Pre Vice Presdential Debate and Debate Thoughts.

Admiral Ackbar

Admiral Ackbar

CAGiversary!
Feedback
25 (100%)
I'm expecting an interesting debate.

It's funny, Cheney and Edwards came out to applause, and then spent three minutes in silence scribbling fiercly on their pads. What were they doing? Were they required to fill out the essay portion of the new SAT as a debate rule?
 
Ok, I'm already completely bored by the debate. Every question so far has followed the same format:

Question: (insert question here)
Edwards: (some answer that doesn't really have much to do with the question, but does carry with it several points very damaging to Bush)
Cheney: Kerry voted for the war, then voted against it! Flip-flopper! Flip-flopper!
Edwards: Kerry is no flip-flopper! Why, (something else that has nothing to do with the question OR Kerry being a flip-flopper, but is still a credible attack against Bush)
Cheney: Flip-flopper! Kerry is a flip-flopper! Flip-flopper!

I swear that if Cheney was forbidden from accusing Kerry of being a flip-flopper, he'd just have to sit there in silence for the rest of the debate, and Edwards, despite doing a good job of attacking Bush's policies, couldn't stay on-subject if his life depended on it.
 
I dunno. I think Cheney has performed very well and actually I think Edwards for the first hl;f of the debate performed badly. Especially when he did not challenge the Vice President after several times he accused him of being incorrect on the facts or even after the Vice President painted him as disregarding the plight of the Iraqi people.

In other news, what's the wierd rules with names. At some times Edwards can say Kerry's name but at other times he can't? What's up with that?
 
It's funny how every election year brings in new buzz words. In 2000 it was hanging chads and it seems like flip flopper will be the new one this election
 
The moderator for this debate was HORRIBLE. She didn't know if she was coming or going, and what was up with that diss towards Edwards? "He didn't talk about israel very much." YES HE DID! He talked about it more than Cheyney!

But disregarding that, what right does the UNBIASED MODERATOR have to criticize either one of them?

I am baffled.

In other news, this one was pretty close.
 
Yes, the moderator seemed to insult both candidates. I was very displeased with her.

I, too, didn't see a clear winner. Cheney passed on the gay issue question, and never even answered the israeli conflict issue question. But I doubt the media will blast him on that.
 
Edwards had a much tougher debate than any of the three that Kerry will have with bush.
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']
In other news, what's the wierd rules with names. At some times Edwards can say Kerry's name but at other times he can't? What's up with that?[/quote]

It pretained to just that one question, that was fairly obvious IMO. While I didn't so much care for tonite's moderator, I did think that was a valid question. As we focus so much on Bush and Kerry this election, we don't know that much about the VP canidates, so it was good to have a question to distinguish themselves a little bit from the preisdential canidates.
 
Cheney won by quite a bit?

Edwards looked liked a battered wife. The reaction shots of him were of him wincing like he expected to be backhanded.

This wasn't even quite a bit it was a good old fashioned ass whooping as you can get in politics. My favorite line was something along the lines of "As VP I'm President of the Senate. I'm up there (On the hill.) almost every Tuesday and I have not met you until tonight on this stage.".

Him criticizing his attendence record had me giggling, it was so clear Edwards had no defence. He also went off on a series of platitudes when asked of the 10 men nominated for VP since 1976 he had the least political qualifications of any man nominated and why he felt he was the best person to be a heartbeat away. I kept waiting for Cheney to really say why Edwards was put on the ticket, because he's from the south and is supposed to bring a feeling of youth to the ticket.

Chris Matthews summarized the debate best from what I've seen, "Dick Cheney came loaded for bear and ended up shooting squirrel."

Don't think I could have said it much better.
 
I think Cheney was pounding Edwards for the first 30-45 minutes, but Edwards seemed to get it together more toward the end of the debate. In my mind, it was a little close to call.
 
The ABC poll also had Cheney as the victor. 43% for Cheney, 35% for Edwards, and 19 calling it a tie. I dunno where the hell you read that 70-30 poll, but that number sounds way off.

