MattyT Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 How so? Apparently you wouldn't be pissed off if someone questioned your credibility on National Television? Sure you wouldn't. 59098[/snapback] Eh? I don't get your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 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. 58591[/snapback] Only Hillary and her handlers know what "unforeseen" events might be in store..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 An Edwards draw with Cheney really is a win for Edwards. While Cheney's speaking style would put me to sleep if he were teaching a class he is able to put together meaningful sentences and is a good debater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Christ, am I the only one who saw the ambulance chaser side of him last night? Especially when he used John Kerry's name, and the moderator reminded him that he was not allowed to use his name...and then five seconds later, he's using his name again! And then stops himself, and apologizes. It was like hearing a guy in court say "So when you approached the rapist..." "Objection!" "Mr. Edwards, you can not call the defendent a rapist." "Sorry your honor. So anyway, when the rapist..." Was that a debate or was he talking to a jury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 As Cheney was halfway through his answer to the first question our daughter turned to us and asked "is he answering the question? he's saying a lot of stuff but I don't think it's got anything to do with the question does it?". I thought Edwards did ok; we all knew that the gloves would come off during this debate, which was better than the Cheney-Lieberman agree-a-thon of 2000. Each scored points; most people don't vote based on the VP candidate anyway. IF Cheney had presidential aspirations (which he may but I believe him when he says not) his performance wouldn't have helped him but since most people think there's zero chance he'll ever be president his performance probably didn't hurt. How much CAN it hurt a guy who's disapproval rating is already over 50%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 As Cheney was halfway through his answer to the first question our daughter turned to us and asked "is he answering the question? he's saying a lot of stuff but I don't think it's got anything to do with the question does it?". 59156[/snapback] But your daughter never noticed how Edwards evaded answering his questions as well? You've obviously raised her well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Especially when he used John Kerry's name, and the moderator reminded him that he was not allowed to use his name That question was a bit silly. What is this 3rd grade? OK boys and girls describe the picture in front of you without saying what it is and everyone will try to guess what object you are describing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 That question was a bit silly. What is this 3rd grade? OK boys and girls describe the picture in front of you without saying what it is and everyone will try to guess what object you are describing. 59184[/snapback] My fiancee thought that it was a stupid question also. I kind of liked the question from a general interest standpoint. The intent was to separate the candidates from their running mates and compare/contrast the VP candidates as individuals. Unfortunately, there were two flaws 1) Edwards didn't properly answer the question (with or without using Kerry's name) and 2) we aren't voting for VPs, we are voting for a President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 .... The intent was to separate the candidates from their running mates and compare/contrast the VP candidates as individuals.... 59209[/snapback] Based on this premise, if voters can't distinguish between a Pres/VP candidate, then they deserve whatever government is forced upon them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I kind of liked the question from a general interest standpoint. It's a question that could work in a different setting - say a magazine article where the interviewer can poke and prod the person into giving real answers. But in a sound-bite setting, I mean debate, it doesn't fly too well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Based on this premise, if voters can't distinguish between a Pres/VP candidate, then they deserve whatever government is forced upon them. 59221[/snapback] You oversimplified it. I'm not talking about flash cards and the everyday voter on the street being able to identify a candidate from a bag of a$$holes. I'm talking about isolating the two VP candidates from their running mates and then attempting to do a comparitive analysis between Cheney and Edwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMCBillsFan Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Cheney did well last night. Every time they showed Edwards pompous ass I wanted to kick in the tv. I've lived in NC for 6 yrs this time around and Edwards can't even run this state. He's an ambulance chasing prosecuting attorney and is a smooth talker who can hide behind his ability to speak. How many times last night did he completely blow off the question and not answer it only to get some other stupid meaningless point across? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 It's a question that could work in a different setting - say a magazine article where the interviewer can poke and prod the person into giving real answers. But in a sound-bite setting, I mean debate, it doesn't fly too well. 59229[/snapback] I agree. Interesting in general, but not the best question in a debate forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I've lived in NC for 6 yrs this time around and Edwards can't even run this state. I thought governors run the states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 You oversimplified it. I'm not talking about flash cards and the everyday voter on the street being able to identify a candidate from a bag of a$$holes. I'm talking about isolating the two VP candidates from their running mates and then attempting to do a comparitive analysis between Cheney and Edwards. 59231[/snapback] Thanks for oversimplifying the oversimplification. If a voter cannot distinguish among Cheney, Edwards, Bush & Kerry, no matter how you sit them in a room, draw concentric circles, put on pointy hats, and rearrange the question, that voter deserves the consequence. I don't see what kind of comparative analysis you are looking for. They are both VP candidates, and should be able to say the name of the Pres candidate in talking about how they're different from the Pres candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 That's another of your "unbiased" opinions? 58688[/snapback] Uh AD, you disappoint me. You are always so quick to insult people or find flaws, yet you are showing an increasing tendancy to not read everything. I prefaced my comments by saying that I was an "admittedly biased viewer". Apparently PPP is not the place to come for discussion, but only to throw insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 How so? Apparently you wouldn't be pissed off if someone questioned your credibility on National Television? Sure you wouldn't. 59098[/snapback] Perhaps the indication that the Haliburton comments stung Cheney was the fact that he never addressed any of them. He did a lot of that last night. If he was pissed off, why not come back with some denial? Maybe because he knew it was a no-win argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Thanks for oversimplifying the oversimplification. If a voter cannot distinguish among Cheney, Edwards, Bush & Kerry, no matter how you sit them in a room, draw concentric circles, put on pointy hats, and rearrange the question, that voter deserves the consequence. I don't see what kind of comparative analysis you are looking for. They are both VP candidates, and should be able to say the name of the Pres candidate in talking about how they're different from the Pres candidate. Some people (myself included) are interested in the perception that one candidate has of the other. Particularly hearing it directly from their mouths and for the record. Like I said, it was generally interesting but not the best question for debate. Whether they could say the presidents name or not is not really important. Let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Perhaps the indication that the Haliburton comments stung Cheney was the fact that he never addressed any of them. He did a lot of that last night. If he was pissed off, why not come back with some denial? Maybe because he knew it was a no-win argument? 59297[/snapback] Maybe this is where your reading/listening comprehension is eluding you. Cheney did respond. CHENEY: I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds. IFILL: Well, that's all you've got. (LAUGHTER) CHENEY: Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false. They know that if you go, for example, to factcheck.com (sic), an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton. It's an effort that they've made repeatedly to try to confuse the voters and to raise questions, but there's no substance to the charges. Edwards threw a litany of charges against the wall, all of which have been soundly dismissed of any impropriety as they relate to Cheney's tenure as CEO or his ties once he became VP. But, hey, Edwards scored by saying Halliburton. Kinda rolls of your tongue, doesn't it? On a sidenote, care to talk about Kerry's A list for Treasury nominees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Uh AD, you disappoint me. You are always so quick to insult people or find flaws, yet you are showing an increasing tendancy to not read everything. I prefaced my comments by saying that I was an "admittedly biased viewer". Apparently PPP is not the place to come for discussion, but only to throw insults. 59282[/snapback] So you've only just figured that out? AD sits in the midst of his little spiderweb, in the dark literally and figuratively, and throws venom and stones. He offers no solutions. He has nothing postive to say about anything. And he has nothing nice to say, unless someone with an equally negative view of everything comes along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts