**OFFICIAL** Edwards/Cheney Debate Thread

[chess9]

Cheney gave the appearance of having better mastery of the facts. I.e., he sold his experience and talked down-quite effectively I would add-to Edwards. But Cheney made a couple of blunders and also simply dodged most of the bullets. His record in the House and his record for cutting defense systems are examples.

The debate was a tie when you consider:

1. What the candidates said;
2. What they didn't say;
3. Which bullets they dodged effectively;
4. Which bullets they got hit with;
5. And their very different styles.

Those two have very contrasting styles so it's really hard to compare and contrast them. Cheney likes to think of himself as in control of the facts, while Edwards strives hard to connect. Edwards will appeal to women much more than men (both of mine loved him), while Cheney is going to appeal to men.

Personally, I thought this was Cheney's BEST PERFORMANCE ever. He is normally so dreadful I can't stand more than 5 minutes of him. Edwards had an average night for him, though I admit I haven't seen as much of him as I have of Cheney.

-Robert

 

[Bowfinger]

(This isn't quite as timely as when I tried to post it last night, but Mediacom suddenly decided to take the night off.)

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: PatboyX
it seems like cheney is stronger in his delivery, edwards is stronger on seeming more able to identify with...but they both are holding their own. i doubt this would have swayed anyone. im pretty sure this just solidifies already held choices. stregnths one side as they see fit, weakens the other as they see fit, etc etc.
it appears to me (democrat) a draw. but id be interesting in seeing otherwise.

Yeah, I tend to agree. I can't imagine this debate making a whole lot of difference one way or the other.

I agree re. their performances, but I think the real win, the one that counts, goes to Kerry/Edwards. Once again, many American people heard for the first time there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. They had their noses rubbed in the simple truth that Bush diverted attention and resources away from the 9/11 terrorists to invade Iraq. They heard that Bush is the first President in 70 years to show a net loss of jobs. They heard that Kerry has actually voted for hundreds of military programs and that Cheney himself recommended cutting many of the same weapons systems they're attacking Kerry about. They heard a good argument about why this whole Bush campaign flip flop smear is BS. They heard that Bush opposed the 9/11 Commission and Homeland Security.

In short, many Americans heard all sorts of "new" information about Bush. This is information that the informed people here take for granted, but that the so-called "liberal" American media downplay or ignore entirely. For any open-minded voters, that's a lot of food for thought.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: daveymark
edwards, pay attention (Edwards says "did he start last? Is it my turn?")

He was. He questioned her when she said it was his turn because she was wrong. 15 seconds after he started his extra rebuttal she realized her error and stopped him.

 

[kage69]

Cheney clearly handled himself far better than Bush did! Apart from the lying, the short temper, and the avoidance of many questions, he did pretty good. How poeple can honestly think it's not him running the country is beyond me. With Cheney in office, Bush is a walking, talking rubber stamp for the neocons.

I have more respect for Edwards now, I like how he confronted the 'in-experience' question. He also proved himself to be way more informed on healthcare and jobs, and really drove the point of Iraq home I thought. Cheney not wanting to address Tora Bora really lost him points. Cheney just couldn't seem to give straight answers, got personal many times (although I thought Edwards bringing up the gay daughter was uncalled for) and the data he kept spewing was flat out wrong (and kudos to Edwards for saying so!). Edwards had a few tongue-twisters, and him goofing on that one rule didn't look too good, but overrall he did a much better job articulating what could be done, as opposed to Cheney's rosie-picture painting efforts and side-stepping.


Kerry/Edwards - 2
Cheney/Bush - 0



Edit: And yes, I think that mod wanted to err, 'put a lil cream in her coffee'

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Kerry and Edwards have alway said 200 billion and not the 280 you have. If you think the war and occupation in Iraq won't go higher than even 200 billlion just ask why GWB has not asked budgeted any money for the cost of the war in Iraq in the new budgets - everything is going under emergency supplementals.

Typo on my part, if you actually read the latter portion of my response you would see that I also mentioned 200 billion....

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Why was Edwards always a question or 2 behind? Every response, he starts off with "I want to go back to XXXXX"

I missed the gay marraige talk, but kudos to cheney for backing away from it. Big :thumbsdown: to Edwards for that underhanded assault on the President using Cheney's daughter. Cheney should have mentioned how he plans to help the rising obesity rates in the US and cited Edwards's wife.

What underhanded jab? Do you mean the part where he said he respected the VP for loving his daughter regardless of her orientation? And then the VP thanked Edwards for his kind words? Yeah, that was a real low blow there.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO
You don't have to be rich to have a pool in Miami. That generalization is just stupid. My family and myself are part of the middle class. Other friends of mine have pools in their homes as well and they aren't rich by any sense of the word. They aren't extravagant pools by any sense of the word. They are just your standard size pool.

