May I be the first to say, that I am not only glad, but proud that Dick Cheney is on my side.
Edwards was fluff and full of grade school rhetoric, while Cheney just bent the lil’ punk over his knee and gave him the whoopin’ he deserved.
What was Edwards’ point with the story of being a little boy, watching his father learn math from TV? LOL! That was just silly.
Great to see Cheney do what needed to be done to solidify the base.
Jack,
Absolute domination.
No questions.
He had Edwards running around in circles like a Parrot, “Halliburton, 90%, etc…”
He out trial lawyered THE trial lawyer.
A thing of beauty.
I’m pulling for W. to get some rest and put Kerry away once and for all.
JeffR
Cheney showed tonight why he is still on the ticket. You just can’t replace the kind of experience and intelligence that he brings to the table.
Time for Bush to pull the trigger in the next two debates on the the biggest liberals ever to runfor office!
I too think Cheney got the best of Edwards this debate, but (obviously) not by the margin my predecessors on this thread have declared.
I thought they were equally articulate, though each (more Edwards) had their moments of nervousness shine through.
Cheney really bombed on the “jobs” question, and Edwards rightly called him on it.
I liked the banter regarding Halliburton, the 90% and the $200 billion, but I was left wondering what the truth was on the matters. I think Cheney sidestepped a lot of these matters as well.
I think Cheney - and the entire administration - are beating a deadhorse with the $87 billion quote. Kerry has addressed it and clarified what his poor choice of words meant, and it makes perfect sense. I think they’re trying to erect a new horse to beat in the “global test” focus the right has been gloating since the 1st debate. Kerry’s point here, too, was well taken by anyone with half a brain.
I’m curious about Cheney’s comment about meeting Edwards for the first time. I’d assume its true as it’s easy enough to verify and would have been easy enough for Edwards to dispute, but he didn’t. If they haven’t met until now, I wonder if it’s really Edwards’ fault, or if, perhaps Cheney is also not attending to the Senate floor as closely as perhaps he should. I don’t know, interesting, though.
Edwards’ story about his dad was a lame intro to his closing words. His message, though, I thought was dead on and appropriate. Edwards “fighting for the middle American” attitude is what people respond best to with him.
A decent debate, overall. I’d give it to Cheney by a close margin, say 55%-45% or closer. I’d say Kerry won the 1st debate hands down. My own opinion with regard to Bush’s lack of substance AND style and Kerry’s strength in both left me thinking Kerry won, maybe 80%-20%. I think the average American, however would say 65%-35%. (I don’t know where these numbers are coming from, I’m just spouting off!)
Oh so I guess you all got the memo then?
Tiss a shame that there are two more debates for Bush to get smacked around in.
“This is the first time I’ve ever met you.”
Oh really?
I think Dubya should call in sick and let Cheney come off the bench for him in the last two debates.
Not sure if I’d say there was a real “winner” of the debate…
Too boring for my taste. Maybe they can spice it up next time…celebrity boxing or SOMETHING…
Some random thoughts:
I thought it was relatively close. I thought Cheney was steadier and stronger, which is important.
However, I thought Edwards probably had more up moments – unfortunately for him, paired with more down moments.
Cheney missed a lot of opportunities to turn Edwards’ words against him – at least it seemed so to me as I was Monday-morning-quarterbacking from my couch. Specifically, I would have liked to see Cheney nail Edwards for all his “we’ve got a plan” stuff, all of which was for spending, combined with promises to rein in spending and cut the deficit – that would have been good to start out with in the closing before hammering home the security stuff, which Cheney did quite well.
Edwards closing statement looked like it was delivered to a jury – in fact, a lot of his canned stuff was delivered that way. Unfortunately, I think that adds to the problem of taking him seriously on the main issue of the campaign: security.
Also:
BTW, did you know Cheney is only 12 years older? They just said that on the news – he kept making Edwards look like an errant nephew the way he talked to him.
Finally, aside from the way they came off, Edwards was stuck with trying to describe Kerry and his positions on Iraq as “consistent” – that didn’t work, and couldn’t work for anyone who’d been following. They would be better off explaining why they changed their views rather than trying to pretend they’ve been consistent.
Cheney may have reflected your own views folks, but he really didn’t have much of a can of whoopass.
Unfortunately, it appears that when he got down and dirty that the viewing public wasn’t thrilled with his behavior.
I’d call it pretty even. Both of them were able to abuse each other with their commentary and in reality this was really just a little sideshow.
Keep in mind the audience isn’t the die hards, its the undecided. Who won will be decided by the undecided, not us. Let’s see how it pans out.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Cheney may have reflected your own views folks, but he really didn’t have much of a can of whoopass.
Unfortunately, it appears that when he got down and dirty that the viewing public wasn’t thrilled with his behavior.
