October 5, 2000

10:33 PM

Vice Presidential Debates:Though I disagree with everything he stands for, Dick Cheney came off as a much more eloquent and intelligent individual than did George W. Bush. This raises an interesting question - should GWB win the election, who will really be running the country?
posted by aladfar (14 comments total)

unfortunately, it will be bush.

almost everyone I know would rather have a choice between these guys than the presidential nominees.

rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 11:11 PM on October 5, 2000

Well, there are ways: but I really wouldn't encourage assassination as a democratic tool.
posted by holgate at 12:09 AM on October 6, 2000

Hm. A choice between an evil conservative fiend and an evil conservative fiend.....

I like our current choice better.
posted by shylock at 12:31 AM on October 6, 2000

Unfortunately, it will be Gore. Almost everyone I know is going to vote for him.
posted by Mo Nickels at 4:01 AM on October 6, 2000

No, no matter who "wins" the election, ultimately I will be running the country. It's been that way for years and is unlikely to change in the nea...wait, did I type that or think it? Note to self: active readership in Metafilter to "quietly disappear" over next few weeks.
posted by plinth at 5:24 AM on October 6, 2000

>who will really be running the country?

James Baker III.
posted by ethmar at 5:51 AM on October 6, 2000

I have to admit that as much as I diagree with Cheney and Bush's politics, Dick Cheney came across as a much more composed and—more importantly—intelligent than Bush. I was especially impressed with his comments about homosexual rights and racial profiling, even though, unlike Lieberman, Cheney didn't mention any specific plan to deal with the issue.

I think the best part of the VP debates was Bernard Shaw's. He posed excellent questions and did a great job of controlling the debate.
posted by terrapin at 8:36 AM on October 6, 2000

Both men came across as much more mature than their counterparts, especially Lieberman. None of the sighing or ripping of paper like Gore did. But yes, kudos to Shaw. He did not lose control of the debate and did not let any candidate try to take control of it.
posted by gyc at 9:04 AM on October 6, 2000

I don't think Shaw had to do much work to control it. Both candidates were eager to engage in a give-and-take and share the spotlight -- a marked difference between this debate and the presidential debate.

I think Cheney and Lieberman served their causes well, but it was dishonest for Cheney to dance around the RU-486 question, when it's a certainty that he would support legislation to ban the drug. Bush and Cheney have run away from their pro-life policies in these debates in fear of alienating women -- who watch the debates in greater numbers than men -- and I don't think it's doing them any favors.

I also found it odd that Cheney said as much as he did in sympathy with same-sex couples who want marraige rights. He didn't support the issue, but he came almost as far as Lieberman in supporting the notion of a legal union between gay couples. I didn't expect to hear that from a strong social conservative, and I'll bet the Pat Robertson wing of the Republican Party is going nuts over that answer today.
posted by rcade at 9:18 AM on October 6, 2000

Cheney's daughter, who has been helping with the campaign, is openly homosexual. One wonders why he isn't more supportive of same-sex unions.
posted by shylock at 9:53 AM on October 6, 2000

Perhaps that daughter hasn't expressed a desire to marry.
posted by mikewas at 10:37 AM on October 6, 2000

Or, perhaps, it's possible to love somebody wholeheartedly and STILL disagree with them.
posted by silusGROK at 11:17 AM on October 6, 2000

Cheney's daughter has been in a long-term relationship with a woman she calls her "life partner," according to an article today in Slate. I don't often agree with anything Bill Kristol says, but he thinks Cheney's remarks about the same-sex marraige issue are a turning point for Republican conservatives. I think he and Bush are disappointing them in the same way that Clinton disappointed liberals with his avid support of the death penalty.
posted by rcade at 11:22 AM on October 6, 2000

I disagree. Ralph Reed is in the Dubyah tent. I see this as more of a Trojan Horse kind of situation. Moderation in all things until the election's over.
posted by ethmar at 12:49 PM on October 6, 2000