Send in the vice presidents

Hobbes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3716852.stm

Should make for intresting watching. Although I don't know how Cheny can run for VP and keep a straight face.

mycroft

Yeah whenever I think of Bush and Cheney I keep seeing the huge bloke and the midget from Mad Max Three beyond the thunderdome.

Seriously though I'm tempted to knock down to paddy power and place a punt on Edwards disarming charm winning voters until Cheney loses it and goes straight for Edwards jugglar biting through his windpipe till edward chokes on his own blood, cheney is pulled of Edwards by a phlanax of secret service screaming "I'm the POWER, I RULE, I will F*CKING END THOSE WHO DARE OPPOSE ME!!!!!!"

I doubt I'll get better than 4/2 odds on it though.

bonkey

Hell, I don't know how he can be VP and keep a straight face

jc

bonkey

mycroft wrote:

Yeah whenever I think of Bush and Cheney I keep seeing the huge bloke and the midget from Mad Max Three beyond the thunderdome.

MasterBlaster

flogen

I always think of Darth Vader when I hear the name Dick Cheney, I wonder if America is with me on that (nay, I hope!)

I think Edwards will out charm Cheney by miles, and as we all know these debates are all about style, not substance. Even still, Edwards legal experience and pile of ammo should make it easy to win on both counts.

flogen

mycroft

I think I've figured out Bush/Cheney and why they loath and really can't handle debate.

They under their administration had a year in which they could do no wrong, no real bad press, democrats and republicans behind them, a unitied front. Hell they're just not used to criticism and debate.

tobi

This debate should be more of a contest, unlike the first bush/kerry debate.

RE*AC*TOR

Anyone know if its being shown on tv? or nice webcast?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

FatherTed

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Then maybe el dicko will bring up

I do think that the more serious question going forward is, what are we going to do? I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. "

Who said this? Bush? No. Cheney? No. It was little John Edwards. You see these politicians are all fucking hypocrites.

PS - I voting for Kerry this election. Just another case of who can skrew up the least.

flogen

The thing about that quote fatherted is thiat no-one has said (or has the balls to say) that Saddam was not an imminent threat (I'm not saying he wasnt some kind of threat, but he was small fry compared to many), but Kerry is running by saying he would have dealt with Saddam, but in a much better way.

Now I agree that all politicians can by hypocritical, but I dont think that quote would be enough to damage the campaign. Bush tried it with Kerry, saying "my opponent said Saddam is a threat" and kerry said "yeah, and I still say it, I just think you didnt handle him well, or at the right time".

Edwards will more than likely say that Saddam was a threat, but not the worst. That quote will be disregarded because he has a lovely smile

flogen

FatherTed

flogen wrote:

The thing about that quote fatherted is thiat no-one has said (or has the balls to say) that Saddam was not an imminent threat (I'm not saying he wasnt some kind of threat, but he was small fry compared to many), but Kerry is running by saying he would have dealt with Saddam, but in a much better way.

Now I agree that all politicians can by hypocritical, but I dont think that quote would be enough to damage the campaign. Bush tried it with Kerry, saying "my opponent said Saddam is a threat" and kerry said "yeah, and I still say it, I just think you didnt handle him well, or at the right time".

Edwards will more than likely say that Saddam was a threat, but not the worst. That quote will be disregarded because he has a lovely smile

flogen

But the thing about the quote is that at the time before going to war, there was no opposition by the likes of Kerry and Edwards. They did not want to be seen as going against the President and this part of his war on terror. Still fresh from 9/11, noone had the balls to step up and say that the invasion was ridiculous. A couple did like Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean.

It's easy for Kerry and Edwards to say now that it was not the right time or saying 'if we knew then what we know now'. They did not say it back then. Or when they voted to give the President to power to go in to war.

So we are left with a choice of a disingenuous candidate who has achieved nothing of importance of 20 years in the Senate and a war-happy dunce who cannot even master his own language.

sceptre

FatherTed wrote:

So we are left with a choice of a disingenuous candidate who has achieved nothing of importance of 20 years in the Senate and a war-happy dunce who cannot even master his own language.

Fair point and unfortunate. Still probably an easy decision for anyone who thinks about it but no less unfortunate.

flogen

FatherTed wrote:

It's easy for Kerry and Edwards to say now that it was not the right time or saying 'if we knew then what we know now'. They did not say it back then. Or when they voted to give the President to power to go in to war.