I’d call it pretty even. Both of them were able to abuse each other with their commentary and in reality this was really just a little sideshow.
Keep in mind the audience isn’t the die hards, its the undecided. Who won will be decided by the undecided, not us. Let’s see how it pans out.[/quote]
Absolutely incorrect ~ this election will be won by energizing the base. The only thing that has to be done to win this election is get your base to the polls on election day, period.
As for your opinion implying that it, “appears that when he got down and dirty that the viewing public wasn’t thrilled with his behavior”, where do you get this information?
By all appearances, Cheney was direct and Edwards was smug. Of course, that’s just my gut feeling, I can’t make a blanket statement like you did.
I think Cheney did good, I would say he won but it wasn’t a “Can O’ Whoop Ass” of the first Presidential debate caliber.
I almost think this could hurt the president because it really makes him look like a figure head.
This debate could really backfire if Bush has another one of his “I can’t seem to formulate a sentence” debates.
[quote]Lumpy wrote:
“This is the first time I’ve ever met you.”
Oh really?[/quote]
Lumpa, I don’t like to call people idiots, unless it’s to their face, so I’m not going to do that.
It’s no surprise that nobody has responded to you, so I’ll step up to point out the painfully obvious.
Just because you have two people in the same room, or because you may refer to them with a “Thank you” when addressing a group, does NOT mean that you have “met” that person.
I walked by Kevin Bacon on a cruise ship once, but I didn’t meet him.
Lame Lumpa…
It pains me to say it, but Edwards hit on a point which evoked a vocal cheer from me. When he said he wanted to do something about all the drug company ads on TV, I actually agreed with him.
[quote]Soco wrote:
Oh so I guess you all got the memo then?
Did you read the last line of the article, Soco?
“Mr. Bush’s aides acknowledged that Mr. Mehlman’s note on Tuesday was almost identical to one written by the Democratic Party chairman, Terry McAuliffe, last Thursday.”
[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
Lumpy wrote:
“This is the first time I’ve ever met you.”
Oh really?
Lumpa, I don’t like to call people idiots, unless it’s to their face, so I’m not going to do that.
It’s no surprise that nobody has responded to you, so I’ll step up to point out the painfully obvious.
Just because you have two people in the same room, or because you may refer to them with a “Thank you” when addressing a group, does NOT mean that you have “met” that person.
I walked by Kevin Bacon on a cruise ship once, but I didn’t meet him.
Lame Lumpa…[/quote]
But you’re even lamer, Jackie. Even Fox News has pointed out that Cheney is a liar: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134589,00.html
[quote]On Feb. 1, 2001, the vice president thanked Edwards by name at a Senate prayer breakfast and sat beside him during the event.
On April 8, 2001, Cheney and Edwards shook hands when they met off-camera during a taping of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” moderator Tim Russert said Wednesday on “Today.”
On Jan. 8, 2003, the two met when the first-term North Carolina senator accompanied Elizabeth Dole to her swearing-in by Cheney as a North Carolina senator, Edwards aides also said.[/quote]
And the “every Tuesday” comment is specious at best. Cheney is there for a lunch meeting with Senate Republicans, so how likely is it that he’d run into Edwards then? Even if he did bump into him on the floor, he’d likely just tell him to go fuck himself anyway.
I posted the following in the other Cheney thread (with the less captivating title), which is rapidly disappearing down the ranks, so I’ll repeat it here…
Both spoke well, I thought; much more interesting than their superiors. There was one point where they were criticizing each other’s records. When Edwards pointed out that Cheney voted against banning “plastic guns that can get through airport security” and “against the Department of Education” Cheney basically said nothing. Too bad, because these are both quite defensible positions. There is no such thing as a “plastic gun that can get through airport security” so therefore he voted against banning something that does not exist. Secondly, the Department of Education is an unconstitutional waste of money that oversees our horrendous system of government schools. I was amazed that he didn’t say more. Maybe he didn’t want to come across as “too conservative”. That’s “too bad”.
tme AKA Too Much Estrogen:
While I may have to eat crow about my personal assumptions, Lumpa was making a connection with a lame picture and insinuating that this picture somehow implicates that they met.
As for the other things that Fox News brought to the table. Two of those incidents DO NOT indicate that they formally met.
This is the only indication that they actually “met”. ~ “On April 8, 2001, Cheney and Edwards shook hands when they met off-camera during a taping of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” moderator Tim Russert said Wednesday on “Today.””
I think the underlying message here is that Cheney is the President of the Senate and it is a Senator’s duty to reach out to the leader and form those necessary relationships. John Edwards didn’t do that, and has a horrible track record for simply showing up, period. It says a lot about his lack of character.
I thought the crack about the tax legislation that was passed the other day was quite nice ~ Cheney made reference to the fact that Edwards probably wasn’t aware of it because he wasn’t there to vote.