VP Debate

  • News
  • Thread starter Moonbear
  • Start date
  • #51
kat
39
0
wasteofo2 said:
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?)
 
  • #52
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,795
774
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.
 
  • #53
Tsu
Gold Member
386
63
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:
 
  • #54
member 5645
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.
 
  • #55
member 5645
wasteofo2 said:
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
 
  • #57
466
2
kat said:
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!"
 
  • #58
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
223
84
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?
 
  • #59
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,795
774
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.
 
  • #60
Tsu
Gold Member
386
63
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 [Broken]

:biggrin:

They actually met on THREE different occasions. :surprised: :rofl: :rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #61
plover
Homework Helper
188
0
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...
 
  • #62
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,082
20
Aaaah, the power of rhetoric ! :smile:

Nice catch, plover.
 
  • #63
kat
39
0
plover said:
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.
 
  • #64
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,082
20
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 !!
 
  • #65
russ_watters
Mentor
20,958
7,567
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:
 
  • #66
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
223
84
kat said:
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.
 
  • #67
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,795
774
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.
 
  • #68
kat
39
0
Ivan Seeking said:
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:
 
Last edited:
  • #69
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,795
774
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!
 
Last edited:
  • #70
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,558
53
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 [Broken]

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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #71
member 5645
edit, I don't really care. Will just watch the fireworks.
 
  • #72
kat
39
0
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.
 
  • #73
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,558
53
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 [Broken]
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
kat
39
0
Moonbear said:
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 [Broken]
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #75
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,558
53
kat said:
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.
 

Related Threads on VP Debate

  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
65
Views
6K
  • Last Post
7
Replies
153
Views
14K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
885
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
3
Replies
71
Views
9K
S
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
123
Views
17K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
9K
Top