Runester

Cheney has to stop holding his hands under his chin. It blocks the microphone and muffles his voice. I know that he has no way to know that, but it’s distracting. Edwards needs to stop making noises with his pad of paper. That’s unprofessional and DELIBERATELY distracting.

Ha Ha! Edwards broke the “don’t use his name” rule, once … twice …

She asked about the “flip-flopping” charge. She asked, “What’s wrong with a little flip-flopping now and then?” Does this imply a tacit pro-Dem bias?

Edwards declared that his team has always been consistant (I strongly disagree) and that Bush / Cheney has flipped many times. He was specific enough, to plant some doubt in my mind. Cheney now re-iterates the exact charges that we’ve heard (over, and over) from the GOP.

The moderator has asked about AIDS, here in the US. Cheney just spent most of his time talking about international efforts. Now he is trying to answer the local issue. Bush / Cheney promised $15B in international AIDS aid. Kerry / Edwards wants to double that?!

Edwards just turned this subject around, and talked about health care and insurance, again. Interesting.

Edwards is claiming that his limited experience in government is not a deficit, but his convictions and honesty compensate. He just said, “we know that a long resume does not equal good judgement.” True.

Cheney just made two jibes about Edwards. He isn’t worried about what some district in Iowa is going to vote after his term. And, he knows that stepping into the presidents shoes in case of a tragedy is a serious and sobering thought. This implies that Edwards has further political asperations, and that having Edwards one stuck fishbone in the throat away from the big seat is a little scary.

Edwards just said that trial lawyers plays a very little role in rising health care costs and exhorbitant medical practice insurance. Edwards stated that he has a solid plan to reduce health care costs and to make sure that millions more are insured. He did not explain what that plan is, though. To be fair, maybe it is too complicated and cannot be reported within 90 seconds. Still, I’d like to know what their plan is.

OK, now they are just lambasting each other, personally, on who paid what, when, in personal taxes. So, Edwards had a Sub Chapter-S Corp, and Cheney was well paid by Halliburton. Big deal. Neither one of those situations applies to average joe american.

Edwards is criticizing the dividend tax cut (to 0%), by characterising it as a tool for super wealthy. Yet, dividends are used by hundreds of thousands of retiree’s for retirement income. So, any effort to penalize the “super wealthy” would also increase the tax burden on retirees. Not, such a good policy.

Edwards is dancing around the gay marriage debate. He states that he believes that marriage is for one man and one woman, but that gay couples should get legal benefits (my feelings, as well). But, that states have no legal obligation to recognize the marriages officiated in other states. This sort of sounds like he is advocating state-by-state constitutional ammendments banning gay marriage. I’m not sure that is what he actually wants, but it is what he is implying.

Cheney is criticizing the trial lawyers and their effect on health insurance and medical liability insurance. He was careful not to directly attack Edwards, but he advocated Torte Reform. Edwards needs to answer carefully, because their position is against Torte Reform - but the issue is popular among anyone who has to pay exorbitant insurance fees.

Edwards just did this snarky trick, tying to imply Cheney did not answer the “jobs & poverty” question, except that he did! Further, Cheney pointed to 9/11 as the cause of the one million lost jobs - Edwards squarely blames the Bush / Cheney administration. I am not really sure that’s fair.

Cheney is using real numbers to describe jobs created, those who benefited from Income Tax reduction, and No Child Left Behind. Edwards uses easier to understand, but ’soft’ terms, like “have created less jobs then any other administration” … but no numbers and no acknowledgement of 9/11 or the Enron / Tyco debacle.

Cheney just mentioned the 98 times Kerry voted for tax raises. Further, he just pointed out that by increasing taxes on those making more then $200K would harm many thousands of small businesses.

Cheney just slammed Edwards for his deplorable attendance record (in the Senate) and Edwards got mad. He maintained his composure, but he hid his smirk behind his coffee cup. Now, Edwards is turning the table by pointing out Cheney’s voting record.

Cheney has just tossed a URL, factcheck.org, which allegedly debunks the Halliburton charges.

Edwards has to be carefull when talking about Israel, the American-ewish vote is important and trying to lambast Israel is not going to play very well.

Halliburton has been mentioned twice, but without any specific charges. I have seen this technique used before, there is a silent insinuation. The details were described by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11, have been completely debunked since then, and have been subsequently mentioned again and again by the Dem’s. If there is something there, Cheney should be tried and charged, if not - then these insinuations should be stopped.

Yeah! The moderator has just asked the question I have been asking for months. France and Germany have stated they do NOT want to send peace keepers to Iraq - so now what is the Kerry / Edwards plan? I am listening to his answer very carefully.

Hmm, so Edwards answer is that they will be successfull, and that will encourage more participation. And, their success is dependant on that participation. So, after getting that extra participation they will be successfull enough to get extra participation. That does not exactly make sense … or at least not “normal” sense. It must make Senatorial sense.

Cheney was a little snarky, when he turned to Edwards and noted, “you probably weren’t there for that vote …” which is an off handed way of saying - you don’t show up much! I have no idea if that is true or not, though I have heard that criticism of Kerry.

Cheney is really pounding the Kerry voting record in the Senate. I have no idea if this will resonate with the American voters … but it’s interesting.

OOh, good point! Edwards pointed out that Cheney has opposed some of the same weapons systems that he is criticizing Kerry for. I’d like to hear Cheny answer that, but he didn’t.