Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

The Vice President won the debate hands down. Considering that the VP would have to take over as president if anything would happen to him, I’d much rather have Cheney than Edwards any day. He inspired confidence, wisdom and strength as opposed to Edward’s criticism and talk of a plan. Anyone can say they have a plan. He seems to have “politician” written all over him, and his record speaks for itself.

I thoroughly enjoyed that, actually.

In every way it was a better debate than Thursday’s. Both Edwards and Cheney outshone their running mates, frankly, and I thought there was a good amount of substance on both sides and the questions were FAR better. Ifill was terrific, fair, and hit both candidates with tough questions. I expect that she’ll be reappearing as a debate moderator in years to come, as she should.

It was also great to see that Cheney so magnificent, cool and in command. Edwards stumbled, faltered, tore papers while Cheney was speaking (make that little boy stay in at recess!), got confused repeatedly by both the questions and the format—and he STILL looked better than Kerry did.

As this was the VP debate, I’m under no illusion that Edward’s trip to the woodshed and sound spanking will shape up to be that important to the race—especially since we have the tops of the ticket going at it again in three days.

After the dust settles and all the spinning from both sides stops, I suspect that the main lasting effect of the debate will be that it humanized Cheney who has been taking a beating by leftist partisans for years. His gracious acknowledgment to Edwards for his words about his daugher made him look extremely good—and I was shocked at how a question that should have been awkward for Cheney caused Edwards to flail around uncomfortably for several minutes over the whole gay marriage issue.

In all, with Bush still way ahead in the electoral count, this was a good night for Republicans. I doubt that Democrats even know what hit them.

It was a wash as far as swing voters are concerned as I think the polls will show in a day or two.

The real question who will win the spin competition for news space after the debate?

Cheney won the debate on security issues and Edwards won the debate on domestic issues from swing voter points of view, I think.

The odd thing about your “massive blow witnessed by millions” is that it’s easily proven that the two have met previously.

Jeez, there is even a picture.

http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/003154.html

David, I think you may be right about that.

From the swing voters point of view, I think it highly likely that Cheney won decisively on security and Edwards may have won on domestic issues (although I think Cheney won on that too, we’re talking about the swing voters).

Fortunately for the Bush side, every single poll in the country agrees that security is far and away the more important issue in this election.

Anybody still think Cheney will be dropped from the ticket? Ha! I rest easier at night knowing that such a mature stateman is helping lead the country.

I don’t think Edwards has anything to hang his head about, however. He came across decently—but just seemed immature and massively outmatched at this stage. I think he hurt Kerry’s chances and may have helped himself for a run somewhere down the road.

I actually like Edwards—a perfectly nice little boy who may yet grow up to be a man and a leader. But as tonight showed, that day is still far in the future. He is no match for the wisdom, stability and impressive persona of Dick Cheney.

Martin, I think you got a little overly flowery there at the end, but, being a former flower child myself, that’s fine with me.

Edwards missed some opportunities as did Cheney. I still fail to understand why Kerry/Edwards don’t diffuse the argument that we are safer here because the terrorists are in Iraq. That argument does not hold water against what the State Dept., Tom Ridge’s department and the intel. community are reporting, specifically, that al-Queda cells are likely in the U.S. and definitely in neighboring countries.

I would have thought a keen legal mind like Kerry would have debunked that myth tonight, but, like Kerry in the last debate, he missed that opportunity entirely.

Cheney completely dropped the ball when Edwards tied Cheney/Bush to corporate interests as opposed to middle class interests. Almost no response.

I agree entirely though that Cheney did proud by his base and constituents. Kerry likely did by his as well. I am not as confident as you that security will be a one issue primary factor in the voting booth.

I know the next two debates could erode that trend, but it remains to be seen if they will or not.

