Obligatory post-debate thread.
October 5, 2004 7:57 PM   Subscribe

Obligatory post-debate thread. Who do you think won? Why? Do the VP debates matter?
posted by skallas (159 comments total)

 
me posts first and sits back to see the results
posted by kamylyon at 7:59 PM on October 5, 2004


It's still going on down here.
posted by interrobang at 8:02 PM on October 5, 2004


yup
posted by amberglow at 8:03 PM on October 5, 2004


Couldn't say for sure. I was watching pornography.
posted by Jimbob at 8:04 PM on October 5, 2004


Well then Jimbob, I think we all won.
posted by Stan Chin at 8:05 PM on October 5, 2004


Whoops, I didn't know the "coward" thread was still alive.
posted by skallas at 8:06 PM on October 5, 2004


Draw. Cheney was lying and evading as usual, but he did make some good points and he was clearly comfortable and confident. Edwards appeared energetic and earnest but seemed to stumble over some points and he stated some questionable facts too. The VP debate is just cheerleading for the Presidential candidates, and I don't believe swing voters will be swayed by either man.
posted by supershauna at 8:06 PM on October 5, 2004


it was a tie. Both did a decent job but there were no big moments.
posted by mikojava at 8:07 PM on October 5, 2004


Edwards sounded like he met the qualifications for VP and Cheney didn't lunge his fist directly into Edwards' chest cavity. Both accomplished what they needed to do.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:10 PM on October 5, 2004


Porn? I was masturbating to the debate!
posted by Krrrlson at 8:11 PM on October 5, 2004


I think it was a draw. Or maybe Cheney took it since I was looking for Edwards to win. Or maybe since I was looking for Johnny and Dick ... Fuck it. Wonkette said It was a stay-puff whatever that means.
posted by jmgorman at 8:13 PM on October 5, 2004


I watched cheney just fold under Edward's criticisms and to top it off the guy didn't reply four times. Some of which were the toughest attacks Edwards had. The Cheney "I'm grandpa, sit on my lap and Ill tell you some facts" persona doesnt really work when youre peddling Saddam-AlQaida disinformation, diluting american deaths by tossing in Iraqi deaths, and making ridiculous claims like this coalition is anything like the gulf war coalition. From there is was just downhill.
posted by skallas at 8:15 PM on October 5, 2004


Porn? I was masturbating to the debate!

You're on the wrong weblog:
They'll both be seated at a table, immediately allowing Cheney to do his assured, paternal, man-of-the-world schtick that makes me roll on my back and ask to have my tummy scratched. (Yes, I do think that Cheney is way sexier than Edwards. Not that you asked or anything.)
That's... umm.... yeah. That's not creepy at all, there.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:16 PM on October 5, 2004


What's amazing me about the post-spin is how unbelievable some of the Guys With Websites are fawning over Cheney. I can see an argument for giving an advantage to Cheney. But people trying to say Cheney "crushed" Edwards the way Kerry beat Bush last week is just silly. Glenn Reynolds really wants to push the "if I link to enough right-wing blogs, it's true" bar to the limit here.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:24 PM on October 5, 2004


Edwards had the right answers, but Cheney had a good zinger about how Edwards was gone often and that as President of the Senate this was first time he'd met Edwards.

I was surprised when Edwards kicked the marriage amendment question back to Cheney and Cheney declined to answer. To me he seemed somehow more *human* like he was staying quiet because his heart wasn't with the official policy. I picked up some respect for him from that, albeit the wrong kind of respect for which the Republican ticket is looking.
posted by stevis at 8:25 PM on October 5, 2004


just a moment while i wait for the blogosphere of my political affiliation to tell me what to say...
posted by graventy at 8:30 PM on October 5, 2004


There are people that look at Cheney and say "Yeah, I want that"? Ewww!

Damn.
posted by fenriq at 8:31 PM on October 5, 2004


I think Cheney won the debate. He stayed in human form for a full 90 minutes and didnt eat the moderator or run into the audience screaming "GO F___ YOURSELVES"
posted by mikojava at 8:31 PM on October 5, 2004


Cheney, during a reposte to a question about Halliburton, said that people can find the real information at factcheck.com. It took me a while to get in as my request kept timing out due to what I assume was a sudden server load, but I finally got in and see that it's a spam/squatter site. I bet they loved the free publicity.

After Googling it I think he meant factcheck.org. Or did I mis-hear the VP along with lots of other people?
posted by stevis at 8:32 PM on October 5, 2004


Obligatory comment about how we don't need an obligatory post-debate thread, how, in fact, we don't need anything obligatory on the front page.
posted by Hildago at 8:32 PM on October 5, 2004


Edwards had the right answers, but Cheney had a good zinger about how Edwards was gone often and that as President of the Senate this was first time he'd met Edwards.
Leahy just stomped that one down on MSNBC--Cheney only meets with Republicans in private every Tuesday. Leahy said he's not on the floor at all.

I still say draw. And Bush looks even worse in comparison to all the others.
posted by amberglow at 8:32 PM on October 5, 2004


"Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate."

Is this true? The "Senator Gone" part.
posted by tomplus2 at 8:34 PM on October 5, 2004


>Or did I mis-hear the VP along with lots of other people?

I heard .com too because I remembered factcheck was an org.
posted by skallas at 8:36 PM on October 5, 2004


Considering that Edwards was debating a man who's been in the inner circles of four presidential administrations and kept up with him point-for point, I'd give it to him. He sometimes missed opportunities to respond candidly to stuff he could have won on, but he stuck valiantly to the script and pulled off amazing under-the-wire buzzer-beaters in answering.

That said, he sometimes overplayed his reactions, coming off a little cartoony and insincere, as if he were still playing to a courtroom instead of showing up as a talking head on TV. That's the inexperience thing.

Also, nobody else noticed the constant, compulsive hand-wringing Cheney was doing, as if he couldn't wait to get offstage before making his plans to DESTROY THE WORLD?
posted by soyjoy at 8:36 PM on October 5, 2004


When Cheney stated, "Sweet oil, yes I will give American blood for sweet, sweet oil... it drives me. A pint of blood is worth even a droplet of the life-giving oil. I will send the poor who cannot afford to work at minimum wage to the Middle-East so that they may prove their worth extracting oil from the teet of nature," really caught Edwards by surprise and I think it gave Cheney a lead.
posted by geoff. at 8:38 PM on October 5, 2004


" I don't know who won, but I know who lost: The American people" <---Standard cynically apathetic remark inevitably made in these threads. I thought I'd get it in first and defuse it.
posted by Reverend Mykeru at 8:38 PM on October 5, 2004


Cheney: "We're on the lookout for terrorists from here to Jakarta"

Edwards: "You forgot Poland"
posted by hoborg at 8:39 PM on October 5, 2004


What a waste of a thread. If you're on the right, cheney won, if your on the left, edwards one. Asking someone like skallas who won is like asking a southern baptist if they believe in god.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 8:40 PM on October 5, 2004


geoff. : >

Also, nobody else noticed the constant, compulsive hand-wringing Cheney was doing, as if he couldn't wait to get offstage before making his plans to DESTROY THE WORLD?
well, maybe being VP is "really hard work" too? ; >
posted by amberglow at 8:40 PM on October 5, 2004


Dennis and all the other this is a stupid thread people,

Nobody's making you read the comments, nobody's making you comment yourself. Quit yapping about it, realize that some things just are and enjoy it or go do something else.

Sheesh.

geoff, yeah, that would have caught me by surprise. I did find myself wondering if Cheney was wearing women's knickers under his body armor?
posted by fenriq at 8:44 PM on October 5, 2004


Hmm, has anyone else noticed that "factcheck.com" is just a forwarder to this? You've got to love the title image... thanks Dick!
posted by Raze2k at 8:46 PM on October 5, 2004


Anyone know where I can get a nice WMV copy of the debate? I keep getting 'rtsp is not a registered protocol' in mozilla, and I figure there must be an easier way.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 8:47 PM on October 5, 2004


Is the debate anywhere I can view as a video?
posted by dobbs at 8:51 PM on October 5, 2004


Cheney, during a reposte to a question about Halliburton, said that people can find the real information at factcheck.com. It took me a while to get in as my request kept timing out due to what I assume was a sudden server load, but I finally got in and see that it's a spam/squatter site. I bet they loved the free publicity.

After Googling it I think he meant factcheck.org. Or did I mis-hear the VP along with lots of other people?


Yes, he said factcheck.com, but obviously meant factcheck.org. What is interesting is that in a matter of 30 minutes, the whois for factcheck.com has changed ownership/admin contact, (from some spam shop with Caymen Islands address to what it is now) and the spam page has been setup. (If you went to factcheck.com during the debate, it was not resolving to anything.)

Anyone know how these guys did this so fast? Obviously, the first Caymen Islands owner could've owned the domain and watched the debate, but I doubt it...

Ideas?
posted by Witold at 8:51 PM on October 5, 2004


I think that Cheney did very well in terms of performance and self-presentation, and Edwards did fine.

In terms of substantive argument, I think Edwards was slightly better-prepared.

Overall, a draw, but the big story to me was how on top of his game Cheney was. Especially considering how the boss did last week.

But yes, there was a clear loser in this debate, and it was Gwen Ifill. She did an absolutely hideous job. She's got a solid record as a journalist, and she's usually quite appealing on-camera, but she was just awful tonight.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:51 PM on October 5, 2004


dobbs, you can see it on CSPAN.org
posted by amberglow at 8:53 PM on October 5, 2004


>Asking someone like skallas who won...

No one asked me anything. I POSTED this thread. I'm the one asking.

That said, lets see what the online voters are saying (until theres a scientific and fair poll this is all you got):

THe wacky continental party Edwards

msnbc.com Edwards.

CNN edwards

you can look up the rest yourself

btw, Factcheck.COM is redirecting (at least from Fox News) to georgesoros's blog. Hehe.
posted by skallas at 8:53 PM on October 5, 2004


I don't want Cheney reelected, but I think he came across much better and his experience as a big money corporate/government VIP showed to anybody who would look. He came prepared and attacked much more than Bush.
posted by infowar at 8:54 PM on October 5, 2004


Witold: When you load the page now you're seeing a spam page? I get redirected to George Soros' home page. Perhaps he decided to surprise Cheney with a switch? Money, powerful stuff?
posted by Raze2k at 8:54 PM on October 5, 2004


Re: factcheck.com--Soros has some smart people working for him, and plenty of cash to buy whatever he wants, even from sharp operators in the Caymans.

I bet Karl Rove is kicking himself for not getting to it first!

As for updating the WHOIS, you can update your own WHOIS if you have the original site owner's ID code and password.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:55 PM on October 5, 2004


That said, lets see what the online voters are saying (until theres a scientific and fair poll this is all you got):

You've got to be fucking kidding me. You imply that they're not fair or scientific, but they're "all (we) got"?

Polls that are consistently gamed by DU, MoveOn, Kos, Atrios, etc...

Do you expect anyone to take you seriously, skallas?
posted by Kwantsar at 8:58 PM on October 5, 2004


Here's the old factcheck.com site. Looks like the webmaster is making a political statement by linking to Soros's essay which is actually very good, but could be interpreted as "billionares rule us!" See also: Rupert Murdoch, Rev Moon, Scaife.
posted by skallas at 8:58 PM on October 5, 2004


About Cheney meeting Edwards for the first time: he lied.
posted by spacehug at 9:00 PM on October 5, 2004


well, maybe being VP is "really hard work" too? ; >

Especially since first all of all Cheney said he was in New Mexico 'the other day' with a bunch of OBGYNs and less than 20 minutes later said he was in Minnesota 'the other day'. So which is?

Flip flop.
posted by tapeguy at 9:01 PM on October 5, 2004


that wasn't his only lie tonight, by a long shot.
posted by amberglow at 9:01 PM on October 5, 2004


there was a clear loser in this debate, and it was Gwen Ifill...

Yeah, the giving Edwards a 30 second response out of the blue and then retracting it isn't something a moderator dreams about doing. The Right will probably say it's because she's such a liberal.
posted by stevis at 9:02 PM on October 5, 2004


Thanks, amberglow.
posted by dobbs at 9:03 PM on October 5, 2004



factcheck.com during the debate - resolves to nothing, admin/owner is some Caymen Islands holding company

Factcheck.com 30 minutes after the debate - resolves to a spam page with paid links, and owned/admined by domainnamesales.com.

Factcheck.com now - forwards to georgesoros.com
posted by Witold at 9:03 PM on October 5, 2004


From CBSnews.com: A CBS News poll of 178 uncommitted voters found that 41 percent said Edwards won the debate, versus 28 percent who said Cheney won. Thirty-one percent said it was a tie.

Haven't seen any other polls of uncommitted voters, yet. I still feel that Cheney did a better job of reaching out to core Republican constituencies, but Edwards did a better job of targeting undecided and swing voters with some strong centrist and pseudo-populist messages. I'm interested to see more polls of The Uncommitted.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:03 PM on October 5, 2004


Um, online polls are equally gamed by freerepublic.com, worldnetdaily.com and other pro-Republican online presences.

In fact, the front page of freep is hilarious right now, because it's about evenly divided between posts saying "Those darn Democrats are gaming the polls" and posts with click-through links to polls so freepers can game them.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:05 PM on October 5, 2004


You've got to be fucking kidding me. You imply that they're not fair or scientific, but they're "all (we) got"?
Polls that are consistently gamed by DU, MoveOn, Kos, Atrios, etc...
Do you expect anyone to take you seriously, skallas?

They're also consistently gamed by LGF, freepers, etc. In fact, BOTH campaigns sent emails out with the urls of the polls, calling for everyone to take them.
posted by amberglow at 9:08 PM on October 5, 2004


i am way democrat, but i'd have to call the debate a draw. they both did well. cheney came across as less mean than i thought he would, though i liked the firey and less-rehearsed seeming style of both. i'm sick of superscripted boring debates.

the debate gave me the impression that cheney is all about money, war for the sake of halliburton, oil & money, and power. he seemed, however, to not be completely on board with bush's domestic policies and slightly more liberal in those areas.

i guess more are calling it for edwards though because cheney was expected to do better - having more experience.

anyway, my vote is not going to change, but cheney *is* hott.
posted by centrs at 9:09 PM on October 5, 2004


Cheney was more fluent than Bush, but that's not saying much, and most of his "facts" where questionable at best and transparent lies at worst. Edwards spent too much time defending Kerry from attacks by Cheney and bad questions by Ifill, but there was a great moment when, after Edwards brought up Halliburton, Cheney did a nasty Mafiosi-style character assassination bit about "Edward's record," something about missed meetings. Edward shot back with, "It's funny you should talk about my record when you're the man who voted against Head Start, against Meals on Wheels, and didn't want to sign a petition for the release of Nelson Mandela." It was withering, and Cheney had nothing in response.
posted by muckster at 9:09 PM on October 5, 2004


Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman blasted this out to its email list this morning...
posted by amberglow at 9:11 PM on October 5, 2004


I think Cheney scored big points with his rip on Edwards for not counting Iraqi forces in the death toll. That was very clever, and allowed him to show his respect for Iraqis and their desire for freedom.

Of course, it's all bullshit. Iraqis take those police jobs because it pays about $250 a month, the highest paying job available to most of them. And if they want freedom from anything, I'm sure "American occupation" tops the list.

But hey, Joe SixPack wouldn't know that...
posted by fungible at 9:12 PM on October 5, 2004


Couldn't say for sure. I was watching pornography.

So, how did THAT end up?.. never mind.
posted by clevershark at 9:12 PM on October 5, 2004


>Do you expect anyone to take you seriously, skallas?

I'm no Dick "There is a 9/11 connection to Saddam, liberal media" Cheney, but all sides game the polls. Sure the freepers started it, but it looks like gaming is getting pretty equal. On top if it, these "gamed polls" also gave us the obvious Kerry victory consensus.

And then there's cbs.com right now
A CBS News poll of 178 uncommitted voters found that 41 percent said Edwards won the debate, versus 28 percent who said Cheney won. Thirty-one percent said it was a tie.

A majority of uncommitted voters came away from the debate believing that both men could be an effective president if needed. More of those surveyed (76 percent) said they liked Edwards personally than said they liked Cheney (53 percent).
Better? Do you need a hug?
posted by skallas at 9:13 PM on October 5, 2004


Fungible, I actually thought Cheney misplayed that one (though perhaps not on purpose--he may actually have misunderstood what Edwards said, instead of trying to sandbag him). I don't think that the folks they're vying for give one metric cahootie's ass about Iraqi soldiers.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:14 PM on October 5, 2004


I would have to say that if you didn't have an ideological position before the debate, it was a draw. In other words, if you did have one, your man won.
posted by cell divide at 9:17 PM on October 5, 2004


I actually think only two sides game the polls, skallas, but my guess is that the gaming cancels itself out.

Maybe I should get a bunch of my fellow independent contrarians together to game the polls from the third side. We could end up with Dunkin' Donuts being the first pastry president of the United States!
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:17 PM on October 5, 2004


Of course, ABC's poll says the opposite.

But if the "gaming is equal", as you say, the statisticians have their work cut out for them.

I don't want a hug.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:22 PM on October 5, 2004


If you're on the right, cheney won, if your on the left, edwards one

No, I thought that Edwards did a great job. Cheney looked ill and pale. What he lacked in energy (he's the anti-Zell!) he made up for in frowns and sarcasm, though he did get off some good zingers.

His passing the buck on the FMA issue was a nice touch and did humanize the guy--but it's cold comfort, considering that he refused to stop Bush from going ahead with it.

Anyway. It's too bad Edwards isn't at the top of the ticket this year, or else I would have considered voting for him.
posted by Asparagirl at 9:25 PM on October 5, 2004


Check out GeorgeBush.com. Unlike last Thursday today they've pronounced a solid victory for Cheney.
posted by Raze2k at 9:28 PM on October 5, 2004


Edwards spent his time clarifying positions and clearly demarking their stance on several issues. Cheney spent most of his time defending the indefensible.

For the undecided, Edwards did a far, far better job in my opinion. For the decided, both candidates did their parties justice. It's not like anyone is going to switch their vote over tonight's performance.

I think Cheney was genuinely taken aback at two different events:
1. When Edwards did a tremendous job defusing the poorly worded question about gay marriage. Cheney basically admitted his opinion was different than Bush's, but his job was to support his boss's agenda. Edwards was complimentary, even flattering, to Cheney and instead of smelling blood in the water he took the high road. I think the appreciation from Cheney afterwards was legitimate. But I think it took him somewhat off guard.

2. When Edwards started rattling off votes Cheney had made while in the House. I think Cheney was surprised that Edwards had facts like that at hand. Also, Cheney accused Kerry of voting to raise taxes like 94 times, and Edwards responded that Kerry had voted or sponsored tax cuts over 600 times. Everytime Cheney tried to use a particular, Edwards had an even more particular counter.

As I said above, I think some undecided voters perhaps were swayed to the blue tonight. The repeated pronouncements about "we're different from them" and "we are for tax cuts for the middle class, they are for tax cuts for millionaires" was EXACTLY the kind of language Edwards needed to use, and he did it repeatedly.

Gotta award this one to Edwards, but not by near the margin I expected beforehand. I think a lot of people expected a bloodbath due to Cheney's poor public appearances in the past, and the fact that Cheney was coherent and didn't eat a baby on live TV benefited him greatly. Talk about reduced expectations.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:33 PM on October 5, 2004


Kwantsar, that's not really "the opposite" of what the CBS poll said, though. If you took an average of the two polls--which are the only two structured surveys (as opposed to online clickies) I've seen--Edwards would still be the winner, as the CBS subjects were way more pro-Edwards than the ABC subjects were pro-Cheney.

Also, the CBS poll was of self-identified uncommitted voters, whereas the ABC poll acknowledges that Republicans are represented to a greater extent in the survey pool.

Do you really think that Democrats do more gaming of this stuff than Republicans do? If so, why? As a lifelong independent voter myself, it seems pretty even (and pretty fucking annoying) to me.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:37 PM on October 5, 2004


Edwards won not against Cheney but against the Bush administration, which is where it counted. Anyone listening to the debate is going to think about whether or not this country can afford four more years of ruinous economic policy, etc.

Stylewise, Cheney came across professionally, as everyone knew he would. Edwards came across just as much so.

So in my opinion, Edwards won, and the issues he brought up are going to resonate.
posted by xammerboy at 9:37 PM on October 5, 2004


I just looked at freerepublic for the first time. Thank you, Sidhedevil
posted by betaray at 9:38 PM on October 5, 2004


The Washington Post: Misstatements Include Iraq, Taxes and Voting
posted by muckster at 9:39 PM on October 5, 2004


Cheney did a pretty good job in the abstract tonight, and a damn good job considering how poorly he can perform as a public speaker. It was literally the best public-speaking performance of his I have ever seen.

Edwards did a pretty good job in the abstract tonight, but I have seen him speak better.

Betaray, that link has taken years off my life. I shudder to think that these people's children are going to be responsible for wiping my ass someday in the Home for Crabby Crones and Codgers--please, God, let them perfect those ass-wiping robots before that day comes!
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:43 PM on October 5, 2004


Anyone know where this can be viewed online (besides crappy CSPAN)?
posted by MrAnonymous at 9:45 PM on October 5, 2004


The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:46 PM on October 5, 2004


Do you really think that Democrats do more gaming of this stuff than Republicans do?

