My opinion of the Cheney-Edwards debate, three seconds after it concluded: No knockout, no TKO, but Cheney won on points.
My opinion of the Cheney-Edwards debate today: No knockout, no TKO, but Cheney won on points.
My opinion of who’s winning the aftermath of the Cheney-Edwards debate: Edwards, clearly — and Cheney’s heading to a TKO.
Why?
Because, in the course of the debate, Cheney created too much grist for the Democratic mill. He made errors. His put-downs of Edwards, brilliant in the moment, became phantoms when put into factual context. And, worst for a Vice-President who’s been accused of having a strange and distant relationship with the truth: He lied. Mostly about small stuff, sure. But he lied. Repeatedly. As if he didn’t know any other way of operating.
My opinion of Cheney actually increased after the debate, and it’s still higher than it was pre-debate. I still think he won. I’m beginning to understand, however, why no Republican should be happy with his performance Tuesday night.
Bush needs to win big on Friday. And he needs to win in a way that doesn’t lose him the post-debate spin.
UPDATE: Citizen Smash and I seem to agree on this one: Cheney’s otherwise strong performance on Tuesday night was marred by his factual lapses. (I don’t think Smash is prepared to use the “lie” word, but I really don’t think you can escape the conclusion that at least Cheney’s dig on Edwards’ attendence record was a lie. See my comment, below, for why I’m prepared to go beyond “misstatement,” “embellishment,” or “misleading statement” on this one.) Smash also points out Edwards’ errors, including a pretty big one regarding military pay.
Or, to put it another way: Cheney had a plan to win the war. He executed that plan brilliantly. But, in executing that plan, he committed too many fundamental mistake — mistakes that, ultimately, may cost him the peace. (So to speak.)
I disagree. The rigid format of this ‘debate’ (or the Presidential debates) really prevent a clear winner or a clear loser unless someone says something just abysmally silly or outrageous.
Or they behave like Bush, who acted like a petulant child being compelled to perform “I’m a Little Teapot’ before a family gathering.
And Cheney didn’t just lie about the small stuff; he lied about some major issues
I am, perhaps unsurprisingly, with Jes on this one. Cheney’s only really being called on his small lies, true, but he told some absolute whoppers that deserve to be excoriated. That it’s the small stuff that’s damaging his credibility is, I guess, some kind of karmic restitution for the fact that the big stuff is largely being ignored.
First, let me get in some shameless self-promotion for my Tacitus insta-blogging thread of the veep debate. I’ll be insta-blogging the remaining Presidential debates as well.
I scored this one a draw: I thought Cheney won on points, but only slightly because Edwards was very well-prepared, and I thought Edwards won on style, but only slightly, because Cheney looked very comfortable and self-assured. And you really have to take into account that a certain percentage of the population thinks Edwards is hot, and Andrew Sullivan aside, that percentage is probably a good bit higher than the percentage that thinks the same thing of Cheney. If you’ve got a crush on the guy, you’re probably going to think he won the debate.
Once it became clear, though, that Cheney’s most memorable line of the debate had been an out-and-out lie*, it was also clear that Edwards was going to win the spin. I wouldn’t say he won it decisively, but he has won it, and as this debate tumbles down the memory hole I think Cheney’s lie about never having met Edwards is going to be pretty much all that’s left behind.
Which is nice, because it feeds into one of our campaign themes: you can’t trust these f*ers.
*Normally, I would say misstatement or inaccuracy, but the very careful way in which Cheney worded what he said convinces me that the element of intent was present and it was in fact a lie. Cheney clearly implied that he presided over the Senate every Tuesday–which he has in fact done only twice over the last four years–without actually stating it. It was worded too cleverly by half to have been an accident.
“First, let me get in some shameless self-promotion for my Tacitus insta-blogging thread of the veep debate.”
I’ll stop grinding my teeth long enough to say that you did a nice job with that post; it was one of the three that I was using that night.
So let me get this straight. Having a plan and executing it brilliantly is somehow consistent with making fundamental mistakes?
This sounds a hell of a lot like form over substance.
It’s a bit like ooohing and ahhhing over someone taking a queen which leads to check mate in the next move.
Geesh. No wonder the world is so fücked up.
Normally, I would say misstatement or inaccuracy, but the very careful way in which Cheney worded what he said convinces me that the element of intent was present and it was in fact a lie.
I agree, Trickster. I seldom — if ever — use the “lie” word. And, though I’ll be fairly alone in this given the recent trends in our readership (it’s trending left), I never saw a Cheney lie prior to the debate. Misstatements, yes. Misdirections, yes. Embellishments, yes. Misleading statements, yes. But not a lie — a direct statement of fact that Cheney had to know was untrue when he said it. It should be kind of a disturbing, regardless of the subject matter.
