Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Plain and simple. John Edwards is a political lightweight who has NO business being a VP candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Did Edwards get a Wollypop from Gwen Ifill after the debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Yup, Edwards got it handed to him tonight. I thought he put up a good effort, but it was not much of a contest. Cheney far outclassed him, especially on a night where the VP was clearly at the top of his game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Edwards did fine for a lawyer who changed careers and has 4 years experience in the Senate. The naivity of this guy is charming while at the same time alarming in a VP candidate. The democratic base got served enough of what they probably needed tonight to keep the momentum going in the wake of Kerry's performance, but this performance probably hurt with the all powerful undecideds. By this time following the first debate, the libs had lit up this board talking about Kerry's win. Many conservatives were classy in acknowledging Kerry's victory and issues with Bush. No surprise - as of yet the same class has not been returned. I'm sure tomorrow we'll be hearing about how Edwards trounced Cheney. After all, he used the time tested Tennyboy debate tactic (HALIBURTON) as well as the classic blzrul tactic (screw the facts, just bash bash bash). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I actually thought Edwards did OK considering the expectations I had for him going against Cheney (or for anyone going against Cheney for that matter). Thing is, this debate did very little to help or hurt either presidential candidate. It will all come down to Friday night's debate. If Bush bombs again, Kerry will likely - barring any unforeseen events in the next three weeks - sneak away with the electoral vote on Nov 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I got home late from school and didn't watch the debate. I figured Cheney would come out as the clear winner. Maybe Bush will get his stevestojan together and put up a decent fight against Kerry in the last debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain America Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Edwards did fine for a lawyer who changed careers and has 4 years experience in the Senate. The naivity of this guy is charming while at the same time alarming in a VP candidate. The democratic base got served enough of what they probably needed tonight to keep the momentum going in the wake of Kerry's performance, but this performance probably hurt with the all powerful undecideds. By this time following the first debate, the libs had lit up this board talking about Kerry's win. Many conservatives were classy in acknowledging Kerry's victory and issues with Bush. No surprise - as of yet the same class has not been returned. I'm sure tomorrow we'll be hearing about how Edwards trounced Cheney. After all, he used the time tested Tennyboy debate tactic (HALIBURTON) as well as the classic blzrul tactic (screw the facts, just bash bash bash). 58588[/snapback] Where did you ever get the idea the libbers had any class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Where did you ever get the idea the libbers had any class? 58618[/snapback] From me? Ooops... Okay, I can be thoughtless, uncaring and insensitive sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Okay, I can be thoughtless, uncaring and insensitive sometimes. 58646[/snapback] Funny, according to blzrul that makes you a die hard conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I don't know. While Cheney definitiely has an authoritative aura about him, I though Edwards was fairly effective at getting across some very valid points. Cheney, on a few occaisions offered up weak cliche defenses, and a couple of times left Cheney with no rebuttal. As an admittedly biased viewer, at this point, there were a few points where I think Cheney was made to look like the fraud that he is. First, there was the gay marriage issue. I thought Edwards was ballsy to bring up Cheneys daughter, and pretty much infered, for a party that preaches traditional family values, isn't it a bit odd to have a vice-president that sells out his own daughter? Another good moment for Edwards came when he pointed out that Cheney had voted against the same weapons defense systems that Kerry did, when he was accused by the vp of being on the "wrong side" of military issues. For us on the left, another strong moment for Edwards came when he pointed out all of the things that Cheney had voted against (Martin Luther King holiday, meals on wheels for seniors). I watched it on ABC where they had a split screen for most of the debate, Cheney looked very sheepish... How about Cheney, bold face lying, saying that he had never made the direct connection between Saddam and 9/11, and again his embarassing spin on his Haliburton days. In the end, while Cheney likely "wins", I hardly think it was the ass-whupping that most predicted, and did nothing to hurt or help Bush. People who dislike the predsident, and his vice-president will not be impressed with Cheney, the other side will be happy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 How about Cheney, bold face lying, saying that he had never made the direct connection between Saddam and 9/11, and again his embarassing spin on his Haliburton days. 58664[/snapback] For the ignorant ones here, which embarrassing spin on Halliburton days? Other than the mere mention of the word, Halliburton? Sweet soothing music to your ears. Halliburton. No bid contract. Sleep well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I don't know. While Cheney definitiely has an authoritative aura about him, I though Edwards was fairly effective at getting across some very valid points. Cheney, on a few occaisions offered up weak cliche defenses, and a couple of times left Cheney with no rebuttal. As an admittedly biased viewer, at this point, there were a few points where I think Cheney was made to look like the fraud that he is. First, there was the gay marriage issue. I thought Edwards was ballsy to bring up Cheneys daughter, and pretty much infered, for a party that preaches traditional family values, isn't it a bit odd to have a vice-president that sells out his own daughter? Another good moment for Edwards came when he pointed out that Cheney had voted against the same weapons defense systems that Kerry did, when he was accused by the vp of being on the "wrong side" of military issues. For us on the left, another strong moment for Edwards came when he pointed out all of the things that Cheney had voted against (Martin Luther King holiday, meals on wheels for seniors). I watched it on ABC where they had a split screen for most of the debate, Cheney looked very sheepish... How about Cheney, bold face lying, saying that he had never made the direct connection between Saddam and 9/11, and again his embarassing spin on his Haliburton days. In the end, while Cheney likely "wins", I hardly think it was the ass-whupping that most predicted, and did nothing to hurt or help Bush. People who dislike the predsident, and his vice-president will not be impressed with Cheney, the other side will be happy.... 