VP debate

[kimpossible]

Can't wait. Any predictions? Bets?

[nonamerasian]

I've never watched either of these two speak before.

I'm interested.

[ism]

I wonder what expletive will be rendered from Cheney's mouth this time. He's a fierce one, and it'll be interesting to see if Edwards takes a more charming approach to counter that. Cheney is riper target than Bush, in that he opened his mouth a bit more about WMD and linking Osama to Iraq, so an aggressive Edwards could pay off, except for the fact that I think a charming Edwards would pay off more than an embarassed Cheney.

Think we'll see a zinger regarding the age differential?

[kimpossible]

I'm hoping for the political equivalent of a cockfight. Cheney isn't going to be as easily distracted or pissed off as Bush and he's much cannier. On the other hand, Edwards is more charismatic and quick on his feet.

[Mr.Lum]

I hope the one that's southern and isn't fat wins....Edwards!

[ellsworth81]

i've never actually heard cheney say a single thing! i wonder if he has a ugly voice.

[younggiftedandblack]

Cheney is aseasoned pro. Even before he became VP he was taveling around debating and defending his positions. Edwards is lawyer (a good one I hear) and a charmer. This one should be better then the 1st one.

These two should be the ones running for president IMO.

[Mr.Lum]

i've never actually heard cheney say a single thing! i wonder if he has a ugly voice.
He does. He sounds so shady and evil. With that perminant smirk too.....gross!

[moser]

The contrast between the two (Prince of Darkness vs. charismatic (and intelligent) Ken doll) should be interesting.

[achtungbaby]

After hearing Republicans boast about Cheney's vast ocean of wisdom and inability to get rattled, I have a feeling that even though he won't fumble in his own end zone like Dubyah, the American people will get a more explicit look at just how charismatic, warm and engaging our Vice President is.

After all, if Cheney's handlers were that confident in his ability under pressure, they wouldn't have insisted that Edwards sit during the debate.

[Mr.Lum]

^Well I think that they always sit for VP debates. They sat last year as well.........

[kitty]

they are sitting because they don't want Edwards' charisma and skill as a trial lawyer to completely outshine Cheney's complete lack of charisma. It was the only way to get the republicans to agree to three presidential debates.

I suspect that Edwards will hold his own, but not be stellar. It won't matter, though, because even though they're sitting, Americans will be swayed by Edwards' sheer prettiness -- so long as he doesn't do anything too stupid.

The best strategy for Edwards would be to very slyly just piss Cheney off, then let Cheney destroy himself.

[achtungbaby]

^They sat last year as well.........
Also at the request of Cheney's handlers. I guess they figured Lieberman might ignite a firestorm with his frenzied oratories.

[Mr.Lum]

Also at the request of Cheney's handlers. I guess they figured Lieberman might ignite a firestorm with his frenzied oratories.

LOL. I will tell you, my dad used to be pretty friendly with the Senator, we used to eat over his house a lot. When he gets inot something, he gets pretty rowdy. He gets loud, he slams the table. IT's really funny.

[achtungbaby]

they are sitting because they don't want Edwards' charisma and skill as a trial lawyer to completely outshine Cheney's complete lack of charisma. It was the only way to get the republicans to agree to three presidential debates.

I suspect that Edwards will hold his own, but not be stellar. It won't matter, though, because even though they're sitting, Americans will be swayed by Edwards' sheer prettiness -- so long as he doesn't do anything too stupid.

The best strategy for Edwards would be to very slyly just piss Cheney off, then let Cheney destroy himself.

Granted, I probably haven't seen him speak enough, but for the most part of this campaign, I haven't witnessed a single instance where Edwards completely made an ass of himself. During the primaries he always appeared gracious before and after each debate. A few months before the Democratic ticket was announced, I remember reading that Republican strategists were actually more afraid of Edwards than Kerry.

Certainly not dumb either. He was hand-picked by Tom Daschle to explain and dumb down the complicated legalese surrounding Clinton's impeachment...and I believe that was during his freshman year as a Senator.

Wow, this is a good debate.

Good lord. There is no "truth" between these two.

[Mr.Lum]

Why is Edwards wearing a red tie? Kerry wearingone too....traitors.

[kitty]

AAAAARGGGGGHHHH!!!

Edwards is holding his own, for the most part, at least in the beginning, but he's a little too hyperactive -- he's tripping over his words. And I think he's missing a lot of crucial points and rebuttals -- taking too long and being too roundabout to attack or respond to cheney's flagrant misappropriations of the truth. And is it just me, or is this moderator pretty... uhmm... bush-y?

[Mr.Lum]

This is not as exciting as it was made out to be. *yawns*

Lol

[kitty]

what the HELL? this moderator asks cheney "what can you do to improve the economy" or some shit, then later asks edwards, basically "are you a flip-flopper on gay marriage"? this moderator if FLAGRANTLY, IRRESPONSIBLY biased.

[Mr.Lum]

LOL. VP couldn't come up with anything to refute Edwards on the homomarriage deal. Smack that bitch. LOL.

[younggiftedandblack]

what the HELL? this moderator asks cheney "what can you do to improve the economy" or some shit, then later asks edwards, basically "are you a flip-flopper on gay marriage"? this moderator if FLAGRANTLY, IRRESPONSIBLY biased.

Is there a rule taht says they both have to be asked the same question?

[nonamerasian]

Dull.

Neither of these guys have the presence of our presidential candidates.

The moderator should be more strict. Make sure they answer the question she asks and not jump back to the question before. Make sure no one interrupts a point (Edwards was doing that in the beginning).

I would have liked for Cheney to explain the sending of soldiers without proper gear. Why he voted against programs for the poor, such as Meal-on-Wheels and Head Start in response to the what would you do to help struggling communities topic.

I would have liked for Edwards to discuss his missed votes rather than just finger wave at Cheney. When someone brings up that you did wrong, you don't point and say that, well, so-and-so did this and that. You explain your actions. Then maybe rat out your opponent, tee-hee.

Neither of these guys are impressing me.

*yawn*

[kitty]

Is there a rule taht says they both have to be asked the same question?

no. but they should both be asked the same kinds of questions. she's being far more pointed towards edwards.

[nonamerasian]

It was a near draw.

[ellsworth81]

a draw? hardly. edwards clearly showed his political inexperience here despite being a shark in the courtroom.

honestly, lot of ppl hate cheney ... i dont care much for him, so i felt cheney had the edge in this one. he deflected alot of accusations decently, except for any of those haliburton comments. on that note, edwards didn't respond well to the unrelated comments about edwards' tax loopholes.

random cheapshots were exchanged and highly amusing. that wore off after the first 30 minutes.

too much party rhetoric was parroted in a lof of their responses - maybe that's the way of politics.

in short, neither candidate convinced me their party was overwhelmingly worthy of my vote.

[nonamerasian]

a draw? hardly. edwards clearly showed his political inexperience here despite being a shark in the courtroom.

honestly, lot of ppl hate cheney ... i dont care much for him, so i felt cheney had the edge in this one. he deflected alot of accusations decently, except for any of those haliburton comments. on that note, edwards didn't respond well to the unrelated comments about edwards' tax loopholes.

random cheapshots were exchanged and highly amusing. that wore off after the first 30 minutes.

too much party rhetoric was parroted in a lof of their responses - maybe that's the way of politics.

in short, neither candidate convinced me their party was overwhelmingly worthy of my vote.

Cheney lost points when he didn't (or couldn't) fire back on issues like the votes against the programs that help the poor or they lack of supplies for troops.

[achtungbaby]

what the HELL? this moderator asks cheney "what can you do to improve the economy" or some shit, then later asks edwards, basically "are you a flip-flopper on gay marriage"? this moderator if FLAGRANTLY, IRRESPONSIBLY biased.
In all fairness I thought the moderator was pretty fair. I didn't detect a whole lot of bias. Actually I thought Jim Lehr was probably a bit biased towards Kerry last week...course it was such a pummeling it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

a draw? hardly. edwards clearly showed his political inexperience here despite being a shark in the courtroom.

honestly, lot of ppl hate cheney ... i dont care much for him, so i felt cheney had the edge in this one. he deflected alot of accusations decently, except for any of those haliburton comments. on that note, edwards didn't respond well to the unrelated comments about edwards' tax loopholes.

random cheapshots were exchanged and highly amusing. that wore off after the first 30 minutes.

too much party rhetoric was parroted in a lof of their responses - maybe that's the way of politics.

in short, neither candidate convinced me their party was overwhelmingly worthy of my vote.
I held the faintest sliver of hope that Edwards would completely knock out the VP but you gotta hand it to Dick...he took some major haymakers to the chin and for the most part kept his cool. I'm not quite sure how many handicap points Cheney gets however considering any performance from him probably would have bested Dubyah's, but to his credit, he was prepared and you could tell. On any given debate topic, I dun care what it is...if you're prepared and rehearsed, you could be defending slavery and at worst, come off reasonable but wrong...

I thought Cheney's most weathering critique against Edwards was on his voting record and record as a Senator overall. I'm surprised he didn't go further by suggesting that Edwards has had his eyes on the presidency since day one...when Cheney laid out Edwards' attendance record, I think I said, "Oh shit!" in my car, but Edwards was able to come right back (without responding at all to his attendance) with Cheney's voting record as a congressman, which I'm sure the Republicans didn't want to highlight.

Voted against Headstart? Against the Board of Education? Against freeing Nelson Mandela?!? I was laughing my ass off and I'm glad that Edwards saved that ace card for only when he needed it.

[nonamerasian]

I would have preferred that he give a good reason for his subpar attendance than finger point. Or fingerpoint after saying something for himself.

[Yeahman]

Though Edwards won on the issues (mostly because I disagree with Cheney), IMO, Cheney won in the presentation. He was just too sharp. He came super prepared and while both sides had some great attacks, I think Cheney was the more effective, espeically on foreign policy.

kitty would like to think the moderator was biased. In the same question about flip-flopping she also noted that the Bush camp have flip-flopped.

I see Cheney as a human now. You noticed that he disagrees with the president on gay marriage but he just thanked Edwards and cut his time allocation short. It was the right thing to do, IMO.

I think Kerry should debate Cheney and Edwards should debate Bush.

[achtungbaby]

I would have preferred that he give a good reason for his subpar attendance than finger point. Or fingerpoint after saying something for himself.
I definitely think he gets docked some points, not only for not having a credible response, but for appearing a little snide about it too...

[kitty]

Though Edwards won on the issues (mostly because I disagree with Cheney), IMO, Cheney won in the presentation. He was just too sharp. He came super prepared and while both sides had some great attacks, I think Cheney was the more effective, espeically on foreign policy.

kitty would like to think the moderator was biased. In the same question about flip-flopping she also noted that the Bush camp have flip-flopped.


i'm not saying she ignored facts. i'm saying she gave easier and open-ended questions to cheney and more pointed, accusatory questions to edwards. go back and take a look at them when the transcript comes out.

[achtungbaby]

Though Edwards won on the issues (mostly because I disagree with Cheney), IMO, Cheney won in the presentation. He was just too sharp. He came super prepared and while both sides had some great attacks, I think Cheney was the more effective, espeically on foreign policy.
Well it was nice seeing for once the real brains of this operation. It was interesting to finally hear the substantive 'stuff' behind the whole idiot cowboy persona that the President projects. Yes, I think Cheney definitely gets points for being able to spit numbers out but even more important...to sort of provide the 'insider' perspective on what's going on at ground zero with some of the attacks leveled by Edwards.

$5 says we'll hear about the tax burden placed on small business owners at the next debate. Edwards almost conceded that constituency by not rebutting Cheney's claim that a individuals making $200K+ need a tax break.

I see Cheney as a human now. You noticed that he disagrees with the president on gay marriage but he just thanked Edwards and cut his time allocation short. It was the right thing to do, IMO.
I thought both were smart/opportunistic in scoring sympathy/class points by taking the high road. Everyone already knows that Cheney's divided...he's not like those rabid right-wingers who want to crucify gays, he loves his daughter...! I would probably need some more signs of humanity from the VP before declaring him "human" though. The fact that his daughter is gay is beyond his control and something he simply had to learn to deal with, like every other parent.

I think Kerry should debate Cheney and Edwards should debate Bush.
I actually think Edwards is a better debater. The fact that it was a draw (or Edwards by a small margin IMHO) underscores even more just how bad of a talker Bush is. Or a thinker, for that matter. When Bush dips into his "experience on the campaign trail" arsenal (all candidates do this...they'll give some first name of a person in Botswana who they met and related to and are reflecting on), it's almost painful to watch. He brings up names and experiences but it seems more like he's trying to remember what he was coached to say rather than this true reflection / empathy for the common American.

Anyway, ultimately, I believe the Administration's overall position is inherently flawed and (objectively) comes with baggage and contradictions and double-edged swords. But hey, being the incumbent with a clear record to try and defend might make it easier for a contender to attack and ridicule, but it's part of the game.

[nonamerasian]

$5 says we'll hear about the tax burden placed on small business owners at the next debate. Edwards almost conceded that constituency by not rebutting Cheney's claim that a individuals making $200K+ need a tax break.

Most definitely.

I was disappointed with his performance at that point.

That's one point that he should not have skirted.

[deez nuts]

i've always liked cheney. cheney was a big reason why i voted for bush in 2000. gore lost my vote by picking that annoying fucker lieberman as a running mate - when you have to pick between two suck ass entrees sometimes you gotta make your decision by the side dishes.

edwards is just annoying and annoying looking as hell. though i had a good laugh when edwards explained their stance on gay marriages.

if i were going strictly by the VP debates, i would vote for bush tomorrow.

if we were to include the last presidential debate. i'd be leaning towards bush. but, still open to kerry. though, i have to admit that as a MD, the republican's plan when it comes to lowering malpractice insurance, putting a cap on some of these ridiculous malpractice suits and how my paycheck will be like two years from now is really hard to ignore and awfully tempting for me to cast my vote their way.

[kitty]

edwards is just annoying and annoying looking as hell. though i had a good laugh when edwards explained their stance on gay marriages.

yeah... for some reason... that 'endearing smile' looks shady to me.

[Yeahman]

yeah... for some reason... that 'endearing smile' looks shady to me.
May seem to some as too "politicianesque."
Cheney has that cool under pressure look.

[younggiftedandblack]

I saw this on another board. Thought you guys might get a kick out of it. Remember when Chaney said this is the 1st time that they've met?


http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/uploads/cheney-edwards.jpg

[hooligan]

I saw this on another board. Thought you guys might get a kick out of it. Remember when Chaney said this is the 1st time that they've met?


http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/uploads/cheney-edwards.jpg

Listening to NPR today, they mentioned that Cheney isn't around much at all.

[Yeahman]

On Feb. 1, 2001, the vice president thanked Edwards by name at a Senate prayer breakfast and sat beside him during the event.

On April 8, 2001, Cheney and Edwards shook hands when they met off-camera during a taping of NBC's "Meet the Press," moderator Tim Russert said Wednesday on "Today."

On Jan. 8, 2003, the two met when the first-term North Carolina senator accompanied Elizabeth Dole to her swearing-in by Cheney as a North Carolina senator, Edwards aides also said.
Cheney is on the Hill on Tuesdays, but he is virtually unseen. Cheney attends weekly Republican lunches, and is only on the floor if his constitutional tie-breaking vote is required.
But Edwards also had his share of lies including the $200 billion price tag on the war in Iraq. Cheney cited the correct $130 billion price. Edwards then accused Cheney of misleading and repeated the $200 billion price.

There's also a reason why Edwards, and now Kerry, can't come out and just say that Bush has cost us so-and-so million jobs. Because the figure is now under 1 million.

[kimpossible]

what the HELL? this moderator asks cheney "what can you do to improve the economy" or some shit, then later asks edwards, basically "are you a flip-flopper on gay marriage"? this moderator if FLAGRANTLY, IRRESPONSIBLY biased.

lol

The moderator was Gwen Ifill, senior correspondent of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and the moderator of Washington Week. Jim Lehrer was the moderator of the first Kerry-Bush debate. He's the guy with superdark pupils and iris. I call him "sharkeyes."

Gwen Ifill co-hosts another political news show with Bryant Gumbel (sp?) on PBS but I forget the title.

*shrug* I was very happy that two of the four moderators were from PBS.

[Faithless]

they are sitting because they don't want Edwards' charisma and skill as a trial lawyer to completely outshine Cheney's complete lack of charisma. It was the only way to get the republicans to agree to three presidential debates.
Right. They sat because that was the format that the Bush camp demanded. Whatever, the Kerry-Edwards camp allowed it. But I don't think Cheney gained anything from it.
.
I suspect that Edwards will hold his own, but not be stellar. It won't matter, though, because even though they're sitting, Americans will be swayed by Edwards' sheer prettiness -- so long as he doesn't do anything too stupid.

The best strategy for Edwards would be to very slyly just piss Cheney off, then let Cheney destroy himself.
Unfortunately, he didn't do that.

I like the fact that he brought up Cheney's daughter, and Cheney had no comment. Speaks volumes about Cheney and the side he represents.

But then, you have to give both groups a thumbs down with regards to the gay marriage issue. Of course, you knew what they were going to say, but it just showed how much Kerry-Edwards want to appear in the middle of the road.

Someday, we'll have a candidate with the balls enough to say, "I don't see anything wrong with gay marriage". Probably won't happen until the polls show large support for the issue.

[kimpossible]

I thought Edwards fared well enough considering Cheney is the true debating opponent, not Bush. Edwards dodged a couple of questions in order to get more campaign message out about healthcare but I think it's a hell of an accomplishment to go one on one with Cheney and not get trounced considering the difference in experience.

I wish we could have had one round each of Bush vs. Edwards and Cheney vs. Kerry.

doh! looks like ye110man beat me to it


I think Kerry should debate Cheney and Edwards should debate Bush.

[Faithless]

There were a couple of annoying Edwards moments for me --

* How he kept mentioning John Kerry's name like some raw-raw. I guess you got to be. But he didn't seem like his own man in that respect. And it was funny how he couldn't avoid saying Kerry's name even when the moderator told him to for one particular question. He came-off sort of ditsy, there.

* He did dodge a question about his absence on a lot of Senate votes. That's the sort of stuff that points out the differences between candidates in a Senate race. He seems like a Dan Quayle type, but probably a little smarter.

[deez nuts]

edwards had a chance to go for the jugular a few times i.e. halliburton.

i mean he is a trial lawyer. the opportunity was there. i wonder why he didn't even go for the kill rather than a few slaps. maybe there's a motive why he didn't go for the knock out punch? maybe he was badly prepped? maybe he's a shitty lawyer?

even i thought cheney was done at that point. but, when edwards responded i was like this is it? come on man, you just got a freebie. the path to cheney's jugular is lit up with lights and fireworks with a big ol'bullseye painted on his neck. and this is the best that you can come up with?

[kimpossible]

There were a couple of annoying Edwards moments for me --

* How he kept mentioning John Kerry's name like some raw-raw. I guess you got to be. But he didn't seem like his own man in that respect. And it was funny how he couldn't avoid saying Kerry's name even when the moderator told him to for one particular question. He came-off sort of ditsy, there.



*nodding* I think it was at that point that I was yelling at the tv "What part of don't use 'John Kerry' in your answer did you not understand?"

Still, I'm not voting for Bush. There's only so much of the entire world you can piss off and fight before reaping dire consequences. I'm voting this year in survival mode.



if we were to include the last presidential debate. i'd be leaning towards bush. but, still open to kerry. though, i have to admit that as a MD, the republican's plan when it comes to lowering malpractice insurance, putting a cap on some of these ridiculous malpractice suits and how my paycheck will be like two years from now is really hard to ignore and awfully tempting for me to cast my vote their way.

true, but one thing to consider is that in the next four years you'll still be in the age range eligible for the draft and you have some serious high-demand medical skill. i honestly don't care which way you vote, personally i feel the same as you about Cheney, but these are the same guys that want to 'stay the course' which absolutely translates into more military personnel needed down the line and there have been some whispers of a draft.

four more years of military engagement on this level or more? the chances are moderate to high that the draft could be reinstated. mr. stud has already been told that he'll be shipped off to Canada or Taiwan before I let Bush or anyone else take him. my baby is a lover, not a fighter.

eh, whatever. both candidates suck. for all i know for more years of Bush could go well. highly doubt it but anything's possible.

[deez nuts]

true, but one thing to consider is that in the next four years you'll still be in the age range eligible for the draft and you have some serious high-demand medical skill. i honestly don't care which way you vote, personally i feel the same as you about Cheney, but these are the same guys that want to 'stay the course' which absolutely translates into more military personnel needed down the line and there have been some whispers of a draft.

four more years of military engagement on this level or more? the chances are moderate to high that the draft could be reinstated. mr. stud has already been told that he'll be shipped off to Canada or Taiwan before I let Bush or anyone else take him. my baby is a lover, not a fighter.

eh, whatever. both candidates suck. for all i know for more years of Bush could go well. highly doubt it but anything's possible.


really? i thought i was too old.

i told my parents that if there was a draft i would serve.

i am actually thinking about doing some work with the military after i'm done with residency and fellowship in two years. there was a time during the whole match process that i thought about doing my residency in a military hospital. but, my professors and other staff doctors talked me out of it. they said if i was still interested i should do it after i complete my residency.

[kimpossible]

really? i thought i was too old.

i told my parents that if there was a draft i would serve.

i am actually thinking about doing some work with the military after i'm done with residency and fellowship in two years. there was a time during the whole match process that i thought about doing my residency in a military hospital. but, my professors and other staff doctors talked me out of it. they said if i was still interested i should do it after i complete my residency.

oh, then you're golden either way.

[deez nuts]

oh, then you're golden either way.


yeah i was in contact with an OCS liason and everything. i was really close to having a set date to show up for OCS in rhode island.

he was kinda pissed when i withdrew my application.

[kimpossible]

^ If you don't mind me asking then, why [in your position] would you even be considering Kerry? From what I can tell the main difference in opinion you and I have is on the approach to Iraq and the war on terror, etc. That's what mainly prevents me from voting Bush.

I'm not being confrontational by the way, just curious at this point.

[deez nuts]

^ If you don't mind me asking then, why [in your position] would you even be considering Kerry? From what I can tell the main difference in opinion you and I have is on the approach to Iraq and the war on terror, etc. That's what mainly prevents me from voting Bush.

I'm not being confrontational by the way, just curious at this point.


because bush isn't doing a peachy job overall.

but, voting republican would benefit me more individually in the long run.

factor that in with the fact that i don't believe kerry would do a better job than bush. but, who knows?

[kimpossible]

factor that in with the fact that i don't believe kerry would do a better job than bush. but, who knows?

very true. i feel like i'm gambling this election. bring back Bill!

[Shuriken]

I'd like to say that Edwards won the debate outright last night, but I'll honestly say that I think it was a draw. I disagree passionately with many of the things that Cheney said, but I think that he presented his ideas well. Cheney wasn't as good as Edwards in making a closing statement, but I don't think that hurt him too much. They say that vice-presidential debates don't really matter, but with the polls showing a race so close...who knows?

What are they griping about Edwards' years in public life for? He's been in politics for as long as Bush had been when he was running for president! And before he got into office, unlike Bush, Edwards was a businessman of the successful variety. The only measure of Bush's experience at the time that Edwards has not met is that Bush won re-election (as governor of Texas), while Edwards is a first-termer. And after all, back in 1988, the Republicans nominated — and successfully elected — Dan Quayle for Veep, which set the bar pretty low.

I would like to have seen Edwards make more out of the question of Bush's divisiveness, making some concrete references to the things that he's done to polarize the country. I would like to have seen Edwards say something about Bush like: "You are not reaching across the aisle when you say that the Democrats in the Senate don't care about the security of the American people." To Cheney, the divisiveness was all the Democrats' fault because they were being unreasonable.

As I predicted, Cheney came off as the curmudgeonly but protective father figure, while Edwards seemed like the more telegenic but over-eager fresh face. It was like watching an old, grumpy Walter Matthau debating a young, hyperactive Jimmy Stewart. I hope that audiences will remember, most of all, Edwards' good looks and holding his own against a sitting vice president and elder statesman, and that they will think of Edwards as having "won" the debate. But that speaks very poorly of what is now going on.

Bush and Cheney have an appalling record: a morass of a war started on false premises, a net loss of jobs, more people slipping into poverty, and squandering a budget surplus. For their handling of Iraq alone, Bush and Cheney should be held accountable, and their standing as their party's presidential and vice-presidential nominees ought not to have been a foregone conclusion. Instead, many of their supporters are making excuses for them, some by implying — if not explictly making — a direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq, which we know wasn't there. And Bush and Cheney are not running on their own record of the past four years, but they are constantly evoking 9/11 and trashing Kerry's record in both Vietnam and the Senate. The idea is to make Kerry unacceptable as a commander-in-chief. Yet, many people are gobbling it up.

Many in America have apparently slipped into a siege mentality (because of 9/11) that overlooks Bush's and Cheney's spotty résumés, as it simultaneosly threatens to give away many of our hard-won liberties to John Ashcroft's Justice Department (motto: "If we don't erode the Constitution, the terrorists will have won"). I think our politics have gotten to their worst state in my lifetime.

[younggiftedandblack]

Cheney vs. The Truth (http://www.democrats.org/)

[nonamerasian]

Cheney made a big oh-oh during the debate, lol.

United States Vice-President Dick Cheney probably did not intend to direct millions of television viewers to a website calling for President Bush's defeat but that's what a slip of the domain achieved.

Anyone who heeded Cheney's advice and clicked on "factcheck.com" was greeted on Wednesday morning with a message from anti-Bush billionaire investor George Soros entitled "Why we must not re-elect President Bush."

"President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests, and undermining American values," Soros' message said.

Defending his record as Halliburton's chief executive, Cheney said in the Tuesday night debate that Democratic vice-presidential challenger John Edwards was trying to use Halliburton as a smokescreen. Any voter who wanted the facts, Cheney said, should check out factcheck.com, which led to the Soros site.

The website Cheney had in mind, factcheck.org, was not amused when the vice president proved that he was not master of the factcheckers' domain.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=29&art_id=iol109712933239C500

______
Kerry's talking with Ed Gordon on BET @ 8pm.

[Kuchana]

because bush isn't doing a peachy job overall.

but, voting republican would benefit me more individually in the long run.

factor that in with the fact that i don't believe kerry would do a better job than bush. but, who knows?

I'm on the same boat.

[Arex]

Cheney made a big oh-oh during the debate, lol.
Hilarious.

Now I'm pretty biased, but it seems to me Cheney shouldn't have even mentioned factcheck.org. I didn't look through all the articles, but it seems like the Bush-Cheney camp has a lot more factual distortions than the Kerry-Edwards camp does.

RX

[Shuriken]

I'm on the same boat.

A Swift boat?