 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
you're just ignoring the fact that Bush had as much to prove in those debates as Gore did |
So the mere fact that he was competant means that that is why he 'won' the debate? 
Gore doesn't sigh and it doesn't matter. The headlines the next day say that Bush was a disaster. |
Um, what headlines? You're making things up again. And yes, that Bush was competent was how he 'won' the debate, in the eyes of the media, because he surpasses his low expectations. Again, the editorial pages were effuse with praise for how Bush didn't screw up. That's what happens when expectations are low. Keep making them low for Edwards, bub! 
quote:
The 'Two Americas' thing was pilloried. Kerry killed Edwards (ironically enough) on Edwards' opposition to NAFTA. |
Neither of which issues singled out Edwards dramatically for any sort of "ripping." While you may have felt so (you were a Kerry partisan at the time, as it so happens), the image given from the debates wasn't that Edwards made any big flubs. No headlines came out, "Edwards screws up at debates." In fact, pundit consensus was Edwards was fine, if unremarkable.
quote:
For a Democrat Senator to not know what the DoMA is akin to an ordinary person not knowing Roe v. Wade. |
First, Edwards knew what DoMA was, he didn't know some specifics of what it said. Stop making things up. Second, it's STILL not that big of an issue. What effect as DoMA had on public policy to this day? Practically none. Even the current same-sex marriage issue is removed from it, since, as I pointed out, there hasn't even been a court challenge to DoMA. It is, as it stands now, a fairly inconsequential piece of legislation that hasn't had much effect whatsoever.
quote:
Of course he did. He was in control of the policy while Quayle was reduced to cracks like "You pulled a Clinton on me". He was totally outclassed. |
 Making things up again. The consensus after the debates (I know this, I was watching them and was old enough to know what was going on) was that neither candidate 'won' the debate. In fact, one common comment was that Quayle did what he had to do, which was be the GOP hatchetman. Gore certainly did not run away with the debate, as everyone thought he was so boring.
Why not actually read what people were saying?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatin...p_reaction.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatin...eaction_gs.html
"MR. SHIELDS: Well, I think that one has to put the vice presidential debates in perspective. They are the preliminary bout before the semi-main event tomorrow night in Richmond. And there's no question, David is right. Dan Quayle raised the Republicans to their peak adrenalin moment of this campaign. He energized and he - - instead of being the enthusiastic advocate and champion of George Bush, because George Bush had failed to make the case against Bill Clinton on Sunday night, it fell to Dan Quayle to do it, and he - - he made the case, or he sought to make the case on the basis of Bill Clinton's character, and he certainly, his words were welcome to a dispirited Republican Party."
and
"I think he helped himself within the Republican Party. I think the expectations -- I mean, the office of vice president is an office that has been in the purview of every citizen to ridicule always and Dan Quayle kind of raised that to a different level by his performance in 1988, and I thought that he did a long way toward redeeming himself last night. "
"MR. GERGEN: And I really feel he's now put himself -- he made it clear last night he will be a force to reckon with. Conservatives will rally behind now. They will look at that and say that's the kind of fellow we need, somebody who's willing to fight. "
"Dan Quayle stepped in last night and didn't run, didn't cut. He stepped up and took the heat and he's loyal. "
Hardly a sign of some sort of catastrophic defeat.
All of this doesn't really matter much, anyway. The VP debates have nada effect on the race. Think about it, the only memorable moment from a VP debate in the past 20 years was Bentson's Jack Kennedy cut on Quayle in 1988. And that was pretty much a cheap shot, not a real debate point. And it sure didn't help Dukakis any. So whining that Edwards might not match up to Cheney in a debate is of minimal concern--that's not the crucial test for a VP candidate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Edwards strikes me as a bizarre mixture of Dan Quayle and Bill Clinton.
As for being a vapid dullard, why should that matter for veep? We've had one in the Oval Office since 1-20-01.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Um, what headlines? You're making things up again. |
 Read the sentance again, will you? Gore doesn't sigh, headlines say Bush messed up. Notice I said the headlines the next day 'SAY', not 'said'.
quote:
No headlines came out, "Edwards screws up at debates." |
Since he ain't a front runner, why would headlines come out? Did Kucinich have headlines after he said some of his kooky things?
quote:
Edwards knew what DoMA was, he didn't know some specifics of what it said. |
Yeah, I know the law... I... uh... have no idea what it is about.
Come on. He said he was against DoMA, because he was for every state deciding for themselves, which is EXACTLY what DoMA is! I mean that is kind of a big deal. Getting a piece of legislation wrong that everyone else on stage was intimately familiar with (meaning that most people in Washington were probably the same).
quote:
Why not actually read what people were saying? |
Why not?
http://secure.mediaresearch.org/new...921101stud.html
"But on October 14, the evening after the vice presidential debate, ABC and CNN both scored Quayle for lying about the Clinton-Gore record. On World News Tonight, ABC reporter Jim Wooten declared "The blue ribbon for factual flexibility goes to the Vice President. More often than Senator Gore, Mr. Quayle was either mistaken or misinformed."
