So far, it's been a much more interesting debate than the first presidential debate.

Cheney is quite a debater. He just spanked Edwards with the "Americans are taking 90% of the casualties" arguement.

in contrast to bush, cheney is the most well spoken person in the world. i actually like how he talks and his tone, but the smirks and guffaws are really ugly

Originally posted by sleeper
in contrast to bush, cheney is the most well spoken person in the world. i actually like how he talks and his tone, but the smirks and guffaws are really ugly Aah, I'm missing the visuals... I'm having to listen to it on the radio.

Absolutely nothing has been accomplished in this debate. It was pointless to have the subject and format this way since last Thursday's debate was pretty much identical to this.

whats with edwards relating his personal sob story about israeli children? and also whats with the clinton thumb thing? everyones doing that shit now. clinton might not be the best person to evoke similarities to just yet

you can also hear cheney breathing when edwards is talking. i swear to god, listen close. ah hmmmfff ah hmmmmmffh

Saints alive. At least Edwards is staying more or less on topic. But he's missing a lot of opportunities. They're both acting really childish. Also, the production of this debate is shit. Really ramshackle compared to the presidential. Crap moderator/questioner, too. Bleh. I hate everything. And I think I'm running a fever. Who wants cake?

Originally posted by BeautifulLoser
Cheney is quite a debater. He just spanked Edwards with the "Americans are taking 90% of the casualties" arguement.

That's because he changed the question. Edwards was talking about "Coalition forces", that doesn't ******* Iraqi partners!

So who won this? I was in class. Listening to the MSNBC after coverage it seems like they think Cheney did, but the polls lean heavily to Edwards. So like, wth?

I don't think either of them was the clear winner. Cheney hurt himself with the odd faces and changing questions he was asked and Edward seemed solid but nothing spectacular.

I only saw the final question, and I noticed Cheney had a kinda smirk which i thought was dumb considering how Bush came off. AT least Bush was sorta liked before hand.

Originally posted by pale blue eyes
Cheney hurt himself with the odd faces and changing questions he was asked

they both changed questions quite a bit.

I suppose but it seemed to me Cheney changed questions to something he wanted to answer while Edwards answered something related to the question and then addressed the question asked.

Like a VP debates, not a damn thing they said will make any difference.

Originally posted by sppunk
Like a VP debates, not a damn thing they said will make any difference.

thats good because edwards looked like a fucking moron.

whereeee ya now bluestar? defend him.

Originally posted by Tiny Void


thats good because edwards looked like a fucking moron.

whereeee ya now bluestar? defend him. Uh, no he didn't. I thought he held his ground very well. Cheney "flip flopped" on Iraq/al-Qaida twice in two minutes, that was classic.

Edwards really got on a roll and had Cheney on the defense the entire second half of the night.

Originally posted by sppunk
Uh, no he didn't. I thought he held his ground very well. Cheney "flip flopped" on Iraq/al-Qaida twice in two minutes, that was classic.

Edwards really got on a roll and had Cheney on the defense the entire second half of the night.

not in my eyes and I'm for kerry/edwards.

edwards seemed out of his league. cheney comes off as an old man and has his problems but with edwards shouting, "no no! that was him" in response to who spoke off topic, he just came off as childish. the only good thing to come out of all this is that no one really watches the vp debates. at least no one who hasn't already decided who to vote for.

but you have to see that edwards looked really green.

Edwards came on like an inexperienced douche, and though they went back and forth a lot, I think Cheney pounded him on a couple points.

Originally posted by Irrelevant
Edwards came on like an inexperienced douche, and though they went back and forth a lot, I think Cheney pounded him on a couple points. Do you mind me asking you what points?

Originally posted by sppunk
Do you mind me asking you what points?

the senate attendance record point was pretty painful. there were several times Cheney called Edwards for some distortion, but there was probably as much the other way. Cheney called him out a few times on Kerry's voting record pretty well. eh, generally I just felt incredibly turned off by Edwards, even though he made a few good points here and there, probably most noteably on the administration siding with drug and insurance companies, and of course the ever-present Iraq discussion. i don't think he did a very good job responding to that question about his qualifications.