Cheney did quite well on the issues, especially security, as previous commenters point out. However, the ad hominem attacks that escalated to the boiling point in the middle of the debate were definitely an Edwards win, calling up Cheney’s record of harshly conservative - and even racist - votes in the House. Certainly Cheney has changed, and is not on the ticket for his policy opinions but rather for his abilities and maturity, but the damage was done. Despite his reference to humble beginnings, it will be hard to convince swing voters that Cheney is anything but a super-conservative, whose only “weak spot” is sympathy for his daughter and her sexuality. That may or may not be good the country, but it’s definitely bad for the Bush campaign as it seeks to pull in centrists and non-Republican right-wingers.

I thought it was a great debate, and refreshingly substantive. Cheney and Edwards did great jobs, although they both dodged some questions. I thought Edwards really shone on the medical lawsuit issue.

As far as the S-corp medicare tax issue, I have an S-Corp and was unimpressed on those charges. The use of offshore businesses to protect business assets, however, is egregious. You pay taxes on every dime an s-corp makes, you do not when you shelter with an offshore (as Cheney and Bush have used in their businesses).

Regardless, I expected to be infuriated by Cheney, and I wasn’t. The fact that he has embraced his daughter humanized him to me.

I thought he was strongest in his first response:

The effort that we‘ve mounted with respect to Iraq focused specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

For me this is the fundamental issue that I never bought from this administration, and is the number one reason I am not voting for them. What made Iraq the “most likely” nexus between terrorists and wmd? More than Libya, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, China, and the WMD in Russia? It just seems more likely that terrorists will get WMD from the poorly protected areas in Russia, or from nuclear business proliferators like Kahn in Pakistan. Doesn’t it? (Al Qaeda was pursuing WMD through the Kahn network)

Please email me (take out the No and the Spam in the email address), and tell me why Iraq was the most likely nexus, as compared to Pakistan, Russia, or Iran. Because I sincerely do not get this, and I wan’t a Republican to show me where they get this belief from. Please show me research and source documentation, not your opinion!

Julia

I agree that this was a great debate- and I think Cheney was probably the winner (although that is not to say that Edwards did not also do well). I am not sure it changed anyone’s mind, but it made me happy because of the high quality of intellect and resolve that was displayed tonight.

The thing that really struck me, though, was the constrast between Cheney and Bush. Can anyone on the right seriously think that Bush is a more qualified president in terms of command of the issues facing this complex world than Cheney? I realize Cheney is not the most charismatic figure, and he is dogged by this silly Halburton allusions, but I would feel much more comfertable with him as commander in chief… and tonight’s debate reinforced that.

Personally, I think Edwards gained many points while Cheney barely held on. Some might view Cheney’s lack of response on many key issues as confidence, but myself and no doubt many other see it as just that - a lack of any response, at least any response that won’t do damage to their campaign. Cheney did the best job he could of deflecting the Haliburton issues, but I think most people will see that his best defense was to call it a ‘smokescreen’, thereby putting his own smokescreen in place. Even if the debate is technically a draw it will still be a win for Kerry/Edwards because it will continue to mobilize their base which was straying due to the Bush smear campaigns.

I agree that Cheney would make a more competent president than Bush, although an even more dangerous one as a result. In any case, Cheney is not running for president so it matters not.

I think the debate was a slight win for Cheney, but it won’t make a dime’s worth of difference in November. No VP debate, that I’m aware of, has ever effected the outcome. Everyone remembers Lloyd Bentsen telling Dan Quayle that he was “No Jack Kennedy”, but Bush-Quayle won anyway.

I’m sure the Dems will have fun hunting up more instances of Edwards and Cheney meeting.

I have to call the debate a draw. Cheney lost several points for not answering several questions directly and Edwards lost points on style and substance of answers. Although the two went toe to toe on Iraq, neither proved their point to the public. Additionally, both failed to drop their opponent on several subjects which leads me to believe that Cheney was timid and Edwards looking like a lost child at times.

No neither candidate left a mark that can not be spun by the other party’s talking heads. However, I do give Edwards a slight lead in points due to that this was his first debate.

