Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

The Edwards / Cheney debate

0 helpful
13 replies

by aldanatech

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

The vice-presidential debate between Edwards and Cheney was fierce. Both put up quite a fight, and the post-debade polls and reviews show some interesting results:

POLLS:

CBS Poll, Who won the debate? Poll of undecided voters.

Edwards 41%
Cheney 29%
Tie 29%
MOE 7%

CBS Poll, Opinion of Dick Cheney. Poll of undecided voters.

Got better: 29%
Got worse: 15%
No Change: 56%
MOE 7%

CBS Poll, Will VP influence your Presidential vote? Poll of undecided voters.

Yes: 58%
No 41%
MOE 7%

ONLINE POLLS

CBS: 76% Edwards, 21% Cheney

MSNBC: 70% Edwards, 30% Cheney

WSJ: 95% Edwards, 4% Cheney

LA Times: 97% Edwards, 2% Cheney

FOX News: 57% Edwards, 41% Cheney

CNN: 77% Edwards, 18% Cheney

Philly.com: Edwards 99%, Cheney 1%

Orlando Sentinel: Edwards 80.3%, Cheney 19.4%

Akron Beacon-Journal: Edwards 98%, Cheney 2%

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Edwards 64.23%, Cheney 29.77%

REVIEWS

Carl Cameron:

"CBS did what they call a flash poll of undecided voters and it suggests that the undecided voters thought that John Edwards won the debate. Certainly the North Carolina first term senator came out of the gate a lot faster and by most accounts Vice President Dick Cheney wasn't as warmed up as John Edwards was." [Fox News, 10/6/04, 12:01am]

Liz Marlantes, Christian Science Monitor:

"The one thing that I think does work for Kerry and Edwards, and that I think did work tonight, particularly with Edwards; Edwards is trying to sell the idea of a fresh start. And it may not be different in specifics, in terms of what they do in Iraq or they have some differences, but you can quibble about whether they would work or how different it would be but he's trying to sell the overall notion of a fresh start and in that sense I think he was effective. He sort of embodies that freshness, especially in contrast to Cheney." [MSNBC, 10/06/04 12:43am]

"Edwards is likely to have come off as more sincere, said John C. Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, who was inside the hall at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, where the debate took place. ?Senator Edwards was very effective, very personable,' Green said. ?I had a feeling he probably connected a little better with viewers than the vice president did, especially when he was talking about domestic policy matters.'" [Boston Globe, 10/6/04]

"I thought Edwards had a very strong night. I thought one of the things that he did was he brought domestic issues back into the whole sphere of discussion for this campaign which is where the Kerry campaign wants the focus to be going into Friday and I thought Edwards did that quite effectively? I think he came across as very sincere and, I would imagine, connected on an emotional level with a lot of viewers." [MSNBC, 10/5/04, 12:06am]

Carlos Watson:

"John Edwards both did their jobs but I think Edwards probably did a better job with persuadable voters." [CNN, 10/5/04, 10:42pm]

"But Wolf, I think in the first half, when they talked about terrorism, when they talked about national security issues, I think Edwards landed some real blows. I think that if you're an undecided voter, or even frankly if you're a soft voter, I think you're going to take another look on Friday at what John Kerry has to say. I think that the vice president and John Edwards both did their jobs but I think Edwards probably did a better job with persuadable voters." [CNN, 10/5/04, 10:42pm]

Andrew Sullivan:

"I thought that Edwards was able to articulate his message in terms of language that most people understand and relate to, anecdotes, human beings, stories about healthcare, vulnerability about job worth and every moment Cheney responded to those questions in terms of process, in terms of abstract nouns, in terms of things that have happened in the Congress or the legislature or according. And then Cheney also went directly and personally on the attack directly against both Kerry and Edwards in ways that Edwards was able to do without seeming to be as nasty and as churlish as Cheney was. And I think that's an art and Cheney doesnt have it and seemed extremely nasty." [CSPAN 2, 10/5/04, 11:25]

Candy Crowley:

"If the idea was for John Edwards to come in here and show the American people that in fact he can be a heartbeat away, insofar as this is seen as a draw or as both of them doing very well, one would have to believe that that means that John Edwards did pass that test." [CNN, 10/5/04, 10:52pm]

"In terms of the baseline question tonight for voters out there was, can John Edwards step in the job of President? He showed himself to be an articulate man that had a grasp of the facts that he's been studying." [CNN, 10/5/04, 11:11pm]

"Probably for John Edwards the best moment was when he turned to Cheney and said, you know Mr. Cheney, I don't?Mr. Vice President, I don't think Americans can take another four years of this administration. Sort of a rendition of Ronald Reagan's famous line of are you better off. That clearly was one that he had been waiting to deliver. Obviously an effective line." [CNN, 10/5/04, 10:51]

Jack Kemp:

"Well, it was a good debate. John Edwards did himself a lot of good. He was glib, he was charming in that southern Clintonesque way." [Fox News, 10/5/04 11:25pm]

"Edwards was equally aggressive, accusing President Bush and Cheney of misleading the country about Iraq, first by suggesting that Iraq was linked to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States and then by trying to suggest that conditions there are better than they are. He repeatedly accused Cheney of distorting the facts to mislead the public." [Kansas City Star, 10/5/04]

Ceci Connolly:

"I think the one area where Senator Edwards was effective when talking about Iraq was the situation on the ground today. And eventually er.. essentially suggesting that everybody can look for themselves at what's happening over there the number of deaths both US and Iraqi. The mess? um? he was able to point to recent comments by Paul Bremer about not having enough troops." [Fox News, 10/5/04 10:43pm]

"But some of [Edwards'] most effective moments last night concerned Iraq. He hit Cheney on several fronts, and Cheney's answers - when he chose to answer at all - were not particularly persuasive. For Cheney, the problem was that some of his own colleagues had given Edwards fresh ammunition. On Monday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda had not worked together. Rumsfeld said, ?I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.' That's virtually the same conclusion reached this summer by the 9/11 Commission." [Knight Ridder, 10/6/04]

"Mr. Edwards is normally known for his wide grin and boyish appearance, but he was serious and tough last night. If his main task was to show that he could stand up to the older and more experienced vice president, he did everything he needed to do, especially during the discussion of foreign policy." [Editorial, New York Times, 5/6/04]

"The Edwards victory was more lopsided when the debate turned to domestic policy. The Bush administration, Edwards noted, is the first since Herbert Hoover's to preside over a net loss of jobs. Beyond an irrelevant paean to education, the vice president had no response. He seemed similarly at a loss when Edwards proceeded, with Clintonian specificity, to eviscerate President Bush's record on other domestic fronts." [Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 10/6/04]

"Edwards, on the other hand, appeared to have done his research?" [Editorial, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/6/04]

"Edwards scored a strong rhetorical victory when he mentioned the no-bid contract given in Iraq to Cheney's former company, Halliburton, and listed some of Halliburton's alleged misdeeds. Cheney's attempt to respond by saying that Halliburton was being brought up as a ?smokescreen' to cover for Kerry's and Edwards's mediocre record in the Senate led to another direct hit from Edwards as he pointedly attacked Cheney's voting record in Congress, portraying him as an ogre who opposed Head Start, Martin Luther King Day, and a ban on plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors." [Cathy Young, Op-Ed, Boston Globe, 10/6/04]

"What Edwards did best was act as a truth squad. One good moment came when he rebutted the Republican's ?global test' line of attack, noting, accurately, that they were distorting Kerry's debate comment about the need for US military action to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the world. Meanwhile he reminded voters again and again that despite Cheney's frequent suggestions of connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, no operational ties have been discovered. When Cheney justified the administration's aggressive use of military force by saying that the United States had been attacked and the president had responded, Edwards seized the moment: ?Mr. Vice President, we were attacked, but we weren't attacked by Saddam Hussein.'" [Scot Lehigh, Op-Ed, Boston Globe, 10/6/04]

So who do you personally believe won the VP debate?

What are your comments regarding the debate and its outcome?

