[\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.
[\quote]
Actually, no. He said he had NEVER met him, since he had presided over the Senate MOST TUESDAYS. There was no stipulation about ‘since when’. Since this was such a potentially fatal comment to Edwards, it’s fair to consider this a dirty lie. I believed it until I did the research and found out the truth to be as Lumpy stated it.
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]
Since Edwards was actually present in Congress, and Cheney presided over the senate, it bodes poorly for the VP of an administration trying to unite that he had not sought out to meet everyone in the senate.
The pictures are to demonstrate proximity to Cheney and prove contrary the statements made by Cheney. We all know how disgruntled Cheney gets around other senators who disagree with him. Tell another senator to ‘Fuck off’, or ‘Fuck yourself’ (against senate rules on the floor) and then goes on Fox News to say he feels much better about having said it. I can understand why Edwards would not want to be around him for too many photo ops, especially since ‘becoming a presidential candidate’.
[\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]
Why then claim to America that you ‘preside over the Senate’ most Tuesdays. That’s bullshit rationalization on your part.
[\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.
[\quote]
He didnt suggest he never said it, he flat out said he never said it.
To say it was a slip of the tounge is a major downplay. He got caught and tried to worm his way out of the argument. Instead of facing the facts head on, and earn respect of anyone other than his base (albeit logistical suicide), he lied. Flat out. Lying about justification for sending us to war, which in my opinion is the gravest of political decisions. That very statement shot the credibility of this administration to shit. They can’t admit their mistakes in judgement, that is flatout spineless. So, they talk about resolve and courage. Sack up and admit your mistakes before claiming to me that you have the courage to lead me.
[\quote]
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.[/quote]
Fine, shall he be evaluated on his flying around the world making false claims abvout connections of Iraq to Al Quada and holding closed door meetings with Energy Corporate Execs while locking out the EPA to conduct the nation’s energy policy? Cursing on the Senate Room floor? What good has he done for this country while VP?
I agree that the VP spoke more eloquently and crisply in this debate, but (quoting ESPN Dream Job) “style without substance dont mean a damn thing.” If your facts are straight up lies, you have no substance. Anything else you may say is greeted with a raised eyebrow.
My saving grace to this debate is, though the pundits call it a wash, the real indicator, news site polls by people who care enough to dig around and let their voice be heard, show Edwards as having won 60-40 both cnn (650,000 responses) and msnbc (2.5 million responses) online polls.