Let's have a poll to find out. :-)
posted by stevis at 9:47 PM on October 5, 2004


But if the "gaming is equal", as you say, the statisticians have their work cut out for them.

Um, sure, if it's "hard work" to say "we know both sides game the online polls, and we don't know (and have no way of telling) which side games them more, so it's impossible to draw any conclusions from them, and they're meaningless." Which is exactly the right answer.

"We know both sides game the polls, and I have no reason to believe one side games it more than the other, so let's assume they game it equally" is not a valid assumption, and statisticians are right to reject it.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:49 PM on October 5, 2004


Do you really think that Democrats do more gaming of this stuff than Republicans do? If so, why?

Because while no sane person has declared an overwhelming victor in this debate, at last check the ABC online poll was 72/28. It doesn't pass the smell test. Furthermore, I think (no sources handy) that web users tend to be overwhelmingly Democratic (compared to the entire population).
posted by Kwantsar at 9:53 PM on October 5, 2004


spacehug : Good find!

Everyone else: As a pro-Kerry anarchist, I would actually argue that Cheney did far better than Edwards. It wasn't easy for me to just type that.

But Cheney had a calm demeanor (only flustered at the first mention of Haliburton, and later with his daughter which he handled brilliantly) and a rapid-response style that was able to back up most of their talking points without sounding like a broken record of sound-bites.

Edwards, on the other hand, while personable as all-hell, frequently dodged questions about his own abilities and missed a whole bunch of strike-opportunities. For instance, Cheney screwed up with the gay marriage point he made: he said this was the sort of thing best handled by the states, which actually contradicts the whole purpose of attempting to pass a constitutional ban. Edwards should have pounced on that like fleas on a cat.

Edwards was able to get some new facts and figures out there, but this was muddled by the absolutely jarring effect his repetitious catchphrasing had on his cadence. You could almost see the difference -- one moment he's being the trial lawyer, thinking on his feet, going on the attack, the next he's fallen back to rehearsed rhetoric and getting flustered in the process.

But, while I think Cheney did better in the debate, I still hand the "win" to Edwards. And the simple reason why is that Cheney made some monumental fuck-ups -- not many, mind you, and if you blinked you might have missed them -- but monumental, nonetheless. The kinds of fuck-ups that make newspaper headlines tomorrow. Case in point: "If I had the chance to do it again, I'd do it exactly the same" (paraphrasing). That was dumb, dumb, dumb. That's your headline tomorrow, with a byline about another beheading, or bombing, or whatever.

Also: was it just me, or were any of the rest of you supremely disappointed about the answers given to the Israel/Palestinian question?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:01 PM on October 5, 2004


DevilsAdvocate: Of course, you are correct. I used sloppy language while trying to make the same point you so eloquently made.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:02 PM on October 5, 2004


There is a synonym for "gaming an online poll". It's called freeping. 'Nuff said.

Kwantsar, you're saying that the online polls are so easily freeped that they're useless. Well, why did freepers freep so freeping much that the practice of freeping got the freeping name freep? Maybe they saw it as a useful tool they could manipulate -- back before the left caught on that they were doing it (in 2000, they freeped with impunity, and crowed at their successes; there would be whole self-congratulatory threads if a TV station reported the results). Personally, I'm freeping freeped that the freepers are getting a freeping taste of their own freeping freepage. About freeping time, if you ask me.

MrA: Fox actually has it, in four parts.

I think Edwards won, but not by nearly the margin that Kerry did, simply because Cheney didn't come across slack-jawed. Cheney did seem to concede many attacks without a real response; usually his responses were distractions, though. Edwards, I felt, got into real trouble on the gay marriage question, such that he dangled in the wind trying to resolve his own clear feelings vs. the campaign's center-right position -- the kind of performance that tends to alienate both sides. Other than that he did quite well as the attack dog, a role that the media had decided up to now he was too nice for. Brokaw had a line about Cheney reminding him of George Foreman -- slow and lumbering, but what a right hook. I think that was about right. Whether the line about meeting Edwards for the first time is true or not, I think he scored with it, and I don't feel confident that the media will make him regret it.
posted by dhartung at 10:04 PM on October 5, 2004


Check out GeorgeBush.com. Unlike last Thursday today they've pronounced a solid victory for Cheney.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED!
posted by clevershark at 10:04 PM on October 5, 2004


I'm with Civil_Disobedient here. Cheney came out the winner of the personality contest -- if one can speak of Cheney's personality. Let's just say he was cooler-headed, whereas Edwards was stammering quite a bit. Not George Bush, druggy-burnout style "uh, uh, uh"-ing, mind you, but Edwards' tripping over his words made him seem more of an amateur.

The numbers I'm most interested in seeing are the TV ratings. I suspect most people will only see this debate in newsbite format, and I think Edwards won that contest. He managed to squeeze out plenty of turd-, or um, bite-size tidbits for tomorrow's morning shows. Cheney's most memorable line -- his Lloyd Bentsen moment -- was that "I never met you before tonight..." quip. But now it doesn't look like they'll be using that clip.
posted by eatitlive at 10:06 PM on October 5, 2004


Ynoxas: The repeated pronouncements about "we're different from them" and "we are for tax cuts for the middle class, they are for tax cuts for millionaires" was EXACTLY the kind of language Edwards needed to use, and he did it repeatedly.

Now, I'm not a W supporter by any margin, but Cheney (to my economically uneducated mind) rebutted this well by saying that small business owners tend to pay their business taxes as personal income tax and since such owners generate 7/10 US jobs, the tax cut for >$200K indirectly hurts the unemployment rate. I repeat, I'm ignorant on the underlying economics dynamics. How would you rebut this?
posted by Gyan at 10:07 PM on October 5, 2004


Factcheck.org on Cheney's small business tax claims.
posted by eatitlive at 10:11 PM on October 5, 2004


Did anybody else think that this question by Ifill was extraordinarily creepy:

IFILL: It's a question of American intelligence. If this report that we've read about today is true, and if Vice President Cheney ordered it and asked about this, do you think that, in the future, that your administration or the Bush administration would have sufficient and accurate enough intelligence to be able to make decisions about where to go next?

Where to go next?
posted by muckster at 10:11 PM on October 5, 2004


Correction: the repeal of the tax cut for >$200K
posted by Gyan at 10:11 PM on October 5, 2004


Cheney's most memorable line -- his Lloyd Bentsen moment -- was that "I never met you before tonight..." quip. But now it doesn't look like they'll be using that clip.
They will use it, and then show the prayer breakfast clip, or one of many others. (or, at least the Daily Show will)

and Gyan, CNN already rebutted it on air--on Aaron Brown, they said that contrary to what Cheney said, it's not at all 7 out of 10, and that the vast vast majority of people that file that way have zero employees. If you have employees, you file differently.
posted by amberglow at 10:12 PM on October 5, 2004


I thought it was a poor comeback. Also, I don't think small business owners do "tend to pay their business taxes as personal income tax".

To be honest, I'm a small business owner myself, and I don't see how I could do that.

Nor do I think that 70% of people in the US work for someone who "pays their business taxes as personal income tax."

Are you sure you got that right, Gyan? I remember thinking that what Cheney said was hard to follow and not necessarily obviously correct, but I didn't think it was what you just said, exactly.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:13 PM on October 5, 2004


In Bush's Ownership Society, we all get to pay as much taxes as we want! And no IRS means no filing. It's a philosophical difference between the two campaigns.
posted by eatitlive at 10:18 PM on October 5, 2004


it's extraordinarily dumb for Cheney to send people to a site (factcheck) that proves his claim is false, btw.
posted by amberglow at 10:19 PM on October 5, 2004


Did Aaron Brown bother to mention that most soldiers in Iraq get combat-zone tax exclusions, thus refuting Edwards' claim that a millionaire sitting by their (sic) swimming pool... pays a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving on the ground in Iraq?
posted by Kwantsar at 10:20 PM on October 5, 2004


Concise apolitical look at S-Corps and their taxes.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:23 PM on October 5, 2004


Darrell Hammond Debates John Edwards, World Doesn't Notice : >


Kwantsar, does that cover National Guards? or Reservists?
posted by amberglow at 10:24 PM on October 5, 2004


Sidehdevil: Since amberglow referenced a CNN rebuttal with the same figures, I assume I got it generally right. There's always the videos online. But this is what I remember hearing: 7/10 employees work for "small businesses". Such owners 'tend' to pay their business taxes via personal income tax. Of course, the implication might not match the reality, but as a general rule, you never reconstruct memory of a politician's oratory under the assumption that it must parallel the truth.
posted by Gyan at 10:24 PM on October 5, 2004


Okay, this is what Cheney actually said:

Well, the fact of the matter is a great many of our small businesses pay taxes under the personal income taxes rather than the corporate rate.

No. After looking around a little bit, it seems like the only way you could even do this is to declare expenses for wages on your Schedule C, which is just not something most people do.

Of course "a great many" is a vague term.

And about 900,000 small businesses will be hit if you do, in fact, do what they want to do with the top bracket.

FactCheck.org debunks this claim pretty thoroughly, and given that Mr. Cheney himself identified this as a good place to check claims made in the debate, I've got to see this as a thumbs-down for Mr. Cheney.

That's not smart because seven out of 10 new jobs in America are created by small businesses.

This is a little rhetorical sleight of hand--the 471,000 (not 900,000) "small businesses" that would be affected by a return to the old tax levels for those earning $200,000 and up per year include people like Mr. Cheney himself, who is hardly a "small business" by most people's standards. In fact, the Tax Policy Center says that only 15% of these "small businesses" (i.e., S-corps and sole proprietorships) have any employees at all.

I find it impossible to believe that 7 out of 10 new jobs in the US are being created by those 70, 650 "small businesses" with employees that would be negatively affected by the tax rollbacks.

7 out of 10 new jobs may be created by actual small businesses, but my guess is that most of them are created by the more than 30 million small businesses not affected by the tax rollbacks.

So Mr. Cheney was either being disingenuous or disorganized in his comment during the debate.

So I think that Cheney's contention is pretty easy to rebut: his facts are wrong, and the conclusions he draws from them are wrong.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:27 PM on October 5, 2004


And, Gyan, you were absolutely correct in your paraphrase.

I'm embarrassed to say that I must have given Cheney too much of the benefit of the doubt--I translated his comment into something that actually might have made sense.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:29 PM on October 5, 2004


What struck me as I just finished watching it is that Cheney was rude. At the end, just before final statements, John Edwards thanks Ifill (who sucked, what's up with retracting a rebuttal once its been started? way to fuck that up on international tv! woot!) and thanks the vice president.

Cheney takes over after Edwards wraps up with the father at the table. Cheney thanks Ifill and then starts in on his rebuttal.

Geez, Dick really is a dick.
posted by fenriq at 10:36 PM on October 5, 2004


Kwantsar, that's not exactly an accurate look at a) how S-corps work, and b) how S-corps work in different states. Many states tax S-corps at the same rate as sole proprietorships.

An S-corp simply isn't some kind of fancy secret tax shelter, despite that link's implication that it is. This link from American Express Small Business Services gives a clearer overview of the advantages and disadvantages of S-corps for small business owners.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:40 PM on October 5, 2004


It's not polite to stare at the VP's man-boobs.
posted by homunculus at 10:43 PM on October 5, 2004


The Combat Zone Exclusion covers Reservists and Guardspersons.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:50 PM on October 5, 2004


"Over the top, Dad! Over the top!"
posted by eatitlive at 11:01 PM on October 5, 2004


So where's the transcript then?

homunculus, very, very nice.
posted by fenriq at 11:17 PM on October 5, 2004


Fenriq: here
posted by Kwantsar at 11:26 PM on October 5, 2004


Kwantsar, beautiful, thanks. In retrospect, maybe I should have tried Google?
posted by fenriq at 11:39 PM on October 5, 2004


>I don't feel confident that the media will make him regret it.

New media has already:



Pictures make for good television, ya know.
posted by skallas at 11:49 PM on October 5, 2004


Well, the fact of the matter is a great many of our small businesses pay taxes under the personal income taxes rather than the corporate rate.

No. After looking around a little bit, it seems like the only way you could even do this is to declare expenses for wages on your Schedule C, which is just not something most people do.


I run a small business (construction) who, like many I talk to in the field, pays help as sub-contractors (yet another small business) and issue 1099's yearly. I declare those payments on Schedule C along with every other business expense. Sure hope I'm not doing something illegal, but it seems most of us are doing it the same way without having been called on it yet. So for me, I can't see Cheney's logic, but then I can't imagine many other ways than what I'm used to, which is what I have always known as common in the construction trades.
posted by LouReedsSon at 11:50 PM on October 5, 2004


So did Cheney and Edwards really meet? Yeah, I see the picture and I read spacehug's little blurb.
posted by shoos at 11:57 PM on October 5, 2004


>Also, I don't think small business owners do "tend to pay their business taxes as personal income tax".

Same here. Even my small business is built with an S-corp for liability reasons. Cheney is just lying. Small businesses with employees are corps, s-corps, or LLCs.

I do love the image of Cheney as defender of small business. No small businessman can afford the Cheney school of business which consists of trading with the enemy(Iran, scary!), using government cronyists to get no-bid contracts, gouging customers(Halliburton oil prices), screwing over customers (non deliverables) etc. The little guys have to follow the law alot closer than the guys with an army of lawyers at their disposal. Or in Cheney's case with the actual Army at his disposal.
posted by skallas at 11:57 PM on October 5, 2004


I notice that the Kerry "blog" (spare me) is the one hosting that pic, and it's a capture from a C-SPAN vid. Was that the best "meeting" shot they could get out of it? That is some weak shit.
posted by shoos at 12:06 AM on October 6, 2004


I do love the image of Cheney as defender of small business. No small businessman can afford the Cheney school of business

Well, the lobbying organization that represents small business owners (some of whom, I'd imagine, are like you), overwhelmingly supports (.pdf) Republican candidates. They score Kerry and Edwards at zero.
posted by Kwantsar at 12:48 AM on October 6, 2004


I notice that the Kerry "blog" (spare me) is the one hosting that pic, and it's a capture from a C-SPAN vid. Was that the best "meeting" shot they could get out of it? That is some weak shit.