Hal —
(1) Watch the language.
(2) Having a plan and executing it brilliantly is somehow consistent with making fundamental mistakes?
Yes. See, e.g., Tommy Franks’ plan for the Iraq war.
The plan can be brilliant and the execution brilliant, but if the plan relies upon a mistaken premise, the outcome will be not-so-brilliant.
Thank you, Moe. A compliment coming from you is meaningful (and stunning :)). I do see the debates from my side of the spectrum and you do get my kind of analysis of the issues, but on the other hand I do my best to evaluate how the guys are actually doing from a non-partisan standpoint, and it has taken some practice but I might be getting the hang of it.
Good post, von. I think I agree with everything you said, particularly that Cheney had—gratuitously—injured the ticket. I also think that there was very little of any real interest in the debate except (as I pointed out in my post on the subject) the clues it gave on future Bush/Cheney campaign strategery.
I thought it was pretty much a draw (at least on the assumption that the average viewer wouldn’t have picked up on the misleading statements), but I think Cheney scored a palpable hit with the “talk tough for 90 minutes vs. 30 years of being weak on defense” remarks, and Edwards didn’t have a good answer for them. Kerry’s biggest weakness is his nat’l security image, and that attack probably cut into the gains he made from the debate last week.
On the other hand, the Cheney Lied theme might well prove more damaging long-term, if it really is making its way into the mainstream (I rarely watch TV, so I’m not in touch with what the average voter’s getting fed). Is Leno doing jokes on it yet?
Sorry Von, not even close. Edwards was much more factual. Cheney mostly just made nasty remarks like “i don’t know where to start there are so many mistakes here” and then proceeded to address none of them. It should be called ‘pulling a Cheney’ it’s so stupid and obvious, it’s hard to believe anyone bought it.
If you want to read a great, concise review of this debate, read Saletan’s at Slate, he nails it.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2107808/
A “Cheney Lied” line could be fatal, if it really gets into the mainstream. A big part of the Republican appeal is based on Moral Superiority. Take that away — and all one has to do to get there is make the two parties morally equal — and all the President has is (a) electing Kerry is directly physically dangerous to you and (b) his domestic agenda. There are votes in both, but neither, nor both together, in any way approaches a majority.
The Cheney line that struck me this time — I didn’t watch but half, so maybe there would’ve been others — was that he couldn’t understand how (1) voting for the October 2002 resolution and (2) saying in 2004 “wrong war wrong time wrong place” could be reconciled. These acts are very easily reconcilable, and so either he’s claiming stupidity, or engaging in misleading hyperbole.
Von, still seems like what your essentially saying is that Cheney was like a mobster on the witness stand. Dazzling the jury with a bunch of flat out lies, brilliantly executed. And for the brilliant plan of deceit and the flawless execution of that plan, we give him mega points.
Again, this is just baffling. Why should someone be judged to “win” just because they lie well?
I mean, doesn’t this speak to something incredibly ugly in the way someone is judging things? The inability to distinguish between flash and substance? The ability to let the truth die of neglect while letting someone’s charisma and presence turn your head?
Bizarro world.
I don’t think Smash is prepared to use the “lie” word, but I really don’t think you can escape the conclusion that at least Cheney’s dig on Edwards’ attendence record was a lie.
I’m hesitant to use that word for two reasons.
First, it’s been overused in the current political climate, and has lost some of it’s meaning. Every time a politician says something that isn’t true, he or she is called a liar. But most of the time, they’re not lying, they’re just wrong. There is a difference.
Second, to me, calling someone a “liar” is a very serious charge, which I do not level lightly. I won’t call the Vice President a “liar” unless I am certain that he knowingly made false statements with the intent to deceive. I’m not there yet.
It doesn’t look good for Cheney, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until I hear an explanation from him.
Intent to deceive?
OK. As Warner Wolf used say, ‘Let’s go the videotape.’
Let’s take it line-by-line. The first line is subjective; for all we know, “one of the worst records” means Edwards was somewhere in the lower half of Senate attendance. Moreover, Cheney doesn’t specify what time period he’s basing his charge.
The second line is more troublesome; Cheney clearly implies he’s presiding over the Senate when, in fact, Cheney has rarely presided over the Senate–leaving those duties to Senators on a rotating basis.
Third line is clearly an intent to deceive. Yes, Cheney is up at the Senate most Tuesdays when the USS is in session. He’s there to have lunch with Senate GOPers–not to preside over the Senate. These lunches would certainly exclude Edwards and any other Dem Senator. With the possible exception of Zell Miller.
Fourth line simply isn’t true. Is it merely a memory failure? Not in light of the preceding three sentences.
