I agree with what Amlord has just said.



While answering the question Edwards made it look like, since Bush and Vice Prez. Cheney has come, they have not been telling the truth.

I don't know about 'NONE'. There are countries that have credibility towards the U.S. Maby we can get more. But I don't know if America can ever have the credibility of all the countries of the world.

It requires diplomacy, and the Bush administration doesn't know the first thing about it.

You don't demand someone's help, you ask them for help and if they aren't willing to give it freely and you really need it then you compromise with them to get it. The Bush administration has what I like to call a "my way or the highway" style and it doesn't work well for winning friends to do you favors.

Ever think there could be a reason the UN doesn't want to lift a finger in Iraq? Could it be because Bush has rubbed them the wrong way just one too many times? As both Kerry and Edwards have said, it is time to re-establish credibility with the world.

I voted that it was a tie. While I think Cheney landed some nice (although often underhanded) blows on Edwards, I think Edwards made some nice rebuttals that often times went completely unanswered by Cheney.

Nice approach on the topic, Amlord.

Which candidate did more to help his ticket's chances in November?
I marked this one even, though I may give Cheney an edge because he had more to recover from than Edwards. Cheney was at times solid and on message and really helped recover Bush a bit from the constant body blows of last Thursday. His attacks on Edwards attendance record in particular (in spite of the lie about never meeting him) I think were very effective.

Edwards, on the other had, held his own during Cheney's assaults, and sometimes landed a riposte here and there. Where Edwards succeeded the most was when he would attack and Cheney would pull a redirect and not even answer the question/rebuttal.


Were there any lines that stuck out for you?
Not really. Cheney made a good one on Edwards attendance record, but Edwards rebutted and Cheney ignored it. It was a common theme, Cheney lands some blows, Edwards lands some of his own. I think both sides drew some positives from this.

Doc

Here's a "clarification" by the "hometown newspaper" Cheney referenced. In the article (singular- they could only find one such reference) they point out:



I thought the debate was close, initially, and especially when I saw ABC gave the Veep an 8% lead with a 7% more Republican audience. Then I heard the CBS poll of uncommitteds gave Edwards a 13% lead, something that is a little more impressive than leading among your supporters. Then we found out that the Veep stretched/tortured/invented a couple of truths.

But I wasn't convinced that Edwards had any "real" victory until I heard Bush supporters, desperate for goods news after last Thursday, explain that Cheney's "never met" means "three times or more" while Kerry's "never give a veto . . ." means "give a veto".

My newest big government proposal: we should mail every Bush supporter a photocopy of the Webster's definition of "never" since the word seems to give them so much trouble.

EDWARDS: That was a complete distortion of my record. I know that won't come as a shock.

The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.

He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa.

It's amazing to hear him criticize either my record or John Kerry's.

IFILL: Thirty seconds.

CHENEY: Oh, I think his record speaks for itself. And frankly, it's not very distinguished.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html

Speaking on records that speak for themselves, I found this about Cheney's record regarding Nelson Mandela.

He voted against sanctions in various forms at least 10 times between 1983 and 1988. There is no evidence that Cheney ever spoke up for freedom and human rights in South Africa -- although in that respect he was merely a typical Republican politician of his time.

http://dir.salon.com/news/col/cona/2000/08...rica/index.html

So when Gwen Ifill asked: I want to talk to you about AIDS, and not about AIDS in China or Africa, but AIDS right here in this country, where black women between the ages of 25 and 44 are 13 times more likely to die of the disease than their counterparts.

What should the government's role be in helping to end the growth of this epidemic?

I wasn't surprised by Cheney's response when he FINALLY got around to "answering" the question.

Here in the United States, we've made significant progress. I have not heard those numbers with respect to African- American women. I was not aware that it was -- that they're in epidemic there, because we have made progress in terms of the overall rate of AIDS infections...