From the blog: Addressing the National Prayer Breakast, Cheney said: "Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I honored to be with you all this morning." [FDCH Political Transcripts, Cheney Remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, 2/1/01]
posted by rmannion at 12:59 AM on October 6, 2004


Small business lobbyists may support Bush, but you know Kerry is the ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee. In the end, I'm sure most people will decide based on which candidate can pull out the names of more small business owners during inspiring and personal stump speech anecdotes.
posted by eatitlive at 1:05 AM on October 6, 2004


shoos: Yeah, I see the picture and I read spacehug's little blurb.
posted by shoos at 1:11 AM on October 6, 2004


Same here. Even my small business is built with an S-corp for liability reasons

Right. So his claim that 7-10 jobs are created by small biz is bs... But what else did we expect?
posted by LouReedsSon at 1:18 AM on October 6, 2004


While the highly partisan National Federation of Independent Businesses often lobbies against Democrats, many business owners may not realize that Republican policies are working against them.
posted by sic at 1:35 AM on October 6, 2004


Does it occur to anyone else that trying to refute Cheney's "this is the first time we met," with "look, they did too meet before, albeit outside the Senate" only plays into Republican hands, strengthing the implication Cheney was trying to make, that Edwards is rarely in the Senate?

Seems to me a better refutation (as others have noted here) is that Cheney only meets with Senate Republicans on Tuesdays, rather than presiding over the whole Senate. But that's not the point that's getting the most play.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:38 AM on October 6, 2004


my favorite part of the debate was


The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.
He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa.

It's amazing to hear him criticize either my record or John Kerry's.


also, I liked the smooth, smooth way Edwards said "yes ma'am".
Too bad he's running with a VietCong from Faggachusetts -- there it goes your Southern Strategy
posted by matteo at 9:57 AM on October 6, 2004


Right. So his claim that 7-10 jobs are created by small biz is bs... But what else did we expect?

I don't see how this claim follows. It seems likely to me given that corporate america is stalled and outsourcing, that any job growth that's happening is either walmart greeters or small businesses.

And I know small businesses that have hired 20 people in the last year.
posted by namespan at 10:15 AM on October 6, 2004


LouReedsSon, there's absolutely nothing wrong with declaring wages paid out on Schedule C, and I'm sorry if my comment seemed to imply that. But it's just not usual practice in most industries, even though it is in construction.

According to the Tax Policy Center, only 15% of those filing taxes as sole proprietors declare wages paid to others on their Schedule C.

7 to 10 new jobs may well be created by small businesses, namespan. However, it is much more likely that they are created by the 30 million small businesses that would not be affected by the tax rollback, rather than the very few that might be--15 percent of 471,000, whatever that is (don't have my math cap on).

So Cheney was either misinformed or purposely misleading on the connection between tax cuts for high earners filing Schedule C and job creation--there is none.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:21 AM on October 6, 2004


We could end up with Dunkin' Donuts being the first pastry president of the United States!

Quash those evil upstarts from Krispy Kreme! They can't even make good coffee!
posted by lodurr at 10:23 AM on October 6, 2004


I have to say that even though I thought it was a draw while I was watching it, Edwards is coming off much better than Cheney on the sound bites--even on Fox.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:24 AM on October 6, 2004


I'd say it was a draw, mostly due to Cheney's gravitas. The more I see Edwards, the less I like him, and the better Kerry looks by comparison.
posted by rushmc at 10:32 AM on October 6, 2004


So his claim that 7-10 jobs are created by small biz is bs...

I'm not sure it's BS in the sense of being a lie. Think about the ramifications of an earlier example -- yours, I think. You pay 1099s; those are "small businesses." I'm guessing that the bulk of your trades labor comes that way, right? That's a big number of jobs, when you consider that a tradesman might work for several different people in a year.

And I do 1099 work for several people, myself, as well as being a regular hourly consultant for a very large business; all those could, conceivably, be counted as "jobs". I don't know that they did it that way, and I don't know what the numbers would look like if they did, but I'm just sayin' -- "BS" is a relative term.

Then again, if that is how they did it, it's worse than BS in a way...
posted by lodurr at 10:33 AM on October 6, 2004


there it goes your Southern Strategy

ah bets ah cud make that edwards boy squeal lahk a pig.
posted by quonsar at 10:34 AM on October 6, 2004


The Associated Press lists three meetings between Cheney and Edwards before last night's debate.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:40 AM on October 6, 2004


"strengthing the implication Cheney was trying to make, that Edwards is rarely in the Senate?"

There can be no doubt that Edwards is on the Senate floor more than Cheney. The thought that crossed my head when Cheney dropped the zinger was that it was more an indictment against Cheney than Edwards.

Edwards could have slam dunked that one.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:49 AM on October 6, 2004


Am I the only one that immediately thought of Jabba the Hutt everytime Cheney chortled his deeply evil laugh?

I keep hearing him now, that echoing laugh that Jabba-Cheney kept using instead of telling John Edwards to go fuck himself.

Someone needs to do a Jabba-Cheney cartoon, with Bush as the little gremlin guy in his lap. Yeah, that'd be cool.

Matteo, WTF? Faggachusetts? VietCong? You're usually pretty even keeled, this seems just a little off kilter. Did you forget to close your /sarcasm tag? Or are you off your meds?
posted by fenriq at 11:02 AM on October 6, 2004


For those too busy to Google it, the Tax Policy Center's web site. Full Disclosure: I have ties to that organization. But I am only mentioning because Sidhedevil referenced it twice without a link.
posted by terrapin at 11:07 AM on October 6, 2004


Did you forget to close your /sarcasm tag?

Did you forget that it's possible for people to be sarcastic without tagging it as such?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:18 AM on October 6, 2004


Daily Kos has more on Cheney's lie about never seeing Edwards: Video of the second Edwards/Cheney meeting has been found. From Mark Kraft's Livejournal:

(there's a screencap here)

That's Cheney on the left edge of the screen, administiring the oath to newly minted NC Senator Elizabeth Dole.

Update: Tim Russert is going around saying that Edwards and Cheney met backstage on his show, and shook hands and exchanged pleasentries. This is the gaffe that killed the debate for Cheney.

posted by amberglow at 11:27 AM on October 6, 2004


Edwards could have slam dunked that one.

Not necessarily. Edwards has been campaigning for nearly two solid years at this point, so it's likely his attendance record has suffered as a result. In any case, I doubt this will have much of an effect; I think as many people saw it the way you did, as the other way around.

I was interested to see that a lot of self proclaimed Kerry supporters here gave the debate to Cheney, and some unusual supects, such as Andrew Sullivan gave it to Edwards, and by a significant margin.
posted by psmealey at 11:30 AM on October 6, 2004


DevilsAdvocate, no, I didn't forget it but the comment was very much out of character for Matteo.

PSMealey, I haven't given the debate to Cheney, I think he did a much better job than his boss did last week but I still think Edwards won it. Where Cheney toed the party line (even keeping mum on supporting his daughter's right to marry her girlfriend), Edwards expounded on the party line, he held up John Kerry as a strong leader with a clear plan, Cheney never held up Bush at all.