Edit: You said it's the MSNBC online poll. Those I don't trust at all, given the internet demographic (which seems to be relatively liberal). Plus, the "Who are you voting for" poll that they ran initially had Kerry with a decisive lead, and then suddenly Bush had a decisive lead a few weeks later. They change too rapidly.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This wasn't even quite a bit it was a good old fashioned ass whooping as you can get in politics. My favorite line was something along the lines of "As VP I'm President of the Senate. I'm up there (On the hill.) almost every Tuesday and I have not met you until tonight on this stage.".[/quote]

That was my favorite part, too.

ec.jpg


February, 2001.

The reason Cheney can come off sounding like he knows what he's talking about is that he's a pathological liar. Period. Because he feels no compunction to tell the truth, and he can lie with a straight face, and calm demeanor, he can say whatever the hell he wants. For a little while, anyway.

Thanks, PAD.

Moron.

seppo
 
Why is it that anybody who is remotely conservative or holds a viewpoint remotely to the right of your own is a "moron?"
 
PAD is a moron. That's been evidenced by basically every post he's ever written. I never said "anybody who is remotely conservative or holds a viewpoint remotely to the right of (my) own is a 'moron'."

I have friends who are substantially to the right of me. The difference is that they're not just parrots for the RNC. They have beliefs that are based on a set of values, that are articulated and thought out, and able to be expressed. PAD, on the other hand, is an idiot.

seppo
 
I don't see how PAD's an idiot. From the posts I've read he's articulate and well-informed, for the most part.
 
[quote name='Pylis'] I don't see how PAD's an idiot. From the posts I've read he's articulate and well-informed, for the most part.[/quote]

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Orange Skinned Horse Faced Jackass Bitches About Lights On Podium [/quote]
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Special Message to Dennis_T and helava: Go Shaq-Fu Yourselves, I Was Right [/quote]
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31386

Intelligent. Well informed. Completely unbiased and reasonable.

Actually, he's not stupid. He's very smart. But he's the biggest troll at CAG. His posts are designed to be as incendiary as possible.

As for the debate, I saw it as fairly even. Both landed some blows here and there. Cheney hit hard with a few points, but also put out the same Republican lies and distortions you always hear. Edwards hit hard about Haliburton, and Cheney could do no better than calling it a smokescreen (and referred people to factcheck.org, an excellent site I highly recommend).

Cheney used the format of the debate to his advantage in the beginning, saving his most incendiary stuff for when Edwards could not respond under the rules, such as Edwards supposedly disrespecting the Iraqi's (considering Iraq part of the coalition is absurd). Edwards picked up on this later and improved, including throwing out a lot of charges about Halliburton and other things, knowing Cheney only had 30 seconds to try and respond.

Edwards held his own and even stood up to Cheney. He didn't have to win resoundingly, or make him look bad. Kerry will have ample opportunity for that Friday.
 
You must not read much :)

PAD can be reasonably intelligent and articulate for a while at a time, but then he invariable stops taking his medication and post something like 'Democrats should just commit suicide now and get it over with.'

Even in the best of times, though, he pretty much never engages in any sort of debate: he copies and pastes some RNC email, challenges anyone to argue with it, then mysteriously disappears when someone actually does come up with a valid argument as to why what he posted was untrue or overhyped.
 
then mysteriously disappears when someone actually does come up with a valid argument as to why what he posted was untrue or overhyped.
Click to expand...
Yes, he has a habit of disappearing whenever someone challenges him that can back it up. Forgot about that.
 
[quote name='helava'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This wasn't even quite a bit it was a good old fashioned ass whooping as you can get in politics. My favorite line was something along the lines of "As VP I'm President of the Senate. I'm up there (On the hill.) almost every Tuesday and I have not met you until tonight on this stage.".[/quote]

That was my favorite part, too.

ec.jpg


February, 2001.

The reason Cheney can come off sounding like he knows what he's talking about is that he's a pathological liar. Period. Because he feels no compunction to tell the truth, and he can lie with a straight face, and calm demeanor, he can say whatever the hell he wants. For a little while, anyway.

Thanks, PAD.