Thats true, its very easy for them to use that to their advantage now, but, thats not the point of their argument.
Kerry says (and I'm not claiming to buy this) that he voted for the use of force as a last resort, which Bush promised. He has no beef with the evidence, he accepts that that was not Bush's fault (or at least he cant say it was).
Kerry and Edwards now say that Saddam was a threat, but was not the worst. Edwards past comments are obviously going to be varnished over by the Dems just as much as Bush's comments on the Saddam/9-11 link will be by the Reps. Kerry and Edwards can now say that they supported disarming Saddam, but through sanctions and peaceful means etc, and that a war should have been a last resort, and should have been planned 100% in advance.

No candidate has the balls to say disarming Saddam was wrong, mainly because it would be suicide. They can however say that the techniques used to disarm him were wrong, and that the timing was so bad it damaged the "real war". It's an interesting tactic by Kerry, but it is what he needs to win. He basically has to push the Dems slightly right wing, so the loyal Dems will hope party tradition will win and the Right wingers and traditional republicans will support him as a credible and strong alternative to a leader some have lost faith in. Very dangerous balancing act, but at this time in America's history no-one wants to take the chance of a liberal in office.

flogen

billy the squid

Live stream of the debate

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/live/nb/wm/video/now1_nb.asx

format Windows Media

this should save you all that clicking.

ApeXaviour

The debate.. A very good performance by the two of them. Far cry from the presidential debate. Apart from the lack of an obvious victor, there was less petty repitition. I must say that my respect for Cheney has increased somewhat. Especially in the case of his daughter, don't think he could have handled that better.
Edwards was similarly masterful and I was pleasantly surprised that his points were not only delivered with his winning charm, but that some of them were so definitive that they forced Cheney to vague-up his rebuttles.
An example of the above was while they were talking about economic policy and Cheney switched to his "we have fundamentally different philosophys" etc obviously aimed at the Alabamer gun lovin governement-fear society.
Ok I've fallen asleep twice while typing this so I'll just finish here..

-ApeX

Sparks

It came across very much as old bull versus young bull to be honest. I'd have to give it to Cheney for form but Edwards for content.

TomF

This from Dick Morris, Clinton's former spinmeister:

"Cheney is not a metaphor for Bush. He's older, wiser and more articulate. But Edwards served as a poor metaphor for Kerry. His lack of substance and glib inexperience made one wonder about John Kerry. Edwards' inability to go beyond his talking points — the same ones Kerry had already used — illustrated his limitations and, by inference, suggested that Kerry suffered from similar problems.

Even when the debate swung to domestic issues, Edwards found himself trying to climb out of questions on gay marriage and trial lawyers.

It was only when he could lapse into biographical stories and trial-lawyer hokum that Edwards showed himself to advantage. His canned stories and rehearsed closing statement stood in contrast to his plasticized rendition of his talking points for the balance of the debate.

Dick Cheney helped Bush get well from a poor performance. John Edwards made it look like the Democratic ticket was out classed and out gunned."

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/29748.htm

RE*AC*TOR

I reckon victory for Cheney on that one. He hung Edwards on the not turning up for Senate meeting thing, to which edwards had no response.

pickarooney

Not sure what defines charm, but Edwards comes across as an oleaginous buffoon, and as for Kerry... I think he should just let his hair run for president, it seems to be his only redeeming quality.

flogen

Despite really, really wanting to believe otherwise I think I would call Cheney winner if I had to pick one or the other. he managed to tone down Edwards charm and style as much as he could, and he did manage to get him a few times. Cheney also had better use of figures.

Saying that, Edwards still came across the more likable, and also got Cheney on a number of occassions.... I just think Cheney just got ahead by a tiny amount more.

The polls will all rest on how much these debates really are about likability. I can see them tipping towards Cheney tbh, I would be pleasently surprised if Edwards went ahead.

Besides that the debate was very similar to last Thursday in content except of course for the domestic stuff.

flogen

sovtek

FatherTed wrote:

So we are left with a choice of a disingenuous candidate who has achieved nothing of importance of 20 years in the Senate and a war-happy dunce who cannot even master his own language.