It wasn't a slam dunk for Edwards but I think he won it.
posted by fenriq at 11:41 AM on October 6, 2004


According to this morning's print edition of the Boston Globe, Edwards' attendance excluding this past year and a half or so of campaigning is around 95%, one of the highest in the senate. They don't seem to have the same fact-checking table online, though.
posted by jalexei at 11:44 AM on October 6, 2004


Edwards's hometown paper debunks Cheney's 'Senator Gone' claim.
posted by psmealey at 12:01 PM on October 6, 2004


Lodurr, the thing was that Cheney didn't claim that "7 to 10 new jobs are created by small businesses"--he claimed that "7 to 10 new jobs are created by the small businesses that would be affected by a possible personal tax-cut rollback."

There are 30 million small businesses in the US. According to FactCheck.org, the personal tax-cut rollback would affect 70,650 businesses at most.

Hence, Cheney's argument is void; he's mixing apples and oranges.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:17 PM on October 6, 2004


PSMealey, why am I not surprised? Is someone keeping track of how many truths Cheney uttered compared to how many lies? I'm thinking the numbers are leaning towards lies.

jalaxei, par for the course, another sentence, another lie. Thanks for posting the news here though.
posted by fenriq at 12:19 PM on October 6, 2004


Did anyone see Edwards' wife put a friendly arm around Cheney's shoulder up on the stage after the debate? Apparently she was pointing out to him that he erred in saying he'd never met Edwards - she was reminding him of the prayer breakfast meeting.

Sharp lady. It's awesome that he heard it from her first.
posted by luser at 12:20 PM on October 6, 2004


Speaking of newspapers, I live in the Boston area, and was appalled by a front-page headline I saw when I passed the newsstand this morning.

Next to an unflattering photo of Vice President Cheney (looking kind of like an ad for hemorrhoid cream), there was an 18-point italic scream hed that said "ATTACK DOG!"


....
....
....

The amazing thing was that this was the headline on the Boston Herald, which is very pro-Bush/Cheney. Apparently, somebody at the Herald thought that this presentation of the VP was a good thing.

The Globe headline was something more on the order of "Candidates spar on Iraq, domestic issues".
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:23 PM on October 6, 2004


This just in; 'passionate' Cheney prep includes dog-on-man action:
"I'd be in the middle of some passionate answer or some passionate attack, and suddenly some Labrador would put his wet muzzle on my lap," he said.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:37 PM on October 6, 2004


Sharp lady

Well, maybe Edwards isn't lying when he says she was always a better lawyer than he was....
posted by lodurr at 12:53 PM on October 6, 2004


Just got an email letting me know that the CNN poll showing Edwards with a decided advantage on who won last night's debate has since been pulled from the page.

I just checked and saw it down there on the bottom of the screen, after I cast my vote, it told me that 63% of the nation agreed with me that Edwards won. Is it me or is that a much larger margin than from the Bush/Kerry debate last week?
posted by fenriq at 12:57 PM on October 6, 2004


fenriq - CNN pulled a switcheroo on that and of course feel no obligation to explain. When I voted last night, there were already over 100,000 votes and it was at least 3-to-1 Edwards. Then they pulled that one overnight and changed it to a new question, something like "Did the VP debate affect how you're going to vote?" THEN they changed the question back and started a whole new poll on the same question as earlier.

But the only important thing to remember in all this is, I think, Who does Achewood think won the debate?
posted by soyjoy at 1:23 PM on October 6, 2004


Achewood sucks.
posted by Stan Chin at 1:41 PM on October 6, 2004


Well, here is my take on the debate. I will be as impartial as I can muster.

Cheney came off as boring. For some reason he couldnt stop talking in a hurried monotone, hunching over, rubbing his hands on his chin and blocking his microphone. He just seemed a bit used to power and having people snap-to with no argument. I am knowledgeable on the issues and found myself drifting during his responses. I can't imagine how someone not up on all the ins and outs would stay interested.

Edwards came off as an intelligent likeable guy. He probably wasn't as sharp as Cheney but came off as a person you could relate to. His words had a bit less substance but a much better delivery. All in all he kept up with the sitting vice president and held his own, even getting in a few good zingers here and again.

I would say, both catered to their base well, but I think Edwards reached out to the undecided more by being earnest, likeable and clearly spoken. That he is young and somewhat good looking usually doesn't hurt with the female voters, or so I have heard. However, in the end, these are the VP candidates. People will take this under advisement, but I doubt it will make or break anyones vote.

As an aside, I watched the debate on CSPAN and they had call ins afterward. A few people took Edwards mentioning of Cheney's daughters well known and public sexual preference as an attack. One of them said it was "disgraceful" for Edwards to have mentioned it. I don't really get this. The only way that can make sense is if they took "lesbian" as an insult? Any insight here would be appreciated.
posted by jester69 at 2:01 PM on October 6, 2004


There are 30 million small businesses in the US. According to FactCheck.org, the personal tax-cut rollback would affect 70,650 businesses at most.

I was curious about that. Granted, I'm only one data point, but I have often thought this "small business" tax cut thing was some serious horse shit. I am an owner of a small business myself (my partners and I employ 25 ppl. in an LLC and my share of net income flows through to my return on my K-1... which is similar to a Sched C) and my income has not been at the level at which I could benefit from the tax cut since before these guys took office.

I'm hopeful I'll get back to that level again, but I'd glady surrender the tax cut I never got to get there again.
posted by psmealey at 2:16 PM on October 6, 2004


It's an interesting point. Edwards was responding to the same question Cheney had, which was more or less about his daughter. Edwards didn't ask the question, he just answered it, and he took care when he did to stipulate that Dick & Lynne are just what we expect good parents to be.

However, in the mind of many partisans (and this goes either way on a partisan loyalty issue), a transferrance will occur. They don't know Gwen Ifill from a hold in the ground; but they do know they hate John Edwards, and so they transfer the question to him in their minds.

I watched that question closely; I thought it was a strange question, but as soon as it was asked I knew that how Edwards answered it, in particular, would be important. I knew that he'd have to do what he did, which was to acknolwedge that "the Cheneys love their children too"; that's the compassion-moment, to be a tad cynical about it -- the point where you have a chance to win over at least some of the folks who're agin you -- and it's not a moment a civil trial lawyer is going to miss.

Truth, though, is that a freeper would stay agin' Edwards no matter what, and I'm sure he knows that. And whatever else he is, Cheney's not a freeper, and my take is that he was glad to not have it not made an issue of.
posted by lodurr at 2:18 PM on October 6, 2004


Ifill was the one who brought up Mary Cheney. I thought both Cheney and Edwards dealt with it remarkably well, as I've said on here before.

There is, however, no viewpoint so idiotic that someone won't call up C-SPAN and present it. My father, a retired guy who watches way too much C-SPAN, is a gold mine of idiotic things people have phoned in to C-SPAN.

I don't think anyone who was even remotely likely to vote for Kerry and Edwards is going to be turned off by the idea that Edwards acknowledged that Cheney's openly gay daughter is, indeed, openly gay, and praised the Cheneys for their public support of her.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:13 PM on October 6, 2004


to be even more cynical, lodurr, I think Edwards wasn't just using that as a compassion moment; I think he wanted to remind any anti-gay republicans that Cheney implicitly supports gay rights by remaining a loving parent to his gay daughter. For such people, homosexuality is disgraceful - so this was as if Edwards had complimented Cheney on loving, eg, a criminal son. It reminds those strongly against it that Cheney accepts it to some degree, that his position is not really different from the kerry ticket, and hence it should be a non-issue in the election.