Originally posted by Irrelevant


the senate attendance record point was pretty painful. there were several times Cheney called Edwards for some distortion, but there was probably as much the other way. Cheney called him out a few times on Kerry's voting record pretty well. eh, generally I just felt incredibly turned off by Edwards, even though he made a few good points here and there, probably most noteably on the administration siding with drug and insurance companies, and of course the ever-present Iraq discussion. i don't think he did a very good job responding to that question about his qualifications. The Senate question is moot to me - Cheney has only attended about 30 percent of Senate hearings in the past four years, but that's most Senators. Only a select few go to a majority and they are fringe senators that aren't on any standing committee.

I think it was a true draw - Cheney did well in many areas, as did Edwards. I think Edwards had a few very strong points I didn't expect from here: He called Cheney out for voting against the missle defense system eight times, and Cheney didn't touch that. Cheney also didn't touch the Haliburton bid claims that Edwards made - I guess it's hard to rebutt the truth though.

But the thing that scared the hell out of me for Cheney: What about Cheney's comment that we'd be treated as liberators? How about his dissing Gen. Shinseki when Shinseki said we needed 100,000 troops to occupy Iraq?

I was able to catch about half an hour.

Edwards didn't do as well as I had hoped, but this was the first time I was able to see Cheney debate. He's a pretty effective when he get's up there, probably more so than both the presidential canidates.

I found the whole gay marraige thing pretty interesting as well.

Originally posted by sppunk
The Senate question is moot to me - Cheney has only attended about 30 percent of Senate hearings in the past four years, but that's most Senators. Only a select few go to a majority and they are fringe senators that aren't on any standing committee.

I think it was a true draw - Cheney did well in many areas, as did Edwards. I think Edwards had a few very strong points I didn't expect from here: He called Cheney out for voting against the missle defense system eight times, and Cheney didn't touch that. Cheney also didn't touch the Haliburton bid claims that Edwards made - I guess it's hard to rebutt the truth though.

But the thing that scared the hell out of me for Cheney: What about Cheney's comment that we'd be treated as liberators? How about his dissing Gen. Shinseki when Shinseki said we needed 100,000 troops to occupy Iraq?
Add to the list that irrelevant mentioned:
-Cheney's remarks to Edwards regarding the establishment of his taxable s-corporation which helped him avoid over $600K in taxable amounts.
-Edwards came across as an ass in my opinion bringing Cheney's daughter into the debate. Cheney knew that....and didn't respond.
-Edwards did not come across well with regards to Afghanistan, nor did he really clear the murkiness that has been created surrounding the global test quote (he should have had a better answer for that...and should have predicted that question coming from a mile away).
-Halliburton - the dems really need to steer away from stating that Cheney is still profiting from that, based off of current contracts. Stick on point to stating that there shouldn't have been a no-bid contract. Hammer away at that....which Edwards started to do.

Overall, I think Cheney gets a slight edge here...but nothing that will have an impact when all is said and done.

I saw the replay, I dont see how that was a clear win for Cheney, I'd say tie at best. Cheney made some points with foreign policy, but I think Edwards carried the domestic side.


Originally posted by Irrelevant
Cheney called him out a few times on Kerry's voting record pretty well.

I actually think Edwards got the better of that one. Cheney did the usual "voted for tax raises 98 times" which IM sure is half right, Edwards countered with "voted for tax cuts over 600 times" which is inflitated too but Cheney didnt correct him. Plus, Edwards pointed out the hypocracy in Cheney criticizing Kerry for going against defense programs, that Cheney himself was against too, which was finally pointed out, not sure what the hell they were waiting for.

Originally posted by Blank

Add to the list that irrelevant mentioned:

-Cheney's remarks to Edwards regarding the establishment of his taxable s-corporation which helped him avoid over $600K in taxable amounts.
-Edwards came across as an ass in my opinion bringing Cheney's daughter into the debate. Cheney knew that....and didn't respond.
-Edwards did not come across well with regards to Afghanistan, nor did he really clear the murkiness that has been created surrounding the global test quote (he should have had a better answer for that...and should have predicted that question coming from a mile away).
-Halliburton - the dems really need to steer away from stating that Cheney is still profiting from that, based off of current contracts. Stick on point to stating that there shouldn't have been a no-bid contract. Hammer away at that....which Edwards started to do.

