Veepers Creepers: The Vice Presidential Debate!

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Come anticipate:

Less than 26 hours to the big throwdown. The Fury by Lake Erie.

Sitting VP Dick Cheney (strengths: strength, resolve, trout fishing) held his breath until he got the debate format he wanted -- sitting -- hoping to blunt the folksy courtroom charms of challenger John Edwards (strengths: smile, hair, being right about most of the major issues). Will it work? Or will the baldie from bald eagle country be hoisterated on his own petulant petard? And who will Gwen Ifill go home with?

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:50 (twenty-one years ago)

SPOILER: At the end, just before Edwards' closing statement, Cheney will render the pretender speechless by taking off his mask and revealing that he is actually Edwards' father.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:51 (twenty-one years ago)

If I were Edwards I'd ask Cheney about what his dear friend Donald R. said today.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:52 (twenty-one years ago)

its like satan versus a baby. should be lively.

― still bevens (bscrubbins), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney should bite Edwards' ear while Gwen's explaining the ground rules. (I bet the ground rules don't say "No biting.")

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 4 October 2004 22:55 (twenty-one years ago)

I hope Dicky gets into a big kick about all of our allies in Iraq. Here's what they really think about how things are going.

The Italians:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1514&e=13&u=/afp/20041004/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_italy_troops

The Polish:
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/278/world/Poland_should_withdraw_troops_:.shtml

― Earl Nash (earlnash), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 00:01 (twenty-one years ago)

This should be a more interesting match than Bush vs. Kerry. Cheney has that sort of evil anti-charisma, you can almost see the diabolical plans being hatched behind his beady little eyes. No doubt he's a bit faster on the draw than Georgie-Boy too. In the other corner, we have the golden boy trial lawyer who was pretty canny in the primary debates though he always seemed extra careful not to shed his nice-guy image. It will be interesting to see if the gloves come off now.

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 02:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Do VP debates actually sway anyone? "Well, I still don't like the main guy, but on the 1 in 25 chance that he gets shot, this guy looks gooood."

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 02:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know - but they have produced their share of memorable moments. One of the most famous lines of recent debate history was uttered in a VP debate: ie., Lloyd Bentsen's takedown of Dan Quayle, with that "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 02:45 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, but quayle still won. so milo's right, noone really cares. poor vp candidates.

― Symplistic (shmuel), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 03:07 (twenty-one years ago)

It's weird that that's where that Jack Kennedy line comes from. It feels like it's been around (and by that I mean, "it's been comedy fodder") forever.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 03:12 (twenty-one years ago)

It's a little different this time, in that the vice president is actually kind of running the country. If you want to argue about the ideological underpinnings of the Iraq invasion, Cheney's the guy. Which means he'll probably be able to make a more articulate case for it than Bush. Plus, he's the coolest-headed liar I've ever seen. He says things that are absolutely preposterous with such steamroller certainty and dismissiveness that he makes rational disagreement or debate irrelevant.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 05:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Good Prez + Good Veep = Not Pwn3d (Clinton/Gore)
Bad Prez + Good Veep = hasn't happened?
Bad Prez + Bad Veep = Pwn3d (Ford/Dole)
Good Prez + Bad Veep = Not Pwn3d (Reagen/Bush), (Bush/Quayle)
Bad Prez + Bad Veep =Pwn3d (Ford/Dole), (Gore/Lieberman)

There's already been a bad Prez (Bush) debate. A bad Veep would only seal the deal for Kerry/Edwards.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 05:15 (twenty-one years ago)

The Quayle/Bentsen debate and the debate with Stockdale dazed and confused were both fantastic entertainment, and I'm hoping the Edwards/Cheney one is also a good ride. Edwards is one of the most likable politicians this side of Obama, and Cheney is someone that a lot of the Bush-supporters I know dislike.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 05:49 (twenty-one years ago)

i like the story about al gore trying to bring a potato to the gore-quayle debate.

― Symplistic (shmuel), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 05:53 (twenty-one years ago)

GM, I think Cheney might be able to pull that stuff off in front of people that already support him, but with a mixed national crowd it's just not going to fly.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 06:18 (twenty-one years ago)

"In the past, Mr Rumsfeld has spoken of credible information about a link and Vice President Dick Cheney regularly goes further and talks of Saddam Hussein having provided safe harbour and sanctuary for al-Qaeda. "

Cheney's in a lose-lose situation there, if Edwards plays it right.

― Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 06:22 (twenty-one years ago)

If Cheney plays it cool calm & collected like he did four years ago w/Lieberman, Edwards could be in trouble. More likely, I think, Cheney will come across as somewhat unhinged like he has on the campaign trail this year. He'll try to scare the shit out of everybody w/terrorism threats, and wind up sounding like a lunatic. Here's hoping that Gwen and Edwards push him on those Rummy quotes.
The Bush regime is unravelling. But they still could win.

― lovebug starski (lovebug starski), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 09:19 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm really looking forward to watching this. i think that edwards is the only one out of the bunch that is anything resembling an inspiring speaker, and hope that he comes across even better when compared to the walking creepy zombie cheney.

this is all a very technical analysis, of course.

― colette (a2lette), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 10:34 (twenty-one years ago)

So I taped the first presidential debate on NBC and it seemed OK. Did I miss out on anything (camera shots-wise) on other channels? I won't be home tonight again, so should I try out another station (again, the choices are NBC, ABC, CBS and FOX).

― alex in montreal, Tuesday, 5 October 2004 12:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I predict that Edwards will completely destroy Cheney. He's a trial lawyer, for god's sake. This is exactly what he is trained to do. I'm excited because I didn't really believe big Dick was actually alive - well, until he uttered his famous invective. I am hoping, praying that he becomes unhinged again.
Edwards has not had a chance to take the national stage until now. I think he's going to seize this opportunity.
It's 9:30 in the morning and i am literally shivering with anticipation. oh, also i left the window open, so I'm shivering from cold air blowing in.

― aimurchie, Tuesday, 5 October 2004 12:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I would just like to give kudos to gypsy mothra for the thread title and the first post. Well done. You have style.

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 13:04 (twenty-one years ago)

i think cheney becoming unhinged is highly inlikely. and i would also be surprised if edwards delivers a sound defeat. edwards needs to present himself in such a way that seperates him from the "nice boy" image. but he has to do it in a way that doesn't seem forced. cheney has less to prove concerning image-the public seems comfortable with his crumudgeon personality, like it or no. the most important thing edwards needs to accomplish is pressing cheney on iraq, especially in light of rummy's comments today. i am guessing it will be a draw, but i hold out hope for an edwards win.

― Emilymv (Emilymv), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 15:00 (twenty-one years ago)

i think cheney will put down edwards fairly easily. cheney's a resourceful motherfucker.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 15:09 (twenty-one years ago)

for every FCC violation uttered(by either guy, or moderator), finish your drink.

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 15:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney's gonna have a lot more trouble this go around than he did four years ago (he's on the record as saying some atrociously stupid things.) But he's very clever. Edwards better work hard. On paper it looks like a ridiculous landslide: Edwards wins on charisma, Cheney loses on record, but I just can't believe it's going to be that simple. Should be fun though.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 15:11 (twenty-one years ago)

A draw or Cheney edges it. Cheney is no Bush; Edwards doesn't have Kerry's political experience.

― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 15:12 (twenty-one years ago)

bremer provided some good debate fodder today as well. saying something along the lines of 'we didnt have enough troops in iraq' but then equivocating that he only meant during the early days when looting was rampant. which i find to be pretty funny. 'uh yeah dudes, we needed those troops during the most important part; ie: the beginning, but its all good now!'

i feel like the media trumpeting kerry's 'victory' last week will result in people largely ignoring the debates tonight, unfortunately.

― still bevens (bscrubbins), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 15:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Edwards should call out Cheney on voting for ar 50cent gasoloine tax and for voting against every major weapon in use today. Then, when Cheney says, "That's a distortion of the facts", Edwards can rebut with, "Then why did you make those exact same allegations toward John Kerry?"

.. But I think Cheney is going to do well.. He really does know what he's talking about - whether you agree with his politics or not, he's very knowledgable.

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 15:34 (twenty-one years ago)

To be honest, I think if I thought Edwards was quick enough and mean enough Cheney would be toast. I mean there are reasons why this Cheney doesn't do press conferences or even appear in public. It's all a matter of whether or not Edwards has the balls and the know-how to catch up with him--cuz Cheney has to lie and he has to spin, he doesn't have any way out that. His record is against him. Edwards just has to have the right information ready to call Cheney out as the fear-mongering, lying, corporate toadying five+ deferment pussy ass bitch that he is. But if he tries to play nice-y nice-y like Lieberman did, he's gonna lose.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 15:44 (twenty-one years ago)

alex otm. despite the coaching surely telling him otherwise, edwards will play nice. it's always his first instinct, probably from his trial experience, where charm conquers all. let's hope he can cut that shit tonight, but i have my doubts. he's gonna be nervous as hell (rightly so), and when yr that out of sorts, most people resort to their instincts.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 15:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Being nervous doesn't sound characteristic of Edwards at all. High profile trial lawyer = showman.

I just wish I knew why he's been so sorely underutilized this entire campaign.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 15:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, that is the six million dollar question isn't it?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 15:59 (twenty-one years ago)

It would suck to find out he's actually a tank-grown clone or something.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 16:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Edwards should say Halliburton once, but only once -- enough to remind people about it, get Cheney on the defensive, but repeating it will sound one-note and conspiracy-ish (especially after Cheney retorts with something about how Halliburton is working hard to rebuild Iraq and has had its own casualties there, etc.). Likewise the whole secret energy policy meetings -- remind people of it, but don't harp on it because the issue's a little obscure for most people to get a grasp on.

What I think he could repeat over and over -- using those and other examples, including the Medicare bill -- is that this is a secretive, closed-door administration that consistently does big favors for corporate buddies at taxpayer expense. Which is a good theme for Edwards, plays to his David-and-Goliath me-vs.-corporate-America shtick. That's what I'd be coaching him: develop the theme in the opening statement, build on it point by point, hammer it home at the end, keep it simple: You can't trust these guys.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 16:07 (twenty-one years ago)

He should talk a lot about Halle Berry marrying Richard Burton.

― Dan Perry '08 (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 16:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney is a master of the sly distortion and the bald lie, delivered in the voice of authority and calm rationality. That makes him a tough opponent. Edwards needs to play to his own strengths and not try to zing Cheney - unless Cheney hangs a curveball over the middle of the plate.

― Aimless (Aimless), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 16:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Apparently, Dan Quayle has been in my town recently, staying at the hotel I used to work at. Don't know if he's still there - I'll need to find out before I go try to meet him. Is he here for the Dunhill? I don't know. There are lots of funny famous people running around though, but Dan Quayle sounds the best.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:00 (twenty-one years ago)

edwards should have a clever comeback ready if cheney tries to quote the lloyd bentsen JFK line (about Edwards OR Kerry).

― Symplistic (shmuel), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:01 (twenty-one years ago)

"Mr. Vice President, I knew Darth Vader. I worked with Dark Vader. etc..."

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:06 (twenty-one years ago)

"...and you know, you really do out-Vader Darth Vader. Seriously, I'm shitting bricks just standing here."

― Dan Perry '08 (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:13 (twenty-one years ago)

well done

― Symplistic (shmuel), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:18 (twenty-one years ago)

i am not sure if edwards has been underutilized or if he just hasn't gotten much national press attention. he has apparently been in smaller towns giving smaller speeches which were reportedly covered more by local media than anything else.

― Emilymv (Emilymv), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:24 (twenty-one years ago)

small towns + small speeches = underutilized

― mark p (Mark P), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:26 (twenty-one years ago)

not necessarily. people in small towns (especially those in swing states) could be more easily swayed by personal attention than those in larger cities. i think it is a fairly shrewd tactic.

― Emilymv (Emilymv), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, the strategy so far has been to use Kerry to solidify the base in large urban areas, and to get Edwards to persuade swing voters in smaller, rural areas. Which makes sense given Edwards' charismatic persuasiveness and Southern folksiness.
(xpost)

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:29 (twenty-one years ago)

small towns are where the convincing needs to be done. There are a lot of Republican votes in the small towns - people that are unemployed but think that keeping gays from getting married or ousting a dictator halfway across the world is more important that an education or putting food on the table.

xpost

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Classic

Yancey otm

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 19:49 (twenty-one years ago)

My office is buying pizza tonight because of the debate. At least I get some food out of this.

(In keeping with the theme, I'm suggesting a healthy spinach and mushroom Edwards pizza, and a cheese-laden side-of-beef Cheney pizza drizzled with blood.)

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 20:12 (twenty-one years ago)

An Edwards pizza should have honey and grits on it.

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 20:15 (twenty-one years ago)

A honey-and-grits pizza sounds kind of good.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 20:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I miss grits.

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 20:22 (twenty-one years ago)

"honey-and-grits" just makes me think of that stuff the midget spits up if twin peaks, the ambrosia-magic kind of stuff. Maybe Cheney is BOB, and he should have that on his pizza.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 20:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I've found some places with grits in New York, but they tend toward gummy. A good bowl of grits is mmm good.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 20:42 (twenty-one years ago)

You should TOTALLY be able to find grits in Chicago!!!

― Dan Perry '08 (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 20:43 (twenty-one years ago)

What I really miss is CHEESE GRITS.

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 20:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I should make some. Even those instant grits are pretty good.

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 20:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I read about a brunch place that served good grits. I can't remember the name of it though.

― Jeff-PTTL (Jeff), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 21:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I had grits for the first time in my life recently at WISHBONE, on Lincoln just north of Belmont.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 23:52 (twenty-one years ago)

is anyone watchign this or what.

― :|, Tuesday, 5 October 2004 23:56 (twenty-one years ago)

IT IS ON

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 23:58 (twenty-one years ago)

On CNN, some commentator just said Cheney has a "soothing" and "calming" presence.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 23:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Whoa. Edwards just looked straight into the camera more than Kerry did in the whole first debate.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Hahaha Cheney's smirk vs. Edwards' smile.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:00 (twenty-one years ago)

The rules are crazy!

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Nice: Ifill totally mentioned the Rummy quote.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Well he just lied half-a-dozen times.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:03 (twenty-one years ago)

edwards rocks my world. i'm a convert

― colette (a2lette), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:04 (twenty-one years ago)

"INCOMPETENCE"!
Edwards done went and said it.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:05 (twenty-one years ago)

"The notion of additional troops is talked about frequently" -- that's a response?

