Skip to main content

Cheney claimed that he had never met Edwards before.
Addressing the National Prayer Breakast, Cheney said: "Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I honored to be with you all this morning."  [FDCH Political Transcripts, Cheney Remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, 2/1/01]
And then theres this, which should offer up photos at some point soon (and we all know how people need pictures for reality to sink in):
Senator Edwards Escorted Elizabeth Dole When She Was Sworn In As North Carolina's Other Senator.  Elizabeth Dole was sworn in as North Carolina's other senator on January 8, 2003.  Gannet News Service wrote:  "As per Senate tradition, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., escorted her."

Dole Took The Senate Oath Administered By Vice President Dick Cheney.  According to Gannet News Service: "[Dole] raised her right hand and took the oath administered by Vice President Dick Cheney, the Senate president."  [Gannet News Service, 1/8/03]

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.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:46 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

106 comments | Permalink

  •  Man... (4.00)
    Man I love the internet...Actually, it wouldn't have surprised me if Cheney hadn't met Edwards...tough for Edwards to meet him since Cheney spent so much time in an undisclosed location creating his shadow government...

    TexasDemocrat http://www.bushcountdown.com

    by TexasDemocrat on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:44:17 PM PDT

    •  Senator Leahy said that Cheney (none)
      only meets with Republicans -- first president of the senate ever to have that policy.  Leahy obviously didn't know whether Cheney had met Edwards or no but offered this explanation if they hadn't met.

      Also Cheney had no idea why Congress was so divided, so polarized.  This Cheney policy may be one reason.  It doesn't help when Cheney tells Democrat Leahy to fuck off on the floor of the Senate....but Cheney has no earthly idea why things are so partisan...

      Dubya hates our freedom.

      by vaughn on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:57:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (none)
      Edwards won, but was missing chance after chance to really bury this guy on the facts.

      If the media does their job, they will take apart everything said and then we'll see who did a better job of speaking the truth tonite.

      by gerbbils on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:58:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't Forget... (none)
        Edwards had only his share of a mere 90 minutes to work with. If he had had a full 2 week trial, Chaney would have lost it. Edwards didn't miss a thing; he just hit Chaney with the biggest bombs he had, given the time he had. After all, you can only kick a dead horse so many times.

        Edwards wiped the floor with Chaney's ugly mug.

        Iraq is deja vu all over again.

        by chuco35 on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:15:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Google is our friend (none)
      To the extent Cheney's comments implied he never sees Edwards in the Senate, here's another:

      And when the JGTRRA tax-cut bill came up for final passage May 23, 2003, Edwards and Kerry both voted "Nay." The vote was 50-50, and the measure became law only because Vice President Cheney cast the tie-breaking vote in his Constitutional role as President of the Senate.

      by taylormattd on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:15:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Come on this is not significant... (none)
      It doesn't change the price of tea in China... On the other hand this LIE does...

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/15626/3356

       I would be very disappointed if Kerry and Kosiacs spp? fail to pick up on this and run with it. I don't have a link... but the appearance of a link will depend on you guys. I'm surpised over an hour has passed and none of you have posted this.
      Cheney was caught by Chris Matthews of Hardball in a BIG LIE, with the video footage to back it up. Cheney stated in the debate when asked if he ever stated that there was a strong connection between Iraq and 9/11. Cheney replied unequivocally that he NEVER made such a statement. I think it's a Meet the Press video clip that Matthew played that showed without a doubt Cheney LIED in his response, Cheney had stated that Iraq was part of the fight against the people who attacked us on 9/11. To his credit he had to lie or esle his whole arguement falls apart on that one statement alone.

      Nooneelse is reporting this. It's up to you guys to to get this word out.

      Misleading Assertions Cover Iraq War and Voting Records

      By Glenn Kessler and Jim VandeHei Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, October 6, 2004; Page A15

      Sen. John Edwards and Vice President Cheney clashed repeatedly in their debate last night, making impressive-sounding but misleading statements on issues including the war in Iraq, tax cuts and each other's records, often omitting key facts along the way.

