Cheney Attendance at Senate

(From the diaries, Cheney presided over the Senate a grand total of two times the past four years -- just as many times as Edwards, who also did so twice. Slightly edited -- kos)

"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."

--Dick Cheney

The extended entry has the presiding officers over the last four years for every Tuesday session.

Here is a list of the Senate's Acting Presidents for every Tuesday session for 2001.

January 30 - Enzi
February 6 - Chafee
February 13 - Chafee
February 27 - Allen
March 6 - Burns
March 13 - Reid
March 20 - DeWine
March 27 - Chafee
April 3 - Smith
April 24 - Chafee
May 1 - Chafee
May 8 - Chafee
May 15 - Frist
May 22 - Chafee
June 5 - Enzi
June 12 - Byrd
June 19 - Carper
June 26 - Bayh
July 10 - Nelson
July 17 - Clinton
July 24 - Byrd
July 31 - Stabenaw
September 25 - Wellstone
October 2 - Clinton
October 9 - Clinton
October 16 - Edwards!!!!!
October 23- Byrd
October 30 - Bingaman
November 13 - Murray
November 27 - Jeffords
December 4 - Stabenaw
December 11 - Carnahan
December 18 - Nelson

A reward to whoever finds a Tuesday in 2002, 2003 or 2004 that Dick Cheney fulfilled his duties as President of the Senate here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html

2002

Tue 1/29 - Nelson
Tue 2/5 - Kohl
Tue 2/12 - Stabenow
Tue 2/26 - Landrieu
Tue 3/5 - Edwards
Tue 3/12 - Landrieu
Tue 3/19 - Miller
Tue 4/9 - Cleland
Tue 4/16 - Reed
Tue 4/23 - Wellstone
Tue 4/30 - Nelson
Tue 5/7 - Miller
Tue 5/14 - Cleland
Tue 5/21 - Nelson
Tue 6/4 - Durbin
Tue 6/11 - Corzine
Tue 6/18 - Dayton
Tue 6/25 - Landrieu
Tue 7/9 - Reed
Tue 7/16 - Corzine
Tue 7/23 - Reed
Tue 7/30 - Clinton
Tue 9/3 - Reed
Tue 9/10 - Corzine
Tue 9/17 - Reid
Tue 9/24 - Stabenow
Tue 10/1 - Miller
Tue 10/8 - Miller
Tue 10/15 - Reid
Tue 11/12 - CHENEY! -- WE HAVE A WINNER!
Tue 11/19 - Barkley (MN)

2003

Jan 7 *Cheney*
Jan 14 Stevens
Jan 22 Stevens
Jan 28 Stevens
Feb 4 Stevens
Feb 11 Stevens
Feb 25 Stevens
Mar 4 Stevens
Mar 11 Stevens
Mar 18 Stevens
Mar 25 Stevens
Apr 1 Stevens
Apr 8 Stevens
Apr 29 Stevens
May 6 Talent
May 13 Ensign
May 20 Alexander
June 3 Stevens
June 10 Stevens
June 18 Murkowski
June 24 Coleman
July 8 Stevens
July 15 Stevens
July 22 Chaffee
July 29 Stevens
Sept 2 Stevens
Sept 9 Stevens
Sept 16 Stevens
Sept 23 Stevens
Sept 30 Sununu
Oct 21 Stevens
Oct 28 Stevens
Nov 4 Stevens
Nov 11 Warner
Nov 18 Stevens
Dec 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

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:30 AM PDT.

(Load) (Load) (Load) (Load) (Load) (Load) (Load)

(Load)

Comment Preferences

304 comments | Permalink

I can't get any records like what you showed here (none)

That search engine isn't very helpful. Feh.

That was a _big_ mistake, Bart. No children have ever meddled with the Republican Party and lived to tell about it. - R. Terwilliger

by MrSnrub on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:17:48 AM PDT

Please update this diary!!! (none)

Commenters have shown that in 2002 and 2003, Cheney only presided over the Senate twice, by my count.
Cheney is a pathological liar. He presided over the Senate only twice in three years!!!!!!

Everybody GOTV!!!

by pontificator on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:13:24 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Also, ZERO times in 2004 (none)

According to your commenters. So Cheney only presided over the Senate TWICE in four years.

Everybody GOTV!!!

by pontificator on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:14:43 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

I'm updating now. (4.00)

Thanks everyone.

George W. Bush makes Reagan look smart, Nixon look honest, and his dad look coherent.

by Dave the pro on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:17:53 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Please update Kos' update (4.00)

THe tally is actually Cheney, presided twice, Edwards, presided twice (not once as Kos suggested).
I count both 10/16/2001 and 3/5/2002.
So Edwards has done Dick's job as often as Dick has.

by emptywheel on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:31:13 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Tuesday's only? (none)

Do these numbers only refer to Tuesdays? I don't think we have a total count.

by J mid on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:13:53 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
And (none)

That's because Dick is doing George's.

by Athena on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:17:04 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
See Dick work (none)

See Dick work. Work Dick work.
Rather, Hard work, Dick, hard work.
See George vacation. Vacation George, vacation.

by markschultz1 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 02:54:59 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Congratulations on the reccomended diary! (none)

Thank you, Dave.

by paradox on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:13:08 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

TDS has been reading this diary (none)

Sure enough, Jon Stewart featured this news--which I haven't seen covered anywhere else--prominently tonight.
Good work folks. It is trickling into the mediasphere.

by emptywheel on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:49:03 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Nice. (4.00)

Edwards actually presided over the Senate as Acting President while Darth Cheney cowered in an "undisclosed, secure location."
Even Hillary Clinton presided over more Tuesday sessions than Dick Cheney did.

by David Waldman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:18:12 AM PDT

The spin is turning on it's head! (none)

Olbermann reverses his descision, greatly revises his article, and gives a big time whack to Cheney and the GOP!

"All intelligent people in this country will vote for you,"
"That's not good enough. I need a majority" - Adlai Stevenson

by cgilbert01 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:49:18 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

sent Keith the list (none)

n/t

"...watch parking meters"

by willyr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:04:26 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
Oh man, I'm LOVING this: (none)

And by morning, the Kerry-Edwards campaign had produced irrefutable evidence that when Elizabeth Dole was sworn in by Senate President Cheney as the junior senator from North Carolina just last year, it was Senator Edwards who (with her husband) escorted her to Mr. Cheney. Senator Dole was sworn in using Mrs. Edwards' bible.
Ha! Oh! My sides! Can't breathe!

by David Waldman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:11:27 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Hilarious. BUSTED! (none)

It is an American value to care for each other.
Vote Kerry/Edwards on November 2nd, to bring our soldiers home safely.

by Daemmern on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:17:17 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Vader is one option... (3.50)

As much as I agree that Cheney looks like Darth Vader without his helmet on, I like this image even better:
CLICK FOR THE ONE IMAGE THAT PERFECTLY SUMS UP THE CHENEY-EDWARDS DEBATE
No idea who came up with the graphic, but it's perfect.

"Animals are my friends--and I don't eat my friends." (G.B. Shaw) Click to read the 'Union'

by Hudson on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:16:43 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Hahahahahaha... (none)

I've been saying for ages Cheney is Mr. Burn's reincarnated... finally somebody else agreed with me!!!

by bruno on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:06:35 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

All the senators who have presided as many or more (none)

times than Cheney. This list based on the data compiled by GCentrone in his diary. (Holler if you'd like a copy of the Excel 95 spreadsheet, or would be willing to host a copy)

Senator 		2001	2002	2003	2004	Total
Chaffee (Rhode Island)	7	0	1	1	9
Enzi (Wyoming)		2	0	0	3	5
Nelson (Nebraska)	2	3	0	0	5
Stabenow (Michigan)	2	3	0	0	5
Cornyn (Texas)		0	0	4	1	5
Miller (Georgia)	0	4	0	0	4
Reed (Rhode Island)	0	4	0	0	4
Clinton (New York)	2	1	0	0	3
Landrieu (Louisiana)	0	3	0	0	3
Corzine (New Jersey)	0	3	0	0	3
Cheney (VP)		0	1	1	0	2
Burns (Montana) 	1	0	0	1	2
Reid (Nevada)		1	1	0	0	2
Byrd (West Virginia)	2	0	0	0	2
Wellstone (Minnesota)	1	1	0	0	2
Edwards (North Carol.)	1	1	0	0	2
Cleland (Georgia)	0	2	0	0	2
Murkowski (Alaska)	0	0	2	0	2
Chambliss (Georgia)	0	0	1	1	2
Ensign (Nevada) 	0	0	1	1	2

by Del C on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:25:53 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

reminder (none)

this is JUST TUESDAYS.

"George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do." - John Kerry, 9/20/04

by thirdparty on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:34:02 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Love the chart (none)

Love the chart. Can someone compile it for ALL DAYS please? I wish to spread the meme..

by elfling on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:31:25 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

I'll be happy to convert a text list into an Excel (none)

table if someone provides me with a list as good as GCentrone's or the contributors to this diary.
(GCentrone is slightly better as he includes which state the president of the day is from: even better would be a note to say what party they are)

by Del C on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 02:45:09 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Priceless (none)

Here's a meme we need to spread:
"HILLARY CLINTON has presided over the Senate on more Tuesdays than Dick Cheney. How's that for slacking off??"
It'll drive the freepers--and most of the SCLM--absolutely batty.

by emptywheel on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:51:44 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
asdf (none)

This list appears to only be for 2 years. There are two more years worth of people presiding over the senate.

Kerry/Edwards 2004!

by antibush on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:55:26 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know how you get that (none)

The table shows a column each for the years 2001 to 2004, and a final column for the total of all four years.
The senators in the table are all, and only, those who presided at least twice in the last four years of Tuesdays, and who are not Stevens.
I'm annoyed to see that, despite having gone to the trouble of surrounding the table with PRE tags and checking that everything lined up on my display, the numbers are not all lined up on other displays. Damn Scoop, or Microsoft, or somebody.

by Del C on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 02:49:39 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

List is not accurate... (none)

Just by glancing at the lists above I can see Ted Stevens presided over the senate at least a dozen, if not more, times. He's not even on that list!

In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

by Asak on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 04:30:00 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

On Tuesdays? (none)

The list is the Tuesdays that Cheney mentioned as being when he does "his duty" as Senate President.

cheers,
Mitch Gore
No one will change America for you. You must work to make it happen.

by Lestatdelc on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 05:07:48 PM PDT

[ Parent ]
Sorry, you're right (none)

I should have said I deliberately excluded Stevens as pro tempore president, so it appears that Chaffee has the most slots. I also excluded everyone who presided only once. Apart from those two exceptions, the table has everyone.

by Del C on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 02:41:22 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Senator Leahy (3.92)

Made a good point last night when he said that Vice President Cheney only met with the Republican Caucus of the Senate when he came to Capitol Hill. As a result, Democrats do not see the Vice President when he swoops in for this meeting. The motorcade arrives, Vice President Cheney meets with the chosen, and leaves. As you have shown, Vice President Cheney does not sit around chairing the Senate on Tuesdays.
Others have pointed out that on the six occasions when Vice President Cheney was present to cast a tie-breaking vote, Senator Edwards was present and voting on all six occasions.

by eafredel on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:20:08 AM PDT

Promote to front page???? (4.00)

I think this deserves to be an item on the front page. Here is the actual quote from Cheney:

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.
It's clear that this pales in comparison to anything Gore said about Jamie Lee Witt or the union label lullaby. And the press will skewer him because hypocrisy (accuses Edwards of non-attendence, didn't attend himself) trumps he-said/she said. *Promote to front page please!!!**

by paperbag on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:05:00 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
missed opportunity (4.00)

It's too bad that Edwards didn't come back with "As Senator Leahy can attest, we know what happens when you encounter a Democrat when you are in the Senate, so perhaps it is for the best that we didn't meet more often."

by J mid on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:27:08 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Not all that effective... (none)

The American public is supremely ignorant and would not know what Edwards was talking about. Undecided voters would be even more clueless (if you're still undecided at this point you must have your head in the sand).

In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

by Asak on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 04:31:42 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

country club (4.00)

It is my contention that when Cheney was sorrowing over the partisan division that Edwards could have said something about how the repubs made it that way with their exclusiveness, divisiveness, secretiveness, and greedyness.

