# VP debate



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Although I didn't watch much of the Pres. debate last week, I did stick it out for the VP debate last night. I figured it would be more interesting. Both candidates did well and had good points. Cheney comes off as somewhat curmudgeonly but Edwards looked a bit dopey at times as well. He is a heck of a lot more charismatic and interesting to listen to than Kerry though. He is such a stiff.

I'll call it a draw..................NOT! (No bias here at all)

On another note:

I am right.

You are wrong.

John Kerry is good.

W is bad.

Dems are good.

Repubs are bad.

Nah na na na na!
:beer:

Actually, let me say this. The debate last night really brought out the fundamental differences between the candidates. The same fundamental differences between those who call themselves Dems and Reps. These core beliefs/platforms are what it really boils down to once you clear away all of the B.S. , whether it be in a national debate or in a politcal discussion on a website.

If one is easily swayed from their core "platform", it really wasn't very core to begin with. Hence, the spirited back and forth will continue, forever and ever and ever and ever.

So, one has to respect that the "other" side sticks to their guns as much as we would stick to ours. We just need more choices in guns to stick to (i.e. more parties). Cuz right now, it boils down to 50/50. I call that a Charlie Foxtrot.

It is kinda like beating your head against the wall.

RC

oke: oke: oke: oke: oke: oke: 
:stirpot: :stirpot: :stirpot: :stirpot: :stirpot: 
:box: :box: :box: :box: :box: :box:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I agree and anyone that forms their opinion based on 90 second sound bites hasn't been paying any attention to the real issues, although sadly some people probably do.


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

I thought this was a good debate. I'd give the early rounds to Edwards for nailing Cheney about lying to the American public about connections between Saddam and Osama and for not being truthful about the mess in Iraq. However, Cheney landed some blows in the middle about Edwards' lack of experience and truancy from Senate votes. Almost fell out of my chair when Cheney said after presiding over a hundred Senate votes over the last several years that the two men had not met each other until last night. I thought, "How is it possible that Edwards never made the effort to walk down to the well of the Senate chamber and shake the Vice President's hand?" Turns out Cheney was lying (see below). Also think Cheney scored points when asked about who is better qualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. I'd give the later rounds on domestic policy to Edwards--simply for having the facts straight about the economy, health care and education--and for describing a superior plan to address these issues. Final impression--debate was probably a draw--Edwards displayed more than enough intelligence to be able to do the job--and perhaps, most importantly--make no mistake that Cheney is the real President. He displayed a command of presence and knowledge FAR beyond the capabilities of Bush. The Prez. seems small and juvenile in comparison.

By Peter Wallsten Times Staff Writer 
WASHINGTON - It was perhaps the most surprising tidbit of new information during the debate - that Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) had never met Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) until Tuesday night.

Except it wasn't true. 
"I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session," Cheney said to Edwards. "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight." 
It seems, however, the vice president's memory was a little off. Or maybe Edwards didn't leave much of an impression. 
Less than two hours after the debate ended, aides to Edwards and Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record) distributed a photograph from the Feb. 1, 2001, National Prayer Breakfast showing Edwards and Cheney standing side by side. 
"Congressman Watts, Sen. Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I are honored to be with you all this morning," Cheney said, according to a transcript. 
Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt described the prayer breakfast photo as evidence of an "inconsequential meeting." 
Kerry-Edwards aides also pointed to news articles from January 2003, when Edwards escorted the newly elected senator from North Carolina, Elizabeth Hanford Dole, onto the Senate floor for her swearing-in by Cheney. 
Although Cheney is the Senate's presiding officer, he actually sits in the chamber only on rare occasions, such as to break a tie vote and to swear in new senators. 
He does attend the GOP senators' weekly luncheons to discuss party strategy. But only Republicans attend, and Cheney usually breezes into the building, goes to the meeting, then leaves without hobnobbing with Democrats. 
In fact, Cheney was teased by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (news, bio, voting record) (D-Vt.) for only associating with Republicans when, in an encounter on the Senate floor, Cheney cursed at Leahy. 
A Cheney aide said after the debate that the vice president simply didn't remember meeting Edwards prior to Tuesday night - and that he certainly had never seen the North Carolinian on the Senate floor.


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

MT, do you have anything to back up the Kerry-Edwards voting record? No way was last night a draw, if that was a draw so was the Bush VS. Kerry debate. I enjoyed Cheney's comment about flip-flopping when they saw Howard Dean's anti-war stance was helping. I just hope Bush will step it up for Friday's debate.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I would give the beginning, and some of the middle to Cheyney, and the end to Edwards. Cheyney spoke well early on, and said what needed to be said. He however waivered towards the end, stuttering as if reading a off a poorly written cue card. I do not feel that this will have much effect on the polls.


----------



## Mr. Creosote (Sep 29, 2004)

Cheney is a gentleman or he would have wiped the floor with Edwards. As it was Ol' 'slip and fall' Edwards was stymied big time, such as when he went on about tax cuts, (which Kerry voted against umpteen times), and Medicare/health care reform in which Kerry did't bother to show up to vote at all. Also, Cheney mentioned the $600,000.00 dollars Edwards did't pay to medicare as a result of loopholes. Loopholes currently being examined by the IRS.
Cheney did commit one faux pas when he claimed to have not met Edwards before the debate. He had. But it was a very brief, in-passing situation and Edwards was such a little, nobody, munschkin, that Cheney had forgotten. 
I wish Bush had done as well as Cheney but as I said at the time, I don't believe the Pres debates changed many minds as polls that had showed a leveling up are now showing Bush pulling ahead once more by 5 and some say 7 points. On the issue polls Bush is ahead by anywhere from 10-25 points.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Preside ... g_Poll.htm

"showing Bush pulling ahead once more by 5 and some say 7 points"

Correction, about 0.3 of a point. Just like Cheney you have your facts mixed up.


----------



## Mr. Creosote (Sep 29, 2004)

Or one could try this one: http://www.gallup.com


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT

I think I'll give you something to chew on here. Did you see the poll on electoral votes, when likely voters are polled? Bush gets 290 electoral votes, and Kerry gets 200 electoral votes. Looks like a good chance that I'll get to keep my dangerous Remington 870 Wingmaster four more years. Also, I paid $2600 less in taxes under Bush. I could buy some ammo with that for my 870 assault weapon.


----------



## SniperPride (Sep 20, 2004)

Edwards got owned last night big time. Momentum in Bush's favor now.
When Bush wins this november im going to buy an AR-10 to use deer hunting to celebrate! :lol: 
:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:


----------