      Early in the debate, Cheney snapped at Edwards, "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." But in numerous interviews, Cheney has skated close to the line in ways that may have certainly left that impression on viewers,.....

      This article does not quote that specific video clip ..decause it was very definitive statement he made on Meet the Press ... there was no question, no suggestion ... he flat out said Iraq was linked to 9/11

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10244-2004Oct5.html?sub=new

      I've done my part. Don't let this be another missed opportunity.

      Get Your War On! --> http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html

      by FLS on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 11:33:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I heard Cheney say it and immediately (none)
      doubted it.  I was surprised that Edwards didn't use the beginning of his next reply to go back to what Cheney said and remind Cheney that they had met at the prayer breakfast, or at Dole's swearing-in.  Maybe Edwards made the calculation that there were more important things to say at that point.  In any event, I note that the NYTimes in a little article connected to their debate coverage have a "fact checking" piece and they do not check this particular fact.  It's not on the front page of most of the papers and should be.  I never thought I'd say this, but kudos to Fox for at least running a piece calling Cheney's lie what it is.

      by concernedamerican on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 06:33:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  but maybe... (none)
    Maybe he just ... "misremembered" and didn't really "misrepresent" the facts ...

    Yes, lying sack of ...

    Check out Minister Faust and his new book: The Coyote Kings of the Space-Age Bachelor Pad.

    by Gearhead on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:44:37 PM PDT

  •  In this case, (none)
    it wasn't so much a lie as it was a complete distortion of the truth.

    What I want to find out is, did those events in El Salvador or whatever country he said he was in really take place? He can we found out if Cheney is lying?

    "I'm not saying that John Kerry has all the answers, but Bush has none, and he's cheating off of Dick Cheney's paper."-Bill Maher

    by theprogressivemiddle on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:44:52 PM PDT

  •  Technically (none)
    I think Cheney meant he never met Edwards... Yea, he saw them. His point was that in 3.5 years he hasn't bumped into him at the office. Even at the watercooler.

    by jonknee on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:45:27 PM PDT

    •  And technically.. (none)
      ..Kerry never said there was a "global test" for out foreign policy.

      by feadhel on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:47:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's the quote (none)
        No need to make calls, here's the full quote:

        "KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

        No president, though 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. "

        by jonknee on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:52:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Riiiiight. (none)
          I guess you don't see the irony.  Cheney actually said what he said, but you say "technically" he didn't say it.

          Well technically, Kerry didn't say what he said either.  Perhaps they both meant something else and mispoke, but Kerry made sure you knew what he meant before his time was up, didn't he?

          What does Cheney mean?  He left it at exactly what you'd think he meant, despite your spin.

          by feadhel on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:01:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'll take your opinion with a grain of salt, (none)
      since you haven't posted before, oh, let's see, today?  I haven't been around here long myself, but I haven't used my few posts to try to defend the outright lies of the administration.

      by handful of sky on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:16:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh snap (none)

    Wow. This needs to circulate immediately. I gotta think the Dem war room is already on this...

    Can you imagine if Edwards remembered and called him on it at the spot?

    by traig on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:45:55 PM PDT

  •  Cheney Lied (none)
    That's why they call him dick.

    by jhewett on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:46:01 PM PDT

  •  Jeez Kos... (2.66)
    "No repetitive diaries. If it's been blogged or diaried, there's no need to repeat it. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged. And if you post your same diary entry twice, consider it grounds for banning."

    </snark>

    by Smedley Hirkum on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:46:05 PM PDT

  •  And with the I never said that line on Iraq (none)
    Its the "I Didn't Do It" Kid and his trusty sidekick "I Never Said That" Dick

    by Tiparillo on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:46:33 PM PDT

  •  Does anyone else feel like (none)
    the coverage on MSNBC just turned?  Not on this meeting Edwards thing, but Cheney's assertion that he never linked 9/11 to Iraq.  They are playing the "Meet the Press" clip and saying it's a "big problem."

    The story tomorrow may very well be some of Cheney's lies.