13 replies

by aldanatech

This is what Senator Edward M. Kennedy had to say about the Vice Presidential debate last night in Cleveland:

"America saw John Edwards at his finest last night; making clear the Kerry-Edwards team is ready to lead our nation to a brighter, more optimistic future. And most importantly John Edwards left no doubt he could lead the country if called upon.

"Dick Cheney, predictably, attempted to defend the indefensible ? he stubbornly clung to the misguided policies he helped create for the Bush administration ? refusing to face the reality of their failure."

by jamesrl

Do you honestly think that a) Kennedy wrote those words, or b) they weren't written before the debate?

I am no Bush fan, but I am someone who has worked with politicians. I've sat in the backroom writing some of those pithy comments designed to be picked up by the newspapers. And they were done before the debate. Sometimes you write a number of them, and pick the appropriate one. Sometimes you modify them.

Color me cynical.

James

by jkaras

according to my handy dandy Crayola 128 color crayons complete with the sharpener there is no cynical color, so there! LOL. All kidding aside I do agree that politicians rarely use there own words, spin doctors, brain trusts, and us photo opts and media to push agendas. Debates dont prove anything but put politians on the spot to prove their understanding of issues that need to be addressed rather than a "no comment" remark or a sugar coated answer to segway into another topic. They do show however their ability to communicate with people like other foreign dignitaries on issues to assure competency among the constituants. I dont think either side is good, great or otherwise. I am merely voting for Kerry because I dont like the corporate scandals that this administration has been a party to, such as Enron, major ball drop, Haliburton with Cheney meeting with the judge clandestinely, oil issues, wanting to amend Constitutional rights, denying due process, reduction of freedoms guaranteed buy gallons of blood and life from our forefathers. Has anyone ever seen the type of lack of confidence in our leaders? I do believe that our leaders need to invest in our people rather than the rest of the world and a more choice for presidential candates than either column "A" or "B". People should vote for who's best for the job, not taxes, call me cynical, but dont color me.

by ippirate

That's it, you convinced me. With Mr. Kennedy vouching for him, how could I not give my vote to Kerry. Of course, I hear that Limbaugh is endorsing Bush. Oh, it is just all so confusing. Two completely trustworthy sources saying to vastly different things.

by aldanatech

Lets compare what was said on the VP debate with what is known about Halliburton:

Cheney:

"Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false." [Vice President Debate, 10/5/04]

Edwards:

Halliburton Used Enron Style Accounting Practices. "While he was CEO of Halliburton, they paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false information on their company, just like Enron and Ken Lay." [Vice President Debate, 10/5/04]

What is known:

Halliburton Agreed to Pay $7.5 Million to Settle SEC Probe into Cheney-Era Accounting Practices. Halliburton agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a SEC probe of the company's accounting during the tenure of Dick Cheney. Halliburton failed in 1998 to disclose a change in the way it accounted for revenue from some construction work, the SEC said in a statement. The SEC said "the company misled investors and violated federal securities laws." [Bloomberg News, 8/3/04; Complaint of SEC vs Halliburton Company and Robert Charles Muchmore Jr. 8/3/04]

Edwards:

Under Cheney, Halliburton Did Business With Iran and Libya. "They did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States."[Vice President Debate, 10/5/04]

What is known:

Justice Dept. Issued Subpoena Seeking Information of Halliburton's Role In Iran Under Cheney. Halliburton received an inquiry in 2001 from the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Treasury Department inquiring about operations in Iran by a Halliburton subsidiary. In July 2004, OFAC transferred the case to the Justice Department and a federal grand jury issued a subpoena to Halliburton seeking information about its work in Iran. Government officials told the Washington Post such cases are referred to the Justice Department only when there is evidence "intentional or willful" violations have occurred. [Houston Chronicle, 12/15/03; Halliburton Co. 10-Q, 5/7/04; Reuters, 7/19/04; Washington Post, 7/21/04]

Cheney Admitted Doing Business in Iran and Libya. When asked whether Halliburton did business with Iraq, Cheney said in 2000, "What we do with respect to Iran and Libya is done through foreign subsidiaries, totally in compliance with U.S. law." [ABC, This Week, 7/30/00]

Edwards:

Halliburton is Being Investigated For Charges of Bribery Under Cheney. "They're now under investigation for having bribed foreign officials during that period of time." [Vice President Debate, 10/5/04]

What is known:

SEC And Justice Department Investigating Halliburton Bribery Charges During Cheney's Tenure. A French judge is looking at whether Vice President Dick Cheney may have been responsible under French law for at least one of four bribery payments exchanged between a Halliburton subsidiary and Nigerian officials to obtain contracts for liquefied natural projects. Under French law, "the head of a company can be charged with ?misuse of corporate assets' for bribes paid by any employee - even if the executive didn't know about the improper payments." Furthermore, the SEC, the Justice Department and the Nigerian government are also investigating the bribery charges against Halliburton. [Dallas Morning News, 1/25/04, 2/10/04; Associated Press, 2/4/04, 2/5/04, 2/6/04; Houston Chronicle, 2/7/04]

Edwards:

Halliburton Got No-Bid Contracts in Iraq. "Not only that, they've gotten a $7.5 billion no-bid contract in Iraq, and instead of part of their money being withheld, which is the way it's normally done, because they're under investigation, they've continued to get their money." [Vice President Debate, 10/5/04]

What is known:

Halliburton's Got No-Bid Contract in Iraq. In March 2003, the Pentagon awarded a subsidiary of Halliburton a no-bid contract worth $7 billion to help rebuild Iraqi oil fields. According to Time, an internal Pentagon e-mail said "action" on the contract was "coordinated" with the Vice President's office. A senior political appointee in the Defense Department, Michael H. Mobbs, who works for undersecretary of defense Douglas Feith, acknowledged that he selected Halliburton for Iraq reconstruction work. Before awarding the contract, Mobbs briefed top officials, including Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's top aide, and White House staff members. [Time, 5/30/04; Los Angeles Times, 5/7/03; Washington Post, 2/10/04, 6/14/04]

Halliburton Has Gotten Three Extensions To Avoid Payments Being Withheld. Under government rules, contractors cannot be paid more than 85 percent of their invoices until they fully account for their costs. It had appeared that the Army was going to withhold payments to Halliburton because the contractor cannot account for nearly half of its work in Iraq and Kuwait. But for the third time this year, the Army gave Halliburton an extension and will continue to pay them in full. This happened despite the fact that Pentagon auditors "strongly" urged the U.S. Army to start withholding millions of dollars in payments to Halliburton Co. until the company justified its bills. [Washington Post, 8/18/04; New York Times, 8/17/04; Associated Press, 8/24/04; Reuters, 8/24/04; Houston Chronicle, 8/25/04]

Edwards:

Halliburton Used Off Shore Tax Shelters. "When the vice president was CEO of Halliburton, they took advantage of every offshore loophole available.They had multiple offshore companies that were avoiding taxes." [Vice President Debate, 10/5/04]

What is known:

Halliburton Maintained "A Slew of Entities" in Offshore Tax Havens. In 2001, Halliburton maintained, what the Wall Street Journal described as, "a slew of entities" in offshore tax havens. According to the Journal, "Halliburton, according to its latest annual report to shareholders filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, has units in St. Lucia, Liechtenstein, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Cyprus, the Netherlands Antilles and the British Virgin Islands. All are well-known tax havens with few natural resources." According the Security and Exchange Commission, while Cheney was in charge, Halliburton set up over 20 affiliates in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying US taxes. [Washington Post, 8/1/02; Wall Street Journal, 8/5/02]

What kind of impact do you think this all has on the election campaigns of either party?

by gralfus

...at least as far as Halliburton is concerned. Most who know anything about it have already made up their minds based on other issues. People are interested in who has the best sales pitch now, not what happened in some company years ago (or in a war 30 years ago).

Having watched how people react to the debates leads me to conclude that they are still looking for packaging over substance, or rather regardless of substance. Whoever can sell themselves most effectively as warmhearted and likeable will "win" the debate.

When Carter first ran, everyone noted his big smile and southern charm. When he ran against Reagan, Carter had become much more serious and dour due to the nasty situations he had to face constantly. Reagan came across as charming and witty. Clinton was the ultimate charmer and knew how to work a crowd, whereas Bush Sr came across as cold and somewhat nervous. George W came across as a regular guy when facing Gore, who came across as a "strict father gone a bit mental" with his antics during the debates.

In the first presidential debate, George W stalled without speaking so many times that he didn't seem prepared. Kerry had the best soundbites of the evening, and so even though he is stodgy, he came across more effectively. Bush didn't connect with the hearts of the audience, he dealt with numbers and issues.

Edwards is downright cute and personable and spoke to the people like he had a solution to their issues (whether or not that is true) versus Cheney seeming more cold and hiding behind his hands a lot. Edwards tends to emulate Clinton, who was an expert at getting to the emotional heart of his listeners. Most people tend to vote based on how they feel about the candidate, not based on statistics and such.

I think the cuddly ones are prevailing in the polls, but I shudder to think what will bocome of us if they actually come to power.

by av .

Cheney, despite all of his experience, is not an asset to the Bush ticket. He is a detriment to Bush and an easy target for the Kerry Edwards team because of his Enronesque dealings with Halliburton.

Cheney is a bold-faced liar and it comes out every time he opens his mouth. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence from many valid sources, such as the 9/11 commission's report that confirmed Iraq and Al-Qaida were not connected, he chooses to continue saying that they were.

In this election, I think more American people are paying attention to the candidates and their positions on many issues because America has many dire problems right now. The wars in Iraq and Al-Qaida, huge budget and trade deficits, healthcare, unemployment, outsoucing and low wages, high oil prices, etc., have taken a big toll on this country.

We need real, honest leadership that represents all of the people, not just corporate america and the rich. Maybe John Edwards isn't as "experienced" as Cheney, but I think he came across as honest, realistic and for the common man in his debate with Cheney. Cheney is just representative of what is wrong with America today. Greed, lies and deception.

I can't take four more years. He doesn't deserve to be in the Whitehouse. Bush would have been wise to choose another running mate.

by oz_media

A test of swing voters around various places in america showed nothing but positive responses for the Democrats and absolute loss of Republican support based on a live poll conducted during each response. The 'favour'meters for women went DOWN when republicans spoke, and up when democrats spoke.

Womens groups and universities across America are heavily campaigned to get them out to the polling stations.

What I once saw as a VERY close election is now beginning to look mroe ad more in favour of the Democrats, I am actually beginnig to think it is a LOT more in favour of the Dems than I had originally thought and it may not be such a close election afterall.

But you never know, people feel one way and act another.

by aldanatech

I agree; and it doesn't apply to women only. Before the first presidential debate, Bush had a small advantage over Kerry but that is beginning to change. At the very least, Kerry gained ground over Bush after the debate, and after the VP debate I now see that the Democrats are slowly gaining more and more support than the Republicans.

by tomsal

My personal feeling is that whatever your political feelings, or whatever spin you have on either party...I think the Democrats will likely win this election if for no other reason but they are doing a *MUCH* better job of selling themselves to the american people.

And sad to say but most citizens don't really think all that deep about issues, or candidate history, etc....they just pay attention to who APPEARS as the best, who looks the best, etc.

by av .

From a woman's point of view, the debates gave the democrats a real lead in the election. Bush was unprepared, inarticulate, stubborn, and immature. He had very little to say except stale phrases and presented an unrealistic picture of what is going on with America. Cheney was smug and absolutely lied. Its clear that they don't know whats going on.

Kerry exceeded my expectations. He was polished and articulate and looked "presidential." He also prepared well for the debates, was clear and informative. Edwards was equally articulate and seemed honest and interested in the common man. I really had never seen much of Kerry prior to the debates, and used to think he was mediocre, but his demeanor in the debates makes me feel more positive about voting for him.

This election is very close, but I think the remaining debates and the bad news on TV everyday will help tip the scales in the democrat's favor in the end.

My only fear is that the election will not be valid because of problems with e-voting, fraudulent voter registrations and just plain antiquated voting systems. I definitely don't want to see a repeat of the 2000 elections.

This discussion is closed to new replies.