Overall, I think Cheney gets a slight edge here...but nothing that will have an impact when all is said and done.


- i think Edwards effectively countered that s-corporation thing with Haliburton tacking advantage of tax loop holes with overseas bases, or whatever he said. Wow, someone doing whatever he could to pay less taxes, thats scandalous news right there.
-Yeah Edwards shouldnt have brought her up, dont think he looked like an ass, but didnt Cheneys answers on the subject feel a little cold to anyone else? Like he said only as little as possible and moved on.
-yeah, he didnt fully clear up that global test thing. They must not wnat to tip their hand before friday is all i can think of.
-If Edwards had been a little more prepared, when Cheney mentioned that factcheck.org site, Edwards could have brought up the fact that they side with Kerry, that his answers on iraq have always been consistent. At least last i heard.

I thought it was a great debate. They both held their own really well. Pretty much a tie, no clear winner. The initials polls have backed that up. I walked away from it with more respect for Cheney. However, it really didn't seem like a debate. It was more like a roundtable discussion you would see on Meet the Press or something. I think if it had been a different type of debate, Edwards (especially with his charisma) would have run away with it and been the clear winner. Cheney delivered Edwards some blows and Edwards delivered Cheney some blows. I found it interesting that Cheney didn't respond to the gay marriage/constitutional amendment/partnership rights question. You could tell that he disagrees with Bush on that. All in all, I thought it was a much better debate than the presidential debate. Both candidates knew what they were talking about and there was no fumbling or anything.

Can someone clarify the "S Corporation" claim that Edwards made. I watched the debate and read the transcript and saw no mention of an S-Corp.

I was glad that Edwards pummelled Cheney when it came to his ties to Halliburton and their no bid contract in Iraq.

Kerry beat Bush.
Cheney beat Edwards.

I think Edwards demonstrated how his lack of experience in things like debates, campaigns, and politics can be a detriment to the Dem ticket.

Originally posted by spa ced
I was glad that Edwards pummelled Cheney when it came to his ties to Halliburton and their no bid contract in Iraq. I think Edward helped bring in women voters who had been looking closely at voting for Bush.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son

Cheney beat Edwards.


Source? Or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

Originally posted by Future Boy

- i think Edwards effectively countered that s-corporation thing with Haliburton tacking advantage of tax loop holes with overseas bases, or whatever he said. Wow, someone doing whatever he could to pay less taxes, thats scandalous news right there.
-Yeah Edwards shouldnt have brought her up, dont think he looked like an ass, but didnt Cheneys answers on the subject feel a little cold to anyone else? Like he said only as little as possible and moved on.
-yeah, he didnt fully clear up that global test thing. They must not wnat to tip their hand before friday is all i can think of.
-If Edwards had been a little more prepared, when Cheney mentioned that factcheck.org site, Edwards could have brought up the fact that they side with Kerry, that his answers on iraq have always been consistent. At least last i heard.
-Halliburton is a corporation, whose duty is to its shareholders. The board of directors of the company determine if any major policy changes are to be undertaken. Saying....I am sure that Halliburton takes advantage of the tax law is not really a clear-cut comparison to a smaller legal business, that isn't set up as a paternership. I just thought that the point in time that Cheney brought it up exposed Edwards pretty well....and that Edwards response came across as someone who was pulling a response out of his ass. I could look up Halliburton's filing state....but I am too lazy to do that now.

Edwards should have stayed on course more so, and really drilled into the no bid contract with Halliburton....and not waste time making a ridiculous claim of saying that Cheney is equivalent to the Enron executives. That was one of the most blaring, unsubstantiated claims made the whole evening.

Carter....I believe Cheney made the S-Corp claim...not Edwards.

Bluestar - good comments. I believe Cheney did not comment on gay marriage that, as most people already are aware of his disagreement with the aims of GW. I thought his non-response to Kerry's remarks about his own personal family just further pointed out to me how that was completely unnecessary. I look forward to Kerry bringing up the drinking habits of GW's daughters at the townhall.

Originally posted by spa ced


Source? Or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

Source? WTF? There's no official "scorecard" with "points."

Originally posted by spa ced
I was glad that Edwards pummelled Cheney when it came to his ties to Halliburton and their no bid contract in Iraq.
Perhaps you missed how completely owned Edwards got by Cheney's response.

I do think it's amazing that the media just takes what Kerry and Edwards say as fact without checking, and just report on this stuff.

It would also be nice if Kerry mentioned that Clinton signed many no-bid contracts to Halliburton because there are very few companies that can do what they can do and do it as cheaply.

Of course, you don't even question anything he says, spa ced. You just blindly accept it as absolute truth.

I'm going to post two Halliburton-related articles from factcheck.org, a non-partisan site which basically calls politicians on what they claim.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=261

Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton
Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed.

September 30, 2004
Modified: September 30, 2004
eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Summary



A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.

The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president," which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company's chief executive.


Analysis



A Kerry ad released Sept 17 once again attacks Cheney's ties to Halliburton, implying that Cheney is profiting from the company's contracts in Iraq. That's false.

Kerry-Edwards Ad

"Cheney Halliburton"

Cheney: I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years.

Announcer: The truth: As vice president, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton. Halliburton got billions in no bid contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get? A $200 billion dollar bill for Iraq. Lost jobs. Rising health care costs. It's time for a new direction.

John Kerry. Stronger at home. Respected in the world.

Announcer: I'm John Kerry, and I approve this message.

The ad isn't subtle. It says, "As vice president, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton. Halliburton got billions in no bid contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get?" And it implies that Cheney lied to the public when he said in a TV interview that "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind."

But as we document here, Cheney has insulated himself financially from whatever might happen to Halliburton. The Kerry ad misstates the facts.

$2 Million

To start, the $2 million figure is wrong. It is true that Cheney has received just under $2 million from Halliburton since his election, but nearly $1.6 million of that total was paid before Cheney actually took office on Jan. 20, 2001. Saying Cheney got that much "as vice president" is simply false.

We asked Cheney's personal attorney to document that, and he did, supplying several documents never released publicly before:

A Halliburton pay statement dated Jan 2, 2001 shows just under $147,579 was paid that day as "elect defrl payou," meaning payout of salary from the company's Elective Deferral Plan. That was salary Cheney had earned in 1999, but which he had chosen previously to receive in five installments spread over five years.
Another pay statement dated Jan. 18 shows $1,451,398 was paid that day under the company's "Incentive Plan C" for senior executives. That was Cheney's incentive compensation -- bonus money -- paid on the basis of the company's performance in 2000. Cheney had formally resigned from the company the previous September to campaign full time, but the amount of his bonus couldn't be calculated until the full year's financial results were known.
Cheney's personal financial disclosure forms, together with the pay statements just mentioned, show that Cheney has received $398,548 in deferred salary from Halliburton "as vice president." And of course, all of that is money he earned when he was the company's chief executive officer. Cheney was due to receive another payment in 2004, and a final payment in 2005.

The Kerry ad isn't the only place the false $2 million figure appears. The Democratic National Committee also gets it wrong on their website. The dates of the Halliburton payments don't appear on Cheney's personal financial disclosure form from 2001, and the DNC assumed -- incorrectly as we have shown -- that all the 2001 payment were made after he took office.

Deferred Salary

The $398,548 Halliburton has paid to Cheney while in office is all deferred compensation, a common practice that high-salaried executives use to reduce their tax bills by spreading income over several years. In Cheney's case, he signed a Halliburton form in December of 1998 choosing to have 50% of his salary for the next year, and 90% of any bonus money for that year, spread out over five years. (As it turned out, there was no bonus for 1999.) We asked Cheney's personal attorney to document the deferral agreement as well, and he supplied us with a copy of the form , posted here publicly for the first time.

Legally, Halliburton can't increase or reduce the amount of the deferred compensation no matter what Cheney does as vice president. So Cheney's deferred payments from Halliburton wouldn't increase no matter how much money the company makes, or how many government contracts it receives.