    K/E need to call these lies, as well.

    by Rally Burger on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:46:49 PM PDT

  •  A picture of them and Chimp is toast... (none)
    Photoshop whatever...Get a photo of these two....and it will be Game. Set. Match. That is, if the Kit Seeyle Gore rules still apply.

    by Volvo Liberal on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:46:54 PM PDT

  •  Jury room deliberations (none)
    ...Most people calling it tie as they go to the jury room...

    But now - as we see more and more spin - and fact checking starts to take place....  The dishonesty meme is playing well.  

    Tweety just went off on Cheney's Iraq-9/11 lie.

    CNN had a bit on the previous meeting between Edwards and Cheney.

    Cheney may have held his own on stage, but now -- unlike a crowded MTP Sunday, for example -- what you say in a debate has more legs.

    The "liar" theme is really starting to take hold...  

    THis is playing well.

    by zonk on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:47:07 PM PDT

  •  Eureka!!!!!! (none)
    Liar!  Liar!  Liar!

    That's the meme throw your damn hands up.

    Tim

    Don't waive your rights with your flags.

    by ttagaris on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:47:07 PM PDT

  •  why make the lie? (none)
    He can't help himself. It's pathological with these guys.

    I hope the DNC and Kerry/Edwards has photos all over the TV tomorrow.

    When the hell is the rapture getting here?

    by fourlegsgood on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:47:15 PM PDT

  •  Hardball (none)
    Leahey (sp?) on Hardball pointed out that Cheney only meets with Republicans on the Hill.  (Unless he's telling Democrats to commit anatomical impossibilities.)

    Listen to the Stephanie Miller Show -- funnier than anything on Air America

    by Michael D on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:47:15 PM PDT

  •  tweety gets shrill all up on ben ginsberg. (none)
    Man! Chris Mathews just tore that Ben Ginsberg a new asshole. Wow.

    --Asa

    by asa on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:47:26 PM PDT

  •  How Can Cheney question Edwards? (none)
    How long was he in an undisclosed location? He probably spent less time in the Capitol than any other VP....I suppose we should bring it b/c it reinforces the 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 response to everything from healthcare and jobs to iraq

    by tiberius on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:47:35 PM PDT

  •  Msnbc analysis (none)
    Unfortunately on Hardball after the debate tonight the comments were almost all about how great Cheney was and how he took it to Edwards. The spin was incredible from Chris Matthews, to of course, Joe Scarborough, but even Tom Brokaw. Email them with complaints about why they aren't focusing on the obvious inaccuracies of the vp's remarks. They kept saying over and over again how well prepared Cheney was.

    by marysk on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:47:57 PM PDT

  •  Pat Leahy also pointed out... (none)
    ...on CNN that when Cheney comes to the Senate on Tuesdays, unlike all other previous Vice Presidents, he chooses only to meet with one party, the Republicans.

    Ben Ginsberg also is horrible as a GOP strategist. Matthews asks him if Edwards' charge is true that Halliburton traded with Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions while Cheney was running the company. Ginsberg's answer: Being a CEO is different than being vice president. WTF kind of an answer is that?

    by MeanBoneII on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:48:05 PM PDT

  •  Tweety takes Ginsburg Apart (none)
    Talking to the Republican after the debate, Matthews hammered on the Iraq-al-Qa'ida link when Ginsburg (or whatever the Republican spin guy's name was) was trying to claim that the 9-11 report said there was some connection. Matthews was completely clear on the fact that there wasn't any link whatsoever, and that Cheney's memory was faulty when he claimed he hadn't said there was a link.

    MSNBC have been terrible in claiming Cheney won tonight, but Tweety was fantastic in this moment.

    by Rob M on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:48:07 PM PDT

  •  We should be emailing everyone about this (none)
    Remember how they called Gore an exaggerater. We have two major <lies</b> here:

    1. Cheney never implied Iraq and Al Queda

    2. Cheney never met Edwards

    Someone please post an instant email blaster so we can push this to the media!

    by chicagoprogressive on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:48:07 PM PDT

    •  When Cheney said that (none)
      he has never implied Saddam and 9/11 were connected, that was when I knew he has absolutely no problem with telling serious lies at a mere whim.

      "I'm not saying that John Kerry has all the answers, but Bush has none, and he's cheating off of Dick Cheney's paper."-Bill Maher

      by theprogressivemiddle on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:59:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The debate may be a draw (none)
    But I predict tomorrow's "fact checks from the big papers" game will be bad news for Dick C.

    Hey, W! Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

    by 28th Democrat on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:48:13 PM PDT

  •  Chris Matthews just ripped Ben Ginsberg (none)
    a new a-hole over Cheney's claim that Cheney never said 9/11 & Iraq are connected.  Brian Williams dug up a tape of Cheney connecting them on Meet the Press or some such.  

    Anyone else see it???? It was hilarious.

    Matthews says, Hang on Ben more questions when we come back.

    Ginsburg rolls eyes & says oh, great.

    Dubya hates our freedom.

    by vaughn on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:48:14 PM PDT

  •  Tomorrow is going to be a big day... (none)
    ...They all are, of course, now...But the papers are going to be filled with debate coverage, the Bremer fiasco, the new CIA report...

    Kerry need to come up with a pithy comment that will tie all the strands together....

    Any thoughts??

    by Volvo Liberal on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:48:29 PM PDT

  •  FactCheck.org -- (none)
    Cheney's cites these folks IN A VP DEBATE as a main source of factual support.  Follow the PNAC/DOD money...

    by Mogolori on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:48:32 PM PDT

    •  Factcheck.org may help... (3.50)
      four out of six of factcheck's lead items are about BC04 campaign distortions....and the 5th is a draw about misleads on both sides in Thursday's debate....what was Cheney thinking when he suggested folks look there?

      "How fortunate for leaders that men do not think"--Adolf Hitler

      by mrsdbrown1 on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:09:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  funny, funny (none)
        Cheney sent people to their computers to check out factcheck.org.

        And right there, a number of their lies are spread out.

        Uh oh.  

        by LIsoundview on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:24:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  he's tired (none)
        and wants to lose. Or he's developed a conscience, and it's guilty as hell. Or God put the words in his mouth because s/he's taken pity on us.

        by mmacdDE on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:36:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe so, but (none)
        they're fishing for sardines.  Two-to-one pro-Kerry ratios (IMO, of course) add up to nothing but muddle when HUGE lies stand before the voting public, which were well presented by Edwards tonight.

        My point from the opposite side -- if they don't "fact-check" Edwards on his contentions of 1) no WMD and 2) no AQ/Saddam link, they go unstated even if they're correct.  And if correct, they represent pre-emptive war under false pretenses.  Silence is toxic here.

        The best BC04 strategy at this point is to churn out data smog (apologies to D. Shenk).  Factcheck.org provides this service for them -- a name organization with media whores telling us very little of substance at a critical moment in the country's history.

        Rant aside, it looks like my PNAC comment doesn't hold water on the surface, i.e., their operating costs are covered by the Annenberg Foundation.  Still, something smells here...

        by Mogolori on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:50:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I want photos!!! (none)
    BTW Kos -- I hope your new server is online before the next debate.  The site is slooooooow right now.

    Everybody GOTV!!!

    by pontificator on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:48:39 PM PDT

  •  Actually Liz Edwards pointed it out to him on stag (none)
    Good for her. MSNBC is going crazily pro-Cheney in this debate calling it a "stature gap."

    by Me on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:49:06 PM PDT

  •  the Biggest Flip Flopper of the night... (none)
    is Chris Mathews... He must've heard some serious sh@#$!@ from advertisers after the last debates.