Not aware Mr. Vice-President or you just don't care about people that don't fit the profile of your political base? Maybe you should ask your "boss" about it. As a fan of The Oprah Winfrey Show I'm sure even Dubya knew that:

In 2000, HIV/AIDS was among the top three causes of death for African-American men ages 25–54 and African-American women ages 35–44.

Black women account for 72% of all the new HIV cases in women.

67% of black women with HIV contracted it from heterosexual sex.

African American women are 23 times more times likely to be infected with AIDS than white women.

http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200404...0040416_b.jhtml

The information about how AIDS is ravaging young black people is out there if you want to come up out of your bunker, Mr. Vice-President and look at it. First thing though is you have to actually care.

Oh, and regarding whether or not Cheney had ever met Edwards prior to the debate...

http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/Cheney-Edwards.jpg

Speaking of lies............Last night Edwards said:

The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.

Mr. Edwards, what are these 'plastic guns' to which you refer to?


Were there any lines that stuck out for you?

Cheney: "If John Kerry and John Edwards couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to standup to Al Qaeda?"

I don't see the significance of this. If someone tried to attack my family, I'd die trying to protect my family. But I wouldn't stand up to my wife a week before her "time of the month".

Why don't you ask Mr. Cheney. He voted against it. I am failing to see the point on this particular post.

How is that a lie? Are you suggesting that there was not a vote? Spin it all you want but a lie is a lie, and I don't see any proof provided in this post to a lie from Edwards.

Cheney lied, and every news org has called him on it. The truth is a hard pill to swallow, particularly for Republicans these days.

How about the Head start vote? How about the vote to keep Mandella in prison? Care to comment on these?

Plastic guns don't exist!!!!! there's a great platform to run on.......

EDIT: fixed quotes. --Amlord

How exactly is this characterization a lie?

Here's a Senate press release about the December 2003 expiration of the 1988 ban Cheney voted against, despite even the NRA being indifferent. Cheney apparently wondered about whether he'd still vote the same way in 2000. If you're questioning why we've never heard of a plastic gun being smuggled on to a plane, the ban's sunset was only in December of 2003, and regulation created after Sept. 11th theoretically should be tough enough to find even component, unassembled parts of a plastic gun. Whatever you're calling a "lie", it doesn't seem to rise to anywhere near the level of Cheney's whoppers.

I voted a tie, although I am partial to Edwards. It was quite interesting to see Cheney, as he reminds me of an old fashioned father figure, the kind who's been told that showing emotion is a sign of weekness. In some ways, sort of like my own father. And in that, I found Cheney not to be so alien. I thought both of them were articulate, and had good rebuttals, but upon reading this thread, it seems what I thought were good replies by Cheney were distortions. Which brings him down a notch, at least he sounded good at the time. They were both composed, although I did think Edwards seemed a little too eager, and it would have irritated me if I didnt think he was so charming. In the end, although I dont like what Cheney was saying, I think he showed that he was knowledgeable. I like most of what Edwards had to say, aside from his blind support of Israel. But Im skeptical that he can bring about the justice he talked about.

I thought Cheney was rude at the end, as he didnt even thank Edwards for appearing at the debate, although Edwards did.

I have a question about the "tax loophole" that Cheney mentioned Edwards took advantage of? What is it exactly? And why isnt anyone harping on about it, the way their harping on about Cheney saying he'd never met Edwards?

It seems that even if Cheney won the debate last night (I thought it was a tie), todays negative pubclity might have mitigated that or even pushed him further back. I heard on repeat today of the error in Cheneys statment that he had never met Edwards before. That, and of course his statements of a Iraq-9/11 connection as he said on meet the press as shown continually on hardball/MSNBC.

Its clearly a day after victory for the dems, mostly because of Cheneys own statements.

Really? Ever think that the reason the UN didn't lift a finger in Iraq was the billions of dollars that people were making off of the Oil-For-Food Scandal? Come on. All the evidence is out on the table about the corruption...but will you find this on the front page of the New York Times?