On the other hand, there is a possibility that if the company went bankrupt it would be unable to pay. That raises the theoretical possibility of a conflict of interest -- if the public interest somehow demanded that Cheney take action that would hurt Halliburton it could conceivably end up costing him money personally. So to insulate himself from that possible conflict, Cheney purchased an insurance policy (which cost him$14,903) that promises to pay him all the deferred compensation that Halliburton owes him even if the company goes bust and refuses to pay. The policy does contain escape clauses allowing the insurance company to refuse payment in the unlikely events that Cheney files a claim resulting "directly or indirectly" from a change in law or regulation, or from a "prepackaged" bankruptcy in which creditors agree on terms prior to filing. But otherwise it ensures Cheney will get what Halliburton owes him should it go under.

Cheney aides supplied a copy of that policy to us -- blacking out only some personal information about Cheney -- which we have posted here publicly for the first time.

Stock Options

That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company's stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.

The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his attorney says. Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known beforehand. But it is clear that giving up rights to the future profits constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizeable donation to the chosen charities.

"Financial Interest"

Democrats have taken issue with Cheney's statement to Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press Sept. 14, 2003, when he said he had no "financial interest" in Halliburton:

Cheney (Sept. 14, 2003): I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years. And as vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government.

Shortly after that, Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg released a legal analysis he'd requested from the Congressional Research Service. Without naming Cheney, the memo concluded a federal official in his position -- with deferred compensation covered by insurance, and stock options whose after-tax profits had been assigned to charity -- would still retain an "interest" that must be reported on an official's annual disclosure forms. And in fact, Cheney does report his options and deferred salary each year.

But the memo reached no firm conclusion as to whether such options or salary constitute an "interest" that would pose a legal conflict. It said "it is not clear" whether assigning option profits to charity would theoretically remove a potential conflict, adding, "no specific published rulings were found on the subject." And it said that insuring deferred compensation "might" remove it as a problem under conflict of interest laws.

Actually, the plain language of the Office of Government Ethics regulations on this matter seems clear enough. The regulations state: "The term financial interest means the potential for gain or loss to the employee . . . as a result of governmental action on the particular matter." So by removing the "potential for gain or loss" Cheney has solid grounds to argue that he has removed any "financial interest" that would pose a conflict under federal regulations.

Conflict of Interest

It is important to note here that Cheney could legally have held onto his Halliburton stock options, and no law required him to buy insurance against the possibility that Halliburton wouldn't pay the deferred compensation it owes him. Both the President and Vice President are specifically exempted from federal conflict-of-interest laws, for one thing, as are members of Congress and federal judges.

And even federal officials who are covered by the law may legally own a financial interest in a company, provided they formally recuse themselves -- stand aside -- from making decisions that would have a "direct and predictable effect on that interest." And Cheney says he's done just that.

Cheney says he takes no part in matters relating to Halliburton, and so far we've seen no credible allegation to the contrary. Time magazine reported in its June 7 edition that an e-mail from an unnamed Army Corps of Engineers official stated that a contract to be given to Halliburton in March 2003 "has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office." But it wasn't clear who wrote that e-mail, whether the author had direct knowledge or was just repeating hearsay, or even what was meant by the word "coordinated," which could mean no more than that somebody in Cheney's office was being kept informed of contract talks.

Indeed, a few days later it was revealed that Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby was informed in advance that Halliburton was going to receive an earlier contract in the fall of 2002 -- to secretly plan post-war repair of Iraq's oil facilities. But being informed of a decision after it is made is a far cry from taking part in making it. And according to the White House, Libby didn't even pass on the information to Cheney anyway.

So to sum up, this Kerry ad's implication that Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton is unfounded and the $2 million figure is flat wrong.


Sources



"Vice President Dick Cheney discusses the war with Iraq, the economy and other topics," NBC News "Meet the Press" 14 Sep 2003.

Jack Maskell, "Official's Stock Options In and Deferred Compensation From a Corporation as a "Financial Interest" of an Executive Branch Official in Such a Corporation," Memorandum , American Law Division, Congressional Research Service, 22 Sep 2003.

US Code of Federal Regulations,TITLE 5, CHAPTER XVI--OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS, PART 2640--INTERPRETATION, EXEMPTIONS AND WAIVER GUIDANCE CONCERNING 18 U.S.C. 208 (ACTS AFFECTING A PERSONAL FINANCIAL INTEREST) 5CFR2640.103(b)

Timothy J. Burger and Adam Zagorin, "The Paper Trail: Did Cheney Okay a Deal?", Time magazine, 7 June 2004: 42.