I also thought Edwards generalization of those "sitting by their pool collecting dividends" was rather childish at best...sensational garbage.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

What underhanded jab? Do you mean the part where he said he respected the VP for loving his daughter regardless of her orientation? And then the VP thanked Edwards for his kind words? Yeah, that was a real low blow there.

Personalizing the attack via using his own daughter was the low blow, he could have mentioned the situation without the direct reference...and yes it would be much along the same lines of Cheney using Edwards robust wife as a parallel to the rising obesity problems in the US

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

I agree re. their performances, but I think the real win, the one that counts, goes to Kerry/Edwards. Once again, many American people heard for the first time there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. They had their noses rubbed in the simple truth that Bush diverted attention and resources away from the 9/11 terrorists to invade Iraq. They heard that Bush is the first President in 70 years to show a net loss of jobs. They heard that Kerry has actually voted for hundreds of military programs and that Cheney himself recommended cutting many of the same weapons systems they're attacking Kerry about. They heard a good argument about why this whole Bush campaign flip flop smear is BS. They heard that Bush opposed the 9/11 Commission and Homeland Security.

In short, many Americans heard all sorts of "new" information about Bush. This is information that the informed people here take for granted, but that the so-called "liberal" American media downplay or ignore entirely. For any open-minded voters, that's a lot of food for thought.

I think those are good points. The people here presumably knew these things already (though, as I recall, we still have some neoconservatives here claiming there WAS a Saddam-9/11 connection), but I don't think the same is true of the world at large, and Edwards did a great job of presenting these issues. I also really liked the way Sen Edwards pointed out some of the deficiencies in VP Cheney's own voting record.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO
You don't have to be rich to have a pool in Miami. That generalization is just stupid. My family and myself are part of the middle class. Other friends of mine have pools in their homes as well and they aren't rich by any sense of the word. They aren't extravagant pools by any sense of the word. They are just your standard size pool.

I also thought Edwards generalization of those "sitting by their pool collecting dividends" was rather childish at best...sensational garbage.

Yeah...I winced on that one.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Thegonagle

Originally posted by: Byung

Originally posted by: conjur
Remember Cheney mentioning factcheck.COM?

Well...here it is:

http://www.factcheck.com

:laugh:

LOL "WHY WE MUST NOT RE-ELECT PRESIDENT BUSH: A Personal Message from George Soros"

That's because somebody has obviously hacked factcheck.com, an unrelated website, to redirect to GeorgeSoros.com. The real factcheck.com was an educational company of some sort when I tried it out of curiosity. (I can't remember exactly what they do.)

The site Dick Cheney meant to refer to, factcheck.org is unaffected.

One funny thing is that Fox News currently has a link to the hacked site in it's top VP debate story. (What an embarrassment!)

Update: Probably not hacked. Probably intentional on the part of the domain owner or a brand new registrant.

No...no one hacked factcheck.com

The person who owns it redirected it to Soros' website. That was posted on Kerry's forum.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Yeah that was sooo low. I mean all businesses and people use whatever classifications they can to get the best deals. And we know Sleez-ey Chen-ey supports these types of "loopholes." And we're supposed to believe that Edwards is bad because he uses the available tax infrastructure to his advantage? Proposterous.

actually yes, here he and his running mate complain that people like them don't pay enough and yet they go out of their way to save themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars....seems hypocritical, why bother setting up the shelter and instead just pay your fair share...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: bozack

Personalizing the attack via using his own daughter was the low blow, he could have mentioned the situation without the direct reference...and yes it would be much along the same lines of Cheney using Edwards robust wife as a parallel to the rising obesity problems in the US

I just couldn't agree less. How often do you remember having a VP that publically disagreed with a key plank of the President's platform? I don't ever remember it happening before. The fact of the matter is that Mary Cheney has become so well-known (largely thanks to the asinine comments of Alan Keyes, actually) that she was integral to answering that question IMO (though I suppose he could have mentioned Lynn Cheney's homoerotic fiction instead - something tells me that too would have drawn your ire). Sen Edwards treated the subject with great sensitivity, hence VP Cheney's thanks.

 

[cumhail]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Why was Edwards always a question or 2 behind? Every response, he starts off with "I want to go back to XXXXX"

THis is an easy question. Cheney made last second sleaze attacks and Edwards had to go back and respond to them to uncover the lies.

Edwards took some shots at Cheney from the getgo; its his own fault that he can't make a comeback in 30 seconds.