Hey, i dont know how Bush rubbed them the wrong way BEFORE he asked for a vote. Bush wanted the UN in. Everyone wanted the UN in. The UN didnt want in. So Bush said we will do it ourselves. There were no demands. The UN cant even enforce its own resolutions.

We have to get one thing straight. France, Germany, Russia...they are not our allies. We just have a mutually beneficial relationship. "Allies" do not illegally sell weapons and weapons systems to Iraqi forces before the war. "Allies" do not give Saddam Hussein billions of dollars to enhance his palaces. People say Bush went to war for oil? Well France didnt go to war for oil.

I have always wondered when Kerry talked about bringing in allies to share the burden...what allies is he referring to? France and Germany already said they will not go in no matter what happens in the election. We must all come to the realization that the United States has never been liked. Even after world war 2, when we were helping to rebuild France (after we liberated it!)...the people of Europe thought we were "occupiers." People are jealous of our power, our economy, and our way of life. Everyone is out their for their own best interests...just like we are.

My point about the 'plastic weapons' which I obviously failed to expand into a better post (it was quitting time ) was this:
Edwards brought up the bill, along with the Mandela resolution, to try and paint Cheney as uncompassionate, evil, whatever. He knows full well that both of the above bills were nothing more than 'feel good' measures, and weren't worth the time and attention that congress paid to it.
Both sides compromised, and did so more on this bill than many others, because they knew there was no significance to it. The compromise bill banned the future production and sale of firearms with less than four ounces of metal. The bill had no effect on any existing gun, and as far as I can tell, no effect on any gun that anyone has ever wanted to build.
I shouldn't have called it a lie by Edwards, I should have taken the time to point out that he brought it up ONLY (and erroneously) to smear Cheney's voting record. He brought it up ONLY to incite the sheep watching him that somehow Cheney wants guns made of plastic that can pass through metal detectors. Because since he's a Republican, he simply has to be an evil, gun loving, homicidal....did I say evil?.....man. Sure, both men brought up voting records and inconsistencies, but that's the point of this thread....to bring them to light.

And no, GM, I'm not going to comment more on the Mandela resolution, as I don't have the time or energy today to fight off the inevitable charges of racism by some of our more 'enlightened members, referencing my opinion of the man.

I had a new thought for everyone to chew on here. Regardless of how you feel about the actual performance in the debate (and I still think Edwards won by a hair), it is important to consider the post-debate ramifications.

Cheney clearly lied about some really ridiculous things during the debate, the most notable and stupid probably being that he "hadn't met Edwards before this debate". I'm sure he thought that America and the media would just take that as a great quip and he'd get a damaging soundbite played ad nauseum in the news.

But something happened that wasn't supposed to, the media actually did it's job and called him on the lie. A quick search of Google will show you that virtually every major news outlet has picked this up, many of them on the front page.

So, post debate most people are going to see this blatant lie by Cheney and I think that'll play well with those undecideds that saw the debate and more importantly the people that didn't watch the debate. For the latter group, this lie is really the only news they are getting and any message Cheney might have been trying to convey has been lost.

So with all of that in mind, I think that Cheney shot himself in the foot and regardless of his performance during the debate, he has clearly lost the post debate battle in the media and court of public opinion.

I thought this was interesting, regarding the comments on forgien policy:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1006-20.htm

It has almost been 2 days since the vice presidental debate but I wanted to wait until the dust settled before giving my opinion.

Immediately after the debate I considered it a tie. But given time to digest all the news and watching some parts again,I have come to the conclusion that indeed Cheney is the most EXPERIENCED as he implied quite a few times during the debate.

In fact his main message was "that experience matters the most".

Yes no doubt he was the most experienced in LYING. This guy could lie to you looking you straight in the eye. He could sell a refrigerator to a Eskimo. He could sell a coat to a person living on the equator.

Aye you say, words and accusation are cheap.

Okay just a few examples:

1. Cheney said I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

That lie has been refuted by so many sources from newspapers,tv,internet that it is comical. Cheney has suggested there's a connection to NPR,Tim Russert,etc. in the past. Even MSNBC ran a interview with Cheney saying those words.

