 |
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote: The decision is in. Another debate victory for the Democrats. |
What the....?!?!?!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
the polish voters block is very important
JM
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by The diplomat
Maybe their first meeting was very short and they did not have the chance to actually talk and get to know each other. |
quote: Actually, they met 3 times before last night, and Cheney addressed Edwards by name and sat next to him for 3 hours at the prayer breakfast. |

Cheney made a bald-faced lie, and you know it.
He was also being, at the very least, quite misleading in his characterization of his visits to Congress. As the Democratic caucus points out, they rarely ever see Cheney, as when he does go to the Hill, it is usually to seclude himself with the GOP caucus and plot strategy. It's not as if he's there on the floor of the Senate in his official duty as the president of the Senate, which he implied.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 06-10-2004 at 19:08
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:21
|
|
The debate to me was a draw
Cheney seemed to alternate between being the knowledgeable grandfather (sweater and a pipe would be appropriate) and being a grumpy old man
Edwards came across as a bright young whippersnapper
On substance I thought that Edwards was ahead until they got to the question of why "you" are qualified and were not supposed to use the presidential candidates name-- Edwards seeme to be fumbling a bit there. Closings went to Edwards by a hair. Also it seemed to me that like the Doonebury cartoons suggest, 9-11 is the answer to every problem. Thats why the economy sucks etc.
I did not think Edwards handled the question of his lack of experience very well. Why can't a candidate simply indicate that they don't believe that a long long record of public service is NOT necessary to gain skills necessary for the job. That leadership skills learned in the private sector, added to senatorial experience and some good fresh ideas make him qualified for the job
----------------------------------------------------
So overall a draw . .. I don't think anyone won much and the partisans on each side are too busy cheering to care what really happened
-------
Oh the NBC affiliate out of Spokane Wash indicated they did a telephone survey after the debate that indicated
Edwards clearly won 43%
Cheney clearly won 38%
Too close to call 19%
They indicated it was a "random" survey accurate to +- 4% . They then went on to a couple of other poll numbers indicating Dems doing well so I wondered if the debate results were a result of a dem leaning in the state
edit- left out a NOT
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker
I would like to hear the reaction of non Americans when Cheney used El Salvador as a shining example of freedom under his watch. |
Well, it was just proving the point he is a closet fascist who deserves to be strung up by the B'zudrukka
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drachasor
|
|
I think overall it was about a dead heat in terms of content.
Cheney tended to not comment on issues a noticeable amount of the time or totally change the context (such as the Coalition vs. Coalition + Iraqi causalties). Edwards wasn't able too much better, though, and this is important, he was able to show that Cheney was lying or twisting the truth many times (coalition causalties, voting records--80-some votes against defense compared to over 1000 votes in favor). This plays well into how Kerry shaped the last debate. Cheney came out a little ahead in the first half, and a little behind in the second.
Appearence-wise/appeal-to-voters Edwards won. Domestic issues are almost always more important in determining who wins (that's how the independents are). Edwards came out far ahead here, and I think many of you have missed that. While just judging from what is said *without*context from outside you might think it was a tie or that one candidate was a little ahead of the other.
However, Americans, in fact, are not doing that well. Almost all of the new jobs pay less and have less benefits than the jobs they replace. Additionally if you work more than 10 hours a week or aren't looking for a job, then you are *not* counted as being unemployed. Edwards made a very strong appeal to the voters here, whereas Cheney (as is the case with the Bush Administration) didn't seem to understand the plight of the average American. Most Americans aren't running a small business, for example, and the vast majority earn a lot less than 200k a year. It was this frank talk about jobs, among other things, that will cause Edwards to look a lot better to the undecided voters and the voters with employment problems now.
That's why the result of this debate is likely to be an overall win for Edwards, and I think this explains some of the issues you guys have been uncertain about.
-Drachasor
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Gibsie
Cheney "lying" about meeting Kerry for the first time is about as important as the pen (or whatever) that Kerry took out during his debate that breached the rules. |
Actually I think it is a little more important that the pen thing. I just have visions of attack ads with that quote and then pictures of them sitting down to breakfast. Follow that with a few Cheney quotes on Iraq and the "ya right".
To me, even if it was an attempt to be funny, it isn't that bright to say something so obviously false. There is no spin here-- he said something that was obviously and absolutely false.
People expect some misrepresentations and slanting of positions but obvious lies can soemtimes hurt
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Gibsie
I'm sure the Republicans could make just as huge a fuss out of the pen thing, since it is cheating technically, but they haven't, for a change. And if you're going to take any of the debaters to task for lying, then it'd be nice if it was for the actual issues, not for badly-done banter. |
Be fair, the pen thing is a pure technicality, and blathering about that would go over very, very poorly with the voter.
Cheney claimed to have never even met Edwards because Edwards is never around. Refuting this would have more merit and look a lot better.
-Drachasor
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DanS
Well, it's a fact that neither Edwards nor Kerry are around the Senate much. Haven't been for a year and a half. |
Yeah, but there is a very clear reason why they haven't been around. I believe they were busy with something important.
-Drachasor
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DanS
So was Cheney busy. Doesn't mean he hasn't fulfilled his duties in both the spirit and letter of his portfolio. Likewise Bush.
I'd drop it, if I were you. It can only hurt Kerry and Edwards. |
It's a lot easier for Cheney and the President to move around.
I admit it isn't a big issue though; there are far more important things to discuss.
-Drachasor
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|