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Since 90 seconds ago?! (xp)

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:05 (twenty-one years ago)

i actually kinda want to make out with edwards, he's so good

― colette (a2lette), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:06 (twenty-one years ago)

seriously? he's pretty uninspired so far....

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Edwards w/the ZING ZANG ZONG!

― snazz, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:06 (twenty-one years ago)

So shrewd of Edwards to wait until Cheney couldn't respond to nail him on the lack of a Saddam-Osama link...

― the krza (krza), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:07 (twenty-one years ago)

"I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11" -- the Chenes.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:08 (twenty-one years ago)

'i have not made the connection between iraq and 9/11'

WTF?

xpost

― colette (a2lette), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:08 (twenty-one years ago)

"I have not suggested there's a connection..." --- :O

xxpost

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney needs more orange stuff on his face.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:12 (twenty-one years ago)

oh man john edwards just spoke about himself in the 3rd person.
ehhhh

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:12 (twenty-one years ago)

they did a good job on edwards' makeup, actually. he looks healthy. unlike kerry did.

― colette (a2lette), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:12 (twenty-one years ago)

am i the only one who thinks cheney is looking much better so far?

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Did Cheney just say "a whale of a lot better"??

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:14 (twenty-one years ago)

he's got better body language, seems more natural

comparatively, edwards seems nervous and pre-rehearsed

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:14 (twenty-one years ago)

xxpost - nope.

I agree with you 100%

― roger adultery, singer for The Who, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I just spent 15 minutes fighting my wife, who wanted to watch fucking One Tree Hill, for rights to the TV. I guess the radio's better anyway, so I can post here at the same time.

Well I was wrong. Edwards is clearly very, very nervous. His voice is shaking and he's blinking too much, but he's still doing a good job.

Cheney's doing his plainspoken thing well, too. He's not going to fuck up.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:15 (twenty-one years ago)

am i the only one who thinks cheney is looking much better so far?

The difference is that Edwards is much more of a performer, and thus seems more self-conscious (all those hand gestures) -- whereas Cheney, just by sitting there and shooting the shit, comes across as more comfortable.

(xxpost)

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:16 (twenty-one years ago)

It's like watching a young, attractive Clinton with less gravitas. Edwards is a fool for being the VP on this ticket, another eight years of Senator seasoning and the man could beat anybody.

CHENEY IS BRINGING UP EL SALVADOR AS A TRIUMPH FOR HUMAN RIGHTS? I have never hated him more than right now.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:16 (twenty-one years ago)

both these dudes are way more articulate than those other guys

― Symplistic (shmuel), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:16 (twenty-one years ago)

STOP DOING THOSE FUCKING CANNED POLITICIAN HAND GESTURES PLS

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:16 (twenty-one years ago)

i think edwards is coming off as much more of a 'straight talker', which people respond to.

― colette (a2lette), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:17 (twenty-one years ago)

My God. Repubikaner VP uses El Salvador as argument in favour. Satire dead. Reports later. Thousands of El Salvadorians scream in protest as dead bodies turn in vain.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:17 (twenty-one years ago)

"You probably weren't there to vote for that."!!

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney's ability to lie and distort with a straight face is absolutely terrifying.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Really Colette!? I agree with the guys that think he's performing too much. Cheney might not be telling the truth, but he sure is good at seeming like he is.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:19 (twenty-one years ago)

more and more this debate feels like meet the parents

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I think we all know the real debate here is which is better: Wyoming or North Carolina?

I'm personally pulling for North Carolina, because the only thing worse than driving through Wyoming is driving through Nebraska (oh look, Dick Cheney was born in Nebraska!). Besides, how many people must've voted for Cheney to get him into office as a Wyoming Rep? like 12?

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney is so fucking condescending, I want to strangle him.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:19 (twenty-one years ago)

i can't BELIEVE edwards didn't jump on the 90% thing

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Edwards is blinky, yeah. Cheney sounds rock-solid sure of himself as always. It's just that what he's saying is so ludicrous I have trouble separating content from presentation.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Damn. The media won't have to put much spin on this if they want to call it for Cheney.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:20 (twenty-one years ago)

ooooh the hand wringing is sinister

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:21 (twenty-one years ago)

It's 50% how you look, 40% how you sound, and 10% what you're saying.

Guess what - Cheney's winning.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:21 (twenty-one years ago)

'Judgement' = 'girly man'

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Really Colette!?

yep. i mean, i was excited to see if edwards could actually add some charisma to this election, and i think he has.

cheney is making some 'good' points, but he just seems kind of bored, or something. it's like he'd rather be somewhere else.

― colette (a2lette), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:22 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah. not looking good for edwards so far.

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:22 (twenty-one years ago)

As an auslander, the fact that Edwards is fighting on Cheney's territory is fucking terrifying

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:22 (twenty-one years ago)

ungh this is depressing, i kind of want to strangle edwards right now, he's not even responding to the talking points

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Ugh, I wish Edwards hadn't said "a long resume does not equal good judgment" -- I fear that will be used against Kerry.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:23 (twenty-one years ago)

"If they can't stand up to the pressure of Howard Dean, how can we expect them to stand up to al-Qaida?"

ahahahahaha... The sound you hear is a zillion right-wing bloggers orgasming.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:23 (twenty-one years ago)

that dean line was v. v. good

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Look, Kerry likes big guns too!

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:23 (twenty-one years ago)

HALLIBURTON

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:23 (twenty-one years ago)

"Halliburton"! He said it!

― snazz, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Edwards is holding his own, but the columns are already written.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Halliburton. At last. Only several years later than it really needed. Cheney ignores completely. Edwards misses the failure to engage on Halliburtion. Idiot.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Really sad thing - Cheney's pretty much spot-on when it comes to Kerry/Edwards cowardice in supporting/opposing the war.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:25 (twenty-one years ago)

She better start throwing hardballs like this at Cheney, too. Damn.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Too much details nitpicking by Edwards is not going to sway anyone. And frankly Cheney does it better. Arg!

GET TO THE BIG POINTS AND TRY TO PUT IN SOME ELOQUENCE, DAMNIT!

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:26 (twenty-one years ago)

On halliburton, whatever, edwards just needs to STEP IT UP. They're both cool, calm, and calculated, but Cheney's just on another level right now.

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:26 (twenty-one years ago)

agreed

edwards is blowing this

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Halliburton sinks without a splash as if it had never been said.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Mussina seems like he's getting his pitches in, but Santana continues to benefit from the superior Minnesota defense policy. It's looking like Santana has an edge so far.

― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:26 (twenty-one years ago)

sorry, wrong board.

― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:26 (twenty-one years ago)

That final 30 secs on Halliburton was the Lloyd Bentsen moment, and Edwards missed it. He could have mired Cheney in personal aggrandisement and corruption, and questioned his patriotism; he missed it.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:27 (twenty-one years ago)

he needs to give a shout out to his boy p. leahy

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:27 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm channel juggling, it's confusing me.

― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, God, PLEASE stop recycling Kerry's lines if you don't know how to deliver them!

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:27 (twenty-one years ago)

girolamo otm

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:28 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm not learning anything here i didn't learn in the first debate re:body armor

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:28 (twenty-one years ago)

God, Cheney's lies are horrifying.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I apologise for the impending citation of my country's government by Cheney in support of his coalition.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:29 (twenty-one years ago)

girolamo, OTM. i thought edwards was a trial lawyer? arent they um, vicious?

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:29 (twenty-one years ago)

NICE

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:29 (twenty-one years ago)

ummm

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:29 (twenty-one years ago)

it was for a second anyway

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:30 (twenty-one years ago)

i liked edwards getting up in cheney's face a bit

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:30 (twenty-one years ago)

edwards reactions = totaly gore 2000.

― :|, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Iraqui allies = lets count the ragheads we kill as 'freedom fighters' as we asked the Iraqi Government to stop counting as it was embarrassing.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:30 (twenty-one years ago)

GAH hopeless kill me now edwards is done

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:31 (twenty-one years ago)

edwards is so out of his depth here. when cheney mentioned el salvador -- something edwards should have reamed him on, citing that as an american success wtf? -- you could see in edwards' face that he had no fucking clue how to respond.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney: *stuff*
Edwards: See, the Vice President is *blah*
Cheney: *go fuck yourself stuff*
Edwards: The Vice President sucks because *blah*
Cheney: *stuff you don't know*
Edwards: The Vice President did *this*!
Cheney: *lying*
Edwards: The Vice President isn't going to *blah*

Jesus fucking christ, please think of a new way to start your sentences, John!

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:33 (twenty-one years ago)

man I really should not have looked at this thread (on vacation, in comp lab to check e-mail). gonna ruin my night. I thought Edwards was gonna go Clinton not Gore. FUCK.

― manthony m1cc1o (Anthony Miccio), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:33 (twenty-one years ago)

(Twins 1, Yankees 0 btw)

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:33 (twenty-one years ago)

haha thanks kerry

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:34 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, Cheney may be winning by a little bit, a recovery after a bad start, though I don't know how the target market sees things. even if it's a tie, it probably goes to Cheney because he's improving on Bush's loss.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Aw, SHE brought up the H-word!

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:34 (twenty-one years ago)

hopefully kerry broke the seal there

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:35 (twenty-one years ago)

umm edwards not kerry

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Nah, Edwards couldn't say anything about El Salvador. Too many details the overwhelming majority of Americans have never heard of, and it would get spun as supporting the commies, etc..

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:35 (twenty-one years ago)

cheney is sort of looking down, and then glancing up, as if he's checking that the moderator [and by proxy, the american public] is buying his bullshit.

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:36 (twenty-one years ago)

The question is, though: how will the swing voters initially swayed by Bush/Cheney's lies and blurs react to Edwards' counterblurs? I do like the way he keeps pointing out the disconnect between the current admin. and the news. If there's one thing us Americans know about, it's what they see on TV, and what they see on TV is clearly different than what Cheney is yakking about. As for El Salvador - eh. No swing voter cares about or even remembers that stuff.

― Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:36 (twenty-one years ago)

(Yay Twins)

Cheney just has the tone of voice thing totally down. All conversational and stuff.

Edwards is not fucking up as badly as Bush did.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:36 (twenty-one years ago)

here we go...!

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:37 (twenty-one years ago)

So...the question is will this debate make a difference? This isn't like 2000, where it was basically a test of whether or not Cheney was as evil as people claimed. I don't think people doubt that he is evil now, so I guess it's Edwards's to lose. He's just coming off way way WAY too whiny. Look, just punch back with smoothness, dude.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh yeah, Halliburton's back. Keep at it man, don't let it slide.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:37 (twenty-one years ago)

OTM. It seems that Edwards is paying the price for the evacuation of the left; by pandering to the right, they can't say El Salvador WTF.

Al-Zaquari - he was there under saddam, so we need to hit Saddam, but he's now in Iraq, but lets get behind the Iraq government.

Also - Edwards constantly calls him the VP. Isn't that giving him credibility?

Broke sanctions over 12 years = presume that'll be why the WMDs he was hiding (thus breaking the UN resolutions) weren't there.

Libya - you fought against him doing that! Hit him Edwards (he won't)

xpost 'Brits'. I want to vomit.

Halliburton again. Get him!

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:38 (twenty-one years ago)

hahahah

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Um, I've decided to be a voice of dissent here and say that... Edwards is doin' kinda crappy right now.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:38 (twenty-one years ago)

OK, Round 1 is going to Cheney, but only on points. I mean, I don't think Edwards is getting embarrassed or anything, he obviously knows his names and dates and stuff. But he's better on the domestic front. If Gwen ever gets to domestic questions...

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:38 (twenty-one years ago)

okay here we go. cmon edwards make me pull out the halliburtpwn3d...

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:38 (twenty-one years ago)

"That's all you've got"

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:38 (twenty-one years ago)

"Well, that's all you got" HA!

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Also - this 'Bush weak on Iran' isn't good stuff. Vote Kerry, and we'll kick Mullah ass. Great!

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Girolamo OTM about the annoying "The vice president" sentence beginnings.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:40 (twenty-one years ago)

"the israeli people not only have the right to defend themselves, they have an obligation to defend themselves" <-- great...

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:40 (twenty-one years ago)

So the secret money behind the Democratic campaign is the Pottery Barn and Sbarro?

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, there goes the Arab-American vote. Stop talking about Israel!

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Can a person or group have an obligation to self defence? That's more of a moral philosophy question, but it seemed strange. I missed the start of this! Damn! Is it as bad as it seems?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:41 (twenty-one years ago)

hahaha oh the ironing. cheney said factcheck.com; he meant factcheck.org

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh God. here's where the failure to engage with the Palestinians alienates everyone in the Middle East.

Look mom! Both of the cunts don't fucking care about us! Lets go suicide bomb somewhere. Silly fucking stupid cunter.

WHAT ABOUT THE FUCKING PALESTINIAN PEOPLE YOU STUPID STUPID STUPID IDIOTS

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Hahaha did a GUY who disappeared in an underground bunker for two years just give someone a hard time about attendence?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Stop talking about Halliburton, you hack! That's not the issue for this question.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:43 (twenty-one years ago)

alex, yes yes, that did happen.

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:43 (twenty-one years ago)

I like Cheney's 'I'm very disappointed in you' tone towards Edwards.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney's kicking his ass; Edwards isn't scoring any, and isn't doing good politics in his failing to hit big.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Intelligent discussion of Israel is impossible during a presidential campaign.

...haha, Cheney sez the answer to the Israeli security problem is to invade Iraq!

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:43 (twenty-one years ago)

you've gotta admit the attendance gambit was good

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:44 (twenty-one years ago)

"He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King"

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:44 (twenty-one years ago)

HAHAHA WOW Cheney just totally got smacked down.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:44 (twenty-one years ago)

yay, now they're talking to domestic matters.

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Both these guys don't realize that 95% of the US doesn't give even a quarter of a shit about Israel.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:44 (twenty-one years ago)

"no i did talk about it he's the one who didn't talk about it"

EDWARDS SHUT UP

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:45 (twenty-one years ago)

"Well, um, those things he said about me...they're just distortions...I'm not going to go into that."

Great. That's convincing.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:45 (twenty-one years ago)

er, talking about...

