Standing Up To Howard Dean vs Standing Up To Al Qaeda
Oh Snap!
Posted by rladew on 2004-10-06 02:55:40 +0000
Listening Edwards expound for 5+ minutes on why gay marriage shouldn't be an issue and Cheney's 30 second response thanking Edwards for kind words about his daughter, making a dramatic agreement with Edwards that there were more important things to talk about was also pretty priceless.
It might have been pure rhetoric, I have no idea how much contact Congressional members have with one another, but the "I haven't met you before tonite" point will make it hard for the NYT to say that Edwards won this debate.
Try as he might, that constantly fiddled with big ol blue coffee cup wasn't big enough for Edwards to hide behind.
Posted by tgl on 2004-10-06 03:20:08 +0000
My subject was going to be "Vice Debate", natch.
Cheney got the line of the night off with the cut regarding Dean. His response to the gay marriage ban was also way classier.
Neither candidate seemed to want to talk about domestic issues. You could hear the AIDS epidemic topic fall on the floor. I thought that Edwards would have done better in the domestic arena, Cheney definitely didn't have much to say. I noticed that Cheney was always talking about the effect of policies on business (even how the AIDS epidemic kills workers and hurts a countiers economy) and Edwards talked about how policies effect people. Compassion counts for something, eh?
Edwards came out fighting hard and it took Cheney a couple questions to gain some footing. I thought Cheney was way more articulate on the issue of Iraq than Bush was, however, he had his rose tinted glasses firmly in place with regards to what's happening on the ground. The comparison to El Salvador doesn't hold water. The Salvodorans weren't being occupied by a foreign country, forcing them to hold elections.
Both Edwards and Cheney skipped around the questions a bit. I hate the use of a rejoinder before starting the next question. I liked Cheney 's succinctness. Bush struggled to fill his time, Cheney said what he needed to say and didn't seemed worried that he had more time left on the clock, While I expected Edwards to parrot Kerry's lines (and he did), I was a little surprised that Cheney used so many of Bush's catchphrases. Cheney's a thoughtful, articulate man, and I expected more from him, I guess.
Edwards hit the bit about truthfulness hard, I think it stuck.
I might have to give Cheney the edge. I didn't think Edwards was out of his league or that for behind, however.
How many senators has Cheney met personally?
How do you know the NYT will say Edwards won? I'll be reckless myself and say the WSJ will come out for Cheney? ;)
Posted by tgl on 2004-10-06 03:30:46 +0000
Other than the other two times Cheney has met Edwards:
Cheney Thanked Edwards At the National Prayer Breakfast. Addressing the National Prayer Breakast, Cheney said: “Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I honored to be with you all this morning.” [FDCH Political Transcripts, Cheney Remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, 2/1/01]
Senator Edwards Escorted Elizabeth Dole When She Was Sworn In As North Carolina’s Other Senator. Elizabeth Dole was sworn in as North Carolina’s other senator on January 8, 2003. Gannet News Service wrote: “As per Senate tradition, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., escorted her.” [Gannet News Service, 1/8/03]
Posted by rladew on 2004-10-06 03:36:32 +0000
very fair stmnt: WSJ is ABSOLUTELY more in Bush's camp while I would tend to argue NYT is more in Kerry's camp.
In the Pointing out the Obvious department: ALL politicians like to dance around questions without directly answeing them. After listening to mssrs Cheney and Edwards, I very often forgot what the original question was (maybe thats more sleep deprivation than unclear political rhetoric - maybe a mix of both... hmm)
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-06 06:15:20 +0000
It is my understanding that Cheney probably lost this one, and it was a tie at best.
First Cheney's two big straight up lies: 1) He claimed he never said Sadam was connected to Sept. 11 (I saw the "Meet the Press" in Feb. or March where he did.) and 2) He never met Senator Edwards (Edwards is a serving senator and Cheney is the presiding officer of the Senate for cryin' out loud.)
Then there were the out of the blue claims:
The reason for the decline of suicide bombings in Israel is that Saddam is no longer paying those $25,000 bounties to the families of the bombers. Excuse me? Does anyone believe this? Let's ask Israel.
That the US fatalities are only 50% of the coalition's total, not 90% as Edwards stated, because Cheney includes Iraqi police and soldiers who are dying by the hundreds. What? When did we change the definition of coalition, and why won't Bush or Cheney speak honestly about Iraq?
All I can think of is Republicans sitting at home saying, "Why did he say that? What is he doing?"
And lastly, Cheney really seemed sick. Edwards looked presidential; Cheney looked like he needed another bypass. I try not to make a big deal out of this, but these things do matter.
Posted by frame609 on 2004-10-06 06:22:13 +0000
I watched a little bit after work. I confess that I was anxious to watch the Yankees/Twins game.
Having said that, Cheney got his ass handed to him re: health care.
Posted by tgl on 2004-10-06 15:52:53 +0000
Purusing the NYT site today, no banner headlines Re: "Edwards Slays Cheney".
Posted by rladew on 2004-10-06 16:40:59 +0000
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/opinion/06wed1.html[/url]
It's not right up front or in bold, but I would say their take is favoring Edwards (surprise surprise)
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-06 17:33:32 +0000
http://slate.msn.com/id/2107825/
Been reading a few articles today, and it seems some people are giving last night to Cheney, because Edwards failed to call him out on his lies, where Edwards could have hammered home the Bush/Cheney credibility problem, from the RNC to the swift boats.
Think about that for a second: Cheney won because he lied, and got away with it. Bush/Cheney 1 - America 0.
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-06 18:22:14 +0000
"It's not right up front or in bold, but I would say their (NY Times) take is favoring Edwards (surprise surprise)"
So rladew should the Times take the Slate stand point and give it to Cheney? What's your beef with the Times anyway? They are much more conservative than Reuters, NPR, and the like...
Posted by rladew on 2004-10-06 19:21:46 +0000
the Slate article looks like sour grapes to me - they seem to be conceeding that he won, but that how he won was unfair. I don't see anything unfair about offering specific details of governmental service of over 30 years which apply to current times (Iraq)[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/politics/campaign/06dtext-full.html?pagewanted=4[/url]
Not trivializing heavy political issues which Edwards himself so-called says arent issues (gay marriage) by letting brevity and silence speak louder than words while at the same time being loyal to his president also showed a maturity and credibility that Edwards has not made apparent to me as a viewer.
Instead of talking about stuff like this, I feel like Dawn and Slate and other liberal pov on this matter are saying Cheney won because he's a lying cheating bastard.
Oh yeah, and the factcheck.org that Terry cited for Kerry's health care plan also inconvieniently dispels the Halliburton as Enron ideal that a lot of the liberal press dispels.
Posted by tgl on 2004-10-06 20:01:22 +0000
It's not inconvenient if it's the truth. I went there at Cheney's recommendation last night, b/c of the allegations about Halliburton. (I've been there before however so I didn't try fackcheck.com).
The latest report http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272
fackcheck.org dealt with the allegations about Cheney's continued presence on the Halliburton payroll. It doesn't overturn the fact that Halliburton is under investigation for bribing foreign officials when Cheney was CEO and did admit to overcharging the government concerning fueling costs in Iraq.
Heard an interesting piece on the radio about Cheney being a past CEO has come to hurt Haliburton. Even with the no-bid contracts (which they probably would have gotten if Lieberman was V.P., KBR is one of the few companies to do that sort of work), they've come under greater regulatory scrutiny. If you add up the fines and the drop in stock value, they are out some coin. There also trying to sell KBR (a company they bought while Cheney was CEO) and a subisidiary that is getting hit hard with asbestos class action lawsuits (also a company they bought while Cheney was CEO). One can see that hiring a politician to lead your company might not be the wisest move.
Most polls today seem to point to Edwards is the victor.
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-06 20:38:25 +0000
There it is: the Slate is a liberal POV.
I suppose the The Washington Times is too left? And all those liberal's over at Fox News? Rladew, you can't just call something you disagree with liberal, when it is recognized and admitted right wing commentary.
I know you pepper things with IMHO, but there has to be basis.
Posted by rladew on 2004-10-06 20:41:08 +0000
If you want to call slate anything other than liberal, be my guest... I cant make you see it if you choose not to.
Posted by tgl on 2004-10-06 20:43:02 +0000
Circles.
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-06 20:57:01 +0000
"If I choose not to?"
It's not a choice. It's fact.
Posted by rladew on 2004-10-06 21:06:43 +0000
It's fact that Slate isn't more favorable to the liberal point of view? Im not insulting slate as a media source, I'm just saying here that they historically tend to fall more in line with liberal ideology than they do conservative ideology.
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-10-06 21:12:37 +0000
That's exactly what I'm saying. How many liberal media sources, have the notorious "Kerryism of the Day," or are owned by MSN? Come on...