Moron.

seppo[/quote]

I love the picture of them in a buffet line, not even looking at or talking to one another. It depends on your definition of meet. If I walked by you on the street have I met you? Fact is Edwards does have a craptacular senate attendence record and the best defense you can come up with is some vague picture? And yeah PAD is usually way out there and way way off most of the time IMO, but by calling him a moron you just went to his level. So way to go...
 
It would not be uncommon for a Democratic senator serving as short a time as Edwards has to have not "met" a Republican VP/President of the Senate.

Depends on what your definition of "met" is. From what I recall, they spoke on the phone when Edwards was named Kerry's running mate, and they wished each other luck.

I think that picture is a pretty good rebuttal to the never having met line, considering the short notice. Many Senators have poor attendance, especially in election years, and especially when they're running for President/Vice President. Lieberman had a worse attendance record when he ran for VP.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'] And yeah PAD is usually way out there and way way off most of the time IMO, but by calling him a moron you just went to his level. So way to go...[/quote]

Consider it a "running gag."

From Daily Kos:

Cheney claimed that he had never met Edwards before.
Addressing the National Prayer Breakast, Cheney said: "Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I honored to be with you all this morning." [FDCH Political Transcripts, Cheney Remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, 2/1/01]
And then theres this, which should offer up photos at some point soon (and we all know how people need pictures for reality to sink in):
Senator Edwards Escorted Elizabeth Dole When She Was Sworn In As North Carolina's Other Senator. Elizabeth Dole was sworn in as North Carolina's other senator on January 8, 2003. Gannet News Service wrote: "As per Senate tradition, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., escorted her."
Dole Took The Senate Oath Administered By Vice President Dick Cheney. According to Gannet News Service: "[Dole] raised her right hand and took the oath administered by Vice President Dick Cheney, the Senate president." [Gannet News Service, 1/8/03]

-----------
Given that he directly addressed him in his speech, I'm sure that qualifies as "met," in the context of the Senate. Maybe they've never sat down at a table together, but I'd bet that even addressing him in a speech is more than Cheney's done for most Senate Democrats.

The point being, it's a zinger - a great publicity line. Very well written. If only it were true.

seppo

seppo
 
I think the real point behind all this is we can sit here and monday morning quarterback about what can or can't be disproven. But it's the duty in the debate of Edwards to defend his attendence record, and vice versa for when Edwards jabbed at Cheney for something. And yes it sucks that they only get 30 secs to respond to a 90 second attack bascially, but Edwards used the next question to speak about past questions (Cheney did too I think) so why didn't he do it there. Instead he comes out after the debate talking about how his wife reminded him about the two meeting...WTF? Why the hell didn't he do that, I mean he was there. Same goes for for a couple of things for Edwards and Cheney's other jabs and his defenses. It was a pretty close debate IMO, but I think Cheney did a bit better job during the actual debate in situations like the above. If he didn't defend something he was able to effectively change issue around in his 90 seconds.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I think the real point behind all this is we can sit here and monday morning quarterback about what can or can't be disproven. But it's the duty in the debate of Edwards to defend his attendence record, and vice versa for when Edwards jabbed at Cheney for something. And yes it sucks that they only get 30 secs to respond to a 90 second attack bascially, but Edwards used the next question to speak about past questions (Cheney did too I think) so why didn't he do it there. Instead he comes out after the debate talking about how his wife reminded him about the two meeting...WTF? Why the hell didn't he do that, I mean he was there. Same goes for for a couple of things for Edwards and Cheney's other jabs and his defenses. It was a pretty close debate IMO, but I think Cheney did a bit better job during the actual debate in situations like the above. If he didn't defend something he was able to effectively change issue around in his 90 seconds.[/quote]

I'm surprised you shrug it off so casually when your leaders lie to your face. Cheney said a bald-faced lie. He had met Edwards repeatedly.

Why do you condone this? Would you condone it of a Democrat?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Actually, he's not stupid. He's very smart. But he's the biggest troll at CAG. His posts are designed to be as incendiary as possible.[/quote]

I wouldn't say he's the biggest troll, but he is certainly more serious about it than the others. With some you get the impression that they're just having fun pissing the other side off. PAD, however, seems to be out for blood at all times.
 
[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I think the real point behind all this is we can sit here and monday morning quarterback about what can or can't be disproven. But it's the duty in the debate of Edwards to defend his attendence record, and vice versa for when Edwards jabbed at Cheney for something. And yes it sucks that they only get 30 secs to respond to a 90 second attack bascially, but Edwards used the next question to speak about past questions (Cheney did too I think) so why didn't he do it there. Instead he comes out after the debate talking about how his wife reminded him about the two meeting...WTF? Why the hell didn't he do that, I mean he was there. Same goes for for a couple of things for Edwards and Cheney's other jabs and his defenses. It was a pretty close debate IMO, but I think Cheney did a bit better job during the actual debate in situations like the above. If he didn't defend something he was able to effectively change issue around in his 90 seconds.[/quote]

I'm surprised you shrug it off so casually when your leaders lie to your face. Cheney said a bald-faced lie. He had met Edwards repeatedly.

Why do you condone this? Would you condone it of a Democrat?[/quote]

Democrats do in fact lie, everyone in politics does it. Perhaps that's why i was able to shrug it off so casually (which was not the intended purpose off the item in which you quoted me on). And don't be so quick to say I "shrugged it off" like I said before in this very theard, it depends on the persons definition of met. I don't think that picture above is an exmple of them meeting, nor is a phone call, or simply addressing somebody in a speech. Did they shake hands or carry on a 20 second conversation in person? To me that constitues meeting someone, at least more so than the examples I've thusly been provided. How about Edwards's inaccuracies that were even revealed on national TV by MSNBC? Do you condone using such insccuracies in the debate? Seeing as how you are constantly looking at politics with such narrow vision you probably don't care. Also, back to the original point, if it was such an obvious and blatant lie why was there no defense offered by Edwards? Frankly I was quite suprised by that comment at first, but then heard no objection from Edwards about it, so why was I or other viewers not to take it as at least mostly truhtful? It would seem that apparently their repeated meetings were not grand enough to set off any lie alrams in Edwards head, so why would it have set off liar alarms in the heads of Americans?
 
I wouldn't say he's the biggest troll, but he is certainly more serious about it than the others. With some you get the impression that they're just having fun pissing the other side off. PAD, however, seems to be out for blood at all times.
Click to expand...
Poor choice of words on my part. Not the biggest troll, but the most effective.

Also, I think Edwards did well when he accused the administration of flip flopping on a list of things, and it went fairly unchallenged.

Anyone else notice that Edwards thanked Cheney at the end, but Cheney only thanked the moderator?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
I wouldn't say he's the biggest troll, but he is certainly more serious about it than the others. With some you get the impression that they're just having fun pissing the other side off. PAD, however, seems to be out for blood at all times.
Click to expand...
Poor choice of words on my part. Not the biggest troll, but the most effective.

Also, I think Edwards did well when he accused the administration of flip flopping on a list of things, and it went fairly unchallenged.

Anyone else notice that Edwards thanked Cheney at the end, but Cheney only thanked the moderator?[/quote]

Yep :lol:
 
Cheney tried to get off a zinger (probably planned ahead of time) to make it appear that he had never seen Edwards because he was absent from the Senate a lot. Too bad for Cheney it was another case of him stretching the truth (just like they loved to accuse Al Gore of doing in 2000). Cheney got called on it and looks stupid for it.

I do wish Edwards would have called him on it at the time. That would have been great.
 
[quote name='guardian_owl']I think Cheney was pounding Edwards for the first 30-45 minutes, but Edwards seemed to get it together more toward the end of the debate. In my mind, it was a little close to call.[/quote]

I agree with that analysis exactly.

I do thing the moderator wasn't on the ball.

Finally, that's a great picture. I think the comment that they hadn't met before was innane. First, yes it's a buffet line, and while I doubt they've gone hunting together I'm sure at soem point their paths have crossed, like right in that picture. Secondly, he's the Vice President of the United States. One of the analysts made the point that he could have picked up a phone at any time to contact Edwards.
 