58664[/snapback] That's another of your "unbiased" opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 That's another of your "unbiased" opinions? 58688[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I have just come to the conclusion that people see what they want to see in these debates...... I thought Chaney school the boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 First, there was the gay marriage issue. I thought Edwards was ballsy to bring up Cheneys daughter, and pretty much infered, for a party that preaches traditional family values, isn't it a bit odd to have a vice-president that sells out his own daughter? Another good moment for Edwards came when he pointed out that Cheney had voted against the same weapons defense systems that Kerry did, when he was accused by the vp of being on the "wrong side" of military issues. For us on the left, another strong moment for Edwards came when he pointed out all of the things that Cheney had voted against (Martin Luther King holiday, meals on wheels for seniors). I watched it on ABC where they had a split screen for most of the debate, Cheney looked very sheepish... How about Cheney, bold face lying, saying that he had never made the direct connection between Saddam and 9/11, and again his embarassing spin on his Haliburton days. 58664[/snapback] On Dick's lesbo daughter: Speaking as a libertarian Republican, this is my biggest problem with Cheney, a man for whom I otherwise have total respect. Mary's his own flesh and blood. So she likes to munch on a little carpet now and then...whose business is that but only Mary and the carpet bearer? On Cheney's votes and weapons defense systems: Good point. Can any conservatives here explain his reasons for voting against these systems? On Cheney's votes and MLK holiday, meals on wheels, etc: Come on now. No one cared about this Mickey Mouse stevestojan in the 2000 election, and after 9/11 and the start of WWIII, no one will care about this stevestojan in 2004 either. On the connection between Saddam and 9/11: You have been staring at the political sun for way too long now. This "controversy" has been debunked countless times since the final days of the 9/11 commission, by both conservative and liberal media outlets alike. On Halliburton: Consult previous sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Many conservatives were classy in acknowledging Kerry's victory and issues with Bush. After all, he used the time tested Tennyboy debate tactic (HALIBURTON) as well as the classic blzrul tactic (screw the facts, just bash bash bash). Of course, very few of these 'classy conservatives' were on this board... almost everyone said that it was a tie, or Kerry did not win. And Cheney LIED In FRONT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE by saying that he didn't make a connection between Saddam and 9/11. A WHOPPER of a lie, caught by Chris Matthews ON TAPE. I saw another interview with him, implying it HEAVILY on the news. It is a microcosm of what garbage we have recieved over the past 4 years right there. Cheney, you LIED last night, BIG TIME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Maybe it was me, but what I heard from Cheney about his daughter was remarkably candid, and he seemed to be saying he was against what the President wanted in his own heart but was supporting him because that is what he is supposed to do as VP. I thought that was one of Cheney's better moments. I thought he was going to be pissed when Edwards brought up his daughter but Dick came back gracious. Here is what he specifically said. I thought it was very honest, and clever. CHENEY: Gwen, you're right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business. That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships. Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference. In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of — the legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage. And the fact is that the president felt that it was important to make it clear that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned. Now, he sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president. On the other hand, the crap about the first time meeting Edwards was not only a flat lie but unbelievaby disingenuous, since Cheney comes to the Senate on "most Tuesdays" and ONLY goes to the GOP luncheon. According to several Senators I saw last night, there is little chance of meeting a Dem on Tuesdays and he is the first VP in memory and maybe history that doesnt talk to the other side of the aisle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Maybe it was me, but what I heard from Cheney about his daughter was remarkably candid, and he seemed to be saying he was against what the President wanted in his own heart but was supporting him because that is what he is supposed to do as VP. I thought that was one of Cheney's better moments. I thought he was going to be pissed when Edwards brought up his daughter but Dick came back gracious. Here is what he specifically said. I thought it was very honest, and clever. On the other hand, the crap about the first time meeting Edwards was not only a flat lie but unbelievaby disingenuous, since Cheney comes to the Senate on "most Tuesdays" and ONLY goes to the GOP luncheon. According to several Senators I saw last night, there is little chance of meeting a Dem on Tuesdays and he is the first VP in memory and maybe history that doesnt talk to the other side of the aisle. 58790[/snapback] Cheney really took the gloves off with that ad hominem attack on Edwards. You could tell that the comments about Halliburton really stung him and probably ring true. I actually gained a lot of respect for Cheney from this debate. I was one that went on record on this board to say that the fancy trial lawyer Edwards would stylistically wipe the floor with Cheney, but Cheney definitely won on style points. Of course he lied (or exaggerated) about several important issues (as did Edwards) but he's a politician...its what they do. I kept wondering why this guy isn't our president instead of Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Plain and simple. John Edwards is a political lightweight who has NO business being a VP candidate. 58564[/snapback] More accurately he is an assmonkey!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Cheney really took the gloves off with that ad hominem attack on Edwards. You could tell that the comments about Halliburton really stung him and probably ring true. 58945[/snapback] How so? Apparently you wouldn't be pissed off if someone questioned your credibility on National Television? Sure you wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts