Questions for Debate: Which candidate did more to help his ticket's chances in November?

Were there any lines that stuck out for you?

For me, the fact that Cheney said he had never met Edwards before that night was very telling. Edwards is a Senator, Cheney as Vice President is President pro temp of the Senate. He said he chairs the Senate most Tuesdays. To me, that was very telling.

Amlord is nice that Cheney said that but untrue. Edwards met him at a senator lunch and during the swearing in of a new senator. I think it mainly was a tie with both sides getting there points in. When the news site shows the links for when they there I will gladly add it. Also one thing that Cheney said that he never linked Iraq with Al-Queda is false he has done it on several occasions. MSNBC showed the video to Ben Ginsberg as proof.

I nulled my vote. I watch about a half hour, a differening scenes, of the VP debate on c-span. If I had to guess who won, it would be Cheney. I think he benefited from sitting down and from being able to directly address Edwards. Knowing Cheney, theres bound to be all sorts of factual errors he's made ("I never said that," lol).

Saying that the debate was a tie, however, isn't an unreasonable conclusion. I think Edwards caught up a number of times. However, in my observation, that momentum was always brought back down by cheney with a quick jab (he said something to the effect of "There are so many distortions there I don't know where to begin")


Edited: Now, I'm really confused. I'm watching the rerun on CNN, and when it came to jobs, I'm seeing Edwards deliver a complete victory over Cheney. I'm leaning more towards tie at this point. Another point for edwards on the tax cut question. And I also give Edwards the edge on the closing statement.

That was a tie if I ever saw one.

Questions for Debate:
Which candidate did more to help his ticket's chances in November?

It probably leaned toward a draw, but as one commentator just mentioned, "The Vice President performed better than the President did a week ago." His job was to convince voters that the President was the better choice than the challenger. By looking more Presidential than the President, he has set a challenge for the President to meet in the next two debates. (In the background, a commentator just remarked that it looks like Cheney is the real power in the Bush Cheney administration.)

Senator Edwards performed as well as was expected of him, and successfully challenged the present administration on several points.

I suspect that Edwards may come out as the "winner" in the polls.

Were there any lines that stuck out for you?


I have long felt that American Soldiers in a combat zone should not be taxed on their income while they are at war. The concept that they are out there defending the country, putting their lives on the line, and "Don't forget to keep track of your pay stub so you can file a tax return." is ludicrous. A private contractor, by contrast, who earns his living for a year while living outside the U.S. gets to bring home his income and pay no taxes.

I thought it was close. Any scathing statements made by one was quickly countered by a return scathing. Cheney went back on Kerry's voting record. Edwards went back in Cheney's voting record. I like the fact that Cheney was criticizing Kerry for voting on certain things that he himself voted along with Kerry on. I thought Edwards won but I would say any Bush supporter thought Cheney won. I thought Cheney won the early portion simply because Edwards was nervous but after that Edwards to me was the clear winner. I thought Cheney was pushing a fabricated and distorted image of Iraq pretending that the 30 countries we have now is somehow comparable to the coalition we had in Desert Storm 1 as if Vanuatu and Samoa are just the same as Germany and France. I think it is obvious. The Bush adm. likes to see and paint the world in black and white.

I am pleased with what Edwards said but I do not think this will effect anything. I think that the numbers will be comparable on who the public thinks won the debate unlike 2000 when Lieberman was pretty obviously beaten. It was close but I give the slight edge to Edwards.

Great topic Amlord, it's nice to have a topic broader than simply "who won?" I believe that Edwards did more to help the ticket. For one, a good showing is something that does provide a little momentum until Nov. 2nd. That is evident by:

-source

So not only did he do a good job of defending the ticket's main issues, he also closes the "likability" gap that although subjective and perhaps shallow in my opinion, still plays a part in any election. Whether or not you agree with the CBS poll, you have to admit that if you were John Kerry, you couldn't have asked more of Edwards.

Edwards's Best line?-Personalizing the gay marriage issue by simply dismissing it as divisive politics and then insinuating that surely the Vice President would be for his daughter possessing simple, basic rights. His lack of a response was quite telling, you could tell quite easily that he knew when to fold on that issue.

Cheney's best line?-Outlining what has gone "right" in Iraq.

Were there any lines that stuck out for you?

EDWARDS: Mr. Vice President, we were attacked. But we weren't attacked by Saddam Hussein.

Which candidate did more to help his ticket's chances in November?

I think the election may well come down to whether Kerry/Edwards can uncouple the specific war on Iraq from the general war on terror. I don’t think Cheney debunked anything Edwards said along these lines. I would call it a tie, except that Edwards, armed with news of the day, further separated the two.

I’ve heard all sorts of spin on this one. Matthews and Scarborough said that Cheney clobbered Edwards. Tom Brokaw thinks that voters will weigh this in with Friday’s night’s debate in St. Louis

The very respected David Gergen, who served three Republican and one Democratic President, called it a “tie” on Larry King Live.

Here’s a link to some info on Gergen.

http://www.davidgergen.com/

The link below is to a non-scientific poll of MSNB viewers.

More than 600,000 viewers have voted and it’s at this moment Cheney 32%, Edwards 68%.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/

Edited to add this take by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5660340/

Which candidate did more to help his ticket's chances in November?

The answer HAS to be Cheney. ANYTHING would have helped Bush's previous performance. Cheney looked calm and seemed to lose his temper on only two occasions and quickly composed himself. His remarks definitely helped Bush more than Edwards helped Kerry but Bush needed that much more help.

Edwards did a lot of water drinking and Cheney did not. He handled the water-drinking well but they showed he might be feeling a little pressure. I've got to hand it to both of them on remaining calm, though.

I actually thought Edwards won the debate on substance because Cheney repeated himself more than Edwards (one more 'No Child Left Behind' and I was going to re-apply for middle school) and he completely mis-answered one question. However substantive, Edwards still did not win by a large margin. I gave Cheney the highest marks on style and looking 'distinguished' and 'presidential'.

Edwards, on the other hand, fired several unanswered salvos on health care, Bin Laden, military pay cuts, inadequate troop strength, Halliburton, education and clearing up the oft-misquoted "global test" phrase.

Were there any lines that stuck out for you?

Cheney seized that one with the "This is the first time I've met you." line. It scored heavily and made Edwards flinch. It was a line that will probably stand out in this debate above others.

However, Edwards' continual revisitation of the difference between Saddam and Bin Laden as our attacker had to be considered stellar for crystalizing the major difference in Bush and Kerry on Iraq - a victory for sure for a rookie of sorts.

Short answer on winner/loser status:

Edwards' substance trumped Cheney's distinguished style but not by much. What a horse race this is shaping up to be!

Kudos on the phrasing of the question! BTW, I don't type fast enough for chat so Nytol!

I think Cheney took that one. Edwards is too young, and Cheney too old and good a liar. A lot of uninformed people are going to walk away thinking Edwards is a cocky brat, Cheney a genius. Cheney may well be a genius, of the cunning variety, but that doesn't mean I want his party to win. That man scares me.

I voted tie- though I think the tie goes to the current VP by not flubbing it like his boss.

I definately think Edwards plain ol' whupped him on substance- I really like that he brought out the jobs loss so well, and that this is the first president in 70 years, dem or repub, that had a net jobs loss.

I dislike the tendency of talking heads to reduce the important political issues of the day to nothing but another sporting event with "winners" and "losers." However, I found this debate to a bit duller than last Thursday's presidential debate.

I think the greater burden was on Dick Cheney to seize the initiative after the mess Bush left for him with his tepid performance last week. As I write this with over 156,000 votes on Fox News.com, Edwards is leading Cheney as the winner of their debate 52 percent to 47 percent. Cheney may not have hurt Bush, but I don't think he helped stop the downward spiral either.

The job of a vice-presidential candidate in a race is to stay on message, say the nasty things about the other side that the guy on the top of the ticket can't say, and don't do anything to make the boss look bad. Cheney and Edwards met those minimum qualifications. But Cheney had to at least slow the momentum of John Kerry while Edwards only had to do nothing to lose it.

Cheney looked like a corpse done up by a mortician skimping on his rogue and powder. He looked old, tired and like he'd be rather be back in his bunker than wilting like a weed under the hot lights. When Gwen Ifill asked him about the tragedy of black women becoming infected with AIDS, Cheney looked totally disinterested as if you were discussing the World Cup to someone who hates soccer. This is not a guy who feels your pain.

Okay, so Cheney did get off a good one about Edwards and his absences in the Senate. But Edward's rebuttal about Cheney's voting record when he was in the House (Opposed to Meals on Wheels and Head Start? Voted against the Martin Luther King holiday and a Congressional resolution supporting the release of Nelson Mandela?) was a nice comeback, I thought.

Edwards wasn't overly impressive, but his job was to build up Kerry and jab at Bush and Cheney. Cheney didn't seem to think any criticism of Haliburton was valid while Edwards did admit to some excesses by lawsuit-happy lawyers. The smile on Edwards's face was never far away while Cheney looked grim and humorless. It was if Cheney couldn't understand why anyone could have a problem with Haliburton's no-bid contracts and war profiteering.

There isn't going to be much time for the polls to move dramatically one way or the other before the Friday debate between the two top guns. Cheney may have buoyed the spirits of the faithful somewhat, but probably little he or Edwards said Tuesday night is going to dramatically shift the equation of the election in four weeks.

I have heard pundit after pundit say that no one ever made their mind up based on a Vice Presidential Debate. So I was a bit surprised by the numbers I saw in a CNN QUICKVOTE a few minutes ago.

(Source)

Nearly 87,000 voters said that this debate helped them decide which way to vote.

I have been looking at a couple of newpaper articles which are remarking on a record number of voter registrations in Michigan this year, citing numbers in the range of 96 - 97% of eligible voters are registered this year. Voter turnout at the polls is yet to be determined of course...

PE is fond of saying, "The winner in any of these debates is ultimately the voter." If the debates are actually helping people decide how to cast their votes, then I may have to cast my vote with her. We're all the winners because the debates went forward.

Once again, we listened to this on radio. What stood out to me wasn't any one-liner nor any particular argument. The thing that impressed me was the distinct differences in vocal tones and attitudes.

Cheney came off as the boss. He tried to put Edwards down for being tardy from work, like a grumpy old foreman squeezing every nickel until Jefferson cries uncle.

Edwards came off as the fiesty working class hero he is. Although he had several opportunities to call Cheney a bald-faced liar, he chose to put up logical arguments and let them stand on their own without personal commentary.

When cornered, Cheney went into his condescending monotone. How dare anyone question his authority? His command of this country? His . . .

Ooops, he's not the commander of this country. GWB is supposed to be in that role. Cabinet members are supposed to share this role, and we also have a Congress.

Then it struck me, yet another cognitive disconnect. Cheney was introduced as second in command at the beginning!

Wow. Our system evolved along the lines where the VP really had no command at all, except when the Senate tied. Now we know. A vote for Bush is actually a vote for Cheney, with Haliburton having a commanding role in what we do as a country.

For undecided voters comfortable with this situation, Cheney's performance probably swayed them the Republican way. The rest are probably still in shock.

Down the road when pundits will analyze the juices out of this election, I do believe this will be called the pivotal point, the night that the US electorate saw the curtain pulled back to reveal the great and wonderful OZ dude at the controls.

From FactCheck.org, an admonishment to the Veep for claiming "FactCheck.com" cleared him of the Halliburton allegations, and a mention of the at least two times Cheney and Edwards have met. So far, the BC04 response is that there were lots of people at the Prayer Breakfast, but the video clearly shows the two men sitting next to each other. Cheney directly addressed Edwards then. Last night wasn't even the closest physical proximity of the two.

Cheney lied. To me, that was very telling.

what an odd debate. Many more personal attacks/jabs than the kerry bush debate. Edwards said many true things but looked like he might be lying while Cheney made several false statements and made them seem true. Somehow, Cheney did not appear as evil as he normally does as well... it's a tossup for me as to who performed better.

Cheney "fact of the matter"

Edwards "distortion"

I voted tie. Both men defended their positions. Cheney demonstrated his extensive knowledge, and Edwards posed many pertinent questions that Cheney left unanswered.

The body language was interesting. Edwards drank water a lot; Cheney started to fold in on himself, muffling the microphone later on in the debate.

Cheney came across as running the country rather than G.W., making his boss look like a figurehead rather than the strong leader. Cheney is the power behind the throne, and it explains why the President couldn't/wouldn't show up at the 9/11 Commission hearing without him.

His apparent lack of interest in the AIDs issue, his voting particularly against Meals on Wheels and Head Start made him look like a compassionless Conservative.

Edwards' attendance in the Senate chamber should have been better. Cheney really got him; no, he got himself on that one. But I am sure he and Cheney must have met once, and the news media is digging to find it among their archives. At any rate, that was Cheney's big point.

Edwards very adroitly contrasted the tax savings experienced by millionaires at poolside to the taxes taken from American soldiers in Iraq.

Cheney tried to refute the 90% cost and 90% casualties experienced in Iraq by Americans by trying to change the stats to casualties incurred after the occupation had begun. Certainly we could not count Iraqi casualties on the coalition side while they were still trying to repel the American invasion.

While Edwards has had far less experience than Cheney in government, his running mate (Kerry) has far more of that same kind of experience than Cheney's running mate (Bush). I think Edwards defended well his position on the Democratic ticket. He is very bright, (probably can spell "potato" ), and his populist stance is very appealing to me. He is a quick study, and his obviously good health bodes well for the position "one heartbeat away" from the Presidency.

Edwards also reiterated the obvious: Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. He had to do this because a large segment of the American populace, due to the intentional blurring by the current administration, had mistakenly coupled the Iraqi dictator with 9/11.

For these reasons, I believe it was a draw.

Edit: Thanks, pennDerek, for the Factcheck.org link.

thanks for the heads up on factcheck. Server is overloaded, but I'm posting your link elsewhere and will keep trying to get in.

I found the Factcheck reference to be quite amusing... I was listening to the debate this morning on my computer as I worked, and when Cheney made the factcheck statement I decided to see what he was talking about... I paused the player and opened a new browser window, typed in http://www.factcheck.com and was immedietly taken to http://www.georgesoros.com/ where I was greeted by the headline; President Bush in endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests and undermining American values.

... which is probably not quite the message Mr Cheney had intended for me to read

As for the debate... I found it rather even, though I thought Cheney did a lot more tap dancing than Edwards, but Edwards seemed a bit too 'oily' for me... obviously a lawyer! Just the way he smiled when he was introduced made me cringe..

The most telling lines, for me were Cheney thanking Edwards for the nice things he said about his family and gay daughter (it made me wonder how the daughter must feel to be so mentioned in a national televised political debate) and Edwards telling the story of his father (which I thought illustrated more the pressures Americans must live under to succeed. I don't know any one who studied anything that early in the morning, before they went to work)

If I had to choose, then obviously I'd choose Edwards, but frankly, I think the options are pretty slim for the electorate

According to the Associated Press news crawl I receive as part of my Earthlink account, Cheney had met Edwards no less than three times before their debate Tuesday evening.

On Feb. 1, 2001, the vice president thanked Edwards by name at a Senate prayer breakfast and sat beside him during the event.

On April 8, 2001, Cheney and Edwards shook hands when they met off-camera during a taping of NBC's "Meet the Press," moderator Tim Russert said Wednesday on "Today."

On Jan. 8, 2003, the two met when the first-term North Carolina senator accompanied Elizabeth Dole to her swearing-in by Cheney as a North Carolina senator, Edwards aides also said.

Cheney's one liner to Edwards, "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight," was one of the few memorable quotes of the evening. The problem is it wasn't true.

Why did Cheney tell such a flimsy lie?

Kind of makes you wonder if he lies about the little things, what big things does he lie about?

Which candidate did more to help his ticket's chances in November?

Were there any lines that stuck out for you?

First, thanks to Curmudgeon for posting the transcript link.

The whole debate reminded me of the scene from the movie Fried Green Tomatoes, when the young girls’ VW sneaks in the parking space Kathy Bates' character was waiting for and tell her "Face it, we're younger and faster" as they skip away. Then Kathy Bates rams the snot out of their car and tells them: “Face it girls, I’m older and have more insurance.” Funny as heck in the movies, but mean-spirited in real life.

Historically VP debates don't seem to have much effect. From what I've heard, if Cheney had really blown it, it may have exacerbated Bush's poor performance last week. But, since he didn't, it's kind of a wash. It will be more interesting to see how the next 2 prez debates go.

There were no true standout lines for me…the closest were these from Edwards:

Some other observations

Worst questions from moderator:

Dumbest response from Cheney to that (2nd) question…rambling on about OB/GYNs. I agree with Edwards that the solution to high malpractice rates putting doctors out of business is not removing an individual's right to justice when they have been truly hurt by a doctor, but rather fix the abuses; keep the cases that don’t belong in court out (i.e. frivolous lawsuits) and address the problem of the uninsured.

As for that last one, jeez, using a GOP campaign tactic in a debate question-dumb dumb dumb.

Stand-out lies:

Best comebacks:

and

Neatest sidestep: Cheney’s non-response to AIDS in the US, which led Edwards down the same wrong path.

I think the whole litigation argument was just Cheney’s way of trying to get Edwards’ goat. While I think Edwards held his own, his soft-spokenness against Cheney's nasty bulldog growl could be construed as weakness (which I don't believe it is).

In answer to the poll question I voted Edwards but only by a hair. I thought Edwards effectively continued to make the case that foreign policy is not the shining star of the Bush administration and I think he got in a few good quips during the domestic policy section of the debate as well. I also think that Cheny made quite a few mistakes but also came off as more likeable than I thought he would. The performance of both men waned towards the end of the debate, but I don't think that Edwards fell off as much.

From the Washington Post:


From the LA Times:


From the NY Times:


Which candidate did more to help his ticket's chances in November?
As far as this question goes, I think that the answer has to be once again John Edwards. I'll admit that Cheny did much better than I expected him to up on stage, and he certainly didn't do even remotely as poor of a job as Bush did.

However, the task that Cheny needed to accomplish was to give some credibility back to Bush on foreign policy and make up for the poor performance in the first debate. I think he tried to do that but ultimately failed, he would have had to do a stellar job to pull that off and would have had to be clearly declared the winner of the debate just as clearly as Kerry was declared the winner of the first debate.

Edwards on the other hand only had to maintain the momentum that Kerry built, come off as likeable and intelligent and try and do as much damage to Bush/Cheny as possible. So for him, the task was much easier in my opinion. I think that he mostly succeeded in those objectives as I see them. He kept Cheny on the defensive about foreign policy, kept Iraq disconnected from the WOT, exposed cheny's position on trying to tie Iraq to terrorists even as he continued to do it in the debate and I think that he damaged Bush/Cheny on domestic issues too like jobs, the economy, the deficit, healthcare and taxes as a pre-emptive strike if you will for the third debate. Edwards made some mistakes during the debate, and there were several times that myself and the friends I was watching the debate with wanted him to finish the job and go for the kill and he didn't, but overall I think he was successful and Kerry's momentum will continue.

Were there any lines that stuck out for you?
From the transcript:
I thought this was one of edwards better moments, although there were several so it is hard to decide.



Too bad it is a lie Amlord. In fact they met back in 2001. So while that might play well as a sound bite, I really hope the media picks up on it and turns it against Cheny. I'm certain that at the very least the Daily Show will.

Which candidate did more to help his ticket's chances in November?

I don't think either candidate 'helped' his own ticket. I viewed it as a virtual tie with Cheney appearing stronger. Of course, Cheney made a catastrophic error in directing America to factcheck.org. That site points out numerous lies and distortions from the Bush side. Cheney appeared stronger last night, but as even Fox News is reporting, he lied, therefore confirming Edwards' main theme of the night:

"The Republicans continue to mislead America." Cheney proved Edwards correct.

Were there any lines that stuck out for you?

I though that the exchange over gay marriage was the only highlight of the night. For a brief moment Cheney appeared to be human. I respect Cheney's family, and I also respect his acknowledgement that he is at odds with Bush when it comes to amending the constitution in regards to gay marriage.

"Thank you for the kind words.............." (God if they could only be so polite over other issues.)

Overall thoughts?

Somewhat embarrassing mud slinging from both sides. I am glad that I don't have to sit through another VP debate. Not constructive. Bring the big boys back out.

What I think people are missing here about the "Just met him statement" is that Cheney was emphasizing that John Edwards is rarely on the Senate floor, where it really matters. Way to go Senator Gone.

Edit to add:

Also it shows me how much a scumbag Edwards is by bringing Cheney's daughter into the debate, there was no reason for that. And I was glad Cheney was enough of a gentleman to ignore it.

Sorry Sleeper but the moderator was the one that not only opened the door there, but built Cheny's family into the question:


So how was Edwards supposed to answer it given that the question directly referred to Cheny's daughter and the contradiction in policy? Edwards was perfectly respectful and I actually wish he had gone for the jugular on the question. The moderator basically gave him the opportunity to call Cheny a complete hypocrit for supporting legislation and a party that makes his daughter a second class citizen.

Dick Cheney won last night's debate hands down, in my opinion.

Which candidate did more to help his ticket's chances in November?

I believe Cheney dispelled some of the myths the Kerry campaign has been using in their stump speeches - you know the whole "we've taken 90 percent of the coalition causalities - $200 billion dollar" issue, the (and I am paraphrasing here) "we took our eye off Osama" myth to name a few.

He very clearly showed Kerry, Edwards, and the world the inconsistencies in their stances on Iraq and their attitude toward the coalition. He exposed them for their absences in the Senate and with great detail. And with regard to the "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight", per Debate Fact Check, Cheney was trying to make the point that Edwards was an absentee senator. I understood it to mean that as I was watching it.

Were there any lines that stuck out for you?

Oh gosh, there were so many good ones, Amlord.



And this...



And this...



Do I have to stop? OK, I will. Last night's debate was the best I've seen in a LONG time. I am really looking forward to Friday night's debate. Let's see if Bush can do better this time.

CJ and Belldona,

You beat me to the punch, but I'm going to say it anyway. I already had it written, so here goes.

Actually Sleeper, Cheney first brought the question up a month or so ago in breaking with the administration’s policy on the same sex marriage ban. It was Gwen Ifill, not Edwards, who brought that brought up the subject last night. Edward’s remarks were positive and responsive to Ifill’s question.



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

Nobody is missing a thing. Cheney clearly said that was their first meeting. When Cheney was told of their previous THREE meetings before, all Cheney replied with was, "Oh yeah". If Cheney had meant the senate floor, he would have stated he never saw him there. But that is NOT what he said. He clearly meant the first meeting. Little green aliens would have heard "first meeting".

Furthermore, when Cheney goes to Capitol Hill every Tuesday, he meets with republicans only. He does not regularly meet with democrats. Leahy is there practically everyday and rarely sees Cheney. and when he does, we know what THAT result is.

These distortions allow the misleading to continue. It's bad enough we were mislead into war. Now they want to mislead us into voting for them. Cheney and Bush lie because they know there are no consequences and that is the only way to win. They can't do it on their record.

Now, with THAT being said, I though Edwards practically had Cheney's pants down around his ankles. Edwards picked him apart piece by piece and all Cheney did was distort more. Most of the talking heads last night fell for it, but it's only today that the best shots Cheney came back with were once again, found to be lies.

I'm curious how you think these "myths" were dispelled Bela. Regarding the 90% number, it is simply perspective. Cheny chooses to dillute the number by including Iraq's contribution. That is all well and good but it hides the true fact that Cheny doesn't want the American public to know, we are basically acting in Iraq unilaterally with some support from the UK, but certainly shouldering most of the cost in soldiers and in dollars. How many soldiers from the UK have died, what about Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine?

When Cheny mentioned the Iraqi cost in lives I almost wanted to ask him if he was including the Iraqi lives that were lost by coalition and American bombs.

Regarding the Osama "myth", are you saying that we still have our eye on Osama? Bush has been quoted as saying he isn't a priority and it is pretty clear that they mishandled the operation in Afghanistan if what Edwards said about Tora Bora is correct. He may still be on the "wanted" list but what monumental efforts are we undertaking to catch him right now?

First off, this debate was much more exciting than the boring Bush Kerry debate of last week. We got to see some good digs and jabs on both sides.

I think that the most convincing and passionate comment made last night was from Dick Cheney. Reaching deep into his pockets of foreign policy experience he made a strong case for the Bush policy of: freedom is the cure for terrorism. He said:

Here is a transcript and my source of the debate.

Yes we do still have our eye on him. Regardless of what Bush has said, our force level in Afghanistan has stayed pretty stable since we introduced conventional ground forces in theater.
This site details what we have on the ground now, and gives a history of troop strengths, etc....

One of my favorite Democratic spin/myths is how we have forgotten about OBL and the Taliban and that Iraq drained forces from that effort.

That is some pretty good information DTOM, but I don't think you have characterized me correctly if you believe that I think we have "forgotten about Osama" as far as military operations go (as far as the public eye goes, perhaps). I'm sure that we still have troops on the ground, intelligence guys are still hard at work and people are still conducting searches.

My question and complaint really has always been that we haven't done enough and it seems to me that we have let some of our better opportunities slip away by focusing on unimportant things like Iraq. If the Tora Bora stuff is really true (and I'm not sure that would be easy to determine) then we really dropped the ball there and we don't have anyone to blame but the Bush administration because they couldn't be bothered to finish the job due to competing priorities.

Things like the president saying "Bin laden isn't a priority" doesn't mean there are not soldiers on the ground looking for him (I know I have friends in Afghanistan), but it very clearly lays out his mindset - and that mindset is wrong.

