posted on October 6, 2004 09:36:09 AM new
Well the debates are over, and within minutes, the talking heads on tv were saying Dick Cheney won the debate, but as time went on, more and more were saying that Edwards won by a narrow margin. This morning, it is almost impossible to find any news channel willing to call it, each channel using biased commentators who work for each candidates campaign calling theirs the victor.
Personally, I thought it was a dead heat between the two. Each exchanged a fair amount of jabs without closing the deal.
In the end, I think the only thing I can honestly say is that the moderator did an average job. Her questions seemed a bit flat, perhaps because she went into too much explanation of what she wanted, and put strange limits on the use of the presidential candidates names. Though Edwards slipped on that, I thought the limits were childish.
The issue of AIDS is obviously on the back burner, even though more people in America die from this disease than do from terrorist attacks. Then again, more people have died from any one disease than from a terrorist attack before and after 2001 in the US.
It is too bad that we don't get to see the two meet again in a second debate. I believe that the American people would like to see 3 Presidential debates, and 2 VP debates each election. I would like to see some legislation making it mandatory. It is important for America to see the candidates stand side by side explaining their views, rather than getting sound bites from political ads and speeches. It is sad that debates can be used strategically by one candidate to avoid discussions. In no way am I pointing fingers at any one party, because both parties have used this strategy as incumbents.
posted on October 6, 2004 09:51:24 AM new
I agree, Rusty.. there was no winner or loser in this debate... it was frustrating to hear issues go unanswered though..
Cheney is such a better speaker than Bush... but his body language speaks volumes...he needs to straighten up and not always appear to be bent over sideways, speaking and looking to the side... it is very sneaky and unsettling.. kind of reminds me of some of Dickens more dastardly characters...
Edwards, did well, in my opinion, but I did feel that he came off as the "new kid on the block"... I don't know if it was a certain lack of confidence? or just his boyish good looks and freshness, compared with the more jaded self assured Cheney....
Maggie
[ edited by maggiemuggins on Oct 6, 2004 09:54 AM ]
posted on October 6, 2004 11:34:59 AM new Her questions seemed a bit flat, perhaps because she went into too much explanation of what she wanted, and put strange limits on the use of the presidential candidates names. Though Edwards slipped on that, I thought the limits were childish.
Did you actually listen to the question. It was a valid question and the limit was absolutely valid. The question was about why each candidate THEMSELVES were qualified for the position. The fact that Edwards was unable to articulate why he was a viable candidate for VP who could in case of tragedy become president without mentioning Kerrys name was disappointing. He blew that one and he also blew the opportunity do land a serious body blow with the flip flop question. Instead of the instafacts he rambled off his answer should have been.... The sign of a true and mature leader is one that is not afraid to admit that, when presented with new and more accurate information, is not afraid to admit his orignal position was wrong. The problem is not when a leader changes his position. The problem is when he is too stubborn or blind to do so.
That would have been THE soundbite from the debate and he completely missed the opportunity.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 6, 2004 11:49:47 AM new
The debate last nigh was a draw. It was like a 10 round prize fight that the judges called a draw. Good thing it wasn't a 12 round prize fight because I felt very old looking Cheney's pace maker would have starting fireing.
Its hard to believe that Cheney is only 10 or 12 years older than John Edwards. I guess that is what being a Washington insider liar did to him.
posted on October 6, 2004 05:12:01 PM new
I also think it was to close to call. But if you consider the fact that Cheney is the VP and has been in the business much longer the Edwards. Most believe they they did equally as well, then that says a lot for Edwards.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on October 6, 2004 05:33:46 PM new
I went back and watched the debate again and though it was close, I think Edwards did a better job at conveying his overall message. He stumbled a few times, but Cheney wasn't as well presented as Edwards. Cheney made some pretty big bold faced lies on the stage, and now that the fact checking is coming out, we are learning that Edwards really backed up his claims much stronger than Cheney. Dick conceded a response twice. I understand his simple remarks thanking Edwards for his comments regarding his family and leaving it at that, but several times when Cheney was under fire he could only make comments like, "where do I begin" or "I only have 30 seconds to respond?" Well duh! You begin right there when everybody is watching you on National Television. Did Cheney really think the moderator was going to give him more time to respond?
The people who watched the debate can tell a liar when they see one, and when you attack a persons record in Congress without looking at your own, well, you open up a whole new can of worms. Cheney couldn't defend remarks made by Edwards re: Halliburton, he couldn't defend his own record in the House, and he really was clueless about AIDS. He constantly looked down like a beaten little puppy. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Cheney did way, way, way better than Bush did, but what does that really mean when the 2nd Presidential debate is just a few days ahead and Bush has been a dismal failure on the economy, jobs, health care, education, veteran and senior benefits, and the deficit? Bush really has to step to the plate and come out swinging, otherwise, he will lose the little respect he has left.
We are also learning as the days go by, that Bush has covered up his claims that he left the Air National Guard fulfilling his duty. He was grounded, which by all means is a disgrace to any military pilot. We are learning that all signs pointing to WMDs in Iraq were nothing but a lie, and that the Weapons Inspectors who were on the ground prior to our attack were 100% accurate with their assessments regarding those "stockpiles" of WMDs we heard so much about. Bush is a disgrace to the Presidency, and Cheney was simply put on stage to attempt to cover that up. To Cheney's credit, he did put up a convincing performance, but unfortunately it was mostly based in lies.
posted on October 6, 2004 05:40:45 PM new
I liked Cheneys BIGGEST lie when he said about Edwards, "I have never met you before tonight".
When in fact today's media showed them sitting side by side in a prayer breakfast last year. Cheney, either a LIAR or a IDIOT who couldn't recognize a US senator sitting next to him. I am think it would be safe to say the VP of the US would have been briefed about who would be sitting next to him in a meeting. For security purposes if nothing else.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on October 6, 2004 05:50:39 PM new
bootclan, you are always quick to throw in some a short sighted comment, so perhaps you can explain where Cheney beat Edwards last night. I mean, the polls showed Edwards beat Cheney by a margin of 12 points, while about 30% thought it was a tie.
The last time I checked, you were jumping for joy when Bush had the same lead on Kerry. So, how do you figure Cheney won? I doubt that you will answer this in an intelligent, cohesive answer, but give it a shot because so far none of your neocon buddies haven't been able to either. We are giving you the chance to back up your statements so we can understand your side of the story. This is a moment for you to educate us "liberals" and set the record straight bootclan.
[ edited by rustygumbo on Oct 6, 2004 06:04 PM ]
posted on October 6, 2004 06:17:25 PM new
rustydumbo says,
educate us "liberals"
I learned a long time ago that you cannot educate the ignorant. You and your thickheaded lefty friends on this board are living proof of that. Your minds are made up and the facts just confuse you!
posted on October 6, 2004 06:24:13 PM new
I'm more than willing to listen or in this case, read what you have to say about what you saw last night, but it seems as though you can't give us any details. Please tell us what you saw that others didn't.
posted on October 6, 2004 07:28:32 PM newI learned a long time ago that you cannot educate the ignorant. You and your thickheaded lefty friends on this board are living proof of that.
Funny I can say the exact same things to the thickheaded righties on this board.
The ignorant are unwilling to listen.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
------------------------------
posted on October 6, 2004 07:37:14 PM new
As I have said since the beginning, bootclan can only manage a quick hit and run. He has never backed his claims up. Instead he comes up with excuses. I wish bootclan would prove me wrong, but I don't think it's possible. At least Linda will back up her claims by providing us her detailed opinion, or cut and paste something that backs her up. I think there isn't one person on here that can argue that. The lefties may not agree with her, but at least she gives us something to understand where she comes from. Bootclan, you provide nothing but shallow words that are no better than a bumper sticker or a 10 second commerical. No one will take you seriously without some discussion. You won't discuss the topic, you just give up a soundbite. It doesn't help your cause if you can't participate beyond that.
Prevent Bigotry through Education.