VP debates

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2004-10-06 12:35pm

Marksist wrote:
Is that picture real??
Sure is.

I have to admit it does look kinda fake.

but then if it was there'd be an equal number of real images anyways.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-06 01:16pm

As of middle of the night last night Fox News even reported they'd met at least twice. Once at this prayer breakfast where Cheney thanked Edwards specifically by name and once at Elizabeth Dole's swearing in which Cheney did with Edwards at her side.

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-10-06 01:23pm

and once at Elizabeth Dole's swearing in which Cheney did with Edwards at her side.

[/img]http://www.dailykos.com/images/admin/ed ... .jpg[quote]

Well I'm willing to back off the whole cheap shot that Dick took at Edwards just for the fact that even Fox reported that they actually had met.[/quote]

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-10-06 01:24pm

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-06 02:49pm

I will say this about last night's debate: I'm extremely happy with John Edwards as a choice for Vice-President, but I'm glad he's not the one going head to head with Bush in this election. That's not to say that Edwards would make a bad president, but Kerry has a lot more of those paternal and presidential qualities then Edwards.

Agrajag · Post by **Agrajag** » 2004-10-06 02:57pm

I'd have to agree. I liked Edwards during the primaries but last night showed me that he's still learning. Nothing wrong with that, but he isn't 100% yet.

Post by **Kuja** » 2004-10-06 03:58pm

"You own hometown's newspaper calls you Senator Gone."

Ouch.

This was much more entertaining then the presidential debate. And WTF was up with that moderater? Why the hell did she have to throw "without referring tothem by name" into that one question? She couldn't even look right at the camera becasue she was so dependant on the teleprompter, for frig's sake.

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2004-10-06 04:10pm

Kuja wrote:"You own hometown's newspaper calls you Senator Gone."

Ouch.

That's not true. The North Carolina GOP made it up.

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-10-06 08:36pm

Damn. Got home later than I expected, I can't believe I missed this.

One question however, I apologize if it's been answered in this thread, I'm lazy:

What is a 'global test'?

seanrobertson · Post by **seanrobertson** » 2004-10-06 08:44pm

Natorgator wrote:
Kuja wrote:"You own hometown's newspaper calls you Senator Gone."

Ouch.
That's not true. The North Carolina GOP made it up.

Not exactly. Cheney certainly exaggerated, but he didn't pull that nickname out of thin air. An excerpt from this "hometown newspaper," "The Pilot":

"His hometown newspaper has taken to calling him 'Senator Gone,'" Vice President Richard Cheney said of his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Edwards.

Well, not exactly.

The Pilot hasn't "taken to calling him" anything. In fact, the vice president's obscure reference sent us scrambling to our library. And sure enough, we did publish an editorial 15 months ago, on June 25, 2003, headlined, "Edwards Should Do His Day Job." In it, we noted that Sen. Jesse Helms used to be called "Senator No." And we added: "Four and a half years into his first term, John Edwards is becoming known as Senator Gone."

That's not to say the paper didn't pick up the term from the GOP--could have *shrugs* Regardless of the source, however, I gotta admit Cheney, "The Pilot," N.C. Republicans and/or whoever had a point: in the past few years, Edwards has spent considerable time out-of-state campaigning for the 2004 presidency. He has repeatedly cancelled appearances in N.C. to appear in [potentially more hard-fought] "battleground" states.

I'll also say that I would've preferred that he cool it on the campaigning and focus more on his senatorial duties. While:

A. it's a stretch to call him negligent
and
B. think it's a little silly to think one can't work in the Senate and seek higher office at the same time

...he did mostly use the office as a springboard to the next level up. That's not something I particularly appreciate.

But if Edwards is as sharp as I hope he is, I imagine he'd potentially do more good for a greater no. of people as VP than he ever could as senator. I also imagine that, given the bigger chair to sit in, he'll have less reason to fidget than he did while "in" N.C.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-10-06 08:54pm

Badme wrote:One question however, I apologize if it's been answered in this thread, I'm lazy:

What is a 'global test'?

