Maybe the best line in the debate was when the Veep said that in all the years he presided over the Senate, the only time he had met Senator Edwards was last night.
It was a good zinger. However, Staunch Moderate found a news report stating that it wasn't true.
Now, I have no idea if Vice President Cheney intentionally lied or if he was mistaken. What is interesting is how many people have made a big deal of this. Partisan Republicans intially pointed to this as a way of showing how much of a lightweight Edwards was. Partisan Democrats pointed to the mistruth as eviedence of how eeevil Cheney is.
Why is this a big deal? Who cares if they never met until that night? Why are we so beligerent against each other that we are ready to pounce on any little thing?
It would be nice if people were more concerned about the candidate's responses to how they would deal with poverty or health care or gay marriage instead of who met who when.
Just another sad sign of how deeply divided we are and how deeply meaningless our politics have become.
Posted by Dennis at October 7, 2004 12:08 AM"It's my understanding that when the Vice President's in the Senate, he presides - and that's certainly what the Vice President implies in his statement. If the Vice President is not there, the President pro tempore appoints an Acting President of the Senate"
That is a huge leap, Dorsano. I would doubt its veracity justt knowing how critical to policy Cheney is in this administration. You think he opts to fulfill a cermeonial role every time he has actually been in the building?
Posted by: mike at October 8, 2004 06:21 AMAfter reading FactCheck.ORG, it shows that Cheney has met Edwards at least twice, whether he remembers these two times I don't know. Once was when Edwards escorted Elizabeth Dole to her swearing in (by Cheney) and the second was in Feb. 2001 at a National Prayer Breakfast. Footage (which I saw on The Daily Show) showed that they sat right next to each other! And Fact Check has an excerpt from Cheney's speech in which he says Edwards' name in recognition.
I really wish that Edwards had remember either or both of those times, because it surely would have made Cheney look bad. Maybe he didn't remember them, either?
Posted by: Nicole at October 7, 2004 09:32 PMHere's Cheney's quote ...
Now, in my capacity as Vice President, I am the president of the Senate and the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.
It's my understanding that when the Vice President's in the Senate, he presides - and that's certainly what the Vice President implies in his statement. If the Vice President is not there, the President pro tempore appoints an Acting President of the Senate
If you check the Congressional Record here http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html you will find that Cheney only presided over the Tuesday sessions (which is when he supposedly makes it a point to come other than to break a tie) twice in the last four years.
He was not there - he may have been in Washington DC - but he wasn't in the Senate.
In fact, if anyone takes the time to look, you'll find many articles like this:
Vice President Cheney made a rare appearance as president of the Senate to break a tie vote on another amendment. On the 49-49 tie, Cheney's vote defeated the amendment that would have provided government assistance on mortgage payments to workers who lose their jobs as a result of imports.
------------------
The man constructed a fiction to impune the integrity of his opponent.
I'm all ears - how do you get politicians to stop doing this - forgive them? or call a spade a spade and say that they are world class jerks?
Posted by: dorsano at October 7, 2004 08:28 PMThis was a personal attack on Edwards by Cheney. The implication is that Edwards shirked his duty as a Senator (not that he is "lightweight").
If one measures duty by roll call votes, Edwards was there over 95% percent of the time.
If one measures it (as Cheney did) by how often one recovenes the Senate after a weekend break - Cheney and Edwards have performed equal duty.
If Cheney thinks that Edwards' service is unsatisfactory by those or any other measures, he should have said so and compared it to his own voting record. Why didn't he?
Cheney was caught in a lie in the middle of what amounts to a knife attack.
If someone did that to me on the job - I like to think that I'd forgive (if asked) - and perhaps I would - but I'd be unlikely to trust for a long time.
Nor would I trust anyone trying to spin this into something other than it was - which was a personal attack on Edwards (not you Dennis).
The questions I would ask are
1). Does Cheney think so little of his own case that he needs to attack Edwards' integrity?
2). Can there be civility in politics when personal attacks are the weapon of choice (unless of course we're attacking and demeaning whole groups of people like gays or trial lawyers.
Posted by: dorsano at October 7, 2004 07:11 PMyou have misquoted cheney.
he said he was there most tuesdays. the democrats are spinning it to say he said he presides over the senate most tuesdays.
he doesnt actually have an official duty that involves a vote except in rare situations. edwards on the other hand does have an official duty to vote.
Posted by: mike at October 7, 2004 06:05 AM