2. When Edwards said that 90% of coalition casualties suffered in Iraq were American, Cheney replies that you have your facts wrong. Factcheck.org backs up Edwards. The exact figure is 88.6%. Close enough,I would think.

3. Cheny said that 900,000 small businesses would be affected by the Kerry proposal to raise taxes on individuals with incomes of more than $200,000.

According to IRS data, a tiny fraction(5%) of small business 'S-Corporations' earn enough profits to be in that bracket, most are in the bottom two brackets.

But the lie that hurt the self-righteous,more experienced,condescending Cheney the most was :

I'm up in the senate most Tuesdays when they're are in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on this stage tonight.

Of course this statement was meant as a reprimand to the younger less experienced Senator from North Carolina.

It appears they have met at least 3 times, and this topic is the laughing stock everywhere I read or listen to the news.

So maybe the old saying "what goes around,comes around" may be true in this instance. I believe there have been some people who have finally seen the lies and master mind behind Bush.

P.S. Go to FACTCHECK.COM as Cheney suggested. That will give you the truth and who to vote for, and we have MR. Vice President to thank. There is justice in the world, after all.

Another indication of Cheney playing fast and loose with the truth: Of a total 1067 casualties, only 138 were “coalition” troops (Iraq Casualties). What’s that, about 13%? So, Edwards wasn’t too far off the mark when he said the US was taking 90% of the casualties in Iraq; he was only off by 3%. A heckuva lot closer than Cheney was.

More bad/sad news from Iraq:


Casualties in September were the highest they’ve been since April.

Which candidate did more to help his ticket's chances in November?
To add on to the continuing black eye this debate has turned into for Bush and Cheny, there is going to be a commercial coming out called Cheney vs. Reality which poses some of Cheney's lies during the debate against reality.

This gets better and better every day, you can't even pay for material this good

As Cheney indicated in the debate, Edwards / Kerry are chosing to dismiss the Iraqi's that have died. Why can't the Iraqi's be our allies? Why don't they count? He was making a valid point here. You would think that, since Kerry / Edwards want to pull our troops out in 6 months or 2 years or 4 years or maybe increase them or whatever, they would be very interested in what the Iraqi troops were up to.



If folks are going to 'fact check' they might want to note the title of the piece at Factcheck.org...doesn't exactly exonerate Edwards. Both of these schmo's took liberties with the truth, or more likely, had such a strong point to make - "90% of casualties" "tax raiser!" - that they couldn't change their speaking points to accurately shoehorn their canned response to the question posed.

Cheney & Edwards Mangle Facts

And Cube, if you "paid for material this good," according to CNN yesterday, it would cost you $120B, not $200B. Just FYI in the spirit of fact checking.

Touche Carlito! However, Cheney is getting horrible press over this and while I think it is well deserved Edwards did have some incorrect facts too. The implication of that is that no matter how well anyone thinks Cheney did in the debate, he is getting slaughtered right now and he is hurting the Bush campaign.

But, there is a big difference between an outright lie (i.e. Before tonight I have never met you) and getting a fact wrong (i.e. saying the war cost $200B instead of $120B, and I'm actually curious what the 200B takes into account because I'm sure they didn't make that number up and there is some spin to it just like the 90% thing)

I've heard the $200B figure includes money that will be spent in 2005. So, if the money is committed (I certainly can't see them pulling it back and distributing it elsewhere; government doesn't work that way), then $200B is a correct figure...at least next year it is.

Excellent questions, but the coalition does not keep track of Iraqi deaths. And seeing as how so many of them are civilian deaths (i.e., not police or "friendly" Iraqis fighting with the "coalition" or insurgents), Iraqi casualty figures would be pretty darned inaccurate.

In fact if the Bush-Cheney ticket loses next month, I think Comedy Central would give him a job. Anyone that can create this much laughter has to be good.

I would pay to see him perform!