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Doh. He could have had Cheney looking like a doofus, but Edwards looks like preppy 'but I did try to shore up the jewish vote!'.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I like how the moderator has kind of an edge.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:45 (twenty-one years ago)

C: "The best way to end poverty is to get people jobs"

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Edwards is totally wishing he could debate Bush.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:46 (twenty-one years ago)

the thing is style may not be the point here - this is free air time. it's clear that the campaign sent Edwards out to use it to get across as many of the facts that the swing voters aren't aware of as he can. he's been moderately successful.

and on style, while Cheney is successfully coming across most of the time as the father figure, he's had a good number of nasty-looking moments that might cancel that out. in those moments, he's not the kind of guy swing women want to vote for. Edwards is definitely that kind of guy. the question is whether the credibility of his answers are enough to overcome Cheney's claims that they're not. and how angry Edwards can make Cheney.

xp: I fucking hate Gwen Ifill

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Republican job record must be an open goal for Edwards.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney has just talked for 30 seconds without stringing coherent sentences or clauses together. Almost admirable, in a really perverse way.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:47 (twenty-one years ago)

zing!

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:47 (twenty-one years ago)

It wasn't about jobs and poverty, it was about jobs and poverty in CLEVELAND! CLEVELAND FUCKING OHIO!

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:47 (twenty-one years ago)

God, this is just like the fight at the end of Matrix Revolutions - it just gets more and more excruciatingly uninteresting as you realize that neither of them is gonna win, no matter how much they beat the shit out of each other. So why bother?

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Right now "Ohio" should be every second word out of Edwards' mouth.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Girolamo OTM. Best metaphor ever.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:48 (twenty-one years ago)

i hope cheney decides to just fly up out of the screen at the one hour mark

― metonymus prime (rgeary), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm waiting for him to unhinge his jaw and swallow the moderator.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:50 (twenty-one years ago)

numbers numbers

― :|, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:50 (twenty-one years ago)

i wonder if the reason we have such a huge deficit is because 5 million people are not paying federal income taxes?

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:50 (twenty-one years ago)

God, if only Cheney could stick his hand into Edward's chest, Mola Ram-style, and assimilate him with black oil!

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:50 (twenty-one years ago)

is it me or was the first debate so much more entertaining?

and not just because bush got smacked down

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I hope Edwards' pretty face is looking good on the TV, 'cause this is not going well radio-wise.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:51 (twenty-one years ago)

edwards predictably warming up on budget/taxcut issue

― metonymus prime (rgeary), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:51 (twenty-one years ago)

btw, 5 million is like, THE ENTIRE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA.

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Fuck yeah! Keep on talking about moral and fiscal responsibility wrt debt.

Shut the fuck up on the "now I want everyone to hear this". We're watching/listening already, right?

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:51 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.edwardsforprez.com/edwards.gif

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Man, Cheney is the fucking god of the personal attack.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:52 (twenty-one years ago)

It's incredibly condescending. "People have heard this over and over and over..." et al.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:52 (twenty-one years ago)

burned into my brain

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:52 (twenty-one years ago)

now i'm imagining thousands of cheneys all talking about the "fundamental difference of opinion" hahaha

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I wonder how many times cheney's used the word 'fundamental' so far tonight.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:53 (twenty-one years ago)

7 out of 10 new jobs are created by small businesses because small business go out of business and spring into existence constantly

― metonymus prime (rgeary), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:53 (twenty-one years ago)

not because they can pay personal taxes

― metonymus prime (rgeary), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Edwards should be all like this right now:

ihttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/w1nt3rmut3/veepwars.jpg

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:54 (twenty-one years ago)

aww, come on! Fuck it, it was off topic anyway.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:54 (twenty-one years ago)

She brought up the gay daughter! I love this woman!

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:54 (twenty-one years ago)

DAMN that cheney last word... he always gets the last word! it's like he's SATAN or something!

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:54 (twenty-one years ago)

"He sets policy for this administration, and I support the President."

Very interesting.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:56 (twenty-one years ago)

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/kids/funfacts/flags/massachusetts_flag.jpg

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Wait, so he's pro-states' rights but anti-states' rights?

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh man, do not go back to the last question. Dude.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:56 (twenty-one years ago)

HAHA! Yes, keep talking about the daughter! This is Edwards' best moment so far.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:57 (twenty-one years ago)

This Lynn Cheney thing is so fucking asinine.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:57 (twenty-one years ago)

This whole fucking debate is about going back to the last question. That's the damn problem - it looks bad when Edwards does it, and it looks like setting the record straight when Cheney does it.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd like to say I've never hated Edwards more, but he's totally making himself look like the timid, whiny prick I've been saying he is for months

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:58 (twenty-one years ago)

"Are you trying to have it both ways?"

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe this is why they've been keeping him relatively under wraps so far.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Gwen's idiot q:

John Kerry is from Massachusetts, which is very outgoing in gay marriage rights, but you and Kerry are against gay marriage. Isn't that a contradiction?

WHAT?

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:59 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.tincher.to/images/quayle.jpg

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Blount, where are you? Come defend your man, cause no one else is going to.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 00:59 (twenty-one years ago)

"If your wife were raped and ... "

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:00 (twenty-one years ago)

"He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King"

CHENEY PWNED!

― joseph pot (STINKOR™), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:00 (twenty-one years ago)

He's not incompetent, just uneloquent and untrained.

Good brush aside by Cheney, too.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:00 (twenty-one years ago)

WHOA WHAT JUST HAPPENED

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:00 (twenty-one years ago)

they almost kissed

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Nice response by Cheney about his family. His refusal to completely carry water on that issue gives me the tiniest bit of respect for him. Dammit.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:01 (twenty-one years ago)

A touching personal moment is what happened. I'm not watching this; did they kiss?

ha, xpost.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:01 (twenty-one years ago)

"I was in New Mexico the other day and I met with a group of OB/GYN doctors, and they were deeply concerned." CHENEY'S GREBTEST MOMENT!

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:01 (twenty-one years ago)

ergh. I don't like when Edwards does that prolonged "aaaaaaand..." It sounds like he's stalling for time. Which I suppose he is.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:03 (twenty-one years ago)

aww all the anecdotes are making me care!!!

right. gore all over again.

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:03 (twenty-one years ago)

WTF, what do lawsuits have to do with the election? He should be letting this one slide like Cheney lets things he doesn't like slide.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Kerry/Edwards: Fighting for the two-cent screw.

― Marcel Post (Marcel Post), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:04 (twenty-one years ago)

There are so few of those in my life.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, turn a question about you into a health care issue! This is what I'm waiting for.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:05 (twenty-one years ago)

so everyone remind me - who's Cheney running with?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:05 (twenty-one years ago)

and has he ever met him?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:05 (twenty-one years ago)

That guy, you know.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:06 (twenty-one years ago)

the devil! Bah-bah-bah!

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm bored.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney would be a nice grandpa.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Way to push your own agenda, moderator.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:09 (twenty-one years ago)

(not that I'm against it being discussed, but still)

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:09 (twenty-one years ago)

"All that's left is old folks and kids."

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:09 (twenty-one years ago)

i kind of want to watch the real world: philadelphia.

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:10 (twenty-one years ago)

i dunno you guys but i just tuned in what's with the grave tones? who the hell died?

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:10 (twenty-one years ago)

looks good in comparison, huh? beautiful people whining about how they don't have enough money or aren't getting enough sex: much better than watching the devil at work.

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Aw, Edwards really isn't doing that bad at all anymore. Now it's just boring.

(why does she keep throwing these Republican talking points in Edwards' face? Is it my imagination, or is she doing this to Edwards more than Cheney?)

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:12 (twenty-one years ago)

She is.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:13 (twenty-one years ago)

it has kinda simmered down now that they're both speaking about subjects no one cares about. it's easy to make a consensus now instead of after the debate actually ends.

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Mr Cheney, is it true that you are an underground dwelling troll-like creature who drinks human blood?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:13 (twenty-one years ago)

"I agree with John Kerry...from Thursday night..."

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Is edwards giving his closing statement already?

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha Cheney's answer there was pretty priceless.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:14 (twenty-one years ago)

"You want me to answer a question about his qualifications?"

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:14 (twenty-one years ago)

"When George Bush asked me to sign on..."

Uh no, dude. You signed yourself on.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:14 (twenty-one years ago)

George Bush! I've heard that name!

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Edwards is picking up a bit, but this debate really doesn't have any great soundbites or hotpoints in it. If it carries on like this, it would be difficult to say Cheney hadn't won. Edwards needs to pick up and dominate the rest of the dabate.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:15 (twenty-one years ago)

"I have no further political aspirations myself"

And why should you? You are already the shadow president.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:16 (twenty-one years ago)

The rest of the debate? The debate is over.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Fortunately, I think the vast majority of Americans that were watching this at the beginning have probably long since tuned to a different station.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:17 (twenty-one years ago)

"Well I am hideously ugly. . ."

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Edwards has made me cringe. Why can't the Democratic party be its own party instead of the shadow of the Republicans? How many times does he have to use the word "Kill"? Maybe I won't vote.

― Maria D. (Maria D.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:17 (twenty-one years ago)

dude the boringness levels in that room are lethal!! red alert!

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:18 (twenty-one years ago)

"I don't talk about myself very much"

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:18 (twenty-one years ago)

It's not over yet: a strong finish can linger.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:18 (twenty-one years ago)

It's hard to imagine that Edwards doesn't realize he took a beating earlier in the debate, so I have to conclude he's decided to cut his losses by going on neutral now.

Either that, or he has conflict fatigue.

― Collardio Gelatinous (collardio), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:18 (twenty-one years ago)

That "We will Kill them" stuff was bugging me too Maria.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:19 (twenty-one years ago)

JESUS

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:19 (twenty-one years ago)

"Broke the rule" WTF?

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I think he has a man-crush on Kerry.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:20 (twenty-one years ago)

This is looking bad. He seems punchy.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Stop repeating the Kerry lines badly, dude.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:20 (twenty-one years ago)

edwards: confirm/deny?

― pfeffernuesse (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I think John Edwards would be rubbish at parlour games.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:21 (twenty-one years ago)

wow I'm glad edwards didn't get the nomination now

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I wanted this to go badly for Cheney. He's like the conservative uncle you can't win an argument with at Thanksgiving. Oooh, he makes me mad.

― Maria D. (Maria D.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:22 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm pretty much set on not voting at this point.

― joseph pot (STINKOR™), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Can you imagine a Bush/Edwards debate? Sweet Jesus

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Edwards has not impressed me.

― Maria D. (Maria D.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Don't not vote! He's only the VP! It's not that hard!

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow, he just dodges that Bremer thing OVER and OVER.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Is C-Span showing this split-screen, or is every channel showing it one man at a time?

― Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:24 (twenty-one years ago)

ihttp://img12.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img12&image=cheny-cigar.jpg

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Damn.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:24 (twenty-one years ago)

For chrissakes, Joseph: where do you live???

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:24 (twenty-one years ago)

http://img12.exs.cx/img12/8834/cheny-cigar.jpg

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:25 (twenty-one years ago)

on miloauckerman's comment, were Cheney and Bush on opposite sides, imagine a debate between them!

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, fucking bust shit up on public education!

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:25 (twenty-one years ago)

C-Span are showing one at a time too.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:26 (twenty-one years ago)

she has fucked up the order of questions twice.

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:26 (twenty-one years ago)

C-Span 2 has been in split screen throughout the whole debate.

― Charlie Rose (Charlie Rose), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney would just slap Bush until he cried.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Anyone else read that the only reason the Pres debate was split screen was because the local Fox affiliate insisted on feeding it that way, to let the networks and everyone else decide what to broadcast? That might be the first fair and balanced decision Fox ever made.

― Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I think I speak for everyone when I say:

Gwen Ifill, you suck!

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Edwards is starting to resemble John Ritter to me.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:29 (twenty-one years ago)

i'd vote for john ritter!

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe he'll close with a pratfall.

― Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:30 (twenty-one years ago)

He's always resembled John Ritter to me. But then I think about John RItter more than most.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Problem Child era John Ritter

jaymc - why?

― joseph pot (STINKOR™), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:30 (twenty-one years ago)

this debate sucked. I was hoping for so much more. I'm missing the gilmore girls for this shit? fuck you cheney! bring on friday!

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:30 (twenty-one years ago)

OTM. I'm glad there was only one of these. This was painful on both sides, I think.

― Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I liked JE's comments about Bush's "uniter not a divider" line, but by the end of it he was out of control with the hand gestures, waving the Clinton Thumb all over the place.

― Al (sitcom), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:32 (twenty-one years ago)

here comes the millworker story!

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:32 (twenty-one years ago)

okay he's closing way better

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:32 (twenty-one years ago)

"...aaaaaaaaaaaaand..."

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:33 (twenty-one years ago)

maybe somebody better change the bulb in america's flickering light.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:33 (twenty-one years ago)

"the Clinton thumb" haha, that gesture is really annoying and superfluous isn't it?

― joseph pot (STINKOR™), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney's going to finish on 'Uhh, I got nothing', right?

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:34 (twenty-one years ago)

He didn't thank Edwards, did he? What a shit.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:34 (twenty-one years ago)

joseph: because I dearly hope you don't live in a swing state

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:34 (twenty-one years ago)

cheney ended like a kid rushing through a speech he didn't want to give

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:35 (twenty-one years ago)

That's how he delivers all his speeches. That's part of his, erm, charm.

― Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:36 (twenty-one years ago)

And here come the useless 'who do you think won?' polls.

ihttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Remember: every vote counts.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:36 (twenty-one years ago)

MSNBC poll has Edwards 'winning' (let's talk more about how stupid this term is) the debate by like 80%. Fucking idiots

― roger adultery (roger adultery), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:38 (twenty-one years ago)

i was someone who supported edwards in the primaries, and i definitely find myself wondering why now. what a fucking lightweight.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:38 (twenty-one years ago)

CNN is calling it a tie

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:39 (twenty-one years ago)

(more or less)

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Less.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:40 (twenty-one years ago)

jaymc: it could be worse. at least i'm not voting for whichever candidate you're against ;0)

― joseph pot (STINKOR™), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:41 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't care what they say as long as they don't all say "cheney did great!"

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:41 (twenty-one years ago)

The MSNBC commentators just called it for Cheney, though.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Edwards lost on command, Cheney lost on in-touch-ness, and they tied on substance because enough people don't know Cheney was lying. A draw.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:42 (twenty-one years ago)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s&u=/static/poll_debate/static

Yahoo! poll has Edwards leading 62-32

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Shields and Brooks basically called it a draw, or at least they said that Edwards "held his own."

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Brokaw just mentioned that an upcoming segment will focus on online BLAHW-GERS.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:44 (twenty-one years ago)

After the first half hour Edwards did just fine. Vice presidential debates are of almost zero import. I sincerely pity anyone who would consider not voting or switching their vote on the basis of a vice presidential debate. But really, haven't you guys heard? The rest of America hates you swing voters now and we all think you're idiots. No more free attention suckers!

