super.
thats awesome…hahahah…that cracked me up.
Hmm, plastic guns may not be accurate, but ceramics may be closer to the point. The issue is whether or not there are weapons that could easily get past metal detectors.
Anyway, by now everyone knows the debate was pretty close. What a bunch of hopeful thinking we have in here. Just because your own personal beliefs were confirmed doesn’t mean very much.
[quote]Anyway, the prelude about Cheney coming to the Senate every Tuesday and not meeting Edwards there is the salient point anyway.
An absolutely devastating comment.
[/quote]
It actually reflects very badly on Cheney if you understand current events. Republicans control the Senate and they refuse to meet with their Democratic counterparts, they hold their committee meetings in secret, and so on. Republican leaders flat-out refuse to cooperate with the other side of the aisle. They don’t even attempt to work with their Democratic colleagues.
Edwards missed a chance to expose that. If the average American knew the facts on how partisan the Republican in Congress are, they would be outraged.
And this administration promised to “change the tone” in Washington, and to “unite and not divide”.
Lumpy,
“Republican leaders flat-out refuse to cooperate with the other side of the aisle. They don’t even attempt to work with their Democratic colleagues.”
This reflects your usual silliness.
Let’s face facts - there has been partisan rancor ever since the election mess in 2000.
If you’re here to make the claim that lovey-dovey Democrats are ready to embrace the Republicans if only the Republicans would not be so mean, then, to be frank, you’re full of shit.
It’s been a mixed bag. There has been bipartisanship on some legislation - Ted Kennedy on education, for example. the tax cut was bipartisan. Oh, and lest we forget - the resolution for war in Iraq was a bipartisan effort as well.
But the war has certainly aggravated differences when it was clear the pacifist Left gained strength in the Democratic Party.
There’s plenty of piss and vinegar to go around on both sides.
“Edwards missed a chance to expose that. If the average American knew the facts on how partisan the Republican in Congress are, they would be outraged”
Hogwash. Show me the facts you suggest that would outrage the average American.
Yeah - the Republicans have the market cornered on partisanship.
What was it Tom Daschle learned how to do in his last term? Can you say fillibuster? Can you say refused to let the majority even vote?
Can you say Tom’s not gonna be there in January? Neither is Edwards for that matter.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This reflects your usual silliness.[/quote]
I’m getting tired of people’s ad hominem attacks as a way to cope with their own ignorance of the facts. I never attacked you personally.
Your reply “There has always been partisan politics!” is a weak and shitty answer.
As I said, Republicans hold their meetings in secret and do not even consult with the opposition, when writing legislation.
Lets get specific.
How about the appointment of federal judges. Much whining has been done because Democrats have blocked approximately 5 extreme right wing judges from being appointed.
When Bill Clinton was president, he would contact legislators from the state the judge would preside in, and consult with them. He would get a “pre-approval” on these judges from BOTH SIDES of the aisle. If there was any objections, the judge would not even be nominated for a vote.
Clinton was a moderate who worked with both sides of the aisle. As a result, moderate judges were appointed.
Compare that to the Bush administration, who tries to ramrod extremist right wing judges through the system. All of the judges that Bush nominates are hard-line right wingers, the kind of “activist judges” that the right wing often complains about.
As another example, lets look at the Prescription Drug Bill for Medicare, that Republicans rammed through Congress.
I think most people would be outraged if they knew that an official in the FDA was threatened with being fired, if he revealed the true costs of the president’s prescription drug bill. The bill will actually cost taxpayers billions of dollars more than the White House claimed, when they were lobbying for the bill. The White House concealed the true costs of the bill.
There was not enough votes for this bill to pass. I think most people would be outraged if they knew that the vote on the bill (which happened after midnight, when few Americans would be watching) was extended by an hour and a half, while Republicans frantically scrambled to try to sway additional votes to their side. Votes are given 15 minutes, and they either pass or do not pass. When there wasn’t enough votes to pass the bill, the vote was held open for an hour-and-a-half, while GOP leaders scrambled around the floor trying to cut deals and negotiate additional votes. (Don’t assume this was bipartisanship: Remember that Republicans are the majority in Congress. There was not enough Republican support to pass the bill).
This would be like the home team losing in the 9th inning of a baseball game, and then adding extra innings, until they were able to get enough runs to win, and then ending the game.
