9:10 Got back late from bowling but am going to take another whack at a blog. This has been perceived as Darth Vader vs. Luke. Let’s remember that the first toe-to-toe in that battle went to Vader.
9:13 Nice that Cheney says that Osama is such a priority, considering Bush said that Osama is no longer a priority.
9:17 Edwards should really be emphasing that the “global test” is a philosophy dating back thousands of years, rather than acting defensively against Cheney’s charges of Kerry being weak on defense.
9:21 The hope was that Cheney would come across as cranky, irritable and old. Not happening so far. Thus far it’s still terrorism 24/7. But now Cheney is trying to back off and avoid repeating the more incendiary things he’s said, such as that we’re more likely to be attacked if Kerry’s in charge. Let’s see if Edwards nails him on that.
9:23 Edwards is still spending too much time defending Kerry rather than attacking Cheney. Ah, okay, now he’s talking about Cheney cutting weapons systems. Still, I wish that Edwards would make a mention comparing Cheney’s draft dodging versus Kerry’s service if we’re going to talk about track records.
9:28 Edwards is answering the question of how we’re going to get other countries to join in the reconstruction.
9:33 Thus far Edwards and Cheney are spending most of their time calling each other liars, which gets kind of tiresome. They’re both flinging around facts and figures that, I strongly suspect, are both wrong. It’d be nice if one of them could present an absolute slam dunk lie that would leave the other sputtering.
9:38 Cheney’s continuing to present himself carefully and well. Clearly he’s trying to avoid the gaffes, the impatience and profanity that’s gotten him press before.
9:39 Edwards should be doing this more and more: Hit on Cheney’s background with Halliburton.
9:41 This is in Edwards wheelhouse. The attorney slamming at an overinflated and dubious corporation.
9:43 It’ll be interesting to see if Cheney defends the Saudis.
9:45 Let’s see if Edwards has a comeback for the “Senator Gone” thing.
9:46 No, not really. He spent his time attacking Cheney’s voting record. On the one hand it was smart to be aggressive; on the other hand, it leaves Cheney’s charges unanswered.
9:49 Nice way that Edwards very offhandedly pointed out that Cheney hadn’t really answered the question about Cleveland.
9:50 Unfortunately Edwards isn’t really answering the question vis a vis Cleveland. Impressively, he actaully did a worse job answering it than Cheney.
9:57 No, freedom for everyone is not unrelated to the subject of gay marriage. Freedom means freedom.
9:58 This is the most bloodless political debate I’ve ever seen. It’s almost as if everyone’s TOO calm. The talk comes across as sharp, but there’s no passion.
10:00 Edwards is trying to walk an extremely fine line. I’m willing to bet that both Kerry and Edwards do believe in a right to gay marriage, but if they come out and say that, they risk offending…what? Seventy percent of the people? Still, I wish they had the guts to come out and say, Yeah, we support it, that’s one of the reasons we’re different from the GOP, we really believe government shouldn’t be telling people what they can’t do if they’re not hurting anybody.
10:02 This one is right in Edward’s wheelhouse as he answers the question about medical liability suits. His idea about holding lawyers responsible for frivilous lawsuits is extremely good. Definitely an Edwards win on this one.
10:08 Cheney turned the charge about increasing medicare back on Edwards with the comment about the 1997 law causing it (presuming that’s accurate…and since Edwards didn’t really have a comeback for it, I’m going to have to assume it was.)
10:11 Watching Cheney thus far compared to watching Bush during his debate should pretty much verify, once and for all, who is actually running the country.
10:15 I think it’d be cool if Edwards said, “I don’t have a long resume like Cheney’s. On the other hand, at least my resume doesn’t have me shaking hands with Saddam.”
10:22 Anyone notice that Edwards looks like he’s holding the buzzer to answer a “Jeopardy!” question?
10:18 I still have trouble not giggling considering George Bush as “commander in chief.” I keep thinking of him leaping into action on 9/11 in the Florida classroom. Watching Cheney, I can again see why Bush was able to sit around while Cheney leaped into action.
10:21 “The best defense is a good offensive.” Wow! I’ve never heard that before! What an original thought!
10:25 Cheney is making no effort to defend Bush’s flipflops. Let’s see if he does or if he just keeps attacking Kerry.
10:27 Cheney pretty much blew that question.
10:29 I suspect Texas democrats would have something to say about Bush allegedly having “reached across the aisle” in Texas to Democrats. I susp
10:30 Yes, exactly. Cheney saying he has no idea why America is so divided is just being disingenuous. Bush has consisted appealed to the most extreme factions of this country; how can he possibly wonder why such catering to right wing extremism and neocon philosophies could possibly splinter him from the rest of the electorate?
10:35 Good closing speech by Edwards.
10:36 Cheney plays the fear card. Naturally. Edwards speaks of hope; Cheney speaks of fear.
This one is much tougher to call. Edwards more often than not held his own, but Cheney simply came across as the more experienced statesman, even though I wouldn’t trust him further than I can throw him. Those who were hoping to see youthful exuberance triumph cleanly over a cranky elder were disappointed. As before, “winner” vs. “Loser” is still a fool’s game to call, but I think Cheney is going to benefit far more from this go-around than Edwards.
PAD
• 
PAD,
I haven’t read all the commentary before this, but I think it’s great that you’re minute by minute blog reflected Cheney doing well at times. This is quite a contrast to Paul Begala in his blog on the Bush debate. For my part, I think Cheney came out on top, but VP debates really don’t matter. Given the sorry job that Bush did in the first debate, I imagine Republicans wishing that Cheney were the Presidential candidate rather than the VP. I myself am a conservative and wish there were a conservative in the race. Bush doesn’t qualify.
Regards,
Dennis Donohoe
A Republican “spinner” dodging the question about whether an unemployed Cleveland factory worker thinks the way out of the economic depression is by being more business friendly by bringing up medical malpractice.
More silliness, more spin, no matter which side
— Ken from Chicago
After watching this debate I have to give the edge to Cheney. There were many instances of missed opportunities for Edwards. I don’t think he did poorly, but I think he could have done much better. I guess Cheney just garnered the most points, although I believe he was untruthful or possibly deluding himself in several instances.
PAD wrote: “Edwards is trying to walk an extremely fine line. I’m willing to bet that both Kerry and Edwards do believe in a right to gay marriage, but if they come out and say that, they risk offending…what? Seventy percent of the people? Still, I wish they had the guts to come out and say, Yeah, we support it, that’s one of the reasons we’re different from the GOP, we really believe government shouldn’t be telling people what they can’t do if they’re not hurting anybody.”
Hmmm. Are you actually suggesting, PAD, that Kerry and Edwards are being less than truthful? After Kerry has repeatedly said a key difference will be that they will tell the truth to the American people?
Jim in Iowa
As much as it pains me to admit it, I have to give it to Cheney. He did a good job portraying himself as more credible than Edwards, and there’s a lot of people out there who “don’t know and don’t care” to find out the truth for themselves. Let’s just hope the ratings were down for this one, although I’m sure the RepubliKKKan spin machine will be going into overdrive to gloat about this one.
10:29 I suspect Texas democrats would have something to say about Bush allegedly having “reached across the aisle” in Texas to Democrats. I susp
What was the rest of that?
Well, as it happens, the Texas Lt. Governor (and actually more powerful position under the state Constitution) worked VERY well with Governor Bush. No one thought that Bush would get much legislation passed because he and Bullock would lock horns so much. Both state houses were controlled by the Democrats. However, the opposite happened. They became friends and made things happen. It was one of the better examples of bipartisanship I’d seen.
Since Bush left, the atmosphere in Austin between the governor and the legislature has definitely worsened.
When Bush ran against Richards, it was really an interesting choice. Both were very similar in how they would said they would run the state (national politics are very different than state) and I was undecided for a while. Richards finally lost it for me when she advocated a state-wide curfew for teens to deal with gang violence. Not leaving it to the local towns, but state-wide. That was enough of a difference for me. In a state this size, having that kind of one-size-fits-all policy would have been a disaster.
PAD wrote: “I think it’d be cool if Edwards said, “I don’t have a long resume like Cheney’s. On the other hand, at least my resume doesn’t have me shaking hands with Saddam.””
Actually, this is one easy slam that Cheney missed. Paraphrased, Edwards twice said that a long resume does not necessarily mean competence (or soemthing to that effect). It would have been even more cool if Cheney had said: You are absolutely right. Senator Kerry’s long resume doesn’t prove he is a competent leader. Name one significant piece of legislation he sponsored and got through the senate in his 19 years. Just one. I will give you the remaining 60 minutes to do so.”
Jim in Iowa
I’m a Kerry supporter 100%, but Cheney dominated here. He had command of the issues, and Edwards looked like a lightweight who had to rely on talking points. Cheney’s wrong on the issues, but Edwards wasn’t able to put that across in any effective way. He just looked like someone completely out of his depth getting schooled by his elder.
The experience thing cuts both ways. Cheney/Kerrey are clearly the more experienced, Bush/Edwards less so. I think it was a setup though to try and get Cheney to slam it, to come back on Bush. Cheney didn’t fall into it though.
I think Cheney definitely has the edge in this one. Edwards did a lot better than I thought, but I think Cheney did quite well.
I think, in terms of negatives, Edwards came across at times as too slick and like a lawyer. That is subjective, but I think Cheney did less to hurt himself in that way.
I don’t have cable, so I am stuck with PBS (which does ok) or the broadcast networks. I am very put off by the split screen. In this case, Edwards, I think, came out a little worse. The problem, though, is that it is not fair. Either it should be split screen the entire debate, or not at all. If a candidate has to scratch his nose or yawn at the wrong moment, whoever controls the cameras has the choice of whether to cover it or not. I am NOT claiming an actual bias. I am simply saying that to show it some of the time is not the right way. (It did seem that there were far more split screens of Bush listening in the first debate than of Kerry. Maybe it is a perception, but I would be interested to go back and count the minutes they actually covered Bush listening versus Kerry.)
Jim in Iowa
Saw about half of it, and would have to give it a win for Chaney but both nowhere near a knockout and much less than Kerry over Bush in their debate.
Chaney came across as knowledgable and competent (and I’m now positive that if it were Chaney v. Bush in this format, Dubya wouldn’t even know what hit him). He also put Edwards on the defensive quite a bit. Edwards, while not even close the extent that Dubya did, tended to over use repetition of talking points. He also, to me at least, came across as a bit swarmy.
Well, I just looked at the polls of the major news organizations and at this point in time, they all say Edwards won the debate. Even Fox news. I sadly still think Cheney won, but I wonder why they are calling it for Edwards so far.
Matt,
Now you know how Republicans felt the other night. Bush lost so badly on style it was awful. Kerry looked great – no matter how much I disagreed with him.
Two reasons I think Cheney won:
1.) He had the best line when he noted that he had been at the Senate most Tuesdays and tonight was the first time he had ever met Edwards.
2.) Cheney provoked a response from Edwards out of turn when he began arguing with Cheney before he was done.
Jim in Iowa
Karen,
Online polls are woefully inaccurate – and very prone to vote stacking. I’d wait for a real poll tomorrow or Thursday to get a better sense of it.
It was Robin Vs Two-Face (who kept flipping to the unscarred side therefore remained more Harvey Dent – thought I was hoping for Two-Face to come out.)
All I wanted to know if Robin would be Ðìçk Grayson, Jason Todd or Tim. It was a little Tim mix with the guy who played Robin on the 1960’s TV show. He spent too much time quoting and praising Batman (Carey).
I don’t understand in these debates why both Democratic candidates have such a hard time attacking Bush’s record. It’s not like there isn’t any ammunition. Both debate when they could have obviously went for the jugular, they only smacked a little wrist. Either it’s harder then it looks (lost jobs, tax cut for rich, illegal declaratioin of war for reasons proven to be false, theft of the election in 2000), or as I asserted before, the Democrats are purposely throwing this election.
I refer all to the Bush/Clinton debate. Clinton wiped the floor with Bush Sr with but one statement “you made this mess, and I can clean it up.” Comparitively daddy didn’t pull nearly half the stuff the Dubya has, yet we get Demoncratic candidates that seem unable to knock this out the ball park. This is sad, indeedy.
“10:36 Cheney plays the fear card. Naturally. Edwards speaks of hope; Cheney speaks of fear.”
Ah.
When Edwards says America’s bright light is flickering…not sure one can say that’s a message of hope. I appreciate your (PAD) Democratic party convictions, but let’s not go too crazy trying to make hope from Edwards’ not quite hopeful statements.
Watched this one with interest and gotta say it was a lot closer than the previous debate.Both candidates seemed aware of the camera and audience and both at least did some homework.
Im still disturbed by the constant “BOOGA,BOOGA
the terrorists are gonna get ya”riff from Cheney,nice follow up by MSNBC showing ol Palpatine suggesting the 911/Saddam connnection.While he doesnt come out and openly say it is very strongly implied.
Edwards really should have used less John kerry and i statements though,got kinda redundant.While Halliburton is supposed to be the only company qualified to do the work ,exactly what service are they providing??Anyone?
Some polls have edwards winning by a bunch but its early,and will wait til tommorrow.Overall the young jedi did well ,but the sith lord did his damage.I call this a draw to a slight win for Cheney.Of course his evil Jedi powers give him an edge.:)
I was really dissapointed that Edwards mention Halliburton so dámņ much, but didn’t properly ask the Vice President why his Former Company had so much Leverage in rebuilding Iraq, and Afghanistan. I really wanted more of that Trial Lawyer to come out more, instead he seemed to dámņ… passive with Cheney.
Why no mentions of Cheney’s secret meetings with ENRON for the Energy Plan?
Jim in Iowa:
“1.) He had the best line when he noted that he had been at the Senate most Tuesdays and tonight was the first time he had ever met Edwards.”
Funny thing is, what Cheney said is either a misremembrance or an outright lie. National Prayer Breakfast, 2001: he called him by name. Also, Edwards escorted new U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole in 2003 at the swearing-in ceremony. Who administered the oath to Dole? That’s right–Ðìçk Cheney.
There’s photographic evidence, of course (I’ve seen it)–and it’ll be all over the news reports tomorrow, I’m sure.
Whoops.
(Besides the fact, Cheney’s very seldom there when the Senate convenes.)
Close debate tonight, certainly closer than the Presidential debate the other night, but I think Edwards edged out Cheney, who went for a few too many low blows for my tastes. No knockout punch.
~Gary
I thought the debate was a photo-finish, to be sure. But I think Cheney edged it out by a nose.
My question, what was up with the AIDS question? Definitely not a major point of either campaign, nor a key issue to most of the country. We all want the AIDS problem stopped and (domestically) what can we do besides throw more money at a cure? I didn’t like the moderator, but I did like how she didn’t screw around and directly questioned the candidate’s on some of the most personally controversial issues.
Point of order: Cheney’s accusation that it was “the first time” that he had met Edwards is simply a lie. The Kerry campaign has photos (check salon.com’s War Room) and transcripts of Cheney and Edwards on the same stage sitting next to each other.
Like too many of Cheney’s “slam dunks,” lying lies from lying liars. (Al Franken’s line, sure, but unfortunately true.)
And on the Iraqi casualties, two points. First, when did Iraq join the coalition, and where are the outstanding statistics? Second, I think that it should be pointed out that though it’s likely true that 20,000 Iraqis died for their freedom during this war, most were killed by Americans under Pres. Bush’s orders.
Cheney can “win” a debate, but only with continuous distortions and lies.
Personally, overall a draw, but at least Edwards was daring enough to tell the truth, and anyone who’s read a biography knows how hard it is for a factual account to equal a ficitonal one. Why do you think most Hollywood “true stories” are “based on…”
AD
Just saw a repeat of the debate on CNN. I feel the debate was close, but would give it to Cheney based on his statesmanship and slightly more substantial answers, though I can see how some may think Edwards did better.
At least Cheney gives Bush some positive momentum going into Friday, which is important. Because even though I agreed with what Bush had to say in the first debate and felt he was substantive, only a blind and deaf man would think he came across very well in the first debate.
It should be quite interesting Friday.
Best moment in the debate, IMHO…
Ðìçk Cheney: “And with respect to this particular operation, we’ve seen a situation in which, first, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed — body armor, spare parts, ammunition — they voted against it. I couldn’t figure out why that happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops. Now if they couldn’t stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida?”
The man hit the nail on the head there. You can actually go back and follow Kerry and Edward’s coments on the war and see how the become anti-war during the Iowa primary. Sad really.
Some interesting things in the debate–which was a draw … but wasn’t. I’ll explain in a moment.
It was actually more bloodless than I would have thought–although I liked one gutshot that the Dems did which no one at home saw: Edwards’ people used one of the seats in the audience provided them to sit Sen. Patrick Leahy right front and center in front of Cheney. Leahy, you may recall, is the guy Cheney told on the Senate floor to go fûçk himself.
Me, I wanted more blood. I wanted to see Edwards reach out with something like, “Now, Senator Kerry was too polite to say this, but I was born in the South, and I’m the son of a mill worker. Where we come from, we call things as they are–and you’re LYING, Mr. Vice President. Again. You do it a lot, I’ve noticed.”
By the same tack, I wanted to see Cheney come out with, “Those are some nice ideas about how you would reform the system, Senator. But it doesn’t change the fact that the very system you propose to change is the one you used to become rich, and the one which allowed you to buy a seat in the Senate.”
The best line of the night? Cheney’s. But not in the way he wanted, I’ll warrant: Instead of answering a Halliburton question, he directed viewers to go to a website, Factcheck.com, a nonpartisan site run by the Annenberg School of the University of Pennsylvania, so they could see the refutations of wrongdoing there for themselves.
Thing is, it is Factcheck.ORG which is what he was thinking of; Factcheck.COM was bought quite some time ago by billionaire George Soros–it directs you to his website, a “Why We Must Defeat George Bush” website.
(Parenthetical the First: While Factcheck.org does have an articles stating that a Democrat ad about Cheney still making money from Halliburton is misleading, and a couple of examples where Dems overstate the caee against Halliburton, it really doesn’t have anything which counters the specific claims by Edwards tonight–and in fact, has a great number more articles which deal with Republican misstatements and misinformation than with Dems’–so even had Cheney correctly directed viewers, he would have hurt his case.)
(Parenthetical the Second: Say what you will about Soros and his campaign to help de-elect Bush, at least he puts himself front and center–as in the two-page ad he took out in many major Newspapers Tuesday–and shows his face, as opposed to conservative billionaires Richard Scaife, T. Boone Pickens, and Harold Simmons.)
(Parenthetical the Third: Anyone else notice that Cheney mentioned his boss–the guy he’s trying to get reelected–by name just three times in the whole ninety minutes?)
(Parenthetical the Last: It should be noted that, as of September, the non-U.S. members of the Coalition of the Willing, though totalling thirty as asserted by the Vice President, account for less than 10,000 troops in Iraq? That’s including the UK’s 7,900, mind.
By comparison, there are fifteen to twenty thousand troops in Iraq employed by private military contractors–and there are roughly 140,000 American troops in-country.)
And I’m quite disappointed in Ifill as moderator–I don’t mind softball questions, but I object to the sort of leading questions designed to enable press-release-like soundbites. Plus, she hit edwards with a disproportionate number of “Gotcha!” questions, while letting Cheney mostly slide.
Oops; forgot to say why the debate wasn’t really adraw. A great deal of present politics on the national level these days is based on perception, and Edwards wins that battle, in rather the same way that Kennedy was seen to have won the debate on TV even when radio listeners thought Nixon won. I predict you’ll see a small Kerry/Edwards bounce coming out of this debate, just because the Democratic candidate was more appealing.
Every time I see John Edwards (and since I live in North Carolina, that isn’t very often…RIMSHOT! THANK you, ladies and gentlemen!) I think of Greg Stillson from Stephen King’s THE STAND.
I’m just saying, keep your toddlers at a safe distance, just in case someone starts shooting.
Peter David: 10:15 I think it’d be cool if Edwards said, “I don’t have a long resume like Cheney’s. On the other hand, at least my resume doesn’t have me shaking hands with Saddam.”
Luigi Novi: I
“Cheney is pretty composed considering it’s him, obviously far smarter than Bush (but then he is one of the hands going into the puppet) and has more (be it dubious) facts.”
First off, I just have to say… That lends itself to some… unpleasant mental images. Ew.
Must… fight it… with images of Puppet Angel… Whew. All better now.
I don’t see why people make a big deal out of vice presidential debates… I mean, let’s face it, the VP doesn’t do much aside from wait for the guy ahead of them to die.
Cheney’s a liar and Edwards is a cypher (at least to me). Neither inspires any confidence in me at all. My only regret from last night? That I wasn’t home to watch Veronica Mars instead.
(Cheney is pretty composed considering it’s him, obviously far smarter than Bush (but then he is one of the hands going into the puppet)
If they ever make a movie about this, I hope Frank Oz plays the part of Bush, and operates the puppet.
lol muppet Bush, ….wait, actually that last statement is a pretty disturbing image should your mind, like mine, be somewhat in the gutter. I’d like it stricken from the record your honor before someone brings up Miss Piggy and places her in a compromising position.
Bill: I think you mean Stillson from The Dead Zone. And thanks, by the way, for making that association. Now I think of John Edwards and just think “Tiger!” Very freaky. 🙂
Eric
Obligatory VP Debate Post
I didn’t watch any of the debates. And I’m pìššëd that there’s another one on Friday, because it’ll probably impinge upon actual television programming that I’d like to watch. (Since it starts at 9, maybe I won’t miss Joan of…
“Point of order: Cheney’s accusation that it was “the first time” that he had met Edwards is simply a lie. The Kerry campaign has photos (check salon.com’s War Room) and transcripts of Cheney and Edwards on the same stage sitting next to each other.”
Actually, this only reinforces the point Cheney was making. Yes, he had met Edwards before, but *not* on the Senate floor, which was the point of Cheney’s comment. If Cheney knew he had met Edwards before, then this was, indeed, a low blow. I suspect he didn’t remember, but only Cheney knows for sure.
Bottom line: Edward’s attendance in the Senate was horrible, even before he began campaigning.
When Edwards threw back at Cheney his record of voting against things like restricting plastic guns (no idea why or the context), Cheney’s best response would have been: “We can talk about why I voted that way another time. The point is, at least I was there to cast my vote as a repersentative for my constituency. You don’t even bother to show up.”
Regarding an earlier question about Haliburton and what exactly they are doing? They are rebuilding the oil infrastructure. Why was it a no bid contract? Because there was not other company in the US or in any country that was an ally when we went into Iraq that could even do the job.
This whole thing about the Haliburton bid is pretty pathetic when looked at in context. Not a great analogy, but consider it this way: What if Bill Gates had become the VP instead of Cheney. What if Gates had taken the paycut, completely divested himself of ties to the company? The Democrats would be accusing Gates because the vast majority of computers are using the Windows operating system. This outright lie continues to be perpetuated in spite of it being absurd.
Sidenote: I agree we should hold Haliburton accountable for how they actually do the job they promised. The reality that the Democrats seem to ignore is that if Gore had won and if Gore had invaded Iraq, Haliburton still would have gotten the contract because they are the Microsoft of the oil production world.
Jim in Iowa
Two points:
1) Cheney did not divest himself entirely from Haliburton. He still owns stock in the company through a trust.
2) The idea that Haliburton is the only company that could put out oil fires is patently false. There was a Texas based company that inquired about bidding on the job, but was told that they were not prepared to accepted applications. This was *after* the no bid contract had been given to Haliburton in a secret deal.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041006/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_13
Heard from the White House: “D’Oh!”
Luigi Novi: Equating the entire Republican party with racist murderers and terrorists is uncalled for.
Absolutely True, Luigi. I dislike most Republican politicians, but the entire party should not be compared to the idiots in white sheets.
Jim in Iowa:
The problem with the analogy of Bill Gates is this: if Bill Gates totally separated himself from Microsoft, even to the point of removing all stock, all income from them… I would agree with you that Democrats would look silly yelling at him because of the computers.
Cheney, on the other hand, has waiting for him, when he is out of office, a huge deposit of cashola from Haliburton. A “Thank You” gift for when he left to run for office. And he still owns stock, as seen above.
If Cheney relinquished all of that, he could at least be technically above suspect. But so far, he hasn’t.
Travis
“Cheney, on the other hand, has waiting for him, when he is out of office, a huge deposit of cashola from Haliburton. A “Thank You” gift for when he left to run for office. And he still owns stock, as seen above. “
And the distortions continue. What Cheney has waiting for him is, in essence, his paycheck from before he became VP. It was just deferred. It is not a thank you gift for what he has done as VP. It is the pay that is owed him for his job. And to suggest that he should reject the pay that is already owed him is absurd. The reality is that this pay is already set, whether Haliburton doubles in value or drops to half of its value.
Also, it is inaccurate to say he still owns stock. They were put into a blind trust. The reality is Cheney did *more* than required to divest himself from ties to Haliburton.
Jim in Iowa
Also, it is inaccurate to say he still owns stock. They were put into a blind trust. The reality is Cheney did *more* than required to divest himself from ties to Haliburton.
Which is what I said, Jim. Note the use of the word “trust” in my post.
And it’s still a far cry from “completely divesting himself” from Haliburton as YOU said. Maybe it was more than required under current ethics rules, but that’s just an argument for making those rules tighter.
My understanding is that the only remaining money owed to Cheney is a severance/pension. It’s not tied at all to the company value, so he has no stake in how the company does. I suppose he could do a pension buy-out for the sake of appearance, though. It still seems like a tempest in a teapot, though.
Bill Mulligan and others:
Actually, Chenny vs Edwards reminds me frighteningly of the Beast vs the Smiler from Warren Ellis’ Transmetropolitan.
Hmmmmm, all I can say is, whom would you rather go after terrorists: Darth Vader or Gomer Pyle, USMC?
Well, vote Republican and you’ll have both!
Carl:
>Hmmmmm, all I can say is, whom would you rather go after terrorists: Darth Vader or Gomer Pyle, USMC?
Well, let’s see….. Vader was a ruthless murderer who ultimately lost his battle and his empire to the rebels, while Pyle is a good-hearted, empathetic goof whose persistance and genuine concern for others always paid off and influenced everyone he interacted with in the end. Although both are extremes, I’d never cast a vote for a Vader.
Fred
“Bill: I think you mean Stillson from The Dead Zone”
Yep. Big duh on my part. Actually, cross John Edwards and Howard Dean and it’s totally Stillson.
Also, it is inaccurate to say he still owns stock. They were put into a blind trust. The reality is Cheney did *more* than required to divest himself from ties to Haliburton.
You know, Bud Selig has his ownership of the Milwaukee Brewers in a “blind trust” as well – and the team is still run by her daughter.
(Note: the team is finally being sold.)
However, part of Selig’s legacy will be that he never fully removed himself fully from his position as a baseball team owner. So, as commissioner, it has always appeared like a conflict of interest.
The same with Cheney and Halliburton and his “blind trust”.
For the Bush Admin, there was no other choice, when there were likely other choices out there that would not have created such a conflict of interest.
Just so you know, I plan to vote for Kerry. As for last night’s debate, I felt that Cheney won, but only by a small measure. I was slightly disappointed in Edwards since I thought that he would do a better job.
On the other hand, perhaps Edwards did do a better job. Remember, the main purpose is not to convince everybody how great is Edwards. No, the main purpose is to convince everybody how great is Kerry. Edwards mentioned Kerry constantly throughout the debate. Cheney barely mentioned Bush.
This whole argument about Cheney and his stock is another smoke screen. The stock is in a blind trust, which means Cheney doesn’t even know if it has all been sold off and invested in another company. I realize that by watching the values in the stock markey, he could make guesses, but the point is that he does not know.
There is an assumption that Cheney is evil and that he would willingly and deliberately send people to their death to simply increase his and his friends wallets. On what basis is this made? If you look at Cheney prior to 2000, you find no reason to think this is the case. YOu may not like that he is a rich guy who made money in the oil industry, but he himself has never shown the lack of ethics that other company CEO’s have shown. And Edward’s smear by association last night was exactly that. The fact that someone did something unethical in a subcorporation does not show in any way that Cheney knew, approved, or looked the other way.
It is also interesting how people are so quick to say that Cheney should just walk away from the millions he was owed as the CEO of Haliburton. Why? If so, why should Alec Baldwin take another paycheck for a movie? Why should Bruce Sprinsteen or the Dixie Chicks take another dime for a record?
Bottom line, these charges are false and have never been proven. I suspect that while they would never admit it, this is payback for the Rose Law Firm and Whitewater allegations that were made against the Clintons. Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot, it changes everything. (For the record, other than the fact that they stonewalled for years in answering questions, I never criticized Clinton for Whitewater, etc. There were plenty of policy issues I disagreed with him on, and I far preferred he be rejected because of his views and actions in office than what he did years before that.)
Jim in Iowa
For those interested in finding out information from an original source and not just rumors, here is what is officially found on the RNC website. The website includes extensive documentation that shows the allegation that Cheney benefits personally is false.
In regards to stock, here is what it says:
Stock Options
That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options
My apologies. I missed a crucial statement on the RNC website. This information did not come from them, it comes from FactCheck.org, so it does come from a non-partisan source. It does go to the original source, however, in that it provides actual documentation from Cheney’s lawyer that demonstrate he is not just claiming to have given the stock to charity, it is in writing. They give actual pay stubs that show Cheney did, in fact, get most of the 2 million pay before he was sworn into office.
Here is the original link at factcheck.org so that you can make sure the RNC site did not leave out any points they did not agree with:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=261
Bottom line: The only possible charge that can be made is that Cheney is going to war to line the pockets of his friends. That charge is absurd and insulting when you look at the character of Cheney and what he has done all of his life. You may not agree with how he votes or all of his politics, but a charge such as this is so absurd as to have never been repeated.
Jim in Iowa