Even without Cheney’s lies my feeling was that a draw or near tie would benefit Edwards more than Cheney because it would show 47 million viewers that Edwards could hold his own with the sitting vice president.
Bush seems to be the biggest loser because the three other debaters all seemed able to think and express their thoughts yet the actual president had real trouble with the format.
Smash makes two very good points, above. I’m prepared to cross the line with the Vice President, even as I excuse the apparent lie as being on relatively inconsequential subjects. (The other purported “lies” are, at worst, either embellishments or misstatements.) I can understand why others would not want to cross that line yet (or ever).
Here is a taste of Saletan’s debate review, the web address is in my post above:
If you watched this debate as an uninformed voter, you heard an avalanche of reasons to vote for Kerry. You heard 23 times that Kerry has a “plan” for some big problem or that Bush doesn’t. You heard 10 references to Halliburton, with multiple allegations of bribes, no-bid contracts, and overcharges. You heard 13 associations of Bush with drug or insurance companies. You heard four attacks on him for outsourcing. You heard again and again that he opposed the 9/11 commission and the Department of Homeland Security, that he “diverted” resources from the fight against al-Qaida to the invasion of Iraq, and that while our troops “were on the ground fighting, [the administration] lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay.” You heard that Kerry served in Vietnam and would “double the special forces.” You heard that Bush is coddling the Saudis, that Cheney “cut over 80 weapons systems,” and that the administration has no air-cargo screening or unified terrorist watch list.
As the debate turned to domestic policy, you heard that we’ve lost 1.6 million net jobs and 2.7 million net manufacturing jobs under Bush. You heard that he’s the first president in 70 years to lose jobs. You heard that 4 million more people live in poverty, and 5 million have lost their health insurance. You heard that the average annual premium has risen by $3,500. You heard that we’ve gone from a $5 trillion surplus to a $3 trillion debt. You heard that a multimillionaire sitting by his swimming pool pays a lower tax rate than a soldier in Iraq. You heard that Bush has underfunded No Child Left Behind by $27 billion. You heard that Kerry, unlike Bush, would let the government negotiate “to get discounts for seniors” and would let “prescription drugs into this country from Canada.” You heard that at home and abroad, Bush offers “four more years of the same.”
Let’s take it line-by-line. The first line is subjective; for all we know, “one of the worst records” means Edwards was somewhere in the lower half of Senate attendance. Moreover, Cheney doesn’t specify what time period he’s basing his charge.
Ah, but when you break it down like that, the first line is indeed indicative of his likely willingness to deceive.
We do know that Edwards’ attendance record in the Senate up until his decision to run for president was exemplary. Once he began his run, it was better than any of the other Senators he was running against.
Ok, we’ve heard quite a bit on Cheney. Now, how about this:
Error, or prevarication?
Slarti, according to the WaPo letters section today, it’s neither:
phil, did you get to go on your vacation? did you get to go anywhere special?
Slarti — I can’t actually parse that in text. I think it must have made more sense live :/
SMASH and von — the lie of Cheney’s that most sticks in my craw is that he’s never suggested a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. He’s been on the record something like ten times for having done exactly that (both before and after the war), at least once explicitly claiming a connection where none has been proven to exist.* Given that this was (and haphazardly still is) a justification for the war, I’d say that piece of revisionism is worthy of all the excoriation we can lambast upon it.
[There are other lies at which I’m angry as well — the 98 tax increases and the false fact-checking on Halliburton spring to mind — but they’re not quite as central or unforgivable to me.]
* At least one of those times he also directly contradicted President Bush, which I found particularly appalling. If the Vice-President and the President can’t agree on whether one confirmed threat and one supposed threat are coordinating their actions, how the hell are we supposed to enact appropriate policy?
Funny how those well-paid pundits tend to forget about the payroll tax which is only levied on a fraction of their income, isn’t it?
Except for, oops, soldiers in the field mostly don’t pay any federal income tax at all. Smash has this posted on his website, just to give credit where due.
“If the Vice-President and the President can’t agree on whether one confirmed threat and one supposed threat are coordinating their actions…”
In some ways I find it heartening. I consider the Republican message discipline terrifyingly unprincipled. Right-wing punditry has quite literally turned into a machine that rotates faces around a single message. Enjoy the light-hearted tittering? You can get The Message from Peggy Noonan. Into the phantom Solomnic wisdom of pathological false dilemmas? You can get The Message from David Brooks. Like your punditry tough and dismissive? You can get The Message from Hannity.
But you will get The Message.
Slarti — Edward’s comment is a misstatement, but it’s not necessarily a lie.
Anarch — Cheney’s statements regarding AQ and Iraq, or 9-11 and Iraq, may be misleading, but they weren’t lies.
Before I use the term lie, I must have some evidence that it’s a product of intent, not sloppiness or advocacy, or mistake. I treat the term seriously.
Von, how many times can someone make the same misleading statements before you can say they are lying? How many times over how many years can you make the same faulty claim? Cheney knows damn well what he’s been saying for the past 3 years, he’s been corrected by all the experts and commissions and refuses to admit his mistake so when he repeats these assertions in the face of all known truth he is now lying.
He’s also been corrected by Rumsfeld (at least before Rumsfeld was ‘corrected’).
Edward’s comment is a misstatement, but it’s not necessarily a lie.
Grammar Police! Calling the Grammar Police!
I did not make a statement in this thread…am I going to have to change my name here?
I agree, not necessarily. I’m thinking, though, that it’s possible to build as circumstantial case for it being a lie as others have constructed for Cheney’s statements.
wilfred, yes I did, thank you for asking. We went to Myrtle Beach for a week, which in the off-season is blessedly free of crowds. We caught the rear of the Jeanne weather for parts of Monday and Tuesday, but it was otherwise sunny and warm.
Slarti, point taken, although generally speaking Edwards’ point is more correct than not. I doubt there are a lot of enlisted men and warrant officers out there praying to be put into combat more often so they can save on their 1040s.
I’m confused as to the difference between advocacy and intent. Is the implication that advocacy clouds one’s judgement to the point where one is incapable of determining truth?
I’d agree, if he hadn’t said “in Iraq”. Of course, it’s always possible that he didn’t actually mean the military, but I don’t think that pleading for tax relief for the contractors is where he was headed with this.
Lucky you. We got her coming and going.
Slarti
I haven’t seen it explicitly spelled out in the posting rules but I think moe discourages pornographic discussion in the threads of ObWi.
“We caught the rear of the Jeanne
Lucky you. We got her coming and going.”
!)
Grammar Police! Calling the Grammar Police!
I shall arrest myself for a misplaced ‘. It should be Edwards‘, not Edward‘s.
In my defense, I thought the double-entendre approach was encouraged, if not simply tolerated. I offer my neck to the ObWi Gods, though.
And I arrest myself on the more serious charge of using ‘lie’ too loosely on the last thread on this topic. Cheney’s claim that Saddam ‘allowed’ Zarqawi to set up shop in Baghdad might be just intentionally misleading (since Zarqawi was outside the area Hussein controlled in the runup to the war.) The claim about ‘harming 900,000 small businesses’: possibly just recklessness indifference, to leave open the possibility that he had gone to the trouble of finding the original figure, but that neither he nor his staff bothered to recheck it before the debate.
I have a harder time figuring out how to read Cheney’s claim, after Edwards made somce claims about Halliburton, that “they know the charges are false” and that “there’s no substance to the charges.” As I understand it (via the right FactCheck, and various newspaper stories), Edwards said two wrong things — that while Cheney was CEO, Halliburton had paid fines for withholding information, when in fact while the wrongdoing occurred on Cheney’s watch, the fines weren’t paid until later, and that while Cheney was CEO Halliburton did business with Libya. But he said a number of true things, namely that while Cheney was CEO Halliburton did business with Iran and that it is under investigation for bribing Nigerian officials during the same period. I can’t see how this squares with ‘no substance to the charges’, or how Cheney could possibly not know this.
And I have a hard time with the idea that Cheney has never suggested — not flatly asserted, but suggested — a connection between Iraq and 9/11.
Cheney’s statements regarding AQ and Iraq, or 9-11 and Iraq, may be misleading, but they weren’t lies.
You’ve misunderstood. I’m not saying that Cheney lied about AQ and Iraq; I tend to agree with you that he did not, though I believe there are exceptions.* I’m saying that Cheney lied in the debate about whether he had previously suggested that Al Qaeda had been connected to Saddam Hussein.
Let me be clear here: he has suggested this connection on multiple occasions, even making it outright a few times. [Cites will follow once I get back from my next obligation.] He knows this. He’s on the record having done this. There is no reason to suggest that he has forgotten doing this. Furthermore, the context in which his denial was uttered makes it perfectly clear that the intended meaning of his remarks was to dispute the factual contention that he had, in fact, made those suggestions in the past. This was not uttered in jest or irony; I see no reason for this denial except to deceive the viewers into believing something that he knew was not the case.
In short, it was a deliberate untruth intended to deceive, the very definition of a lie. And I do not use it lightly, either.
* There are all sorts of subtleties between truth-telling, honesty and mendacity, as well as the ever-popular “lie by omission”, but I haven’t time to parse all the subtleties.