Your Reactions to the VP Debate

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Flubber
So you have to show up to make a losing vote in Washington instead of speaking about the same isue in California, Idaho or Maine. Why??

At least, he could say he cared enough about the issue to vote for it even if the bill did not pass.

I'm guessing we could find senators (Repubs or Dems) that missed lots of votes for far less laudable reasons than seeking the presidency.

So anything goes cause our war hero Kerry wants to be president?

To me this a non-issue unless you just want to hand elections to incumbents since all sitting senators would be precluded. I'm sure if someone resigned their senate seat to run, there would be a negative spin on that as well

You don't see the president skipping out on his presidential duties so as to campaign, do you? Imagine a president that said "screw the international summit, I am in the middle of a campaign and besides I will speak on the issue so that's just as good". It would not fly. The president has a lot more responsibilities than a senator, and he still governs and campaigns.

Obviously, a senator will miss some votes. The point is that Kerry and Edwards have missed too many votes and too many important intelligence briefings.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by The diplomat


At least, he could say he cared enough about the issue to vote for it even if the bill did not pass.

.

PLEASE--- then you would see the opposing party constantly scheduling votes so the other side could not campaign effectively. . . .maybe even an extended session on the noght of the debate

Originally posted by The diplomat

So anything goes cause our war hero Kerry wants to be president?

.

No I would see the same rules applying to both sides. Gov Bush spent a lot of time outside Texas in 2000 did he not? So kerry Bush, Edwards Cheney or whomever . . . campaigning for office is part of the system

Originally posted by The diplomat



You don't see the president skipping out on his presidential duties so as to campaign, do you? Imagine a president that said "screw the international summit, I am in the middle of a campaign and besides I will speak on the issue so that's just as good". It would not fly. The president has a lot more responsibilities than a senator, and he still governs and campaigns.
.

Actually a president loves that international summit stuff since they get great news coverage and are there "looking presidential " so its dual purpose.

I agree that a president has more duties than a senator and in fact I would expect that it is probably a 12-16 hour a day job. So when pray tell is a president supposed to campaign if they are fully expected to do their usual job??

The answer is that a president in an election year does not do their usual job. They delegate more stuff and are even greater misers with their time so they focus on the most important issues. .. . and more and more functions that are duties of the president AS WELL AS being good campaigning are included

[Pax]

Cheney seems to campaign very little. That leaves him in D.C. to focus on making good "recommendations" to the President. The President can then focus on his strengths, making "common" man speeches across the country. That leaves Colin Powell to speak with the International community. C. Rice and D. Rumsfeld are left to continue the dirty little wars.

[alva]

Originally posted by Gibsie
I'm sure the Republicans could make just as huge a fuss out of the pen thing, since it is cheating technically, but they haven't,

What's with the pen thing... in the parts I've seen, Cheney was using a pen too.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by alva

Originally posted by Gibsie
I'm sure the Republicans could make just as huge a fuss out of the pen thing, since it is cheating technically, but they haven't,

What's with the pen thing... in the parts I've seen, Cheney was using a pen too.

This was about Kerry bringing a pen in his jacket in the first debate.

Technically he wasn't supposed to bring a pen with him, he was supposed provide it in advance with his blank paper and it would be placed on the podium. Truly a trivial issue.

-Drachasor

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Regarding all this, I find it funny that people seem to be evenly split over who won the debate last night. I also find it very odd that anyone would think that Cheney got anything less than eviscerated by Edwards. But I think it comes down to a couple of things.

I think it depends on the viewers perception to Cheney's body language. Cheney didn't make any outright errors like Bush did, at least factually or verbally, but he did sit there like an unempassioned bump on a log. To alot of people, and I hate to say it but especially to nerdy types, being unempassioned and emotionless is equivalent to being stoic and stocism equals strong, which means Cheney won. To others, myself included, the kind of "stoicism" Cheney displayed lead me to believe he had no passion for what he was saying and almost came off as scared and defensive. His facial expressions showed this as well... he looked almost scrunched up in his chair as if he was waiting for the next insult to come. He almost seemed like a hardened nerd who was used to being bullied and doesn't let on that he's scared. I think alot of people equate Cheney's win with him being able to take a beating well and to not cry, which he did.

Edwards on the other hand was boisterous and passionate, he really seemed like he believed in what he was saying and didn't let Cheney intimidate him one bit.

So what do you think?