I think most people would be outraged if they knew that during this hour-and-a-half extension, a Republican Congressman was offered a bribe if he would switch his vote and support the bill:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096253/
As a result, Congress passed a huge trillion-dollar spending bill that is a sweetheart deal for the pharmaceutical companies (who are already the most profitable industry in America).
Try watching C-SPAN. In the House of Representatives, Republicans won’t even allow the Democrats to speak in committee meetings.
http://www.occams-razor.info/archives/000128.html
Dick Cheney said that if people wanted to check out the Halliburton charges, all they needed to do was go to
http://www.factcheck.com
Look at the transcripts if you don’t believe me.
Factcheck.com is George Soros’ website! Click the link and see, or just type it into your web browser yourself.
What a Dick!!!
Lumpy-
I LOVE YOU.
After watching that debate last night I came away knowing that Bush and his administration are a bunch of bullshitters and liars. This is one Republican who won’t vote for Bush!
Lumpa -
You just aren’t worth it.
Tricky Dick Cheney is a bald-faced liar!
Cheney said John Edwards has “one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.”
WRONG! Actually, John Edwards has an 84.8% voting record in the Senate. In each of his first four years, he had a perfect or near perfect record:
1999 Cast 371 out of 374 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2000 Cast 298 out of 298 votes for a 100% voting record
2001 Cast 377 out of 380 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2002 Cast 253 out of 253 votes for a 100% voting record
2003 Cast 281 out of 459 votes for a 61.2% voting record
2004 Cast 84 out of 198 votes for a 42.4% voting record
OVERALL Edwards has cast 1664 out of 1962 votes for a 84.8% voting record.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm
It’s already common knowledge that Cheney lied about never meeting John Edwards before. For example, they sat next to each other for three hours at an annual National Prayer breakfast. Also, Edwards was by North Carolina Senator Liddy Dole’s side when she was sworn into the Senate. (see pic).
But Dick Cheney also lied about his own record at the same time.
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."
The truth is that during Cheney’s tenure as Vice-President, he has actually only presided over the Senate as President TWICE.
As a matter of fact, during the same stretch, to fill in for Cheney’s repeated absence, John Edwards has served as acting President of the Senate twice himself (!!!) Hillary Clinton has served as acting President of the Senate four times!
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."
BULLSHIT!
This is the list of actual “presiding officers” in the Senate substituting for Dick Cheney when he was absent (except twice).
2001
1/30 Enzi
2/6 Chafee
2/13 Chafee
2/27 Allen
3/6 Burns
3/13 Reid
3/20 DeWine
3/27 Chafee
4/3 Smith
4/24 Chafee
5/1 Chafee
5/8 Chafee
5/15 Frist
5/22 Chafee
5/29 Enzi
6/5 Byrd
6/19 Carper
6/26 Bayh
7/10 Nelson
7/17 Clinton
7/24 Byrd
7/31 Stabenaw
9/25 Wellstone
10/2 Clinton
10/9 Clinton
10/16 Edwards
10/23 Byrd
10/30 Bingaman
11/13 Murray
11/27 Jeffords
12/4 Stabenaw
12/11 Carnahan
12/18 Nelson
2002
1/29 Nelson
2/5 Kohl
2/12 Stabenow
2/26 Landrieu
3/5 Edwards
3/12 Landrieu
3/19 Miller
4/9 Cleland
4/16 Reed
4/23 Wellstone
4/30 Nelson
5/7 Miller
5/14 Cleland
5/21 Nelson
6/4 Durbin
6/11 Corzine
6/18 Dayton
6/25 Landrieu
7/9 Reed
7/16 Corzine
7/23 Reed
7/30 Clinton
9/3 Reed
9/10 Corzine
9/17 Reid
9/24 Stabenow
10/1 Miller
10/8 Miller
10/15 Reid
11/12 Cheney
11/19 Barkley (MN)
2003
1/7 Cheney
1/14 Stevens
1/22 Stevens
1/28 Stevens
2/4 Stevens
2/11 Stevens
2/25 Stevens
3/4 Stevens
3/11 Stevens
3/18 Stevens
3/25 Stevens
4/1 Stevens
4/8 Stevens
4/29 Stevens
5/6 Talent
5/13 Ensign
5/20 Alexander
6/3 Stevens
6/10 Stevens
6/18 Murkowski
6/24 Coleman
7/8 Stevens
7/15 Stevens
7/22 Chaffee
7/29 Stevens
9/2 Stevens
9/9 Stevens
9/16 Stevens
9/23 Stevens
9/30 Sununu
10/21 Stevens
10/28 Stevens
11/4 Stevens
11/11 Warner
11/18 Stevens
12/9 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
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html
The biggest lie Cheney told was when he said "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there’s clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror.’
