V.P. Debate Thread

[giggleygirl25]

thought i'd get a jump on it and start the V.P. debate thread...which are to be held tomorrow night at 9pm EST...thoughts,opinions etc. :D

[giggleygirl25]

honestly not much i can say on this even though i watched the whole thing...i was so bored, i'm surprised i didn't have to pinch myself to stay awake (sorry for those political lovin' peeps)

[Mitchell]

I would say it was more of a draw than Friday night, when Kerry clearly won. Both men made points and got their blows in, and I couldnt detect a clear winner. It wasnt as profound as Friday night. It is unlikely that many undecided voters will be swayed by anything they heard tonight. That likely will happen with the next two presidential debates.

Mitch

[Mitchell]

One important point I forgot to mention. Cheney hammered Edwards for being too "inexperienced" to be Vice President. In reality, except for being governor of Texas, what "experience" did George W Bush have to be president of the US, except for being the son of a former president. I'm not sure any candidate has "experience". Being president and VP is an on the job training, so this "inexperience" tag is nothing more than political rhetoric.
Another very important point: Iam appalled with this consistent theme of Cheney's that we are more apt to get hit again by a terrorist attack if John Kerry is president. The fact is, George W Bush was president on Sept 11, and we got hit. This is nothing more than a scare tactic by Bush Cheney to instill unsubstantiated fear in the American people that we will be hit again if we have John Kerry as president. We had a Democratic president in Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2001 and were not hit by a terrorist, but did have a Republican in George Bush on 9-11 2001, and were hit by terrorist. This is a dangerous tactic employed by Cheney consistently. To me, we will be worse off if Bush is president, as we are no safer in America since 9-11, and we have over 1000 dead in Iraq, with a runaway deficit, and no end in sight.

Mitch

[venray]

What hit me most was every time that Cheney called Edwards on not voting on important ecconomic issues, Edwards turned away and turned his eyes down. His smile ceased. Never once did he deny what was said.

As for not being hit while Bill was in office, that is only because they were busy planning the whole thing while he was boffin' Monica in the oval office.......(IMO)

Indeed a draw, but I find that Cheney was much more personable than I thought he could be.

Ray

[redway10]

A trial lawyer vs. a former corporate honcho. Yuck. It's like watching the greedy lawyers go after the greedy tobacco companies.

I thought Edwards had the edge for a pure debate, but he also came off as kind of mean, so that may give the edge to Cheney, who appeared to be more reasonable. Reasonable doesn't win debates, but it does sway voters.

Of course, Edwards was supposed to have an advantage in that he has courtroom speech experience, and the incumbent record is more up for attack. It didn't look like he got too much mileage from the administration's most vulnerable weak points (jobs and haliburton). Of course Cheney didn't get much mileage out of the administrations strong points (the economy out of recession and perceived strength on national defense).

This probably will not have any effect like last week's debate.

[venray]

Good summary. I must agree that it will not have much of an effect either way.

Ray

[giggleygirl25]

yeah this "debate" was so i don't know, just blech..i can't wait til friday's debate which i think might have an impact on the voting...but then again maybe not, never can tell.

[Mitchell]

