VP Debate

[Moonbear]

Okay, who's watching the Vice Presidential debate? So nice to hear a debate between two people who are both articulate! So far, it's a lot of my word against your word, though I think Edwards has already made a few blunders. Nothing he's really saying wrong, but phrases that sound like they'll easily be taken out of context for the next series of Bush/Cheney ads.

[klusener]

yup, Edwards also seems to be too impatient...If it goes on like this, there is a possibility that Edwards will screw up Kerry's gain in the first debate...

it is as if the roles have been reversed.. Edwards keeps repeating a few phrases like Bush did last time and Cheney is sort of similar to Kerry in his style...

[graphic7]

I agree, Moonbear. Edwards has made a few foul-ups. In the beginning, it appeared that he was coming on strong, versus Cheney's constant repetitiveness. One question that I noticed hurt Edwards quite a bit was when he was asked what exactly is the global test compared to not letting the United States be vetoed by other countries. In my opinion, Edwards' response was unsatisfactory. Overall, I think this debate will be close.

Personally, I find both canidates to be very repetitive. This maybe because we heard the Bush-Kerry debate, and we're wanting something new from this debate - hasn't happened, yet.

Edit: I also find both of the candiates to be more hostile towards one another, compared to that of Kerry and Bush. That's about the only reason I'm watching, now.

[Moonbear]

Well, Edwards sounds more repetitive because he's repeating a lot of what Kerry already said. I agree with you that he really screwed up on the "global test" question. Cheney doesn't sound as repetitive, but that's just because he has a greater vocabulary than Bush, so is saying more than Bush did. They are certainly very closely matched competitors in this debate.

Adding on...wow, Cheney is vicious! A few very barbed insults toward Edwards' Congressional record.

[Gokul43201]

Cheney's an amazing debater...but it looks like Edwards is getting better - he's made a couple of good points and one bad one (in the last 10 minutes).

[kat]

Ithink this one goes to Cheney.
I can't believe Edwards brought up Cheney's gay daughter.

[Moonbear]

Ithink this one goes to Cheney.
I can't believe Edwards brought up Cheney's gay daughter.

Yeah, that was pretty low. Then again, they've both tossed around some veiled insults, and some not so veiled ones. This is certainly more fun to watch than the Bush/Kerry debate! Edwards can't control the facial expressions either. He isn't as skilled of a debater...inexperience I think.

[kat]

Edwards needs to stop rubbing his nose, it's a strong sign that someone feels they are lying or will be caught lying....but then most people probably don't realize that, do they?

[graphic7]

I was disappointed at the moderator in one instance - this was the point where she had pointed the question at Cheney, but Cheney thought she might've made a mistake and corrected her that it was Edwards' question. She thinks for a second and replies that the question does indeed go to Cheney, and she had forgotten because of Edwards' lack of reponse to concerning the question about Israel. I thought that was a tad rude, and it made the moderator seem biased towards Cheney. It was also unfair to Edwards, given the moderator and Cheney were against him in that sense. The audience laughed, and I could tell that it embarrassed Edwards.

Edit: I like the last moderator - Leher, better than this one.

[Moonbear]

Edwards needs to stop rubbing his nose, it's a strong sign that someone feels they are lying or will be caught lying....but then most people probably don't realize that, do they?

As I looked up to the TV after reading this line, I caught Cheney rubbing his nose! :rofl: No, I wasn't aware this meant anything and hadn't noticed until now!

[Moonbear]

I was disappointed at the moderator in one instance - this was the point where she had pointed the question at Cheney, but Cheney thought she might've made a mistake and corrected her that it was Edwards' question. She thinks for a second and replies that the question does indeed go to Cheney, and she had forgotten because of Edwards' lack of reponse to concerning the question about Israel. I thought that was a tad rude, and it made the moderator seem biased towards Cheney. It was also unfair to Edwards, given the moderator and Cheney were against him in that sense. The audience laughed, and I could tell that it embarrassed Edwards.

I haven't been too impressed with this moderator all along. She seems to screw up a lot of the questions, and has to restate them. I find it confusing. She's screwed up a few times on whose turn it is.

