GameBanshee Forums

I don't know, I feel like Cheney cruised through this one, gave a far better performance than Edwards.
Personaly, to me it's basicaly Edwards is likable but not very impressive, and Cheney is Impressive but totaly unlikable.

In general, this debate was so much more engaging and interesting than the one on Thursday night. Bush was as impressive as always, I think Kerry has a chronic lack of charisma. Edwards seems like a nice guy who I'd like to see as my local grocer. I'd like Cheney as my lawyer and the person in charge of all my detective needs, and as a translator should I ever need to speak to the devil.

Cheney has the benefit of years of government work. Reminds me of a old crab just waiting to bite your head off. (Fable in his old age??? A joke if people don't get it!)

Edwards seems to me to try put over a 'southern' charm. Not the type I would expect to bite your head off. Still he was a lawyer.

In a fight with the devil, either would do well. I would expect Cheney though to get me more out of the deal. The better deal might come back to bite me in the end....


I give the edge to Cheney, but I don't believe the debate will hinder or help either side. I might have too much faith in my fellow Americans though.

[QUOTE=Weasel]Cheney has the benefit of years of government work. Reminds me of a old crab just waiting to bite your head off. (Fable in his old age??? A joke if people don't get it!) [/QUOTE]

I get it, but that won't save ya from my semi-automatic blunderbuss, dag nab ya!

Heard a bit of Cheney vs Edwards: nothing new. Both spent a lot of time correcting the deliberate misstatements of one another. As Cheney was a charter PNAC member and signed that horrific 1998 manifesto, I think any devil would need legal protection from him.

I personally think Edwards lost this one..why?

Mostly because there was a part of the debate where the rule said something like "WITHOUT mentioning your candidate by name..blah blah blah.." and Edwards within 3 seconds said "John Kerry and I..blah.." and the chick said "you said his name" and Edwards apologized and I thought "okay, maybe he was sorry" then within 10 more seconds he say "Me and John Kerry..blah". FREAKING IDIOT!

He even kept talking when the red light was flashing, Cheney stopped almost immediately when the red light showed up most of the time.

I was leaning a bit towards Edwards during this debate for quite a bit until he said John Kerry after he was told not to. Freaking idiot.

Aaarrrggg...

I thought the debate unquestionably went to Cheney, which is unfortunate. John Kerry ploughed right through Bush on Thursday night, but it was John Edwards who found himself on the receiving end this time around. Cheney maintained an air of confidence and superiority that Edwards was hard pressed to dismiss, and ultimately Edwards wasn't able to land any solid punches.

You know, Edwards' performance tonight actually reminded me quite a bit of Bush's performance on Thursday. Edwards is touted as being charming and charismatic (as is Bush), but he just doesn't seem all that bright. He invokes a lot of emotion (at least with some people), but he falls back too often on rhetoric and lacks substance in his public speaking. Edwards comes across as smarmy and inauthentic; I almost liken him to a used car salesmen, as was said above. Cheney, on the other hand, was cool and collected; he brushed aside nearly all of Edwards' attempts at criticism, and he glossed over any visible blemishes with plenty of "factual" information. He's much older than Edwards, and it shows. He regards Edwards as he would a child--naive and inexperienced. Cheney sort of "told it how it was," and Edwards, lacking the wherewithal to do otherwise, let him get away with it.

And like I said, this is all most unfortunate. I really want to like Edwards, but I found myself listening to Cheney and only hearing words come out of Edwards' mouth. It's frustrating to see the Republican ticket showing an opening for a good right hook, but the Dems keep throwing ineffectual jabs at the GOP's stomach. Kerry and Edwards need to definitively deconstruct the GOP argument that invading Iraq has somehow made the United States--and the World at large--a safer place. It has NOT. Every time Bush/Cheney say that it has, I expect the two democrats to body slam them, and they never do. They digress on some tangent when they should be putting that sticking point to rest.