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Or, rather, you still get attention, but it's all negative.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Remember the good old days back in 96, when everyone in the country, including Dole, knew that Clinton was gonna win?

― Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd say Edwards "lost", period, simply because his inability to answer Cheney's criticisms of the Kerry-Edwards Iraq stance exposed the ticket's biggest vulnerability -- a vulnerability which I thought Kerry did a nimble and forceful job of at least partly reversing last week. The same can't be said of Cheney: maybe some will be turned off by his demeanor, etc... but if anything he undid the damage Bush wreaked at the last debate, and he advanced the GOP's argument against the Kerry ticket. (Assuming, of course, these VP debates matter at all).

― Collardio Gelatinous (collardio), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Candy Crowley "It was like watching the Presidential debate with the understudies."
Haha

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Bill was right, it was exactly like Satan vs. a baby.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Gee, I was really hoping for Dick to give some time to DOMESTIC ISSUES in his closing statement instead of a 15 second drive-by throwing out bullshit debunkable stats ramping up to more TERRA WAR rhetoric. Also, what the HELL was up w/ those two stupid "character issue" questions and "the rule"? And, shit, if you're going to bag on Edwards' lack of experience, how about having CHENEY justify his existance too? The moderator totally shit the bed right after the gay marriage question - in fact, it seemed that the entire debate (up to that point, a contentious slugfest with Cheney landing body blows and Edwards gamely, but often ineffectually, jabbing back) went comatose after Cheney thanked Edwards and left it at that.

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:52 (twenty-one years ago)

CNN is showing an extremely goofy audience reaction thingy right now

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:52 (twenty-one years ago)

the father v. boyfriend metaphor is perfect. will the swing women believe in Edwards when Cheney tells them not to?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:53 (twenty-one years ago)

me no want be idiot! me cast vote to please Dan I. and rest of America!

― joseph pot (STINKOR™), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm watching TLC - they're driving roadsters in the desert. Ginchy.

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:54 (twenty-one years ago)

(they had those approve/disapprove meters a la sitcom test-marketing method)

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Wonkette on NBC - too bizarre

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Brokaw is interviewing Wonkette!

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought Cheney was awful in regards to you know THE FACTS, but he delivered his lies well. Edwards did his likeable "one of you" act and that should play well. I'd be surprised if this changes much, but I can see it playing to at least slightly Bush/Cheney's advantage that Cheney isn't Bush.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:58 (twenty-one years ago)

holy shit. jon stewart used the unhinged his jaw line from above!!!!!

― frankE (frankE), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 01:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I AM JON STEWART POXY FULE!

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:01 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, and the line, as before, was awesome. especially on tv.

― lemin (lemin), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Joseph, I have no idea what you're trying to say. No one really cares if you're incapable of voting.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm guessing what's going to happen is that journalists won't be able to ignore the clearly erroneous instant polls calling it a tie, and that will become the consensus even though it isn't true. This is good, but I wish Edwards could have managed a fair tie, at least.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Also - anyone w/ guns, please shoot the next Bush admin asshat or yesperson that drops the phrase "global test".

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Excuse me, I should have said that all these instant polls are, bizarrely, heavily in Edwards' favor. A tie will still be called. Whatever.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:12 (twenty-one years ago)

i couldn't watch (i had a kickball game, i'll have you know) but i'm trying to get a bead on it in the postgame (blogs basically). wierd that you all are calling it for cheney but sullivan of all people is calling it overwhelmingly for edwards.

― g--ff (gcannon), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:13 (twenty-one years ago)

the instant polls you mean are online ones? obviously that's a measure of the number of people on either side who are organized to 'freep' them. often, there are more on the left to do it. i voted for Edwards where there were only two choices and a tie where there were three.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:16 (twenty-one years ago)

why does anyone read Sullivan? ever?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Agree with gabbneb, a draw. Just because.. Cheney lies well, Edwards probably appeals to a lot of people who are dumb enough to still be undecided. I've never been a huge fan of Edwards to be honest. He got rattled in the primaries when debating Kerry in the same format. Knocked over a coffee mug in the middle of it. I think he did well enough.

― daria g (daria g), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:19 (twenty-one years ago)

haha i knew you were gonna give me shit for that gabb. as i said i was trying to get a reading on early opinion all around.

― g--ff (gcannon), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Actually, I don't think any sort of judgement call can be made about it. It was just too boring and worthless. Was anyone else able to focus on a single thing they said during the second half of it? I kept zoning out mid-sentence.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:23 (twenty-one years ago)

collette: i think edwards is coming off as much more of a 'straight talker', which people respond to.

are you nuts?

milo: Really sad thing - Cheney's pretty much spot-on when it comes to Kerry/Edwards cowardice in supporting/opposing the war.

yup.

this was a holocaust.

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:23 (twenty-one years ago)

A HOLOCAUST?

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Can we have some Godwinian Law thread lockdown now?

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:24 (twenty-one years ago)

david you'll have to clarify that last post for me.

i thought edwards was just awful, and cheney came across as so preternaturally confident and competent (despite the fact that he was knowingly speaking a string of lies)

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I've never been a big fan of Edwards politically, either - I still think Kerry should have picked Nunn (though Edwards was the safest choice) - and I cringed a few times, but he belonged in the same room as Cheney and I think that was enough

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Wonkette is fucking worthless. Why does anyone read her or Sullivan?

Edwards looked like he was campaigning, and I guess he was. He is a personable dude but he's green.

Cheney looked like he always looks--he always comes off like he thinks he's the only adult in the room. I love how he plays the role of Dracula so well, too. Does he ever laugh aloud?

― don carville weiner, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I am quite sure Cheney laughed at one point. It was even more scary.

I think Edwards just went out there trying to get a message out, hence the repetition of Kerry's lines.

Also bet most people got bored and changed the channel. There was that Ciara video on MTV2 during the second half. It was cool.

― daria g (daria g), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Does he ever laugh aloud?

he chuckles, but in such a way that he doesn't seem like he's sharing the joke with anyone else

he has a mild stage laugh too, but nobody's buying that one

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:31 (twenty-one years ago)

The Yankees were on the other channel I was watching.

― don carville weiner, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:32 (twenty-one years ago)

what sort of notes was edwards taking?

it looked as though he would write one word in big letters and then do some fancy swiggly underline.

"FUCK CHENEY"

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Amateurist, I was just thinking that this, being a VICE-presidential debate, regardless of Edwards' performance (which wasn't as good as I hoped, but not nearly as bad as you're spinning it), doesn't even remotely qualify as a holocaust, and that sort of wacked-out hyperbole is a sign that the rhetoric on this thread threatens to spin waaaaaay out of control.

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:37 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't tend to hyperbole. my impression was that the result of this debate was quite lopsided.

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Interesting note: You know that oft-repeated media studies 101 bit about how TV viewers thought Kennedy won the debate and radio listeners thought Nixon won? It's bullshit, according to someone I heard today on NPR. The myth is based on a poll taken by some reporter at the time in which he did an informal sampling of 20 people. It might be true but there's no statistical evidnece for it.

That said, why can't Cheney help but look so damn scary? Do you think it's something about his soul?

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm sure the FARK crew will come up with some good notes from Edwards and Cheney.

I kept flipping channels, and I'm interested in this stuff too.. Oh well. I'm really glad Kerry is the nominee. Always thought Edwards was a bit of a lightweight, serious and hard working, but nevertheless.. could have used another term at least in the Senate before running.

I wonder if the mainstream press will ever pay attention to Halliburton's adventures in Africa..

― daria g (daria g), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Invoking the Holocaust seemed to me to be a rather extreme way to say this was a clearcut Cheney blowout, but fair enough.

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:44 (twenty-one years ago)

"Senator Gone"?

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:44 (twenty-one years ago)

i wasn't invoking "The Holocaust," i was using the word "holocaust"

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Quick survey by CBS looks good for Edwards

CBS "instapoll" results, from 200 undecided voters nationwide:

"Who won?"

Edwards: 42 percent

Cheney: 29 percent

tie: 29 percent

"Debate improved your opinion of the candidate?"

Cheney: 29 percent, opinion improved

Edwards: 58 percent, opinion improved

And perhaps the most telling statistic of the quick survey, in light of moderator Gwen Ifill's question to Edwards regarding his qualifications to be within a "heartbeat" of the top job: 24 percent of the undecided voters polled by CBS apparently said that they were "scared" of the idea of Dick Cheney as president.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:48 (twenty-one years ago)

the other 76 percent immediately dropped dead themselves at the thought

― metonymus prime (rgeary), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 02:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe I'm biased, but I thought Edwards came out of this slightly better than Cheney. I think it says something that Cheney's best lines were on Edwards' attendance record. I don't think that's going to sway many votes. Edwards pretty much neutralized him on security issues - no small feat. Meanwhile he also showed more empathy for the economic concerns of regular voters. Maybe the chattering classes and professional pundits just expect Cheney to come across as cold and unsympathetic so much that they don't even notice it any more. But I think any swing voter tuning in is going to notice that Edwards seems to display more feeling when he talks about the difficulties of the middle class.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:00 (twenty-one years ago)

This was pretty much what I figured would happen.. Cheney wins on the merits (if facts don't matter.. that man can lie with the best), but audience likes Edwards 'cause he talks like a regular person and seems interested in the same issues they are.

So in other words the dumb intangible "who'd you rather have a beer with" thing helped Edwards, even though it's dumb.

Atrios apparently has the goods that Edwards met Cheney back in 2001. I don't think anybody cares about attendance records.

― daria g (daria g), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney wins on the merits (if facts don't matter.. that man can lie with the best)

That's a pretty strange definition of the "merits".

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney is one shrewd motherfucker. Unfortunately he's evil.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:05 (twenty-one years ago)

The G00gle results for "cheney shrewd motherfucker unhinged jaw" are going to skyrocket in the next 12 hours.

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Coined it here first, folks.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:11 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost, sorry.. I know it's strange to say it that way, but if you're purely scoring on rhetorical style and strategy, that's what I mean. I guess my take is that Cheney is a better debater because he lies convincingly and Edwards didn't parry some of his attacks well, but people think Edwards is friendly and a regular nice guy so most people probably think Edwards won.

― daria g (daria g), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm a firm K/E supporter, but even I would give a slim win to Cheney tonight. Edwards seemed so green. Remember how Kerry, when not given a chance to respond, would just act cool and nod his head at Leher? Edwards didn't do that. I also hate it when a question is given, and the candidate says "That's a very important issue, but I want to get back to healthcare for a moment..."

And at the end: "You're going to ask me about healthcare, right? RIGHT? AW, C'MON! Healthcare, woman! Ask me ANYTHING about it..."

Anyone who still buys into that conspiracy that Cheney's going to get dumped had better shut up after tonight. They're more likely to replace Bush at this point.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I think there's a tendency for us Kerry supporters to be generous in scoring points for the other side. After all, no one wants to be overconfident. So you hear pundits talking about how Cheney's Dracula vibe is this great secret weapon for the Bush ticket because it energizes their base. I think this is hogwash. Cheney is just not a very charismatic politician. He draws high negatives. It's impossible to picture him at the top of a national ticket, and not just because of his heart problems. These are not good qualities for attracting swing voters. I think Rove basically figures that the fewer people that watch the VP debate the better - and luckily for him, probably few did watch it.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:22 (twenty-one years ago)

PP - you're totally right on that metric, but it's only one of several. We talked it up so much for Kerry, because that's the one he was expected to lose on, when in fact he won not just that but all of them. This one was more of a mixed bag.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Damn that was fast...

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios/ec.jpg

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah wow THAT was enormous fuck-up.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Someone could write a novel based on Cheney's lies, half-truths and distortions tonight.

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha, the democrats better fucking jump on that as petty as it is 'cause you know the republicans would have.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:43 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, well i'll be happy if people came away from this thing with a different impression from myself.

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:48 (twenty-one years ago)

that wasn't in response to dan btw

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I think that, on occasion, Edwards may have appeared glib. Cheney had the harder task because the facts speak for themselves. Cheney reminded me of the dad in the Wonder Years more than the devil, someone from another generation. The fact that they didn't even try to stick to the questions seemed to trivialize the debate, much more so than last time. There was no tension because they weren't really trying to answer the questions.

― youn, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:48 (twenty-one years ago)

for just style/presentation, i give a slight edge to cheney, tho he did work in multiple personable attacks during the show and was completely full of bullshit.

also, some of the questions were bullshit. GAY MARRIAGE IN MASSACHUSETTES? what the FUCK, lady...

altho, i thought this debate was FAR more "we'll not really answer the question, but will segue into our talking point as hard as we can"

i thought edwards played some of his cards(good cards, tho they were) a little too early.

HELLO! STEEL TARRIFF FLIP FLOP! come ON!

Edwards has nice teeth, and good skin & hair. cheney had the nixon jowly-hunch thing going, and muffled up his mic when he clasped his hands under his mouth.

if this debate is any indication, the domestic policy debate will be all health-care.

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:49 (twenty-one years ago)

What matters more than anything with debates is perception and momentum after the debates are over. Edwards could have been smoked completely by Cheney, but the polls seem to indicate people think Edwards won by a fair margin. And poll numbers have a way of changing momentum completely, and it does seem to be shifting a little already. Not as far as changing minds, but as far as mobilizing core voters.

― Gear! (Gear!), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Didn't watch the debate, but I'm delighted that while this thread calls it for Cheney, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE seem to consider Edwards to have won by two or three to one. I will in future listen to THE AMERICAN PEOPLE rather than ILX.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Kerry crushed Bush to a much greater extent than the media called it and Cheney laid waste to Edwards tonight, so maybe I'm just completely out of touch with 'merica. I give a lot of credit to the guy who can stay cool and run the debate how he wants, regardless of whether he comes off warm and fuzzy or 'too condescending.'

I'm going to have nightmares about Cheney, though. The man has no soul.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:58 (twenty-one years ago)

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 03:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Well the American people are wrong, but I'm glad they're wrong. Halfway through the debate I would have thought there was no way anyone could have thought Edwards won, but I am very happily surprised.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 04:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, I'm not going to go out of my way to tell them any different. If they were mesmerized by Edwards' hair or whatever, well, that's what it's there for.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 04:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I think we may have underrated how little the American people trusts Dick Cheney. I mean if YOU pretend everything he said was true, then Cheney's performance looks great, but if you discount all of it as lies (cuz let's face it was all lies) then suddenly he seems really awful.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 04:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Search: Cheney when he passed on replying a second time to the question on a Constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage; Edwards for the clear distinctions he made in his answer to that question and to the question on malpractice suits (and for pointing out that it's a fraction of overall medical cost inflation)

― youn, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 04:08 (twenty-one years ago)

my god the mod had it in for edwards

― Symplistic (shmuel), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 04:08 (twenty-one years ago)

as an israeli-canadian, i'd like to mention that edwards's isreal comment was total bullshit (like did he really say he was to the right of sharon? i actually did mishear that right?)