Grandma Jo

by glitterscale on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:39:13 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
It Would Be An Absolute Deal Maker If... (3.50)

John Kerry at some critical point of the next debate to remark to Pres.Bush... Mr. President I must make a public appeal that you chastise VP Cheney for his abhorrent public lie and character assination of John Edwards Senate attendance... when in-fact my checking of congressional records show that Mr Edwards presided over the Senate as many times over the past 4-years as the VP. (might even comment that he also lied about not meeting John Edwards before the night of the debate when public records show them meeting several times prior).
Most of the public watching the next debate do not know what we know and the worst could happen is BC04 will attempt retaliation following debate.

by kalihikane on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:02:01 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
Know what else?? (none)

An office friend made the observation that while Cheney was up there lying, he was facing dead center Senator Leahy, the one he told to eff himself.

One-fifth of the people are against everything all the time.--Bobby Kennedy

by blksista on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:08:09 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

This is just 2001 (4.00)

Here is the link for 2004
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/04crpgs.html
In the Senate if the Vice President isn't present they appoint an Acting President. It is the first order of business. Just go to the Tuesday and then see who is the acting president. Its never Cheney.

George W. Bush makes Reagan look smart, Nixon look honest, and his dad look coherent.

by Dave the pro on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:20:32 AM PDT

Here is 2003 (4.00)

http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/03crpgs.html

George W. Bush makes Reagan look smart, Nixon look honest, and his dad look coherent.

by Dave the pro on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:21:46 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Here is 2002 (4.00)

http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/02crpgs.html

George W. Bush makes Reagan look smart, Nixon look honest, and his dad look coherent.

by Dave the pro on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:22:47 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

I'll do 2003 (none)

by paperbag on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:12:53 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

2003--- (4.00)

Jan 7    *Cheney*
Jan 14    Stevens
Jan 22    Stevens
Jan 28    Stevens
Feb 4    Stevens
Feb 11    Stevens
Feb 25    Stevens
Mar 4    Stevens
Mar 11    Stevens
Mar 18    Stevens
Mar 25    Stevens
Apr 1    Stevens
Apr 8    Stevens
Apr 29    Stevens
May 6    Talent
May 13    Ensign
May 20    Alexander
June 3    Stevens
June 10    Stevens
June 18    Murkowski
June 24    Coleman
July 8    Stevens
July 15    Stevens
July 22    Chaffee
July 29    Stevens
Sept 2    Stevens
Sept 9    Stevens
Sept 16    Stevens
Sept 23    Stevens
Sept 30     Sununu
Oct 21    Stevens
Oct 28    Stevens
Nov 4    Stevens
Nov 11    Warner
Nov 18    Stevens
Dec 9    Stevens

by paperbag on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:40:06 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Does it look like (none)

...for whatever reason, Democrats stopped presiding after the midterm elections???

by paperbag on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:41:16 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

it looks like (none)

The President pro tempore gets to appoint an Acting President of the Senate in the event that the VP isn't there.
when the Dems were the majority, only Democrats were presiding, and when the GOP won the majority, only Republicans were.

"George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do." - John Kerry, 9/20/04

by thirdparty on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:45:55 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Duh-- (none)

How stupid of me. Of course, that says a lot about how long ago and far away it seems that we had control of the Senate...

by paperbag on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:52:11 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

yep cuz the Party of Darth (none)

took control

"...watch parking meters"

by willyr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:46:43 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Cheney HAD to be there on the 7th. (4.00)

That was the opening day of that session, and Cheney had to swear in the senators (which is where the video of Edwards Cheney & Elizabeth/Bob Dole is from.)

The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled. - Plutarch

by El Payo on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:17:42 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

same with his other appearance (none)

he HAD to be there in order to swear in Berkley to fill out Wellstone's term.

"George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do." - John Kerry, 9/20/04

by thirdparty on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:23:55 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

So, of the TWO DAYS he was in the Senate ... (4.00)

he was photographed with Edwards during one of them?
Seems to me that would be a significant, memorable event ...

CTHULHU ENDORSES KERRY
"Bush too evil even for me", Great Old One says

by Jon Meltzer on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:28:46 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Except that the White House scrubbed the photos (4.00)

Before the debate, knowing what lies, err, points, Cheney was going to make. Search the whitehouse.gov site for all photos from January 7 and 8, 2003. Try to click on the thumbnail of Cheney swearing in the new senators. You will get an error message. However all the other links to photos work just fine.
This press release http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/images/20030107_congressswearingin--401v.html is also missing.

by PitterPatter on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:51:28 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

I was able to.. (none)

Get to that image another way..I think I searched for "photos January 7 8" and one of the results was this page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/images/20030107_congressswearingin--600v.html
which has the image...so if they're scrubbing the page, they either aren't done yet or missed something.

by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:00:39 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Now scrubbed. (none)

No trace of Edwards at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/images/20030107_congressswearingin--600v.html

"Words and excuses meet incompetence, chaos and death. That's what this election is about."
~~ Josh Marshall

by Ddeele on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 05:11:24 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Never there? (none)

I don't think the picture we're looking for was ever there...
Google's thumbnail image cache doesn't come up with anything other than the current image of the two Senators Dole with Cheney and Mrs. Edwards' Bible.
Was there actually a picture of Edwards and Cheney on the White House site?

by Phoenix Rising on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 12:08:31 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks (none)

Thanks paperbag! You know the funny thing is that when I was a kid my dad took me to watch a session of the Senate and Walter Mondale actually did preside that day.

George W. Bush makes Reagan look smart, Nixon look honest, and his dad look coherent.

by Dave the pro on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:19:17 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

I'm going to meet Mondale (none)

at an event tonight. Want me to ask him if he remembers you? ;)

The country we carry in our hearts is waiting. - Bruce Springsteen

by kaelamantis on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:02:27 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

LOL (none)

Yeah, tell him I was the 8 year old about 10 rows up in the public galley.

George W. Bush makes Reagan look smart, Nixon look honest, and his dad look coherent.

by Dave the pro on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:44:55 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

First half of 2002 (4.00)

1/29-Nelson, (NE)
2/5- Kohl (WI)
2/12- Stabenow (MI)
2/26- Landrieu (LA
3/5- Edwards!!!
3/12- Landrieu
4/9- Cleland (GA)
4/16- Jack Reed (RI)
4/23- Wellstone (RIP)
4/30- Nelson (NE)
5/7- Zell Miller (no comment)
5/14- Cleland
5/21- Nelson (NE)
6/4- Durbin (IL)
6/11- Corzine (NJ)
6/18- Dayton (MN)
6/25- Landrieu

"...watch parking meters"

by willyr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:20:12 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

all of 2002 (4.00)

Tue 1/29 - Nelson
Tue 2/5 - Kohl
Tue 2/12 - Stabenow
Tue 2/26 - Landrieu
Tue 3/5 - Edwards
Tue 3/12 - Landrieu
Tue 3/19 - Miller
Tue 4/9 - Cleland
Tue 4/16 - Reed
Tue 4/23 - Wellstone
Tue 4/30 - Nelson
Tue 5/7 - Miller
Tue 5/14 - Cleland
Tue 5/21 - Nelson
Tue 6/4 - Durbin
Tue 6/11 - Corzine
Tue 6/18 - Dayton
Tue 6/25 - Landrieu
Tue 7/9 - Reed
Tue 7/16 - Corzine
Tue 7/23 - Reed
Tue 7/30 - Clinton
Tue 9/3 - Reed
Tue 9/10 - Corzine
Tue 9/17 - Reid
Tue 9/24 - Stabenow
Tue 10/1 - Miller
Tue 10/8 - Miller
Tue 10/15 - Reid
Tue 11/12 - CHENEY! -- WE HAVE A WINNER!
Tue 11/19 - Barkley (MN)

"George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do." - John Kerry, 9/20/04

by thirdparty on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:30:09 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

I'm a betting girl (none)

Was that by any chance the day he broke the tie and voted to make all of his dividend income tax free??

by payingattentionandappalled on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:32:56 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
and to be fair (none)

It appears the only reason Cheney was there that day was to perform his constitutional duties in appointing Dean Barkeley (the guy Ventura appointed to Wellstone's seat) for the lame duck session.

"George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do." - John Kerry, 9/20/04

by thirdparty on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:33:43 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
good work (none)

n/t

"...watch parking meters"

by willyr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:35:54 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
Thanks (none)

Thanks for doing this.

George W. Bush makes Reagan look smart, Nixon look honest, and his dad look coherent.

by Dave the pro on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:23:57 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

no problem (none)

if it makes the mainstream media, it's all worth it.

"George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do." - John Kerry, 9/20/04

by thirdparty on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:34:58 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Is anyone checking the other years? (none)

Should we have a division of labor?
I think this is perfect--and poetic justic for Cheney to be Gored. Remember "Get out of Cheney's house"?

by paperbag on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:54:17 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

I will update the diary (3.83)

If people do this. I only did one year because I am at work.

George W. Bush makes Reagan look smart, Nixon look honest, and his dad look coherent.

by Dave the pro on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:02:15 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
i'll take 2002 n/t (none)

"George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do." - John Kerry, 9/20/04

by thirdparty on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:05:53 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
I'll do 2003 (none)

by paperbag on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:13:20 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
asdf (none)

Put me down for 2004.

Kerry/Edwards 2004!

by antibush on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:21:53 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

2004 Tuesdays (4.00)

I may be doing this wrong, as on many days, the minutes say that the meeting was called to order by President (pro tempore) Stevens. Alas, no mention of Cheney.
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

Kerry/Edwards 2004!

by antibush on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:54:32 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

that would be CAT Stevens (none)

p.s. you did it right.
good work

"...watch parking meters"

by willyr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:58:51 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
OK That's the Last One (none)

If my tallies are correct
Cheney has presided once in 2002 and once in 2003 for a total of two times
and
Edwards has presided once in 2001 and once in 2002 for a total of two times.
What a joke and yes this diary needs to be emailed to the media.

by payingattentionandappalled on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:01:33 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
Thanks (none)

Thanks for doing this.

George W. Bush makes Reagan look smart, Nixon look honest, and his dad look coherent.

by Dave the pro on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:24:33 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

asdf (none)

No problem. :-)

Kerry/Edwards 2004!

by antibush on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:53:27 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Anyone for 2004? (none)

by paperbag on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:44:33 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

2004 (none)

Stevens
Enzi
Stevens
Stevens
Stevens
Hagel
Stevens
Ensign
Cornyn
Stevens
Every Tuesday in 2004 in chron. order (sorry no dates)
Chambliss
Stevens
Stevens
Stevens
Hutchison
Stevens
Allard
Burns
Stevens
Enzi
Stevens
Chafee
Enzi
Stevens
Stevens

by jimbo2d2 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:12:51 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Format fixed (none)

Stevens
Enzi
Stevens
Stevens
Stevens
Hagel
Stevens
Ensign
Cornyn
Stevens
Chambliss
Stevens
Stevens
Stevens
Hutchison
Stevens
Allard
Burns
Stevens
Enzi
Stevens
Chafee
Enzi
Stevens
Stevens

by jimbo2d2 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:13:39 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

I HAVE LOVE IN MY HEART (none)

for all of you. I was trying to tell my coworker just how cool the blogs are... and this is the killer. instant smackdown, wow..loving it. i wish i had the time (at work) right now to help out.

by marcusiam on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:20:55 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

"Tuesdays with Cheney" (none)

reminds me of a book...
Awesome work Dave

"...watch parking meters"

by willyr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:24:45 AM PDT

Tuesdays without Cheney (4.00)

"The entire world is a very narrow bridge, and the main thing is not to be afraid at all" Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav

by Patch in Bklyn on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:46:26 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
Wasn't that a film? (none)

with Jack Lemmon? IIRC it was Morty or something. Very moving film.

'It's hard work. Really hard work. And ...err... yeah... it's hard work, you know...'

by Euroliberal on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:29:12 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Tuesdays With Morrie, but check out (4.00)

the rest of the title. A bit ironic, don't ya think?
Amazon
Tuesdays with Morrie: An Old Man, a Young Man, and Life's Greatest Lesson

"...watch parking meters"

by willyr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:44:19 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
Really? (none)

Must not have been that moving if you couldn't remember the name... ;-b (j/k)

"Flip-flopping is a Conservative insult meaning 'thinks about the issues.'"

by Bob in Atlanta on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:33:38 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

It's an age thing (none)

that's why I favor stem-cell research :o)

'It's hard work. Really hard work. And ...err... yeah... it's hard work, you know...'

by Euroliberal on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 02:03:00 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

great work (none)

Again a trivial question -- but excellent red meat for our sides.
Can it really be true though that he's so seldom been in the senate? John Edwards should talk about that.

by mishar on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:33:03 AM PDT

sure it's true (4.00)

in reality Vice Presidents are almost never there. They only really have to preside when they may have to break a tie vote.
The point isn't that Cheney wasn't "on the job", but that he's intentionally misleading people about how much he was there---while trying to slam Edwards over attendance.
Proving that Cheney wasn't even there on "most Tuesdays" is all the more damning about his willingness to lie, even over such a small matter.

"...watch parking meters"

by willyr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:40:54 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
It probably is true... (none)

Running for President takes so much time that you would miss most votes in the Senate or House. I recall that Gephardt had missed something like 90% of House votes last year running in the primaries. His opponents made much of the votes he had been absent for. Same with Kerry and Edwards. You can't be in two places at once and you can't vote by proxy. So...
If he was there for every vote where there was a tie or his presence would have changed the outcome in favor of the Democrats, I'm ok with a high rate of absenteeism. Running for President is a decent excuse.

Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it - Chinese proverb?

by Jaime Schulte on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:50:25 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry... misread your statement (none)

I thought you ment John Edwards should talk about why HE hasn't been in the senate. My bad.
He should definately talk about Cheney swooping in for lunch with the chosen few and leaving the running of the senate to others.

Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it - Chinese proverb?

by Jaime Schulte on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:51:38 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

yes (none)

I was referring to Cheney. I'm always freshly amazed at his capacity to lie outright!

by mishar on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:03:18 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
Attendance (none)

I was concerned about Edwards' not defending or explaining his attendance record, like saying, "well, I was sort of busy running for President, kind of like President Bush has been". But it looks bad for him to be on the defensive like this, and I really feel like Kerry and Edwards have both decided to pick and choose their battles. They can explain or defend their attendance records later, in passing perhaps, but to jump back and look defensive is worse than just letting it go and leaving people to wonder if their was even anything to the charge. Particularly if this "serial liar" meme about Cheney is getting any traction -- as it seems to be -- because now whatever Cheney says doesn't even necessarily need to be rebutted; it just sounds suspect, and K&E can just move on to their other planned attacks.
They know what hits they can take and what they can't; what's more important is knowing what hits Bush & Cheney can't take, and making sure to focus on that. Part of being on the offensive is that you leave your defenses down, so I don't mind that Edwards took some flack last night if it meant he was able to look directly at the camera and say, "there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11, PERIOD". Let the GOP bastards try to get a band-aid over that, and screw this piddling around with attendance records. Good job, Johns!

by Jason Bergman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:52:43 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Give Edwards a break (none)

You can only debunk so many lies in a 90 second rebutall. Debunking lies, unfortunately, takes longer than telling them. He was more interested in defending John Kerry than himself personally --- he tended to tackle the bigger issues of the Kerry/Edwards platform or play sheilding to John Kerry than he did to himself.
I'm not sure that wasn't smart. Edwards had favorables going in that were double Cheney's --- he had the highest favorables and the lowest unfavorables of the four men; Cheney had the lowest favorables and the highest unfavorables.
For Cheney to do damage, people watching (who weren't already drinking the Kool Aid) had to believe him. Edwards wasn't trying to discredit Cheney; he was trying to capitalize on the discrediting that had been done.
Ally

"I know there's a saying about not changing horses midstream, but look, this horse has no legs, and it has no friends." -- Vanessa Kerry

by ally on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:22:35 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

When the evidence to (none)

refute Cheney's claim is so stark, Edwards' failure to respond, unfortunately, confirms some of Cheney's charge. Edwards wasn't there either or at least not often enough to know that Cheney was also awol.

by Marie on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:49:34 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Really? (none)

Then how did Edwards manage to accumulate a 95% voting attendance record in his first five years in the Senate, 99.4% in his first four?

by rppa on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:59:44 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Don't know -- but I do (4.00)

find it odd that Edwards didn't reply with something like, "That's a strange claim -- I'm there almost every Tuesday and it's hard to recall a time when you were presiding."

by Marie on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:12:18 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

C-Span (none)

Has shown that almost noone is on the Senate floor at any particular time. The times when more than a handful of Senators are on the floor occur when votes are being taken. During the votes, the Senators cast their ballots, engage in casual conversation on the floor, and then leave. I would be hard pressed to tell you who chaired the Senate during any particular debate that I have watched since the chair just tends to drone on in a monotone. I am actually surprised at how good Senator Edwards' voting record is during his Senate term.

by eafredel on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:29:38 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
Too many lies (none)

I think Edwards did the only thing he could have. Cheney packed so many lies into every single response he gave, there was no way to give a substantive response to every one. In this case, Edwards decided instead to respond to lies about his own record with truth about Cheney's. I think that's a decent use of the 90 seconds.
What's that old quote (from Adlai Stevenson I believe)? "If the Republicans promise to stop lying about us, we promise to stop telling the truth about them."

by rppa on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:32:36 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
he was probably caught off guard... (none)

it was a pretty vicious comment. JE may have thought it was a lie but needed to check the facts before responding. In the end I think it is better that he didn't fire back.
Now the comment is all on Cheney, he is the one who is taking the heat for the lie. The facts speak for themselves and there's no way for the SCLM to cover for Cheney with the usual "he said/she said" bullshit, i.e. "well, John Edwards implied that Dick Cheney was never there on Tuesdays but in fact he was there on one Tuesday. So they were both inaccurate, they cancel each other out and it's a default victory for Cheney because he's meaner."

"The military don't start wars. Politicians start wars." - William Westmoreland Jr

by pacific city on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:35:26 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

OT "MFSO" (none)

Pacific City
I wrote this diary today about Military Families Speak Out. Are you affiliated with them?

by Mike S on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:18:16 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

I've corresponded with the folks from MFSO... (none)

but my activities have been with a small group of Oregon military families and veterans (some of whom are also members of MFSO).
I very much support what MFSO is doing. Most of their activities are in Washington D.C. and I'm concentrating my activities here in Oregon, where folks really need to hear the truth about the Iraq war.
We've lost many Oregon National Guard soldiers but very few family members are willing to speak out. I'm lucky in that my husband supports me entirely.
Thanks for your diary. Those stories are heartbreaking. I can't begin to imagine what it's like for those families who've lost loved ones in Iraq--their strength is incredible. We all try to save the world a little bit at a time but they are doing so much.

"The military don't start wars. Politicians start wars." - William Westmoreland Jr

by pacific city on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:36:37 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

I'm proud (none)

to converse with you. What you do is no small thing. You put much more on the line than I and that is huge.

by Mike S on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:43:39 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

that's kind... (none)

but really I'm not doing anything more important than anyone else here. I use my voice as a military spouse to deliver the same message we are all working to deliver: Bush is an incompetent leader who must be defeated. And frankly, I'll use any tool I have to help Kerry/Edwards get elected on November 2nd.
I met Howard Dean last week (he was in Oregon) and he told me that one thing he has learned about Kerry is that he cares more about the troops than just about anything else, because he's been there in combat. I told Dean that I believed him, that Kerry does care deeply about the troops and that I believe having Kerry in office will make our troops safer.

"The military don't start wars. Politicians start wars." - William Westmoreland Jr

by pacific city on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:01:33 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

recent MFSO event in DC (none)

a bit OT, but yes, I was at an event they sponsored this past Saturday, we walked over 100 coffins from Arlington Cemetery to the White House, where we placed them with 900+/- more to make 1000. It was very powerful and quite a sight to see the 1000 coffins resting on the ellipse. My seven year old son and his eight year old friend walked the entire way carrying a coffin of their own, and were, needless to say, very much the object of media attention during the march. He must have been photographed a good 35-40 times.
They are doing amazing work, it was quite an honor to participate in one of their events.

In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

by a gilas girl on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:18:01 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

I'm only thought it was odd (4.00)

that Edwards couldn't challenge it based on his own experience. If someone said to any of us that they were in the office most Tuesdays and never saw us, if I had been there most of the time, I wouldn't need to check on the veracity of the speaker's claim to have been there, but would use my experience to refute the claim that I hadn't been present. (and I had not considered with my first comment that Edwards had decided never to go "off script" in the debate - and a case can be made for and against that decision.)

by Marie on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:20:09 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

I just don't think it's important... (none)

...that he didn't respond.
Just my opinion but I think this is Cheney's screw-up not John Edwards'. Edwards did right by not getting bogged down in every single petty attack by VP Cheney. He stayed on message and kept hitting on the issues important to voters (economy, health care, Iraq) while largely avoiding the petty Washington insider crap that BC04 and the pundits think is important.

"The military don't start wars. Politicians start wars." - William Westmoreland Jr

by pacific city on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:42:28 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know Marie: (none)

as it turned out it was simply better to let it lie then have the post-debate discussion focus on Cheney's lie. Had Edwards taken it up, then there'd be less space for this victory in the media spin side; it would have muddied it up so much. Now its far cleaner.
I don't know if that outcome was by design or happenstance on Edwards' part, but its playing much more elegantly that Edwards did let it lie last night and now in the light of day its become a much bigger monster for Cheney.

In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

by a gilas girl on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:09:14 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Tough call (none)

They got lucky -- pictures of Cheney/Edwards are more powerful than anything anyone could say. Without the pictures, Edwards' would have lost this and possibly lost it big.

by Marie on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:17:04 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Without a doubt (none)

they got lucky, but such things are also part of the game.

In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

by a gilas girl on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 07:02:18 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Edwards played it smart. (none)

Had he said something, it would have provided Cheney the opportunity to backtrack of obfuscate. Instead, he played it smart, letting Cheney make the short-term hit and the receive the long-term pounding.

by Monstertron on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 02:11:59 PM PDT

[ Parent ]
thats because (none)

Edwards has class. Something you don't see alot nowadays.

by cnflght on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:53:05 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Don't misunderstand me, (none)

I've always thought that Edwards is a decent man. But we're all merely speculating here, and I don't care how much class a person has, in a debate where someone lands a solid punch and a component of it is a misrepresenation of your past record, it is usually considered appropriate to correct that misrepresentation. Such as "I have a 94% attendance record on Senate votes; so, I'm sure that I could have missed very many Tuesdays." Let's not put these guys on undeserved pedestals. As this one has worked out, Cheney's claim of never having met Edwards is the only one that is getting play. That was lucky for Edwards, but IMO he did fail to demonstrate an ability to think quickly on his feet and take the sting out of the second component to Cheney's statement.

by Marie on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 12:14:56 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Should add that I also (4.00)

think that most voters would be more interested to learn that Cheney's claim of presiding on Tuesdays is not true than puzzling out why Edwards didn't respond.

by Marie on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:14:34 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Lies (none)

There is no time limit for exposing the lies.

by 88kathy on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:19:56 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

True -- but the (none)

size of the audience and attention of them will vary greatly. The BushCo lies and evil agenda have been being fully documented for years and have trouble breaking out to the general public. The audience for the debates is larger than the viewers when the reports on the debates are factored in. The scripts get written within a couple of hours after the debate and change little after that because people then lose interest and pay little attention to further follow-up.

by Marie on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:26:36 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

You Gotta Think (none)

that it must be QUITE difficult to prepare for ALL possible Cheney lies. Clearly the facts mean nothing, so Edwards cant be expected to prepare for ALL contingencies. Why would he have thought that Cheney would drop a lie about something as ridiculous as this? At least the pieces are being put together rapidly and publicly in the aftermath.

by RNinNC on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:35:22 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Of course he wasn't (4.00)

prepared for that. Neither of them had advance copies of the questions and their opponents debate prep book. That's why we still call them debates.
If I have any complaint about Edwards' performance, and I do think he did very well and Cheney was mostly terrible, is that he was too eager to make sure he recited the complete text of all of his talking points. Why too frequently he continued to address a prior question/issue before answering the current one. And even though he did it well, it lacked a full quality of being in the here and now. As if he had to stick to the preapproved and rehearsed lines.
Now there is a high risk in going "off script" as Bush discovered last week when he said, "Of course I know that OBL attacked us..." Defensive, awkward and frankly it made him look dumb. But the up side in doing so is that lines that look spontaneous are given more play than those that appear canned. Maybe this isn't Edwards forte, in which case it was a good call to let this stinging barb go unchallenged. But doing so leaves an impression and one of several conclusions for the audience to draw, none of them good.

by Marie on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:12:52 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