Not quite that simple... It was an expected result of how the debate was structured... Both tried to capitalize on it, and both tried to get around it. Whenever a candidate knew that his would be the last rebuttal in a series of questions, he took a shot at the other, knowing that the other would not be able to immediately respond.

When it happened, the other candidate often used part of his next question's response to rebut what had been said in the last round. But this couldn't completely soften the blow because the person with the last response would always seem to have gotten the last word in and the person who tried to respond in the next round would always seem to be harping on something that was no longer the topic at hand.

So long as a debate is structured this way, it's always going to happen... and both sides will weigh the pros and cons of playing this game.

cumhail

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: conjur
Pictures of Cheney with Edwards at the National Prayer Breakfast:

http://www.dailykos.com/images/admin/cheney_edwards.jpg
http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog...ves/Cheney-Edwards.jpg

So...Cheney's never met Edwards before??

That is pretty funny.

Its a shame though. Because that was a beautiful zinger by cheney. Of course if it wasn't even true, it doesn't really matter since people aren't going to go looking to confirm that. I can't remember if Edwards called him to task for that...surely at least one of those men must have remembered their meetings?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: bozack

actually yes, here he and his running mate complain that people like them don't pay enough and yet they go out of their way to save themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars....seems hypocritical, why bother setting up the shelter and instead just pay your fair share...

I LOVE how you and others call this "hypocritical." :roll: So, by your argument, they should throw more of their money into the programs passed by our Republican-dominated congress and White House, whether or not they agree with them? If they did that, you'd be saying how stupid they were.

The Internal Revenue Code specifically says that people have the right to use any and all lawful means to reduce their tax load.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Just a side note:

I went to my local Democratic headquarters expecting to see some local Democrats there as well as some local candidates and the like. Surprisingly, I found myself sitting next to the Lieutenant Governor of the state of Missouri. As the debate wore on, we discussed some of the issues that were being debated on the TV. Nothing earthshattering came of it, just kinda cool, I think. How many people can honestly say they've had the ear of a Lieutenant Governor for about forty-five minutes?

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: bozack

actually yes, here he and his running mate complain that people like them don't pay enough and yet they go out of their way to save themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars....seems hypocritical, why bother setting up the shelter and instead just pay your fair share...

I LOVE how you and others call this "hypocritical." :roll: So, by your argument, they should throw more of their money into the programs passed by our Republican-dominated congress and White House, whether or not they agree with them? If they did that, you'd be saying how stupid they were.

The Internal Revenue Code specifically says that people have the right to use any and all lawful means to reduce their tax load.

The fact that Cheney certainly never avoided taking advantage of a tax loophole notwithstanding, I tend to agree with DonVito here. So he took advantage of a tax loophole? So what? That really just shows he's a competent businessman with a good understanding of tax laws and thats about it. What you're basically doing is trying punishing him for not being charitable to the government.

No citizen has a legal, or even moral IMO, responsibility to take an extra burden for government funded programs. Is it Edwards personally responsibility to fund the Medicare program? Was the figure that he *might* have paid out of some sort of misplaced goodwill really a signifigant one? (Remember there was no legal responsibility here, if you feel there should be...I'm afraid you are OH NOES!...agreeing with Kerry/Edwards.) And who's to say the extra savings might not have been donated to another cause he felt was more worthy? (I'm not saying they were, just expanding the scope of my point a bit.)

You act like he commited tax fraud, when all he really did was fill out the forms properly to keep the most money he could: just like all intelligent people do. There were some good jabs with substance behind them made last night by Cheney, but that was far from one of them.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: ntdz
its very clear to me that cheney won this debate.

clear like Boston Harbor

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
The fact that Cheney certainly never avoided taking advantage of a tax loophole notwithstanding, I tend to agree with DonVito here. So he took advantage of a tax loophole? So what? That really just shows he's a competent businessman with a good understanding of tax laws and thats about it. What you're basically doing is trying punishing him for not being charitable to the government.

No citizen has a legal, or even moral IMO, responsibility to take an extra burden for government funded programs. Is it Edwards personally responsibility to fund the Medicare program? Was the figure that he *might* have paid out of some sort of misplaced goodwill really a signifigant one? (Remember there was no legal responsibility here, if you feel there should be...I'm afraid you are OH NOES!...agreeing with Kerry/Edwards.) And who's to say the extra savings might not have been donated to another cause he felt was more worthy? (I'm not saying they were, just expanding the scope of my point a bit.)

You act like he commited tax fraud, when all he really did was fill out the forms properly to keep the most money he could: just like all intelligent people do. There were some good jabs with substance behind them made last night by Cheney, but that was far from one of them.

