Forums dot lukpac.org

How awful. Awful questions, awful answers.

Too many ridiculous "gotcha" moments ("Edwards used tax loopholes to avoid paying for the programs he supports!" "Cheney used tax loopholes at Halliburton to swindle the American people!") instead of substantive answers. Not that the crappy questions left much room for substance. ("Vice-President Cheney, tell me about Senator Edwards." "Senator Edwards, are you a flip-flopper?") The poor woman couldn't even keep track of whose turn it was to answer. Sad.

Cheney lied his ass off. One example: "I never met Edwards before today."



Edwards failed to defuse the attacks, and hammered the same tired talking points over and over.

On content, I (obviously) think Edwards did better, but Cheney actually came off as more serious, intelligent and competent. But the whole thing was miserable viewing.

Ryan

Yeah, I wasn't too impressed either way. As horrible as his answers were, I think Cheney tended to come off a bit better than Edwards.

Let's just hope for a repeat of the first debate at the next two.

Agreed. Cheney came off as articulate, nuanced, and thoughtful, even though I had absolutely no idea if the stats he cited had basis in reality. It was the Democrats' turn to endlessly repeat talking points, sound like broken records ("John Kerry and I," " John Kerry and I Have a Plan!"), etc.

Bingo.

Rspaight wrote:How awful. Awful questions, awful answers.

Ryan

I'll provide my Canadian view on this (though probably somewhat biased given that the latest polls indicate that about 80% of Canadians want Kerry to win).

(I only watched about the first 50 minutes as I'm only really interested in US Foreign Policy)

Moderator: I might get slammed for this but it seemed like a pure "affirmative action" move to me. Surely there are better "black-female" candidates (perhaps Fredericka, the anchor on CNN, who I find quite attractive ). From the robotic way she read the teleprompter at the beginning of the broadcast to her leaden questions, she was just plain awful.

Edwards: too much John Kerry-defending. And too much repeating of Kerry's statements from last Thursday, often verbatim. He failed to clarify that the "90% casualties / 90% costs" statement refers to coalition forces (letting Cheney off the hook with his constant references to the Iraqis in the casualty count). Instead of his "I was in Israel story" (at the time of the infamous Sbarro pizzaria bomb - how predictable), he could have also mentioned how Bush has abandoned his own Road Map plan by telling Sharon he could have as much of the West Bank as he pleased. He should have shot down the Cheney statement that they'd never met. He was at his best when he mentioned the things that Cheney voted against (among them MLK Day and the release of Nelson Mandela - if you're black and voting Republican then you need your head checked!!). Overall, I thought he would sound a lot smarter than he did.

Cheney: was confident and ever so cool as he continually lied through his teeth. You can really see why he is considered "the brains" on the Republican ticket. Obviously, I don't really like the man, so there's not much more that I can say. (In this Administration, to me, he is a member of the Axis Of Evil - Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft).

Cliff

To me, Cheney came off looking slimy, nervous, and somewhat avoidant, and hostile. But Edwards didn't look so great, either. He looked dishonest. He smiled and blinked his eyes too much.

Neither one of them won, but if I had to choos between the two, my nod goes to Edwards.

Well...at least I can say I was probably in one of the safest spots in America early this morning as both Cheney and Edwards stayed at the same hotel across the street from my office. I had to enter into another hotel in order to get into our office building today since our office's main entrance faces the hotel.

Regardless, only got to see a chunk of it mostly about foreign policy. I agree that Edwards pretty much recycled through most of his talking points rather quickly. Cheney came off as rather rough to me. I found it rather funny that he claimed to have never met Edwards prior to last night (this before I saw the video on the news this morning) and I also loved that when Cheney was asked about the economy (specifically here in Cleveland) he went off on a two minute rant about No Child Left Behind and Education. I thought Edwards was pretty cool when he said "Wasn't the question about the economy and poverty?"

I disagree with the right's view that Cheney sucked the momentum out of Kerry's run. I think in the end it was pretty much a draw (or as our paper said today "No KO"). Checking with some of the early results in after the debate (not that you can really trust 'em), most of them had felt Edwards had won the debate.

I checked Bush's site shortly after the debate and they already had emblazoned on it that Cheney had won the debate.

Friday's debate should be interesting. Are the questions for this debate known to Bush and Kerry, or is this strictly undecided voters speaking their minds directly to each of them?

Beatlesfan03 wrote:Friday's debate should be interesting. Are the questions for this debate known to Bush and Kerry, or is this strictly undecided voters speaking their minds directly to each of them?

The debate committee wanted an audience of declared undecided voters, but the Bush and Kerry campaigns would not agree to that. So the audience is ostensibly going to be equal numbers of "soft" Bush supporters and "soft" Kerry supporters. How they determine whether someone's support is soft or not I don't know... probably just by the person's own declaration. Which means we will probably get an audience with a lot of hard supporters of each candidate who will try to trip up the candidate they oppose with hardball questions, or who will lob softball questions at their own guy. This debate will be more about gameshow host type skills, which unfortunately may help Bush.

Cheney winning the debate?? OK, sure -- if you're part of the plutocracy, then I can see the attraction to Cheney. Otherwise, forget it.

Also, Subchapter S corps are not some kind of loophole -- they're a legitimate form of incorporation for small business. Just incredible that a Republican candidate would go after small business in that way.

Edwards charges about corruption during Cheney's reign at Halliburton are very real, not some form of gotcha. I thought that Edwards' trial lawyer experience came in real handy, and he presented his case well. Cheney started strong, but just became grumpier as the night went on. The final straw was after Edwards thanked Gwen Ifill and Cheney, Cheney could only thank Ifill. Real class.

[/img]

Cheney looked miffed at the end of the debate. Edwards approached Dick to shake his hand. I don't think Unca Dick could be bothered.

Edwards charges about corruption during Cheney's reign at Halliburton are very real, not some form of gotcha.

Sure, the charges are real, but the particular presentation by Edwards I referred to was weak. Cheney had just uncorked some sort of "gotcha" line about how Edwards had used a tax loophole to avoid paying into Medicare or some such thing. Edwards responded with a "Yeah, but Cheney used tax dodges, too! At Halliburton!" type of rejoinder. (It might not have been that line, but Edwards actually started a rebuttal with "Yeah, but" at one point. Pretty unpolished, given his rep.) What came across wasn't anything trenchant about Halliburton, just that Edwards wanted to drag Halliburton into the discussion whenever remotely possible.

Edwards *did* get in some more effective Halliburton-related points at other times, though.

Ryan