By the way, this question from Gwen Ifill had a completely illogical premise:

As the vice president mentioned, John Kerry comes from the state of Massachusetts, which has taken as big a step as any state in the union to legalize gay marriage. Yet both you and Senator Kerry say you oppose it.

Are you trying to have it both ways?

First of all, Kerry is a US Senator. He doesn’t make policy in MA. Secondly, even if you accept her goofy logic about Kerry, Edwards has nothing to do with MA at all.

The GOP should really thank her for this one.

Good Catch, Woody ! It probably would not have scored either side points for pointing it out to her though - wouldn’t have played well with the women’s and black vote.

Well, as Cheney said, you can always check the facts with FactCheck.com.

I thought Cheney won the debate with his statesmanship. Don’t like him, don’t support him, but I think he won it. Nevertheless —

“Edwards made the Michael Moore mistake by blaming everything possible on President Bush and Halliburton. After the first 30 references the point was lost. They will never learn that less is more.”

They who? Wasn’t it President Bush who said “Wrong war, wrong place” about a hundred times, and “hard work” about a hundred more? No, we can’t pretend either campaign is subtle. Let’s forget about less is more, it’s politics.

“When the moderator asked Edwards why people should be confident in him should he have to assume the presidency, the proper response should have been: ” Everyone should know by now that I should have been the nominee instead of John Kerry.” “

What? That’s ludicrous. The vice presidential candidate’s job is to support the presidential candidate, not torpedo him. Get real.

I thought Gwen Ifil’s questions had an awful lot of GOP talking points built into them, often framing the question around the assumption that it was more important that Edwards respond to the Bush campaign’s attacks and political accusations the BC04 team has been making on the stump rather than simply talking about the actual issues themselves. For example, why couldn’t she ask about gay marriage without mentioning the fact that John Kerry is from Massachusetts? Or why couldn’t she ask about Edwards’s political experience as a simple number of years without adding that factoid about the last ten vice presidential candidates? I mean, I didn’t hear her say anything to Cheney about Bush creating the worst economy of the last twelve presidents.

The trial lawyer question and the Halliburton question balanced each other out, however, and I think those were fair.

Did anyone notice that Cheney second-guessed Gwen Ifil in order to not answer a question, and he was wrong… then when Edwards second-guessed Ifil he was correct, yet on Ifil’s insistence he answered the question anyway until she realized she, in fact, was wrong. I thought those two instances bespoke a lot about their personalities and characters: Cheney thought he was right to avoid taking his turn, insisting even when he was completely wrong and even kind of arguing with Ifil for a moment, while Edwards was right that it was not his turn, but followed directions when told to. Patronizing versus respectful. I get the feeling that the way these two men treated Ifil is the difference between how they feel about the American People.

When Edwards mentioned his running mate’s name, however, it was simply funny and even I suspect kind of gee-whiz cute. I wish he answered the question, however, because it would have given him a chance to talk about his life a little more. But hey, Cheney didn’t talk about Israel either (which is par for the course for the Administration, which hasn’t said or done much about the subject of Israel, either). Neither of them stuck to the questions very well, but it was a short debate with a lot of topics so I don’t blame either of them.

-Cf

1. I thought Edwards did a good job of correcting the spin on that. As much as the Bush campaign would love to put words in the Kerry campaign’s mouths, he didn’t say there’d be a global test - just that we’d be better at making our case to our allies. With all the goodwill in the world towards us after 9/11, we had no excuse to go it alone without many of our usual allies. As Kerry said, he’ll never let the UN override US foreign policy.

2. Edwards is a successful trial lawyer, I’m sure he knows what works for him re: notes better than you do. I’d agree that Cheney was well poised, even if he does look evil most of the time… ;-)

3. The mentioning that the first time they met was on stage tonight was a massive blow witnessed by millions. Very effective. The second biggest was when Cheney put Edwards on the run by exposing his use of a loophole that saved Edwards $ 600,000 from Medicare. The first was also a lie, and the second was something that this domestic policy challenged administration has strangely done nothing to fix. I’d imagine it’s because they’re using ones like it, too…

4. Wasn’t the $200 billion the estimated cost that just got released?

5. Agree. Halliburton just isn’t something that resonates with the electorate - they don’t care. I suppose it helps a little with the Democratic base…

6. He’d have destroyed his political career doing that. Inability to show any sort of loyalty and team playing? No one in the party’d work with him again.

7. Bush was a rookie too, remember.

“IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds.

EDWARDS: Gwen, your question was about jobs?

IFILL: It was about jobs, and it was about poverty.

EDWARDS: I thought it was about jobs and poverty. I hope we get a chance to talk about education, but that’s what the vice president talked about.”

-What was that?

Edwards tried to show that Cheney didn’t answer the question asked by saying he thought the question was about jobs. Then he said he thought it was about jobs and poverty. Then he said the VP talked about education.

First Cheney talked about cutting some costs for big business. So they would have more money for hiring employees I imagine.
Then he talked about education.
A good education will help bring people out of poverty.
Why did Edwards act like a good education doesn’t matter?

He made it sound like outsourcing is the only thing that causes poverty.

Just what percentage does a family that makes $200,000/yr. pay in taxes? Before any deductions?
I know that if they raise capitol gains on small businesses it will hurt our family.
We may even get an inheritance some day and would really not like to pay tax on money that has already been taxed.
How does anybody ever get ahead?

I thought Cheney won the first half of the debate. He seemed more forceful and authoritative. But I think he was very poor on the domestic issues (betraying perhaps a lack of interest on certain issues), and so Edwards won the second half of the debate quite easily.

I was quite impressed with Cheney’s quiet but cast-iron clarity on some of the topics which made up for his weakness on domstic issues.

So I think it was a draw but with the caveat that if your priority was security I think Cheney edged it, and vice versa for Edwards with respect to the domstic issues.

I would like to (continue to..) echo the sentiments already expressed that Cheney was much more impressive than Bush. He seemed more cool, collected and coherent. Cheney does seem more competent than Bush.

For me, at least, it confirmed what I have always suspected about the nature of Bush’s presidency and the dynamic of power within it.

Does anyone else find this setup a little strange or disturbing?

Just what percentage does a family that makes $200,000/yr. pay in taxes? Before any deductions?
…
How does anybody ever get ahead?

I’d say making $200,000/yr. counts as “getting ahead”… even if the tax rate got raised to 50%, that’s $100,000/yr. to live on.

ceejayoz,

Don’t tell me you would be for 50% tax ! I don’t think you are. Why should anybody give the government 50% of what they earn? Don’t forget all the taxes we pay for everything else -

Our government wastes money. They have to stop doing it. We wouldn’t have to pay near the tax we already pay if the waste was eliminated. Besides that money could go to the places it’s supposed to - like education.

Dawn —

There are people who already (supposedly) pay a 50% tax. Don’t think many of them are bloggers though….

Bob Hope,

I’m glad you brought this up again. Yes, it’s disturbing to me how Cheney dwarfs W in terms of knowledge and capacity to speak about “the president’s decisions.”

Can anyone who supports W defend this notion?

I’ve heard mention that W has a Reagan-model presidency, and yet, I don’t think I ever thought during that presidency that Bush I was more knowledgeable and put together than his boss.

-CER

CER, I thought Nancy ran that administration.

What amazes me is the number of apparently intelligent Republicans who are willing to be apologists for Bush’s inarticulate nature. Aren’t they insulted by this? If they are I guess they couldn’t admit it….

I think it’s kind of funny to read everyone’s takes on the VP debate. I guess it is really in the eye of the beholder.

I think the matchup was a relative draw, but the ripple effect is what’s most important. That will be felt in the next few days and into the next debate. Both have some good things to work with.

I think Cheney got the best jabs in, leaving Edwards temporarily winded, while Edwards landed the haymakers, though he landed them quite softly. Allow me to explain….

Cheney had some good verbal attacks and some derisive lines that certainly made Edwards look bad in the moment. The problem is that they weren’t hotbutton issues and ultimately they won’t reflect that poorly. Does anyone really care that Edwards has missed a ton of votes while on the campaign trail? Anyone who understands the voting process understands why he’s missed so many.

Edwards, I thought, landed a few big blows in a softer fashion — ones that will leave the Bush camp fatigued in the days following. Edwards was extremely emphatic on two points: (1) Iraq and Al-Qaeda have no connection, and (2) The tax rollbacks will NOT affect you if you make less than $200,000. The Bush camp has been very misleading about these two issues — in fact, probably the two biggest issues of the campaign. Achieving clarity on both of these was very important for Edwards, especially because he is such an effective communicator.

Ultimately, the Dems must capitalize on these blows. If not, the Republicans will gain the upperhand because I’m sure they will use the Cheney jabs pretty effectively in the coming debate.

One other impact that I think is being overlooked is the public appeal of the VP debate. Cheney was way too softspoken while Edwards was energetic and charismatic. The public polls show they scored an Edwards victory, so just remember that much of a debate is not scored on substance.

Well, I think Cheney absolutely spanked Edwards—but that it unfortunately has little if any bearing on the race.

Actually, I don’t think the debates are as important as we tend to believe while we’re in the middle of them. They never have been in the past, and there’s no reason to think that they have suddenly become so (despite the handful of rushed weekend polls using samples from only one time zone or of sizes half their usual number).
I’ll need to something more than a poll conducted on a Sunday morning and released that afternoon before believing that even the national popular numbers have permanently moved. Let’s just see where they stand this time next week—not that it will matter anyway, as long as Bush is so far ahead in the electoral count.

And anyway, what people’s family members, friends, and coworkers gathered around the water cooler say is FAR more important at this stage than what any talking head has to say about a debate, although political junkies and pundits may get themselves all worked up about what tie a candidate was wearing and how many times he blinked.

The current adminstration lied about going to war, they knew it then and they keep lying today. There is no war that it is worth 1000 lives, especially if the foundation for it is not true.

A lot of news organizations (MSNBC for example) are fact checking the candidate’s statements and they are turning up a number of misrepresentations on both sides, including a stark flip flop by Cheney. More coming on this when most of it has been researched - probably by Thursday.

Actually, I don’t think the debates are as important as we tend to believe while we’re in the middle of them. They never have been in the past, and there’s no reason to think that they have suddenly become so…

You are overlooking an example that I imagine is near and dear to your heart: Reagan v. Carter, 1980.

Bush is so far ahead in the electoral count.

I don’t know how you can possibly know this, because there have not been many state polls since Kerry spanked Bush in the first debate. (At least listed on RealClear Politics.)

The truth of the matter is that both VP candidates were superb in their own right, for the first time ever, Cheney shows himself as a stern father and not a puppet master and Edwards proves that he is not a new kid on the block to be pushed around, even by his stern father; sort of the Oedipus complex if you will I guess it still boils down to what each person sees concerning the issues and the direction this country should take.
My take personally (on a metaphorical plane of course), I can’t help but be reminded that Oedipus kills his father.

I think the debates were a draw. I was hoping that Edwards would kick Cheney’s butt, but I was glad enough to see Cheney flustered by the charges regarding Halliburton. Halliburton does have a subsidiary of questionable legality that works with Iran and other rogue nations. That’s an established fact. So’s the “revenue restatement” better known as the revision of B.S. figures meant to deceive stockholders

These things are true, and all the Republicans can do is offer lame excuses and convince themselves that their attack on Edwards for being a trial lawyer really drew blood.

CER, I thought Nancy ran that administration.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 6, 2004 11:14 AM

Actually, it was Nancy’s astrologer who ran that administration!!