I think Edwards was the clear winner, though Cheney was much more "Presidential" than Bush. A few points that I found memorable:

1. Cheney almost never referred to Bush. As someone watching, I was struck by how he seemed to not want to bring up Bush's name that often. I wasn't really surprised because I think Cheney probably has more say in the running of the country than Bush anyway.
2. When Cheney was caught unprepared, he simply didn't respond. Saying things like "I could respond to that, but it would take more than 30 seconds" was a way out that came across as less than "Presidential."
3. Cheney is one of the best liars I have ever seen. Saying that he never met Edwards before. Lie. Saying that No Child Left Behind has been a great piece of legislation. Lie. Ask the schools about that one!
4. Cheney clearly distorted the Iraq figures on casualties. When he told Edwards he was not counting the Iraqis who have been killed, Edwards should have said "Do you want me to count all the Iraqis that we killed as well?"
5. Cheney criticized Kerry for voting against things that he himself was against as the Sec of Defense.
6. Edwards made the night by pointing out that Cheney voted for keeping Nelson Mandella in prison, voted against education, etc.

It was a great night for Edwards, who kept the momentum going into Friday's debate!

I thought a Cheney win here was just as obvious as a Kerry win last week. Edwards looked out of his league. He was just a prettier version of John Kerry, lots of rhetoric, no plans. For Cheney's part, he wasn't great, but he rebutted Edwards well, and had a few home runs, the "I don't think you were there to vote" line sticks out the most in my mind.

CP

I love when people say this and have absolutely no evidence to justify it. Edwards was the only one that even came close to presenting a plan during the debate, Cheny was on the defensive the whole time about foreign policy and on many of the domestic subjects - the ones he chose to comment on anyway. The Bush/Cheny take on "presenting a plan" has been we are doing x, y and z right now so just trust us - basically. The only problem is that x, y and z are clearly not working. The reason why Bush lost his debate is because Kerry called him on that and he didn't know what to say except for to repeat it over and over.

The words you wrote CP are possibly the biggest misconception out there. It is perfectly fine with me if you want to tell me that you don't agree with what Kerry and Edwards would do, but to say they have "no plan" is just ignoring the facts. I fully expect that from your average American, but I think we can do better than that here at AD.


Is the above not a plan, or is it just a plan you disagree with and it is easier to say that "there is no plan" than "I disagree with the plan"?

Part of the problem with having a detailed plan™ as every conservative here seems to suggest Kerry and Edwards need is that things are changing so rapidly on the ground there that it would be absolutely useless to formulate a detailed plan for action when things could change and then you'd have your opponent saying "he flip-flopped". What is important is overall goals, strategy and methodology. Kerry and Edrwards have most assuredly laid that out and if I must I'll go dig it up out of numerous campaign speeches for you, but I think you know I'm right.

Come on CJ. So here's Kerry and Edwards plan, um...train troops faster, and ummm....have the UN come in, along with our willing comrades the French and the Germans. Saying that Kerry and Edwards do not have a specific plan is not a misconception, it's a fact. They've been going out telling people that they'll do everything Bush does...better. Train troops faster? Lead a coalition? That's kinda what we're doing right now. As Cheney said [and I'm not a Cheney fan], they don't have a plan, they're an echo.

No, it isn't a plan, saying that they "plan" to do things faster, and better isn't a plan. And that's essentially what they're saying. I'll break the plan down:


Speed up training. Okay. Not very specific, but okay.

Speed up the reconstruction...How? How do you intend to speed up the rebuilding of Iraq?

This isn't a plan, it's a criticism. And if it can be stretched into a step in a plan, it's basically saying that they'd speed up UN involvement in Iraq. Speeding up, speeding up, speeding up. It's pretty sophomoric to run a campaign saying that you'll do things faster and more effectively than the other guy, without specifically saying how. Saying that you'll be the Bush Administration on caffeine is not a plan, it's a joke.

CP

Which candidate did more to help his ticket's chances in November?

Draw. Cheney did not embarass the ticket to hasten the Kerry Momentum, but Edwards did not accellerate the momentum either.

Were there any lines that stuck out for you?

Cheney's thanking Edwards about his daughter and then saying nothing else. Ouch that under cuts his boss -- unsaid message "Bush is wrong." That silence was deafening to me (especially on an issue I could really care less about). So I would have to say it was "That's it."

My take:


I think Edwards gutted Cheney (that is what he needed to do to get it to a draw). He definitely showed why he was a very successful trial lawyer. I think a little less caffeine before the debate may have helped him -- he was very hyper. I thought Cheney's delivery ranged from excellent to dreadful. He mumbled looked down when he spoke, covered his mic with his hands at times. Just amateur hour at times and I really like Cheney's style usually, but he was not on the top of his game.

Cheney definitely has truthfulness issues. Edwards was a bit spastic and needed more focus and to answer the questions presented.

All that being said, I think it was pretty close to a draw. Cheney did not unhinge his jaw and swallow Edwards for his life force (to paraphrase Jon Stewart) and Edwards showed that he was a viable VP candidate. Cheney's zingers would have been effective if they were true, but alas, in the days of the internet they were quickly dispatched.

Both accomplished what they set out to do (Cheney not being, obviously, the prince of darkness, and Edwards to look Vice Presidential and gut Cheney/Bush), but Cheney's style and truth lapses hurt him. Had he stuck to what he normally does, I would have said win for Cheney (even though he was out classed -- low expectations), but not last night. Draw with lean towards Edwards based upon expectations and Cheney whoppers.

Thus the Kerry momentum should continue until, at least, Friday night.

B

I thought this was pretty funny (the joke went right over my head yesterday - doh! ). According to this, factcheck.org was "not amused" when Cheney got their site wrong.

Whether or not you think the plan is the same is your interpretation, and I have absolutely zero delusions I'll convince you otherwise so I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. There are differences, both in what they are willing to do and the style they plan to use. But that aside, it is a plan and your argument that they don't have one is pure partisan rhetoric at its worst, not to mention intellectually lazy.

As for the rest of your response, you are asking for specifics, yet you don't address the portion of my post where I said:

So what if Kerry and Edwards lay out a detailed plan with troops, dollars, all the specifics you apparently desire and then something changes in Iraq like the character of the insurgency. Now Kerry and Edwards would be sitting with a broken plan now wouldn't they? So let's say they create a new plan based on the new info, how long do you think before the GOP, every talking head and every conservative and rabid Bush supporter here on AD starts saying "flip-flop"? That is politics, and that is why the plan they have presented is as I said "overall goals, strategy and methodology".

What is telling for me is that Cheney said something that's proved by video to be false.

I'm surprised an intelligent man like Cheney would make a statement he knew could so easily be debunked.

Democrats should run an ad of Cheney's statement followed by clips of Cheney and Edwards together and closed with a clip of Alan Funt crying "smile, you're on candid camera."

Except for The Donald telling Bush, "your fiyad" [fired] nothing could be more pleasing.

Simply saying that you would do something quicker or more effective than someone else does not mean that you have a plan, by definition.

Okay, a few things here. I have zero loyalty to George Bush, I have zero loyalty to the Republican Party, I am not a conservative, I am not partisan. I have looked at every candidate carefully, open-mindedly and thoroughly, and made my judgements about them, as I do in every election. I do not believe that John Kerry has a plan for much of anything, you do, that's fine. But to be called "intellectually lazy" after being so open minded with regards to judging each and every cadidate is offensive, and the charge is nonsense.

I would respect John Kerry infinetly more if he were to give a plan, I'm not asking for one that is so rigid that any shift in the wind in Iraq would cause a reason to alter it, I'm just asking for something more specific than "faster and better". And as I said, if they gave one, I would respect that.

I couldn't tell you, as I am neither a conservative or rabid Bush supporter, but I for one would be reasonable enough to realize that Kerry gave a plan, something changed, and his plan had to adapt. If the GOP couldn't be that reasonable, then the American people would notice, and I suspect the Repubs would hear from the voters on November second.

CP

I agree that Cheney said something stupid, a funny zinger at the time, but tactically stupid. But your ad can be easily countered with Kerry and Edwards stating repeatedly that they have only one position on Iraq, then running all of the clips of their statements that prove the contrary.

Which candidate did more to help his ticket's chances in November?
Ultimately, neither, though Cheney gained ground after Bush's first debate. I truly don't believe the undecideds will be swayed much from the VP debate.

CJ, I wasn't singling you out, so apologies if it came across that way. The line has been an oft repeated myth that has really started to get under my skin. Much as some of the RNC's talking points probably get to you.

If that is the way you feel then I urge you to spend an evening and read Kerry's Plan for America. If you want to know absolutely everything they are going to do about any subject, you simply aren't going to find that in every speech and appearance they give.

Even if you do nothing more than read the overview page and skip the PDF, you'll see that they do in fact have a plan. So, I would suggest that we drop this "they don't have a plan" stuff because it is patently false.


Then I'd have to commend you for that because that is the right answer. However, I can guarantee you that with Rove behind the scenes that would not be a missed opportunity. And I think you give the american people too much credit, the GOP has always been master of "the message" and probably will continue to hold that distinction well into the future.

One only has to look at this whole Kerry flip-flopped on Iraq debacle to see that I'm right, and that is only a soundbite. Imagine what they could do with a speech or two.

I commend you for not being partisan CP, but you also have to be a realist and understand that this is a contact sport and ideals are going to go out the window.

Which candidate did more to help his ticket's chances in November?

I thouught Cheney did a batter job than Edwards. It sounded like Edwards would just talk about how the Bush Administration was doing everything wrong, and how Iraq should of never been attacked, and because of the President and Vice Prez. there are all of these problems. He had a few good points but it was mostly about how John Kerry is better for America. Cheney did a good job at talking to Edwards about the things that are improving in the U.S. and Iraq, and showing their plan. He sounded like he knew what was going on.

Were there any lines that stuck out for you?

Edwards:


What is this globa test? It sounded to me like Edwards did not want to talk about it, and then he quoted what John Kerry said about terrorists.



Cheney:




Source- link

What is very telling to me is the simple fact that neither Cadman nor BoF (nor most of the left most likely) have bothered to view the immediate 15 seconds of the Meet the Press interview where Russert specifically asked if there was a connection and Cheney refuted such.

But hey, like Michael Moore does in his EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER... snip, cut, and run with it..., eh?

As for the Edward's and Cheney meeting, well, I find it strange that if the men were so well-aquainted that Edwards himself wouldn't point out that he had indeed met the man... unless the meetings were so inconsenquential that they slipped his mind to?

Funny? Seemed somewhat silly to me. He got burned by Edwards and THAT was the best he could come up with?
democrats are weak. I have heard 2 very good clips of speeches Kerry gave about exactly WHY he agreed to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq--do they use them?
So much for the "liberal" media. They just don't know how to fight back. Air America is doing well at meeting conservative tactics tit for tat so hopefully the rest of the Dems will start to listen. Nice to see they are starting to thrive. A nice balance to my radio day to balance the conservative shows I like.
Fcatcheck. com,,,,net,,,org,,us,,gov,,,,ne,,,,biz,,,uh Cheney was wrong and made it public with that stupid tactic.
Kudos to Factcheck for calling Cheney on his statement.

whattya expect from an administration that views being laid off from your job as a liesure opportunity.



Pain in the posterior that he repeats what Kerry actually said isn't it.

Bush has 2 more debates to survive. It is already being noted he is going to go supernegative in his speeches--one preview sounded like a sean hannity probably wrote it, wrong side of yadda yadda history blah blah blah. Hopefully "wrong side of reality pops into Kerrys head in response if he does.

If the Dems are smart they will parade Cheneys political voting history for all to see.
How this guy never gets publicity over the complete waste he has been is too valuable to ignore.

as a side note has anybody heard the political hitmen starting to malign Bremer now that he has made the mistake of publicly questioning Bush. I guess he forgot to fall on his sword.

Edwards talked plenty about it:


I'm not sure how he could more clear. It's all about credibility. Right now, the United States has NONE.

Cube, it isn't that Kerry/Edwards don't have a plan, it is that their plan is either a copy of the President's with a "we'll do it better" caveat or it ignores the facts on the ground.

Edwards outlined a plan that boils down to:
-Train Iraqis faster by adding more instructors
-Speed up reconstruction (no details given, imagine that )
-Train Iraqis outside of Iraq
-Get more UN people in to oversee the election


THAT is a plan? It is more like a talking points memo. There is nothing about the insurgency, nothing about security, nothing about elections except some vague reference to the UN crew.

I'm sorry, Mr. Edwards, that is not a plan.

Let's go point by point:

-Train Iraqis faster by adding more instructors

Apparently, Mr. Edwards feels that Marines could finish boot camp in 6 weeks instead of 12 by doubling the number of drill sergeants. Fallacious reasoning.

-Speed up reconstruction

Since no details are forthcoming, there is little to rebut from this talking point.


-Train Iraqis outside of Iraq
First of all, we are talking about thousands of trainees. Second of all, these men have families and need to have a feel for the situation on "the street". Maybe it's a good idea... Mostly, the idea is a "throw it out there and see if it gets any traction" type of thing.


-Get more UN people in to oversee the election
The key to it all, I guess. The UN is begging someone, anyone to provide security for them in Iraq. Security Council urges countries to contribute forces to protect UN in Iraq They are so cowardly, their Iraq webpage is still plastered with news of the explosions that happened over a year ago. I doubt the UN will summon the courage to step forward and help more.

So, Edwards' "plan" isn't a plan at all. It is a talking points memo.

Not that I'm picking on you or anything today CP but... this isn't so much of a homerun either.


So is this true? Nope. Check this out. This article has done the reasearch and it lists the acting president of the senate for every Tuesday session from 2001 to 2004. Cheny has presided over the senate as president exactly twice on Tuesdays. So I don't think he has any room to talk about Edwards voting record.

Edited to add:

Man this is exhausting...

I fail to see how that is not a plan? Does Edwards need to explicitly say that "the way we'll do these things is we'll do the job the president isn't doing?"

- Iraqis could be trained faster with more instructors if you actually think about it for just a second or two. With more instructors you would be able to train more people concurrently, thus overall Iraqis would be trained faster. Why do you assume that the only meaning of that is the same group of people will be trained in half the time?
- Hmm, speeding up reconstruction... how about actually spending the money that congress has given the president to use on Iraqi reconstruction? How about going back to the table and cutting in other countries on the reconstruction effort?
- Training Iraqis outside of Iraq, it goes back to the first point you made about training security forces faster. It is a solution that requires a little thinking outside of the box. If terrorism in country is hampering training, why not send them to the US. Its not rocket science.
- And finally, the UN. Are you fully confident that the elections are going to go off without a hitch as Rumsfeld and everyone else seems to suggest? I know that I'm not. This strikes to the core of the problem in Iraq, UN involvement.

All of this is contained (not verbatim) in speeches that have been given. If you are blinded into thinking someone is wrong, you often don't listen to what they say.

Yeah, I checked out factcheck.com.org.net and I saw that, as I said, Cheney wasn't great. Cheney saying that he is there most Tuesday is obviously false, and damages his credibility, but I also think that equally damaging is Senator Edwards attendance record, or lack there of.

CP

No kidding. I have to wonder how Edwards plans to bait the UN into helping in Iraq, especially considering that today there is talk in the UN of pulling out it's miniscule staff and not returning to Iraq. That Annan is under pressure to do such and has taken it into consideration.

More and more, what Edwards throws out sounds like a 'we can do it better, we just don't know how we'll do it better' lines. Like that one saying goes, "Hindsight is 20/20."