Debate #2

[nfotiu]

Is there some kind of explanation for Edwards not voting? Anyone know how this works? Is it common for senators to not vote frequently? I find it hard to believe that he could get this far if he was just playing hookie all those days!

[troutman]

From the CNN link:

CBS News' poll specifically focused on uncommitted voters and found 41 percent deemed Edwards the winner, 28 percent chose Cheney, and 31 percent said it was a tie. CBS based its poll on a "nationally representative sample of 178 debate watchers ... who are either undecided about who to vote for or who have a preference but say they could still change their minds."

Pundit's scorecard:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/p.../press.pundits/

Carlos Watson
The debate was good, broad and interesting. Two talented candidates offered sharply contrasting visions. Edwards was better in the first half, while Cheney got better as the night wore on.

Both men cited statistics and history and offered a bevy of great one-liners. However, some of Cheney's factual claims are already coming under criticism (e.g. dismissing Edward's "90 percent of coalition casualties" claim and saying he never met Edwards until Tuesday night).

Personally, I thought it was even, which is really a win for Edwards. Going in, people might have been more concerned about him being a "heartbeat" away from the Presidency.

Cheney is sure the ying to Bush's Yang. Where Bush is warm but dim-witted, Cheney is prickly and very smart. Very interesting that he would not comment on his gay daughter, and that Edwards said marriage is "between a man and a woman". Both sides are so afraid of the religious right they are too afraid to say what they must really feel.

Edwards never explained his poor attendance record on votes.

[Flame On]

It seems agreed it was a tie for the debate overall. Given this, do any of you subscribe to the theory that for Kerry a tie was as good as a win?
I mean afterall, according to Cheney he's much more experienced and fit for position, given that, John holding his own and at times getting on top, makes no sense. Surely with all that experience and wisdom (insidiousness, corruption) Cheney should have soundly triumphed...so, John does better?

[octothorp]

I thought it was a great debate. While I enjoyed watching Bush squirm much more than anything in last night's debate, it was good to see the sparring here.

I thought the moderator was really mediocre. There was the one gaff where she gave Edwards an extra reply when he shouldn't have had one, and then had to cut him off mid-sentence when she realized the mistake she made. And the question where they weren't allowed to mention their running-mates by name was bizarre.

Both did their share of avoiding questions. For Edwards, I thought he really missed out on the question about partisan politics. Cheney did a good job of giving some serious answers about how they initially had some success in bridging the gap, and how that unravelled as the term went along--he seemed genuinely concerned about the issue. Edwards, on the other hand, simply used the question as a chance to restate all of Kerry's policies, without any mention of partisanship.

The questions about homosexuality produced some really interesting moments--even the demonic incarnation of evil has a human side.

As far as Edwards, I think he's a charismatic guy, but the democrats would be in deep trouble if their ticket was reversed and he was the presidential candidate. It's hard to say who would make a better vice-president between Cheney or Edwards, as they both complement their presidential candidates in different and important ways.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Oct 6 2004, 06:52 AM
Is there some kind of explanation for Edwards not voting? Anyone know how this works? Is it common for senators to not vote frequently? I find it hard to believe that he could get this far if he was just playing hookie all those days!

It's not uncommon for elected officials to skip votes if they do not agree with what is being voted on.

[begin edited part]
Also, with Cheney leading the Senate, he would know better than anyone who is in attendance to vote on issues. Since there are statistics of how Kerry has voted on certain issues, it is not secret ballot.
[/end edited part]

[Flame On]

I thought the moderator was really mediocre.
I thought she was quite good myself. For example I loved the way she put statements in her questions, so they had to deal with it. Like when she said flip flopping was an issue and then spelled out the Bush admin's cases of flip flopping. If she'd have just asked why do you get accused of flip flopping, Cheney's position would have been unfairly reinforced.
There were other examples of this too, which I appreciated.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Flame On@Oct 6 2004, 04:51 PM
I thought the moderator was really mediocre.
I thought she was quite good myself. For example I loved the way she put statements in her questions, so they had to deal with it. Like when she said flip flopping was an issue and then spelled out the Bush admin's cases of flip flopping. If she'd have just asked why do you get accused of flip flopping, Cheney's position would have been unfairly reinforced.
There were other examples of this too, which I appreciated.

I liked her questions in general. They seemed pointed, direct and put both guys on the spot in a fairly equal manner.

She fumbled procedures though. Still, its not what she does for a living.

Someone mentioned she wanted them to answer a question without using "Bush" and "Kerry" in their replies and I thought that was great as it put the two of them directly on the spot without their third party crutches. One guy couldn't do it though which might be illuminating for some.

Cowperson

[troutman]

CNN.com Quick Vote:

Who do you think won last night's vice presidential debate?

Vice President Dick Cheney 37% 48145 votes

Sen. John Edwards 63% 83313 votes

Total: 131458 votes

Foxnews:

Experts: Cheney, Edwards Strong in Own Way
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
By Sharon Kehnemui Liss

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134593,00.html

[Flame On]

One guy couldn't do it though which might be illuminating for some. One guy couldn't really answer about their Israel foreign policy either which also illuminates.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Flame On@Oct 6 2004, 08:02 PM
One guy couldn't do it though which might be illuminating for some. One guy couldn't really answer about their Israel foreign policy either which also illuminates.

Not that it has anything to do with the point.

I thought Edwards was cleverly parroting what the Bush administration thinks - "Israel has a right to defend itself, Arafat isn't a partner to negotiate with, etc, etc."

Seemed like a great attempt to assure those on the right about Israel, an attempt to take those votes from the Bush side.

Cowperson

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Oct 6 2004, 08:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Oct 6 2004, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@Oct 6 2004, 08:02 PM
One guy couldn't do it though which might be illuminating for some. One guy couldn't really answer about their Israel foreign policy either which also illuminates.

Not that it has anything to do with the point.

I thought Edwards was cleverly parroting what the Bush administration thinks - "Israel has a right to defend itself, Arafat isn't a partner to negotiate with, etc, etc."

Seemed like a great attempt to assure those on the right about Israel, an attempt to take those votes from the Bush side.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Well your point was that some might find it illuminating that Edwards couldn't contain himself within the limits of the debate as set out by the host of the debate. I.e. he kept saying Kerry. Which was really a light moment in a two hour talk where he slipped a couple of times and not about content, about the debate format.
Not something to hang your vote on I don't think. My point was that, along the same line of not being able to do something, Cheney didn't really answer an important foreign policy issue about Israel and Palestine. Important to the globe and US. I think that's more illuminating and used your theme to reach that decision, but if you can't see that you better straighten out those crooked smiley eyes of yours.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Flame On+Oct 6 2004, 09:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Oct 6 2004, 09:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Not that it has anything to do with the point.

I thought Edwards was cleverly parroting what the Bush administration thinks - "Israel has a right to defend itself, Arafat isn't a partner to negotiate with, etc, etc."

Seemed like a great attempt to assure those on the right about Israel, an attempt to take those votes from the Bush side.

Cowperson

Well your point was that some might find it illuminating that Edwards couldn't contain himself within the limits of the debate as set out by the host of the debate. I.e. he kept saying Kerry. Which was really a light moment in a two hour talk where he slipped a couple of times and not about content, about the debate format.
Not something to hang your vote on I don't think. My point was that, along the same line of not being able to do something, Cheney didn't really answer an important foreign policy issue about Israel and Palestine. Important to the globe and US. I think that's more illuminating and used your theme to reach that decision, but if you can't see that you better straighten out those crooked smiley eyes of yours. [/b][/quote]
Hanging your vote on whether someone is slouched over a lecturn, is frowning, is shaking his head, pausing and looking hopelessly into the camera, standing straight and looking thoughtful and Presidential, answering crisply and with authority, etc . . . probably isn't something to hang a vote on either.

But we know tons of people ARE influenced as much by style as by substance.

Cowperson