I Do Agree (none)

that Edwards had trouble letting go of the previous question, that he was trying to stick a little too close to his prepared statements.
As far as being prepared, I meant that Edwards cant be expected to have been prepared for all of Cheney's lies, NOT for the Ifill questions. Cheney throws up so many casual, unexpected lies that it's impossible to be ready for each of them. That's why WE are here, to pick Cheney's words apart afterward with the unquestionable truth, then email, email, email.

by RNinNC on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:41:07 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Absolutely agree (4.00)

that nobody can prepare for all the lies someone like Cheney spews. But maybe I'm too idealistic or naive to expect the candidates to be more than their debate rehearsals. When experience, skill, body of knowledge are left in some box outside the debate room, I think we all lose.
GWB betrayed that he's absolutely clueless and not a leader that morning he sat in a classroom upon learning of the second plane hitting the WTC on 9/11. People can rationalize that behavior all they want, but the bottom line is that no normal person that day engaged in a non-essential activity, sat placidly continuing when told the planes had flown into the WTC. Odd that more people aren't outraged by that -- never applying a "prudent man" test.
Cheney's argument had two elements: 1) I was there on Tuesdays 2) you were not there on Tuesdays. It was only the second that IMHO Edwards would have been wise to correct.

by Marie on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:04:40 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Edwards Shouldve Shot that Down (4.00)

Youre right, no preparation needed to recognize that one as a lie and he didnt say anything. Point missed. Ive been emailing local media AND CNN over the course of the day as each point of contention comes to light in the blog-world.
One big victory I say we should take credit for is how the media is showing the internals of the ABC poll showing Cheney won. Ive not seen it mentioned this afternoon without the fact that it was 38-31 Repub, so the 45-38 Cheney 'victory' is hollow. Love to see this type of thing exposed right at the source of previous lies and spin. This is what we are accomplishing here. LOVE IT!

by RNinNC on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:15:07 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Great job!! (none)

great work...this should get publicized. The friggin hypocrisy of these people..

by antigonos on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:36:22 AM PDT
Small beans, but (4.00)

Cheney's little lie about never having met Edwards is really small beans compared the the whopping lies Cheney and this administration told about critical issues.
However, if Cheney is proven not to have even shown up for most of the Tuesday Senate sessions that he claimed to have presided over, link this with the "never met Edwards" lie and you've just created a compelling argument that Cheney just makes sh*t up when its convenient.
If you lie about the little things, how can we trust you with the big ones?

by s0ck on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:39:19 AM PDT

Exactly. Plus... (none)

It's usually the small beans that carries the most weight with the public - or at least that vast swath of the public that doesn't pay close and regular attention. There's no nuance to the small beans, no background to know, no context. It's a thought bullet.

by rjt on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:40:36 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Plus (none)

it also nullifies that "Senator Gone" bit. After all one of the few jobs that the Constitution spells out for the VP is to preside over the Senate: he's been there twice since he was elected to the position? Seems like he hasn't only forgotten the junior Senator from NC, he's forgotten the entire frigging institution of the Senate.

In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

by a gilas girl on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:33:14 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

It is The Lie (none)

that is an entree for discussion of all the other lies. It couldn't have been set up for our side any better. The little lie exposes all the others.
Mark

Al Weed for Virginia's 5th Congressional District

by Dems2004 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:10:45 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

So Cheney never <met> Edwards before (4.00)

because he was never there.
Does that sound like another one of Cheney's little fibs?
Better start mailing this diary to the press, folks.

by zic on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:48:28 AM PDT

He was there, but not presiding (none)

As Senator Leahy said, Cheney drops by to meet with Republican senators only. He doesn't preside, he probably doesn't even go into the well of the Senate. He just has lunch with his Republican cronies.

by existenz on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:15:34 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
and one of the two days he was there ... (none)

he was photographed with Edwards?

CTHULHU ENDORSES KERRY
"Bush too evil even for me", Great Old One says

by Jon Meltzer on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:30:00 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

You ARE a pro, Dave (4.00)

Thanks for this work. Cheney's carcass should be picked clean by Friday, at which time, Kerry can use his bones to pick the Bush flesh out of his teeth.

There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America. - Bill Clinton

by bumblebums on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:50:21 AM PDT

Yuck... thanks for the image :-) (none)

Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it - Chinese proverb?

by Jaime Schulte on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:54:12 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah, (none)

ewww. Creeped myself out too.

There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America. - Bill Clinton

by bumblebums on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:55:41 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Where's 2002, 2003 and 2004? (none)

We need all 4 years to really kill these guys on this.

by empath on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:00:56 AM PDT

I will update diary (4.00)

If someone posts it. I'll be able to work on it more later today if no one can get to it. But I think someone will.

George W. Bush makes Reagan look smart, Nixon look honest, and his dad look coherent.

by Dave the pro on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:03:04 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

i'll take 2002 n/t (none)

"George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do." - John Kerry, 9/20/04

by thirdparty on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:05:26 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

do the 2nd half of 2002. I did the first (none)

upthread

"...watch parking meters"

by willyr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:21:54 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

I thought (none)

Patrick Leahy D Senator from VT had the best response to matthews, about how when Cheney did show up , unlike all previous VP's, Cheney would never meet with any dems or dem leadership, he would only meet with the republicans.

moonfish design

by mickey on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:05:10 AM PDT

hmmm (none)

..but he's 'disappointed' that there was a partisan split.

by Eric in Dublin on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:01:37 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Check out Edwards record (4.00)

here

So far this year, Edwards has missed 69 votes out of 321, or about 21 percent, spokesman Michael Briggs said.
'I try to look at the votes and see what looks like it's important not only for North Carolina but also the country, and try to be there for those votes,' Edwards said.[...]
Before this year, Edwards missed just seven votes out of 1,307 in his first four years in office, Briggs said. During his five years in the Senate, Edwards voted 1,551 times out of 1,626 roll-call votes, Briggs said, or 95.4 percent.

by timerigger on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:05:44 AM PDT

Cheney (none)

Where can one find out the votes made / missed by Cheney during his time in Congress?

by SleepyG on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:25:21 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
That strikes me (none)

as a pretty good attendence record. Can we make hay of this?

Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. -- Milan Kundera

by Dale on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:47:29 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
i emailed the link to (none)

hardball, countdown, meet the press and josh marshall.
i'd already sent bad email to hardball cuz i was so annoyed at tweety tonight. but i really liked what olbermann said. his #5 story was "Cheney lied" and he gave 5 examples of when Cheney and Edwards met including the one at Libby Dole's swearing in. so i sent him a thank you email.

why would you vote for demonstrated incompetence, when you could vote for the probability of competence?

by lizzerd on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 05:31:57 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

This is nice work, too. (none)

A lot of Kossacks are doing good debunking work this morning, and I'd like to point out this diary on Cheney's Subchapter S taxation comments as particularly worthy as well.
I invite you to take a look and recommend it, if you agree.

by David Waldman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:18:39 AM PDT

I agree! (none)

This diary should be recommended, and front-paged, and forwarded to all the beak-flapping
media parrots, Andrea Mitchell first among them.
To entice you: Cheney dissed one of Bush's favorite talking points. This must be noticed.

by INMINYMA on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:20:41 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

It seemed too prepared... (none)

Was it just me or did Cheney's comment seem more like a prepared "zinger" than an off-the-cuff kind of remark?
If so, it's yet another example of how little concerned with the truth this administration can be when they can have an opportunity to satisfy their freepers and get a hit on Kerry/Edwards. This should probably be played up to show that Cheney can't even tell the truth in little things... let alone the big events that shape this country.
Bastards...

by jedc on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:26:05 AM PDT

Prepared lies (none)

I used to think that lies like Cheney's were gaffes, things politicians say off the cuff and later go back and check and find out oops, I overstated or said it awkwardly. Gore and Dean come to mind as having that problem.
However, you are right that these sound like rehearsed lines, which means they are intentional lies. THe best example of that is the STATE OF THE UNION speech, the most important address of the year for the President of the United States, and he used intelligence he knew had been discredited by his own Administration in hyping the case for war.
Bush-Cheney make Dick Nixon look like a Boy Scout.

by Steve G on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:39:51 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

A Small Lie is Better for the Media (4.00)

... and preferably with pictures, too (as we have with this attendance story). Cheney's lie that he never met Edwards is easy to digest, easy to explain, and it very plainly SHOWS HIM LYING. You then use the little lie and tie it to the big lies and then you question the entire character of the man. That's what wingnut radio and Fox News does every day and that's what we have to do.
I already wrote a letter to my local paper about the attendance lie (and tying it to the Saddam/9-11 lie and tying that to Cheney's character). If someone slightly less busy than me has time to boil down Cheney's Senate attendance stats to a percentage or something like that, I can send letters to other nearby papers and I'm sure others can do that too (and call in to radio shows, post comments on sites, etc.).

by Blackwaterside on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:31:03 AM PDT

what i wrote to tweety (none)

Mr Matthews-
I'm listening to you tonight discuss last night's VP debate, and you are currently discussing VP Cheney making the statement that he had never met Sen Edwards before. You have repeated this statement several times, and have just played the clip which included VP Cheney saying Edwards's hometown paper "has taken to calling you Sen Gone." One of your guests said that the statement was "sort of not true" and you talked about how Edwards should have better responded to it.
You know that Cheney and Edwards have met before, yet you somehow say that this lie is a point in Cheney's favor in the debate. I don't understand this. You said at the top of the show that the RNC had taken you to task for objectively pointing out that Cheney had repeatedly insinuated a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
The "i never met you before" and "Sen gone" statements don't approach the magnitude of the kinds of distortions, misattributions, misleading statements that have run rampant through VP Cheney's prior speeches, much less other things he said last night. However, they are simple to point out, easy to explain, and emblematic of the larger issue of this administration's tenuous relationship with the truth. You may consider yourself a political commentator, or you may consider yourself a journalist, either way, you have a duty to be objective. That does not mean dredging up an equal number of errors between the two men if there are not actually an equal number. That does not mean caving in to the RNC because they are unhappy that you have been objective about a misleading statement that Cheney said.
Regarding the other distortion in that exchange, here's what Sen Edwards hometown newspaper actually said about him:
http://www.thepilot.com/opinion/100604PilotEditorial2.html

why would you vote for demonstrated incompetence, when you could vote for the probability of competence?

by lizzerd on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 05:33:18 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

asdf (none)

Shouldn't the title of this diary be Cheney's NON-ATTENDANCE at Senate

by payingattentionandappalled on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:37:19 AM PDT
B/C '04: The AWOL ticket (4.00)

AWOL from the TANG, AWOL from the Senate, AWOL on the issues.

Live2Bhated

by kwyzkl on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:49:45 AM PDT

and AWOL from reality (4.00)

Truth and the BC '04 campaign are complete strangers.

A vote for Bush is a vote for fear.

by erik in grayslake on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:33:43 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

The Vice-President has only *two* duties. (4.00)

The Constitution specifies only two duties for the Vice-President:
(1) To succeed the president if the president is unable to serve because of incapacity or death;
(2) To preside over the Senate.
What the hell has Cheney been doing these past four years?
Man, please please please please please let this get out into the public consciousness.

Dinkzone

by osterizer on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:58:01 AM PDT

you forgot (none)

(3) Lie for the president

"...watch parking meters"

by willyr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:01:45 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry, which amendment was that? (none)

nmt.

Dinkzone

by osterizer on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:04:58 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

aoeu (none)

the 28th, it was passed by the Shadow Government.

My turtles laughter
was loud when the Yankees lost
22 to zilch

by TealVeal on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:45:13 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

President Kerry (none)

When Kerry and Edwards take office couldn't Edwards fulfill his role and ACTUALLY PRESIDE OVER THE SENATE? There must be some power in holding the chair..ruling things out of order and such. Wouldn't it be awesome to have Edwards preside over the Senate if it stays in GOP hands? Even better would be to have a Democratic Senate but it would almost be worth it to see Edwards smack down the Frists and Santorums of the world.

Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill... - Riverbend

by joejoejoe on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:14:54 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Virtually none. (4.00)

There's very little power in holding the chair in the Senate. It's considered a chore, and unless there's something major going on, it's delegated to a relatively junior Senator.
When there's a ruling to be made, the substance of it is made by the Parliamentarian and merely announced by the chair.

by David Waldman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:24:52 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

he fulfills his duties (none)

He's been doing #1 since the day Bush took office. The president is unable to serve because of incapacity... mental incapacity.