CNN reporter Brooks Jackson agreed: "It was Quayle who repeatedly twisted and misstated the facts...The political reality is that voters don't score campaign debates on the basis of who gets the facts straight. But if they did, Dan Quayle would have lost Tuesday night's debate hands down.""
Basically the media was hammering the fact that Quayle lied about this and lied about that. The pundits said if the public knew how much he lied they would agree he was trounced, instead of just barely beaten, and then kept telling the public how much he lied. And it wasn't just left-wing biased sources but mainstream sources like CNN and ABC reporters, who harped on how much Quayle lied and thus lost the debate badly. You don't think that had an effect on the public at all?
According to media reports on the debate, Quayle came across as a lying, belligerant candidate
Last edited by Imran Siddiqui on 07-07-2004 at 00:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
I was refering to Dubya. It it doesn't matter that the President is a dullard, why should people care if the Veep is a wee-bit dim?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Read the sentance again, will you? Gore doesn't sigh, headlines say Bush messed up. Notice I said the headlines the next day 'SAY', not 'said'.
|
Regardless, Bush WASN'T a disaster, even without the sighing of Gore. Gore's behavior didn't even become a big issue until over a day later when the Republicans played it up a lot. But the newspapers the next day all said that Bush had been competent in his debate performance. And that was all he really needed to do, given his expectations
quote:
Since he ain't a front runner, why would headlines come out? Did Kucinich have headlines after he said some of his kooky things? |
The point is, it wasn't in the articles, either. Nobody was saying, "Edwards really blew the debates!" I'm waiting for some evidence that his debate performance was such a disaster, as you're claiming. Hell, it was after some supposedly dismal debate showings that he almost ended up in a 3-way tie in Iowa, wasn't it?
In fact, Edwards won recognition for his Wisconsin debate performance, and made the most noted quip. In reference to a long-winded Kerry reply, he said "That's the longest answer to a yes-or-no-question I've ever heard."
quote:
Come on. He said he was against DoMA, because he was for every state deciding for themselves, which is EXACTLY what DoMA is! I mean that is kind of a big deal. Getting a piece of legislation wrong that everyone else on stage was intimately familiar with (meaning that most people in Washington were probably the same). |
And again, what dramatic efect has DoMA had on our country since its passing? You keep ignoring the point that it really, so far, has been an inconsequential bill. You're playing this up to far greater significance that it was in the debates.
quote:
Basically the media was hammering the fact that Quayle lied about this and lied about that. The pundits said if the public knew how much he lied they would agree he was trounced, instead of just barely beaten, and then kept telling the public how much he lied. And it wasn't just left-wing biased sources but mainstream sources like CNN and ABC reporters, who harped on how much Quayle lied and thus lost the debate badly. You don't think that had an effect on the public at all? |
The pundits did not agree he was trounced, Imran. Care to overstate your case any more?
http://www2.kenyon.edu/orgs/Collegi...2800/news-8.htm
"Yet before overestimating Gore’s talent as a debator, it is useful to keep in mind that he did not convincingly trounce Dan Quayle in the 1992 vice-presidential debate."
"Dan Quayle did far better in last night's vice-presidential debate than he did in the famous 1988 clash. In fact, he performed much better than the President did in Sunday night's debate."-Boston Globe
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/07/fallows.htm
"But Quayle resolutely stuck to his message, in manner and content -- always deliberately abrasive, always looking past Gore to the real target, Clinton. And Warren Rudman was proved right. Gore did not adapt in response. Not once in the ninety minutes of the debate did Gore try to counter Quayle's increasingly dismissive references to Clinton or to answer his baiting question: Why does this man deserve to be President? Instead he stuck to the agreed-on script, which called for emphasizing "It's the economy, stupid" issues and for casting George Bush as passive and out of touch..."
[The analysis goes on to say that Gore was too tepid in his response to Quayle's attacks]
http://www.juntosociety.com/vp/quayle.html
"Gore and Quayle argued over environmental regulations, Quayle brought up the Democratic presidential candidates moral values, and Gore reminded viewers of the sagging economy. Who actually won the debate is up to personal opinion"
Of course there's tons more. But my point has more than adequately been shown that there was NO consensus that either candidate won that particular debate, and that means Quayle definitely held his own. It was by no means a disaster for him or their campaign. And public perception polls taken after the debates bear that out--people said neither really won. And no, it had utterly no effect on the polls. As I said, VP debates never do.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 07-07-2004 at 03:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Impaler[WrG]
|
 |
Cheif Manufacturing Officer of Morgan Industires
May 2002
time: 22:36
|
|
I have been Noticing a Lot of Incorrect statments conserning North and South Carolina in this Thread.