[Ben Kenobi]

You're talking more about styles rather than the content of their debate.

I don't know. I've seen both styles, but almost always, it is the bombastic personality that seems to be scored highest in the debating tournament, rather than the casual and cool debator.

But there is something to be said for being impervious when questioned or heckled by the opposition.

I've judged, and I've debated. I used to be the bombastic one, but I switched to being calmer as I got more debates under my belt. My partner liked being the emotional one, so I could sit back and rip apart the opposition's argument, while he got to warm up the crowd.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You're talking more about styles rather than the content of their debate.

I don't know. I've seen both styles, but almost always, it is the bombastic personality that seems to be scored highest in the debating tournament, rather than the casual and cool debator.

But there is something to be said for being impervious when questioned or heckled by the opposition.

I've judged, and I've debated. I used to be the bombastic one, but I switched to being calmer as I got more debates under my belt. My partner liked being the emotional one, so I could sit back and rip apart the opposition's argument, while he got to warm up the crowd.

But I'm saying assuming the content was equal, which is was, half the people seem to still think Cheney won. Party affiliation aside, I think Cheney was clearly on the defensive. I think some people see his imperviousness as being stoic, while I see it as being scared... in his case that is.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why do you feel that content-wise, Edwards eviscerated Cheney?

Most of the compliments for Edwards commend his speaking style, not the content of his speech.

[MrFun]

I lost track of this thread's discussion . . . . .

[Boris Godunov]

Okay, so let's get this straight--the right-wingers think that harping on lies by Cheney about "minor" issues is petty. But I'm sure in 2000 they were all about attacking Gore after the first debate over the girl who had to stand in her classroom (which, incidently, panned out to be essentially true in its details).

So here's the lies we have from Cheney so far:

1. Lied about never linking Iraq to 9/11 (that's minor?)
2. Lied about never meeting Edwards before
3. Lied about Kerry's voting record on taxes
4. Lied about factcheck.org refuting Edwards' Haliburton claims
5. Lied about Edwards' hometown paper calling him "Senator Gone"

So all that is "minor," is it? How about his rewriting of the history leading up to the Iraq war?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek/

Rewriting History
In his debate with John Edwards, Dick Cheney had a brand-new version of the events that led to war
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek

Updated: 4:32 p.m. ET Oct. 6, 2004Oct. 6 - With virtually all of the administration’s original case for war in Iraq in tatters, Vice President Dick Cheney provided shifting and sometimes misleading arguments in last night’s debate with John Edwards about Saddam Hussein’s ties to terrorists and his access to weapons of mass destruction.

Cheney, responding to moderator Gwen Ifill’s first question, said that “concern” about Iraq before the war had “specifically focused” on the fact that Saddam’s regime had been listed for years by the U.S. government as a “state sponsor of terror,” that Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal operated out of Baghdad, that Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and that he had an “established relationship” with Al Qaeda.

Powell also never brought up Abu Nidal living in Baghdad—most likely because Nidal, who hadn’t been associated with any terrorist attacks in years, was already dead. (He was shot under mysterious circumstances in 2002.) And while Powell made a brief mention of Iraq funneling money to the families of suicide bombers, this was never a prominent part of the Bush administration’s case for war—in large part because a number of other nations, most notably Saudi Arabia, have for years provided similar financial support to the families of Palestinian “martyrs.”

Cheney’s claims about an “established relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda were always a principal part of the administration’s case for war, cited by Powell at the United Nations and, most forcefully, by Cheney in numerous speeches and TV interviews before and after the invasion. But it is also a contention that has been seriously undermined by a series of recent U.S. government reports, including the September 11 Commission report, which concluded there was no “collaborative operational relationship” between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Another is a recent CIA analysis, disclosed for the first time this week, raising questions about whether Jordanian terrorist Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, had been harbored by Saddam’s regime before the war.

Cheney said last night that Zarqawi, who once ran a terror camp in Afghanistan with loose links to Al Qaeda, had “migrated to Baghdad” after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 and “set up shop” there, overseeing a “poisons facility” at Kurmal, in northern Iraq.