One very important point I want to make in Cheney's assessment of jobs and such that struck me, and again showed how this administration misleads us. He said that we had "gained" 1.7 million jobs. This is an absolute distortion of fact, and a very serious one. The FACT is, Mr Vice President, that at the height of the job losses in this administration, 3 million jobs were lost. While part of that was due to 9-11, part of it was also due to the recession caused by this president. Cheney also said that Clinton's administration caused this recession, another distortion of fact. While there was definitely an economic slowdown under Clinton, major political bodies in Washington stated that the recession actually began in March 2001, AFTER Bush 43 came in, and lasted "nine months", with the rest of the time being in an anemic recovery. The FACT is that the term of Bush 43 will be the first presidency since Herbert Hoover where there will be net job losses, whether the final number be 1 million jobs lost or what not. Some of this is also due to outsourcing, and sending jobs overseas, something this president seems to care nothing about. Kerry and Edwards have clearly spoken against outsourcing, and keeping jobs in this country.
While Iam not suggesting that the economic problems and recession under Bush 43 are as bad as those under Hoover, the facts still are a net job loss of 1 million or more, 200 billion spent in Iraq with no end in sight, over 1000 soldiers dead in a misguided war, no clear connection (Except in Cheney' s distortions) found by the 9-11 commission between Al Queda, Bin Laden, and Saddam, and no WMD's found. This is addition to Bush 43 taking us from the greatest surplus in history to the greatest deficit. Finally, our allies have refused to work with Bush in this war, except for Great Britain. All these FACTS, that are reality, are why I strongly feel Bush 43 should be defeated in November. I realize everyone will vote based on their own interpretations, and I respect that. I cast my vote based on the concrete facts I listed, and the fact that I feel George Bush is doing a pitiful job as president, and in my view, needs to be held accountable for his actions by losing this election.

Mitch

[venray]

He said we gained 1.7 million jobs in the last year, Mitch.....

[ShadowFyre]

Cheney:
Gwen, we've got 111 million American taxpayers that have benefited from our income tax cuts.

We've got 33 million students who've benefited from No Child Left Behind.

We've got 40 million seniors who benefited from the reform of the Medicare system. The Democrats promised prescription drug benefits. For years they've run on that platform. They never got it done. The president got it done.

We also dropped 5 million people totally off the federal income tax rolls, so they no longer have to pay any federal income tax at all.

So the story, I think, is a good one.

And the data he's using is old data. It's from 2003. It doesn't include any of the gains that we've made in the last year. We've added 1.7 million jobs to the economy.

[Shem the Penman]

Just an amusing bit: During the debate, Cheney mentioned factcheck.com. However, he was mistaken: the actual site is factcheck.org. (http://www.factcheck.org) If you try to go to factcheck.com (http://www.factcheck.com), you wind up at ... well, see for yourself.

[Mitchell]

We havent "added" 1.7 million jobs to the economy. At the height of the job losses during the recession, 3 million jobs had been lost, what we have done is to perhaps (If the numbers are correct as the GOP often distorts reality) is to recover 1.7 of the 3 million jobs lost, which still is a net loss of 1.3 million jobs, and the first time since Herbert Hoover and the depression that we will have net job losses during a president's term. While Iam not by any means saying that the recession, and slow recovery, under Bush in any way compare with the horrors of the depression, how can anyone say a president has a good record on jobs, when we have still lost over 1 million jobs in his term?
People will spin this their own way, and will vote how they do based on their perception, but the fact is that we have had net job losses during his term, and this combined with Iraq, 1000 dead, and all the money spent, is why I think this guy should be defeated in November.

Mitch

[BOFH666]

Debate thoughts

* Let's get this one out the way first. I'm putting this as a draw, mainly because neither candidate opened any sort of telling gap by the end over the other. However, from what I've seen on blogs from both sides and from transcripts and video of the debate that needs to be quantified slightly. Cheney did a good job talking to his base, as did Edwards. However it seemed to me that Edwards has the greater chance of connecting with undecided voters.

* Primary job tonight was all about momentum. Edwards did enough to make sure Kerry still has the upper hand in the second Presidential debate, Cheney did enough that it didn't leave Bush an impossible mountain to climb. I suspect though that Republicans were hoping for a little more to get Bush back within striking distance. Net result, even if Bush performs out of his socks on Friday it's going to come down to the third debate.

* Cheney lies on national television (again). This, as most of you know, is one of my pet peeves, the abundance of outright lying in American politics in general and it's got no place here. Specificaly the "I've never met John Edwards" line is total horlicks and it casts doubt on everything else Cheney said in the debate. If he can't even get a simple fact like that right...

* Jobs. Impressive figure, 1.7 million jobs created in the last year. Unfortunately, from my general understanding of the American economy, you need to create 1.9 million jobs per year to keep up with population growth. Plus the slight problem of having a big job hole to climb out of in the first place. In other words, even if at the end of 2004 they're back to 2000 levels they're STILL behind the curve unless the labour pool shrunk (doubtful) in 4 years.