First off Edwards is a NORTH CAROLINA senator, he is FROM that state and it is in that state that he was elected senator, as far as I know he has done NOTHING in SC.
Secondly their is realy no such thing as the "Carolinas" these 2 states are RADICALY differnt culturaly and Politicaly (Disclaimer: I am from North Carolina). South Carolina was as you should all know the state that started the Civil war by firing on fort Sumpter and suceeded first. North Carolina on the other hand dilly dallyed and was the LAST state to suseed from the union. South Carolina's Conservatism is maked by a mile wide streak of "How Dare you tell us what to!!!" They consider ANY advice from outside a threat, even if it comes from other conservatives, notice that durring the Republican Primary their was a debate in South Carolina about taking the Confederate flag off the State Capital. Despite the potential damage that would be suffered on a national level by failing to "denouce racim" neither Bush nor McCain would touch that topic with a 10 foot pole. They both knew that even GIVING an opinion on an internal issue of South Carolina would be disasterous. Lastly South Carolina is about 40-50% Black but many of thouse Blacks are Conservative (especialy Fiscaly) so the state is absolutly untouchable for the Democratic party.
North Carolina is like a whole other world, our state is less Black then South Carolina at about 30%. Partly due to the fact we have parts of the Apalachian mountains in the west of the state and these mountinous regions were far to poor to ever afford slaves (this is typicaly the pattern throughout the south). Despite this the state is far more liberal and has higher taxes and more goverment control. For example South Carolina has no practicaly no zoneing laws, if you own land you can do ANYTHING with it. Result is ofcorse that their are decaying trailors scattered everware around SouthCarolina. North Carolina also spends money to create some fine Universities and Research Parks which are far and few between in South Carolina. Senator Jesse Helms was unfortunatly from North Carolina and was know to be a terrible Biggot in addition to being a fat cat Republican. I suspect the man stayed in office mostly by shear weight, he had help the position for many terms and was hardly worth running against, your typical entrenched senator. Despite this the state as a whole could never be considered as conservative or republican leaning as South Carolina.
Lastly if the preceeding post is any indication people in North Carolina consider South Carolinians SUPER RED NECKS, wial we are at best mild Red Necks compared to the rest of the nation, in short South Carolina gives us a bad name.
Now as for Edwards as the VP, I think its a hugely better choice then Gephart (he is a human chipmunk who desperatly needs EYE BROWS before I can take him seriously). McCain would be a better choice in my opinion but thats not a real posibility. Only other choice would be some key state swinger like Graham, thats Edwards only downside he isnt a state swinger at best he makes North Carolina up for grabs but by no means delivers it to Kerry. Their obviously aiming for a broader national strategy here rather then state picking.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
There are more blacks as a percentage of population in North and South Carolina than in New York, Illinois, and Michigan. Are those stats 'cracker states' then? |
Imran, do you ever just make an honest, straightforward, sensible case, or does your training prohibit it?
Northern states are not "cracker" states, more or less by definition. I didn't imply that white meant cracker; I was responding to Oerdin's casual statement that the Carolinas were half black and thus not cracker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Impaler[WrG] Lastly South Carolina is about 40-50% Black but many of thouse Blacks are Conservative (especialy Fiscaly) so the state is absolutly untouchable for the Democratic party.
North Carolina is like a whole other world, our state is less Black then South Carolina at about 30%. |
The US Census Bureau gives the percentages as:
North Carolina -- 72.1% white, 21.6% black
South Carolina -- 67.2% white, 29.5% black
I stand by my statement that both states are roughly 70% white rather than half black.
Interesting how you overestimate the black populations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Impaler[WrG]
|
|
Cheif Manufacturing Officer of Morgan Industires
May 2002
time: 22:36
|
|
Well I correctly pointed out that their was about a 10% difference between the states, I just over-estimated each by 10%. Its typical for minorities to be over-estimated by an off the top of your head guesses.
As I said the Mountinous regions of NC have few blacks and I wasn't in that region I was in about the middle of the state, in my schools it was about 30% (or so I estimated).
South Carolina I was using figures I had heard ofcorse, in sertain areas it will reach the higher percentages I mentioned and in select regions you can have black majorities.
Its hard to estimate these % based on who you see on the street though as their a lot of ethnic enclaves (segragation by choice basicaly). North Carolina created an infamus "13th district" which was majority black by snaking the district through out the whole state and encompassing dozens of small black enclaves often only a few blocks in size. The courts did strike the thing down eventualy though as it was an obvious jerrymander.
I moved out to Arizona (about 1% black) about 5 years ago I am realy suprized at the differnce.
Last edited by Impaler[WrG] on 07-07-2004 at 03:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:36
|
|
I never thought New York had reputable papers...
edit: My previous statement is incorrect. I had forgotten about the Wall Street Journal, which is definitely a reputable paper. My apologies for the error...
Last edited by Drake Tungsten on 07-07-2004 at 18:42
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-07-2004 23:29
<--> 
|