We are absolutely NOT any safer due to the "liberation" of Iraq. Kerry/Edwards can't possibly overstress that point. Saddam Hussein had NO weapons of mass destruction; there is NO evidence to support that Saddam Hussein was actively trying to acquire said weapons; there is NO evidence to indicate that Saddam Hussein or the Baath party harbored terrorists involved with 9/11. So what threat did Saddam Hussein supposedly pose to our safety? He certainly wasn't capable of killing over a thousand US troops--until we tossed them into his hostile country, that is.

I guess you can see that I'm pretty frustrated with the Democratic party's flaccid posture on the Iraq war. What they SHOULD be doing seems so obvious to me (because I know everything), and they just don't seem to be doing it effectively. Both Kerry and Edwards are also sitting back and letting Bush/Cheney accuse them of voting for and then against numerous propositions, and neither one of them are defending themselves. Why the hell not? If Kerry voted against the $87 billion to support the troops in Iraq, WHY? The reason is known (the bill was initially supposed to be funded from the sale of Iraqi oil; Kerry voted it down once it was altered to be paid for by American tax payers), but Kerry avoided any explanation during the debate. Foolish.

What a rant. I'd like to hear what other people think, though.

Please pardon my ignorance...

... but I really don't see how significant the vice-presidential candidates' debate is. How important is it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the U.S., the candidate for Vice President will only win if his/her running mate wins, right? In the Philippines, we actually vote for the Vice President too, so you could have the top two government positions from different political parties.

Would the kind of running mate the Presidential candidate have, significantly influence the electorate to vote for him? Was there any instance of that happening in the past?

Thanks for enlightening me.

[QUOTE=Cab00se]Both Kerry and Edwards are also sitting back and letting Bush/Cheney accuse them of voting for and then against numerous propositions, and neither one of them are defending themselves.[/QUOTE]

Maybe they figure attack is the best form of defence? Pretty daft, but possible. Shifting the emphasis somewhere else looks like you're trying to cover up for yourself.

I didn't see the whole debate, but I got the impression that neither of them really packed any big punches. I don't think Cheney wiped the floor with Edwards, so I guess that's good. You're right though, the Democrats surely have so much ammunition that they just aren't making use of.

See..as I see it..it isn't so much that Cheney beat Edwards..it's that Edwards screwed himself over because he is an idiot.

Something that really bugs me about Cheney though is that he stated that he doesn't want to run for any higher office so he will just back Bush on whatever he chooses, and that is just wrong. He has a gay daughter and he wants there to be equal rights for straight people AND gay people. He believes that states need to decide what the definition of marriage is. BUT he is fully backing Bush's thing about having a constitutional amendment over ALL states that bans gay marriage..Cheney doesn't agree with that..but he is going along with it because that's what his candidate wants. That is just wrong.

...or very loyal, which is very common for Republicans, isn't it? Well, at least that's what I've learned at school...

Would the kind of running mate the Presidential candidate have, significantly influence the electorate to vote for him? Was there any instance of that happening in the past?

This is something the American press has been pondering since the end of the Vice-Presidential debate. As expected, the Republicans think that Cheney's performance has blunted whatever momentum the Democrats gained after the Presidential debate on Thursday, and the Democrats think that Edwards' lackluster performance ultimately won't matter. I can't think of any examples off-hand where a strong Vice-Presidential candidate carried with him enough weight to offset a poor running mate, but the press has cited numerous examples of strong Presidents bringing along with them comparatively weaker VP's and still succeeding in the election. I'm really hoping that enough people are determined to get Bush out of office that they won't care whether or not Edwards is a barmy berk.

Maybe they figure attack is the best form of defence? Pretty daft, but possible. Shifting the emphasis somewhere else looks like you're trying to cover up for yourself.

Exactly. Kerry especially is known for drifting in between tangents and slipping off track of the issues, and it often makes him appear to lack focus--and worse, it makes it appear as though he's afraid or unwilling to make a definitive statement about anything.

