I can't wait for this debate, and hopefully Edwards will totally blow Cheney away. Edwards is a hard-working, self-made millionnaire who filed lawsuits against money-hungry corporations and helped so many working class men and women get back on their feet. He's the kind of guy that middle-class America should identify with...not a self-obsessed moneyman like Cheney who's constantly on the payroll of Halliburton and etc.
It's going on now.....Edwards is making some great points, but he could be doing a lot better. I think he's still winning, imo. With a lot of CHeney's responses, it turns into a "no, you're wrong, I'm right) thing that we can't possibly trust, and there seems to be a certain gravity around Kerry's "inconsistancy".
Exactly. Cheney is using smear-tactics on their reputations and saying they're wrong without backing up what he says is wrong. Edwards is making strong points, going on the offensive, and contradicting Cheney with evidence. I think he's doing great. Cheney is too boring and smart-assed.
Exactly. Cheney is using smear-tactics on their reputations and saying they're wrong without backing up what he says is wrong. Edwards is making strong points, going on the offensive, and contradicting Cheney with evidence. I think he's doing great. Cheney is too boring and smart-assed. [/b][/quote] That's not what everyone else is saying (no offense). The general reaction is that Cheney came very well prepared and that he beat Edwards extremely bad.
Cheney won. I don't care what anyone says. He did. John Edwards dropped the ball (and probably some votes).
I missed it on account of Nip/Tuck Anyways, from what I hear at other boards, Cheney won by a "knock-out". They're also saying that the Democrats are saying Edwards won because...well, they're Democrats. And vice-versa for the Republicans. Oh well.
Yeah, Cheney did win this one . But the presidential debates are what really matter, so I'm staying tuned for that.
Cheney owned Edwards in the first half of the debate, but I think Edwards had a slight edge in the second half. Edwards seems like a nice, personable guy. The problem is, Cheney is a rock and presents hard facts. Doesn't make friends, but it wins debates. That said, Cheney didn't respond to a lot of Edwards' accusations during the second half (domestic issues), making his whole argument against Edwards (or more accurately, Kerry) seem weaker. During the first half of the debate (forgein policies) Edwards repeated a lot of what we heard from Kerry last week--draw your own conclusions here. Cheney on the other hand said things we hadn't heard before, since as all of you know I'm sure, Bush didn't say much other then "War is hard work" in the first prez. debate. Speaking of Bush's tag line, what about Kerry's? "I have a plan." Which was repeated exactly or similarly ("We have a plan. Our plan.") 12 times. Not something that would effect your vote, but amusing none the less. Also, does anyone else agree that Edwards looked terrifed of Cheney, especially in the beginning of the debate? As it always goes. Sigh.
Ditto. Who cares what happened in the vice president debate? There are still 2 more presidental debates where dubya WILL get owned.
I wonder if Edwards would have won, would ya'lls attitude be the same towards this debate? Seems to me since that Cheney owned Edwards, you're dismissing this victory as meaningless, when quite frankly it's not.
No, my attitude wouldn't change, because this debate doesn't matter. By the time the 3rd presidental debate is overwith, people will have either forgotten about the vice president debate or won't give a crap about it. People are voting on a president. Not a vice president. The president is the one calling all the shots, the chance of the VP actually having to take over is next to nothing. So until the VP has to take over, they preside over the senate which is still a pretty powerless position since the other 100 guys vote on everything.
I think John Edwards was too repetitive. I didn't watch a lot of it, but from the few times I glanced at the TV, Richard Cheny was a much better debator. Even if he wasn't accurate, Cheny had a clear calm voice. I was just informed by one of my friends standing over me that both parties used repetetive topics and I'd believe he was right, even though I didn't see most of it.
No despite Kerry being too passive in last weeks debate, and Edwards getting practically owned in this debate some people still think Kerry and Edwards are champs in debating. Truth is they're not. You need to hit hard and be like a rock instead of passive and friendly when you're debating. The american people want someone who can hit hard and sustain his views and thats why Cheney won this debate. I knew he was going to without even watching it, and sure enough I was correct. No offense to Edwards' fans but I knew that with his experience and stern attitude, Cheney was going to sweep this debate no problem. Of course there are some democrats out there who will always vote democrat no matter what. Case in point: my brother. I wont lie and say I didn't formely support Kerry but as time went on my mind just changed drastically. I guess I pulled a Kerry eh?
