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

Published on October 6, 2004 By blogic In 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.

Comments (Page 1)

drmiler

on Oct 06, 2004

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."

JURookie

on Oct 06, 2004

thank you Drmiler for focusing the truth....

Timmoth

on Oct 06, 2004

Maybe were being too rough on Dick Cheney. Maybe he wasn't lying, maybe he's just senile.

BlueDev

on Oct 06, 2004

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.

Myrrander

on Oct 06, 2004

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.

drmiler

on Oct 06, 2004

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?

Deference

on Oct 06, 2004

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.

grins wickedly

on Oct 06, 2004

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*

Draginol

on Oct 06, 2004

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.

grins wickedly

on Oct 06, 2004

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

Draginol

on Oct 06, 2004

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.

grins wickedly

on Oct 06, 2004

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??

Draginol

on Oct 06, 2004

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.

landen81

on Oct 06, 2004

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

blogic

on Oct 06, 2004

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?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!