Not coming from a political system of presidential elections, may I ask a question?
How much importance is put on the deputy when Americans vote?
I would have thought it was very little but I don’t understand your system very well.
Usually not much. Normally people avoid the VP debate like a nasty rash, but this year’s an odd election. Cheney’s long been held by some to be the power behind the throne, and Bush blew his first debate Big Time. That made this year’s VP meeting more interesting than usual. As added pluses, Cheney’s an amusing prevaricator, and Edwards is cute.
If the Prez dies or in some other way can’t fulfill the role, the Veep becomes Prez. Otherwise the VP is there for funerals of Heads of State that the President can’t attend.
Most importantly, the VP is President Pro Tem (right term?) in the Senate and gets to cast any tie-breaking vote needed.
(Oversimplified, but it’s a start)
I was watching Chris Matthews before the debate and he assured everyone that their web site would only allow one vote per computer. Clearly they need to fix their software. All indications are that Cheney won the debate. If they’re getting the results they’re reporting, either they have a very unrepresentative audience, or they’ve been spammed by Kerry supporters. To be fair, he did clearly say that internet polls are not scientific. But that begs the question-- if their results don’t mean anything, and if they’re in fact contrary to what a real poll would show, then why on earth would they advertise them…? 
Yeah that is the same with the dep PM. But we have govt elections not PM elections so who the deputy is matters very little (other then the fact that he or she won an electorate seat). I just wondered if Americans care who is the deputy.
Could a good presidential candidate win with an apalling deputy? And vice versa?
Are you KIDDING ME? I guess not.
I was highly, highly entertained. It was superb political theater, and attack dog politics at its best. The moderater asked hard, pointed questions and both candidates came out fighting. So many great moments!
I think my favorite part was when Edwards complimented Cheney on his family and his “gay daughter.” It was a sleek, stealthy way to try to jab at Cheney’s more homophobic party base. Notice how in response, Cheney said nothing? He didn’t want to draw any more attention to the issue than Edwards already had. He just gruffly spoke [paraphrased] “I thank the senator for what he said about my family… [and] that’s it.”
I’m not the only person who had a boatload of fun watching, am I?
To get traffic to their website, to promote interactivity, to ‘bond’ with the audience. There are a number of reasons.
First of all, am I nuts (don’t answer that), or did Cheney actually count the IRAQIS as part of the “coalition”? Since when do you count the country you INVADED as one of your allies? When Edwards pointed out that we have had 90% of the casualties in the “coalition”, Cheney wanted to count the Iraqis against that 90%. Does he think we’re fucking idiots? Do people actually fall for this shit?
Really?! You didn’t think Cheney came off like a gruff, smug asshole? I sure did. It seemed like with every response he made, he just had this pissed-off, chip-on-his-shoulder look. I found it really annoying. I didn’t like everything Edwards did either. He often seemed to fall back on the talking points, like he wasn’t really putting any original thought into it.
That wasn’t the “am I nuts” moment for me. The “am I nuts” moment for me was when it sounded like Cheney was trying to subtly imply that he and/or his political allies deserved some kind of kudos for having done good work in El Salvador that would serve as a model for current activities. I mean, whiskey tango foxtrot? Talk about a bizarre memory-hole moment.
History will show that our current ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, was instrumental in protecting El Salvador from the Communist plots and atheistic designs of Archbishop Romero, as well as the cunning conspiracy of a number of Carmelite nuns (“Carmelite” being a term translated from Spanish as “Trotskyist”)
It is one of the many, many reasons why we are so widely beloved in Central America.
Yeah, dumb question, I know. Gotta admit, Cheney’s one of the most outstanding baldfaced liars since…(narrowly avoids Godwin violation)…Baghdad Bob. Except he was lying like this before we even heard of Baghdad Bob.
Daily Kos has text from the Prayer Breakfast, and another cite of a Cheney-Edwards encounter:
Yeah, and Kerry met Jane Fonda.
Just read the transcript this morning and I reckon on a pretty even split for this one. Neither came across well to me. I do have to say that there was some wonderful vitriol flying around, Halibuton, Senator Gone, only just met him (thanks for the pic of the prayer meet btw, made me chuckle).
On the “Who cares” side of things, I would’ve thought the Vice P is a pretty damn important position, and either one of these guys stepping into the Presidents shoes would give pause for thought…
Just my opinion and a Brit one at that.
Looking forward to the next presidential debate. 
Sorry for the hijack, but I think this is a really interesting question…
Calm Kiwi - Yes and no is the answer - George HW Bush (the First) had Dan Quayle as his VP, which must have been tough seeing as the man is a functioning moron and wasn’t popular with the electorate. Others include Nixon with Ford, and Kennedy with Johnson. Good pres (mostly) but unpopular VPs. That’s all I can think of off the top of my head.
The opposite probably won’t happen (unpopular pres, popular VP), because as has already been said, the VP’s job is mostly to fill in for the pres when he can’t be there, or to replace him if he dies. The ticket as a whole likely wouldn’t get elected.
During the campaign, the VP is used for several things, among them:
- Attack dog of the candidate. He can get away with saying inflamatory things, which the pres. candidate can be ‘calmly above it all’
- Balance the ticket. In Kerry / Edwards, Kerry is an intellectual ‘rich guy’ senator from New England; that don’t play well in major blue-collar areas, especially in the rural South and Midwest. So bring on Edwards, the ‘local boy made good’ to appeal to the Southerners and blue-collar folks, and basically half the country will ideologically support that ticket, and it’s the most populated half to boot. Throw in California and the NW, and he’s pretty much got the election sewn up. Of course, it’s never that simple, but that’s the thinking.
To compare with, say, England (sorry, I don’t know anything about New Zealand politics to compare), visualize Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Cheney is Brown - powerful, influential, and a definite influence on Blair’s policies and popularity. Of course, IMO, Blair is far better than Bush, so that’s where the comparisons end as far as I am concerned.
The main reason why this particular debate is interesting is, as mentioned, Cheney is seen by many as the ‘power behind the throne.’ Most of the pre-debate stuff I watched has described him as the most powerful and influential to ever have held the office of VP. Also because Edwards is pretty unknown in Washington politics, with part of one short term in the Senate, not much known about him during the Democratic primary, and no government service before that. So people are very curious about him and what he stands for and how tough he is…
Gah, you’re stupid. Don’t you know the difference between meeting someone and brushing past them at a meeting?
That, and protecting the space-time continuum. Read the Constitution.
Also, I don’t think Ford really counts. Seeing as how he was appointed after the resignation of Agnew.
Thank you for the very thoughtful answer Gomi Boy. I keep trying to wrap my head around presidential elections, well the whole US election thing really. It makes little sense to me.
Come on- two politicians sit next to each other and don’t at least say hello? I don’t buy it. Cheney is caught in yet another lie- that photo should lead the CBS news tonight. Or it would if I ran the show.
Weird … Not ten minutes before, you assert that that Kerry and Fonda “met”, based on an old photo of him sitting 2 or 3 rows behind her right shoulder at some rally.
I thought Edwards did as well as he could have against someone so obviously determined to ignore reality in favor of a fabricated, rosier reality.
Apropos of nothing, I always think of Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In when I hear Agnew’s name. I was too young to know anything about the VP, but I remember a skit where a dark-haired woman dressed in a short “farmy” red-and-white chequered dress read a poem about him. All I remember of it is “We love you/Mr. Agnew.” said in a sweet voice.