― Symplistic (shmuel), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 04:09 (twenty-one years ago)

oh wait we covered that

― Symplistic (shmuel), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 04:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't get the Cheney won thing AT ALL. Say what you will about Edwards' style, it wasn't that much of a distraction, and Cheney's piddling, politically-spun attempts at making any points at all about the Kerry/Edwards ticket (same old they're wishy washy flip-floppers line) fell totally flat. Cheney trotting out numbers to support the contention that the Bush administration is making great progress on the economy, education, and health care was a joke. Edwards' use of stats to indict the administration was much more effective.

And Edwards was very strong about the war.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 04:14 (twenty-one years ago)

ok, so when cheney started talking about how his and edwards life stories were similar (wtf?), did anyone else think he was going to end by declaring that he was actually edwards' father?

― Symplistic (shmuel), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 04:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I wasn't able to catch the last half hour, and Edwards did get better after they went along, but I also thought Cheney won the debate. But if the polls say Edwards won it, that is a very good sign indeed!

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 04:51 (twenty-one years ago)

"Oh, don't worry. By the time this paid political announcement is done, every Johnny Lunchpail in this whole stupid state will be eating out of my hands.... Oh, hello, friends."

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~jthale/MrBurns.gif

― Dick Cheney, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 06:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, Captain Pike, what did you think of the debate?

http://asylumeclectica.com/sightseer/us/mo/glore/pike.jpg
Boooooop.

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 07:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Funny that this was posted:
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~jthale/MrBurns.gif

..Because I was going to post that same picture with the caption, "Smithers, who was that man?" .. "Just one of your junior senators from sector 7-G sir."

Cheney: "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight." (lie.)

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 10:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, they do really just pile on the lies so that opponents don't know which lie to hit first, therefore a load of shit is seen to be allowed to 'stand'. People are starting NOT to fall for it.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 10:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney mentioned factcheck.org in the debate when Halliburton came up. Except that he accidentally said factcheck.com. Either way, if you go to either site, they both criticise the GOP - so thanks, Darth.

http://www.factcheck.com/
http://www.factcheck.org/

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 11:00 (twenty-one years ago)

vote for the cornball, not the crook!

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:00 (twenty-one years ago)

edwards is playing much better the next morning in the soundbites

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:00 (twenty-one years ago)

So http://www.factcheck.com goes to Soros' site? That's hilarious!

― Dale Panopticalis (cprek), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:22 (twenty-one years ago)

The factcheck screw up is lovely. Factcheck.org supported the point Cheney was making, but he said 'factcheck.com' by mistake. Factcheck.com is owned by 'anti-Bush activist billionaire' George Soros. It must have been getting heavy traffic last night. The GOP seems to have forgotten that Al Gore invented the internet.

X-post!

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Tracer's slogan is almost as good as the one from the last French election - 'vote for the crook, not the fascist'.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:31 (twenty-one years ago)

It seems Cheney got in more of the memorable pressure point strikes against Edwards (attendance record, questionable tax loopholes in his legal practice). These statements had some serious venom. Or it might just seem that way because these were points I had not heard echoed through Republican message machine yet. The nastiness of those accusations poisoned some of Edwards rebuttals.

I think Edwards got him back with "voting against meals on wheels", "voted against MLK day", etc. It's the nastiest Edwards got, and I believe the most effective. I mean, Cheney's a racist who wants old folks to starve! IN YOUR FACE!

Moderator was awful. I don't like her PBS show either.

― Dale Panopticalis (cprek), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:36 (twenty-one years ago)

A quick buzz through the bloggyspear shows a general (though hardly universal) sense of a Cheney "win", along with a more widespread feeling that it just doesn't matter very much. Kind of like the vice presidency, I guess.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I am happy for relatively progressive people to appear glib, if it succeeds with voters et al.

I am glad to see that some people liked Edwards' performance. I would have done too, had I seen it.

― the bellefox, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:49 (twenty-one years ago)

An ABC poll (of a mostly republican audience) gave it to Cheney. A CBS poll (of a mostly undecided audience) gave it to Edwards. I'm not sure who rated the audiences .. I think maybe they had debate watching parties that they polled afterwards... (I read this this morning, but I have lost the source - I think it was either NYTimes, Fox News or Washington Post..)

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, polls of those mythical "undecideds" seem to favor Edwards. Yay undecideds. At the least, he didn't do any damage.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:54 (twenty-one years ago)

It seems Cheney got in more of the memorable pressure point strikes against Edwards (attendance record, questionable tax loopholes in his legal practice).

They might have been memorable, but they're small-beer. There's no chance of either of them becoming major campaign issues. Cheney would have been more effective if he'd saved his ammo for Kerry. I think he was just trying to rattle Edwards into making a slip.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 12:58 (twenty-one years ago)

A rather overstated but interesting thinkpiece in the Grauniad argues that facts don't matter: the winning team will be the one that makes the largest number of veiled references to the Book of Revelations and invokes subconscious imagery of Americans as God's chosen elect.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I think that Edwards is a victim of his own success in the post-debate perceptions game. He is so smooth that he makes it look easy. People are seriously underrating his tactical acumen in putting Cheney on the defensive on foreign policy from the beginning. Here is a guy with precious little government or foreign policy experience, but you wouldn't have guessed that from the foreign policy section of the debate. He was able to make the major issue in the foreign policy section of the debate the lack of connections between Saddam and 9/11. That is not a good talking point for Cheney, but yet he ended up spending a lot of time on it.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:05 (twenty-one years ago)

That makes him sound like Lieutenant Colombo, the wily buffoon who always nails his man!

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I've decided that my '08 running mate will be Peter Faulk.

― Dan Perry '08 (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, that makes sense - the fact that the debate subtlely turned into a "let me backtrack" extravaganza undoubtedly helped Edwards, both for the reason o.nate mentioned, and in that it forced Cheney away from what seemed to be his rhetorical strength - he was forced to answer Edwards' insistent assertions w/ clipped soundbytes reiterating Bush's debate assertions (Cheney, a master debater, being forced to repeat himself when he often sounded, and sometimes acted, as if the entire debate was redundant and unnecessary, didn't do him any favors) rather than adeptly reiterating the anti-Kerry talking points and working them seamlessly into spurious anecdotes.

Did anyone else notice that Cheney's posturing and gestures during the last 15 minutes of the debate muffled his tie-clip microphone? It didn't obscure anything he said (unfortunately), but there was a noticable (and distracting) difference.

Senator Dan, you should try spelling your running mate's name right. Also, you might want Kevin Pollock - that way, you get Columbo AND Alan Arkin! (And Shatner, too, but I'd keep that under wraps.)

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Why is it that whenever anyone attacks Edwards on matters of his experience, no one ever counters with Bush's near complete lack of experience when he was elected?

― Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:34 (twenty-one years ago)

But he was governor of Texas!

*tumbleweeds*

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Momus, you read some bullshit, man.

How can anybody lose a debate with Dick Cheney? You people.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Why is it that whenever anyone attacks Edwards on matters of his experience, no one ever counters with Bush's near complete lack of experience when he was elected?

It's not that Bush lacked experience -- he was an outsider (clearly a good thing). Edwards, on the other hand, is just plain inexperienced (clearly a bad thing).

― Andy K (Andy K), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:49 (twenty-one years ago)

that 'thinkpiece' is everything most infuriating about the guardian rolled into one oleaginous blob of smug ignorance.

― dave amos, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:49 (twenty-one years ago)

he was an outsider

hahahaha -omg roffle city!

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:55 (twenty-one years ago)

that 'thinkpiece' is everything most infuriating about the guardian rolled into one oleaginous blob of smug ignorance.

I thought it was very well researched (went deep into the sermons of early puritan preachers and found resemblances to the 'faith-based initiatives' of the current administration). I also thought it exhibited the sort of visceral hate of the Bush regime that I'm astonished, time and again, to find missing from this messageboard. This thread, with its weird apologetics for Cheney, included.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Dude, learn to read. Seriously.

― Dan Perry '08 (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:13 (twenty-one years ago)

surprisingly, i'm not all that bothered by the guardian piece. i wrote something similar on my blog a week or two back, but i come at this from an entirely different direction, having grown up in an evangelical christian household (i wrote about that here). what the article gets wrong is the conviction that bush has when he says these things: i don't think there's any. it's rhetoric that resonates with a large part of his base; it's analogous to democrats overusing the term "opportunity."

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:19 (twenty-one years ago)

with its weird apologetics for Cheney

Apologetics? I'm not sure how recognizing Cheney's skill as a debater is quite the same as apologizing for him. (I know, I'm arguing with Momus.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:27 (twenty-one years ago)

you're either with us or agin us.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I also thought it exhibited the sort of visceral hate of the Bush regime that I'm astonished, time and again, to find missing from this messageboard.

if we hated bush any MORE than we already do the server would melt.

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I too thought Cheney 'won' the debate despite some good hits from Edwards. What I don't quite understand is that many people are saying that among undecideds this is going to Edwards, who appparently invokes a reaction among them not unlike that invoked by Bush. Go figure, but I'll keep this as my silver lining for the moment.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:43 (twenty-one years ago)

One good thing that came from the debate is that, judging from Cheney's body language and stuff during the brief period that he talked about Bin Laden, it doesn't look like they have him under wraps right now.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not sure how recognizing Cheney's skill as a debater is quite the same as apologizing for him.

There were various elements in the Cheney sympathy here. (I'm not for a moment saying it was unanimous, although the general consensus was that Cheney had won. In polls of the TV audience, though, only Republicans thought that.)

There was the line about 'Never mind that he's telling lies, he's doing it quite well.' (A certain disdain for the public in that one, I think. It was picked up at the time, anyway. Objection: facts do matter.) There was a sense of 'Although Cheney is the most uncharismatic politician ever, you can't help almost liking him' (cue images of Mr Burns and claims that Cheney would make a good grandpa). There might even have been some 'sympathy for the devil' and some self-recognition -- some people like to think of themselves as 'hard-nosed realists', and Cheney seems to fit that, despite his rose-tinted spectacles about 'putting up democracies' in places where there just happens to be lucrative business to be done with oil and heroin.

Also, can I say that this line 'I know, I'm arguing with Momus' is fucking rude, so button it, jaymc.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:48 (twenty-one years ago)

"A certain disdain for the public in that one, I think."

Well considering neither the press nor the public has been overly aggressive at challenging this administration on their ahem truth problem, I don't think it's quite as disdainful as you might think (or that facts matter quite as much as we all would hope they do.)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:52 (twenty-one years ago)

the guardian piece was rotten with false dichotomies (faith as a hermetic, all encompassing system vs. reason as opposing same) absurd historical claims (US as most solely faith-based society in history - try 18th century spain among a million others you retard) and the usual us and them liberal smuggery that casts your ideological opponents as stupid, unfit to breathe fascist burrheads.

this stuff is now too important for visceral hate, it needs clarity and consideration.

― dave amos, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Alex, I'm quite happy for facts to matter little if there's a visceral liberalism to battle the visceral conservatism. It's precisely the absence of 'emotional liberalism' that I'm decrying. Liberalism is not just a way of thinking, it's a way of feeling.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:56 (twenty-one years ago)

oh christ.

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:57 (twenty-one years ago)

You lost me. You want us to get as crazed, truth-challenged and non-sensical as conservatives wags/pundits? I'm not sure that helps anything.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 14:59 (twenty-one years ago)

'Give me the ability to rage correctly'. Joe Orton

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:01 (twenty-one years ago)

And now for some levity, because I don't know where else to put this:

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Like Yancey, I also grew up in an evangelical Christian household. Also like Yancey, I wasn't bothered by that Guardian piece. Perhaps those who find it to be smug and condescending simply don't want to believe that there are these sorts of irrational undercurrents in American political life.

You can tell a lot about the American political faith from the things that neither candidate questions. Neither Kerry nor Bush question that America should lead the world. They just disagree on the right way of doing it. I do believe that there is a deep-seated American self-image as the "city on the hill", a beacon of moral clarity and a rebuke to the corruption and godlessness of the rest of the world. This self-image is strongest in the Christian Right, but it is still accepted, though perhaps with a bit less fervor, by a broad swathe of the electorate. Bush's rhetorical strategy for addressing the Iraq situation depends on this. As long as he can preserve the sense of moral and spiritual clarity about the US mission in Iraq, he knows that Americans will be inclined to accept the practical difficulties of implementation. There is a subtle message behind a lot of Bush's rhetoric which comes straight out of Christian theology: humans are fallible but as long as their heart is in the right place, God will forgive them - and by implication so should the voters.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:10 (twenty-one years ago)

By the way, I don't think Cheney fared as well as some are saying. Yes, he is very relaxed and confident, but he is obviously very icy. That may appeal to some people's macho sympathies, but it doesn't play as well with women or anyone else who is more likely to be creeped out by his demeanor.

I've lurked on a few boards where undecideds have said the same thing.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:10 (twenty-one years ago)

o.nate, I also have born-agains and wee frees in my family. Those of us close to exactly this sort of Puritanism know it isn't conspiracy theory or fiction. It's a mindset we've lived with, and have the right to fight. Jonathan Raban is Jewish, too, so he knows what it is to come from a background of people saying 'We are the chosen people'... and also to overcome it, just as we've overcome the Protestant Puritanism of our respective families.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry Momus.

Alex in SF OTM.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:18 (twenty-one years ago)

BTW I thought the Guardian piece was very good, but I'm not as cynical about Kerry's chances as Raban is.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Momus OTM. For people who have lived in that sort of environment, and then had to find their own way, there is certain lingering knowledge of the psychology of exceptionalism - almost like a phantom limb syndrome where you get fleeting sensations from that psychological place that used to be occupied by religious faith.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:20 (twenty-one years ago)

(Also, Dave Amos calls Raban a 'retard' for calling the US the most faith-led country in history, citing 18th century Spain, but Raban is talking not just about religion but also about 'the American dream'. There may have been a Spanish Inquisition, but there was no 'Spanish dream' to be exported as a common good for all humanity... by force, if necessary.)

Thanks, jaymc!

