|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Oct 6th, 2004 05:26 PM | ||
| Preechr | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards | |
| Oct 6th, 2004 05:03 PM | ||
| Ant10708 | I'm just wondering but is Edwards known for any big cases? | |
| Oct 6th, 2004 05:00 PM | ||
| Preechr | He'd be more like an old school wrestler, leaping in frame from off camera with a chair. *WHACK* | |
| Oct 6th, 2004 04:58 PM | ||
| ziggytrix |
To which Edwardss rebutted: Quote:
Personally, I felt that Cheney gave a very strong serve, but I also felt Edwards returned it just as hard. Hardly game set and match. Not to mention the press is really picking up on the "before tonight I'd never met Sen. Edwards" LIE that Cheney told. I was halfway expecting Cheney to leap across the table and start choking Edwards.[/quote] |
|
| Oct 6th, 2004 04:29 PM | ||
| Preechr |
"I couldn't figure out why that happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that . . . Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries . . . based on his antiwar record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an antiwar vote and they voted against the troops." "Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to al Qaeda?" Game, set, match. He should have just smacked him upside the head and called him a "whippersnapper." |
|
| Oct 6th, 2004 04:24 PM | ||
| Baalzamon | thats true, as long as nothing really bad happens over there, cheney and bush can ignore just about everything else right now because nobody really seems to give a shit about health care, or even the economy compared to iraq and the fact that kerry is so "indecisive" :/ | |
| Oct 6th, 2004 03:53 PM | ||
| Preechr |
If Karzai gets assassinated, Team Bush© will paint it as an example of how dedicated backward-ass towel-heads are to the idea of self-government. He, like most of the political candidates in Iraq as well as Afghanistan, was risking his life for the cause of freedom. "We cannot let his personal sacrifice be made in vain. What will the Afghan people think if we elect a President that sends moxie marfingles?" Cheney already set the stage with his personal memories of El Salvadoran bravery in the face of insurgency on election day. Violence will spotlight the "resolve" and "determination" of the Afghan people, which is already lined up to be a Bush slam-dunk. International observers have already made whatever objections they had about the electoral process, and they've pledged to refrain from questioning the results whatever they may look like. With 18 candidates running in the French round-robin style and a virtual pass on any circumspection, the chances of the election not happening are almost nil. That's what I mean by a blow up. If on Saturday Afghanistan manages to come up with anything even remotely close to a Presidential Election, Bush gets a big bonus hit that Kerry's not likely to overcome. The only way that's not going to happen is if the entire country gets physically blown up. That's the only scenario that would result in a non-election that I can see, and I'm not even sure that wouldn't help Bush somehow... Sure it's largely a symbolic thing, but so is our own election if you want to get picky about it... If the majority of voters cast ballots believing Iraq is a part of the larger war on terror while feeling less than absolutely sure the situation over there is spinning wildly out of control, Bush wins. That's what this election boils down to: A. Is Iraq a legitimate self-defense measure? and B. Is there any hope at all for Iraq to self-rule? Kerry has elected to not pursue A enough to sway anyone, only going so far as to infrequently call it a diversion... which only makes him look more irresolute, and Saturday nails B down so close to the election I'm not sure there's time for the Dems to spin it away without looking desperate or dangerously pessimistic. Now, if Australia boots Howard... also on Saturday... Kerry could make some hay over the loss of an important coalition partner due to Bush's misconceived war, but I'm not convinced that can overshadow the beginnings of success in the Middle East. Voting Bush will still smell an awful lot like believing in America on November 2. Remember, the vast majority of the swing voter sect are MIDDLE AGED WHITE WOMEN. Kerry has failed so far to make domestic issues a higher priority than foreign policy simply because this demographic isn't as concerned with tax cuts and healthcare when terrorists are coming to eat their babies. I don't think Kerry and Edwards have enough Security Daddy in their collective image to be convincing replacements for Cowboy Bush and Rough and Tumble Cheney if there's any perceived hope to be had in Iraq. The smallest seed of hope will be all that's needed. Consider who we're talking about here. Bush and Cheney have been making what we consider to be mistakes of ommission in their campaign here and there, but what's really happening is that they're focused on this campaign tactic so intensely that they feel like they have room to scoff at the rest of the issues Kerry thinks will win the day for him. Cheney all but left the room last night when the discussion shifted to domestic policy. Bush knew his only goal in last week's debate with Kerry was to call his determination into question. He did that well enough, but also spent most of the rest of the time looking like he had no time to waste on whatever crap those idiots wanted him to talk about. He floundered through the 99% of the debate he didn't bother to prepare for. |
|
| Oct 6th, 2004 02:35 PM | ||
| mburbank |
I think there's real possability of the Afghan elections blowing up. The question is, unless that blow-up is really massive, how will the point come across. I think there will be several levels in the election. Kharzai will win in the capital, which is all that's really under his control in any case, and since the administration has been sucsessfully presenting Kabul as Afghanistan for months now, tht will be confusing. Outside of Kabul, in places where elections actually take place, and where warlords have been promised control, near unanimous Karzai votes. Will american media realize that unanamous votes are a sign that the elections didn't work? Who knows? Saddest of all, is that this election means very little compared to their parlimentary election, which isn't going to be held until well after our election. I think in the long run, the best these elections can be is a teeny weeny baby step that's meaningful mostly sor it's symbolism. But symbolism is more than enough for W. to run with, as he's proved in Iraq. And suppose Karzai gets killed election day, which doesn't exactly seem impossible. Would that constitute a whole sale blow up? Are they positioned to recpover from a front runner getting killed? I think there's a slightly even chance that these elections will be a disaster (I mean, since we've gotten so much right so far as fars as nation building goes.) |
|
| Oct 6th, 2004 01:25 PM | ||
| Preechr |
I didn't really say they HAVE to be meaningless. I think the net result of them so far, on those that are just now tuning into the election campaign, has not edged them in either direction. I still say that the elections in Afghanistan... this Saturday... will help Bush tremendously. Kerry & Edwards need to be doing better than tit for tat this week, because next week, assuming Afghanistan doesn't just blow up, people will be less likely to believe the Democrat position that the entire Middle Eastern escapade has gone horribly, horribly wrong thanks to bad leadership. Even a marginally successful election in Afghanistan will make many people less uneasy that the Iraq situation has deteriorated to the point that their elections are a foregone conclusion. We here all know the two things have little to do with one another, but Kerry and Edwards won't be able to sell that point successfully before the election. In fact, doing so will make them look worse. This week: "It's all bad... VERY bad..." Next week: "Ok, that wasn't bad, but the rest of it is STILL very bad..." That's not gonna be believeable. It's a long-shot to win this election with a message based in negativity. It's an entirely different thing to appear pessimistic. So far, they've ridden that line successfully. Good news from Afghanistan could be very hard for them to counter. Have the debates helped prepare them for this? No. The debates should be setting in stone the idea that Bush and Cheney are no better than Bobo and his Amazing Sock Puppet when it comes to winning the war on terror BEFORE Saturday, so Americans will look at the Afghan election cynically. All the debate over foreign policy is done now. Friday will be domestic issues only. Saturday, the news hits the streets that Team Bush has successfully gotten the Democratic Ball rolling in the first country it regime-changed, and Iraq's turn is just a few months away. By extension, the outlook for Iraq will suddenly appear less bleak. All Kerry & Edwards' talk of how bad things were going in Afghanistan will appear to have been foolish partisan jibberjabber contrived to make Bush look bad. Opium-Shmopium... All successful countries have drug problems... If Afghanistan can self-govern despite the "distraction" of Iraq, then so can Iraq. This election is a referendum on Iraq. This Saturday, Kerry's campaign dies. Months ago, I had predicted Saddam's trial would be happening now as well, which would have sealed the coffin on Kerry's bid... but that isn't coming to pass. Either way, what's actually happening will be enough. |
|
| Oct 6th, 2004 12:10 PM | ||
| Anonymous | I disagree with your assertation that the debates are meaningless - Most people don't care about politics and only bother to educate themselves on the candidates in the last month or so before elections, so the debates serve as their entire source for making a decision. | |
| Oct 6th, 2004 12:01 PM | ||
| Preechr |
MY FINAL ANSWER: I slept on it, and I think I'm going with the idea that the average undecided, if they watched at all, was trying to decide which VP candidate looked and acted more like a Vice-President. In that, I'd have to say that Cheney's successful attacks on Edwards' Noobness combined with his mentioning that the VP is the defacto head of the Senate might have scored pretty big. On the other hand, here's an excerpt from Slate: Quote:
I don't know. Since I scored the first debate a draw, I'm going to say we're still at that point. While the first debate had neither candidate acheiving their goals which resulted in a clusterfuck that made them both look like idiots, the VP debate ended with both candidates looking equally good, as far as that goes. They are equally scary people, but for different reasons. They both came off as equally qualified, but again in opposite ways. Cheney has the resume, which is both good and bad, and I doubt he'll ever shake the shady taint of Haliburton and the Energy Commission scandal (though Edwards failed to go there...) and Edwards' motivation is equally questionable, as this campaign is pretty much his last shot at a continuation of a very brief and unproductive political career. Edwards is also tainted by his earlier private enterprise, which Cheney could have exploited but didn't. Do undecideds know enough about the issues to make sense of the various points made and lost, or are they looking for whichever pair "looks right?" In either case, I believe the sum of both these debates have had little or no effect on the minds of the 4 undecided voters that this election is supposed to swing upon. |
|
| Oct 6th, 2004 10:50 AM | ||
| ziggytrix |
I think Cheney said "uh" "basically" and "I don't even know where to begin" way too many times. Seemed like he was floundering to me. Also when he refused rebuttal on the anti gay marriage amendment he seemed to say "I stand by my President on this issue, even though I don't agree with him". Very interesting debate. |
|
| Oct 6th, 2004 10:24 AM | ||
| mburbank |
I agree with Preech that Edwards didn't answer questions, but while I fund it annoying, I think it was deliberate. He didn't obfyuscate, he just had an agenda which was to lay out the genral Democratic picture, make the differences with the Republicans as clear as possible, and if the question weren't taking him in the right direction, ignore the questions. Personally I disliked that. I didn't think he was hiding anything, I just think a lot more could have been gained from more actual debate. Chenney didn't avoid the questions as much, but he did refuse rebuttal on more than one occasion. I guess this was supposed to look like he'd already scored the point, but again, it deprives the voters of a chance to profit from actul debate. Chenney also played a debaters trick I hate, not answering questions by saying, you're wrong, the info is out there, look it up. He also gave the wrong URL for his proof, but that's just funny, especially as George Souros immediately boght the incorrect URL chenney gave out. By the way, the correct URL doesn't back him up on the speciffic charges Edwards made. It's like saying "I don't have to answer that question, anyone can read the front page of todays paper." It seems to score a point until you go to the paper and the article doesn't answer the question. Moreover, you're supposed to refute your opponents arguments, not just say they've been refuted elsewhere. Chenny's knows that, just as he knows he was pulling a cheap trick. I thought Chenney scored in that he didn't appear as mean as he sometimes does. I think Edwards scored in that a man with a very short resume stood up effectively to a lifelong professional pol. It looked pretty even to me, which is a big loss for W who needed the older, seasoned Cheney to crush Edwards. Since Chenney is as much the president as W. if not more, I think Republicans lost a big chance, particularly as this debate will now fade into obscurity over the course of the next two presidential debates. |
|
| Oct 6th, 2004 02:36 AM | ||