Larry Margasak, "Cheney never heard plan to give work to Halliburton for rebuilding of Iraq," The Associated Press 16 June 2004.

Originally posted by Blank

Edwards should have stayed on course more so, and really drilled into the no bid contract with Halliburton....
Again, Clinton also signed many no-bids with Halliburton. For them to try and make it appear that all of a sudden this is happening is complete and total falsehood demagoguery.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Again, Clinton also signed many no-bids with Halliburton. For them to try and make it appear that all of a sudden this is happening is complete and total falsehood demagoguery. Thanks Nimrod....I am stating that it is a waste of everyone's time to discuss financial ties to Halliburton. It is unnecessary to post that stuff from factcheck. You can pull all of that information off of an 8-k (proxy statement) filed with the SEC. Halliburton is the second largest company of its type in the world...and they handled the Gulf War....if some people think that this is the first time, under any pres & vice pres watch that no bid contracts have been offered, or that no other companies potentially overcharge the government you have got to be kidding me. The GAO needs to be and could be so much more effective.

I only caught about a half hour but they both seemed to be bouncing off each other equally. I thought Cheney didn't really change the "pissed off old man" vibe that I've gotten off him (of course I only saw the Iraq part of the debate, I didn't see when he got into gay marriage. Did he mention his daughter? Did he soften up if/when he did?). I thought Edwards still smiled alot and came off as more personable than Darth Cheney. It really depends on what side you fall on for your personal politics because they both seemed to argue rather passionately and well-reasoned for thier own sides. (though I did like one part when Cheney was all "blah blah blah, voting down 87 billion for troops, blah blah" and Edwards shot back with a laundry list of all the things that Cheney voted against. I Didn't really expect that).

But yah, the VP debate is really just a novelty and that's all. It doesn't sway voters, and the only bump anyone gets from thier VPs is when they're annouced. ie. when Edwards hooked up with Kerry, if he got a bounce at all, that's the total impact Edwards would have on this campagin.

Still it was kind of fun to watch a young candidate and an older candidate slug it out. But yah, the polls are all over the place right now (he won! no, he won!) and I don't think it'll change and the debate will pretty much be totally forgotten by Friday's debate. (hell maybe even Thursday night because of all the hype surrounded the next presidental debate. so wag those tounges about this debate now because it'll only have a shelf-life of about 24 hours anyway.)

Awesome thread title, but makes me wish that Cheney had cut off Edwards hand halfway through the debate.

Originally posted by spa ced


Source? Or are you just pulling this out of your ass?

He is pulling it out of his ass.

Republicans say Cheney won.

Everyone else says Edwards or noone.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted


He is pulling it out of his ass.

Republicans say Cheney won.

Everyone else says Edwards or noone.
I'm not a Republican. I agreed that Kerry won the last debate.

Jesus.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son


Source? WTF? There's no official "scorecard" with "points."

I'm referring to polls, genius.

Originally posted by spa ced


I'm referring to polls, genius.
Polls are meaningless, remember?

i saw the whole thing less the first ten minutes. i thought that Cheney squeaked out the win, if there was one to be had.. Cheney was just too... weathered. he knew that shit and exactly what to say. war on terror. no child left behind. commander in chief. inconsistent. but i do like how the Kerry camp has taken to saying "we will find the terrorists and KILL them."

Edwards definitely got some low blows in with the 90% of Coalition deaths, the no bid contracts that most everyone seems to take as fact now, and the daughter thing. i was rather amused by that sequence of events actually. when edwards said all of those things about how much he and his wife love their daughter, etc, etc. cheney accepted his *kind* words and was done. then had to answer a question about why edwards was unqualified. talk about UNCOMFORTABLE. i wonder if the moderator did that on purpose. i was really put off by edwards when he kept saying kerry's name when he wasn't supposed to. maybe that's stupid, but it definitely made me wonder why he just couldn't be John Edwards for a few minutes. bleh.

Originally posted by Caine Walker


Edwards definitely got some low blows in with the 90% of Coalition deaths. Coalition deaths are 88 percent. Cheney was wrong.