    6 Reasons to Support Bruderly for Congress (Florida-6)

    by Florida Democrat on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:49:26 PM PDT

  •  Cheney is either senile or literally (none)
    expressing the fact that he has never been formally introduced to Edwards, just casual sightings, or he's a flat out liar!  I can hardly wait for the file footage to start showing up...

    by maggiemae on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:49:59 PM PDT

  •  Let's BACK Elizabeth Edwards UP!!! (none)
    and her courageous move right after the debate confronting Cheney face to face.

    by rolodomo on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:50:30 PM PDT

  •  From Fox News (none)
    Fact check article
    Cheney accused Kerry of voting for taxes 98 times. That's down from the 350 times wrongly claimed by Republicans, but it's still a stretch. Those 98 votes include times when Kerry voted for lower taxes -- but not as low as Republicans wanted. And times when many procedural votes were cast on a single tax increase or package.

    "The tyranny of the ignoramusus is insurmountable and assured for all time" <Albert Einstein>

    by shakes on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:51:10 PM PDT

  •  Effing New York Times (3.50)
    The NYT story on the debate ends with Cheney denying that he said there was a clear connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and doesn't give any kind of fact-check or rebuttal!  The story just ends without, you know, citing one of the many times Cheney said exactly that.  I expect Campaign Desk to jump on that with both feet, but not before I do.

    by Laura Clawson on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:52:08 PM PDT

  •  Unintended Flip Flop? (none)
    Tonight Cheney contradicted Bush in his Thursday debate.
    In a response to Kerry wanting to impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear violations, Bush rhetorically asked how are we going to sanction Iran even more than it already is. Cheney in a response to Edwards stated that the Bush administration might want to look into imposing tougher sanctions on Iran for its nuclear violations.
    Was Dick watching the Thursday night debate?

    "Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson

    by glb3 on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:52:12 PM PDT

  •  Liz Cheney (none)
    The Vice-Daughter, was even parroting the "never met him" lie.  Sad.

    Dispassionate Lib

    by Mark Adams on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:52:41 PM PDT

  •  This is our "Global Test" (none)
    But ours will stick.

    Stupid Cheney just spun this into a loss. Edwards started this debate by challenging the credibility of this Administration. Now Cheney has given America a fresh example of their dishonesty.

    MEANWHILE: I HATE ANDREA MITCHELL. SHE IS DRIVING ME CRAZY! BOY, IS SHE AND THE REST OF MSNBC IN FOR A RUDE AWKEN WHEN THE REST OF AMERICA JUDGE EDWARDS THE VICTOR.

    LOSERS.

    "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values" ~ The Big Dawg

    by John Campanelli on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:52:44 PM PDT

  •  The jury says.... (none)
    Well... now that we see the transcripts and digest it with the evidence...

    DICK CHENEY IS A LIAR

    by zonk on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:53:07 PM PDT

  •  Plays so well into... (none)
    what John Edwards is portraying the administration as liars.  I hope the media picks this up when Cheney lies about something so easily disproven.  

    Vote on my local Las Vegas poll...

    "http://www.klastv.com"

    by kerry2004 on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:53:37 PM PDT

  •  the "I never met you" lie (none)
    Is just the kind of thing our lazy press will run with.  We've just got to show them the soccer ball and they'll kick it around for a couple news cycles.

    Photo evidence would be the killer app here.  I'm about to Google...

    visit my blog! d-day.blogspot.com

    by dday on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:53:44 PM PDT

  •  go to hardblogger (none)
    keith olbermann's blog is practically inviting folks to show Cheney up in this lie -- I've already emailed this info...

    by Silverleaf on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:54:57 PM PDT

  •  Meme: Cheney is a pathological liar (none)
    He even lies about the most insignificant things.

    alternative explanation:  Dementia due to lack of circulation or syphillis.

    take your pick

    by PrometheusSpeaks on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:55:05 PM PDT

  •  massachusetts (none)
    how about the one where he claimed that the state supreme court of massachusetts rewrote the state constitution to allow gay marriage?

    not only was that a blatant lie, it shows he has no idea of how constitutional government works.

    courage, faith and truth my brothers and sisters

    by zeke L on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:58:07 PM PDT

  •  FWIW (none)
    Olbermann:

    "Cheney scored "photograph shots" with repeated reference to Edwards' absences for key Senate votes, and the "money shot" by noting that as President of the Senate he had never previously met Senator John Edwards. But that fact is eminently spinnable, and if Democrats can prove they did meet, or that Edwards was physically in the Senate the last four years as often as Cheney, prime memory of the bout could be turned into Republican disaster."

    by jimrice on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 08:58:57 PM PDT

  •  Cheney LOST the Debate (none)
    with that BIG STUPID LIE!!  That's the story of the night, given the stupidity of the Media.