Truth is my anti-Bush.

by theantibush on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:50:58 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

duties (none)

/He's been doing #1 since the day Bush took office. /
Wow, that's one heck of a pee.

Only the dead have seen the end of war

by justme on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:39:21 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

doing #1 (none)

Like the one I almost took when I read that over... haha...

Truth is my anti-Bush.

by theantibush on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:59:30 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

What the hell has Cheney been doing these past (none)

4-years? After his "performance" last night I'm convinced he's been running (amok)with the gov't of the US in tow.

by kalihikane on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:26:25 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
And the implication in the Constitution (none)

is that he's supposed to preside over the ENTIRE Senate, not just his own party's membership there.
Just like Bush is supposed to be the President of All Americans, not just the ones who sign loyalty oaths in order to enter campaign events.
That's what I wish Edwards would have mentioned last night, especially in light of the partisanship discussions, etc.
Nothing vital, but it could have been so powerful.

In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

by a gilas girl on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:12:44 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Something must be wrong... (none)

Can it really be that Edwards has presided as often as Cheney (twice each)? Even cheney wouldn't say he is presiding "most tuesdays" if he only done so twice in four years. Right?
I mean, that is beyond evil and into demented territory.
They can't really get away with that, can they?

by beartums on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:58:53 AM PDT

the deal (4.00)

is that Cheney said "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."
He suggested that he was in the Senate most Tuesdays in his official capacity as the presiding officer. But, as he always does, he never flat-out said it. He probably was at the Capitol most Tuesdays, meeting with GOP legislators. But he certainly wasn't there in his official capacity.
Again, just like the Saddam-9/11 lies, these are subtle insinuations by juxtaposition that the press usually doesn't call him on. But they're deceptive and devious, and he needs to be called on them, as well as on the many flat-out lies that come out of his mouth.

"George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do." - John Kerry, 9/20/04

by thirdparty on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:05:02 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Who cares ... (none)
... aboute WHAT he was doing.
The fact is that he was NOT fulfilling one of the TWO parts of his job.
The points are:
1. He was absent from his job
2. Edwards performed Cheney's Senate duty as often as Cheney did.
by StevetheWeave on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:12:35 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Another point (none)

about the bald-facedness of the lie is that obviously Cheney has no compunction at blurting out the most bold falsities because he's so used to an press/public discourse environment where statements are rarely followed up and "objective" journalism is defined as "he said/he said".
Cheney's audacious lying is not just a sign of the foundation of deception upon which the entire Bush Administration has governed, or his own personal pathologies, but also an indicator of what a rotten and stinking carcass our system political journalism has become.

In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

by a gilas girl on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:27:17 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, I don't know about that. (4.00)

"I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays..."
In. In the Senate. Not in the Capitol, not in a meeting room somewhere, but in the Senate. In it. Where a "presiding officer" ought to be. Presiding. Presumably from within, as stated.
There's less wiggle room than you might think.

by David Waldman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:20:54 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
Out of interest.. (none)

What else is the Vice President supposed to do when you're "up in Senate"?
Sit at the back and take it all in?
Chill out in the gardens for a while?
Scrub the floors?
If he's at the Senate, logic would suggest that he's there to fufill his actual fucking position description - preside over the gosh darned senate!

by Craziel on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:25:18 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Cheney SAID.... (none)

"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."
He doesn't state he was 'presiding officer on Tuesdays', just that he was "in the Senate, when they're in session".
....(perhaps lurking in the hall ways?)
Very fine line I know, but typical of the kind of lies and diversionary tactics the GOP has been spinning for the last 10+ years
But this is GREAT WORK all. Keep it up and Bush WE WILL be the October Surprise!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

by badgerette on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:10:51 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Are you suggesting that (4.00)

it depends on what your definition of 'in' is?

Seek out the strongest arguments you disagree with - how else can you learn whether you're wrong?

by Carneades on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:26:31 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Up (none)

Yo, Cheney was all up in that Senate, dawg.

by FlipYrWhig on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:32:31 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
..... definition of 'in' is? (none)

YEP.. :)
Regardless... a BJ is a BJ and Cheney sure has a LOT of HOT AIR!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

by badgerette on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:37:51 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

So now we know (none)

where the undisclosed location is?

Only the dead have seen the end of war

by justme on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:42:19 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Are Tuesdays significant? (none)

Why did he use Tuesdays? Is that the traditional day, is it mandated somehow, or did he simply pull it out of his craw?

Don't be afraid to log off.

by Debby on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:01:19 AM PDT

Tuesdays are when they reconvene. (none)

Most Congressmen leave town Thursday evening and don't come back until Tuesday morning.

by David Waldman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:22:40 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

I'm sure this will surprise most people (none)

who work other days of the week too

"...watch parking meters"

by willyr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:32:54 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

ideally... (none)

They return to thier home state to work there....

by super ju on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:53:41 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
It'll certainly surprise the people... (none)

who show up at work every Tuesday.

by David Waldman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:57:09 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
Consider (none)

They may be working even if they're not in Washington. Remember, they are Senators from other states, so it's good for them to be in their states on a regular basis (or else they get a bad rap for being too Washington). If you have to fly back and forth to Alaska or Washington (let's not even talk about Hawaii), you're not going to do it for just two days.
Ally

"I know there's a saying about not changing horses midstream, but look, this horse has no legs, and it has no friends." -- Vanessa Kerry

by ally on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:16:29 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
Yeah, but (none)

we don't have to raise $100,000 a day (or whatever it is) for our re-election funds, or kiss babies at the state fair, and all that rot.

Bush/Cheney: Waffle Queens

by musing85 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:27:55 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

The Republican Caucus ... (none)

holds it's weekly meetings over lunch on Tuesdays... This is what he was doing in the Senate on those Tuesdays... Supposedly it was a case of the motorcade would pull up, he would go in for the luncheon meeting and jump in the motorcade afterwards to head off to destinations unknown...

by Tommyd on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:35:31 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you for the info! (none)

Don't be afraid to log off.

by Debby on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:32:13 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe Cheney was there... (none)

to administer the Heimlich Maneuver to Senator Chic Hecht.
Oh wait, that was Kerry. Never mind.

Kerry/Edwards '04: Evict The Resident.

by djinniya on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:21:13 AM PDT
kos! (none)

make sure to specify "on tuesdays" in the note you added to the diary.

"George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do." - John Kerry, 9/20/04

by thirdparty on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:27:21 AM PDT
Sent to fact check.org , copy to other media (4.00)

VP Cheney said in last night's debate:
"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."
While "the first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight" has been widely debunked
there are other issues with Mr. Cheney's statement.
Response:
Information from Goverment Records at http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
indicates that in the last 4 years VP Cheney has served on Tuesdays as The President of the Senate only twice.
In the event that the VP isn't there, the President pro tempore gets to appoint an Acting President of the Senate.
John Edwards has been appointed as Acting President twice in the last 4 years.
So in fact, John Edwards has served exactly the same amount of times Mr. Cheney has in this capacity.
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
2003
Jan 7 Cheney
Jan 14 Stevens
Jan 22 Stevens
Jan 28 Stevens
Feb 4 Stevens
Feb 11 Stevens
Feb 25 Stevens
Mar 4 Stevens
Mar 11 Stevens
Mar 18 Stevens
Mar 25 Stevens
Apr 1 Stevens
Apr 8 Stevens
Apr 29 Stevens
May 6 Talent
May 13 Ensign
May 20 Alexander
June 3 Stevens
June 10 Stevens
June 18 Murkowski
June 24 Coleman
July 8 Stevens
July 15 Stevens
July 22 Chaffee
July 29 Stevens
Sept 2 Stevens
Sept 9 Stevens
Sept 16 Stevens
Sept 23 Stevens
Sept 30 Sununu
Oct 21 Stevens
Oct 28 Stevens
Nov 4 Stevens
Nov 11 Warner
Nov 18 Stevens
Dec 9 Stevens
2002
Tue 1/29 - Nelson
Tue 2/5 - Kohl
Tue 2/12 - Stabenow
Tue 2/26 - Landrieu
Tue 3/5 - Edwards
Tue 3/12 - Landrieu
Tue 3/19 - Miller
Tue 4/9 - Cleland
Tue 4/16 - Reed
Tue 4/23 - Wellstone
Tue 4/30 - Nelson
Tue 5/7 - Miller
Tue 5/14 - Cleland
Tue 5/21 - Nelson
Tue 6/4 - Durbin
Tue 6/11 - Corzine
Tue 6/18 - Dayton
Tue 6/25 - Landrieu
Tue 7/9 - Reed
Tue 7/16 - Corzine
Tue 7/23 - Reed
Tue 7/30 - Clinton
Tue 9/3 - Reed
Tue 9/10 - Corzine
Tue 9/17 - Reid
Tue 9/24 - Stabenow
Tue 10/1 - Miller
Tue 10/8 - Miller
Tue 10/15 - Reid
Tue 11/12 - CHENEY
2001
January 30 - Enzi
February 6 - Chafee
February 13 - Chafee
February 27 - Allen
March 6 - Burns
March 13 - Reid
March 20 - DeWine
March 27 - Chafee
April 3 - Smith
April 24 - Chafee
May 1 - Chafee
May 8 - Chafee
May 15 - Frist
May 22 - Chafee
June 5 - Enzi
June 12 - Byrd
June 19 - Carper
June 26 - Bayh
July 10 - Nelson
July 17 - Clinton
July 24 - Byrd
July 31 - Stabenaw
September 25 - Wellstone
October 2 - Clinton
October 9 - Clinton
October 16 - Edwards
October 23- Byrd
October 30 - Bingaman
November 13 - Murray
November 27 - Jeffords
December 4 - Stabenaw
December 11 - Carnahan
December 18 - Nelson

by progressivearlingtonian on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:27:44 AM PDT

Edited Version (none)

Sorry I missed the "edited version" as I made this post!

by progressivearlingtonian on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:30:12 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
A more informative version... (none)

I'd like to see a version of this list with five columns: Date, President of Senate, Acting President of Senate, (R - yes/no), and (D - yes/no). At the bottom, tally up the entries in each column for each year.

by Jeff in NY on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:37:24 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Are (none)

we should send this to the media outlets, cuz I think it's great, another cheney lie.

by JP2 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:29:32 AM PDT
I'm surprised (none)

by how many times Chafee has presided over the Senate.
God, I hope that man defects.

Send! John! KERRY!!!!!!!!!!!

by OxyLiberal on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:30:22 AM PDT
asdf (4.00)

serious question: why would cheney lie about this stuff if they're so easily debunked? i mean, he has to know he was wrong with the 'i never met john edwards' meme, and the 'i never alluded to iraq/9/11,' etc.
from a political perspective, it's idiotic, because he has to know job one of the media the day after is to fact check and pull out and expose the bullshit (at least in theory)...
so he must be pathological, there's no other explanation for it.

by wastelandusa on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:31:30 AM PDT

Perhaps... (none)

... he's gotten used to the fact that the majority of the media DOESN'T fact-check or does a lousy job of it. I don't think they've (meaning ChimpCo) fully understood or grasped the sheer power and determination of the liberal blogosphere. Because man, we are on the case.

"Flip-flopping is a Conservative insult meaning 'thinks about the issues.'"

by Bob in Atlanta on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:43:05 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
out of touch (none)

I have to believe that it's part and parcel with the entire administration's stuck-in-the-past mindset.
Before the advent of channel saturation through cable and this here internet thing people would have heard the sound bite, either as it was coughed up or on the evening news, then gotten some cursory follow up in that same news cycle, and then the whole thing would sink back below the surface.
Now, we've got a whole bunch of people fact checking every utterance and any inaccuracy is noted and shouted from the rooftops.
I think that the calculated risk on the Bushies part is that their base isn't as plugged in as the rest of us (remember, these people still think Saddam planned 9/11) and that he can therefore toss red meat to them without regard for facts. They seem to be betting that they don't need any NEW voters. Seems like they hope to get everyone else so completely disgusted with the whole process they won't bother to show up and vote.

by alaffin on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:48:53 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

the true value of blogs (none)

in a conglomerate soaked media empire world. 4yrs ago if/when Cheney said this kind of crap the punditocracy still had their heads spinning about gore's sighs and Lieberman being too genial. now they know that if they miss things they're going to hear from people ad nauseum.
now all we have to do i convince them that objectivity isn't coming up with an equal number of errors on both sides. objectivity is standing back and looking to see if they guy is wrong or not, and saying so.
so i say, kudos, hazaa, and all manner of props to Kos, TPM, Atrios, and all their forbears in the blogoshpere.

why would you vote for demonstrated incompetence, when you could vote for the probability of competence?

by lizzerd on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 05:40:04 PM PDT

[ Parent ]
It's not really out of touch (none)

It's that some things are new and people haven't caught up.
Basically, the Web was just getting off the ground in 1996 and a large chunk of people were still on dial-up. By 2000, Internet access and use very widespread, but broadband is still somewhat restricted so people don't stay connected all the time.
Now 2004. Broadband is a lot more common, so people can stay on all the time (like, say, getting instant response and checking things during debates). Wireless is fairly widespread, people talking from everywhere. Google is a verb that everyone online knows. Yeah, the blogs have their role as well.
I don't necessarily blame all politicians for not realizing that times have changed.

by Northwatch on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:30:20 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

He's really not aware of it (none)

My take is that he isn't really aware of it. When one is so wrapped up in the role as a politician, it becomes second nature. I don't think he purposely intended to lie; he actually believes in his own untruth.

by nonamericankerrysupporter on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:52:08 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

i think he knew. i think he's used to (none)

getting away with it. i'm past the point of being willing to give the guy benefit of the doubt.

why would you vote for demonstrated incompetence, when you could vote for the probability of competence?

by lizzerd on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 05:40:58 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

I'm sure the motivation (none)

Was to try and throw Edwards off and get a Quayle-Bentsen "deer in the headlights" moment they could play over and over again to portray Edwards as some sort of lightweight.
But no such luck.
And, as usual, they overreach.
Making hay out of Edwards' absenteeism as a counter to Bush's own "part-time" Presidency might have been a good play -- but as is their nature, they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
It also fits with the basic Republican strategy for the election - if you're going to portray the war hero Kerry into some sort of glory-hound/traitor then why not make the workaholic Edwards into a shiftless, do nothing slacker? Campaign by character assasination. What a country!

WAKEup! 2004 - Women Advocate Kerry/Edwards

by snippy on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 01:10:49 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

When does Chenocchio tell the truth? (none)

Chenocchio's pants are on fire?

by Aeolus on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:33:18 AM PDT
KOS THIS IS TUESDAYS ONLY. (none)

We're only checking against his statement last night.
Other days of the week he may have been there. In your intro to the diary you imply that he's only been there twice which may not be correct.

The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled. - Plutarch

by El Payo on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:33:47 AM PDT

But Cheney specifically mentioned Tuesdays... (none)

...in his statement at the debate.

by Geotpf on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:38:20 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
Hmmm.. (none)

Anybody got an over/under on the total number of days Cheney presided, Tuesday or not?

by David Waldman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:40:09 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
In Fact (4.00)

We know that Vice President Cheney was there on six occasions to cast a tie-breaking vote (and that on all six occasions Senator Edwards voted). I guess the next thing we should do is figure out what these votes were, but I need to get back to work so I can attend some fundraisers tomorrow.

by eafredel on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:40:36 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Yes that really is the next step (none)

go for it.

George W. Bush makes Reagan look smart, Nixon look honest, and his dad look coherent.

by Dave the pro on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:54:54 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Six Dates (4.00)

The six dates on which tie-breaking votes were cast by Vice President Cheney are:
April 3, 2001 (Grassley amendment on Medicare presription drugs--limits funding to $300 billion over 10 years)
April 5, 2001 (Hutchison amendment on elimination of marriage penalty tax)
May 21, 2002
April 11, 2003
May 15, 2003
May 23, 2003
Continuing research.

by eafredel on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:12:54 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Thursday, May 15, 2003 (none)

Vice President Dick Cheney (search) was called into Senate chambers Thursday, where he cast the deciding vote on a hotly contested tax-cut package amendment that will suspend taxes on stock dividends for three years.

John Kerry: The New Abe Lincoln

by lapin on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:24:44 PM PDT

[ Parent ]
May 23, 2003 (none)

Congress approved a $350 billion package of tax cuts and economic assistance for states Friday, sending the bill to President Bush who has promised to sign it into law.
While the House approved the measure 231-200 early Friday, the Senate vote was 50-50. Vice President Dick Cheney cast the deciding vote
The tie in the Senate had been expected, and Cheney did not attend a commencement address in Louisiana to stay in Washington to ensure the bill's passage.

John Kerry: The New Abe Lincoln

by lapin on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:27:19 PM PDT

[ Parent ]
This one's juicy (none)

Vice President Cheney made a rare appearance as president of the Senate to break a tie vote on another amendment. On the 49-49 tie, Cheney's vote defeated the amendment that would have provided government assistance on mortgage payments to workers who lose their jobs as a result of imports.
Cheney doesn't care about displaced workers.

John Kerry: The New Abe Lincoln

by lapin on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:29:56 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Whoops (none)

That was the May 21, 2002 tie breaking vote.

John Kerry: The New Abe Lincoln

by lapin on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:30:50 PM PDT

[ Parent ]
Money: (none)

Vice President Cheney made a rare appearance as president of the Senate to break a tie vote on another amendment.

by David Waldman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:45:37 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

April 11, 2003 (none)

After almost a week of complicated parliamentary maneuvering and delicate negotiations, congressional Republicans have reached agreement on a budget resolution. The House passed the budget resolution conference report early this morning by a vote of 216 to 211. The Senate approved the conference report late this afternoon by a vote of 51-50, with Vice President Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote.

John Kerry: The New Abe Lincoln

by lapin on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:32:52 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Proof of Cheney's residence in alternate universe (none)

Tuesdays are when the Senate reconvenes. It's the start of the weekly session. They're virtually never in session on Mondays as far as floor proceedings go (there may be plenty of committees in session). It lets Senators go back to their home states on weekends.
Tuesdays are sort of ceremonial in a small way -- what's most bizarre is that, as posters above noted, there's no reason for a VP to be there at almost any time unless they're lobbying Senators or are needed to break a potential tie on an important vote.
So how Cheney could ever get the idea in his head that he's "up there most Tuesdays" is beyond rational comprehension, as it's not really necessary to his point -- he could have simply said "I've been up to preside over the Senate and didn't meet you." This goes beyond expecting that they can get away with any lie -- Cheney has simply stopped trying to keep it in the realm of the minimally plausible.
This, along with the "never met you before" lie, is a good way of showing to the corporate media that Cheney's connection to reality is as strong as al Qaeda's connections to Saddam Hussein.

Certitude is not the test of certainty. We have been cocksure of many things that were not so.-- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

by Steady Eddie on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:55:43 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

I think we should compile Kos talking points and (none)

write letters on the Dick Cheney is a pathological liar subject becuase I am honestly losing track of all these lies...maybe someone could put together our own form letter or simply a list of all the lies with all the proof they are false so we can try to get these new lies out to the press...

by tiberius on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:34:38 AM PDT
bruce? (none)

http://tinyurl.com/5fqmo

by moeman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:34:42 AM PDT
You would think he would know.. (none)

Sometimes, it is possible you were told something inaccurate by your staffers, but in this case, it seems like this is a blatent lie, even not a critical issue.
Cheney must have known that this was not true, even as he spoke the words. Says a lot about the guy to me.

by NotFourMore on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:34:56 AM PDT
It'd be sweet (none)

if "lucky Dickie"'s attendance as Congresscreep was as spotty.
Don't know how to find that out though.
In any case, it'll be nice to have this meme out there rocking and rolling.

The emperor has no clothes. Oh, yeah, he's also a complete moron.

by aleand on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:36:32 AM PDT
Balls (none)

The man has balls the size of Mt. Rushmore.

by elishastephens on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:36:59 AM PDT

Disagree (none)

I suspect that instead he has a conscience the size of a quark.

NEWS FLASH: If you haven't seen Outfoxed yet, what the hell are you waiting for??

by wunderwood on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:27:51 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, shit... (none)

...this diary teared me up when I saw Paul Wellstone's name on there.

No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. - Edward R. Murrow

by CrazyHorse on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:37:08 AM PDT
Vice-President Stevens (4.00)

I figure the guy who is presiding over the Senate most often actually is the Vice-President.
And the guy who is presiding over executive policy most often is actually the President. :)

Truth gone to seed hurts, but well-cultivated ignorance is deadly.

by cskendrick on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:37:14 AM PDT

LOL (none)

by Geotpf on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:39:02 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Passing on the love (none)

Excellent work, all!
May I pass on this information, citing all of you, of course? I know it's a matter of public record, but I wouldn't want people to think I'm more industrious than I really am.

by JesterDel on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:37:37 AM PDT

Please copy and send out to (none)

any and all media! refer also to this website!

by progressivearlingtonian on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:45:36 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Mail this to the Media!!! (none)

by Preston on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:41:09 AM PDT
OT (none)

Stern says FU to Viacom; Moving to Sirius at end
of contract.
"Thank God the technology exists," Stern said. "I could not go on with the same horse crap, with the censorship."

by JoelK in AZ on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:41:19 AM PDT
Erm... (4.00)

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.
Maybe this was already covered upthread and I missed it, but I really this doesn't seem to be a damning attack. Let's not be like the wingers and overparse things. We're better than that.
Quite frankly, I don't read Cheney's statement to mean he's claiming to have presided over the Senate on Tuesdays. There are two distinct concepts: I'm the presiding officer of the Senate; I'm [also] there most Tuesdays.
FWIW.

Visit my damn blog: Dohiyi Mir

by NTodd on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:43:46 AM PDT

It is part of a pattern of lies... (none)

Kos is right he is a pathological liar...there are smaller lies like the every tuesday one and then larger ones like never meeting Edwards and nevering saying Iraq caused 9/11. It is already a terrible day for republicans because the story that there were no wmds came out(again). Might as well pile on.

by tiberius on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:47:39 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
Idunno (none)

I think the implication is clear. Cheney is up "IN" the Senate as the presiding officer...and Edwards is not there...
It may not be a big lie or an important debate point..but it IS a misrepresentation of the truth...and seems like a nice example to jump from in slamming them for how they also misrepresent things like Iraq, Saddam/Osama, etc.

by antigonos on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:52:17 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
Bah. (none)

See Carneades, above. "Are you suggesting that it depends on what your definition of 'in' is?"
Besides, all the better that there could be two distinct concepts, because as usual, Cheney is hoping we'll confuse the two.
Would you prefer that we let it hinge on "most?" Because I'm willing to bet that isn't true, either. The Vice President's schedule is public, except when he's "in" an undisclosed, secure location, whatever that might mean. And by "that," of course, I mean the word "in."

by David Waldman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:52:56 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
Oh, I understand (none)

I get the implication, but I just don't see this parsing as a valuable exercise when we've got what are clear, demonstrable lies that are more germane. Instead of doing "what 'is' is" nitpicking, I'd rather focus on things like "I've never linked Saddam and 9/11", or even "we never met before". I don't want to overreach on things the apologists can rightly throw back in our faces.

Visit my damn blog: Dohiyi Mir

by NTodd on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:01:02 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Actually, this is useful (none)

On one of my topic-oriented (non political) bbs, someone did explicitly pull this remark out, and said, "So, is he lying about this too then?" dripping with sarcasm. I must say it's been a pleasure to give these stats.
Shortly someone will say, Yeah, but that's just TUESDAYS. I would dearly love to see totals for all days the Senate has been in session since January 2001.
Honestly, this was a big hit for the undecided/unpolarized types, and being able to hit it back out of the park I think will be very lucrative.

by elfling on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:25:57 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

We can say (none)

He lied about meeting Edwards. There are photographs and witnesses.
He misled the American people by implying he presides over the Senate or meets with all Senators, even Democrats, when he comes on Tuesdays. He does not meet with Democrats and has only presided over the Senate twice in four years, the same number of times John Edwards has acted as "acting President of the Senate."
Then, we can hit with the, he talked about not gaining the kind of bi-partisan support that had been gained by other administrations; perhaps he would fare better if he bothered to meet with Senators from the Democratic party. He's a divider, not a uniter: and he's never tried to be anything else.
Ally

"I know there's a saying about not changing horses midstream, but look, this horse has no legs, and it has no friends." -- Vanessa Kerry

by ally on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:13:10 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
Perhaps, but (none)

even if he's just "there" most Tuesdays, if he's not there "presiding" but simply hanging around with Repub cronies and ONLY Repub cronies, then to make that statement at the time he made it in order to besmirch the attendence record of somebody else, at the very least he's speaking in bad faith. Its disingenuous of him to declare he's never seen Edwards, a Dem Senator, when his only appearance, by his own choice, are to meet with Repubs.
Even if he's not lying (technically), he is speaking in bad faith, which is a sign of an absence of leadership.
I think maybe that's the more subtle point, even if its never articulated that way in the media.

In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

by a gilas girl on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:31:54 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Feel the burn (4.00)

Bush 47.2%
Kerry 46.9%
Other 2.1%
Not Sure 3.8%
RasmussenReports.com
Oh yeah! Two more debates? Bring em on!
This is where it's at folks!
About the debates? Let me tell you about the debates. Cheney came across as an authoritarian figure. The whole time he was up there, I thought I was getting a lecture from my father (years ago)after coming home way too late. I was falling asleep, and couldn't wait to get to my room.
On the other hand, Edwards was positive, upbeat, energetic, and frankly a lot more in tune to the concerns of Americans. Especially young America, that wants a future, that looks ahead and really really wants to get the hell out of this crap in Iraq, and move on to new energies, new technologies, prosperity, and productivity.
Edwards also mentions fiscal responsiblity, which is the right track for America. We need to tailor and streamline excess, and create conditions that bring about prosperity for everyone. We need to combat the false representation that Democrats are fiscally irresponsible.

by lilorphant on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:44:18 AM PDT

You are so right, and have said it well. (none)

I thought a lot last night about how Edwards seemed so excited, so into what he was talking about, thinking about... he was ABSOLUTELY INTO THINKING ABOUT A BETTER FUTURE FOR AMERICA. Whereas Cheney was like a half-masked bat, some night creature who bestirred himself enough to bite those prodding him.

by concernedamerican on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 03:02:22 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

He lied because (none)

the only thing that mattered was scoring a point in the moment. It didn't matter that it was easily debunked: he's betting that a fair number of those watching will just remember the jab and not the debunking. Unless the number of lies he told gets to be a REALLY BIG story, most people will never remember that he lied, and the jab will live on in people's heads.
He lies because he thinks he can get away with it. He lies because winning in the moment was more important than being debunked later. He lies because the wingnuts will believe it no matter how many times its debunked. What do you bet its all Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. talk about?

by Hope Despite All on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:45:28 AM PDT

Post debate spin matters. I was . . . (none)

...your typical swing voter last time and I was affected by the "Gore lies" after the debates. I tell you, it nullified everything and called his credibility into question. I eventually voted for Bush.
Point is, post debate fact check and spin is important, because while Cheney scored an instantaneous point, he dug a deeper hole for them to climb out of. Think about it, for the next few days, they are going to have to answer questions about the facts which prevents them from being on the offensive and begins to raise questions in the minds of voters.
Also, the fact that Edwards was excellent meant that the fact that Cheney scored a point is of no consequence now. So in fact, Cheney can lose points in the fact check and the overall effect of Cheney in the debate is spotty at best, while Edwards has nothing to lose but rather he gains as people reflect back on the debate.
We should treat this a 4x400 relay and just play each leg at a time. So far, we are in very good shape.

Kerry Catholics & Catholics for Kerry

by onoekeh on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:23:58 PM PDT

[ Parent ]
And he lied because (none)

in the past he's gotten away with lying before since the press no longer fact-check, but just engage in stenography.

In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

by a gilas girl on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:39:49 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

holy shit (none)

this guy is a straight-up liar, and stupid to boot.
He's lying about things he DOESN'T NEED TO LIE ABOUT and which are EASILY PROVEN FALSE.
Between the two of them, it's as if these chuckleheads-in-chief DON'T REALLY WANT TO WIN.

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato

by sunzoo on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:48:19 AM PDT

It's More Sinister (none)

I think they lie about small, easily proven otherwise things like this so that their base will counter with responses like "it's insignificant, big deal, so what". Thus, very subtly the acceptance of lies becomes commonplace. Then bigger lies do not seem so bad by comparison and so on until truth is what they say it is. The analogy to a junkie's growing tolerance to his fix is not entirely inappropriate.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

by BigOkie on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:27:53 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Cheney desperate and weak (none)

re: VP Cheney's three stupid lies, the facts:
Cheney presided over the Senate on a Tuesday twice, and Edwards did the same twice.
Cheney met Edwards at least twice before the debate. There were pictures and/or witnesses.
Cheney obviously has publicly suggested a link between Iraq and 9/11 on several occasions in 2002 and 2003.
Bush/Cheney's positions were so catastrophically undermined by the facts last night, he got desperate and lied about stupid things that any competent spokesperson would know not to say. We cannot let this country be represented by a man whose weakness makes him say such stupid, false things whenever he's in a tough spot. If Cheney cannot hold up under pressure from John Edwards, how can he represent the U.S. to foreign leaders in the war on Al Qaeda?

'...I'm gonna go bop bop bop...whooooap, and then we'll all start dancing.'

by realign us on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:49:29 AM PDT
but then Leahy... (none)

didn't he basically confirm that Cheney comes to the Senate often.... and doesn't meet with the D's... when he made that crack last night about watching all the limosines roll by?
So what's going on?

by pitbullEmily on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:50:17 AM PDT

re: Leahy comment (none)

Cheney was talking about his duties as the presiding officer of the Senate; Leahy was talking about Cheney's regular meetings with the Republican caucus. But all this needs to be nailed down so that he can not squirm out of his lie.

by herodotus on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:56:39 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
He Meets with Republicans Only (none)

and then leaves without doing and of the "Hard Work".
His statement last night:
"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."
Seems to indicate that he is there on Tuesdays acting as President of the Senate . . . He's not!
It's misleading in the same way his many comments linking the connection between Saddam and WMD's.

by progressivearlingtonian on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:57:46 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe repeating... (4.00)

I don't know if this photo has made the rounds, but it's a better picture than the first prayer meeting pic, because they're actually SITTING RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER:

by Nim on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:51:10 AM PDT
DNC (none)

The DNC should run an add that shows Cheney saying he never made a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and then run about twenty times when he did say it on news shows, etc.
This would be a winner. Exploit it. Make the commercial.

What is essential is invisible.

by bebimbob on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:51:33 AM PDT

from your lips (none)

to the DNC's ears:
http://www.democrats.org/
"Cheney vs reality"

by pitbullEmily on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:49:52 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Very Very Important story!!! Be sure it's right (none)

This is the sort of story that compares with President Ford's famous debate gaffe in which he denied that Poland was contolled by the communists. If it gets widely distributed it could show just how deceitful these people are on a regular day to day basis. So when the number of times he presided is totalled be sure to consider that he would have been there for a number of tie breaking votes and various ceremonial occasions. These may not have been on Tuesdays but take them into account so that the story will not be picked apart by the Repugs who will triumphantly proclaim that it was actually twelve times instead of two.

by herodotus on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:52:39 AM PDT

What?! (4.00)

Dick Cheney was President Ford's Chief of Staff, and you're telling me that when Ford considered the list the nations controlled by communists, he forgot Poland?

by David Waldman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:55:14 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Dropped a line to a few news outlets (none)

and pointed it out to them.
One thing I gotta say: I'm impressed by how well the Democrats have handled the debate spin so far. It's like they've suddenly discovered the power of rapid response. AP has up a story about Dick Cheney's white lie about never meeting Edwards. Why couldn't they do this after the GOP convention?

"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it." - Mark Twain

by soultaco on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:58:27 AM PDT
Just an FYI... (4.00)

By my count, there were 33 Tuesday Senate sessions in 2001, 30 in 2002, 36 in 2003 and there have beeen 27 so far in 2004.
Cheney presided over a grand total of 2 of 126 Tuesday sessions in the Senate.
I guess that should count as "most."

by David Waldman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:03:43 AM PDT

Most (none)

Well, sure it counts as most. In the same usage of the word most as used in Bush's claim that, "Most of the benefits of my tax cut go to the Middle Class."
Most. Don't you know simple English???

by emptywheel on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:11:04 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

"Fuzzy Math" (none)

is what Bush called it

"...watch parking meters"

by willyr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:13:46 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Notice what he said (none)

He said that he was in the Senate or something, not PRESIDING OVER the Senate...though that is technically the Vice President's job...
It is still funny to see that he is basically never there. Has anyone searched for other days other than Tuesdays that Cheney may have presided?

by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:21:31 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, I noticed. (none)

He said exactly that. He was "in" the Senate.
So what does the Vice President do when he's "in" the Senate, but not presiding? Hand out hot towels?
If he's meeting with Republican Senators in the dining room, he's not "in" the Senate. He's "near" it, but so's my Aunt Matilda. (Note to fact checkers: I admit I don't actually have an Aunt Matilda.)
Someone ought to check the AP Daybook for the Vice President's schedules. You could even limit it to Tuesdays. Dollars to donuts he's not even in the neighborhood, and the only thing he's "presiding over" is the Wall Street Journal in the crapper.

by David Waldman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:27:22 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Please spar me the image. (none)

by OnStarboardTack on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:06:30 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, but nonetheless his comment about (none)

"I've never met you before tonight" is still patently false because of the prayer breakfast and Dole swearing-in. So the "presiding" matter isn't such a big deal, I'd think.

by concernedamerican on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 03:05:51 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

"We've never met" isn't a trivial error. (none)

Anymore than Pappy's marveling over a supermarket scanner was trivial. And for the same reason. It illustrates Bushco as way out of touch with the average guy/gal.
Most Americans would remember a U.S. Senator they sat next to for two hours at a prayer breakfast.
And most Americans don't like being lied to.
I think this will cost Cheney, and means they're on the defensive again heading into Friday night.
Meanwhile, Cheney seems not to have laid a glove on Edwards.

by Kevvboy on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:06:49 AM PDT
Write the networks and let them know! (none)

I just sent an email to MSNBC and CNN to let them know. The debate on who won is still going on and this could make a big difference. I suggest everyone write the networks and ask that they cover this story.

A Conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy. --Benjamin Disraeli

by rogun on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:08:35 AM PDT
MSNBC: "Prayer Breakfast" Cheney (4.00)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6191468/site/newsweek/

John Edwards and Dick Cheney with George W. Bush at a Senate prayer breakfast in 2001. Numerous Web sites circulated pictures from the breakfast--where Cheney and Edwards sat beside each other--after the vice president said he had not met the senator before Tuesday's debate

It is an American value to care for each other.
Vote Kerry/Edwards on November 2nd, to bring our soldiers home safely.

by Daemmern on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:08:41 AM PDT

And remember: Mehlman referred... (none)

...to this particular meeting as an "inconsequential meeting!"
Get this to the fundies ASAP -- the Republican Party considers events such as the National Prayer Breakfast to be "inconsequential."

by RobertInWisconsin on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:07:21 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Meetings with Dems aren't consequential (none)

unless Cheney gets to say, "Go fuck yourself!"

"But, Saddam was a THREAT!" That's our refrain. Ask us again, and we'll tell you the same!

by turbonium on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 02:16:14 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

BUT OF COURSE! (none)

Cheney was presiding over the senate from some "undisclosed location!!!!"

"It's better to realize you're a swan than to live life as a disgruntled duck."

by Mumon on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:11:16 AM PDT
How do you find this info (none)

if I was interested in going back in time to see what Gore's record was.

/Kerry-Edwards 2004/ - Because America Can Do Better, Must Do Better, and Deserves Better

by ETinKC on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:15:51 AM PDT

gpoaccess.gov (none)

The government printing office.

A Conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy. --Benjamin Disraeli

by rogun on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:47:40 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

Okay, i am on the site. WHere do I go to find out (none)

WHere do I go to find out who the Acting President is on any day?

/Kerry-Edwards 2004/ - Because America Can Do Better, Must Do Better, and Deserves Better

by ETinKC on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:32:40 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

They may not have (none)

They may not electronic versions of the Congressional Record going back, but you can get them pretty easily at any university or public library that serves as a government doc repository.

George W. Bush makes Reagan look smart, Nixon look honest, and his dad look coherent.

by Dave the pro on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:54:44 PM PDT

[ Parent ]
But (none)

Most VPs don't regularly preside over the Senate so it'll be similar with Gore. That's why Cheney's accusation struck me as bizarre.

