It’s certainly not the most important issue discussed in last night’s debate (which I think was more or less a draw […ducking…]…well, it was), but it’s getting lots of mileage on the blogs (at least the liberal blogs); Vice President Cheney told the nation that the first time he had met Senator Edwards was on that stage in Cleveland last night.
As it turns out they had met before (and there are transcripts and photos to prove it)…but that’s neither here nor there really…what’s important about this is the point Brad DeLong makes. Commenting on this Daily Kos comment:
Why would Cheney make a lie so obviously easy to expose? It’s almost pathological — reality need not get in the way of a good zinger.
DeLong notes:
It’s not almost pathological, it’s totally pathological–and based on an enormous confidence in the incompetence of the press corps.
Now, to be fair, Cheney must meet a great number of people every year, and his point was actually that Edwards and he don’t cross paths in the Senate (a swipe at how hard Edwards works), but I think DeLong has a very valid point about how careless our leaders are comfortable being with details because they’re not used to being called on them. If they were subjected to the sort of face-to-face criticism leaders in, say, Britain must learn to contend with, or even the sort of fact-checking* fury we subject ourselves to in the blogosphere, they’d be much less likely to assert so confidently things like
The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.
or
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
*Factcheck.org ORG…o-r-g…say it with me: “org”.
OOC, Edward, how much valuable partisan time do you think that this has taken up so far? How do you think that dKos is going to feel, individually and collectively, if/when it turns out that nobody actually cares that much? And if the voting public does turn out to respond to this with a big ehh, do you think that dKos’ future responses will be more or less measured, calm and reasonable?
Partisan questions, sure, but not ones offered with any particular malice. 🙂
Edward, how much valuable partisan time do you think that this has taken up so far?
Like I noted, it’s not an important issue whether or not Cheney had actually met Edwards before…I think the important issue underlying it is carelessness and/or lack of qualifying things to allow for the possibility one is wrong. In this instance, had Cheney said
“I can’t recall having met you before this evening…”
his central point would not have been lost in the hoopla…
But to push the point a bit more…I really don’t care how authoritatively Cheney asserts he hadn’t met Edwards…really, who cares…I really DO care how authoritatively Cheney asserts this or that dictator has WMD…especially as part of his argument we should go to war against that dictator…
What Kos does with this is not that interesting to me…just like what others do with the “Global Test” misrepresentation shouldn’t be to others…
Mark Schmitt points out that when Cheney said he is at the Senate most Tuedays, what he actually meant is that he goes the the Republican policy lunch held on Tuesdays — Edwards’ absence at this event is understandable.
Thanks for that link Jeremy…this line by Mark sums it up quite perfectly:
The press MUST start making this less comfortable for pols.
Actually, Edward, I wasn’t addressing the merits of this particular kerfuffle, just whether it’s the sort of thing that would end up being the political equivalent of Penguin Ball for folks like dKos; which is to say, endlessly fascinating, but you don’t actually get any real work done. 🙂
Oh…thanks for the clarification…
yeah…it’s a silly diversion…and there is much important work to get done.
having agreed on that…what about my point???
Are the press hopelessly incompetent and does that contribute to an air of unaccountability?
your thoughts?
“penguin ball”…heh heh…
I thought that the picture of Edwards and Cheney together was kind of fun, although not nearly as fun as seeing what happens when you follow Cheney’s instructions and click on FactCheck.org. But what matters is whether or not the candidates told the truth on more substantive issues like, oh, Iraq. The New York Times has a pretty good rundown, and if you keep score, there’s no question who had the more, um, casual relationship with the truth.
Darn, I made Cheney’s mistake in reverse. He said: click on FactCheck.com.
As I said on my own blog, I think it is deeply sad that most of the people here seem to be more informed about foreign policy than 3 out of the 4 candidates.
As I said on my own blog, I think it is deeply sad that most of the people here seem to be more informed about foreign policy than 3 out of the 4 candidates.
I’ll admit to being better informed than Bush, but who are the other two?
;p
Obviously the meeting was equally memorable to both of them.
Obviously the meeting was equally memorable to both of them.