The same "test" which America has traditionally answered to a credulous world:

The Declaration of Independence wrote:...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the seperation...

Sadly, Edwards didn't have the presence of mind to toss that in Cheney's face.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-06 08:59pm

A trial lawyer typically has more time to prepare responses in a trial than he does in a debate, which is somewhat rapid-fire. After all, in a trial, the two lawyers never directly confront one another; they take turns speaking to the jury or to a witness. So while a career as a trial lawyer might seem to automatically imply debating skill (and debating skill would certainly be useful to a trial lawyer), one cannot assume that a trial lawyer will necessarily be sufficiently quick on his feet to answer direct charges. For example, when Cheney declared that he had never met Edwards before in his life (in reference to his attacks on Edward's work ethic as a Senator), a more quick-thinking Edwards would have pointed out several prior incidents in which they did meet, including one where they actually sat together at a dinner function. That retort would have made Cheney look ridiculous, but Edwards wasn't quick enough on the draw for that.

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-10-06 09:13pm

Darth Wong wrote:A trial lawyer typically has more time to prepare responses in a trial than he does in a debate, which is somewhat rapid-fire. After all, in a trial, the two lawyers never directly confront one another; they take turns speaking to the jury or to a witness. So while a career as a trial lawyer might seem to automatically imply debating skill (and debating skill would certainly be useful to a trial lawyer), one cannot assume that a trial lawyer will necessarily be sufficiently quick on his feet to answer direct charges. For example, when Cheney declared that he had never met Edwards before in his life (in reference to his attacks on Edward's work ethic as a Senator), a more quick-thinking Edwards would have pointed out several prior incidents in which they did meet, including one where they actually sat together at a dinner function. That retort would have made Cheney look ridiculous, but Edwards wasn't quick enough on the draw for that.

True. Still, trial lawyers need sufficent charisma and public speaking skills to sway the jury, both of which are also integral to a solid performance in a verbal debate. Besides, I'm sure that while he may not have prepared for every possibility for the debate, he'd have to be quite well-versed in all of the likely subjects of contention, no?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-06 09:34pm

Badme wrote:True. Still, trial lawyers need sufficent charisma and public speaking skills to sway the jury, both of which are also integral to a solid performance in a verbal debate.

Agreed. However, those abilities are only part of what makes a good debater. The ability to roll quickly with punches is the larger part in a face-to-face debate.

Besides, I'm sure that while he may not have prepared for every possibility for the debate, he'd have to be quite well-versed in all of the likely subjects of contention, no?

Correct, hence the brilliance of Cheney's tactics in making use of emphatic statements which are completely false, hence impossible to have foreseen beforehand.

I like to refer to this as the "Creationist Shock and Awe" debating tactic: hit your opponent with an accusation so false, so ridiculous, so audacious, so incredibly stupid that his jaw literally drops open and he is paralyzed with sheer incredulity, thus making him look stupid. Creationists do this all the time: they make massively false statements such as "not one fossil of any pre-human primate has ever been found" and you can literally be so stunned by this incredible (and ridiculously false) accusation that you momentarily become tongue-tied. Even if you have the presence of mind to simply deny this claim, he can hit you with "Oh yeah? Name one" to which he hopes you won't have a ready answer. Similarly, Cheney was probably expecting that Edwards might retort with "Oh yes we did" to which Cheney could simply respond "Oh yeah? Name a time and place" and of course, Edwards wouldn't be able to recall because nobody memorizes such things.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-06 09:49pm

An unfortunate debate tactic, but one that works. It would seem that if any politician wants to win in these debates, they have to get in the mud and play dirty too since the public on the whole makes no distinction between who had their facts straight and who pulled a fast one that made the other lose brownie points.

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-10-06 09:56pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Correct, hence the brilliance of Cheney's tactics in making use of emphatic statements which are completely false, hence impossible to have foreseen beforehand.

I like to refer to this as the "Creationist Shock and Awe" debating tactic: hit your opponent with an accusation so false, so ridiculous, so audacious, so incredibly stupid that his jaw literally drops open and he is paralyzed with sheer incredulity, thus making him look stupid. Creationists do this all the time: they make massively false statements such as "not one fossil of any pre-human primate has ever been found" and you can literally be so stunned by this incredible (and ridiculously false) accusation that you momentarily become tongue-tied. Even if you have the presence of mind to simply deny this claim, he can hit you with "Oh yeah? Name one" to which he hopes you won't have a ready answer. Similarly, Cheney was probably expecting that Edwards might retort with "Oh yes we did" to which Cheney could simply respond "Oh yeah? Name a time and place" and of course, Edwards wouldn't be able to recall because nobody memorizes such things.

Nice commentary. I've witnessed rhetorical strategems like this myself a few times, and I've always been impressed by the way it looks to most observers (including myself, if I'm not watching closely) that the guy hit with it is the one who's flustered, unable to respond.

Overall personal opinion? I don't find verbal debates of any kind to be nearly as logical as an intense written one. Having gone through several years of Lincoln-Douglass format debate back at my high school, I was always amazed at the ability of my competitors to come up with very quick, seemingly intelligent responses while ducking questions, employing fallacious logic, or just plain lying. I'd try to spend time analyzing their argument, and with the several minutes of preparation time or whatever they give you, it's impossible. The Presidential Debates suffer from much the same thing with the necessity to appeal to the lowest common denominator and the 2 minute long exchanges.

Man, this brings back memories. Finals of some prestigious tournament in my state: the one guy wins by literally reading so fast that his opponent could not understand what the hell he was saying. It was amazing. I just hear stuff like: 'soaswecanseetheaffirmativecaseupholdsthevaluecriterion'. When his opponent had no clue how to respond to the barrage, the guy hammered him for 'dropping points' and 'ignoring contentions'. I think that particular rhetorical technique made me look elsewhere for stuff to do on my weekend.

And slightly back on-topic: did anyone bring up North Korea during the debate?

seanrobertson · Post by **seanrobertson** » 2004-10-06 10:36pm

Darth Wong wrote:Similarly, Cheney was probably expecting that Edwards might retort with "Oh yes we did" to which Cheney could simply respond "Oh yeah? Name a time and place" and of course, Edwards wouldn't be able to recall because nobody memorizes such things.

It's a particularly insidious complex question and false dichotomy ("We haven't met!" "What?! You say we have? Fine: either you recall the date, occasion and place right now or it didn't happen, you liar!"). Since many average viewers take such sternly-worded statements as authoritative nor, for that matter, are they usually the inquisitive type

, Cheney probably thinks he can lie and suffer no real backlash in the polls. I'd bet he's right.

If I was Edwards, I would've fired back: "Frankly, I'm stunned, Mr. Vice-President. Perhaps you've tried to forget me, but know I've met you before, sir. And I'll be happy to show the American people pictures of us taken years ago--pictures showing us standing face to face and shaking hands. Or would you go on to claim I'm 'lying' about a picture, too?"

Or something like that. If the claim didn't completely blindside me, I probably would've stammered up to "stunned" and into "ass" before that limp mod interrupted.

It's easy to think about such things now, 24 hours after the fact

But if it did throw him, Edwards should've just carry that bit over to the next question he was asked--something he might've realized he was already doing with increasingly irritating frequency*.

*Semi off-topic: where do they find these pushover moderators?

I know "PBS," but why choose them? Jim "Hans Moleman" Lehrer and that woman last night helped keep things on track better than no mod at all, but I would've thought...whoever sets this shit up would've learned their lesson about the Lehrer crew following the 2000 debates. Gore and Bush, Gore especially, walked over that guy like they were breaking in a new rug. Is that what both campaigns want: a venue with the appearance of civility and order, but no appreciable restrictions when both candidates feel like throwing their weight around a little?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-06 10:40pm

I hope Edwards wins, not only because he's a great crowdpleaser and charismatic man with the brains to boot, but because he has my surname.