Actually Cheney has suggested over and over again that there is a connection between 9-11 and Saddam. Of all the clowns on Team Bush, Cheney has been the biggest offender on this issue.
Dick Cheney said "“Frankly Senator you have a record that is not very distinguished”
What did Dick Cheney do in his 11 years as a Congressman?
He sponsored two only bills: One to build a flood plain on the Colorado River, and the other was a bill to help one of his constituents:
96th Congress: 4 Sponsored; 0 became Law
97th Congress: 4 Sponsored: 0 became Law
98th Congress: 8 Sponsored: 0 became Law
99th Congress: 7 Sponsored: 1 became Law (H.R.1246 : A bill to establish a federally declared floodway for theColorado River below Davis Dam.)
100th Congress: 7 Sponsored: 1 became Law (H.R.712 : A bill for the relief of Lawrence K. Lunt.)
101st Congress: 1 Sponsored: 0 became Law
More telling than the two bills Cheney sponsored are all the things he opposed, like Head Start for pre-schoolers, and Meals on Wheels for seniors.
Ouch crips! Lump-o-matic is tossing grenades. That pretty damning stuff there, lump. What the hell? Is Cheney too busy playing Darth Vader to do his damn job? I’m interested in something, though. How often have the VP’s traditionallly shown up to preside over the Senate? Is this an abnormal amount of absences? What about the past VP’s? Is this something that is delegated most of the time anyway? Even if it is, that was still pretty punk of Cheney to say to Edwards. I mean, have some class, Darth! We don’t see you in the Senate much either.
Here’s a little article for all you Bush and Cheney lovers
Author’s Note | I spent Tuesday evening watching the debate, and then writing about it. When I was done, I went to the website Dick Cheney told Americans to visit in order to get the truth about Kerry’s record. Cheney said we should view ‘FactCheck.com,’ but as a seasoned internet scrambler, I knew immediately he meant ‘FactCheck.org’. Not much difference between a .com and a .org, right?
Wrong. FactCheck.com is a website owned by George Soros. The banner headline across the top of the page reads 'WHY WE MUST NOT RE-ELECT PRESIDENT BUSH.' You can assume what the content to follow has to say, or you can go visit the site yourself. I'd love to see what Soros' hit counts look like on Wednesday morning. This is a fairly solid allegory for Dick Cheney's night at the desk. - wrp
Cheney's Avalanche of Lies
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Wednesday 06 October 2004
“The vice president, I’m surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors. He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa. It’s amazing to hear him criticize either my record or John Kerry’s.”
- Senator John Edwards, 10/05/04
Cheney and Edwards at the National Prayer Breakfast, 02/01/01
Clearly, Dick Cheney is no George W. Bush.
On Thursday night in Florida, Bush exposed himself as unprepared, easily ruffled, angry, excitable and muddled. As one wag put it, he came to a 90 minute debate with 10 minutes of material. On Tuesday night in Ohio, Cheney showed the American people who is really running things at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He was controlled, calm, every inch the CEO in charge.
Cheney was also every inch the snarling, hunch-shouldered golem that has made him one of the least popular politicians in recent memory. He seldom looked up at moderator Gwen Ifill, or at the cameras facing him, choosing instead to speak into his own chest for the entire night. Cheney appeared, overall, to cut quite the frightening figure, the dark night to Edwards' optimistic day.
The other problem for Cheney, of course, was the way he lied with nearly every word that passed his curled lips. It was a virtuoso performance of prevarication, obfuscation and outright balderdash. On Thursday night, George W. Bush played the part of a man who couldn't possibly defend his record. On Tuesday night, Cheney acted as though that record did not exist.
Cheney was behind the eight-ball before he even entered the hall, tasked to defend his administration's rationale for invading and occupying Iraq. Unfortunately for him, journalists record statements made by important people. In 1992, then-Defense Secretary Cheney spoke to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA. Recall that the United States was flush from the trouncing of Iraq in the first Gulf War. Cheney was asked why coalition forces didn't roll tanks on Baghdad and depose Saddam Hussein. Cheney's response, given 14 years ago, could well describe the mess we currently find ourselves in.
"I would guess if we had gone in there," said Cheney in 1992, "I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war."
For the record, 1,064 American soldiers have died in this second round of war in Iraq. An additional 138 soldiers from the 'coalition' Bush and Cheney assembled have also died, bringing the total to 1,202. Edwards made the point several times that the United States was bearing "90% of the coalition causalities" in Iraq, and that the American people are bearing "90% of the costs of the effort in Iraq." Cheney tried to say this wasn't true, but the body count numbers don't lie, and never mind the burden being carried by the Iraqi people, more than 20,000 of whom have perished since the invasion began.
"And the question in my mind," continued Cheney in 1992, "is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
Cheney's answer to this glaring contradiction, of course, is "September 11," i.e. the terrorist attacks changed everything. It doesn't change the facts of a disastrous occupation, or the overwhelming financial burden being placed on American taxpayers because of Bush administration failures, and it certainly doesn't explain 1,064 folded American flags handed to American families who thought their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, mothers and fathers were going to Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction and protect the United States.
Page 01 of the Washington Post for Wednesday 06 October carries an article titled 'Report Discounts Iraq Arms Threat,' which reads in paragraph one: "The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday."
Yes, the lies were thick before Cheney took his seat at the desk on Tuesday night. They got thicker. Edwards, in a theme repeated throughout the night, stated that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, and that the Bush administration had erred grievously by diverting attention from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and into Iraq. Several times, Edwards accused Cheney of rhetorically combining Iraq and 9/11.
"I have not," replied Cheney, "suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."
Hm.
"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Cheney, 12/2/02
"His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us." - Cheney, 1/30/03
"I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government." - Cheney, 1/22/04
"There's been enormous confusion over the Iraq and al-Qaeda connection, Gloria. First of all, on the question of - of whether or not there was any kind of a relationship, there was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming. It goes back to the early '90s...There's clearly been a relationship." - Cheney, 6/17/04
One could argue, perhaps, the definition of "is" on this matter. Cheney did not state specifically in any of the above quotes that Iraq was involved with 9/11. But the repeated claim that Iraq was connected to al Qaeda, a claim that has been shot to pieces dozens of times over, establishes enough of an Iraq-9/11 connection to satisfy a man who appears to believe that a frightened populace is a happy populace.
George W. Bush doesn't even believe Cheney on this point. An article by Reuters from September 18, 2003, had Bush telling reporters, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11." Bush was forced into this scramble because his Vice President had, again, made this discredited connection between Iraq and 9/11 on 'Meet the Press' the previous Sunday by claiming, "more and more" evidence was being found to justify the connection. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.
Cheney's unruffled, monotone demeanor became demonstrably agitated only a few times on Tuesday, but those times were telling. They came when John Edwards mentioned Halliburton. Edwards accused Halliburton, essentially, of war profiteering, and went so far as to describe how the company, while run by Cheney, was trading with nations now considered to be enemies of America.
"While he was CEO of Halliburton," said Edwards, "they paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false information on their company, just like Enron and Ken Lay. They did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States. They're now under investigation for having bribed foreign officials during that period of time. Not only that, they've gotten a $7.5 billion no-bid contract in Iraq, and instead of part of their money being withheld, which is the way it's normally done, because they're under investigation, they've continued to get their money."
Cheney was allotted 30 seconds to reply to this explosive charge. His response: "The reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false."
Edwards' reply to this in-depth rejoinder: "These are the facts. The facts are the vice president's company that he was CEO of, that did business with sworn enemies of the United States, paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false financial information, it's under investigation for bribing foreign officials. The same company that got a $7.5 billion no-bid contract, the rule is that part of their money is supposed to be withheld when they're under investigation, as they are now, for having overcharged the American taxpayer, but they're getting every dime of their money."
A few more facts: According to the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle, the New York Times, the Petroleum Economist and scores of other reporters and media outlets, Halliburton in the time of Dick Cheney dealt with both Iraq, Iran and Libya through a variety of subsidiaries and in defiance of scores of international sanctions. Cheney did not like the sanctions against these countries, and went out of his way to make sure Halliburton could get around them and turn a tidy profit.
On June 13, 2000, one month before joining the Republican presidential ticket, the Los Angeles Times reported Cheney's claim that, "We're kept out of (Iran) primarily by our own government, which has made a decision that U.S. firms should not be allowed to invest significantly in Iran, and I think that's a mistake." When speaking to the Cato Institute on June 23, 1998, Cheney stated, "Unfortunately, Iran is sitting right in the middle of the (Caspian Sea) area and the United States has declared unilateral economic sanctions against that country. As a result, American firms are prohibited from dealing with Iran and find themselves cut out of the action."
Cut out of the action?
It went on like this for 90 minutes, and got quite silly at one point. Cheney tried to paint Edwards as an absentee Senator by claiming he'd not met Edwards until that night. CNN and the other networks, a couple of hours later, began showing video of the two of them sitting together for several hours during the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2001. It seems a silly thing to lie about, what with all the chaos and dead people we're all dealing with, but the media appeared happy to seize upon it. So it goes.
Cheney looked for all the world as if the whole thing bored him. One can hardly blame him. When your entire professional and political career is a tapestry of untruths, telling them again for the umpteenth time could indeed be quite dull.
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and international bestseller of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence.'
Jump to TO Features for Thursday October 7, 2004
Today’s TO Features -------------- Steve Weissman | Stop Thinking, and See What You’re Told Misleading Assertions Cover Iraq War and Voting Records Bremer Critique on Iraq Raises Political Furor C.I.A. Report Casts Doubt on Terrorist’s Iraqi Ties Probe into Iraq’s Oil-for-Food Program to Reach White House NATO Expects Rush of Taliban Attacks in Afghanistan Wildlife Protection Standards Waived Under OSCE’s Eye to Conjure Away 2000 “Nightmare” Michael Schwartz | The Opiate of the Electorate Iraq Chief Gives a Sobering View about Security U.S. Vetoes Resolution for Israel to Halt Gaza Operations U.S. Airstrikes Build Iraqi Support for al-Zarqawi U.S. Report Finds No Evidence of Iraq WMD Nicholas D. Kristof | Beaten Afghan Brides Report to Say Iraq Posed Little Immediate Threat Cheney v. Edwards: The Full Debate Transcript Edwards Shoots And Scores William Rivers Pitt: Cheney’s Avalanche of Lies t r u t h o u t Home
Print This Story E-mail This Story
? : t r u t h o u t 2004
| t r u t h o u t | forum | issues | editorial | letters | donate | contact |
| voting rights | environment | budget | children | politics | indigenous survival | energy |
| defense | health | economy | human rights | labor | trade | women | reform | global |
“I’m getting tired of people’s ad hominem attacks as a way to cope with their own ignorance of the facts.”
Like the ‘fact’ that al-sadrs Shiites are running the Baathist Sunni stronghold called Fallujah? Like the ‘fact’ that Dubbya didn’t have enought points for an honorable discharge, so he got one? Like the ‘fact’ that almost no serious economist who would actually study tax rates and their effect on employment would say that there is NO EVIDENCE of any causal relationship between the two?
Ad hominum attacks? Read your own posts. No, you have never called others “fucking hypocrites.” Not you, omniscient choirboy.
What do I call you ignorant and stupid? Because you are.
Lumpy, you are that very special kind of stupid found on the left. You are so sure of that which is proven false that you would force others to act as you would wish them to.
Example: I would gladly pay higher taxes blah, blah, blah but I can’t afford health insurance. Translation: I would gladly take more of other people’s money, since I don’t know how to make it myself, for things I think should happen, no matter that experience has shown them to be crap.
Enough too with the idea that you get your ‘facts’ from any neutral authority, like Sidney Blumenthal. Go pay that leftist game somewhere else. You are as partisan as anybody here.
Bring it Lumpy, please, so I can slice and dice your “weak and shitty answer.”
Mud-slinging and name-calling aside, can anybody answer my question? Is it normal for a VP to show up for work only twice in the Senate? Man, if I tried that, I would be fired in short order! Help me out here somebody, because this has me curious.
Lump-o-rama:
How did you find that list of presiding officers? I’m looking all around on the government printing office page you linked, but I just keep getting individual congressional sessions as results. As I said before, I’m interested in whether Al gore or any of the other VP’s delegated “presiding officer” as much as Cheney has. It still doesn’t change the fact that Cheney was lying, though. Assuming your list is accurate.