It also reminds other people that Cheney applies one principle to his personal life and a different one to the public at large - it's okay for my child to x but not for yours.
posted by mdn at 3:14 PM on October 6, 2004


I, on the other hand, had a really profound "lesser of two evils" moment when Edwards was all "Marriage is between a man and a woman, but long-term gay partnerships deserve legal recognition."

I had kind of felt after the first debate that maybe Kerry wasn't just my hamster after all, that maybe I really had some investment in this ticket, but that took some of the wind out of my eclectic-independent sails.

OTOH, I liked what Edwards said about "a plan to win the peace". But on the fourth hand, Cheney was right about the current price tag of the Iraq conflict--it's $130B, not $200B. But on the fifth hand, Cheney voted against Nelson Mandela and puppies.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:18 PM on October 6, 2004


MDN, to be fair to Cheney's position on this issue, he has never said that anyone shouldn't be gay or be in a gay relationship. He has just said that he understands the Pres's reasons for wanting to create a legal definition of marriage as a heterosexual institution; he has never said that he supports any implication or suggestion by the Pres or anyone else that being gay is bad in any way.

I don't know if Mary Cheney has a long-time partner to whom she is married (legally or otherwise), so it's really not hypocritical, exactly, of Cheney to respectfully abstain on the same-sex marriage issue.

I know gay people, including some in long-term life partnerships, who don't support same-sex marriage (not that I understand that, but there it is). Given the diversity of opinion on the need for legal same-sex marriage in the US within the gay community itself, it's hard to see how one can automatically conclude that it's hypocritical of Cheney to support both his gay daughter and his anti-same-sex-marriage boss.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:25 PM on October 6, 2004


Cheney's Selfish Gay Rights Pose ...As near as I can figure, Cheney's approach to public policy seems to be that he believes in a basic set of rules that everyone should live by -- except in those cases where doing so would prove inconvenient for him or his family. Gay marriage isn't the only area in which he's invoked this personal exemption. There was also Cheney's behavior toward Iraq during his tenure as Chairman and CEO of Halliburton. Despite being a hardliner about America's not doing business with Saddam, Chief Executive Cheney conveniently looked the other way while his firm's foreign subsidiaries made millions selling oil-drilling equipment to Baghdad.
I understand that all politics are personal. But are we really supposed to applaud a man who strays from his pinched ideological worldview only when it serves to benefit himself or someone in his circle of intimates? That's not compassionate conservativism; that's political cronyism (or, in Mary's case, nepotism).
Of course, if having personal ties to an issue is what it takes to get the Vice President in touch with his softer side, we should probably all be rooting for Cheney to discover that, in addition to having a gay daughter, he also has a couple of black grandkids, an illegal immigrant cousin, an aunt with a drug habit, a transsexual brother, a sister who just got laid off from a textile mill in North Carolina, and a long-lost son who's been getting his butt shot at in Najaf. ...

posted by amberglow at 3:42 PM on October 6, 2004


I don't think anyone who was even remotely likely to vote for Kerry and Edwards is going to be turned off by the idea that Edwards acknowledged that Cheney's openly gay daughter is, indeed, openly gay, and praised the Cheneys for their public support of her.

I thought what he was trying to do was rather blatant and awkwardly handled (a combination of what lodurr and mdn allude to above...but if you're going to deal someone a glancing blow, do it with conviction, don't act embarrassed that you are stooping to it). It made me uncomfortable and contributed to the general sense of dislike for Edwards that was heightened by his performance in this debate.
posted by rushmc at 4:39 PM on October 6, 2004


me posts first and sits back to see the results

Very very bad form. If you ever do that again, we're going to have to release the Cheneys on you. [/meta]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:52 PM on October 6, 2004


nonono!! Not the Cheneys! (Iwent to school with one, once upon a time)

You are correct, that was VERY bad form. I forgot my slash!
posted by kamylyon at 5:01 PM on October 6, 2004


I thought what he was trying to do was rather blatant and awkwardly handled ...

Whatever he's trying to do, what would the alternative be? To say "I'm going to pass on responding to this, even though the Vice President did before me, because it would be in BAD TASTE to mention that his daughter is a lesbian"?

on prev: when you say "a Cheney", you mean...one of those Cheneys? (I can claim nothing so distinguished; an old buddy went to military school with a Yeungling and I once knew a cousin of the Whitneys, but that's as illustrious as I get, really.)
posted by lodurr at 6:11 PM on October 6, 2004


Rushmc, what do you mean "what he [Edwards] was trying to do?"

I think he was trying to a) deal with the spectacular inappropriateness of Ifill's question as gingerly as possible, and b) get on to what he wanted to do with the question, which was to have his cake and eat it too ("Senator Kerry and I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we believe that long-term committed gay partnerships should have some kind of legal recognition.")

May I say for the four millionth time that Edwards didn't bring up Mary Cheney--Ifill brought it up in her question, and Cheney talked about her in his answer. I think it would have seemed ruder if Edwards didn't acknowledge what Cheney had just said.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:44 PM on October 6, 2004


"Video of the second Edwards/Cheney meeting has been found. From Mark Kraft's Livejournal"

Yup. That's my journal. I posted the video last night, but MeFi was down, so I sent an email to owillis and DailyKOS, as I thought both should know and might be better at getting more exposure for the pictures than I. That said, it was cool to get the scoop.

Eat *THAT*, Drudge! ;-)
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:16 PM on October 6, 2004


cool, insomnia : >
posted by amberglow at 8:12 PM on October 6, 2004


Rushmc, what do you mean "what he [Edwards] was trying to do?"

Um, I answered that (in parentheses).
posted by rushmc at 11:19 PM on October 6, 2004


Ironically, all the FACT CHECKS regarding the debate on Bush's site are 4-0-fucking-4.

Should we be surprised?

Nahhh.
posted by bluedaniel at 12:02 AM on October 7, 2004


How do you think Edwards should have responded to Ifill's question, and Cheney's answer, then, rushmc?

I think it would have been far ruder to have ignored both previous discussions of Mary Cheney than it was to acknowledge them.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:08 AM on October 7, 2004


I think you are overstating the case when you say "Ifill was the one who brought up Mary Cheney." Below is her actual question:
FILL: The next question goes to you, Mr. Vice President.

I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: "Freedom means freedom for everybody." You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's experience as a context for your remarks.

Can you describe then your administration's support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions?
And you are quite mistaken in your assertion that Cheney discussed his daughter in his reply. ( Transcript.)
I think what Edwards said reads better in the transcript than it came across on the air because it was precisely his squirmy, uncomfortable delivery that most bothered me. In any case, Edwards' opinion on whether or not Cheney loves his daughter seems both irrelevant and suspect to me, and that really was all he said and his total justification for bringing up this woman and her sexual preferences before an audience of millions. So yes, I think it was a cheap trick, a backhanded attempt to paint Cheney as a hypocrite while trying to come across as Mr. Nice Guy, and that he should have found a more effective and direct way of making his point.
posted by rushmc at 8:40 AM on October 7, 2004


« Older ......  |  Being Nothing: George W. Bush ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments