Vice Presidential Debate

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy. I served with Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. And you, Senator, are no Jack Kennedy.
--Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle, VP debate, 1988

BTW...it's on at 9 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday) Eastern time, and will be on all the major networks, plus CNN and FOX.
 
I'm going to watch. I think it will be a good debate. Both Edwards and Cheney are excellent debaters. I thought Cheney was excellent against Lieberman. In fact, that was one hell of a great debate, maybe the best I've ever seen. I loved the "courtliness" of that debate.
 
verte76 said:
I'm going to watch. I think it will be a good debate. Both Edwards and Cheney are excellent debaters. I thought Cheney was excellent against Lieberman. In fact, that was one hell of a great debate, maybe the best I've ever seen. I loved the "courtliness" of that debate.


I missed that one back in 2000--being from Cleveland I'm going to watch--might have a bit of a local flavor to it--and this election is important to me. But I don't think you can deny that the interest for this is lower than the Presidential debates. Raising the question--do the running mates really matter? Do you think anyone really votes for a candidate because they honestly think that Cheney could lead the country better than Edwards or vice versa? I'm gonna try to reserve judgment but I'm guessing I might as well be watching Bush and Kerry campaign spokespersons going at it on crossfire or hannity and colmes.
 
paxetaurora said:
Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy. I served with Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. And you, Senator, are no Jack Kennedy.
--Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle, VP debate, 1988

One of the great debate lines of all time.

I am definitely going to watch. Given the importance of this election, I don't think the VP candidates are anything to snub. I wonder, though, how much (or little) impact the VP candidates have on the undecided votes. Probably not a lot but I think it will be a good debate. I saw Edwards on CSPAN at a rally and he just rocks.
 
nbcrusader said:
Based on a certain other thread, I guess there may be some watching - but not for political reasons :sexywink:

why NBC, you wouldn't be referring to ME would you? :wink:

but i'm not all superficial. the fact that he's good looking is just a bonus to me. i'll be watching the debate for substance too. to be honest i'm very nervous. dick cheney is a brilliant, experienced man, corrupt though he may be.
 
DaveC said:
I think that as good as Cheney may be, Edwards is going to mop the floor with him.

I doubt that. Edwards did pretty poorly in the Democrat debates for President (I watched them all) and he doesn't have anywhere near the experience that Cheney has. Cheney has seen it all and like it or not he knows how the game is played. If anything I think that Republicans can be pretty confident about this debate. This is basically the rookie vs. the proven veteran.
 
U2democrat said:
everybody did poorly in the primary debates, there were 9 of them, its hard for any to stand out.

I don't think that is true. Somebody must have thought that Kerry did well with 80% of the Democrat vote going to him in some primary states. I'm just saying that if Edwards is as good a debater that everyone says he is or hears that he is I don't see where they are getting that proof from because he certainly did poorly in the primary debates.
 
I think the point was however that it's difficult to be able to get your point across successfully with 8 other people in a debate than just one other. That was probably why Edwards appeared weak in the primary debates.
 
DaveC said:
I think the point was however that it's difficult to be able to get your point across successfully with 8 other people in a debate than just one other. That was probably why Edwards appeared weak in the primary debates.


He appeared weak. I agree with you. Now what proof can you guys point to that has him performing strongly in a debate? That was the point.
 
drivemytrabant said:



Now what proof can you guys point to that has him performing strongly in a debate? That was the point.

I don't know if you'd call it 'proof' but he is famously reputed to have been a brilliant courtroom debater. Actually you could say the proof is in the number of cases he won throughout his career. That skill would easily be transferable to a political debate.
 
joyfulgirl said:


I don't know if you'd call it 'proof' but he is famously reputed to have been a brilliant courtroom debater. Actually you could say the proof is in the number of cases he won throughout his career. That skill would easily be transferable to a political debate.

Honestly how well do you think debating a trial lawyer is gonna compare to Dick Cheney who, if nothing else, we can all agree he is a brilliant politician?
 
deep said:



How did you arrive at this?

Well Mr. Cheney has worked with four Presidents, As Vice President under Bush and Chief of Staff under Ford. He was elected five times in the state of Wyoming, He was also elected the Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee from 1981 to 1987. He was elected Chairman of the House Republican Conference in 1987 and elected House Minority Whip in 1988. Proof enough that he is at least a brilliant politician I think.
 
drivemytrabant said:


Well Mr. Cheney has worked with four Presidents, As Vice President under Bush and Chief of Staff under Ford. He was elected five times in the state of Wyoming, He was also elected the Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee from 1981 to 1987. He was elected Chairman of the House Republican Conference in 1987 and elected House Minority Whip in 1988. Proof enough that he is at least a brilliant politician I think.

It is actually. If he can keep getting job after job like that after f*cking up each one, then yes, I'd say he is a very good politician and very convincing.
 
Earnie Shavers said:


It is actually. If he can keep getting job after job like that after f*cking up each one, then yes, I'd say he is a very good politician and very convincing.

I respond with facts and you respond with none. The good people of Wyoming disagree with your baseless statement.
 
drivemytrabant said:


Well Mr. Cheney has worked with four Presidents, As Vice President under Bush and Chief of Staff under Ford. He was elected five times in the state of Wyoming, He was also elected the Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee from 1981 to 1987. He was elected Chairman of the House Republican Conference in 1987 and elected House Minority Whip in 1988. Proof enough that he is at least a brilliant politician I think.


Does this not only prove that he is a partisan insider?
 
It proves that as far as politics is concerned--he has been able to keep a job for a very long time. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean he isn't a good politician. Kerry is also a good politician. I don't agree with a word that comes out of his mouth but I'll give him that.
 
drivemytrabant said:
[B Kerry is also a good politician. I don't agree with a word that comes out of his mouth but I'll give him that. [/B]


ah c'mon.

He closed his debate remarks with

"God bless America".
 
I think one big problem with Cheney is that he has no charisma. Fact it, the guy is boring. I would say he's as exciting as watching paint dry but that would be an insult to paint.

But seriously!....when you have a guy like Dick against someone who is younger and more outgoing like Edwards, things are going to go in Edwards favor. Plus, Dick has never needed to debate anyone on a regular basis like this in the past ten, fifteen years. Edwards has served as a senator and before that, a lawyer. He has the advantage.
 
Advantage in the court room--yes. Advatange in a debate for the Vice Presidency no. The guy has very little political experience. One term senator vs. the current vice president and a five termer and former chief of staff. There is no way Edwards has the upperhand. But I also won't dimish the looks over substance argument. There is no doubt that Edwards looks better than Cheney and has more charisma. But as far as the upperhand in a debate with someone who has been in politics longer than I have been alive--the answer is no.
 
Back
Top Bottom