Here's another picture of Edwards and Cheney meeting (Cheney on the far left):

cheneyedwards.jpg
Jan 7, 2003
 
That would be funny if Bush had Cheney fill in for him for the last two presidential debates due to an "emergency" or something.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I think the real point behind all this is we can sit here and monday morning quarterback about what can or can't be disproven. But it's the duty in the debate of Edwards to defend his attendence record, and vice versa for when Edwards jabbed at Cheney for something. And yes it sucks that they only get 30 secs to respond to a 90 second attack bascially, but Edwards used the next question to speak about past questions (Cheney did too I think) so why didn't he do it there. Instead he comes out after the debate talking about how his wife reminded him about the two meeting...WTF? Why the hell didn't he do that, I mean he was there. Same goes for for a couple of things for Edwards and Cheney's other jabs and his defenses. It was a pretty close debate IMO, but I think Cheney did a bit better job during the actual debate in situations like the above. If he didn't defend something he was able to effectively change issue around in his 90 seconds.[/quote]

I'm surprised you shrug it off so casually when your leaders lie to your face. Cheney said a bald-faced lie. He had met Edwards repeatedly.

Why do you condone this? Would you condone it of a Democrat?[/quote]

Democrats do in fact lie, everyone in politics does it. Perhaps that's why i was able to shrug it off so casually (which was not the intended purpose off the item in which you quoted me on). And don't be so quick to say I "shrugged it off" like I said before in this very theard, it depends on the persons definition of met. I don't think that picture above is an exmple of them meeting, nor is a phone call, or simply addressing somebody in a speech. Did they shake hands or carry on a 20 second conversation in person? To me that constitues meeting someone, at least more so than the examples I've thusly been provided. How about Edwards's inaccuracies that were even revealed on national TV by MSNBC? Do you condone using such insccuracies in the debate? Seeing as how you are constantly looking at politics with such narrow vision you probably don't care. Also, back to the original point, if it was such an obvious and blatant lie why was there no defense offered by Edwards? Frankly I was quite suprised by that comment at first, but then heard no objection from Edwards about it, so why was I or other viewers not to take it as at least mostly truhtful? It would seem that apparently their repeated meetings were not grand enough to set off any lie alrams in Edwards head, so why would it have set off liar alarms in the heads of Americans?[/quote]

Al Gore was, well, gored by the Republicans and the press last election for saying he'd toured a disaster area with FEMA director James Lee Witt, when he'd actually gone there with another official.

Cheney's gaffe, in my opinion, was much worse. He lied about never having met a U.S. Senator, and did so in a blatant attack on the gentleman's attendence record. You don't attack someone with false facts and then get a free ride when you're discovered to be a liar.

As far as Edwards not responding: So what? A lie is a lie. You now know it's a lie. Why defend a liar?
 
[quote name='dennis_t']

Cheney's gaffe, in my opinion, was much worse. He lied about never having met a U.S. Senator, and did so in a blatant attack on the gentleman's attendence record. You don't attack someone with false facts and then get a free ride when you're discovered to be a liar.

As far as Edwards not responding: So what? A lie is a lie. You now know it's a lie. Why defend a liar?[/quote]

Am I to take it by your opening to mean that you agrre everybody in politics lies? So you mean like the Kerry/Edwards campaign tossing around a pretty blatant lie that there will be a draft if Bush is re-elected? I don't see you bearing down on that too much. You seem to say Al Gore lied, but he's not running so how about pointing out lies from democrats actually running for office (they are there, always are, on both sides).

As for your last comment, that's a foolish way to think in politics. Just about every analyst on both sides was wondering why the hell Edwards didn't call Cheney out on his big two lies (the meeting thing and the Irq to 9/11 connection comments). And you may have known it was lie, but do you think that average American did know that they had met? However, had Edwards spoke up about it they would've found out right away. You should never assume the public just knows it was a lie. Also what about the top of Cheney's core point of him having a pretty bad attendence record? That one end sentence was apparently lie (though pictures like EZBs photo above of the two standing like a couple people apart doesn't prove much IMO) but the lie was a false endcap on a point that still seems to ring true. Sure it helps drive home the point but it doesn't make said point entirely inaccurate.
 
The lie about never meeting Edwards before is minor compared to the whopper he told when he said he never suggested that Saddam and al-Qaida were linked. That's the one the press needs to rake him over the coals for.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']That one end sentence was apparently lie (though pictures like EZBs photo above of the two standing like a couple people apart doesn't prove much IMO) [/quote]

The Edwards campaign said the two also met when Edwards accompanied the other North Carolina senator, Elizabeth Dole, to her swearing-in ceremony.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/05/debate.fact.check.ap/index.html[/quote]

I know she said that, but that actual picture is not proof of the two meeting. He's not even looking at Edwards. Was it a lie? Yes I already said it was, but posting vague pictures like that doesn't prove much of anything. It's good to know he was their for her swearing in, but that's simply a senate event. If standing near someone at event constitues meeting them, then I've met many more people at college than I thought. Did they meet there and exchange plesantries and what not? It's very possible, but I don't see any proof of that in the picture (though it seems to be a video so maybe it's in there, not seeing the entire video I wouldn't know).

And yes I don't see the huge focus on such a smaller lie compared to the big lie about Cheney's denial of admitting to a link between Iraq and 9/11...Isn't that a subject on people's minds, isn't it a little more important in this election?
 
Speaking of attendance at the Senate (from Kos):

Here is a list of the Senate's Acting Presidents for every Tuesday session for 2001.

January 30 - Enzi
February 6 - Chafee
February 13 - Chafee
February 27 - Allen
March 6 - Burns
March 13 - Reid
March 20 - DeWine
March 27 - Chafee
April 3 - Smith
April 24 - Chafee
May 1 - Chafee
May 8 - Chafee
May 15 - Frist
May 22 - Chafee
June 5 - Enzi
June 12 - Byrd
June 19 - Carper
June 26 - Bayh
July 10 - Nelson
July 17 - Clinton
July 24 - Byrd
July 31 - Stabenaw
September 25 - Wellstone
October 2 - Clinton
October 9 - Clinton
October 16 - Edwards
October 23- Byrd
October 30 - Bingaman
November 13 - Murray
November 27 - Jeffords
December 4 - Stabenaw
December 11 - Carnahan
December 18 - Nelson

A reward to whoever finds a Tuesday in 2002, 2003 or 2004 that Dick Cheney fulfilled his duties as President of the Senate here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html

2002

Tue 1/29 - Nelson
Tue 2/5 - Kohl
Tue 2/12 - Stabenow
Tue 2/26 - Landrieu
Tue 3/5 - Edwards
Tue 3/12 - Landrieu
Tue 3/19 - Miller
Tue 4/9 - Cleland
Tue 4/16 - Reed
Tue 4/23 - Wellstone
Tue 4/30 - Nelson
Tue 5/7 - Miller
Tue 5/14 - Cleland
Tue 5/21 - Nelson
Tue 6/4 - Durbin
Tue 6/11 - Corzine
Tue 6/18 - Dayton
Tue 6/25 - Landrieu
Tue 7/9 - Reed
Tue 7/16 - Corzine
Tue 7/23 - Reed
Tue 7/30 - Clinton
Tue 9/3 - Reed
Tue 9/10 - Corzine
Tue 9/17 - Reid
Tue 9/24 - Stabenow
Tue 10/1 - Miller
Tue 10/8 - Miller
Tue 10/15 - Reid
Tue 11/12 - CHENEY
Tue 11/19 - Barkley (MN)

2003

Jan 7 Cheney
Jan 14 Stevens
Jan 22 Stevens
Jan 28 Stevens
Feb 4 Stevens
Feb 11 Stevens
Feb 25 Stevens
Mar 4 Stevens
Mar 11 Stevens
Mar 18 Stevens
Mar 25 Stevens
Apr 1 Stevens
Apr 8 Stevens
Apr 29 Stevens
May 6 Talent
May 13 Ensign
May 20 Alexander
June 3 Stevens
June 10 Stevens
June 18 Murkowski
June 24 Coleman
July 8 Stevens
July 15 Stevens
July 22 Chaffee
July 29 Stevens
Sept 2 Stevens
Sept 9 Stevens
Sept 16 Stevens
Sept 23 Stevens
Sept 30 Sununu
Oct 21 Stevens
Oct 28 Stevens
Nov 4 Stevens
Nov 11 Warner
Nov 18 Stevens
Dec 9 Stevens

2004

1/20 - Stevens
1/27 - Enzi
2/3 - Stevens
2/10 - Stevens
3/2 - Stevens
3/9 - Hagel
3/16 - Sununu
3/23 - Stevens
3/30 - Ensign
4/6 - Cornyn
4/20 - Stevens
4/27 - Chambliss
5/4 - Stevens
5/11 - Stevens
5/18 - Stevens
6/1 - Stevens
6/8 - Hutchinson
6/15 - Stevens
6/22 - Allard
7/6 - Burns
7/13 - Stevens
7/20 - Enzi
9/7 - Stevens
9/14 - Chafee
9/21 - Enzi
9/28 - Stevens
10/05 - Stevens

Didn't Cheney say he was there most Tuesdays? Wouldn't that mean this list should be almost all Cheney?

seppo
 
Cheney's a good liar - he just doesn't tell good lies.

He can say something that's obviously untrue, but make people believe it. The problem is that the things he says are quite easily proven untrue. Bad lies. Good lies would be ones that are really hard to prove categorically wrong. But last night was a bad night for him. He got the not-meeting Edwards thing wrong, he got the I-never-said-there-was-an-Iraq/Al Qaeda thing wrong, he got the Edwards'-hometown-newspaper thing wrong, and even if he'd gotten the domain name right, factcheck.org says he got the content of their site wrong, too.

That's only the instantly obvious, and easily disproven lies. I don't doubt that there are a lot of policy misstatements hidden in what he's said, as well, like way overstating the number of Iraqis that have been trained to fight insurgents (the correct number is way less than the 100K Bush suggested. Something like 8K have gone through half the training. 0 have actually finished the training regimen.)

Whee!
seppo
 
http://www.thepilot.com/opinion/100604PilotEditorial2.html

That's the "hometown newspaper" that Cheney mentioned. 20 miles from his hometown, and a weekly - not any of the major daily papers. But regardless, they haven't "taken to" calling him anything. There's one reference there, and that's even followed by a caveat, that of the other Democratic Senators who were running for office, Edwards actually had the best attendance, and hadn't missed a vote where his presence would have changed the outcome.

Go Cheney!

seppo
 
[quote name='helava']Speaking of attendance at the Senate (from Kos):

Here is a list of the Senate's Acting Presidents for every Tuesday session for 2001.

Didn't Cheney say he was there most Tuesdays? Wouldn't that mean this list should be almost all Cheney?

seppo[/quote]

You obviously know nothing about the Senate. The VP, while technically the president of the Senate, rarely presides, usually only in cases where his tie-breaking vote might be necessary. I imagine Cheney went up there on Tuesdays for the weekly party policy luncheons, obviously the Republican ones. Not surprising that he didn't see Edwards there! :wink:
 
I wish my job were like that.

"I'm usually at work every day!"

*goes to lunch with co-workers, then flies kites and plays with the dog on the beach the rest of the day*

Awesome!
seppo
 
[quote name='helava']Cheney's a good liar - he just doesn't tell good lies.[/quote]

To call Cheney a good liar is an insult to his natural talent in this area. Cheny is a MASTER liar. Cheney can say that the sky is green with such absolute conviction and belief that most people won't even bother to glance up and check for themselves, and those that do wind up doubting their own senses. You can make a list that spans from here to Tuesday listing all the lies, misrepresentations, spins and exagerations that Cheney gave in the debate - its simply not going to matter to 90% of the people who watched it.

He doesn't need to tell good lies - to do so would simply be a waste of time and effort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top