#7: MVVP?

THREAD BEGAN: October 5th, 2004

BOB: Enough about Michael Moore....The much anticipated VP debate is here!
I know that everyone will be quick to chime in after the debate to claim victory for their side, but the big question is:
Does this VP debate really make a difference?
Will it really influence anyone’s vote?
Will it move the polls?
Your thoughts...

BEN: before the debate - answer to your questions -
1, Historically the VP debates dont make a damn bit of difference, any poll movement has always normilized after a week, but this is a different election in many ways. i think tonight is much more important for Bush/Cheney than Kerry/Edwards because Cheney needs to stop some Kerry momentum. Also, he will try and make Edwards looked inexperieced, much like Lloyd Bentsen did in 1988 against Dan Quayle, though he was successful and was considered to overwhelmingly have won the debate, it didnt affect the polls at all
2. I dont think it will change any votes, just add to momentum and help to reinforce sides - barring something very unforseen. i look for cheney to mainly attack kerry while i think edwards will also go after cheney as well as bush (a strategic mistake in my mind if it happens)
3. Polls will stay the same....but it will be hard to tell with the next bush-kerry enocunter on Friday Night. polling is everywhere right now, and everyone can find one or two to their liking
I think Cheney will "win" but if I am wrong I will say so - jsut like I said Kerry performed better than Bush last time.

DAN: I think this debate is in fact a deciding factor in the election. One may think that this doesn't matter at first glance, though it does. There are a couple of reasons behind that. First of all, their views reflect their running mate's views. Maybe not in full, but to the degree where they can run together. With this in mind, some of the same questions will be asked from the previous debate. This may reiderate certain highs and lows, or maybe even make things more clearer, after hearing it from a different person. Also, in Bush's case Cheney is well know to be his "attack dog." Where Bush may be a "good 'ole boy from Texas," Cheney is quick to strike and lets people know where he stands right off the bat. He does this in almost a nonchalant manner, too. It is very apparent that he has had much experience dealing with people on an executive/higher-up level. He is powerful and can be intimidating when he wants to be. On the other hand, Edwards being a trial lawyer should know what to expect, and how to counter. He is younger, which may appeal to a lot of people in comparison to Cheney's age and "CEO" look.
This trial lawyer thing may be his downfall though. Especially when dealing with the fact that he was a malpractice lawyer. Many doctors, and others in the medical fields, have strong negitive opinions on malpractice lawyers. They are the reasons malpractice insurance is outrageous, which in return affects A LOT of people. Many people will not vote for Kerry, just because of Edwards and his past.
It will though, be a good debate. They are allowed to talk to each other and are sitting at the same table, which may stir things up a bit. Both have good articulation as well, meaning things shouldn't be dry, nor should there be any stumbling over words.
Good luck to both parties

CHUCK: I am still trying to determine if the Miami Heralds recount was as exhaustive as the major media outlet recount, which I dont believe it was. That said, I apologize for overexaggerating my case. (call it making up stuff if you please, but i thought it was widely recognized that the major media poll was the most comprehensive)
That said, when overseas ballots are counted ILLEGALLY (postmarked/cast after election day) does that make victory LEGAL?
I think Cheney won. As far as delivery. Cheney is just tougher (and he just made some stuff up). Edwards just hasnt been the VP we thought we were getting. Either way, I dont think Edwards did anything to hurt Kerry/Edwards. But he did get beaten. Nothing like the Bush beating.
I am hoping this ends up exposing Bush's incompetence even more. Bush can't even talk. Yet Cheney is so solid and on message. Maybe even more people will ask, why Bush is such an idiot.

SAMMY: well boys, I don't know what to say, I'd have to call it a draw. Edwards was fierce at the begining, but Cheny slowed him down midway, and at the end Cheny seemed to begin to tire. But, I would have to say all in all it was a draw, and this may help the Kerry Edwards campaign. Just because Cheny could not beat down Edwards, which I expected. And I think most expected this. Therefore, it could help Kerry but I highly doubt it.

DAN: Chuck, I am curious to know, what do you think Cheney made up?

KYLE: I think the debate was a draw. There was no clear winner. I think people's opinions fall along party lines and independents won't vote on tonights debate. I give the Vice-President credit for a tough performance, but Edwards was tough as well. It comes back to style and what you are more comfortable with. I think both men pandered to the base and we saw Dick Cheney more able to articulate the administration's policy than the President because he has been such a large part of setting that policy.

CHUCK: well, claiming the US only suffered 50% of the coalition deathes. He wanted to count Iraqi's. COALTION DEATHES. Iraqi's cannot be counted in the COALTION. Under that logic, Iraq was one of the members of the US-led COALTION to attack Iraq (which would leave them attacking themselves, and my head spinning).
He claims this article: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=261 clears him on Halliburton. Not true. Coincidentally, please go to www.factcheck.org because it clearly outlines all of the misleading ads. 5 of the last 6 articles articulate how Bush distorts the facts.
Okay, so I'll go on. Cheney says HE NEVER SAID THERE WAS A CONNECTION B/W SADAAM AND 9/11. That is simply not true.
In general, though I thought Cheney did good. And I am not sure if he is actually evil. Now I think he is only an asshole.

BEN: cheney won. i know because A) I wathced it B) because tv commentators said either a cheney win or a draw (which means edwards lost) and C) because after Bush got beat by Kerry last week I already had about 76 emails telling me Bush had lost plus lots of phone calls from democrats asking me "what did you think" then cutting me off after 5 seconds to proclaim kerry victory
i agree with chuck though - no minds changed. it gives bush/cheney some momentum back but now a lot of pressure on bush friday night- and as a loser i will be staying in to watch

BOB: About the VP Debate. It looks like Cheney won. Although it wasn't a thrashing like Kerry/Bush. Sometimes Cheney seemed snappy and rude, but sometimes Edwards seemed slimy and beaten. They both made some good points.
I think Cheney really delivered the point that the Kerry/Edwards ticket has its head in the clouds, that their records are sketchy and he even dodged the Haliburton attacks unscathed.
Edwards did a good job pointing out that the Bush/Cheney ticket is shady/untrustable, in cahoots with big business etc.
All things considered, it was a good night for the Republicans, unfortuantely for Cheney though, Bush will have to return to the podium twice more before the people vote.
I do think it is interesting though, that the REPs in this roundtable (minus Ben) were unable to conceed that Bush lost the debates while the DEMs all seemed to agree that Edwards didn't win or straight up lost. This really demonstrates who in this roundtable has lost the ability to be objectve and who hasn't.

CHUCK: I've got one more lie. It was the first thing Cheney said: CHENEY HAS MET EDWARDS BEFORE. It was obviously preplanned......a preplanned lie. Additionally, it was a really untrue lie. They have met several times. Cheney still won as far as 'who did what they had to do', because Cheney didnt short-circuit (literally) and actually seemed human.
Proof of the gross lie: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20041006_463.htmlBut why didnt edwards bring it up? I dont know. Edwards was just off. He was intimidated.
Oh well. plus swing voters are probably more interested in how damn good looking edwards is.

JAY: the debate clearly went to cheney. chuck, you talk about flat out lies. why don't you mention Edwards' lies. he mentioned time and time again that the cost of war in iraq, as of now, was up to 200 billion. he was even corrected at the debate, and still misrepresented the facts to the american public. another thing that struck me was Edwards statement, "A resume doesn't prove good judgement." That is the biggest crock o shit. I'll start telling that to future employers. A resume and history of your past reveals everything about judgement. I liked it when the issue was MEDICAL MALPRACTICE and Edwards jumped into a sob story about a products liability case. way to mislead the audience who probably thought he was referring to med mal. look at Edwards record since 9/11 (36/38 votes). that's a true leader. he couldn't even respond to it. chuck i read your so called proof on the meeting. in one a name i mentioned, the other is backed by Edwards aids, and the third (only potential one) is a handshake after a talkshow. was there one meeting in congress? i think that was the point cheney was making. edwards looked like cheney's kid at times. edwards is trying to paint a black and white picture w/ tax cuts, attempting to mislead the public stating "republicans tax the rich less." however it's not so black and white. the tax bracket over 200k (which edwards stated, "multimillionaires by the pool") is to benefit small businesses which many americans are fining jobs, yet you don't here edwards say that

HONAR: First of all, of that majority of americans who have chosen their man, the debates are unlikely to matter a damn. Of those voters who have yet to make up their minds, the v.p. debates are unlikely to have a significant impact; barring some serious gaffe on either candidates part. The only influence it is likely to have on the undecided voter's, is maintaining their interest level in the upcoming presidential debate.
I really have to wonder about these undecided voters who are waiting for these so called debates to help them inform their decisions.

CHUCK: Jay, you have never made me personally mad at you, until now. its always been about the specifics, and often painstaking details of stuff we arent clear on, until now. I am really pissed at your fucking ridiculous email, trying to make me look bad. here is why
why don't you mention Edwards' lies. Well Jay, because fucking Viscione asked me what Cheney lied about.
was there one meeting in congress?WOW! you act like that is what Cheney said. Cheney said he never met him...not I never met him in Senate. Another interesting thing: The fact that Cheney is at the senate every Tuesday.....he is there every Tuesday to host a Republican-only lunch. Should he crash the lunch?
I liked it when the issue was MEDICAL MALPRACTICE and Edwards jumped into a sob story about a products liability case. way to mislead the audience...Way to mislead? He specifically pointed out that frivilous suits are 0.5% of the costs of health care. He also needs to explain that a family that saw a fucking girl that had her intestines ripped from her body, would be denied compensation of greater then $250,000 under the Bush Plan. Compesation for emotional damage is exactly at the heart of this issue, so its not misleading to touch into emotions.
the tax bracket over 200k....Good luck making me feel bad for them when 4 million just entered poverty. Seriously good luck. Paint the debate however you want. Good luck. Additionally, its not hard to incorporate and doesnt cost shit, so why dont they do that. I dont know much about it, but it seemed business didnt have a problem at the higher tax bracket during the Clinton Era....when there were 20 million jobs were created
cheney clearly wonI think cheney won, and said so. but i dont think its clear. polls show a split. and I think he won as a white male. I am sure edwards won in the black community (cheney admitting he did not know of the extent of AIDS). I bet women preferred edwards, because cheney does not radiate a great deal of compassion. So its not clear, like the Kerry v. Bush debate.
Finally, either way, I agree w/ Honar about this not mattering. And just to clarify, I thought Cheney won, and then in parenthesis i mentioned that cheney made some things up. Then viscione asked for examples. I provided examples. Jay went on some nonsensical trashing of Edwards. But remember, Jay wants everyone to know that I (and bob) are the ones that cannot be calm or objective.
Also, I wish Jay would not be allowed to claim he might not vote for Bush. It insults everyone of us.

JAY: wow, I touched a nerve. i have attacked your ststements before and you never gave me hostile responses such as this. i'm going to have to read what i said, read your response again, and then respond. i have class in 4 minutes and i think this personal attack deserves more time. and you did bring up the cheney lies 1st, and then dan responded w/ "what did he lie about?" anyway, i'm disappointed you are taking this so personally, maybe that's a weakness. take that personally as well. i hope you realize I'm laughing right now. this is just a political debate, no reason to get personal.

DAN: I don't know where you get off saying the Cheney meeting Edwards comment was preplanned. I don't know if you are convincing yourself of that, or if you are just making shit up, but statement is just stupid. I didn't click on your link (so it may differ), but I did hear on the radio last night on my way home that the first time they met was at a senate prayer meeting three years ago. Three years is a long time to remember someone you met once, maybe twice, especially being that the person you met is a stiff. That really doesn't say much on Edward's part being that he obviously didn't leave a lasting impression in Cheney's mind. In fact, it just proves Cheney's point of not remembering having met Edwards due to the fact that in the past THREE years "gone" Edwards has been absent from 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, and almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee. (And this guy, in the past, has talked of the "involvement" with the Intelligence Committee and how being part of it is a good selling point as to why he should be President and now VP). Give me a fucking break!! I don't blame Cheney at all. How can you remember meeting someone three years ago when you haven't seen them since?!?!

JAY: chuck, sorry if you took offense to my e-mail, but i have to respond further. for the inconsistancies on the debate, got to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6188565/ brings up both vp's misreps (including haliburton). i don't buy them ever meeting. why? because edwards had an opportunity to contest that, and he didn't. that's the only fact. w/ medical mal, the issue presented was health care and edwards gave a stupid sob story over products liability; pool drain cover case (no relevance and misleading). you say "i agree chaney won" and then say "i don't think it's clear." do you think he won or are you unsure? then you insult me by saying "I wish Jay would not be allowed to claim he might not vote for Bush. It insults everyone of us." It's obvious that i speak heavily against kerry on iraq, but there are other issues that we havn't discussed, idiot. before i divulge into the other issues, these are the reasons i like bush on iraq: kerry has war inconsistencies. then he approved the war stating we need the un and others. now he says we should have gone to other places first and it's the wrong war, but we should have more allies helping us in the wrong war (see how illogical that is). he is playing both sides. then he says we should be reinforcing our troops, but voted against the 87 billion. he gave his reasons, but they don't fly. our troops in harms way deserve that $. edwards stated that "we need to lead an aggressive attack on terror." does that mean going to the un for a 17 resolution that won't be complied w/? does aggressive mean waiting until the threat evolves into disaster? another thing i don't like is that they say we should go to iran right now. hold on, you mean the un then iran right? if it was such a threat how come the un hasn't done anything yet? you argue that it's not up to us, it's up to the un. the "resume does not reflect good judgement" slogan is just stupid. so if the iraqi soldiers aren't counted as part of the coalition and not the opposition, then who are they fighting for? of course they are w/ the coalition. 750 dead iraqi police and soldiers, 1000 dead u.s.. i agree w/ multilateral negotiations w/ iran and korea instead of the bilateral kerry wants. they misrepresent that as well. i have more, but i'm reaching my word limit.
other issues: i'm for abortion, for stem cell research, for heightened gun control, think gays should get married ad adopt, need to research more on their health care and spending policies, for death penalty,
so i have to weigh all the issues and do a little more research. sorry for insulting any of you, i just though it was ipmortant to be well informed on everything (not just who's misrepresenting the facts in iraq)

ABROMOVICH: The real issue here as far as a Vice President is concerned is who, Edwards or Cheney, would you want running your country if the something happened to the President. That is the real question that needs to be answered. The Issues are going to reflect his running mate in almost all cases. But would you want this country in the hands of a trial lawyer with no experience. Imagine this scenario - John Kerry is removed from office - for whatever reason, and one John Edwards is now running a war in Iraq and Afghanistan and who knows where else by them - Scary I know.

CHUCK: Well, I'll first say that I may have seemed to take it too personal. I am always laughing about all of this, but this time i just got really annoyed. Bob is the only one to probably understand this, but it has just been a cumulation of times where jay frames his emails in a way to act like i have no ability to look at anything reasonably. And that is what happened w/ the "you don't mention edwards lies"......I WASNT ASKED. And i didnt think it was important, because I dont think Cheney's misrepresentations were important, either.
And they did meet. And Edwards blew the chance to get him back. Edwards missed a bunch of chances. I mean Cheney said he never said 9/11 and Iraq connection, and Edwards let him get away with that, too. Edwards was not as ready as he should have been.
Med Mal: Again, the elements of the little girl being killed by the pool drain are relevant. Again, emotions are at the heart of the issue.
And if you really believe all these horrible things about kerry and his ability to defend us, then you would be insane to vote for Kerry. And that is why I believe its crazy to talk about maybe not voting for Bush. If you were even the slightest flexible on Kerry's stance or forgive some of his mistakes (like you obviously forgive Bush on iraq), then maybe you could vote for kerry. But you have never done anything but slam Kerry every second on Iraq, while never questioning Bush's rush to war.
If you want to look at everything objectively, then why do you go on these tangents about Kerry going to the UN '17 times'. That's not objective. That is a wild point to make kerry seem like a pussy. I hope that you would consider Kerry, but it just seems like you are lying to yourself if you really think so. If i had that opinion of Kerry v. Bush on defense, I would never vote for Kerry.
Iraqi's Count: Okay, if the 750 iraqis count in the coalition, then I DEMAND more discussion on the 13,000 dead INNOCENT civilians.
North Korea: So you think its better to not talk to a madman w/ a Nuke then talk to him one-on-one. See because, that's all we can get. So we better take it, and calm this nut down.
Viscione. They did meet. And it was a planned comment. There is no doubt. That said, Edwards has a bad senate record. Finally, Bob makes a good point on a weakness of Edwards. It would be more effective if Bush had any experience (aside from a series of horrible decisions in iraq)