[kat]

edwards closing statements..*blink* *blink* *Blink*

What was Cheny talking about when he rubbed his nose, I missed it?

[kat]

I think she was weak, didn't enforce the rules well but she's always been that way so I wasn't surprised. I think her questions were fairer to both then Lehrers were.

[GENIERE]

Edwards - *****, moan, whine, but a plan for everything.

A cakewalk for Cheney!

[Moonbear]

edwards closing statements..*blink* *blink* *Blink*

What was Cheny talking about when he rubbed his nose, I missed it?

Unfortunately, I missed what he said because I was reading the replies here, and just caught it as I looked up. It was the final question. But, you know, they could just have itchy noses. :wink: Or could be a nervous habit too. I got the impression they were both giving half-truths for answers, they just each give the half of the truth that fits their particular side of the story.

[wasteofo2]

I think it was a pretty pathetic debate, both of the candidates ended up repeating the same exact things with the same exact rebuttals over and over again and could never stay on topic.

Though it's pretty clear, Cheney won.

[Moonbear]

Well, I think this one was very close. If I was pressed to give a winner, I'd say Cheney had the slight edge on this one. But that's why I made sure I got home in time to watch the debate tonight...I had a feeling Cheney would give me a better perspective that Bush did on what their objectives are for the next 4 years. Not that it helps give me any confidence in Bush that he needs Cheney to speak for him, but at least it's not so painful to listen to Cheney speak. Gosh, I was almost thinking Cheney and Edwards were going to come to blows about halfway through the way they both got so nasty!

[kat]

Edwards failed to really reassure that he had the qualifications to take over as president after Cheney so clearly outlined the obligation of the VP to take over for the president.

[Gokul43201]

Among 140,000 voters (at last edit time) at joe.msnbc.com 76% say EDWARDS WON !!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/

[kat]

lol, I think that's pretty meaningless Gokul. Thanks for the chuckle though.

[Moonbear]

Among 83,000 voters (right now) at joe.msnbc.com 78% say EDWARDS WON !!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/

Really??? I don't think Edwards did so badly as to undermine Kerry's clear-cut win in the first debate, but I don't think he came out ahead.

[Gokul43201]

My pleasure ! CNN will show online results soon. I'll be back with more entertainment.

[Gokul43201]

CNN, with 55,000 votes (at edit time) has Edwards 82%, Cheney 14%, Even 4% !!!

Better than a ball of wool, eh ? :wink:

[Moonbear]

I just checked out that link Gokul. Wow! Though it's down to 76% when I voted, so maybe a lot of Kerry supporters got in early just to bias the early reports to have a bigger impact. They must not have even waited for the debate to end to vote so quickly.

On CBS News just now, they just reported 29% Edwards won, 42% Cheney, 29% tie.

[kat]

mmm, I won't buy any poll I see at this point without the internals. I don't even think they can poll the east coast (or deep south) because it's so late in the evening.

[graphic7]

I agree that Edwards didn't do his best, but he didn't do his worst either. I doubt he'll hurt all the momentum that the Kerry compaign now possesses. So long, Bush.

[Gokul43201]

I just checked out that link Gokul. Wow! Though it's down to 76% when I voted, so maybe a lot of Kerry supporters got in early just to bias the early reports to have a bigger impact. They must not have even waited for the debate to end to vote so quickly.

On CBS News just now, they just reported 29% Edwards won, 42% Cheney, 29% tie.

The online polls didn't appear till just after the debate ended. I too was shocked when I first saw something like 15,000 votes within about a minute of opening.

[Moonbear]

Kat, some of these polls are just off the internet...whoever goes to the MSNBC website can vote on that one. I wasn't quite clear whether the one I saw reported on CBS was a local poll or national one. They've been mentioning following about 200 local undecided voters, so that could have been them they were talking about.

[Gokul43201]

mmm, I won't buy any poll I see at this point without the internals. I don't even think they can poll the east coast (or deep south) because it's so late in the evening.

Yeah, these are more for entertainment...and they are not scientific polls anyway. The votes will eventually swing towards Cheney, I believe, but I think it will be closer than the previous debate, and hence have a smaller effect on general polling numbers.

[wasteofo2]

Wow, I'm a fervent Kerry/Edwards supporter, but I don't see how 70+% of the people could think Edwards won, where it was a rare poll that showed John Kerry even doing that well.

Kerry did much better than Bush in the deabte, and comparatively better than Edwards. Cheney did much better than Edwards in the debate, and comparatively better than Bush.

At least with the Democrats, the guy they want to be #1 is the guy who's the best. Wheras with the Republicans, Cheney clearly had a better handle on numbers, facts, small details, a wide range of issues, and was just a more coherent person/debater in general.

Does anyone really doubt that Cheney's really the head of ship?

[kat]

Wasteof02- I believe (I really need to dbl check it but...) that those who heard Bush/Kerry on radio or only read the transcript rated Bush higher then Kerry. Hence the Bush won on content/Kerry won on style comments.

[Gokul43201]

Ithink this one goes to Cheney.
I can't believe Edwards brought up Cheney's gay daughter.

I don't think this was low at all. Edwards was showing respect for Cheney's stand on the issue. He wasn't trying to muscle anything out of this...

[Gokul43201]

Hence the Bush won on content

I find that quite surprising !! :eek:

[Gokul43201]

Wow, I'm a fervent Kerry/Edwards supporter, but I don't see how 70+% of the people could think Edwards won, where it was a rare poll that showed John Kerry even doing that well.

wo2, this number started near 80% and has been dropping steadily to 70%...I think it will continue to drop for a while, as people listen to analysts/hear clips/read transcripts.

[wasteofo2]

Wasteof02- I believe (I really need to dbl check it but...) that those who heard Bush/Kerry on radio or only read the transcript rated Bush higher then Kerry. Hence the Bush won on content/Kerry won on style comments.
What do you think swayed people who read it or only heard it?

Was it the "Yeah, uhh, I uhh, ya see, i... uhh, I'm doin' hard work, lotsa' people are workin' hard, it's uh... see, it's hard work workin' this hard to attain such a hard goal."? Was it the mindless repetition? Was it the failure to rebut any of Kerry's main points or defend Kerry's attacks on his own? All Bush said was that it was hard work, Kerry is inconsistant, he is consistant/strong, criticism is bad, Kerry is critical.

[Moonbear]

Wasteof02- I believe (I really need to dbl check it but...) that those who heard Bush/Kerry on radio or only read the transcript rated Bush higher then Kerry. Hence the Bush won on content/Kerry won on style comments.

I'm not buying that. I went back and read through the transcripts of that first debate to make sure I didn't miss anything of substance while distracted by the ums, and there really isn't anything there. At one point, Bush said something to the effect of (paraphrasing here), "I already explained that earlier" so I went to look through the responses to the previous questions to see if he indeed did answer the question in a previous response (I thought it likely since that first debate was very repetitive in terms of the questions asked). There was no such answer.

[Tigers2B1]

Among 140,000 voters (at last edit time) at joe.msnbc.com 76% say EDWARDS WON !!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/

That's a click as you go poll. Vote as much as you want - just wipe your cookies poll. Get your computer program to vote for you poll.

Considering, I'd say it's not a valid poll -

[Moonbear]

Wow, I'm a fervent Kerry/Edwards supporter, but I don't see how 70+% of the people could think Edwards won, where it was a rare poll that showed John Kerry even doing that well.

Kerry did much better than Bush in the deabte, and comparatively better than Edwards. Cheney did much better than Edwards in the debate, and comparatively better than Bush.

At least with the Democrats, the guy they want to be #1 is the guy who's the best. Wheras with the Republicans, Cheney clearly had a better handle on numbers, facts, small details, a wide range of issues, and was just a more coherent person/debater in general.

Does anyone really doubt that Cheney's really the head of ship?

I agree with your assessment. But we've always known this administration is just a ventriloquist act. That's why Bush can't speak when Cheney isn't present feeding him his lines. :rofl: If Bush and Cheney traded places, I would be giving them much more serious consideration.

[kat]

Moonbear- As I mentioned, I need to check it out further (but who has the time?) I can't remember where i referenced it from and I watched it on the only channel we recieve out here (CBS, NOT FOX as some like to suggest =P ). One thing that might skew the views of those who listen on radio might be a higher % of radio listeners could be...conservative. *shrug* I don't have the numbers to support it at this point, I just threw it out there as something I've read/seen/heard over the last few days.

[kawikdx225]

If Bush and Cheney traded places, I would be giving them much more serious consideration.

Even if they traded places their view on issues are the same. You imply that your vote is based upon surface impressions!

[Moonbear]

Moonbear- As I mentioned, I need to check it out further (but who has the time?) I can't remember where i referenced it from and I watched it on the only channel we recieve out here (CBS, NOT FOX as some like to suggest =P ). One thing that might skew the views of those who listen on radio might be a higher % of radio listeners could be...conservative. *shrug* I don't have the numbers to support it at this point, I just threw it out there as something I've read/seen/heard over the last few days.

Fair enough. It's really easy for any given poll to be skewed one way or another based on the sampling methods, and in such a close race, I'm trying not to draw too many conclusions from polls since the margin of error usually exceeds the differences. Nov 2 is going to be a nail-biter of an evening watching the returns coming in. I'm thinking I should have a party to watch the returns...help survive the suspense!

[Moonbear]

Even if they traded places their view on issues are the same. You imply that your vote is based upon surface impressions!

Oh, I didn't mean it would sway my vote. I'm voting on my opinions about their views on the issues, but I do find it hard to take Bush seriously when he comes across so scatter-brained. I don't agree with Cheney's views on policy, but at least he shows leadership ability. Though, to some extent, when both candidates probably agree on at least 70% of the issues (I don't really know how much, I just made up that number, but it's really pretty high), one has to consider not just what someone wants to do, but whether they actually have the leadership skills to pull it off.

[wasteofo2]

I agree with your assessment. But we've always known this administration is just a ventriloquist act. That's why Bush can't speak when Cheney isn't present feeding him his lines. :rofl: If Bush and Cheney traded places, I would be giving them much more serious consideration.
I dunno, regardless of their policies, if George Bush wasn't president and Dick Cheney was, would you really want George Bush as your VP? Or in any government position really? He's like a Dan Quayle but less eloquent.

[kat]

Did you pick up on Cheney's one big mistake?

[wasteofo2]

Did you pick up on Cheney's one big mistake?
The policies he was defending were all horrible failures.


I loved it when he was talking about how to deal with poverty, and started talking about creating jobs as the best solution, and that getting people working in good paying jobs is the bes way to combat poverty. Meanwhile, he's the leader of the first administration to lose jobs since the great depressoin, and the jobs they have created to make up for the ones they lost pay about $9,000 less than the new ones.

God, I'm so pissed at Edwards for letting so much important crap slide and focusing on stupid stuff the way he did...

[kat]

Oh please.
Cheney said " www.factcheck.com " instead of " www.factcheck.org "

[wasteofo2]

Oh please.
Cheney said " www.factcheck.com " instead of " www.factcheck.org "
I actually did catch that when he said it, but the fact that his administration has lost jobs, the first since the great depression, and that he then talked about creating jobs was way bigger in my mind. Call me crazy I guess...

[kat]

No, I'll call you young and inexperienced. As a small business owner, I appreciate the Bush/Cheney approach.

[Moonbear]

I dunno, regardless of their policies, if George Bush wasn't president and Dick Cheney was, would you really want George Bush as your VP? Or in any government position really? He's like a Dan Quayle but less eloquent.

Hmm...considering Cheney's health, that might be a big risk. If Bush wins, do you think there's any chance they'll have pretzels at the inaugural ball? :biggrin: :tongue: (It's a joke!)

[Moonbear]

No, I'll call you young and inexperienced. As a small business owner, I appreciate the Bush/Cheney approach.

Which approach is that - hiring back previously laid-off employees for lower salaries, or not paying for their health insurance because it's so exhorbitantly expensive?

Seriously, what about their approach do you find appealing?

[kat]

I actually did catch that when he said it, but the fact that his administration has lost jobs, the first since the great depression, and that he then talked about creating jobs was way bigger in my mind. Call me crazy I guess...

BTW expect a large upward revision in whole years numbers in Fridays report. (October surprise?)

[Ivan Seeking]

and oil is $51 a barrel.

I can't call a winner. They both scored and they both had bad moments. Obvoiusly I liked what Edwards said more than I liked what Cheney said, but it was not nearly so much fun and the first debate.

[Tsu]

One of my favorite parts came immediately after the debate on NBC where Brian Williams ran a little segment called The Truth Squad. During the debate, they had people doing research on charges and countercharges made by either candidate - getting at the truth of the matter. This is what they ran first:

CHENEY: The Senator's got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 911.

Then Brian Williams showed a seqment of an interview with Cheney on 9/14/03 on Meet the Press where this is said:

CHENEY: [regarding defining success in Iraq] We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the (pause) of the base, if you will, (pause) the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 911.

:surprised :surprised :surprised He LIED??? :surprised :surprised :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[phatmonky]

Cheney was an easy win over edwards last night. I really expected things to be much closer due to edward's years as a lawyer (should be a natural debater), but Cheney is simply a machine. The guy has a cool persona and something that Edwards really lacked last night....experience.

I dunno if it was enough to remove the awful image of Bush's dunce debate the other night.....eessshh.

[phatmonky]

Wow, I'm a fervent Kerry/Edwards supporter, but I don't see how 70+% of the people could think Edwards won, where it was a rare poll that showed John Kerry even doing that well.


At democraticunderground they were all discussing how they were spamming the internet pollls. :rolleyes:
I'll pull the link later, but I've got school and work now.


oh, and:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/vp_debate_poll_041006.html


see you guys later

[kat]

Seriously, what about their approach do you find appealing?

Seriously, that it's not Kerry's. :biggrin: Kerry has a weak 13 percent rating on key small business issues (http://www.sbsc.org/media/pdf/Kerrys_Voting_Record.pdf)

[wasteofo2]

BTW expect a large upward revision in whole years numbers in Fridays report. (October surprise?)
Yeah, what a great october surprise that would be. I could just imagine Bush's triumphant anouncement

"John Kerry says we've lost over a million jobs, that's just liberal nosense, we've only lost HALF a million jobs, and it's hard work!"

[BobG]

Outstanding debate! This is what all debates should be like.

Cheney won, fairly decisively, but a good performance by both. I felt Edwards performed better than both Kerry and Bush. He did perform well enough that substance might wind up having more effect than style.

I definitely like Cheney. Maybe not for President or Vice President (I like Mean Joe Green of the Steelers, too, but the fans of any team that had him for quarterback would be understandably afraid), but I do like him as a person and a cabinet member (the idea of him being the most powerful man on Earth is a little scary). He won this just by the force of his character.

Edwards reminded everyone why they were so tempted to nominate him in spite of knowing little about him (specifically, if there was anything of substance beyond his "Two Americas" speech). He definitely has a good future regardless of how this election turns out.

For the political junkies who look beyond just the characters and already have an opinion about what's true and not true, the debate does little to change their opinion (personally, I think Cheney's performance goes down if you start comparing substance, but I already believe the Bush-Cheney administration has validated their level of incompetence).

For the more casual observer, the emphasis on the President-Vice President team policies helped Bush and Cheney (no lame comments about how the VP would pray for the future of the country if he were forced to take over the presidency). Cheney's performance gives the Bush-Cheney line more credibility. The real key to how much impact this has how many viewers there were. The VP debate attracts the political junkies, but how many undecided casual observers watched?

[Ivan Seeking]

Cheney seems to have some real memory problems. He can't even remember Edwards introducing the President at at prayer breakfast at which Cheney and Edwards met. One of Cheney's biggest kill shots just bounced off Edwards and hit Cheney in the foot. I'd say Cheney's memory can't be trusted. He truly didn't remember. That's really not good. No wonder he can't keep his facts straight.

[Tsu]

What cracks me up (or does it just make me want to puke? hmmm... both, actually) is that Cheney sat RIGHT NEXT to Edwards during the breakfast!!

