blogic

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

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

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.
27,596 views 81 replies
Reply #26 Top
The fact that all the democrats can come up with to criticize Cheney's performance in the debate speaks volumes as to who they really think won the debate.

Call it a lie, call it senility, call it a blooper or a stumble. The most glaring fact is that except for 2 occassions, it was true (and they were not in the Senate per-se), and the public listening to the debate will more remember that statement, than 2 obscure times they bumbed into each other.
Reply #27 Top
Last night, Cheney said this: "In my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session."

So, it turns out Cheney has actually presided over the Senate only *twice* in the last four years, according to the Senate diaries. Not only that, but Cheney and Edwards met at least once on the Senate floor: "by morning, the Kerry-Edwards campaign had produced irrefutable evidence that when Elizabeth Dole was sworn in by Senate President Cheney as the junior senator from North Carolina just last year, it was Senator Edwards who (with her husband) escorted her to Mr. Cheney. Senator Dole was sworn in using Mrs. Edwards' bible."

I know you don't like Edwards -- I'm not trying to change your mind on that. Cheney's "most Tuesdays" statement wasn't caused by forgetfulness, and his sharp performance shows he's not senile. His comment was very misleading, and if John Kerry had done this, you'd be all over him as a liar. Do you really deny that?
Reply #28 Top
drmiler:
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."


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/104324/489



see that bald cheney-looking guy at the left swearing in elizabeth dole? and that john edwards-looing guy in the right back?

is that the kind of photographic, undisputable proof you were looking for, drmiler?

also in the article:
Update: Tim Russert is going around saying that Edwards and Cheney met backstage on his show, and shook hands and exchanged pleasentries.


also at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/11163/2940:

cheney has only presided in the senate on tuesdays twice.


Reply #29 Top
Yeah, right. This Cheney gaff is such a non-issue. I can't believe us Dems are making such a big deal about it!

What's REALLY important is that I am pretty sure I saw Edwards hiding that super-spy pen with Kerry's cheat notes in it. We should all really spend our time talking about that.

Reply #30 Top
Yeah, and exept for the fact that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction, what Cheney said on that topic is true.

And except for the fact that Saddam isn't tied to Al Qaida, what he said about that is true.

And except for this picture, this quote from Cheney to Edwards "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight." is also true.


And except for this quote, "In September, Cheney said Iraq had been 'the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.'", Cheney's assertion during the debate that "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11", is also true.

Hmmm, I think I see a pattern developing here. Perhaps it's time to restore honor and integrity to the whitehouse.


Reply #31 Top
They truly did both mislead-

Cheney said general practicioners paid $40-80,000 in malpractice insurance. They don't. Edwards said that a millonare lying by his pool earing income *through dividiends* would be taxed less than the working class, and while this is true, he said through dividends as if it was an example and did so intentionally to mislead people. Politics is a game in deciet.
Reply #32 Top
Cheney meant "working", not going to parties or "Meet the Press".

If I worked at the same place, at the same time as someone, and the only time I ever saw them was at parties, press events, and prayer breakfasts, I think I would wonder, too...

Blogic is all full of vim and vigor these days, huh? Maybe he'll find some substance to go with it sometime soon...

Reply #33 Top
Cheney never said the first time I saw... of course he's seen him on the floor, except that the VP doesn't actually sit on the FLOOR of the senate, and therefore wouldn't meet people except in the lobbies, which are basically seperated based on your party.
Reply #34 Top
No, Cheney did not "mean" working". How the heck do you know what he meant anyway? Did you look into his soul?

Let's not focus on what YOU think the man meant, let's focus on what the man said in front of God and the American people. "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight." Please, he clearly did not say, that he had never met him on the senate floor (which, as you can see above, would have also been untrue). And I don't think Cheney is senile either, I think he's shrewd, cold, calculating and the best liar I've ever seen.

In practice, this is a minor issue. If you thought you were meeting someone for the first time and later learned it wasnt' the first time, now that's an honest mistake. But this wasn't a casual conversation, it was a well rehearsed debate in front of the United States of America and much of the rest of the world. Cheney's statement was clearly premeditated, and fully intended to give a false and misleading picture of his opponent.
Reply #35 Top
It was a line he had been developing people. Like the trellinator said, politicians don't come up with something that witty on a whim, they have it down before they debate.
Reply #36 Top
No, Cheney did not "mean" working". How the heck do you know what he meant anyway? Did you look into his soul?

Cheney has a soul? No, wait, I'm getting that mixed up with "heart".

Reply #37 Top
This Cheney gaff is such a non-issue.


Yup, I'm going to file this one in my "John Kerry's Pen" file
Reply #38 Top
I find it hard to believe that you can sit next to someone as famous as the VP of the USA through an entire breakfast and not introduce yourself. So, they ignored each other for the whole event, didn't say a word to one another, pretended as though they didn't know who the other person was.?

Come on, just admit it. It's the truth; Dick Cheney lied in front of the American People to score political points. Simple as that. You don't make statements such as that in a Vice Presidential debate without having had people look into it before hand.
Reply #39 Top
Or you could look at the context of the statement, and see that Cheney had listed numerous statistics about how Edwards spent more time posturing and posing than he did showing up for work. Now, you offer "proof" to the contrary by saying he goes to prayer breakfasts, Meet the Press, and parties? . Make him look more candy-ass, why don'tcha...

According to Dems, focusing on such semantics during a debate just shows how desperate you are to prove you did well. Does that count on this debate, or just the last one...

Reply #40 Top
This isn't about whether "we" did well, or semantics. This is about the fact that Dick Cheney told the American People a premeditated lie during the Vice Presidential debate. Is that semantics? Well, I guess that depends on what the definition of "is" is, right?

And if open debate and God make you a "Candy Ass", then I suggest you move to China where they don't have either.
Reply #41 Top
" Is that semantics? "


Absolutely. You are completely ignoring the context of the statement. That seems to be heinous when Republicans do that to Kerry, but in this instance it serves your purpose.

"And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee.

You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform.

Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.

Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, 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."



SO, apparently, Senator Gone goes to parties, poses to the press, and eats breakfast. Kudos to the "Senator"... thanks for clearing that up.
Reply #42 Top
Compared with other lies we have been told, Cheney's," I never met him" is nothing. It is interesting that George W. in 2000 had fewer achievements and less intel and foreign policy experience when he ran the first time for President than Edwards has running for VP. Some how Bush, not having any real experience was OK but the Republicans want to comment on the experience of Edwards. I will admit the job Bush has done does reflect his total lack of experience and knowledge.
Reply #43 Top

i think what you're talking about here is the infamous "Global Test" statement, so here it is:



No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.



Now, you can disagree with this statement if you want. I admit, it's open to some interpretation, but there is no lie here. John Kerry has never been president before, so we don't know if he'd live up to his statement of not ceding "the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America." If he didn't live up to it, then that statement would be a lie.

Now, the issue with Cheney is quite different. Once again, this is what he said: "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight". You can leave it in context, you can take it out of context. You can put it in the middle of the declaration of independence, but no matter how you cut it, slice it or dice it, it's still entirely untrue and, therefore, is a lie. That's the difference. It's not semantics, it's honesty.
Reply #44 Top

I think Cheney was mistaken. I don't think he intentionally lied.

Why? Because if Edwards remembered meeting Cheney previously then he was a fool for not saying "Mr. Cheney, perhaps your memory is failing you but we met just last year at that prayer breakfast as well as on X and Y."

But he didn't. And if Cheney had really met Edwards in a memorable way and knew it, then his line in a live debate would have been far too risky.

Reply #45 Top
It could also be said that if Edwards was TRULY doing his job, instead of using his seat as a stepladder, then Cheney would have never even thought to have said it. I thin the examples of where Edwards had really "met" Cheney speaks volumes of Edward's role in Washington...
Reply #46 Top
"I think Cheney was mistaken. I don't think he intentionally lied."

Do you see that Cheney's statement about his own attendance as Senate President was very misleading?
Reply #47 Top
What? So now you want to pin Cheney's lie on Edward's memory? It doesn't matter if Edward remembered meeting Cheney or was too much of a fool not to mention it.

If you buy the explanation that Cheney was innocently "mistaken" then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in Arizona...

Cheney's remark was clearly prepared. As the subject of this post indicates, it was his best line of the night. So, you think that the VP can remember all those numbers "facts" and figures about Edwards's voting record and then not remember whether or not he ever met him? You think that Cheney and his keepers spent all that time before the debate compiling and considering how to best twist figures like this "You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee." and then just didn't check to see whether Cheney ever really met Edwards? Yeah, right.

The last remark in Cheney's answer about not meeting Edwards was clearly set up as the punch line of his statement. In a casual conversation or spontaneous arguement, that explanation might fly, but not in the Vice Presidential debate.

I think Edwards is the one who either forgot meeting Cheney, or was so stunned by the VP's lying that he frankly didn't know how to respond. Eitehr way, it doesn't matter, the point is that you can't blame Edwards's memory for Cheney's lie. It doesn't work like that.
Reply #48 Top
Edwards is just that. His senate record indicates that he merely got elected as a stepping stone to the Presidency.


Funny, what "experience" did Junior have when he ran for President. Hell what experience did Schwarzeneggar have to run for "Guvnor"...? MONEY
Reply #49 Top
It doesn't matter where they met or how they met and Edwards's attendance in the senate is really another matter altogether. It doesn't matter whether Edwards was there 100% of the time or 0% of the time. It doesn't matter whether they met on the senate floor or at a peep show. The point is that Dick Cheney lied, and nothing about Edwards--neither his attendance nor his memory--changes that, not one iota.
Reply #50 Top
"It doesn't matter whether Edwards was there 100% of the time or 0% of the time. It doesn't matter whether they met on the senate floor or at a peep show. The point is that Dick Cheney lied,"


Ah, the droning mantra of Bush-haters... Lies, Lies, Lies... and yet, nothing ever seems to come of it...