    Now couple the other lies - and we can Gore the bastard.

    "We're not criticizing Bush for going after terrorists, we're criticizing him for NOT going after terrorists." - Paraphrase of J. Kerry, tip to Gen. Clark

    by Armando on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:00:56 PM PDT

  •  I just emailed Matt Drudge (none)
    http://dailykos.com/story/2004/10/5/234647/200

    Hi Drudge-

    Hate to hit you with Markos, but facts is facts.  And Cheney lied.  Post it.  It's a scoop.

    "What can I say? I just tip my hat and call the Yankees my daddy." -Pedro Martinez

    by BooMan23 on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:03:37 PM PDT

  •  factcheck.com & factcheck.org (none)
    After Cheney directed folks to http://www.factcheck.com, I REALLY wanted Edwards to respond to Cheney on the "98 tax hike votes" by telling Dick to go check http://www.factcheck.org to see how big a distortion that is.

    Fortunately, following Cheney's instructions will send folks to a George Soros site telling folks we've got to get rid of bush!!!

    ROFLMAO!

    by cyberKosFan on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:05:29 PM PDT

  •  Claiming you've never met someone... (none)
    ...is the oldest snob trick in the book. And also th about the cheapest. That on top of the more substantive lies, says a lot about Cheney.

    by Rich on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:09:24 PM PDT

  •  It's not almost... (none)
    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.

    pathological. This administration IS pathological in its deception!

    "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." - Theodore Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:10:29 PM PDT

  •  Edwards won!! (none)
    He won because he was telling the truth.  cheney lost because he lies.  Remember back last thursday, those that sat in the hall or only saw the "approved" debate pictures without split screen, saw it as maybe a draw.  It was only afterwards when people at home who watched c-span understood how bad Bush had been.  

    Now it is the same.  Edwards did exceptional.  Cheney was lying every word for the first 20 minutes.  And more.  and when all those pundits see the polls of the groups watching the debate who all give Edwards the win, and then find out about all of Cheneys lies, Edwards will win.

    Now lets make the frame of truth actually come to pass.

    Remember, Edwards won.

    by GrandmaJ on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:11:55 PM PDT

  •  Cheney tiebreaking votes... (none)
    ...breaking a tie for which Edwards would HAVE to be present:

    May 23, 2003: Jobs and Economic Growth Act H.R. 2 conference report

    May 15, 2003: Nickles Amdt. 664 on dividend exclusion

    April 11, 2003: Budget Resolution H.Con.Res. 95 conference report

    May 21, 2002: Motion to table Allen Amdt. 3406 on mortgage loans

    April 5, 2001: Hutchison Amdt. 347 on marriage penalty tax

    April 3, 2001: Grassley Amdt. 173 on prescription drugs

    Votes by Vice Presidents To Break Tie Votes in the Senate

    Please visit the Ventura County For Democracy blog

    by Devin on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:13:05 PM PDT

  •  What about this lunch - was Edwards there? (none)
    From the web link here:

    http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0106/21/ip.00.html

    ... Aired June 21, 2001 - 17:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. ... Vice President
    Dick Cheney met with a Senate Democratic caucus over lunch. ...

    On Capitol Hill today, a first in the evolving relationship between the White House and the new Democratic majority in the Senate. Vice President Dick Cheney met with a Senate Democratic caucus over lunch. That's right, the Democratic caucus.