In fact, U.S. intelligence officials tell NEWSWEEK, after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Zarqawi went first to Iran—a country that many officials have long believed had far more consequential relationships with terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, than Saddam’s regime. And while the new CIA report confirms that Zarqawi unquestionably did later move to Baghdad—and received medical treatment there before the war— there is still no hard evidence on whether he was being supported or assisted by Saddam’s regime. “The information on that is not clear,” said one U.S. official familiar with the report. “It’s still being worked.” Cheney also left out the fact that the alleged poisons facility that Zarqawi allegedly supervised was in a part of northern Iraq not controlled by Saddam's government.

Cheney, challenged by Edwards, insisted last night that “I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11.” But that claim is belied by an array of interviews and public comments in which Cheney has done precisely that—by repeatedly invoking claims that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence agent. That allegation was also debunked by the 9/11 commission after the panel found abundant evidence that Atta was actually in the United States at the time the rendezvous supposedly took place.

Cheney, for example, called the claim of an Atta meeting with an Iraqi official in Prague “pretty well confirmed” in a Dec. 9, 2001, “Meet the Press” interview. In a Sept. 8, 2002, “Meet the Press” appearance, just weeks before the congressional vote on authorizing President Bush to go to war, Cheney again returned to the issue: “We’ve seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center.” Even after CIA and FBI officials had already concluded the claims of the meeting were almost certainly false, Cheney was still referring to it in a Sept. 14, 2003 “Meet the Press” appearance. “The Czechs alleged that Mohammed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraq intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.”

Republicans last night were able to point to their own lengthy list of instances when Edwards misspoke or made “inaccurate” claims during the debate. Among them: that Edwards inflated the cost of the Iraq war (by saying it was $200 billion rather than $120 billion), by claiming that the United States has absorbed 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq (by leaving out uniformed Iraqi casualty deaths that would bring the figure down to 50 percent) and, perhaps most importantly, by saying that his running mate, John Kerry, had been “absolutely clear and consistent from the beginning about Iraq.” (Edwards himself had claimed during the primary season that Kerry’s explanations for his vote on authorizing the war in Iraq were “not clear to me … I think he’s said some different things at different points in time. So I think there there’s been some inconsistency.”)

But Cheney’s miscues on Iraq are especially notable because he has been perhaps the single most vigorous advocate—both internally and in public—for the war. And the new questions about his previous statements come at a particularly awkward time for the administration. In a 1,000-page report released this afternoon, Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, concludes once and for all that Iraq had no chemical or biological weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion. In fact, the report says, Iraq had destroyed the stockpiles it did have after the first Persian Gulf War under the pressure of U.N. sanctions.

As for administration claims that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program—claims that had been championed by Cheney more than any single high-level official—Duelfer found that Saddam had actually abandoned his nuclear efforts years earlier. “He was getting further away from nuclear weapons,” a U.S. government official familiar with Duelfer’s report told reporters yesterday. “He was further away from nuclear weapons in 2003 than he was in 1991.” The nuclear program wasn’t reconstituting, the official said. It was “decaying.”

In last night's debate, Cheney largely skirted the administration's prewar claims about Iraqi WMD, although he did at one point refer to a presumed nexus between terrorists and Iraqi unconventional weapons. "The point is that that's the place where you're most likely to see the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over the years," he said. The claim that Saddam's agents had instructed Al Qaeda terrorists in making "poisons and gasses" had in fact been a prominent feature of the administration's prewar assertions, highlighted by Powell in his Security Council speech and Cheney repeatedly in his TV appearances and speeches. But the allegation was almost entirely based on the claims of one high-level Al Qaeda detainee—first identified by NEWSWEEK as Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi—who, according to the 9/11 commission, has since recanted his story. Asked if Duelfer's team had found any evidence that Iraq had provided such training for terrorists, the U.S. official familiar with Duelfer's report shook his head and said simply: "No."

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

Cheney is a bull**** artist, plain and simple.

[Sava]

AWESOME Boris! Cheney is a liar and the media is saying it! GoodBye Bush!!!

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Japher
my reaction ...

a little less converstaion,
a little more cowbell

You know, as more of Cheney's lies are exposed and talked about in the press, this debate is shaping up like Gore-Bush I: in the immediate aftermath, most gave Gore the nod; in the days to follow, the pendulum swung heavily to Bush.

[Wraith]

--"Gov Bush spent a lot of time outside Texas in 2000 did he not?"

Can't say I like Bush (because I don't), but this isn't fair to him. The Texas State Legislature meets only every other year. It's one of the state's good points. So, with no state legislative session active, there really wasn't any reason for him not to campaign.

Wraith
"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office."
-- H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)