But according to this site...
http://www.democrats.org/news/200410060007.html

:biggrin:

They actually met on THREE different occasions. :surprised: :rofl: :rofl:

[plover]

And all those Tuesdays where Cheney was at the Senate? He was at a weekly Republican policy lunch, to which, of course, Edwards wasn't invited.

Cheney only actually presided over the Senate on two Tuesdays since becoming Veep, but then, Edwards has presided over the Senate on two Tuesdays in the same time period too...

[Gokul43201]

Aaaah, the power of rhetoric ! :smile:

Nice catch, plover.

[kat]

And all those Tuesdays where Cheney was at the Senate? He was at a weekly Republican policy lunch, to which, of course, Edwards wasn't invited.

Cheney only actually presided over the Senate on two Tuesdays since becoming Veep, but then, Edwards has presided over the Senate on two Tuesdays in the same time period too...
Ummm, not so fast. Isn't the Republican Policy Lunch that you're referring to...a lunch with republican members of the senate...and wouldn't that suggest that he's present...either before of after the lunch break...

And...did Cheney say he "Presided" every tuesday..or that he was there every tuesday?

And...what was Edwards senate attendance record?...one of the worst?
Of course, we should point out that a poor senate record is probably a tactical move for those who have their eye on the Presidential office as the only senators who have made it there have had poor attendance records...thus less of a record to use against them.
The fact that these senators failed to do their jobs because their eyes were on the Presidents office isn't exactly comforting either.

[Gokul43201]

Okay, since we're talking about attendance, I wonder what President Bush's attendance is like ? From his oft repeated line, during the debate and elsewhere, you get the idea that he is a very hard working Prez.

Anyone got the numbers on this ?

Not that I doubt his effort at all...I'm sure he probably took way, way less time off than any of the past Presidents; what with 9/11 and 2 wars and the security threat, and the unemployment and the deficit !!

[russ_watters]

His "off time" gets a lot of press, but a president isn't really ever off. In Moore's movie, he points out that he's on vacation a lot and shows a quick clip of him lounging at his ranch....with Tony Blair. :blushing:

[BobG]

Ummm, not so fast. Isn't the Republican Policy Lunch that you're referring to...a lunch with republican members of the senate...and wouldn't that suggest that he's present...either before of after the lunch break...

And...did Cheney say he "Presided" every tuesday..or that he was there every tuesday?

And...what was Edwards senate attendance record?...one of the worst?
Of course, we should point out that a poor senate record is probably a tactical move for those who have their eye on the Presidential office as the only senators who have made it there have had poor attendance records...thus less of a record to use against them.
The fact that these senators failed to do their jobs because their eyes were on the Presidents office isn't exactly comforting either.

I don't know how many intentionally miss votes to reduce their record, but you do have a point about the disadvantages of being a congessional member vs. a governor. It's lot harder for a senator to be elected president when you can snatch votes on issues from a different era and display them in today's environment. It's harder to accumulate that kind of record on a governor.

[Ivan Seeking]

The President of the Senate can't remember meeting another Senator THREE TIMES!

Fit for duty eh? Perhaps that conviction Cheney conveys really comes from not knowing better.

[kat]

The President of the Senate can't remember meeting another Senator THREE TIMES!

Fit for duty eh? Perhaps that conviction Cheney conveys really comes from not knowing better.
Lol, I think Edwards just wasn't "memory worthy", considering his lack of activity in the Senate. :rofl:

[Ivan Seeking]

Cheney sure had that famous conviction and tone when he proudly announced that he and Edwards had never met - the same tone used when he defends the war.

He was completely sure of himself. He had conviction!

[Moonbear]

Dick Cheney: "Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session."

Cheney has an interesting definition of "most." He has presided over the Senate on TWO Tuesdays in the past 4 years, exactly the same number of times Edwards has presided as acting president pro tempore.

Extracted from the Congressional Record (I didn't go through every single date listed, but took a random sampling to verify the accuracy):
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html

Here is a list of who has presided over the Senate for every Tuesday session in 2001-2004.