That is incorrect. Edwards remembered meeting Cheney in person and pointed the fact out at a post-debate rally.
What struck me about Cheney was not so much the dishonesty (I’m used to it though I am surprised they forgot that it’s easier to get away with big lies than petty little ones like never meeting Edwards), as the arguments that were just flatly bad.
Who here honestly believes that one of the main reasons for the decline in the number of suicide bombings in Israel is that Saddam Hussein is no longer offering bombers’ families $25,000?
Who here honestly believes the fact that large number of Iraqi policemen has gotten blown up is a testament to the success of our coalition building skills in Iraq?
Who here honestly believes that our coalition in the current war is just as large and just as strong as in the first Gulf War?
Who here honestly still believes that Iraq, and not Pakistan or Iran or any number of other countries, was “was the most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction”?
“Who here honestly believes that one of the main reasons for the decline in the number of suicide bombings in Israel is that Saddam Hussein is no longer offering bombers’ families $25,000?”
Yo. That and the big mucking fence.
“Who here honestly believes the fact that large number of Iraqi policemen has gotten blown up is a testament to the success of our coalition building skills in Iraq?”
I’ll be happy to answer this one, just as soon as it stops being a have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife question. Because I’m missing where VP Cheney said that – and if he did, I’ll be happy to answer it after I review.
“Who here honestly believes that our coalition in the current war is just as large and just as strong as in the first Gulf War?”
Hi. Us and the UK were all that we actually needed, after all – and in a pinch, we could have done the job without the UK (although it’d be a blow). True, we’re not paying for this one with Other People’s Money… but considering that we did last time, with the result that we couldn’t finish the job, just leaving us with the specter of a repeatedly-violated (in every sense of the term) cease-fire and a lot of dead would-be revolutionaries, well, every cloud has a silver lining.
“Who here honestly still believes that Iraq, and not Pakistan or Iran or any number of other countries, was “was the most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction”?”
Me. Because it was: dictator who hated us and with a proven history of atrocities, a proven willingness to deal with terrorists, in need of cash, able to operate without oversight of any kind… if I was a terrorist looking for, say, weaponized anthrax, the Hussein regime would have been my first stop. To use your examples, Pakistan was smart enough to switch sides after 9/11 and Iran has too many people still fighting for democracy to make long term conspiracies likely.
Moe
PS: Katherine, you know that I have nothing but respect and admiration towards you, and that there’ll always be a spot for you on any blog I run, but these arguments aren’t “flatly bad”: they’re simply ones that you disagree with. At least in my own opinion.
“how much valuable partisan time do you think that this has taken up so far?”
While this or that particular lie will not be memorable to the voters in the long run, the more holistic appreciation of the fact that Cheney is clearly a committed liar will, I believe, resonate indefinitely.
Sort of like how people tend not to recall the specifics of the Love Canal, or Love Story, or the Internet quote, yet thanks to the tireless efforts of the National Republic, the Freepers, et al, Gore was inextricably painted as a liar.
(For purposes of this argument, ignore the fact that Gore’s ‘lies’ were more often than not fabricated, while Cheney’s are pretty straightforward. The point is that they retain currency without details.)
Google is a wonderful thing, no? Are you saying he remembered it during the debate, but only noted it afterward? It would’ve been a pretty decent smackdown, had he brought it up during.
‘Course, all this skirts around the main issue being Edward’s truancy from the Senate. If there’s something wrong with those claims, well, I’m not seeing anyone addressing them.
BTW, the esteemed Daily Kos has demonstrated Cheney very, very rarely presides over the Senate. The vast majority of the time, there is an acting Senate President. As such, it appears John Edwards has presided over the Senate about as many times as Cheney.
WRT monies paid to the families of suicide bombers, Saudi Arabia and several other ME countries do this. Moreover, I really question if suicide bombing is really a function of money.
You have a point about the phrasing of the second question. You could argue that Cheney was making a specific factual dispute about the number of casualties, not trying to rebut the general claim about the strength of our alliance.
The rest of your arguments I find utterly unconvincing and while I know you are a very smart person and I know you believe those things in good faith, I honestly don’t understand how. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and while Musharraf is not about to attack us there are extremists in the armed forces and nuclear programs, some of the nuclear weapons are in areas of the country where Islamist forces are operating, and Musharraf has had a lot of near misses with assassination attempts. Whereas Saddam did not have WMD of any kind before the war and had very little in the way of operational ties to Islamist terrorists. The main “sponsor of terrorism” tie the funding of suicide bombings–but Syria and especially Iran sponsor much more anti-Israel terrrorism than Iraq. Perhaps it was possible to argue credibly that he was the most likely nexus before the war–though only if we restrict ourselves “WMD” that were not actually capable of killing much more efficiently than regular weapons. Based on what we now know, it is not.
Arguing that we didn’t NEED sig. support from anyone but Britain is not an argument that we got that support.
The Israeli-Palestinian thing (Saddam’s bribes, not the fence) is so silly I don’t know how to respond.
Instead, .
You’ve got to admit, when you claim anything to do with creation of something that already existed at the time, you’re going to get some darts thrown at you.
If Bush ever claims to have taken the initiative in creating a national missile defense system, I’ll expect there’ll be some objection from the loyal opposition.
Are you saying he remembered it during the debate, but only noted it afterward? It would’ve been a pretty decent smackdown, had he brought it up during
Not necessarily. Even in a structured, non-debate format as last night, you don’t want to get sucked in to a point-by-point refutation of your opponent’s lies and misrepresentations. Especially on minor, trivial points; save it for the larger issues such as Cheney’s continued suggestions of a Saddam-9/11 link.
Besides, confronting on that point may have allowed Cheney to weasel out his claim or come up with a zinger like: Well, I can’t recall. Guess you didn’t make an impression.
‘Course, all this skirts around the main issue being Edward’s truancy from the Senate.
I guess Bush and Cheney never campaign.
Google is a wonderful thing, no? Are you saying he remembered it during the debate, but only noted it afterward? It would’ve been a pretty decent smackdown, had he brought it up during
That’s funny stuff. Instead of criticizing the liar, let’s criticize the one who corrected the liar for not doing so sooner.
‘Course, all this skirts around the main issue being Edward’s truancy from the Senate.
No, the issue is Cheney’s attempt at misleading. For example:
“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.”
Actually, Cheney presided over the Senate only two times in the last 4 years – one more than Edwards. So a better issue to consider might be why Edwards and others have had to do Cheney’s job for him.
If you would argue that Cheney had more important things to do, that he had many other duties in addition to his duties in the Senate, you might also want to consider applying that standard to Senator Edwards from now on. But the issue that the debate brought front and center is clear – nothing that Cheney says can be believed unless independently verified.
and on a more amicable/bipartisan note, good on Cheney for inviting his daughter Mary and her partner on stage at the end. Edwards did himself no credit with his answer on the gay marriage question.
“The rest of your arguments I find utterly unconvincing and while I know you are a very smart person and I know you believe those things in good faith, I honestly don’t understand how.”
Shoot, Katherine, join the club: I’ve been trying for the last two years to explain to folks on your side the things that to mine seem the most elementary and obvious of notions. Based on my failure-to-success ratio, I should stick to roleplaying game theory. 🙂
‘Course, all this skirts around the main issue being Edward’s truancy from the Senate. If there’s something wrong with those claims, well, I’m not seeing anyone addressing them.
Far be it from me to bust my butt doing research to knock down straw men, but since this one’s leaning over at about 45° already…
here’s Edwards’ 2000 attendance — that took 10 seconds. Oh, and look, an extra 60 seconds gives us this very useful site with a lot more detail. I’m bookmarking that sucker! You can see the drop pretty clearly when he starts to run for national office. Check out some other congresscritters while you’re there. I plan to…
To the truancy question:
Bush and Cheney can make official decisions on airplanes or at McDonalds. Senators can’t.
Governor Bush didn’t campaign of course. Though he as a governor had some of the decision making luxuries of a president ie. major decisions can be made from the toilet if need be.
Bush and Cheney can make official decisions on airplanes or at McDonalds.
Cheney can cast the tie-breaking vote for a Senate bill from an airplane or McDonalds?
Well, radish, if Cheney were talking about 2000 attendance, then he’d be wrong, wouldn’t he? My sense of time isn’t always all that good (alarmingly, near Christmas and other important spousal holidays) but I’m seldom off by four years.
Uh…the latter link puts Edwards at about 50% this year. Dunno if you think that’s good or not. Last year was a slightly better 62%. Before that his attendance was rather good.
The point about the the “never met him before” line is that it provides the Democrats with an opening with the undecided voters. There’s no nuance here – it was a simple statement that was easily proven to be false. You can demonstrate that the VP lied to the public. From there you can push other, less obvious misstatements by Cheney because your target audience now has doubts about his honesty. After that, you widen the scope to the President.
At least, that’s the plan.
You can demonstrate that the VP lied to the public.
Or that he just forgot, which seems more likely to me. Since the jab appeared to be something that he had prepared in advance, I doubt very much that he would’ve used it if he realized that it wasn’t true.
Apparently, he also forget how often he has actually been to the Senate. He said “Now, in my capacity as Vice President, I am the president of the Senate and the presiding officer. I’m up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they’re in session.”. In fact, he has presided over the Senate twice. I would not, offhand, have thought that “two” was a possible value of “most Tuesdays” (in a four year period, even taking into account the fact that the Senate is not in session all the time), but silly me.
Dunno if you think that’s good or not.
Not having raised the subject and not being a constituent, I’m agnostic. For the record, it irks me in the abstract, because I think it’s impolite to miss votes (though not as impolite as secret task forces) but right now rudeness is the least of my worries as a concerned citizen. If this is a major concern for you, you could even take a moment to look at the votes he missed and categorize them: votes where his vote would have made no difference, votes on trivial issues, and votes where he should really have been there and wasn’t. Then when somebody who cares defends Edwards you can really rip into them with all the facts at your disposal.
Before that his attendance was rather good.
Is that rather good as in “a very impressive 95% and 100%” or rather good as in “not quite as bad as someone deliberately (mis)led me to believe?” BTW I don’t remember Dick Cheney or BC04 saying anything about limiting the discussion to the years 2003 and 2004, do you? They just keep talking about his record as a senator…
hilzoy, honestly, why are you picking on the poor guy? Isn’t it obvious that when he says “up in the senate” he means “having lunch with Republican senators.” Not that he’s actually doing any work. It all depends on what the meaning of “up” is. And no, the fact that he had just mentioned his official role just before can’t be construed as relevant. You’re deliberately misinterpreting.
Geez wotta buncha partisans…
Or that he just forgot, which seems more likely to me. Since the jab appeared to be something that he had prepared in advance, I doubt very much that he would’ve used it if he realized that it wasn’t true.
While you may think it’s more likely that he just forgot, I’m not so inclined based on the nature of the encounters. Of the three meetings that have been reported, one was while Cheney was acting in his role as President of the Senate – Elizabeth Dole’s swearing in. Even if Cheney forgot, the staff that helped him prep should have caught this one. One of the other occassions was a televised prayer breakfast where they were seated next to each other for something like half an hour.
I think that Cheney and the folks who prepped him thought that it was a good zinger and that they wouldn’t be called on it. Perhaps in 2000 the campaign could get away with this sort of thing, but it looks like the media coverage is different this time around.
JerryN, you could be right. Maybe, like Jadegold suggested above, he figured that even if Edwards called him on it, he’d have a snappy retort, so he didn’t worry about dropping it in. Anyway, part of his strategy seemed to be to convincingly state as many untruths as possible, in the knowledge that Edwards couldn’t challenge them all without being drawn off his own gameplan, and on the assumption that the post-debate factchecking wouldn’t draw much attention.
Yes, that.
Not attendance, precisely. These are voting records, which might be indicative of attendance, but no data. Graham, on the other hand, had in excess of 95% voting over the last couple of years. Which might explain why he didn’t stand an ice cream cone’s chance in hell of winning the nomination.