* Edwards, much as Kerry did last week, failed to knock softballs out of the park. Unlike Kerry however he didn't really manage to hit home any other advantage to make up for it.

* Cheney just about managed to keep his temper under control. Of course there's no question he SHOULD have considering the debate but it was a vital item on the checksheet. Even so he might have stepped too far over the line for Joe Schmoe on some of the personal attacks, we'll have to wait and see the reaction on that from the public.

* "Fiscal Restraint" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... oh, he's serious. Fiscal Restraint from a government that's treating the American economy like a credit card? Yeah, right.

* Edwards screwed up on Afghanistan and didn't do anywhere near enough on the Global Test (despite it being obvious to anyone with an IQ over 4 what was actually said).

* Edwards lack of political experience showed in foreign policy. Cheney though was VERY smart not to touch that with a ten foot bargepole as it leads to the obvious question of his boss and HIS experience before taking office.

* Domestic issues though were a different matter. It was a clear enough pattern, Cheney strong on Foreign Policy, Edwards strong on Domestic. That's NOT a good thing for the Republicans as Bush managed to royally flunk the foreign policy debate with Kerry and now has to face the domestic issues to mount a comeback.

* Edwards is SO winning the chick vote (sorry if that offends anyone, but after living in the UK, well let's just call it the Blair effect shall we?)

* Gwen Ifil was a horrid moderator. Just saying.

* Fairly willing to bet that Edwards got the youth vote as well

* Cheney most certainly HAS stated there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam and this was shown in Hardball after the debate.

* Fact checking is not going to be kind to Cheney, that's not a good thing IF the toothless American Media decide to do their job for a change and report the facts rather than parrot everything they're told. Won't affect the base but could damage the undecided vote.

* Oops. Cheney said to go to factcheck.con. He meant factcheck.org. That's an oops because factcheck.com is a portal site that some kind soul has just redirected to George Sorous's site... way to score major PR win for the other side Dick.

* For that matter, Factcheck.org is pretty brutal on the Republicans right now as well, and that's a non-partisan site. Current articles score 1 bad Democrat, 1 bad both and 4 bad Republican. Oops number 2 from Cheney

* Silly thought, but Cheney looked more presidential than Bush... art imitating life?

* Cheney accused Kerry of voting for tax increases 98 times. Those 98 votes include times when Kerry voted for lower taxes -- but not as low as Republicans wanted. And times when many procedural votes were cast on a single tax increase or package. For that matter, weren't the Bush/Cheney camp claiming 350 tax votes not so long ago before they got fact checked?

* Cheney contradicted Bush on at least one point that I caught. Bush said you "can't sanction them anymore" with regards to Iran, Cheney said they may look into tougher sanctions on Iran over Nuclear violations.

* Another silly thought, but Cheney was almost acting as if Bush doesn't exist a lot of the time. Certainly very little name checking for his boss. And no, before anyone says it, I'm aware that the moderator put a "no mentioning your boss by name" rule in place but my read was that was just for ONE question.

* Edwards got a good shot in on gay marraige and didn't really leave Cheney anywhere to go after being complemented for acknowledging his daughter is a lesbian Another place where Cheney came dangerously close to giving mexed missages.

* Cheney: "We also dropped 5 million people totally off the federal income tax rolls" - Uh, does that include the unemployed? How about those so poor they don't meet the minimum requirement to pay federal income tax? How about retirements? Just wondering. And of courseeven if those 5 million are genuine examples that's probably a very small tax 'break' that's been wiped out by increases elsewhere (medicare for example), general cost of living increases and, if they're still employed, they still pay payroll tax.

* Pushing the "no child left behind" scheme is probably not a good idea considering virtually every educator I've seen comment on the subject without bringing direct partisan politics into the equation sees it as an abomination, primarily owing to a lack of funding.

