The VP Debate: Too Bad Dick Cheney's Best Line Was A Lie

from JoeUser Forums
Cheney's best line of the night was that he had never met Edwards before the debate. Unfortunately for Cheney, it was easy for the Blogosphere to prove this assertion wasn't true. Already, the most popular interesting debate story at yahoo -- that is, story that isn't a generic roundup -- is about the falsehood of Cheney's quip.

On this point, that helps Edwards. I doubt that voters care whether Edwards was present at the Senate while campaigning -- this is not a frame that has any traction. Cheney was smarter when he went more generally after Edwards's lack of experience and he should have hammered that more. Cheney's false statement about meeting Edwards directly plays into a worry that people already have about Cheney -- that he may be dishonest -- and connections to a general concern by voters that Bush and Cheney seem cocooned from the reality in Iraq.

A final note on which attacks work against which candidates. You'll notice that Edwards kept saying that Cheney was dishonest. This is an attack that would not have worked against Bush. People trust Bush, which is why Kerry generally says Bush is mistaken about Iraq, not dishonest. People are worried that Bush is distanced from reality, but they aren't worried about Bush's truthfullness. Similarly, Bush could have made the I've-Never-Met-You mistake that Cheney did, and no one would have cared. But people are already worried about Cheney's honesty, so he bleeds.
politics
27,593 views 81 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

The VP Debate: Too Bad Dick Cheney's Best Line Was A Lie

By: blogic
Posted: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 on The Tide Goes Out
Message Board: Politics
Cheney's best line of the night was that he had never met Edwards before the debate. Unfortunately for Cheney, it was easy for the Blogosphere to prove this assertion wasn't true. Already, the most popular interesting debate story at yahoo -- that is, story that isn't a generic roundup -- is about the falsehood of Cheney's quip.

On this point, that helps Edwards. I doubt that voters care whether Edwards was present at the Senate while campaigning -- this is not a frame that has any traction. Cheney was smarter when he went more generally after Edwards's lack of experience and he should have hammered that more. Cheney's false statement about meeting Edwards directly plays into a worry that people already have about Cheney -- that he may be dishonest -- and connections to a general concern by voters that Bush and Cheney seem cocooned from the reality in Iraq.

A final note on which attacks work against which candidates. You'll notice that Edwards kept saying that Cheney was dishonest. This is an attack that would not have worked against Bush. People trust Bush, which is why Kerry generally says Bush is mistaken about Iraq, not dishonest. People are worried that Bush is distanced from reality, but they aren't worried about Bush's truthfullness. Similarly, Bush could have made the I've-Never-Met-You mistake that Cheney did, and no one would have cared. But people are already worried about Cheney's honesty, so he bleeds.


All this and not one shred of proof that they met on the floor of the senate! So what if Cheney met him at some functions. The fact remains that he didn't see him on the senate floor. Cheney was trying to make the point that Edwards was an absentee senator. "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe were being too rough on Dick Cheney. Maybe he wasn't lying, maybe he's just senile.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
So what if Cheney met him at some functions.


Exactly. So what if he flat out lied. Right? As long as he got his point across, honesty isn't important. Thanks for pointing that our drmiler. I will remember that one. I am sure that will go over well at home, right?

"Honey, so what if I lied, I was simply trying to make a point."

Brilliant.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
On NPR this morning, they said it was pretty crafty of Cheney to mention he never met Edwards on the Senate floor, because Cheney rarely if ever meets with Democrats -- he sticks to the GOP. So Cheney could have made the same assertion about any number of Democrats.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #4 By: BlueDev - 10/6/2004 9:45:50 AM
So what if Cheney met him at some functions.


Exactly. So what if he flat out lied. Right? As long as he got his point across, honesty isn't important. Thanks for pointing that our drmiler. I will remember that one. I am sure that will go over well at home, right?

"Honey, so what if I lied, I was simply trying to make a point."

Brilliant.


He lied? Possibly... but if he lied why is it that Edwards didn't call him on it RIGHT THEN. No his *wife* had to remind him. So who is the more senile?
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
You'll notice that Edwards kept saying that Cheney was dishonest. This is an attack that would not have worked against Bush. People trust Bush

After last nights debate, I came away feeling that Cheney seemed much more trustworthy and competent then the president he serves.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
All this and not one shred of proof that they met on the floor of the senate! So what if Cheney met him at some functions. The fact remains that he didn't see him on the senate floor. Cheney was trying to make the point that Edwards was an absentee senator. "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."


If he had met him at other functions he would still have met him. If you went to a party and met your best friend's sister and later you said you hadn't met her until that moment it would be lying. Once you meet a person, you meet them and there is no changing that. You can't un-meet someone.

Either way, maybe it was a mistake. I am GOP and don't think that Cheney would really have lied. He's old and ill, give the guy a break.

Lovvens,
*Supports Republican Attorney General of ND, Wayne Stenehjem*
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Some of you guys are so far gone that you don't even get the point - Edwards rarely bothers to show up.  He misses a large percentage of votes, he rarely attends committee meetings and this is all from a first term senator.

There's only 100 senators, that Cheney hadn't seen him in the Senate in 4 years speaks volumes.

And if Edwards remembered meeting Cheney, he certainly could have pointed it out. He didn't.  I think the evidence points to that they sat next to each other once years ago or whatever but neither remembered meeting.  It's either that or Edwards is an idiot. Take your pick.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Edwards rarely bothers to show up. He misses a large percentage of votes, he rarely attends committee meetings and this is all from a first term senator.


True, true, Draginol. That is pretty scary to think about the fact that Edwards is running for Veep and hasn't even done anything for the country while in the senate. He needs to wait for a while before running for Veep and maybe, oh, actually vote on something.

Does anyone know if Edwards has something lined up to where he stays in the senate if Kerry Edwards loses, like Leiberman did??

Lovvens,
ME
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Edwards hasn't been dissected very much. Luckily for him.

Edwards is a lawyer who got rich thanks to malpractice lawsuits. He then used that wealth to run for Senate. Within a year of being in the senate he began planning for running for President.

Frankly, I can't think of a less qualified person to have been nominated for Veep. Even Dan Quayle had more to show.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
AMEN Draginol!! You are truly a master of politics.

Ralph Nader (who, I'm sad to say, is supported by quite a few people here in North Dakota) would be better, Ross Perot would be better for the American people than a senator who isn't even doing his job.

I heard that Edwards was going to have a difficult time last night because as a lawyer he is able to move around and use his dizzying running in circles to pursuade juries and at the debate he had to stay behind the lectern. Is this true??
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

There is, in my mind, something inherently wrong with ambition for the sake of ambition.  Edwards is just that.  His senate record indicates that he merely got elected as a stepping stone to the Presidency. He has little to no interest in actually serving his constituents. I think that is pretty clear.

Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
Another Cheney Whopper:

Cheney repeatedly said Edwards had voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops," when in fact the Iraq resolution that both Kerry and Edwards supported left the decision to the president and called for intensified diplomacy.

The resolution for which Edwards and Kerry voted said, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate."

And Edwards made clear in a statement at the time of his vote that he hoped to avoid war by enlisting broad support from the United Nations and US allies.

In fact, not even Bush himself characterized the resolution as a vote "for war" at the time. Speaking at the White House Rose Garden Oct. 2, 2002, Bush said:

Bush (Oct. 2, 2002): "None of us here today desire to see military conflict..." "America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict."


Link - factcheck.org
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
It doesn't bother you at all that Cheney lied -- something you hate in Kerry -- and instead you focus on Edwards? That sounds like bias, and a double standard.

Edwards certainly has his flaws, but I haven't seen anyone contest that when Cheney was the boss of Halliburton, they violated American law to do business with Iran, Iraq, and Libya... sworn enemies of the United States at the time. Is that an example of what Cheney's done for his country?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Vice-President Dick Cheney did not lie. He just tended to forget. He's "old and senile" remember??? John Edwards is an impotent. He doesn't deserve the job. He's done NOTHING for the American people if he hasn't even shown up and voted. Even if he were to show up, close his eyes and pick a choice he would still be doing something and this wouldn't be coming up, because Cheney would have "met" Edwards.

Stick it up your hiney.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

So Cheney told a lie during the debate.


That's just like passing a check that you can't cash.  Like the current budget deficit. 


It's just like free money!

Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
Dick Cheney did not lie


Other Dubious Claims.

Cheney used a misleading figure to support the idea that the administration was "deeply concerned" about the toll that AIDS has taken on poor countries, stating that the administration has "proposed and gotten through the Congress authorization for $15 billion to help in the international effort." That's true, but the $15-billion figure was to be spread over five years -- and when it came to asking for money to be actually appropriated and spent Bush sought only $2 billion for the fiscal year that just ended. Congress increased that to $2.4 billion.

Cheney and Edwards both made misleading statements about each other's education records, specifically on the No Child Left Behind law.
Cheney claimed "they were for it; now they're against it." But while Kerry has criticized the law as being underfunded and called for some changes he has not called for the law's repeal. Edwards claimed "they said they were going to fund their No Child Left Behind; $27 billion short today." In fact, overall federal funding for education grew 58% in Bush's first three years, though many governors and congressional Democrats say even more is required.

Cheney said Edwards "has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." But The Washington Post reported Oct. 6 that Cheney often "skated close to the line in ways that may have certainly left that impression on viewers," especially by repeatedly citing the possibility that hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi official, a theory disputed by the 9/11 Commission.

Cheney claimed Kerry had voted 98 times to raise taxes. As we've pointed out before, that's an inflated figure that counts multiple votes on the same tax bills, and also counts votes on budget measures that only set tax targets but don't actually bring about tax increases by themselves.

Link factcheck.org
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Some of you guys are so far gone that you don't even get the point - Edwards rarely bothers to show up. He misses a large percentage of votes, he rarely attends committee meetings and this is all from a first term senator.


No, I think many of us got the point perfectly the first time. And the point Cheney made was a good one I think. Some of us were simply pointing out that what was said was not true. No more, no less.

It's either that or Edwards is an idiot. Take your pick.


I'll take both please. They are politicians. Simply put, they lie, they cheat, they step on whomever they need to in order to get where they want to. Both of them. All of them.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Other Dubious Claims.


It is interesting to me that two of landen81's critiques of Cheney's facts have included links to factcheck.org. Cheney mentioned this site in the debate as a place to go to uncover Edwards faulty claims. At the time, I felt that this was a mistake on his part. After all, factcheck is the closest thing we've got to a non-partisan analysis watchdog. Surely there would be just as much evidence that Cheney's claims and those of the Bush administration were flawed. And it turns out, there are -- including this memorable soundbyte about never meeting Edwards before.

It was a good soundbyte, but it was wrong. It may have been in service to a legitimate complaint about Edwards' voting record in the senate (note: evidence of some missed votes DOES NOT EQUAL evidence of never voting in the senate, however), but it was wrong. It may have been the result of forgetfulness on Cheney's (and Edwards') part, but it was wrong. It was wrong and Cheney's own cited websource says it was wrong. To downplay or dismiss that this byte is inaccurate (and maybe even a deliberate lie) is to participate in a double standard. But then, why should that really surprise anyone at this point...?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is from a September 2003 article: "Before this year, Edwards missed just seven votes out of 1,307 in his first four years in office, Briggs said. During his five years in the Senate, Edwards voted 1,551 times out of 1,626 roll-call votes, Briggs ... or 95.4 percent."

For a Senator running for office, his attendance is actually unusually good: "Edwards, like other presidential candidates who serve in Congress, regularly misses roll-call votes as he campaigns. Edwards skipped 38 votes of the 119 tallies cast during June and July, Senate records show ... So far this year, Edwards has missed 69 votes out of 321, or about 21 percent, spokesman Michael Briggs said. 'I try to look at the votes and see what looks like it's important not only for North Carolina but also the country, and try to be there for those votes,' Edwards said."

In other words, it must be Cheney who's been all but absent from the Senate.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #10 By: *grins wickedly* - 10/6/2004 10:34:22 AM
Edwards rarely bothers to show up. He misses a large percentage of votes, he rarely attends committee meetings and this is all from a first term senator.


True, true, Draginol. That is pretty scary to think about the fact that Edwards is running for Veep and hasn't even done anything for the country while in the senate. He needs to wait for a while before running for Veep and maybe, oh, actually vote on something.

Does anyone know if Edwards has something lined up to where he stays in the senate if Kerry Edwards loses, like Leiberman did??

Lovvens,
ME


Actually if you want to compare... Kerry's attendence record isn't much better than his running mate Edwards!
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is a similiar discussion as I heard out of some people about Bush in 2000. Some people were complaining that Bush hadn't been on hand to run the Texas government because he was running for president. My opinion is that it's perfectly understandable for someone running for an office to do what is necessary to run.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #22 By: blogic - 10/6/2004 12:15:44 PM
This is from a September 2003 article: "Before this year, Edwards missed just seven votes out of 1,307 in his first four years in office, Briggs said. During his five years in the Senate, Edwards voted 1,551 times out of 1,626 roll-call votes, Briggs ... or 95.4 percent."

For a Senator running for office, his attendance is actually unusually good: "Edwards, like other presidential candidates who serve in Congress, regularly misses roll-call votes as he campaigns. Edwards skipped 38 votes of the 119 tallies cast during June and July, Senate records show ... So far this year, Edwards has missed 69 votes out of 321, or about 21 percent, spokesman Michael Briggs said. 'I try to look at the votes and see what looks like it's important not only for North Carolina but also the country, and try to be there for those votes,' Edwards said."

In other words, it must be Cheney who's been all but absent from the Senate.


Try this link:
Link


or this one for John Kerry:


Link


Or this one:


Link