Kerry and Edwards are very good Debaters, so is Cheney, but in a different way. Bush...well he just sucks and got slaughtered. Both Kerry and Edwards are not coming out fists flying, instead they are saying why the current 'plan' isn't working, what they intend to do about it, and how it will change. Bush sat there and mumbled nonsense, and Cheney sat there and shouted it. Both Bush and Cheney were on the defensive more or less the entire debate, but they made it seem like they were the ones doing the attacking by attacking their opponents character, and then saying their opponents were lying with little to no proof or support. Cheney was more aggressive, and has experience, this is true, but he was trying to use that to get people to ignore that he really didn't have a lot to work with. Particularly this was the case when Cheney said we had a coalition equivalent to that of the Gulf War. That's a complete distortion of the truth. We do have about the same amount of countries true, but the types of countries are totally different. Where in the Gulf War we had powers like Spain, France, and Germany, we not have tiny 3rd world nations like Morocco and what not comprising most of the coaltion. And the only reason they are there is because they want to get on the good side of the US. I disagree. I'd say that's what most Bush supporters would want, since most of the people I know who are die hard Bush fans look for that. They want a tuff president. I'm not looking for that. I'm looking for someone who makes strong points, says what needs to be said, and doesn't back down. Both Kerry and Edwards have done that. That completely destroys your argument. You're making judgments on the debate without having even watched it. This tells me that you don't care what's said in debates, you don't care about how the candidates handle themselves, you'll support your side regardless. Or you could say you pulled a Bush too. Just to be unbiased.
Exactly. I don't see the problem with a flip-flop here or there if new information comes to light. If you're deciding on one thing (such as Kerry on the $87B bill for military), then new information comes to light (such as the $87B bill being revised and having $20 million set aside for Halliburton in stead of the troops), there's no problem with makign a decision change. There's a difference between flip-flopping for the polls/when under pressure (Bush) and flip-flopping when new information comes to light (Kerry). I think Edwards made alot of good points, he pointed out what was wrong with the current administration and why a change is needed. Cheney had the "no, you're wrong" attitude and just didn't back it up justly. For instance, when Cheney said that Edwards was wrong about 90% of coalition casualties being American, Edwards was in fact right. 88.5% of casualties in the coalition (not including iraqi fighters, they're not a part of the 30-country coalition) are Americans. Cheney was somewhat right about Edwards being wrong about the $200B in Iraq. Edwards was talking about the $200B pledged to Iraq through 2005. $120B has been spent on Iraq to this date. Cheney was right there. Edwards just didn't clarify enough. Edwards did make valid points on the non-existant link between Saddam and 9/11, Halliburton's no-bid contract and Enron's funding of the Bush campaign, and the job loss under Bush (especially outsourcing).
No, my attitude wouldn't change, because this debate doesn't matter. By the time the 3rd presidental debate is overwith, people will have either forgotten about the vice president debate or won't give a crap about it. People are voting on a president. Not a vice president. The president is the one calling all the shots, the chance of the VP actually having to take over is next to nothing. So until the VP has to take over, they preside over the senate which is still a pretty powerless position since the other 100 guys vote on everything. [/b][/quote] Totally agreed, everyone will have totally forgotten aobut this debate once the other two presidential ones take place. But it was kinda obvious that this should have been an easy win for Cheney because he is the one practically running the government right now. Cheney is the brains of the Bush administration.
Cheney also didn't answer two questions completely. He didn't answer the question about Israel and talked about education instead of poverty when the question of poverty was asked. Why evade those questions? Does he have something to hide? Cheney's "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude is not what I want in a President or Vice President. I want a President who will admit his mistakes, instead of defending them like someone who was just caught cheating in school. Cheney also mumbled too much, and muffled his microphone a lot. That's not something one should do in a debate. You need to be clear and concise and have life. Edwards had life, Cheney did not. Cheney might as well had been sleeping. Did anyone else notice that both Bush and Cheney slouched through almost the entire debate? Edwards sat up in the seat (aside from the leading on the table with his elbow, not his forearm) and Kerry stood tall the whole time. I feel that Cheney was strong in the first half, but he completely fell apart in the second half of the debate. I feel that both were equally matched, and that Edwards won by a slight margin. (Again, my opinion.)
LOL. Cheney is some brainy; http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2004/1004/...ct-10-06-04.asp And here; http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1000660420
I HIGHLY recommend everyone check out FactCheck.ORG (notice the .org part since Cheney gave the wrong address). They have a great article on the debate. Article NOTE: The site is VERY slow, even on my college internet connection. They lay out facts and misrepresentations from both sides, though there seem to be more distortions on Cheney's side than Edwards, big surprise there. The list goes on. My personally favorite section was on the War casualties. Cheney tries to count Iraqi deaths as part of the coaltion. Unless I missed something, aren't we the ones CAUSING most of the Iraqi casualties???