* Cheney said Kerry's tax-cut rollback would hit 900,000 small businesses. This is misleading. Under Cheney's definition, a small business is any taxpayer who includes some income from a small business investment, partnership, limited liability corporation or trust. By that definition, every partner at a huge accounting firm or at the largest law firm would represent small businesses. According to IRS data, a tiny fraction of small business "S-corporations" earn enough profits to be in the top two tax brackets. Most are in the bottom two brackets.

* The claims to cut back the budget deficit to half the current level do not add up. Kerry's health plan has, in its current form, a price tag of close to $1 trillion (not in a single year of course), which would take most of the revenue from reintroducing higher tax rates on those earning more than $200,000. On the other hand Bush is so far in the hole with his plan he's come out in China, with the estimated cost for partially privatising social security coming in at three or more times that of Kerry's health plan.

* Cheney said that Kerry and Edwards oppose the No Child Left Behind education law. Both senators voted for the law and support some modifications and billions of dollars to fully fund the education program.

* Cheney: "The Democrats promised prescription drug benefits. For years they've run on that platform. They never got it done" Of course the fact that in the last term of Clinton's administration the Republican house was blocking damn near EVERYTHING the Democrats tried to do might have had something to do with that.

* Cheney: "We believe that all Americans ought to have access to available -- to medical care and that they ought to have access to the finest schools in the world. " No thanks, we really don't want millions of American kids coming to Britain if it's all the same to you, we've got enough problems with education capacity as it is. ;) Note also the word "access". It would be interesting to find out exactly what Cheney means by this, whether it's "will be covered by health care even if they can't aford monthly payments" or "if they can afford to pay for it they can have access".

* Cheney's bitching about a lack of bipartisanship is hilarious and tragic at the same time because it points to the fundamental truth. 9/11 brought the US together as never before and it stayed together through Afghanistan (something conveniently forgotten by some people). It was only the rush to Iraq that resulted in the near civil war we see today.

* The "product liability" example that Cheney gave as an example of "lawsuit abuse" turned my stomach. This is not McDonalds, we are not talking about a hot coffee here. This is an aircraft manufacturer. This is a product that, if it is faulty, the chances are high that someone will be killed from that fault. And this is the sort of thing companies should be imune from? Please tell me this is a bad joke. Want to stop lawsuit abuse, go after companies like SCO who sue for copyright and contract infringment just to raise the share price without a shred of evidence, not the family of a pilot who was sliced in half by his own propeller.


The Aftermath

Well this is going to be a VERY interesting time to watch the so-called liberal media. If they do their job right, today will be the usual gut reaction / insta polls, Thursday will be fact check day (which is not going to be at all kind to Cheney I'm afraid, too many outright lies in a national debate) and Friday will be linking this debate to the second presidential debate. Of course that probably won't happen as they've got no spines and are pretty much bought and paid for by the current Administration, but...

As I said at the start of this post, mark this one as a draw but with the proviso that while Cheney energised his base, Edwards managed to apeal better to the undecided voter. Cheney didn't manage to make up the ground Bush lost last Thursday but did enough to give a fighting chance for a recovery. It's going to need some serious improvment from Bush in the remaining debates to pull it off though.

Once again the Democrat ticket wins on presentation. That's potentially a major problem for the Republican party as it's not clear at this point what they can do to reclaim that image. Remember that in 2000 it was, basically, challenger versus challenger and Al Gore came off (thanks to an awful lot of BS in the media) far worse than he was. In 2004 this is incumbant versus challenger and, frankly, the incumbants do not look at all happy in the role. When the challenger comes off as more confident, more open and personable then you've got a big problem. And this is with the media being, how to put this, rather compliant when it comes to presenting certain versions of the truth.

The fact that Cheney lied in a very easily proved manner on the "I've never met this man (Edwards) in my life" statement was a colossul blunder. The pics are already all over the web and the mainstream media will have little choice but to run with it. Hell, even Fox has had to draw attention to that one. Won't make any difference with the base of course but it's a BIG credability blow with the undecided voter (if he lies about something this simple how can we trust him on *insert policy here*?). Add in the 9/11 Saddam lie from Cheney and it's a real problem. Side note, interesting that Fox puts THE major lie of the last week, the global test misrepresentation from the Republican party, right at the bottom of their fact check on the debate...