Do a google on BCCI and John Kerry (or BCCI and Bush for another interesting angle to the same story)...that's just one thing.
Not that I think for a minute that Kerry isn't your pseudo liberal democrat that's just going to lick the balls of the corporates that helped him into power.

flogen

*cough*
well paint me pleasently surprised...:D

a CBS poll (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/politics/main641817.shtml) of 178 uncommitted voters went in favour of Edwards 41% - 28%, with 31% saying a tie.
An online (and thus very untrustable) MSNBC poll (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/) gave Edwards a whopping 66% - 34% victory.

Naturally such early polls are not to be trusted (and online polls be trusted even less), but do remember that the flash polls from last thursday called it for Kerry, and thats how things remained.
If the polls over the day start to call it for Edwards then I'd call it a victory for him. The fact is that people polled days after the debate usually make their mind up from the early polls, so if its Edwards early on, it should stay that way.

flogen

sovtek

FatherTed wrote:

It's easy for Kerry and Edwards to say now that it was not the right time or saying 'if we knew then what we know now'. They did not say it back then. Or when they voted to give the President to power to go in to war.

It's not that easy for Kerry to say "what we knew then/what we know now" because when he voted for the war he was on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Redleslie2

Cheney always seemed to me to be the machiavellian advisor whispering in the child king Bush's ear. It was interesting that he said El Salvador was a model for Iraq to follow. Lots of death squads and rigged elections to look forward to then.

Jim

Apperently the url Chaney gave out for some of his figures (can't remember it off the top of my head) should have been www.dontbanmeh!!!.org, but he gave it as .com. So some democrats promptly bought the .com address and set it up as an anti Bush site.

[edit]stupid auto url tags[/edit]

flogen

Jimeatsmenu wrote:

Apperently the url Chaney gave out for some of his figures (can't remember it off the top of my head) should have been www.jimlovestehporn.org, but he gave it as .com. So some democrats promptly bought the .com address and set it up as an anti Bush site.

Ah... teh porn!

Ban Jimeatsmenu!

(it was factcheck.com, by the way)

flogen

bonkey

While I haven't watched the debate yet, I tend to agree with much of the opinion-pieces on it I heard/read both before and after the debate.

Vice-Presidential debates are of significant interest only if one or other of the players makes a major gaffe. Its a case of it being something you can lose, but not really something you can win.

Having said that, the current election looks to be quite a close affair in the polls at present, so even a small nudge to either candidate could be helpful (although no doub the Bush fans will insist they don't need it anyway 'cause there's still no way Dubya can lose).

jc

nadir

hmm, Im going to go against the flow, I thought Edwards came out on top.
I mean from a voters point of view at least, i thought his appeal to the middle class was quite well executed, and although Cheney may have been more 'technical', I reckon edwards was more appealing. With that said, im not an american voter, so what would I know

FatherTed

flogen wrote:

Thats true, its very easy for them to use that to their advantage now, but, thats not the point of their argument.
Kerry says (and I'm not claiming to buy this) that he voted for the use of force as a last resort, which Bush promised. He has no beef with the evidence, he accepts that that was not Bush's fault (or at least he cant say it was).
Kerry and Edwards now say that Saddam was a threat, but was not the worst. Edwards past comments are obviously going to be varnished over by the Dems just as much as Bush's comments on the Saddam/9-11 link will be by the Reps. Kerry and Edwards can now say that they supported disarming Saddam, but through sanctions and peaceful means etc, and that a war should have been a last resort, and should have been planned 100% in advance.

While I agree with almost everything that you said, if say...Gore was president or even Kerry for that matter, the Saddam and Iraq issue would not even have been discussed in 2003/2003. Things would have been rolling merrily along with the UN sanctions in and Saddam rebuffing the weapons inspectors. However, it was Bush who pushed the issue. Not the UN or anyone else. And we all know what would have happened. Absolutely nothing. Because the UN is as effective as using nail clippers for cutting a hundred acres of grass. So once Bush pushed the issue and more or less bypassed the UN, there were two options. You were either with him or agin' him. For all of Kerry's and Edwards' rhetoric now, they were with him by the mere fact that they did voice their opposition then.

As for the debate itself, I watched it in parts flicking back and forth to the Yankees game. Cheney did better than I expected but I guess it was about even in the end.