done if they lose. He can't even win his senate seat again. It's Billary's for the taking in 08, if Kerry loses, and I still think he will. Billary doesn't want Edwards. He's not DLC, nor does he bring anything to the ticket. Mrs Dog said "Will people vote for a woman?" I said, "but Billary's not really a woman."

[Rohirrim]

Frankly, I don't think I could vote for Hillary. She gives me the heebie jeebies. I guess, if that's the way it plays out, I'd have to go for Ralphie, which wouldn't be much of a choice either. Of course, Cheney won't run in '08, so maybe it will be McCain. Maybe that's why he's doing the Bushie butt kiss routine now - to get the GOP support in '08?

[baja]

Frankly, I don't think I could vote for Hillary. She gives me the heebie jeebies. I guess, if that's the way it plays out, I'd have to go for Ralphie, which wouldn't be much of a choice either. Of course, Cheney won't run in '08, so maybe it will be McCain. Maybe that's why he's doing the Bushie butt kiss routine now - to get the GOP support in '08?

McCain looks so bad I wonder if he will live to '08, have you seen him lately?

[Rohirrim]

McCain looks so bad I wonder if he will live to '08, have you seen him lately?

Yeah. You'd think him being from AZ he'd at least find himself in the sun every once in awhile. Ha!

[Hercules Rockefeller]

McCain will be, I think, 72 in '08 so he might be considered a little old though he's supposed to be in pretty good health for all he's been through. He's probably got a decent shot at winning.

If Hillary looks to have a good shot at the nomination, I think Republicans will go for "electability" like Ds did with Kerry this time around. That gives Giuliani a very good shot, despite his more moderate stances on social issues.

Owens is always thrown out there by the media and insiders in both parties, he might not have enough name recognition among the rank-and-file though.

[baja]

Yeah. You'd think him being from AZ he'd at least find himself in the sun every once in awhile. Ha!

No really, face swollen and puffy, sacks under eyes, eyes jaundiced looking, dude looks seriously toxic.

[Mile High Shack]

besides his liberal slant on some domestic issues, I like Guilianny.......call me a bad republican, but I wouldn't mind seeing him in 08.

[bendog]

No really, face swollen and puffy, sacks under eyes, eyes jaundiced looking, dude looks seriously toxic.

I'd think he was taking enough vioxx to stun a water buffalo.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

besides his liberal slant on some domestic issues, I like Guilianny.......call me a bad republican, but I wouldn't mind seeing him in 08.

If Bush wins and there are multiple retirements on the Supreme Court that he gets to replace, I think you'll see the conservative wing being willing to tolerate a social moderate if they get a conservative Veep nominee to balance the ticket.

[bendog]

If BushII gets four more years, O'conner and Rhenquist will retire w/n a year. However, I heard law prof's on Tavis Smiley this AM saying no matter what this election is heading back to the supreme court. A sad prospect.

[baja]

Couldn't find the pic I was looking for thought this was funny



http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/03spr/images/topdogs5.jpg

[Hercules Rockefeller]

If BushII gets four more years, O'conner and Rhenquist will retire w/n a year. However, I heard law prof's on Tavis Smiley this AM saying no matter what this election is heading back to the supreme court. A sad prospect.

Yep and I've heard Stevens would have left immediately after a Gore election, but held on hoping that Bush would lose this year.

If the election is 3-4 points in one candidate's direction, the losing party would face severe public backlash by taking it to the courts, especially if the state that is being contested won't give the Presidency to the other side.

[patteeu]

If Kerry/Edwards loses, Edwards doesn't have much of a shot at winning the nomination in '08. You'll have Hillary and Obama in elected office getting much more media attention, and there's always going to be at least one or two people out there that no one currently knows about, that will beceome stars too. Edwards put all his eggs in his basket by accepting the VP nominee, if they don't win, he's relegated to a status below Gore's of the last 4 years. People usually don't want losers running again, and even if Edwards isn't seen as the cause of Kerry's defeat, he'll still be associated with it.

I don't necessarily agree with this. I'm not suggesting that Edwards would be the front runner in 2008, but I think a Dan-Quayle-like performance (or even a Year-2000-Al-Gore-like performance) would have torpedoed any chance he'd have. He wants to run as a positive candidate, and although he did launch some attacks in this debate, I think he did it in a way that he can still return to his positive persona if he runs for the top of the ticket in 2008. I think Edwards still has potential (although I personally don't like him at all).

Hillary will be formidable in the primaries, but electability will be a concern. She will probably deserve the front-runner label. I don't think Obama will be a very strong candidate if he were to run in 2008. He will be too green, and frankly I think a black man running as a democrat would have problems getting elected president in 2008. Maybe if Obama leaves the Senate at some point in the future and becomes governor of Illinois, he might make a strong candidate in 2112 or 2116, but I don't think he's a factor in 2008 as anything other than VP material.

My bet though is that the next dem nominee will be a governor from a non-coastal state.

[patteeu]

If John Elway would get off his ass and run for Governor, he might be a candidate for president someday.

(expecting to be overwhelmed with rep for that one, hehe).

[Falconer]

After watching the VP debate last night, I thought that Cheney won it easily. I was even a little surprised by the polls afterward. It wasn't like Edwards did half as bad as Bush did, but there is no way that he won that debate. After seeing those polls, I either am not going to believe another poll as long as I live or I am very concerned about the people who are voting in these things.

The funniest thing in this debate happened in the first minute. The moderator was introducing both of the candidates, and when she introduced Edwards he looked straight into the camera and gave a big used car salesman smile. My wife and I looked at each other and busted up laughing. Now I'm not saying Edwards is like a used car salesman, just that he gave the perfect look for one.

On a side note I have been looking for a good late night show to watch. I have tried the Daily show after the last couple of debates thinking I might like the political humor, but both times it has only bashed Bush and left Kerry untouched. I don't know if they always do that, but I like more equal opportunity humor (believe me both sides of the aisle have plenty of ammunition). I also turned over to Hardball last night and found it to be alright. He was critical of both the Reps. and Dems. I will have to tune in a few more times to see if this is the usual case. Having a dish now has really opened up my choices of what to watch. I just wish that all the channels were in HD instead of only a select few.

[baja]

After watching the VP debate last night, I thought that Cheney won it easily. I was even a little surprised by the polls afterward. It wasn't like Edwards did half as bad as Bush did, but there is no way that he won that debate. After seeing those polls, I either am not going to believe another poll as long as I live or I am very concerned about the people who are voting in these things.

The funniest thing in this debate happened in the first minute. The moderator was introducing both of the candidates, and when she introduced Edwards he looked straight into the camera and gave a big used car salesman smile. My wife and I looked at each other and busted up laughing. Now I'm not saying Edwards is like a used car salesman, just that he gave the perfect look for one.

On a side note I have been looking for a good late night show to watch. I have tried the Daily show after the last couple of debates thinking I might like the political humor, but both times it has only bashed Bush and left Kerry untouched. I don't know if they always do that, but I like more equal opportunity humor (believe me both sides of the aisle have plenty of ammunition). I also turned over to Hardball last night and found it to be alright. He was critical of both the Reps. and Dems. I will have to tune in a few more times to see if this is the usual case. Having a dish now has really opened up my choices of what to watch. I just wish that all the channels were in HD instead of only a select few.

Gota agree about that smile, lol, fortunately for those of us that want Bush out it got better for Edwards as it went along. Is the Kerry/Edwards ticket my ideal choice? No, but they will do far less damage to the US than 4 more years of Bush. Just as you have a hard time understanding how people thought Edwards won I have a hard time understanding how anyone could want four more years of Bush/Chaney given the horrendous mistakes and incredible lack of vision they have shown,

[Spider]

Hardball last night and found it to be alright. He was critical of both the Reps. and Dems. I will have to tune in a few more times to see if this is the usual case. Having a dish now has really opened up my choices of what to watch. I just wish that all the channels were in HD instead of only a select few.'Hardball is very down the middle I have found , one thing is for sure , dont go on Hardball with a line of crap or try to spin somthing that isnt true , Chris Mathews will call you out on it , no matter what side you are on ........ I found Hardball to be the closest to the middle of all the talking hair do's on the Boob tube .............

[Garcia Bronco]

Bottom line...polls are manufactured. Anyone who's taken a research methods class can tell you that.....if people are going off of internet polls....that's even worse....they're are totally unreliable and have zero scientific merit.

[Falconer]

Gota agree about that smile, lol, fortunately for those of us that want Bush out it got better for Edwards as it went along. Is the Kerry/Edwards ticket my ideal choice? No, but they will do far less damage to the US than 4 more years of Bush. Just as you have a hard time understanding how people thought Edwards won I have a hard time understanding how anyone could want four more years of Bush/Chaney given the horrendous mistakes and incredible lack of vision they have shown,

I just wish I had your understanding; this whole decision process would be easier on me. I do not particularly like the Bush/Cheney ticket, but neither do I like the Kerry/Edwards ticket. I agree that mistakes have been made and we have to figure out how to get out of this mess, but just saying we have to do it does not fix it in my opinion. It is always a lot easier to criticize than to be the one that makes the decisions.

I admit that I am a conservative leaning person on most issues, but I always consider my vote up for grabs as neither party ever seems to wow me. If one of these candidates would start telling the truth maybe that would do it for me, but if you think either one of them do it on any consistent basis I would probably consider you a partisan. In addition to that, half of their political base would probably have a coronary and they would lose the election because of it.

[baja]

I just wish I had your understanding; this whole decision process would be easier on me. I do not particularly like the Bush/Cheney ticket, but neither do I like the Kerry/Edwards ticket. I agree that mistakes have been made and we have to figure out how to get out of this mess, but just saying we have to do it does not fix it in my opinion. It is always a lot easier to criticize than to be the one that makes the decisions.

I admit that I am a conservative leaning person on most issues, but I always consider my vote up for grabs as neither party ever seems to wow me. If one of these candidates would start telling the truth maybe that would do it for me, but if you think either one of them do it on any consistent basis I would probably consider you a partisan. In addition to that, half of their political base would probably have a coronary and they would lose the election because of it.

We are very similar in our position on this election. Frankly if it were not for the unthinkable possibility of 4 years of an untethered Bush I might not even vote of more likely vote Libertarian. I truly believe the greatest threat to modern day United States is a reelected Bush. His record on the post war plan the economy and the environment are down right scary to me.

This makes the Kerry/Edwards ticket is an easy choice for me. I just wish Ralph Nader would wake up one morning soon and say, " For the good of the Nation I am withdrawing from the race and I ask my constituents to vote for Kerry/Edwards

[orinjkrush]

now, here's something completely different. the only reason that Cheney was given the "gravitas" award in the debate is because of the TIMBRE of his voice. you put edwards squeeky frequencies on Cheney's answers and he (Cheney) loses big time. Cheney does the Henry Kissinger act to perfection. The lower the voice frequency, the more "serious" the comment. Orinjkrush says....its not what said that counts, its how its said that matters. Nobody remembers what's said, only how (register) it's said.

[Hogan11]

now, here's something completely different. the only reason that Cheney was given the "gravitas" award in the debate is because of the TIMBRE of his voice. you put edwards squeeky frequencies on Cheney's answers and he (Cheney) loses big time. Cheney does the Henry Kissinger act to perfection. The lower the voice frequency, the more "serious" the comment. Orinjkrush says....its not what said that counts, its how its said that matters. Nobody remembers what's said, only how (register) it's said.

This is helped by Cheney's wringing hands muffling his mic on and off again all throughout the debate....a nervous tendency I found to be more annoying than anything else last night.

[errand]

This is helped by Cheney's wringing hands muffling his mic on and off again all throughout the debate....a nervous tendency I found to be more annoying than anything else last night.

...the person who was truly nervous was Edwards. On more than one occasion he'd begin his two minute answer trying to argue the previous question....

[baja]

...the person who was truly nervous was Edwards. On more than one occasion he'd begin his two minute answer trying to argue the previous question....

I thought the verbal gymnastics were quite impressive on that score Errand. Edwards, instead of leaving unfinished business, cleaned up the veiled accusations, made his point, effectively having the last word on the subject yet saving enough time to, with an economy of words, handle the new question in a succinct and understandable fashion. It showed a mental nimbleness that I want to see in my leaders, something Bush sorely lacks

[Taco John]

You might be an average Joe, but around here you are way above average. :D

I agree with you about Cheney though. As several non-Bush-supporters said earlier in the thread (and I thought Taco was one of them), Cheney is likeable (i.e. he connects). Surprisingly likeable to those who have bought into the false characature of him. Not-so-surprisingly likeable to those of us who had a clearer view to begin with.



Actually, as a non-Bush supporter (as opposed to a pro-Kerry supporter... I'm just in it for change), I was happy before to see Cheney remain on the ticket because he is so unlikable.

That being said, I think he won the debate... However, the fall-out of his lies might have yanked that out of his hands. If it came out true that he had never met Edwards, it might have been a slam dunk for him. But the end result where there is video of him sitting next to Edwards at a breakfast just makes him look like a conniving liar.

[Taco John]

McCain will be, I think, 72 in '08 so he might be considered a little old though he's supposed to be in pretty good health for all he's been through. He's probably got a decent shot at winning.

If Hillary looks to have a good shot at the nomination, I think Republicans will go for "electability" like Ds did with Kerry this time around. That gives Giuliani a very good shot, despite his more moderate stances on social issues.

Owens is always thrown out there by the media and insiders in both parties, he might not have enough name recognition among the rank-and-file though.



Evangelicals will never vote for Guliani... Not in the numbers that they would need to to beat a Hillary/Obama ticket.

McCain, however, would make a very strong candidate (IMO).

[Elevation 5280']

I thought the verbal gymnastics were quite impressive on that score Errand. Edwards, instead of leaving unfinished business, cleaned up the veiled accusations, made his point, effectively having the last word on the subject yet saving enough time to, with an economy of words, handle the new question in a succinct and understandable fashion. It showed a mental nimbleness that I want to see in my leaders, something Bush sorely lacks

Or in other words, he lies better.....but who cares? He looks good, sounds good, that's all we need in a VP, right?

It's all bs. All style, no substance......it's what the Democrats are all about. Sad thing is most voters are too lazy to actually learn about the candidates and issues.....if they did, I imagine that there would be very few Democrats. They here a good line of s**t, with little if any detail,and decide on style points who they are going to vote for. How else do you explain Clinton? High moral character? No. Integrity? No. Delivering on his numerous promises to the democrat base such as National Health Care? No. He was well spoken though. And Charming. I guess that's what is important to people....sad.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How else do you explain Clinton? High moral character? No. Integrity? No.

Says a genius who is backing a *president* whose lies and deliberate deception of the American people caused the unecessary deaths of >1,000 American soldiers, and whose careless mismanagement has created record budget deficits, out-of-control trade deficits, skyrocketing healthcare and energy costs, and the first net job loss since the great depression.

Your criterea for "moral character" and "integrity" are truly warped.

[Paladin]

I heard with interest that Cheaney said he'd not met Mr. Edwards until they met at the debate table. Then there was a reference to Mr Edwards being called "Senator Gone" by a local newspaper in North Carolina. The implication of all this is that Edwards was shirking his responsiblities as a Senator. I found these interesting Statistics concerning the votes cast by Mr. Edwards in the Senate :

1999 - Cast 371 out of 374 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2000 - Cast 298 out of 298 votes for a 100% voting record
2001 - Cast 377 out of 380 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2002 - Cast 253 out of 253 votes for a 100% voting record
2003 - Cast 281 out of 459 votes for a 61.2% voting record
2004 - Cast 84 out of 198 votes for a 42.4% voting record

OVERALL Edwards has cast 1664 out of 1962 votes for a 84.8% voting record.

And it is perfectly acceptable, as it has been throughout US history, for a Senator to miss sessions and votes due to campaigning for higher office.

Contrasting this, Cheaney had attended a Senate discussionand vote twice in the four years he's been there. Mostly, I think he has been in an undisclosed location. And I am not being entirely facetious with that last statement. Cheaney hadn't been to the Senate and that's why he'd not "met" Edwards, although it is known that they two men had met at twice before.

[Spider]

I heard with interest that Cheaney said he'd not met Mr. Edwards until they met at the debate table. Then there was a reference to Mr Edwards being called "Senator Gone" by a local newspaper in North Carolina. The implication of all this is that Edwards was shirking his responsiblities as a Senator. I found these interesting Statistics concerning the votes cast by Mr. Edwards in the Senate :

1999 - Cast 371 out of 374 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2000 - Cast 298 out of 298 votes for a 100% voting record
2001 - Cast 377 out of 380 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2002 - Cast 253 out of 253 votes for a 100% voting record
2003 - Cast 281 out of 459 votes for a 61.2% voting record
2004 - Cast 84 out of 198 votes for a 42.4% voting record

OVERALL Edwards has cast 1664 out of 1962 votes for a 84.8% voting record.

And it is perfectly acceptable, as it has been throughout US history, for a Senator to miss sessions and votes due to campaigning for higher office.

Contrasting this, Cheaney had attended a Senate discussionand vote twice in the four years he's been there. Mostly, I think he has been in an undisclosed location. And I am not being entirely facetious with that last statement. Cheaney hadn't been to the Senate and that's why he'd not "met" Edwards, although it is known that they two men had met at twice before.
you realy need to cut Cheney some slack here on his statement about meeting Edwards ........ Cheney was clearly too busy telling Patrick Lehey to go Cheney himself , too notice Edwards ;D

[Rohirrim]

I heard with interest that Cheaney said he'd not met Mr. Edwards until they met at the debate table. Then there was a reference to Mr Edwards being called "Senator Gone" by a local newspaper in North Carolina. The implication of all this is that Edwards was shirking his responsiblities as a Senator. I found these interesting Statistics concerning the votes cast by Mr. Edwards in the Senate :

1999 - Cast 371 out of 374 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2000 - Cast 298 out of 298 votes for a 100% voting record
2001 - Cast 377 out of 380 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2002 - Cast 253 out of 253 votes for a 100% voting record
2003 - Cast 281 out of 459 votes for a 61.2% voting record
2004 - Cast 84 out of 198 votes for a 42.4% voting record

OVERALL Edwards has cast 1664 out of 1962 votes for a 84.8% voting record.

And it is perfectly acceptable, as it has been throughout US history, for a Senator to miss sessions and votes due to campaigning for higher office.

Contrasting this, Cheaney had attended a Senate discussionand vote twice in the four years he's been there. Mostly, I think he has been in an undisclosed location. And I am not being entirely facetious with that last statement. Cheaney hadn't been to the Senate and that's why he'd not "met" Edwards, although it is known that they two men had met at twice before.

Good post. Senator Leahy said that whenever Cheney has shown up at the Senate, he watches him come in with a long line of limousines, sirens screaming, and then he goes straight into the GOP meeting room. Leahy said that Cheney has never met with the 49 Democratic Senators since he's been in office. So much for his answer to the question about how he was going to try to "cross the aisle" in his next term. Another lie.

The only time he met with the Dems was for the photo, where he took the time to tell Leahy to "Fuq off." Uniting, not dividing. rofl

[OrangeDoofus]

The only time he met with the Dems was for the photo, where he took the time to tell Leahy to "Fuq off." Uniting, not dividing. rofl

As Jon Stewart said on the Daily Show, "They never met before last night? Not even a friendly 'go **** yourself' in the hallway?"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Good post. Senator Leahy said that whenever Cheney has shown up at the Senate, he watches him come in with a long line of limousines, sirens screaming, and then he goes straight into the GOP meeting room. Leahy said that Cheney has never met with the 49 Democratic Senators since he's been in office. So much for his answer to the question about how he was going to try to "cross the aisle" in his next term. Another lie.

The only time he met with the Dems was for the photo, where he took the time to tell Leahy to "Fuq off." Uniting, not dividing. rofl

Lying seems to come as easily and naturally as breathing for Deferment Dick.

It's downright creepy.

[Hogan11]

...the person who was truly nervous was Edwards. On more than one occasion he'd begin his two minute answer trying to argue the previous question....

Nice try.

[Spider]

As Jon Stewart said on the Daily Show, "They never met before last night? Not even a friendly 'go **** yourself' in the hallway?"
LOL here it is http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml?reposid=/multimedia/indy04/9043.html
about 4:30 into the clip ..... funny stuff

[Hogan11]

Has anyone checked out Stewart's book yet??

I'm looking forward to doing so...

[errand]

Edwards wasn't going to win re-election here in NC. He had no choice but to run for president and accept the VP nomination. If he didn't he'd have to go back to suing OB/GYN's and raising our healthcare costs. So really either way he'll accomplish his goal.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Edwards wasn't going to win re-election here in NC. He had no choice but to run for president and accept the VP nomination.

Is this what Rush said, or did you consult your magic eight ball to get this information?

And, BTW, weren't people in NC saying the same thing when Edwards ran against another conservative idiot, viz., Jesse Helms?

If he didn't he'd have to go back to suing OB/GYN's and raising our healthcare costs.

The CBO released a report stating that medical malpractice suits accounted for <%1 of healthcare costs.

The facts you have to ignore to be a republican these days...

[patteeu]

And, BTW, weren't people in NC saying the same thing when Edwards ran against another conservative idiot, viz., Jesse Helms?

Educate me. What does the "viz." mean?