2001
January 30 - Enzi
February 6 - Chafee
February 13 - Chafee
February 27 - Allen
March 6 - Burns
March 13 - Reid
March 20 - DeWine
March 27 - Chafee
April 3 - Smith
April 24 - Chafee
May 1 - Chafee
May 8 - Chafee
May 15 - Frist
May 22 - Chafee
June 5 - Enzi
June 12 - Byrd
June 19 - Carper
June 26 - Bayh
July 10 - Nelson
July 17 - Clinton
July 24 - Byrd
July 31 - Stabenaw
September 25 - Wellstone
October 2 - Clinton
October 9 - Clinton
October 16 - Edwards
October 23- Byrd
October 30 - Bingaman
November 13 - Murray
November 27 - Jeffords
December 4 - Stabenaw
December 11 - Carnahan
December 18 - Nelson

2002
Tue 1/29 - Nelson
Tue 2/5 - Kohl
Tue 2/12 - Stabenow
Tue 2/26 - Landrieu
Tue 3/5 - Edwards
Tue 3/12 - Landrieu
Tue 3/19 - Miller
Tue 4/9 - Cleland
Tue 4/16 - Reed
Tue 4/23 - Wellstone
Tue 4/30 - Nelson
Tue 5/7 - Miller
Tue 5/14 - Cleland
Tue 5/21 - Nelson
Tue 6/4 - Durbin
Tue 6/11 - Corzine
Tue 6/18 - Dayton
Tue 6/25 - Landrieu
Tue 7/9 - Reed
Tue 7/16 - Corzine
Tue 7/23 - Reed
Tue 7/30 - Clinton
Tue 9/3 - Reed
Tue 9/10 - Corzine
Tue 9/17 - Reid
Tue 9/24 - Stabenow
Tue 10/1 - Miller
Tue 10/8 - Miller
Tue 10/15 - Reid
Tue 11/12 - Cheney
Tue 11/19 - Barkley (MN)


2003
Jan 7 - Cheney
Jan 14 Stevens
Jan 22 Stevens
Jan 28 Stevens
Feb 4 Stevens
Feb 11 Stevens
Feb 25 Stevens
Mar 4 Stevens
Mar 11 Stevens
Mar 18 Stevens
Mar 25 Stevens
Apr 1 Stevens
Apr 8 Stevens
Apr 29 Stevens
May 6 Talent
May 13 Ensign
May 20 Alexander
June 3 Stevens
June 10 Stevens
June 18 Murkowski
June 24 Coleman
July 8 Stevens
July 15 Stevens
July 22 Chaffee
July 29 Stevens
Sept 2 Stevens
Sept 9 Stevens
Sept 16 Stevens
Sept 23 Stevens
Sept 30 Sununu
Oct 21 Stevens
Oct 28 Stevens
Nov 4 Stevens
Nov 11 Warner
Nov 18 Stevens
Dec 9 Stevens

2004
1/20 - Stevens
1/27 - Enzi
2/3 - Stevens
2/10 - Stevens
3/2 - Stevens
3/9 - Hagel
3/16 - Sununu
3/23 - Stevens
3/30 - Ensign
4/6 - Cornyn
4/20 - Stevens
4/27 - Chambliss
5/4 - Stevens
5/11 - Stevens
5/18 - Stevens
6/1 - Stevens
6/8 - Hutchinson
6/15 - Stevens
6/22 - Allard
7/6 - Burns
7/13 - Stevens
7/20 - Enzi
9/7 - Stevens
9/14 - Chafee
9/21 - Enzi
9/28 - Stevens
10/05 - Stevens

[phatmonky]

edit, I don't really care. Will just watch the fireworks.

[kat]

Moonbear, You're really barking up the wrong tree. It would be VERY rare for the VP to regularly preside over the senate meetings, instead the senate chooses a President Pro Tempore (President for a time) to preside for the VP. Maybe it's a little to nuanced for the left (!!!!!) but Cheney never said he was up thaare in the senate presiding every Tuesday....He said he's up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session
Edward, as a Senator...would be expected to attend Senate meetings...he's been somewhat AWOL...hence he's been labeled "not re-electable" in his own state.

[Moonbear]

Kat, of course I know that the president pro tem usually resides over Senate sessions, it wasn't necessary to be snide about that. That's the reason I went looking for more details about Cheney's comment. As for the "Senator Gone" comment, the Pilot Newspaper, which is Edwards' hometown paper, has published an explanation of how that comment was, as is typical of the Bush/Cheney campaign, taken out of context:

http://www.thepilot.com/opinion/100604PilotEditorial2.html
But we also wrote: “Members of the senator’s staff point out that Edwards’ attendance record this year has been better than the three other Democratic senators who are campaigning for president — Joe Lieberman, Richard Gephardt and Bob Graham. And the aides also say none of the votes Edwards missed was close, so his presence on the floor would not have changed the outcome.”

If you read through some of the criticisms of Edwards in North Carolina, it's actually not that he isn't voting, but that his voting record is liberal and they wanted a conservative.

[kat]

Kat, of course I know that the president pro tem usually resides over Senate sessions, it wasn't necessary to be snide about that. So....you make this loooooong detailed post about Cheney not presiding over senate knowing full well that it wouldn't be something a VP would regularly do....presenting it as though he's been neglecting his duty...and I'm the one who's snide? Hello? *BoNk*

That's the reason I went looking for more details about Cheney's comment. As for the "Senator Gone" comment, the Pilot Newspaper, which is Edwards' hometown paper, has published an explanation of how that comment was, as is typical of the Bush/Cheney campaign, taken out of context:

http://www.thepilot.com/opinion/100604PilotEditorial2.html I didn't say anything abotu the Senator Gone" comment...but evidently, considering the way you took Cheney's comment you're as guilty as anyone of taking things out of context...and it's pot calling kettle black


If you read through some of the criticisms of Edwards in North Carolina, it's actually not that he isn't voting, but that his voting record is liberal and they wanted a conservative. Actually, now that you mention that I do remember reading somewhere that, IN PART, he was not re-electable because he ran on a moderate platform and yet has consistently voted far left.

[Moonbear]

So....you make this loooooong detailed post about Cheney not presiding over senate knowing full well that it wouldn't be something a VP would regularly do....presenting it as though he's been neglecting his duty...and I'm the one who's snide? Hello? *BoNk*

Nope, what I took as snide was this comment:
Maybe it's a little to nuanced for the left (!!!!!)

I was providing the evidence for the statement that Cheney has only presided over two sessions. The statement was brought up earlier too and refutes Cheney's statement that he is presiding over the senate. According to the Constitution, that is his job, but the reality is that most VPs defer that role to the President Pro Tem, so his using that statement to give weight to the statement that followed it was misleading. My post wasn't all that detailed, it was just a list.


I didn't say anything abotu the Senator Gone" comment...but evidently, considering the way you took Cheney's comment you're as guilty as anyone of taking things out of context...and it's pot calling kettle black

Nope, you didn't say "Senator Gone." Cheney did. This thread is about the debate.

You did, however, say:
he's been somewhat AWOL...hence he's been labeled "not re-electable" in his own state.

Perhaps you weren't referring to the "Senator Gone" comment that Cheney made (he did still make that comment), but I'm not sure how else you intended to use the term "AWOL." It didn't seem to be in the context of military service.

Actually, now that you mention that I do remember reading somewhere that, IN PART, he was not re-electable because he ran on a moderate platform and yet has consistently voted far left.

On that, yes, he is a Democratic candidate, and votes consistent with that party, so I would agree it's not likely he'd get re-elected to the Senate in a Republican state. But Cheney didn't say he wasn't re-electable in his state, he chose to refer to the "Senator Gone" angle.

[plover]

Just for the record here's the transcript (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1005.html) of Cheney's remark.
Originally said by VP Cheney
The reason they keep trying to attack Halliburton is because they want to obscure their own record.

And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee.

You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform.

Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.

Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.
Hmm... in context Cheney's remarks are also an ad hominem argument.

Might as well include Edwards response too.
Originally said by Sen. Edwards
That was a complete distortion of my record. I know that won't come as a shock.

The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.

He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa.

It's amazing to hear him criticize either my record or John Kerry's.

[Ivan Seeking]

Of course the truth of the matter is that they vote when they need to. The rest is already a done deal; which is why they don't bother to show up.