Another problem with Cheney being caught in two very obvious lies (complete with handy video proof for your viewing convenience) - it plays in VERY nicely to current Democrat themes that this administration is not being honest with the electorate. Expect at least one, if not two, ads directly off the back of those lies. And before anyone whines, saying you never said something when you are on video tape, at a press event, saying exactly what you "didn't say" is indeed a lie. Not a misunderstanding, not a matter of interpretation, not misunderestimating the speaker, a lie.

The debate did highlight the problems Bush faces in the economic debates. Regardless of what Kerry says or does, the average American who has seen their costs of living increase (in some cases dramaticaly) without a corresponding pay rise aren't going to give a rats patooie about a tax cut that gave them all of $30 a year. Add in the simple fact that Bush lied when he said "by far the majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom" that are going to be REALLY hard to defend considering they didn't produce the explosion of jobs that they were supposed to and it could be a very bad night for the President.

So to sum up: On the night mark it down as a draw. Depending on how good a job the media do of fact checking what was said (and remember that a nice simple story like the "I never said/met lines quoted above is a godsend if you're looking to fill a couple of days of political coverage when everyone's hunkered down in debate prep) it could end up being another win to the Democrats or stay as a tie (depending on which partisan supporters you speak to it can also be a win for either, but that's surely obvious). The one question I would like answered, though I'll pretty much guarantee no-one will dare ask it on the mainstream media, is who Republicans would rather have as their President, Bush or Cheney? Because from where I'm sitting Bush has been. by far, the worst statesman out of all four of the president/vice president candidates we've seen.

Update: This was written and ready to go about 7am eastern. But having just seen Bush's press conference / speech I'm amazed. How on earth can he stand there and, with a straight face, say that "My opponent is a tax-and-spend liberal". All labels aside for a moment, the ONLY thing separating Bush from matching this description perfectly is he skipped the tax step and went straight to spend. Considering there's a debate coming up on domestic policy this just doesn't seem like a smart move, it's just going to give more ammo to the Democrats and, at this point, I doubt there's much value in such ridiculous labels to anyone other than his base. But what really caught my attention is, with what may be the most important speech of his life only two days away, and after a disaster at the first debate, President Bush is once again out on the campaign trail while Kerry prepares. This strikes me as almost unbelievable. The ONLY reason I can see to do such a thing is either a) internal polling numbers for the Republicans were a LOT worse than they were expecting or b) it's a blatant attempt to distract from the report due today on pre-war Iraq and WMD which, by all reports, isn't going to make pleasent reading for the Administration.

In fact, looking at the text of Bush's speech today, this kind of strikes me as an attempt to redo last weeks debate, only with a script and amongst the faithful. Now, this might just be me, but I'd have thought that turning in a better performance on the same material not even a week later just reinforces how bad the President looked last Thursday and is going to do very little to help and potentially a lot to harm his chances with undecided voters.

[Cosmo_ac]

In my opinion, Edwards won this debate, though not by a lot. I guess i feel that way because i knew when Cheyne was lying. I mean, come on people, its that fucking obvious! And i have to agree, this woman was a lousy moderator.

[kurchatovium]

:rolleyes:

[redway10]

Cheney did a pretty good job considering he is thought of by many as an arrogant grouch.

And of course while Edwards managed to escape the "ambulance chaser" label, he didn't really present a convincing case that he has much experience (some, but not a lot).

If it wasn't for the crappy return on our new mega-deficits (it ain't "morning in America"), and the way Bush uses Christianity as shamefully as the Saudi rulers use Islam, I could probably stomach him.

And if we could end the insurgency in Iraq (thanks for nothing Germany and France!), we might send a clear message to 2 of our last 3 mortal enemies (Syria and Iran). That would make the risk worthwhile.

Yeah, Kerry would be Clinton II, but I miss the old beaver hunter.