Something that really bugs me about Cheney though is that he stated that he doesn't want to run for any higher office so he will just back Bush on whatever he chooses, and that is just wrong. He has a gay daughter and he wants there to be equal rights for straight people AND gay people. He believes that states need to decide what the definition of marriage is. BUT he is fully backing Bush's thing about having a constitutional amendment over ALL states that bans gay marriage..Cheney doesn't agree with that..but he is going along with it because that's what his candidate wants. That is just wrong.

You really have to wonder what his daughter thinks about that. Is he really going to vote to prevent her from being legally acknowledged as being in a homosexual relationship, simply because George Bush and the rest of the religious Right thinks it's some sort of negative cultural trend? What happened to patented Republican family values?

Frankly, I can't even believe that homosexuality is still a political issue at this late stage. I certainly wouldn't have expected that so many people are adamantly against it. What difference would it make if we allow them to marry? It's not like forbidding them from marriage is going to prevent them from being together anyway. Wake up, America. There are gay people among you. There's jack that anyone can do about it, and nor should they. It doesn't affect anyone but the people involved, so it shouldn't be anyone's business but the people involved.

[QUOTE=Maharlika]... but I really don't see how significant the vice-presidential candidates' debate is. How important is it?
[/QUOTE]

Not at all. The original powers of the vice president lay not in the executive branch, but in the legislative branch of government: he was the President of the Senate. Since there are always an even number of senators, the VP could, upon a split vote, cast the deciding ballot. (This has actually happened numerous times, in the past.) As PotS, they also had some control of the agenda.

Today, the VP is still the PotS, but they have less control of the agenda. And as they're always the most loyal of subordinates to the President, they no longer act as a lightning rod to dissenting legislators, which was almost certainly the intend of the people who devised the governmental structure. The VP has no real executive powers save when the President is unable to perform his/her office. As a goodwill ambassador-without-portfolio the position still has real importance, and a good VP can bring information of importance to the attention of a boss who really cares.

Well, straight people are called "heterosexual", and gay people are called "homosexual". Maybe have "marriage" be the straight name, and then have some other word mean the gay name of the same thing?

What I have seen as the BIGGEST argument against gay marriage is the definition of the word. So if you get a new word that means the gay version, then I don't think anything bad can come out of it. Both sides would have a wedding, but marriage would be for straight people, and then something else would be for gay people.

As far as a strong vice-president in debates..Reagan did horribly in a debate against his opponent, and then Bush Sr stepped up and won the vice presidential debate and dug his candidate out of a hole..which may be what Cheney did for Bush Jr.

Well, straight people are called "heterosexual", and gay people are called "homosexual". Maybe have "marriage" be the straight name, and then have some other word mean the gay name of the same thing?

Somehow, I don't think that's the real issue here. The dissenters claim to be "protecting the sanctity of marriage," but I suspect they're really just a bunch of homophobes that don't want to allow gay people to be legally (or otherwise) acknowledged in our society, and they certainly don't think gay couples should receive any benefits. Calling it by some other name has been suggested in the past, and it didn't float. It would be nice if such a compromise would suffice, but the opposition is determined to not make it that easy.

I understand that in past VP debates, the 'winner' of those debates often ended up on the ultimate losing ticket....

[QUOTE=Gwalchmai]I understand that in past VP debates, the 'winner' of those debates often ended up on the ultimate losing ticket....[/QUOTE]

Can't say one way or the other, but I do know that Lloyd Bentsen, the Texan who was the VP Democratic running mate in 1988, easily outdistanced his VP opponent, Dan Quayle, in debate. That was the time Quayle asserted that he had "as much experience in Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency." Bentsen, a much man, famously replied, "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." I watched that, live, and for all that the neo-Con radicals have since sneered that Bentsen must have scripted it--like their beloved Reagan's debate remarks--it was clear when you watched it that Bentsen was furious with Quayle's comparison, and meant every word of it. Bentsen was an oldstyle southern Democrat and a gentleman. Quayle was neither.

Bentsen, alas, never made it to the White House, and Dan Quayle, as one of the PNAC founding members, now advises Shrub. And they say this world wasn't formed by an insane demiurge.