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:21 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, i can never dismiss that viewpoint, because it's a prevalent one, and one that my family still operates within. i can remove MYSELF from it, but i will never try to convince myself that it does not exist. however, i have not completely turned my back on christianity. i am in the process of figuring out exactly what my beliefs are and, because of the election, how they inform me politically.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:22 (twenty-one years ago)

"But he was governor of Texas!
*tumbleweeds*"

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:The office of Texas governor is like the 2nd or 3rd weakest in the nation. The Lieutenant Governor and The Speaker of The House have more power. On that note, what helped Bush as Governor was his networking skills. Nothing more, nothing less.

― Doobie Keebler (Charles McCain), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:22 (twenty-one years ago)

There may have been a Spanish Inquisition, but there was no 'Spanish dream' to be exported as a common good for all humanity... by force, if necessary.

not to nitpick too much (well...) but I do think the Spanish did plenty of exporting what they thought was "good" for humanity for a few hundred years. And as bad as Bush is, he's no conquistador (yet).

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

C'mon here folks, the Amerindian Holocaust was as bad as any the planet has seen and much of it was due to the Spanish and Portuguese trying to evangelize and 'civilize' the locals.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Herrrrmmm...an interesting omission here.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:38 (twenty-one years ago)

am i still sleeping or have i essentially been accused of being a republican twice in two days?

i don't think i'll bother arguing against momus again, i'll just stare in slack-jawed wonder at his wilfull obtuseness. feel my stare.

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Crypto-Republican!!!

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:44 (twenty-one years ago)

*stare*

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:47 (twenty-one years ago)

this was a holocaust... i thought edwards was just awful, and cheney came across as so preternaturally confident and competent (despite the fact that he was knowingly speaking a string of lies)

-- amateur!!!st (---...), October 6th, 2004.

Forgive me for thinking that sounded a lot like 'sympathy for the devil'. I didn't, however, accuse you of actually being a Republican.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:55 (twenty-one years ago)

*stare*

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 15:56 (twenty-one years ago)

amateur!!!st, frankly, you have a record as a starer that‘s not very distinguished.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:18 (twenty-one years ago)

ok, i give up. momus, what did i do wrong? is it verboten to acknowledge that i found cheney to have a nearly-convincing affect of confidence and competence? would you have preferred that i simply had called him a sack of shit or something? do you think my impression of the debate and of cheney's performance (happily, many people seem to have disagreed with me) altered my fundamental feelings about cheney and the bush administration? not everyone is as flaky as yourself.

i think his affect of competence and confidence (enhanced by the sense he gives of almost being bored with the matters at hand) probably does much to explain his success in the business world--his ability to convince other board members and shareholders that he is "on top of things." whether these qualities will be as successful at ingratiating himself to voters i doubt. but i feel like i got a slightly better understanding of how cheney got this far. (even if he likely has a nearly unbroken record of mismanagement.)

any punning sophistry will be met with the return of the stare.

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:20 (twenty-one years ago)

actually, don't bother responding. we've had this argument before and i know how it's going to go.

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:24 (twenty-one years ago)

his ability to convince other board members and shareholders that he is "on top of things." whether these qualities will be as successful at ingratiating himself to voters i doubt.

Well, this is exactly right, which is why I don't necessarily think he came off well. Lots of people wouldn't want that sort of person as a boss. I thought he came off as a terrible authoritarian.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd just like to say that I have now watched the debate and I thought Edwards did just faaaahhhn. I think his southern accent counts for a lot, and his good looks count for a lot. His opening smile was cute (Cheney can only manage a flash of crocodilian lower incisors). What he was saying was also effective. Good command of facts, three-part lists. Nice to see him whack points home about the admin siding with the drug companies, to talk about 80% of the world heroin supply coming from post-invasion Afghanistan, etc etc. Even the little stumbles and mis-speaks gave a nice impression of humbleness. I'm sure women were a big part of the positive polling he got.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:35 (twenty-one years ago)

You're a funny guy.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, but his new haircut isn't as floppy, which is a shame. It does make him look a decade older, which is probably for the best.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:38 (twenty-one years ago)

How can we criticize Bushco's prevarications and then fail to admit that Cheney's performance last night was good? Point out the lies and partisan interpretations but admit to your enemy's strengths. "Know thine enemy." If we end up just being visceral cheerleaders for our side, we're committing something akin to what I see as Bush's worst mistake in dealing with Iraq: a diehard inflexibility which equates irrational cheerleading with 'steadfastness' and a consequent inability to see things as they are and not as we wish to spin them. Bush reminds me more and more of Jefferson Davis in this regard. Davis was once described (by whom?)as being very inflexible. "He could break but he could not bend."

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Momus - I agree with amateur!!!st on this. Cheney - and I'm as big a detractor of the man as can be - pulled of a great show. He appeared polite (mostly), self-assured, competent, and credible. The fact that he's a lying, conniving shit is somewhat irrelevent in the context of discussing this particular showing, insofar as very few (especially of the swinger-voters) are going to take time to fact-check his false assertions.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh I wouldn't say that. I think most people are VERY aware that Cheney was lying. I think that's one of the other reasons why the post-debate polling for him is so poor.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:41 (twenty-one years ago)

From Free Republic, just as I'd expected:

is it just me or do kerry and edwards both seem to be gay! if you havent noticed, just watch closely the way they act. they have both made many gay jestures throughout the campaigne. we've also been hearing a lot of rumors here in ohio about kerry and little boys. just thought i'd let everyone in on the scoop.

I don't think Cheney came off as polite at all. He has the 'corporate' personality. Not everyone finds that sort of thing appealing. It's funny how the question of puritan values vs. pluralism emerged in this thread.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Spelling it "campaigne" seems way more gay than anything I've seen Kerry or Edwards do.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:43 (twenty-one years ago)

No, he spelled it that way because all furrin' words look alike.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Old French. DNC says we have to do it that way.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Okay can we de-google this thread. I don't want to increase the web precense of Free Republic garbage.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I have heard of incense but what's precense? ;)

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:47 (twenty-one years ago)

A mispelled word probably.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I prefer prescience.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

"gay jestures"

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:51 (twenty-one years ago)

The GOP must be terrified if they're playing the 'little boys' card. The only thing left after that is 'the October surprise'. Someone somewhere is preparing the weapons-grade plutonium as we speak.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Hey, factcheck.org is great! Why haven't I heard of this before? Why did I learn about this site from Cheney, of all people?

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:52 (twenty-one years ago)

"gay jestures"

http://www.lawpro.com/jester.gif

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Massive xpost:

Nick's right: when you've grown up with some kind of Elect/Chosen/Brahmin mindset which you rebelled from because you felt it pernicious, it's easy to spot fundie-speak. And you really can't sit still with wanting to say it's crap and manipulative and wrong. That's why most Christian fundamentalists shun their ex-members who have become 'worldly'. One of the funniest parts of the last presidential debate was seeing HOW FAST Bush ran through the City On The Hill schtick, complete with Sha-Na-Na style hand-jive! No different from those guys who take an NLP course to use it to get laid.

But also, it has to be said that liberal Americans have utopian ideals of their own which have their origins in capitalist puritanism. You know: if we have to be the leading user and consumer and killer and marketplace in the world, let's assert that USA #1 attitude that came free with manifest-destiny lessons at school and prove it by being good and trying to do the right thing.

Most people who go into civil service/politics are happy for the US to have 'world leader' status, and so are most Americans, however much it hurts to admit it and however much middle-class guilt it might produce.

BTW I've read and reread the new Philip Roth since getting it for review last week and it is FUCKING BRILLIANT.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:03 (twenty-one years ago)

also big xpost

Funnily in the drink-a-beer-with sweepstakes I came away from this one more on Cheney's side, insofar as you get the feeling he'd sit around quietly and call various senators bitches, as opposed to smiling too much and yapping your ear off about health care. That's sort of neither here nor there, though. I'm pleased if the polls are leaning Edwards; watching it I was afraid it was going to draw a clear division between Cheney (comes off sinister but you know he knows what he's doing, sinister or not) and Edwards (adorable, but comes off like a sixteen year old begging to borrow the car -- "no really, I'll be so responsible, I swear") that, given the general fear animating this whole campaign, would tilt in Cheney's favor. (Exactly why I was unsure about Edwards as candidate in the beginning.) I think what I forgot is that while most of us here are familiar with Cheney's deep lack of personal appeal, there are probably a decent number of viewers and poll-responders who weren't exactly deeply in touch with it, and have been getting all re-repulsed as he's emerged over the course of this campaign.

Edwards came off decently on policy, and I'm glad that got across to viewers. It was his demeanor I was worried about, as of last night; it felt a bit more puppyish than he probably should be right now. And yeah, Cheney really did seem to check out after a while, and the Mary question really did seem to be the turning point; it was almost as if he got tired or bored and retreated inward. Which would have been a convenient point for Edwards to dial down the puppy. Dial down the puppy, John! And congratulations!

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:05 (twenty-one years ago)

nabisco is mind-numbingly otm there.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:07 (twenty-one years ago)

BTW I've read and reread the new Philip Roth since getting it for review last week and it is FUCKING BRILLIANT.

who do you review for, suzy? our house copy is a review copy as well.

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:08 (twenty-one years ago)

nabisco and amateurist are pretty otm for republicans

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:09 (twenty-one years ago)

GTII, what 'house' is your copy in? I am the Books Editor for an Edgy Style Magazine, and I am rocking a first edition.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:14 (twenty-one years ago)

very nice. My girlfriend is Bookslut.com.

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)

(I love name dropping.)

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:16 (twenty-one years ago)

What's the premise? Last few PR books haven't exactly thrilled me.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Charles Lindbergh beats FDR in presidental election, makes deal with Hitler to not defend Europe in WWII, slowly but surely advances anti-semetic agenda.

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Has some promise, that.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:20 (twenty-one years ago)

i picked up the roth at lunch. will start this weekend. i'm excited.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Sounds interesting, but I've got to read the Dylan memoir first.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Let's let uncommitteds speak for themselves - as I thought in advance, pretty much all Edwards had to do was sit next to Cheney and he comes off better. And the author of the new Cheney book on Air America points out that he perfectly adjusted to their short attention-span errand-heavy lives - most of it was blather, but he made his four important points by asking them to pay close attention. Sounds like the trial lawyer did his job.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd rather read Robert Paxton on fascism first

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:26 (twenty-one years ago)

(and Roth's last book)

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Funnily in the drink-a-beer-with sweepstakes I came away from this one more on Cheney's side

That's true, though I don't think Cheney would bother with anything as weak as beer. He strikes me as someone who prefers the harder stuff. Meanwhile, I doubt Edwards would take anything stronger than a Diet Coke (which he practically I.V.'s on the campaign trail, by all accounts). While Edwards comes across as a gregarious extrovert on stage, apparently in real life he is a very quiet and driven person whose idea of relaxation is to go running for an hour.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:29 (twenty-one years ago)

and to put obgyns out of business. JOHN EDWARDS IS ANTI-VAGINA PEOPLE!!!

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:30 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/books/10/06/review.philiproth.ap/

The structure looks really interesting, too... it's a fake memoir, with himself and his real family as the main characters. I'm starting on this tonight, after hearing the girl gush about it for the last three days. According to her and everyone else, it's a great, great book. "Pulitzer," they're saying.

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, I'd rather go shopping for hair products with Edwards.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:43 (twenty-one years ago)

More than that, even. I've already got a lecture on the thing coming up this month, which is as fast as I've ever seen something tugged into an academic setting; judging from the talk around this program, the entire literary world is hoisting the book right up on their shoulders. Which is good, a damn good thing for everyone.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Actually, fuck CNN. THE NYTimes Book Review wrote my favorite piece so far:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/books/review/03BERMAN.html?oref=login

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:49 (twenty-one years ago)

that's great, since Roth seems to be to be someone that everyone has pretty much ignored for the past 30 years.

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Jonathan Raban is Jewish, too, so he knows what it is to come from a background of people saying 'We are the chosen people'... and also to overcome it

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:54 (twenty-one years ago)

So who wants to go for a beer with Lindbergh, then? Lots of nice aviation anecdotes, the terrible tale of his baby getting kidnapped, plus a few forgiveable side-swipes at the Jews.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:55 (twenty-one years ago)

On the downside: He's kinda dead.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know about forgivable, but he surely wouldn't be boring.

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:57 (twenty-one years ago)

He strikes me as someone who prefers the harder stuff.

He strikes me as someone who prefers the very expensive stuff. The very very expensive stuff.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 17:59 (twenty-one years ago)

(By the way, you can read Jack London's vision of a fascist America, 'The Iron Heel' -- cited by the NYT as a precursor to the new Roth -- online here.)

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:00 (twenty-one years ago)

He strikes me as someone who prefers the very expensive stuff. The very very expensive stuff.

The blood of virgins?

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I will have a virgin Bloody Mary. *wink wink*

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I'll have a bit of a Roth moment later (dinner beckons) but safe to say this is miles away from most things I've read by him and as the things I dislike about the writing are usually misogynistic/sex-related. He wouldn't be the first politicized man I've encountered to be pound-sound when faced with fascism but a bit of a putz when it comes to women.

The reviewers over here are going 'Pulitzer? Pfffft. What about Nobel?'

GTII, Bookslut is great.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Jonathan Raban is Jewish, too, so he knows what it is to come from a background of people saying 'We are the chosen people'... and also to overcome it
-- gabbneb (gabbne...), October 6th, 2004 11:54 AM. (gabbneb) (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So who wants to go for a beer with Lindbergh, then? Lots of nice aviation anecdotes, the terrible tale of his baby getting kidnapped, plus a few forgiveable side-swipes at the Jews.
-- Momus (nic...), October 6th, 2004 11:55 AM. (Momus) (later)

Sounds like a forgivable sideswipe to me.

― Symplistic (shmuel), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Momus, you do realize, right, that you're going around suggesting that in the context of discussing a debate we're somehow not allowed to point out where the person we disagree with nevertheless came across as momentarily more interesting than his opponent? (And you do realize, right, that the whole point of the have-a-beer formulation is that it's strictly a way of talking about demeanor, and not anything substantive that the candidates are saying?)

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Don't bug Momus, Nabisco. He's busy suckin' down the brewskis with Pres. Lindbergh.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Thing is, I really *would* like to have beer with Lindbergh. Or ancient Scotch with Dick Cheney. What better way to pick the brain of someone you don't understand?

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:24 (twenty-one years ago)

My perspective on this is that politics and aesthetics are inseparable. I know this is not everyone's view. But I find Bush and Cheney aesthetically and politically intolerable. They wouldn't drink the same beer as me, and I'd lose my appetite if I had to eat with them. My hatred of them is written through me like the lettering on a stick of rock. It's not something I can control. It's visceral. I can't understand people who think they're nice guys, or slick, or competent, while disagreeing with them politically. I think once you concede anything to them the battle is half lost.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:29 (twenty-one years ago)

uh huh.

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:31 (twenty-one years ago)

That wasn't agreement, mind you. I was shugiing that off. Sounded a little like blind hate to me.

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:32 (twenty-one years ago)

It is seeing hate.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Momus,

I'm sure they would agree with you on everything but the specific political and esthetic content .

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:33 (twenty-one years ago)

it is being hateful towards what you perceive as hate. there's nothing particularly high-minded about it.

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Momus, it sounds like you're dehumanizing your "enemies" in order to justify your hate. This can be very dangerous.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:35 (twenty-one years ago)

oh, man, don't make someone else use the word "holocaust."

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Sounded a little like blind hate to me.

yes, there are no rational reasons to hate Dick Cheney.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I once thought Tony Blair was an exceptionally good-looking man. I no longer think that, and it's not that his face has changed significantly, it's what he's done. 'Handsome is as handsome does'.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:37 (twenty-one years ago)

yes, there are no rational reasons to hate Dick Cheney.

there are no rational reasons to not want to eat near him. should there be a separate lunch counter for republicans because we find them so distasteful?

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Whereas I would spike Cheney's whisky with acid and Bush's fake beer with everclear to make them more human.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:39 (twenty-one years ago)

a drunk Bush is the life of the barbecue, you just know it.

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:40 (twenty-one years ago)

from GeorgeSoros.com:

FactCheck.com Correction

We do not own the FactCheck.com domain name and are not responsible for it redirecting to GeorgeSoros.com. We are as surprised as anyone by this turn of events. We believe that Vice President Cheney intended to direct viewers to FactCheck.org.

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:42 (twenty-one years ago)

When your "enemy" has much more power than you, and the power to destroy your life at that, your "hate" is not worth anywhere nearly as much as theirs.

This "feel sorry for the incredibly wealthy and powerful" is bizarre to me. They are not my peers.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I have never felt sorry for them.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Nobody is feeling sorry for them, for pity's sake! I was mostly having a reaction (you know, like an allergic reaction) to what Momus said, which is an old argument for racism. "I can't help it, I'm only human, I'm just repulsed by people of this color." Momus deliberately linked their political affiliation to their phyisical being and their status as humans, which I think is taking it way too far.

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:48 (twenty-one years ago)

All I know is that if Kerry came to my barbecue he'd bring me REALLY OLD Laphroaig and would know how to pronounce it. Bush would pee in my swimming pool and want well-done steak.

xpost Kerry, it's called 'falling in love with your jailers'. It's also part of America's aspiration problems that people self-guesstimate their situations into a higher tax/class bracket than is really the case.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:49 (twenty-one years ago)

yes, when you hate people for their race, you are hating them, thus you should never hate anyone

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:50 (twenty-one years ago)

(x-post x 2)Oh bullshit. Momus' was TALKING specifically about Bush and Cheney (and there ilk-i.e. cabinet and close friends.) You're being even more deliberately dense than he often is.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:50 (twenty-one years ago)

It is seeing hate.
-- Momus

um, momus, i fear you're turning into alan parker - urban warrior here...

i liked the graun piece, i think lots of america, "left" and right, is still in thrall to city on the hill/american dream nonsense. however i have to agree with the american posters here that, if we are going to discuss the debates, we mayaswell discuss them rather than just shout "CHENEY SMELLS OF POO" in a self-congratulatary way to each other, i'm not aware of there being too many undecideds round here, and i know a lot of people here are getting the message out in their communities, so, here amongst friends why shouldn't they view the debates in an open-minded fashion...

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:53 (twenty-one years ago)

http://krigskronikan.com/bilder/rumsfeld-cheney1975.jpg

(Rummsy looks like a teacher I had in junior high who was later convicted of molesting his daughter.)

― Pl3a5ant Pains (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:54 (twenty-one years ago)

BTW handsome is as handsome does is not dissimilar to beauty coming from *within* and all that. I can see what Nick means.

In related matters I received one (1) absentee ballot with a comical manila SECRECY ENVELOPE this morning.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:54 (twenty-one years ago)

It's more like, if you had a significant other or family member who treated you like shit, you cringe every time you see someone else engaging in similar behavior.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:55 (twenty-one years ago)

and what the hell's that thing coming out of cheney's head!!!

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:55 (twenty-one years ago)

x-post I guess I can see that. It still sounded a little overly irrational.

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:56 (twenty-one years ago)

So if it's me doing the hating it's OK 'cause I know my ideas are right and my motives are pure whereas with them, it's not OK 'cause their ideas are wrong and their motives are impure. I'm sorry but if politics only comes down to this schoolyard level of behavior (and it so very often does) without any hope of transcendance or redemption, than why even bother with democracy?

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 18:57 (twenty-one years ago)

No, it's okay because they have a hell of a lot more power than you do. I'm sure Cheney gives a rat's ass whether or not you hate him - he doesn't want your vote anyway. And it isn't whether Cheney hates you, either - it's whether he has the ability to do anything about it.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:00 (twenty-one years ago)

(I like ILE because it makes me feel like Malcolm X.)

― Dan Perry '08 (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:02 (twenty-one years ago)

it's prob just the b&w talking, but that photo REALLY resembles a film still

― m. (mitchlnw), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:02 (twenty-one years ago)

How did these bastards manage to hijack the colour red anyway?

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:03 (twenty-one years ago)

There are plenty of reasons to hate Clinton and Gore, largely the same reasons as Bush/Cheney, does Momus feel the same visceral hatred and repulsion toward them?

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Tracer H always says the innate, unfixed difference between Dems and Reps is that Dems believe that people are innately good (future) adults whereas Reps believe they are innately bad eternal children, and for the most part act accordingly.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I could never hate Al Gore. He was on Futurama (plus his daughter wrote many an episode!)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Clinton was clearly the greatest president since FDR (even if he wasn't quite as great as liberals would have liked him to be.) Despite his deplorable judgement, I would definitely have a beer with him. I'm sure he would be very entertaining.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:10 (twenty-one years ago)

(plus his daughter wrote many an episode!)

So? Just because Cheney's daughter licks snatch doesn't mean he's any less evil.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Being a lesbian /= good person, writing Futurama = I AM YOUR GOLDEN GOD!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Thou foul hate spirits come out!

http://www.ernestangley.org/mirheal/images/ra_mir.jpg

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I believe that most lesbians are less evil than Dick Cheney, yes.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, well, that's not much of a standard.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:17 (twenty-one years ago)

There are plenty of reasons to hate Clinton and Gore, largely the same reasons as Bush/Cheney, does Momus feel the same visceral hatred and repulsion toward them?

No, I more or less moved to the US because I loved those two. I loved Clinton for his healthy interest in sex, the fact that he gave Monica books by Walt Whitman and Nicholson Baker. I almost wept when I read the New Yorker feature on Gore in 2000 which described the diagrams he was drawing of social processes. Even the words 'policy wonk' sounded wonderful to me. I also liked Hillary, though I drew the line at Tipper.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:21 (twenty-one years ago)

More vidcaps, in case you hadn't seen them.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20041006/capt.ny11710061727.debate_first_meeting_ny117.jpg

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I can't believe he's really 51.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:28 (twenty-one years ago)

So, Momus, just to clarify - your hatred isn't based on anything like "bombing innocent people," rather it's on "likes sex"?

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Is Edwards a Mormon?

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Ha - he totally DOES look like a Mormon.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:30 (twenty-one years ago)

In all fairness, Edwards was 48 when that photo was taken.

Strangely, Cheney has been 63 years old since 1990.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:31 (twenty-one years ago)

your hatred isn't based on anything like "bombing innocent people," rather it's on "likes sex"?

You trying to atomise an approach which is all about the opposite -- seeing the moral, political and aesthetic as all tied up with each other.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:32 (twenty-one years ago)

~~You~~ You're

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:33 (twenty-one years ago)

so it's about innocent people bombing sex? cuz i don't think i can get with that.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:34 (twenty-one years ago)

They're obviously not "tied up with each other," if you don't hold Clinton and Bush to the same "moral, political" standards.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:34 (twenty-one years ago)

― J (Jay), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:34 (twenty-one years ago)

http://cache.eonline.com/Gossip/Tab/Archive2004/Images/140.weekly.wld.news.061004.jpg

― J (Jay), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:35 (twenty-one years ago)

So wait Kosovo to you is a DIRECT parallel to Iraq, Milo? There are no fundamental differences in how these two played out?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Seeing the moral, political and aesthetic as all tied up with each other

I should add 'the sexual' too. There should have been at least one question in the debates about sexual preferences.

'So Mr Vice President, what turns you on, in the bedroom?'

'Well, Gwen, Mrs Cheney and I have a dungeon, and it's equipped with...'

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Where did this idea come from that Clinton/Gore and Bush/Cheney are politically equivalent? I think if Momus wants to hate Bush & Cheney, that's his right. There's nothing wrong with a little good, clean hate. When did hate become this pathological condition that all right-thinking people should avoid?

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:40 (twenty-one years ago)

O.Nate, the answer is somewhere upthread, ironically enough.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:42 (twenty-one years ago)

1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy : LOATHING

Why is this beyond the pale?

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:45 (twenty-one years ago)

This picture is lovely btw.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/10/06/cheneyblows/cover.jpg

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Could someone please give the Vice President a nutcracker?

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Momus your point seems fair enough but I think there's something underneath it that maybe verges on the same kind of thickheadedness you used to join us all in accusing Bush of. I dunno, it just seems obvious to me that in a democracy it's worth thinking and talking about how the candidates present themselves as individuals, and how the different elements of their personalities do or don't appeal to other voters, quite apart from how we feel about their policies. And all anyone's really said here is that some of us could see last night what it is about Cheney's demeanor that some voters might respond to in a positive way. I think most of us and really most Americans would agree with you that a huge part of why the guy isn't likeable has to do with his actions, beliefs, and record; after all, if the guy was a progressive we'd probably all of us be defending him as a lovable clear-headed grandfatherly type. But to always always force yourself to smother clear insight into his demeanor under some dogmatic sense that you have to dislike him seems to me to be kind of anti-thought, kind of anti-consideration: surely there's nothing wrong with looking at where your "enemies" actually do manage to present themselves effectively (not to mention where your "friends" fail at the same task). Beyond which to be butt-obvious we're talking about a debate, and surely ILX would be a much poorer place if everyone just posted "Edwards won because Cheney is evil hooray."

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:48 (twenty-one years ago)

o. nate, the issue is probably less "shame on you for hating" as much as it is the initial "shame on you for not hating enough oh and by the way since I'm in the middle of an orgy of disapproval I'm going to label you the same as the people I'm already hating" that kicked it off.

― Dan Perry '08 (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean Momus in the end your take here is the same as that of the people in the spin rooms, where the other guy is always wrong and always looks stupid, and lost the debate even before it began; which I guess is fine on a personal level but doesn't wind up providing any kind of analysis that's worth looking at.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:50 (twenty-one years ago)

surely ILX would be a much poorer place if everyone just posted "Edwards won because Cheney is evil hooray."

but that seems to be exactly what the undecideds intuited

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Hatred has long been considered something to avoid. Sure, the christian west has the idea of 'righteous indignation', but it has been long warned against. To some other cultures, hatred is always and unconditionally shameful.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 19:59 (twenty-one years ago)

You can't love if you can't hate. This idea that we should avoid emotions, and that everything balances out and there's no difference between X and Y is completely schizo.

Nabisco:

it just seems obvious to me that in a democracy it's worth thinking and talking about how the candidates present themselves as individuals

Yes, that's absolutely what I'm doing.

and how the different elements of their personalities do or don't appeal to other voters

Ah, I think this is where we disagree. See, you're describing a straw man, a synthetic 'average American' you construct to explain Cheney's appeal. Journalists also do this, as do political strategists. And I think these wax figures do an injustice to the people they're supposed to represent. What's more, they become Trojan horses, affecting our own way of looking at people, getting in the way of our true feelings about them. We start seeing someone like Cheney much more positively than he deserves, by trying to imagine how he looks to some really stupid, really fascist 'average American'. Then we're surprised that the polls show only 28% approval for his performance, and that from people who had already made up their minds.

quite apart from how we feel about their policies.

We must learn that we cannot see 'quite apart from how we feel'. Seeing and feeling are inseparable. And we can never really see/feel with or for someone else.

But to always always force yourself to smother clear insight into his demeanor under some dogmatic sense that you have to dislike him seems to me to be kind of anti-thought

It's not dogmatic. It's sensual and empirical. I dislike him in real time, and with my brain working full time. If you could give me a goldfish's memory-span, I would dislike him afresh every six seconds.

we're talking about a debate, and surely ILX would be a much poorer place if everyone just posted "Edwards won because Cheney is evil hooray."

Here I agree.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:06 (twenty-one years ago)

You can't love if you can't hate.

Shall I sound the False Dichotomy Alarm, or would someone else like to?

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:08 (twenty-one years ago)

WOW seriously this is the first time I can think of in a looooong time where you've expanded upon a point and I agree with you, Momus! CHAMPAGNE FOR EVERYONE!!!

― Dan Perry '08 (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:08 (twenty-one years ago)

(xpost hee hee the False Dichotomy Alarm is already on full blare because people insist on posting to ILE!)

― Dan Perry '08 (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:09 (twenty-one years ago)

I know! I feel bad now for trying to beat on him upthread!
xp

― Symplistic (shmuel), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I'll use the champagne to toast your 08 campaign, Dan. But I'm telling you now I'm voting for Hillary.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:17 (twenty-one years ago)

voting for Hillary? I'm hoping to re-elect Kerry in '08.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I think that the concept of God can involve a being who loves, but does not hate; and personally I think the virtuous life involves nurturing love and destroying hate.

Also, I don't think there is anything wrong with watching these debates as pure theatre - play with it any way you want. If I had watched that debate with little or no idea of the issues, just as two men in front of me, Cheney gave off more of the values that I think our society (though not necessarily I or other individuals) values. Cheney seemed to have the 'cahones', and unfortunately the impression of masculinity is still important to people's opinion of someone's capacity to wield power.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I like Momus's point about the "synthetic average American" constructed by pundits and debate analysts. There are perhaps a couple of other reinforcing tendencies which might be causing people to go out of their way to be generous to Cheney.

First, being considerate of other viewpoints is considered a liberal virtue. It's the other guys who are supposed to be close-minded dogmatists who can't see any other point of view but their own. We liberals pride ourselves on being accepting of all viewpoints (and not hating any of God's creatures).

Second, there's this tendency (sustained by the ostentatiously "neutral" media) to treat politics like a horse race. i.e., what the candidates really stand for doesn't matter; only how they present themselves matters. There is some value in looking at things that way, because you can't win elections on idealism alone. But the danger is that you miss the fact that sometimes ideals and policies do matter. And despite how the news anchors behave, maybe it can be okay to talk about these things in the context of a political discussion. We end up in a very twisted version of reality when the "merits" of the debate are equated with "who can lie the best". It gets even stranger when people say that Cheney deserved to win because he's a better liar, but Edwards got an unfair advantage because he looked more amiable. Both of these are fundamentally aesthetic judgments, and neither is properly part of a political decision making process, so why privilege one over the other?

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Hold up, Momus: don't accuse me of erecting straw men and then turn me into one yourself. I mean, Jesus, you of all people have very little room to assume others are patronizing the electorate by assuming they're simpler than they are. And if you actually look at why you got on this tack to begin with, you'll notice that it wasn't because we were sitting up here saying we can imagine why some voters might respond to Cheney -- it was because some of us were being honest enough to admit that we personally glimpsed the very few elements of his demeanor that actually play well. This is as simple as looking at a great actor and a terrible one and noticing in the end that the terrible one nevertheless follows his blocking well, or something.

For instance I might say now that your last post, the one accusing me of demeaning the average voter, was a very clever distraction, although completely irrelevant and disingenuous. Very much like Cheney's demeaning-Iraqi-deaths line. See how that works?

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:22 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.strike9.com/8FE325B14A/vpdebate.jpg

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:23 (twenty-one years ago)

personally I think the virtuous life involves nurturing love and destroying hate

Do you hate hate?

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Better way of putting that: at no point has anyone here really invoked this straw-man middle-American voter and then gone projecting a lot of thoughts into his head; I think I pretty explicitly said that there were elements of Cheney's demeanor that I personally found sort of effective in this debate, and conversely certain elements of Edwards's that I didn't, and that in this particular match-up that struck me as worth pointing out.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I hate hate hate.

― Dan Perry '08 (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Wimblehack! America's Worst Campaign Journalists Square Off

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Do I hate hate? Is that a serious question? No, I feel very little antipathy towards abstract nouns, and I do hate lots of things. I see this hatred as a weakness though, not as something essentially nutritious or indicative of vitality. I would never claim to be full of love and empty of hate, however I don't see anything wrong with stating that love is good and hate is bad.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:28 (twenty-one years ago)

accusing me of demeaning the average voter was a very clever distraction, although completely irrelevant and disingenuous

I don't think it's irrelevant at all, Nabisco. You were setting forth the idea of stepping outside of one's personal reaction to Cheney and trying to see him as other voters see him, and I was pointing out the problems with that. I think it's almost always reductive.

Now you seem to have backtracked from that position (flip flopper!) to say that we personally might see some good points in Cheney's performance. To which I'd simply say that Frankenstein's monster is still a monster even when he has the arm of a really beautiful girl sewn onto him.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:44 (twenty-one years ago)

You were setting forth the idea of stepping outside of one's personal reaction to Cheney and trying to see him as other voters see him, and I was pointing out the problems with that. I think it's almost always reductive.

So stepping outside of your personal reaction is *more* reductive than considering nothing besides your own reaction?

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I do not dispute that the content was monstrous, Momus, but the delivery was superior. Cheney's content may have been spurious invective dressed up as avuncular steadfastness but he came across to me as more convinced and more knowledgeable than Edwards who seemed light-weight, overly coached in a minful of the talking points kind of way, and falsely cheery in a lawyerly way.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:48 (twenty-one years ago)

So stepping outside of your personal reaction is *more* reductive than considering nothing besides your own reaction?

It's not pretentious to speak for yourself. It is pretentious to speak on behalf of others.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:49 (twenty-one years ago)

No, Momus, what I'm rebelling against is your need to create one Gestalt reaction to a candidate and then slot every comment you might make about him into it. I don't think it at all makes one a overcomplicated person to note that one of Frankenstein's arms turns out to be rather elegant. And look, I said up top that I found elements of Cheney's demeanor more effective than I expected -- the reason "other voters" play into this has nothing to do with my straw-manning them and everything to do with my knowing full well that the elements I find effective are likely to seem effective to other voters as well. I mean, really, if we're not paying some level of attention to those things -- where we think candidates have presented themselves well, where they haven't -- there strikes me as no point to our following this election at all; I already know who I'm voting for and you don't even live on this continent. I'm not sitting around trying to project onto other voters: I'm looking at the guy, in a debate, and I'm recognizing the occasional moments where his delivery complements him and he makes his points forcefully.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Do I hate hate? Is that a serious question?

Yes, it was intended as a serious question.

No, I feel very little antipathy towards abstract nouns

This is a nimble dodge, but a dodge nonetheless. "Hate" is not just an abstract noun, it has a meaning. A meaning that you employ when you make statements such as "hate is bad".

I don't see anything wrong with stating that love is good and hate is bad

I don't think it makes sense to discuss love and hate in a vacuum. Love of what? Hate of what? Surely love of heroin is not a good. Is it wrong to hate hunger or disease? Is it possible to contemplate things that you think are evil without experiencing any sort of negative emotion? Is this to be desired? I don't know, but I think these are points on which reasonable people can disagree.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:53 (twenty-one years ago)

(xpost)

Ack, I'm clearly going nuts, as this points seems to me far too obvious to require even that much explanation. Why would you even watch the debate if you're not prepared to make various evaluations about where the candidates are and are not presenting themselves and their policies effectively? Why watch the debate if you don't think that those presentations are going to have some small effect on the decisions of voters?

I need to catch the subway now.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Love of what? Hate of what?

I think what got us on this tack was Momus's love of hating Bush and Cheney.

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:55 (twenty-one years ago)

That's the problem though, Michael - Cheney's alleged "avuncular" qualities and "superior" delivery aren't apparent to everyone. Because personally, I found him repulsive, and no, it was not because I disagree with him.

I do think it's interesting to think about why some people might view the same personality in different ways.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:57 (twenty-one years ago)

k3rry,

His was the performance Bush tried and failed previously. The 'I'm in the executive branch, privy to all the best info, you don't know how hard it is, you second guessing little arriviste' air of tired commitment. This can be a natural and even laudable response to the pressures of the office. Of course, apart from being 'evil', Bushco is just so wrong about almost every single issue that I couldn't care less if Cheney just got up and proved he was a better pianist than Monk, I wouldn't vote for him.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:06 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.tvbarn.com/archives/monk.jpg

― Dan Perry '08 (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:09 (twenty-one years ago)

My perspective on this is that politics and aesthetics are inseparable.

yes, this is your "line," which you repeat with geir-esque persistence, as though it will make the job of actually arguing your points convincingly irrelevant. but unfortunately for you, it's not a formulation that necessarily excludes a variety of notions about how politics and aesthetics intersect. it seems to serve you best as a means of assuming the self-righteous glow of the politically involved without engaging in much more than your usual rhetorical shell games.

anyway i was right the first time: i should have simply kept up my stare.

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Or maybe he just seemed cold-blooded and arrogant.

We went through this upthread, but now I'll be more blunt : wtf is up with this insight into and/or identification with Cheney's state of mind?

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:10 (twenty-one years ago)

"convincingly" modifies "arguing" btw-- my syntax was a bit garbled

anyway if anyone were to design a momusbot i'm certain that "My perspective on this is that politics and aesthetics are inseparable" is the only clause you will need to teach it.

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Some questions pollsters might ask of the public:

Do you find Cheney repulsive because you disagree with him?
Do you disagree with Cheney because you find him repulsive?
Do you agree with Cheney because you find him repulsive?
Do you find Cheney repulsive because you agree with him?

Now, choose the response which best completes this sentence: 'I found Cheney repulsive not because I disagreed with him but because...'

a) I suffer from heartburn.
b) A donkey bit me when I was a child.
c) Hating him just makes me feel so good, so right!
d) When I look at him I remember that I owe my uncle money.
e) I feel sure that he has webbed feet.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:17 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/08.16.01/gifs/monk-0133.jpg

Thelonious Sphere,

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Surely d) or e).

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:18 (twenty-one years ago)

momus you criticized me for something. do you remember what it is?

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:19 (twenty-one years ago)

a) Yes
b) No

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:27 (twenty-one years ago)

This is a thread about Vice magazine, right? Right?

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:28 (twenty-one years ago)

amateur!!!st, where were you when Dan offered champagne to everyone?

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Why, thank you Dan!! *Quaffs champagne* Et si on mangeait? J'ai faim.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:38 (twenty-one years ago)

C'est que des 'hommes-filles' qui savent parler en francais. Et des flip-floppeurs.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Mon cher collègue, enchanté de faire votre connaissance.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Buvons à l'esthétique dyonisiaque, et invitons notre estimé ami amateur!!!st à nous faire part de ses propre élucubrations sur les intersections entre l'esthétique et la politique.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:54 (twenty-one years ago)

and after the argument there's the after party
and after the party there's the hotel lobby

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Sébastien,

Faites gaffe á cette intersection lá. Il y’a toujours plein de flics bourrés

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)

anyways, the wimblehack piece hstencil linked to is the best thing ever written

― Symplistic (shmuel), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 22:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry for the odd aside about whether hate is negative. But still I continue...

"Hate" is not just an abstract noun, it has a meaning. A meaning that you employ when you make statements such as "hate is bad".

Sorry, I didn't mean to be obtuse, I mean 'abstract noun' as a noun which refers to something without concrete existance, such as states, ideas, feelings etc., and when say hate is 'bad', which was terribly vague of me, I mean unhealthy, destructive or distracting.

Love of what? Hate of what?

This is a good question, of course, and for the sake of avoiding the Boddhisattva's 'do you desire Nirvana?' problem I shall qualify the definition of 'hate' I am using. As I am talkin about morality, I think it makes sense to assume these words only refer to other humans, or 'persons' (perhaps an argument for animals, but that makes it more complicated); as the problem came up in relation to whether hating Cheney was a good thing, I think limiting it to humans for practical purposes is fine. While we may say 'I hate broccoli', 'I hate fascism' and 'I hate my father', I think the word hate functions in different ways in each case, and that only the final one is relevant. Anyway, I feel this is mostly irrelevant. I will only say that I wish no specific ill will to Bush or Cheney - they probably have some good qualities, maybe those close to them love them and they love them back, and they have the potential to enrich humanity (okay, this would take a fairly extreme conversion, but the possibility of such is part of what makes life sacred). However, I do not think they should be in power - I don't really care if Bush and Cheney spend the rest of their lives happy as pigs in shit on some tropical island (sure, being held accountable for lying about Iraq would be nice, but that ain't going to happen), as long as they are not wielding the force of nations.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 22:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Dick Cheney and John Kerry should fuse into one being and become Don Cherry.

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 23:03 (twenty-one years ago)

"Surely love of heroin is not a good."

Who are you to decide?

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 23:24 (twenty-one years ago)

"Even though I hate Momus and all he stands for, I must say he is very good at arguing his lies".

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 23:32 (twenty-one years ago)

ONCE AGAIN I AM TEH THREDKILLAH!

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 23:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Cheney had body language?

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 23:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Perhaps jowl language then?

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 7 October 2004 00:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Does crushing the life out of baby mice with your bare hands count as body language?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/10/06/cheneyblows/cover.jpg

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 7 October 2004 00:23 (twenty-one years ago)

i missed dan's champagne offer in skipping a bunch of posts. is there any left?

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Thursday, 7 October 2004 01:23 (twenty-one years ago)

He's not crushing mice, he's making diamonds. Can't drill for oil without diamonds.

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Thursday, 7 October 2004 01:26 (twenty-one years ago)

We could compromise - I guess you could crush a mouse into a diamond?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 7 October 2004 01:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I didn't mean to suggest that Cheney was avuncular. He just didn't seem particularly evil to me, but maybe the way he spoke caught me off guard. I was actually surprised by his expression in that photo, and equally surprised by a photo of Edwards on the LA Times web site where he looked almost grave. Even though I expect politicians to stretch the truth or to give one-sided arguments, I thought Cheney's comment about Edwards being unconcerned about Iraqi deaths was way off the mark. First of all, Edwards was making a point about the coalition. Secondly, the Bush administration bears responsibility because of the way they conducted the war. Cheney's comment about Kerry always being on the wrong side of defense issues was also upsetting. Does he even think that the right side is always being for war?

I guess Edwards was trying not to be controversial in his answer to the question about Israel. I don't know what Kerry's position is, but if it's more balanced, I wish he could make it known and carry his supporters along with him, challenge and convince them.

― youn, Thursday, 7 October 2004 05:06 (twenty-one years ago)

judging from Cheney's body language and stuff during the brief period that he talked about Bin Laden, it doesn't look like they have him under wraps right now.

That might be good news, but it has to be bad news that Cheney spoke several times about the likelihood of terrorists detonating a radiological weapon in an American city. It seems like a very specific threat, almost an agenda the Bush administration is pushing. That's the kind of terrorism they want everybody to focus on. That's next. What's odd is that it isn't based on any sort of intelligence or specific threats from terrorist groups. In fact, in May 2001, when Mohammed Atta met in Spain with Ramzi Binalshibh, they specifically ruled out a strike on a nuclear plant.

Obviously the Bush administration has two reasons for 'wanting' the dirty bomb scenario:

1. It's terrifying, and they want people to remain terrified. In this sense they share the objectives of the terrorists.

2. Radiological material has to be provided by a state -- this is 'state-sponsored' terrorism. And where you can implicate a state, you can invade a state. It's the ideal pretext for any military adventure you feel like mounting.

It's between-the-lines stuff like this that makes Cheney so thoroughly 'evil'. Speculation about whether his wife loves him is completely irrelevant.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 7 October 2004 05:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Sure, but we'd all be pleased if Cheney was a cuckold.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 7 October 2004 05:33 (twenty-one years ago)

oddly enough, the only other Roth fans i know are women... Sharon O'Connell got me into him when i was at Melody Maker, and have met many women who love his stuff (my gf loved the books of his i've loaned her). oddly, roth's sexism is my biggest turn-off with his stuff, because its so blatant and unchallenged, its not even an intriguing flaw.

― stevie (stevie), Thursday, 7 October 2004 10:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I see the notes Bush could be seen taking during his debate with Kerry have appeared in the public domain. They provide an interesting insight into the mind of a President. Perhaps Cheney's will also appear on this valuable website.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 7 October 2004 10:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Biography on the CBC's Fifth Estate says: Cheney is fucking evol!
This aired last night and was beyond enraging.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 7 October 2004 14:08 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.