Schnauzer
Do you want a “Do-Over”?
I’m guessing you do, since your whole post is just whining about stuff in other (old) threads.
Boo hoo!
Kind of like George Bush’s ‘speech’ today, when he ranted about all the things that he couldn’t quite think of to say, when he was in the heat of the actual debate. George Bush wanted a “Do-Over” today.
This is a thread about Tricky Dick Cheney.
Where to begin. Most of your stuff is dealt with on other threads, but this stuff is interesting.
[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Tricky Dick Cheney is a bald-faced liar!
Cheney said John Edwards has “one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.”
WRONG! Actually, John Edwards has an 84.8% voting record in the Senate. In each of his first four years, he had a perfect or near perfect record:
1999 Cast 371 out of 374 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2000 Cast 298 out of 298 votes for a 100% voting record
2001 Cast 377 out of 380 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2002 Cast 253 out of 253 votes for a 100% voting record
2003 Cast 281 out of 459 votes for a 61.2% voting record
2004 Cast 84 out of 198 votes for a 42.4% voting record
OVERALL Edwards has cast 1664 out of 1962 votes for a 84.8% voting record.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm
[/quote]
Given that the Veep didn’t specify “overall” voting record, I think this can be interpreted as a criticism of Edwards’ record since anyone has known or cared who he is – namely since he declared himself a Presidential candidate.
Maybe not really fair, but definitely not one of the bigger whoppers of this campaign, by either side.
The previous comment: Funny that they would bring out a prayer breakfast and a ceremony to highlight Edwards’ record.
If I were feeling snarky I might say that it’s certainly interesting that the Democratic VP cuts such a memorable figure that Cheney didn’t remember meeting him, and Edwards didn’t have enough faith in his own record to bring up any of the above…
[quote] But Dick Cheney also lied about his own record at the same time.
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."
The truth is that during Cheney’s tenure as Vice-President, he has actually only presided over the Senate as President TWICE.
As a matter of fact, during the same stretch, to fill in for Cheney’s repeated absence, John Edwards has served as acting President of the Senate twice himself (!!!) Hillary Clinton has served as acting President of the Senate four times!
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."
BULLSHIT!
This is the list of actual “presiding officers” in the Senate substituting for Dick Cheney when he was absent (except twice).
2001
1/30 Enzi
2/6 Chafee
2/13 Chafee
2/27 Allen
3/6 Burns
3/13 Reid
3/20 DeWine
3/27 Chafee
4/3 Smith
4/24 Chafee
5/1 Chafee
5/8 Chafee
5/15 Frist
5/22 Chafee
5/29 Enzi
6/5 Byrd
6/19 Carper
6/26 Bayh
7/10 Nelson
7/17 Clinton
7/24 Byrd
7/31 Stabenaw
9/25 Wellstone
10/2 Clinton
10/9 Clinton
10/16 Edwards
10/23 Byrd
10/30 Bingaman
11/13 Murray
11/27 Jeffords
12/4 Stabenaw
12/11 Carnahan
12/18 Nelson
2002
1/29 Nelson
2/5 Kohl
2/12 Stabenow
2/26 Landrieu
3/5 Edwards
3/12 Landrieu
3/19 Miller
4/9 Cleland
4/16 Reed
4/23 Wellstone
4/30 Nelson
5/7 Miller
5/14 Cleland
5/21 Nelson
6/4 Durbin
6/11 Corzine
6/18 Dayton
6/25 Landrieu
7/9 Reed
7/16 Corzine
7/23 Reed
7/30 Clinton
9/3 Reed
9/10 Corzine
9/17 Reid
9/24 Stabenow
10/1 Miller
10/8 Miller
10/15 Reid
11/12 Cheney
11/19 Barkley (MN)
2003
1/7 Cheney
1/14 Stevens
1/22 Stevens
1/28 Stevens
2/4 Stevens
2/11 Stevens
2/25 Stevens
3/4 Stevens
3/11 Stevens
3/18 Stevens
3/25 Stevens
4/1 Stevens
4/8 Stevens
4/29 Stevens
5/6 Talent
5/13 Ensign
5/20 Alexander
6/3 Stevens
6/10 Stevens
6/18 Murkowski
6/24 Coleman
7/8 Stevens
7/15 Stevens
7/22 Chaffee
7/29 Stevens
9/2 Stevens
9/9 Stevens
9/16 Stevens
9/23 Stevens
9/30 Sununu
10/21 Stevens
10/28 Stevens
11/4 Stevens
11/11 Warner
11/18 Stevens
12/9 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
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html
[/quote]
Hmmm. To the best of my knowledge, the VP will often open the ceremony, stay awhile, and then cede the meeting to someone else to run if there’s nothing big or closely contested going on. The VP doesn’t actually get a vote unless there is a 50/50 tie, so often he won’t stick around to run the whole meeting. Again, to my understanding, this has been the practice for a long time. So he was there, did what he needed to do, and left – pretty much what you’d expect him to do.
[quote]
The biggest lie Cheney told was when he said "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there’s clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror.’
Actually Cheney has suggested over and over again that there is a connection between 9-11 and Saddam. Of all the clowns on Team Bush, Cheney has been the biggest offender on this issue. [/quote]
He did suggest it – once. One time, in one speech. He was mistaken. I don’t know whether it was simply a case of misspeaking, or whether he meant it at the time. However, one would think that if it were more than a misstatement he would have repeated it.
Lumpy, do you remember School House Rock? “I’m just a bill…” He was sponsoring bills from the minority side of the aisle when the Dems ran the House with an iron fist. The fact that his bills weren’t passed into law really doesn’t reflect much other than he was likely offering up conservative bills to a liberal legislative body.
However, I noted when there was discussion of Kerry’s senatorial record, you explicitly rejected – and I agreed with you – the simple measure of sponsoring legislation as a measure of accomplishment in the legislature. Would you like to install that standard now, especially given the Democratic control of the Senate and House for the first half of Kerry’s senatorial career?
BTW, as far as records go, Cheney should be evaluated on his record as VP and in the executive branch, as that’s the job he’s being considered for – If Edwards or Kerry had any executive experience, I would say the same about them, but you have to evaluate them on the best proxy, which in this case is their Senatorial records. It’s not necessarily a good proxy, but you go with what you’ve got when you have to make an evaluation.
Sump-Pump-Lump,
Come on over to the “Challenge to my Friends Thread” and sign up.
There is no way we could re-elect W!!!
Kerry is wonderful!!! What a leader!!! What a legislator!!!
He will win a war he believes/believes in/not!!!
Fantastic!!!
JeffR
Lumpy:
W/r/t your list of names and dates above, which is apparently from some Dem list-serve email, Jim Geraghty confirms what I wrote above:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200410071141.asp
WAS CHENEY THE ‘PRESIDING OFFICER’? NO, BUT YES.
There’s an e-mail circulating that Cheney lied during the debate:
"Cheney says that he presides (as the VP is supposed to do) most Tuesdays. Here is a list of Tuesday dates and corresponding presiding members. His ability to tell the truth extends to Iraq and most other policy issues."
The e-mailer then lists the presiding members of the Senate on Tuesdays, and finds Cheney’s name only listed twice.
Problem one: Let’s go to the transcript. (Facts, people, facts!)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1005.html
"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."
From the Senate’s web site:
"presiding officer - A majority-party Senator who presides over the Senate and is charged with maintaining order and decorum, recognizing Members to speak, and interpreting the Senate's rules, practices and precedents."
Also from the Congressional Research Service:
"The Vice President of the United States is the President of theSenate and its presiding officer. He usually assumes this role only during ceremonialfunctions; when key administration issues are being debated; or if a pending vote isexpected to be close (he can only vote to break a tie). In his absence, the President protempore, the senior Senator from the majority party, fills the role of presiding officer.However, other members of the majority party usually serve as the presiding officer ona rotating basis throughout a day?s session."
So the list that the e-mailer points to is the list of who’s playing referee on the floor of the Senate that day ? and unsurprisingly, Cheney doesn’t do that very often.
Facts, people, facts!
The point of Cheney’s comment is clear - as Veep, he’s probably met with Tom Daschle, Joe Biden, and other prominent Democrats dozens of times over the past four years, even if it’s just to argue over judges or whatever the issue of the week is. John Edwards, for whatever reason, was never one of those Democrats that the vice president had to meet with.
My conclusion? How important a member of the Senate can you be if Dick Cheney’s never told you to "go [you-know-what] yourself’?