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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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".

This Cheney gaff is such a non-issue.

Yup, I'm going to file this one in my "John Kerry's Pen" file

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.

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...

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.

" 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.

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.

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.

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.

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...