Its not like he was getting out of taxes on dividends or what not....

Kerry's Running Mate Established A Tax Shelter To Avoid Paying Taxes On Medicare

In 1995 Edwards Avoided Paying $591,112 In Medicare Taxes By Setting Up A Tax Shelter. ?The Kerry-Edwards Democratic presidential campaign released Mr. Edwards?s income figures in a statement yesterday in response to questions about the taxes he paid after he created a tax shelter in 1995. Mr. Edwards paid $9,353,448 in federal taxes on his income of $26,869,496, but the shelter allowed him to avoid paying $591,112 in Medicare tax, the figures provided by the campaign show.? (Michael Moss And Kate Zernike, ?Campaign Releases Edwards?s Earnings,? The New York Times, 7/10/04)

This guy is not only bitching that people of his income don't pay their fair share but he also complains about the current state of health care, yet he goes on to create tax shelters to avoid paying MEDICARE taxes....c'mon, how much more hypocritical can you get...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: PingSpike

What underhanded jab? Do you mean the part where he said he respected the VP for loving his daughter regardless of her orientation? And then the VP thanked Edwards for his kind words? Yeah, that was a real low blow there.

Personalizing the attack via using his own daughter was the low blow, he could have mentioned the situation without the direct reference...and yes it would be much along the same lines of Cheney using Edwards robust wife as a parallel to the rising obesity problems in the US

LOL, it's underhanded? What do you call fooling the voters into voting for you because you support a gay marraige ban when you don't really believe it? I guess the truth is underhanded?

I just call it more lies from a liar.

 

[BBond]

Personalizing the attack via using his own daughter was the low blow, he could have mentioned the situation without the direct reference...and yes it would be much along the same lines of Cheney using Edwards robust wife as a parallel to the rising obesity problems in the US

One big difference, no one is trying to pass laws against obese people having the same rights as everyone else.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Yeah that was sooo low. I mean all businesses and people use whatever classifications they can to get the best deals. And we know Sleez-ey Chen-ey supports these types of "loopholes." And we're supposed to believe that Edwards is bad because he uses the available tax infrastructure to his advantage? Proposterous.

actually yes, here he and his running mate complain that people like them don't pay enough and yet they go out of their way to save themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars....seems hypocritical, why bother setting up the shelter and instead just pay your fair share...

What a biased opinion, LMAO. Don't do as we do, pay more then you leagally owe so we can sit back and laugh at you. If this is the best defense you "tightie righties" can come up with your desperation to smear the opposition shows how low you will stoop.

If you can't come up with a better defense then that maybe you should just move on to another topic.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: bozack
Its not like he was getting out of taxes on dividends or what not....

Kerry's Running Mate Established A Tax Shelter To Avoid Paying Taxes On Medicare

In 1995 Edwards Avoided Paying $591,112 In Medicare Taxes By Setting Up A Tax Shelter. ?The Kerry-Edwards Democratic presidential campaign released Mr. Edwards?s income figures in a statement yesterday in response to questions about the taxes he paid after he created a tax shelter in 1995. Mr. Edwards paid $9,353,448 in federal taxes on his income of $26,869,496, but the shelter allowed him to avoid paying $591,112 in Medicare tax, the figures provided by the campaign show.? (Michael Moss And Kate Zernike, ?Campaign Releases Edwards?s Earnings,? The New York Times, 7/10/04)

This guy is not only bitching that people of his income don't pay their fair share but he also complains about the current state of health care, yet he goes on to create tax shelters to avoid paying MEDICARE taxes....c'mon, how much more hypocritical can you get...

You aren't really offering anything new to the topic, nor refuting any of my points. This post is basically the same as the one I originally responded too and would warrent the same response. Just because you said it again, doesn't make it an make it anymore poignant to me. I still see nothing wrong with it, it was just good business sense. People don't do things unless they have too. What you're advocating is that while he and his class should not be burdened with additional taxes, they also should some how be obligated to donate additional taxes by not taking advantage of ever opening they are afforded...you can't have it both ways. I think you're just clinging onto this because it supports you man, not because there's any merit to the accusation. Again, there were plenty of solid blows dealt to Edwards from Cheney last night...I just don't see this as one of them at all.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: ntdz
its very clear to me that cheney won this debate.

clear like Boston Harbor

According to polls, it's clear to REPUBLICANS Cheney won the debate. What is clear to swing voters is that Edwards won. The Repubs can have their hollow victory.

Early polls indicated differing reactions to the debate between Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John Edwards. An ABC News snap poll shows Cheney the winner, aided by a more-Republican audience, while a CBS News poll of undecided voters shows the opposite.

full story