I'd rather he'd been the presidential candidate rather than that chin on legs Kerry and his Vietnam filled resumé.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-06 11:11pm

Is anyone watching the Daily Show right now? Jon Stewart is tearing both Edwards and Cheney a new one on the debate. Funniest shit ever.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-10-06 11:15pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Is anyone watching the Daily Show right now? Jon Stewart is tearing both Edwards and Cheney a new one on the debate. Funniest shit ever.

"Fear will keep the local systems in line....fear of this battlestation." summed up Cheney's closing statement last night. HILARIOUS shit. The Daily Show has been golden during this election.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-06 11:24pm

Did you see the headline for the VP debate? "Slick vs. Oily." Absolutely priceless.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-06 11:26pm

I liked when they showed a clip of Cheney saying that he never met Edwards before until then and then showed a clip of them sitting next to each other at a fundraider talking in 2001. "Nice zinger, though."

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-07 12:33am

Stravo wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:Is anyone watching the Daily Show right now? Jon Stewart is tearing both Edwards and Cheney a new one on the debate. Funniest shit ever.
"Fear will keep the local systems in line....fear of this battlestation." summed up Cheney's closing statement last night. HILARIOUS shit. The Daily Show has been golden during this election.

That's good.

"Darth Cheney, only you could be so bold."

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-07 01:12am

Chris O'Farrel and I have an interesting exchange over ICQ a couple weeks ago.

"Vice President Cheney! I should've expected to find you holding Ashcroft's leash. I recognized your oily stench when I was brought on board."

"Princess Kerry, I would like you to be my guest at a ceremony which will make this battle station operational. No congressmen will dare opposed Patriot Act II now!"

"The more you tighten your grip, the more black voters will slip through your fingers.'

"Not after we demonstrate the power of this station! In a way, you have determined the choice of the demographic to be destroyed first"

"What do you mean?"

"Since you are reluctant to withdraw from the Presidential race, I have decided to test this stations destructive power on your own state of Massachusetts."

"No! Massachusetts are liberals we have no Assault Weapons you can't possibly-"

"You would prefer another target? A more liberal target? Then name the state!"

"I grow tired of asking, so it'll be the last time. Where is the Democratic campaign head-quarters?"

"... Colorado. They're in Colorado."

"There, you see Lord Ashcroft? She can be reasonable. Continue with the operation, you may fire when ready."

"What?!"

"You're far too trusting. Colorado has too few electoral votes to make an effective demonstration, but don't worry. We will deal with your liberal friends soon enough."

*Swift Boat Veteran ads swarm the Massachusetts airwaves*

"And in an announcement today, GWB blamed Osama Bin Laden for the destruction of the DNC. And announced that as most of the opposition Government from the Senate and Congress were present, he shall now be Emperor for Life!"

*que picture of Marines now dressed as Royal Guards stomping forward*

"The Democrats will continue to gain support in the supreme court and-"

"The Supreme Court will no longer be of any concern. I have just received word that the Emperor has disolved the council permanently. The last vestiges of democracy have been swept away!"

"Impossible! How will the Empire maintain control without the justice-"

"The regional directors of homeland security will now have direct control of the states. Fear will keep the states in line. Fear of terrorists and Arabs."

"This station is now the ultimate power in the universe! I suggest we use it"

"Don't be to proud of this bloated waste of pentagon funds you have created. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the damage of a good swiftboat add"

"Don't try to frighten us with your dirty politicking ways, Lord Ashcroft. Your sad devotion to dirty campaigning has not helped you conjure up a lead in the polls, or given you clairvoyance enough to find Kerry's secret service docum--"

"I find your lack of faith disturbing. And someone cover up the tits on that statue!"

"This bickering is pointless! Now, Lord Ashcroft will provide us with Kerry's Secret Service documents by the Federal Election. We will then crush the Democrats with one swift stroke!"

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-07 01:15am

I think someone should have just superimposed a sountrack on the Cheney/Edwards debate so that the Imperial March plays whenever Cheney's on and the theme from Cheers plays whenever Edwards is on.