    All involved seemed eager to publicize the event, allowing cameras in briefly before the private meeting. Participants say the get-together was cordial and produced no sparks. Even before it started, Majority Leader Tom Daschle said he did not expect the session to lead to any big breakthroughs. For his part, Vice President Cheney portrayed the lunch as a visit with old friends.

    by fpc on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:15:38 PM PDT

  •  Don't miss a golden opportunity (none)
    Folks, we know Edwards won. Our job is to email the shit out of the media and let them know Cheney LIED about meeting Edwards and it was at all places a PRAYER BREAKFAST. Remember how Gore was labled a liar? Now it is our turn. Email:

    ABC NEWS: hardball@msnbc.com

    ABC: politicalunit@abcnews.com

    CNN VIEWER FEEDBACK: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv/

    Here is my letter:

    "The VP of the United States flat out lied tonight when he said he never met John Edwards. The two met at a prayer breakfast in 2001. It is your responsibility to call him out on this."

    by chicagoprogressive on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:16:13 PM PDT

  •  Everyone's on-message: (none)
    Josh Marshall:

    "The task for Democrats over the next forty-eight hours is to bang home with hammering detail and repitition just how many things Vice President Cheney said during the debate that were just flat-out false and to make the case that this is part and parcel of a general pattern of denial about what's happening in Iraq and failure, on so many fronts, to level with the American public."

    Start with the fact that the two of them actually met. Then, with Cheney's credibility damaged, go his more substantive lies on foreign policy. An utter fantasy world.

    by jimrice on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:17:09 PM PDT

  •  Andrew Sullivan: (none)
    "When asked to respond to a question about young black women with HIV, Cheney might as well have been asked about Martians. He had no response to the charges (largely new to me) about Halliburton. He had no solid response to the question of sufficient troops in Iraq or the capability of the coalition to guarantee national elections in January. He was weak on healthcare; and said that the Massachusetts Supreme Court had ordered the legislature to change the state constitution! Huh? And, of course, he cannot disguise that he supports a president who would remove any legal protections for his own daughter's relationship."

    Oh, and he met Edwards.

    by jimrice on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:21:21 PM PDT

  •  Too Funny! Check this out !!! (none)
    Cheney made a point of telling people to check out the facts at the factcheck.org site, but he mistakenly referred to it as "factcheck.com."

    Check out www.factcheck.com  ... and imagine a few million people logging in right now thanks to Dick Cheney!!!

    Hee hee.  I love it.

    by eecee on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:24:43 PM PDT

  •  Please forward this to reporters ASAP (none)
    February 2, 2001 Friday ONE-THREE EDITION

    SECTION: MAIN; Pg. 1A

    LENGTH: 806 words

    HEADLINE: BUSH CARRIED N.C., BUT EDWARDS GOES OWN WAY

    BYLINE: PETER WALLSTEN, Staff Writer

    DATELINE: WASHINGTON

    BODY:
    Chatting with Vice President Dick Cheney at a prayer breakfast Thursday, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina pledged to find common ground with the new administration.

    If that happens, it will have to wait until next week.

    Hours after his pledge, Democrat Edwards walked onto the Senate floor and cast a vote against President Bush's choice for attorney general, calling former Sen. John Ashcroft a "polarizing and divisive figure."

    It was Edwards' second vote against a Bush nominee in a week, coming three days after he opposed Interior Secretary Gale Norton, saying she would be bad for the environment.

    "I'm doing what I think is right after a lot of soul-searching," said Edwards, who was elected North Carolina's junior senator in 1998.

    Edwards joined 41 fellow Democrats in opposing Ashcroft, including Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings of South Carolina. He was one of 24 Senate Democrats to oppose Norton.

    But as a relatively new senator from a state that overwhelmingly supported Bush, Edwards is taking stands that are giving Republicans with an eye on retaking his seat in 2004 a chance to say he does not represent his constituents.

    What's more, as one of a handful of senators said to be mulling bids for the White House, every vote Edwards casts and every speech he utters will echo for years.

    "I was certainly hoping that John Edwards would not fall in line and adopt the position of (Massachusetts Democratic Sen.) Ted Kennedy," said U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, a Farmville Republican. "North Carolina is not a liberal state."

    GOP operatives say they will scrutinize Edwards' every move and speak out with more regularity when they think his votes do not reflect the political bent of the Tar Heel state.

