There was a debate????
 

Or it shows that Cheney is a lying, conniving sack of shit with the morals of a snake.

(guess which I'm thinking is the right answer)

There was a debate????
 

My goodness, and you accused Clinton of parsing words too carefully. Why, my dear boy, I'm just amazed the Good Lord don't just turn y'all's tongue black and make it fall right off.

There was a debate????
 

Hi tw, earlier today Ty was explaining how your posts here are thoughtful and not in step with the "crazies."

Does anyone know if Michael Moore ever threatened to kill W?

There was a debate????
 

Actually, it's the meds.

in case you missed it
 

Something Awful has some fine commentary on last night's debate:

• Dick Cheney, in a strange move, began the debate by demanding fifteen minutes of silence for the late Rodney Dangerfield. This delayed things, especially when John Edwards argued it was a bad move. Cheney called Edwards disrespectful and went ahead with his fifteen minutes of silence alone.
  
• Edwards started off heavy by removing his shirt and asking Cheney to "oil him up." When Cheney refused, Edwards called him a "tease." Edwards, in a candid move, then recited the sacred Green Lantern Oath while bare-chested:
  
  In brightest day, in darkest night,
  No evil shall escape my sight.
  Let those who worship evil's might,
  Beware my power....Green Lantern's Light!
  
• While Edwards went through the debate not wearing a shirt, Cheney wore a T-shirt with a tuxedo design printed on it. He repeatedly juggled oranges and bit his lip when asked difficult questions.
  
• When the discussion turned to homosexual marriage, Edwards snapped a VHS tape out of his jacket. "This video cassette," he said, "contains footage of Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter having lesbian sex. I think the American people have the right to see this video, and I brought a VCR with me." Cheney successfully "yoinked" the video away as a frustrated Edwards struggled to properly hook the RCA cables to the VCR.
  
• Cheney, attempting to prove Edwards incapable of defending this country, shocked everyone with a startling revelation. "How do I know John Edwards can't defend our country?" asked Cheney. "Because I abducted him from his home when he was a child and threw him down a flight of stairs, obviously causing permanent brain damage." Cheney cracked his knuckles and added, "and I could do it again." Edwards was left in tears.
  
• On numerous occasions, Edwards mistakenly referred to the moderator as "your honor" and Dick Cheney as "the defendant." On the flipside, Dick Cheney repeatedly invoked the name "Adolf Saddam bin Laden Noriega" in a possibly calculated attempt to spark fear in the hearts of cowardly Americans and further link bin Laden with Hussein and other evil men.
  
• Cheney lost some credibility by countering Halliburton accusations with, "the nonpartisan website Sexbarn.org has all the information discrediting those rumors." Actually, Sexbarn.org turned partisan about the same time they added the alpaca gallery and video section.
  
• Edwards did not hesitate to bring up Halliburton at every opportunity. Cheney finally countered by giving Edwards a coupon book offering valuable discounts on Halliburton brand merchandise.
  
• Both candidates struggled with Gwen's question, "if you could be any flavor of ice cream in the whole wide world, what flavor would you be?"
  
• Cheney began multiple rebuttals with, "I don't know where to begin." While he was attempting to convey that he was overwhelmed by inaccuracies, it came off sounding more desperate. Edwards preferred to start his rebuttals with, "the reason for that burning flesh smell is that my opponent is ablaze in the flames of his own filthy lies."
  
• In an effort to prove how strong he was, Cheney injected a syringe full of heroin into his heart. He finished the debate spitting and oozing blood from of his mouth.
  
• When told not to mention John Kerry's name in his response, Edwards mentioned it twice. Legend has it that if you say John Kerry's name three times, he will appear and kill you with his hook hand. Gwen scolded Edwards for trying to invoke evil spirits.
  
• In his closing statement, Edwards thanked Gwen and the vice president. In Cheney's closing statement, he thanked Gwen and snubbed Edwards. This showing of contempt had an obvious effect on Edwards, who was visibly shaken. For the first time he learned just how hallow politics truly were and undoubtedly lost all faith in American democracy.
  
  Meanwhile, in a remote cabin, Peter Camejo declared himself the winner of a debate he had with two effigies he built in his garage.

There was a debate????
 

That reminds me. I want my money back, you gonef!

more globL TESTS
 

They already do.

Every night when Rather and Brokaw and Lehrer take a seat.

There was a debate????
 

Yes, we did.

But when you decided that it was okay for him to question was "is" is, the new standard was set.

There was a debate????
 

Client pleaser.

There was a debate????
 

You know, the comparison to Clinton is hardly flattering for you. A great many Democrats were appalled by and disappointed with Clinton. They didn't agree that he should be impeached, but they agreed publicly that he was wrong. Remember Lieberman scolding him on the floor of the Senate? Now try to imagine a GOP Senator doing the same to (e.g.) Cheney these days.

There was a debate????
 

Well, if Cheney lies in an investigation under oath, I would hope someone would openly criticize him.

However, the circumstances you are comparing are hardly comparable.

There was a debate????
 

Can you point to a lie under oath to help us with visualization?

New Zogby
 

Get your bets down - http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...04-an1006.html

http://online.wsj.com/media/info-bat...d04-an1006.gif

Iowa
 

Less, where is Zogby getting his numbers? Because I read this earlier today:

Note that this poll was taken sponsored by a pro-Kerry 527

There was a debate????
 

I'm sorry, I thought you were just suggesting that a similar standard of truthfulness applies.

eta: That's a line I can see NRO getting behind: 'So Cheney lied to the American people; it's not like he swore an oath to tell the truth.'

Iowa
 

(1) There are so many state polls floating around that it's very hard to know which ones are worth paying attention to.

(2) According to an article I linked here a few days ago by Guy Molyneux in TAP, the important number to watch is not the spread between Bush and Kerry, but whether Bush is polling at 50% or higher. As a rule, incumbent presidents tend to poll just below or at the last polls, while the challengers pick up an average of 4% from the last poll. So I see the Iowa numbers that you posted here, and am heartened, because Bush is well below 50%. YMMV.

Iowa
 

This is the Zogby website - http://www.zogby.com . Problem is some of it requires paying him. Here is the FAQ - http://www.zogby.com/about/faq.cfm , containing the following:

I further understand (from a friend involved in the CA Republican party) that his decisions on whether a state will go Kerry v. Bush also considers built-in assumptions about voter turnout (heavier turnout favoring the Dems), as do other polls, but that he is assuming higher turnout than are others (and some of the others).

Here is his further breakdown of the post-debate numbers - http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=874

Here is his methodology - http://www.zogby.com/methodology/index.cfm

He was the only one to get 2000 right - http://www.ncpp.org/1936-2000.htm

Here's an article about him, including discussion about how he was the only one to get the 1996 election right - http://www.chriscmooney.com/PDF/Zogby.pdf

That said, here is his own article about his fuck-up of the 2002 midterm elections - http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=648

and here's an interesting study comparing 20 polls in the CA 2003 recall election and why they all basically suck - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1004883/posts

Iowa
 

If I read that article correctly, its not "vote for" as the 50% barometer - rather, its "approval rating"

Iowa
 

The article is here. The second, third and fourth paragraphs say:

• Almost all poll reporting focuses on the “spread,” that is, the difference in the percentage supporting Bush and John Kerry. If we take an average of the most recent ABC/Washington Post, CBS/New York Times, and NBC/Wall Street Journal surveys, it shows Bush with 49 percent and Kerry with 44 percent among registered voters. Such survey results are invariably reduced to the shorthand “Bush up 5,” which sounds like a comfortable lead.
  
  However, in incumbent elections, the incumbent’s percentage of the vote is a far better indicator of the state of the race than the spread. In fact, the percentage of the vote an incumbent president receives in surveys is an extraordinarily accurate predictor of the percentage he will receive on election day -- even though the survey results also include a pool of undecided voters. Hence the 50-percent rule: An incumbent who fails to poll above 50 percent is in grave jeopardy of losing his job.
  
  But is it really possible for Kerry to close a 5-point gap, absent some fundamental change in voter preference? To find historical precedent, we must reach back in history all the way to 1996, the most recent incumbent presidential election. Bill Clinton averaged 51 percent in the final polls but received 49 percent on election day, while Bob Dole averaged 37 percent but received 41 percent -- a net shift of 6 points. Not only can Kerry close such a gap, it is extremely likely that he will.

I haven't trolled for other pollsters who agree or disagree with this, but the numerical support in the article seems fairly convincing. OTOH, four (elections with incumbent presidents) is not a huge sample size. (The article is a week old, so the reference to the most recent poll is not right any more.)

There was a debate????
 

That is Bush's portfolio -- and in forums accessible to the broader public, he reaches out subtly, almost in code. I recall at least two (one commentator said three) uncited biblical references and/or biblical-sounding phrases from his first debate.

"I have climbed the mighty mountain, and I have seen the valley below, and it is the valley of peace."

They know Shrub's their man, or close enough to get them to turn out for them. [They don't seem to notice that its 98% lip service with no real concerted action (but don't worry Bilmore, I'm not suggesting Bush is calcualting or anything.)]

S_A_M

There was a debate????
 

The Devil quotes scripture to his own ends <wise nod>

There was a debate????
 

Glad to see Dick fired you up and you're feeling frisky again. Let's see how you feel after the Friday show.

S_A_M

There was a debate????
 

The left doesn't have any antipathy towards the rich. The left has antipathy towards the rich who feel that once they've made it, it's okay to stack the deck in their favor and slam the gate behind them.

Remember when you understood the difference?

There was a debate????
 

I read the post, and I appreciated it. But I didn't think anybody needed to point out that I never agree with you.

There was a debate????
 

I never decided that. I just decided that I couldn't give a fat rat's ass about the whole thing. I'm pretty sure that Penske was the one who decided to make it a crusade.

In the same vein, I think you're full of shit on this point, but I don't really expect you to change your tune or stop talking bullshit. I guess this is your crusade and apparently truth and logic are its casualties.

There was a debate????
 

Is there some kind of switch on your back that toggles between "Decry Vociferously" and "Suspend Judgment"? You only tut-tut when your ox is being gored.

There was a debate????
 

Who is penske?

There was a debate????
 

Dude, you're saying Cheney was in the cafeteria most Tuesdays and didn't run into Edwards, so that means Edwards is a non-entity in the Senate? If Cheney's point wasn't that he was presiding over Senate sessions and had never met Edwards, what the fuck was his point?

It's a perennial problem in litigation: after all the contortions you make to make your client's statement technically true, you've coincidentally made it irrelevant to your client's case.

There was a debate????
 

You're an ass. You want Cheney to be VP. Who here is running Michael Moore against him?

There was a debate????
 

Ty's sock has noted the same problem for the admin in dealing with Bremer's comments:

"With the Bremer debacle still seeping out into the national consciousness, there is a reassuring sense of clockwork and regularity in watching the designated GOP foot soldiers responding to the orders from Winger Central to zig or zig on command.

So for instance yesterday we first heard that Bremer had been misconstrued and that he was only talking about the delayed arrival of the 4th Infantry Division.

Now the folks at the Wall Street Journal editorial page are pulling the standard dump on Bremer, claiming that he, in addition to getting this or that wrong during his tenure in Iraq, now can't keep his story straight about whether he was asking for more troops on the ground in the country or not.

Trouble is, we haven't found a single other senior official involved in the war or its aftermath--in or out of uniform--who attests to Mr. Bremer's version of events.

"I never heard him ask for more troops and he had many opportunities before the President to do so," one senior Administration official tells us. Or to be more precise, Mr. Bremer did finally ask for two more divisions in a June 2004 memo--that is, two weeks prior to his departure and more than a year after he arrived.

Poor Bremer, really getting the treatment ...

But when the Journal editors were zigging, the Bush campaign had already started to zag. And the party line became predictably tangled.

Yesterday afternoon the Bush campaign told the Post that Bremer had requested more troops, but that the president preferred to take the counsel of his military commanders.

So it's either Bremer never said anything and now he's just making excuses (the Journal line.)

Or, yes he said something, but we chose to ignore him (the Bush-Cheney 04 line.)

Is BC04 lying too? In a cynical ploy to shift blame onto the president?

So with the regime-change dead-enders' media strategy you have dishonest arguments, poor coordination, lack of a game plan. Remind you of anything? "

There was a debate????
 

I don't think that is true. The left does have antipathy towards those who make it. They assume that if someone makes it, they got there unfairly unless that person is a leftie or a plaintiff's lawyer contingency fee bottom dweller.

The left also has a different attitude towards minorities who make it.

Cheney's Factcheck.com gaffe
 

About the gaffe (Cheney directing viewers of the debate to factcheck.com instead of factcheck.org and so right after the debate someone bought the site and it's now redirected to Soros's sight with the headline Whey You Shouldn't Vote For George Bush), it looks like Soros's camp didn't buy the site. Must have been someone else. I'd love to know who. Here's a blurb from the Soros site:

"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 of the Vice-Presidential Debate to FactCheck.org."

There was a debate????
 

Boy Atti, when you get busy, the intellectual depth evaporates really quick. Hmmmmm, maybe TW is just overworked.

Let's look at your little litigation scenario:

Cheney's statement had two parts.

First, Edwards has missed __% of the votes.

Then, as a sort of observation to illustrate how severe __% really is, he says "I've never met the guy."

You guys claim you shown the statement "irrelevent" Because once Edwards sat near Cheney at a breakfast, and was on Meet the Press with him or something.

But see here's the problem- the "client's statement" is "Edwards missed __% of the vote." That is what might be relevent to a voter. I don't think many voters will decide based upon whether Cheney met the guy or not, do you?

So like, in closing, you'd say "Well we've proven Edwards walked behind Cheney at a prayer breakfast, so you should ignore the whole issue."

Then we'd be like "ummm, did you notice how they didn't touch the __% part? they show this picture from breakfast, now if you knew Cheney you'd know he's concentrating on the bacon at breakfast, but you know what? Let me concede that maybe they met.....When you make your decision just remember what we all agree on. he missed ___% of the votes."

Wouldn't it go like that, kind of?

:confused:

:hide:

And Sebby, we're the party that lacks substance?

There was a debate????
 

Yet, a perfect example of a rick person doing this is a rich leftist who makes it to the moon and then wants to raise taxes on future spacemen, which will raise the cost of their rocket-fuel. Do you know any rich presidential candidates in your party?

There was a debate????
 

Sorry, no. I doubt it was empty when made. But, after four years of the stuff that Ty doesn't want to hear about, I think the initiative is sort of DOA.

There was a debate????
 

So, you're saying that Cheney's statement was fake but accurate?

If this were in trial, a smart lawyer would play the clip from Cheney's "deposition" (not to be confused with a "deposition" in FB Land) while cross-examining him. The actual tone and language of the questions to Cheney might vary depending upon whether the smart lawyer was a folksy Matlock type or a cutting Joyce Davenport type, but he and his credibility would be toast when it was over. After setting him up with a bunch of questions about how careful and prudent he must be in his job just a heartbeat away from the Big Red Button, he'd either look like a liar or an idiot for saying what he did. Even to a Podunkville jury.

Thankfully for you, that isn't how it works, and he can get friendly types to carry his water for him. But, bottom line, he acted without thinking everything through, tossed out a bit of hyperboele that he thought would make his point for him, and now we're talking about his goof instead of Edwards's attendance record. Not a huge deal, but it's a lost gain for BC-04.

There was a debate????
 

Given Kerry's lack of personality, I'd say you guys are. Your candidates were pretty much interchangable. Moore supplied the themes.

There was a debate????
 

You're in favor of "what do the polls say I should stand for today while I'm not in Cambodia" Kerry for that Big Red Button slot, right?

There was a debate????
 

no I'm saying the "never met you" part was irrelevent to begin with. the other part stands.

As to credibility, sure it hurts, but only a little, because the meetings you show only make him have to change it "Barely met him."

and the only people talking about the "goof" are people who have their minds made up anyway. Hell the only undecided posting here is maybe sebastian, and he even says he's not. The point sticks Bobby.

There was a debate????
 

You're telling me I'm unclear. Take the crack pipe out of your mouth.

TM