| Brandon | I think Edwards had the edge in this one, if only for the way in which he presented himself. He came off as charming, persuasive, and warm, while Cheney looked, acted, and sounded like an animated corpse for much of the evening. | |
| Oct 6th, 2004 01:49 AM | ||
| Anonymous |
I thought the part where Edwards said Cheney voted for plastic guns and other bullshit, and then Cheney's whole response was "I, uh...Think Edwards' record speaks for itself," was great. I didn't catch a few bits on foreign policy because Emily was having a yammering session right next to me when I was trying to watch, and then we went out to eat shortly after the domestic part started. |
|
| Oct 5th, 2004 11:28 PM | ||
| AChimp |
BTW, I say that it was about even, with Edwards edging Cheney out overall because of his part on the domestic issues. He handled himself fairly well on the foreign policy, too, although there were a few times when Cheney shut him down. There were an equal number of times that Cheney got shut down, too (I LOL'ed at Meals-on-Wheels). |
|
| Oct 5th, 2004 11:26 PM | ||
| AChimp |
Quote:
Edwards always brought it back on topic, which is more than Cheney did when he rambled off on a tangent. He stammered because he was trying to say too much and fit it all into his time allotments. He seemed a little cocky at a few points, though, while it looked like Cheney was getting really irritated at times. Some of Cheney's responses basically amounted to a big "Meh" and a shrug, especially on the domestic issues. I watched it on CNN, and I'm not sure what they were trying to do, but occassionally while Cheney was talking, they'd suddenly go to the split screen for a second and there'd be a shot of Edwards taking a sip from his mug. WTF? I guess they just realized he was only taking a drink as opposed to being about to do something ZANY and SCANDALOUS. 
|
|
| Oct 5th, 2004 11:15 PM | ||
| Preechr |
I'm just pissed because Edwards kept getting out of the questions I wanted to see him struggle with. I'm not about to do as I did with the first debate and try to examine the effect on the election with this one. I just don't have any clue as to how the "Average American Voter" might have processed all that spin and bullshit. Much more substantial and a far superior exchange... I was just disappointed by the results of the foreign policy part. Both guys avoided their soft spots effectively, and neither should have let the other get away with it. I zoned out during the domestic discussion, as neither one is pushing anything even remotely interesting to me. To me, Edwards came off like a complete ass razzing Cheney about his daughter, which is pretty much what he did. I doubt it affected anyone that didn't know about Mary beforehand much though. I'd rather have sen them go at it with chairs ala Jerry Springer. That would have been better. None of these guys seems even remotely interested in engaging any topic completely. This just isn't anything even remotely similar to a national dialog. It's just sad. |
|
| Oct 5th, 2004 11:10 PM | ||
| Baalzamon |
I think its obvious both men where trying to fill in the gaps left by their respective presidential candidates rather than answer any questions or actually debate each other. Cheney needed to do damage controll for Bush's braindead appearance by being very good with foreign policy specifics and really hammer home the bush/cheney agenda, and he did a great job of that. Edwards was supposed to get the "people connection" I guess, but I didnt think he did very well. he stammered a lot, and really went off topic a few times. I say cheney won. |
|
| Oct 5th, 2004 10:49 PM | ||
| Jeanette X |
Cheney looked like he was about to reach through the screen, grab you by the throat, sprout fangs and scream: "VOTE BUSH CHENEY 2004 OR I'LL KILL YOUR CHILDREN!" :shock ...maybe it's just how his underbite looks... :/ |
|
| Oct 5th, 2004 10:30 PM | ||
| AChimp |
I agree with conus. Cheney didn't avoid questions any more than Edwards did. Cheney tended to start talking about the answer and then mumble off into something totally unrelated. Edwards would start off with something unrelated, usually in response to Cheney, and wrap up on topic. That's typical for debates. |
|
| Oct 5th, 2004 10:04 PM | ||
| Preechr | "Thank you for the kind words, you little punk bastard." | |
| Oct 5th, 2004 10:00 PM | ||
| conus | When he thanked him for the kind comments, it looked like heart attack number six was right around the corner. | |
| Oct 5th, 2004 09:55 PM | ||
| Preechr |
Edwards just commended Cheney for having a Gay Daughter. If Cheney had a hammer, I believe he'd kill that guy. |
|
| Oct 5th, 2004 09:51 PM | ||
| conus | No more than Cheney. | |
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