    Before the vote, both Jones and U.S. Rep. Cass Ballenger, a Hickory Republican, sent Edwards letters urging him to vote for Ashcroft.

    "Sen. Edwards, during your 1998 Senate campaign, you promised that if elected, you would be the 'people's senator' with no partisan agenda," wrote Ballenger in a letter dated Tuesday. "The people of North Carolina responded overwhelmingly to President Bush's candidacy and platform by giving him 56 percent of the vote, 13 percent more than Vice President Gore. In my opinion, this is a clear indication that a sizable majority of North Carolinians endorse President Bush's judgment and his plans for the future."

    Sen. Jesse Helms, the N.C. Republican, voted for all of Bush's nominees.

    Edwards points out that, besides Ashcroft and Norton, he has supported all of the president's choices.

    But on Thursday he defended his vote on Ashcroft, saying he did not base his votes entirely on public opinion.

    "It matters a great deal to me what the people I represent think and say," he said. "Obviously I always want to know what they say. I don't keep tallies, I don't do polls. I do what I think is right."

    In a brief speech on the Senate floor, Edwards, a lawyer, referred to Ashcroft's decision to block confirmation of a black judge to the federal bench. Edwards has been engaged in a similar fight, having had his recommendation of an African American judge from North Carolina blocked by Helms.

    "At a time that our country desperately needs a unifier, the president has nominated a man to be the chief law enforcement officer of the country, the people's lawyer, who has a long record of divisive, inflammatory rhetoric," Edwards said.

    Later, in a question-and-answer session with North Carolinians, Edwards added that "there's a huge segment of the population of this country who don't feel (Ashcroft) represents them."

    Even if Republicans begin an informal campaign to define Edwards as out of step with the state, there is no guarantee they will have success. A successful trial lawyer, Edwards is a gifted communicator who can explain his record in terms that are easy to understand.

    U.S. Rep. David Price, a Chapel Hill Democrat, doubts there will be any political fallout for Edwards.

    "When a president sends forward nominations that raise these kinds of questions (such as Ashcroft and Norton), it is a senator's duty to look at them and vote against them if he sees fit," said Price. "I would think most people would appreciate that, even if they disagree with his decision."

    Edwards, meanwhile, will maintain his high profile next week, but in a more bipartisan manner. He said Thursday he is "close, very close" to reaching a deal with Sen. John McCain, the maverick Arizona Republican, on a patients' bill of rights.

    Edwards and McCain, who have been negotiating for months, could appear together at a news conference as early as Monday. Edwards, who voted against the GOP plan last year, said the new legislation would be acceptable to both parties because it would include an independent appeals panel for patients denied coverage by an HMO.

    GRAPHIC: Photos-2;
    1. Photo by Stephen Crowley, New York Times: Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., listens as Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., (left) speaks Thursday about Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft's Senate confirmation. 2. Edwards

    LOAD-DATE: October 31, 2001  
       Document 6 of 11  

    "What can I say? I just tip my hat and call the Yankees my daddy." -Pedro Martinez

    by BooMan23 on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:26:31 PM PDT

  •  senate record (none)
    what's the truth about the votes? how many has edwards been present for, how many has cheney been present for?

    by agoldnyc on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 09:40:35 PM PDT

  •  Semi-Honest Assessment of the Debate (none)
    Edwards did fairly well.  I thought he stumbled in a few spots.  Stylistically, he didn't counter Cheney as well as he could have.  However, I thought he did pretty well.  Not as good as Kerry did the other night, but Kerry only had to face the Junior Varsity team.  Edwards was up against the Varsity.

    The biggest difference between Bush and Cheney is that Cheney is such a better liar.  He lies with such conviction that you almost want to believe him (maybe it's because he's evil).  The guy lies all over the place.  He's just much calmer and more polished than Bush.  Tonight's format really played to his strength.

    Final assessment, a slight advantage to Cheney on style points.  Edwards won on the facts, but facts and the Bush administration only have a passing familiarity.

    by Arioch on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 10:58:35 PM PDT

Permalink

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site