George W. Bush makes Reagan look smart, Nixon look honest, and his dad look coherent.

by Dave the pro on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:56:01 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Keeping score (4.00)
So concerning the one comment, which is attributed as Cheney's most memorable line of the night, we've discovered:
1. Cheney and Edwards met on several occasions already, and there is photographic evidence.
2. Cheney presided over the Senate on only 2 out of 126 Tuesdays
3. Cheney usually only meets with the Senate Republican caucus when he does show up on Tuesdays.
4. Edwards was present at each vote at which Cheney was asked to cast the tie-breaking vote
There was nothing truthful in Cheney's zinger. This is Gore in the helicopter all over again, but in a good way.
by DaveOinSF on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:17:30 AM PDT

and ... (4.00)

5. At one of those two Tuesdays, Cheney was photographed participating in official Senate business with ... John Edwards.

CTHULHU ENDORSES KERRY
"Bush too evil even for me", Great Old One says

by Jon Meltzer on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:23:35 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
Of all of these (none)

your #3 is really the most damning:
Cheney only meets with Republican senators? He's the VPOTUS not the VPORepublicans. Last night Cheney also made the claim that he hoped the country [meaning: the Congress in Senate speak] can get back to bi-partisanship. But how can he expect that to happen if the Administration, and he as the Administration's representative in the Senate doesn't lead on that issue? Its just another example of how they've completely dropped the ball on leadership. They have no inkling what leadership actually is, or if they don't they certainly don't practice it.

In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

by a gilas girl on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:41:00 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
i emailed this (w/ props) (none)

to about 20 news type people.

why would you vote for demonstrated incompetence, when you could vote for the probability of competence?

by lizzerd on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 06:11:25 PM PDT

[ Parent ]
Edwards presides (none)

if I'm not mistaken (maybe the "on Tuesday" issue causes problems here?):
6. Edwards presided over the Senate on twice, in relief of Cheney, making it a tie on the question over who presided over the Senate more often, despite the fact that it's Cheney job.

Renewable Energy: Choose Your Power or Green Tags

by drh on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 06:15:29 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

So Atrios... (none)

... has made the big time. I just received a DCCC contribution appeal in his name.
Certainly nice to see a little recognition being spread around... even if it is all about the money.

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

by Andrew C White on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:21:45 AM PDT
Bush's speech today (none)

Absolutely wrong timing. First of all, Cheney has been caught lying more times than he can probably remember. Secondly, Bush is not in primetime. Thirdly, the debates on Friday will get a lot more publicity. Fourthly, Bush's attempts appear to be desperate right now. He is only riling up the base, and that's it. Finally, the "NO WMD IN IRAQ" headline everywhere certainly offsets any effect from Bush's speech.

Mikhail Khaimov San Francisco, CA

by Tsarrio on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:33:53 AM PDT

I found it funny (none)

that on CNN as Bush's speech ended live, they cut immeadiately to "Flash News" of Rush Limbaugh VS. The State of Forida . . . about legal proceedings in his ongoing drug scandal

by progressivearlingtonian on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:39:22 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

If this is old news....... (none)

my apologies. I just came across it and it pissed me off. If you've not RE-voted at CNN do so now.
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=327

by carolinadreamer on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:36:49 AM PDT

I can't find a poll on the link you give, (none)

but the article is fascinating. Thanks for posting it!

by concernedamerican on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 03:11:28 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

image from debate (4.00)

by David J on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:45:02 AM PDT

Excellent!!! (none)

as a matter of fact this is the image I had running through my head all day yesterday before the debate.

"Calmer than you are Dude....calmer than you"

by sula on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:15:03 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Can we compare this with Gore? (none)

This is why Rove didn't want to run against Dean in the first place. Dean/Obama 2008/12

by Genf on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:46:28 AM PDT
The debate photo Fox News won't show you (none)

Check it out.

by Nanovirus on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:47:51 AM PDT
Just a little irony (none)

Yesterday (Tuesday) I was listening to Wisconsin Public Radio. They were doing a call-in show about the upcoming debate with Mark Turner,
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences, Case Western Reserve University as the guest. One caller (who was quite a bit irate, actually) commented that he watched C-Span all the time and never had seen Cheney acting as President Pro-tem of the Senate, and shouldn't his (Cheney's) shirking of his duty be a campaign issue.
Dr. Turner, correctly of course, pointed out that for the most part Veeps almost never actually preside over the Senate -- unless there is the potential of a tie vote on an important bill.
And now this! Turns out our C-Span viewer was right on the money -- Cheney wasn't there, lied about it and made it an issue! Two points to WPR for dealing with the "issues" before they happen!

Come out to the CrashPad, politcal (and other) commentary with a bit of humor: CrashPad

by Crash on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:51:55 AM PDT
Big Lies (4.00)

The debating technique of uttering so many lies that the opponent is flummoxed, his mind racing in order to figure out which ones to address, is pretty good. It would work well in a world without telephones or the internet.
The biggest lie of all is that we had to avenge ourselves on Iraq for Al Queda's attack on the US.This was so monumental that it went largely unexamined by the mainstream media.
Remember a year ago when W blamed the bad economy on the drumbeat of the "march to war, march to war" in the media?
No doubt the WH justifies all these whoppers as necessary in order to protect Americans from harm and keep the present administration in office (they see the two as synchronous).
Thom Hartmann, "What Would Machiavelli Do?":
German filmmaker Fritz Kippler, one of Goebbels' most effective propagandists, once said that two steps were necessary to promote a Big Lie so the majority of the people in a nation would believe it. The first was to reduce an issue to a simple black-and-white choice that "even the most feebleminded could understand." The second was to repeat the oversimplification over and over. If these two steps were followed, people would always come to believe the Big Lie.
In Kippler's day, the best example of his application of the principle was his 1940 movie "Campaign in Poland," which argued that the Polish people were suffering under tyranny - a tyranny that would someday threaten Germany - and that the German people could either allow this cancer to fester, or preemptively "liberate" Poland. Hitler took the "strong and decisive" path, the movie suggested, to liberate Poland, even though after the invasion little evidence was found that Poland represented any threat whatsoever to the powerful German Reich. The movie was Hitler's way of saying that invading Poland was the right thing to do, and that, in retrospect, he would have done it again.
The Big Lie is alive and well today in the United States of America, and what's most troubling about it is the basic premise that underlies its use. In order for somebody to undertake a Big Lie, they must first believe Niccolo Machiavelli's premise (in "The Prince," 1532) that the end justifies the means.

by Plan9 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:53:31 AM PDT

It's Called Shotgunning (none)

Strictly speaking, I know shotgunning is not about throwing out a ton of lies that take your time to refute but rather about just putting a ton of comments or ideas out in a debate that distract your opponents from the task of making their case or tearing yours down.
But what we saw last night is a form of shotgunning, just with replacing valid commentary and germane issues with bald faced lying.

by betamaxguillotine on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 02:03:23 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Something that puzzled me in 2000 (none)

Why did Rove pick "pathological liar" as the stick to falsely beat Gore with? It could have been anything, so why that?
Knowing how Rove always chooses his own guy's weakness to pin on the other guy, it now makes sense. He knew Cheney couldn't keep from lying big and small, so he got his retaliation in on Gore/Leiberman first.

by Del C on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 03:01:36 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

I think the strategy was (none)

to link Gore to Clinton in a negative way. They couldn't plausibly call Gore an adulterer, so they used "pathological liar," which brought up echoes of the charges of perjury against Clinton, "Slick Willie" and the rest. If Clinton = liar and Gore = liar, then Gore = Clinton.

We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we now know that it is bad economics. —Franklin Delano Roosevelt

by Utah for Dean on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 09:59:21 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

my LTE (none)

I like when people post their LTEs because it might help others think up something to say to their local papers. Here's mine:

In last night's debate, one of the many lies that Cheney was caught in was the whopper about how he'd never met Edwards before. We've seen video of at least two meetings. The naïve might give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was just a failure of memory. He followed this with the more nefarious claim that he presided over the Senate nearly every Tuesday, intimating that Edwards was never there. In fact, according to the Senate records, Cheney has only presided over the Tuesday session twice in nearly four year. This lie is just another in a long line of lies clearly calculated to deceive the American people. Go ahead and voice your support for Bush/Cheney, all I will hear is "I support the guys who lie to my face and hope I'm too stupid to notice."
P.S., I believe this administration billed itself as the "uniters, not the dividers". The first step in trying to be a uniter is to actually meet the people you're looking to unite. It's clear that that was just another of the last election's campaign promises that was nothing more than another entry in the litany of lies.

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

by jeffro on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:16:58 PM PDT
What would be really amusing (none)

If you did a check of every day the Senate was in session, and you found that Edwards served as president of the Senate more often than Cheney. Anyone want to try that?

Got $5.00? Boot an FMA Cosponsor!

by Drew on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:19:34 PM PDT
Seems Cheney was in the Senate (4.00)

about as much as Dubya was in Alabama....

by Barbara H on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:19:51 PM PDT
A million thanks! (none)

I've spready this very far, and very wide.

O it is excellent to have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant--Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act II

by ogre on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:23:44 PM PDT
Cheney falling down on the job (none)

So Edwards performed Cheney's sole Constitutional duty to preside over the Senate as many times as Cheney did. Interesting.
And, of course, Edwards knows from Pat Leahy what happens to any Democratic Senator who has the temerity to try to shake Cheney's hand when he's on the Senate floor.

by Ben Brackley on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:06:30 PM PDT
In Media (none)

Has anyone seen this particular subject discussed on the news yet? I see the talking heads discuss that he had actually met Edwards but, not that Chaney had only presided 2 times

When men build on false ground, the more they build, the greater the ruin.

by Mosby on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:25:49 PM PDT

I think we should (none)

I really hope someone is sending this information to their local or national news bureaus. Please do so; we need make sure this is being discussed on the Thursday morning talk shows! Keep up the "Cheney lies" theme so that the Bush campaign is busy defending this issue and not attacking Kerry!

by lalawguy on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 04:58:18 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Seems unusual to me... (none)

If Cheney is "president of the Senate, the presiding officer", then why wouldn't he make it his business to get to know every senator? In four years, he didn't bother to meet everybody even though there are only 100 of them? And he's the vice president. Hmmm

by busternjake on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 02:05:21 PM PDT
Check this record out: (none)

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=097536457027+25+0+0&WAISaction=r etrieve
"Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening basically
to ask one question, and that is, where is Vice President Cheney these
days? Every once in a while he pops up at a reelection fund-raiser."
March 24,2004

by ribber on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 02:29:30 PM PDT
Edwards was with Cheney in the Senate on 1/7/2003 (none)

I used http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r108query.html to search the Congressional record, and found that Edwards escorted some Senators to be sworn in by Cheney on Jan 7, 2003.
The relevant text is below:
The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will call the names of the next group of Senators.
The legislative clerk called the names of Mr. Cornyn of Texas, Mr. Craig of Idaho, Mrs. Dole of North Carolina, and Mr. Domenici of New Mexico.
These Senators, escorted by Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Edwards, former Senator Dole, and Mr. Bingaman, respectively, advanced to the desk of the Vice President, the oath prescribed by law was administered to them by the Vice President, and they severally subscribed to the oath in the Official Oath Book.

by synykyl on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 02:52:13 PM PDT

Oops, we already knew about this one :-) (none)

This was whan Senator Dole was sworn in, and the now widely circulated picture of Cheney and Edwards was taken.

by synykyl on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 03:02:31 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

the list (none)

I don't know how to get the list from
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html
could you clarify?

by agoldnyc on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 04:35:31 PM PDT
How about every day? (none)

Do some people want to help me complete this?
Jan 2001
20 - Reid
22 - Thurmond
23 - Thurmond
24 - Thurmond
25 - Thurmond
29 - Allen
30 - Smith (NH)
31 - Allen
Feb 2001
1 - Crapo
5 - Thomas
6 - Chaffee
7 - Collins
8 - DeWine
12 - Sessions
You get the information from the PDF files in the Senate Pages column here:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/04crpgs.html
Change the 04 to something else to get the apprioate year.

by jfern on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 05:18:49 PM PDT

March 2001 (none)

Mar 2001
1 - Allen
5 - Carper
6 - Burns
7 - Allen
8 - Ensign
9 - Jeffords
12 - Corzine
13 - Reid
14 - Allen
15 - Crapo
19 - Roberts
20 - DeWine
21 - Allen
22 - Chafee
23 - Thomas
26 - Collins
27 - Chafee
28 - Allen
29 - Sessions
30 - Gregg

by David Waldman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 06:07:04 PM PDT

[ Parent ]
April 2001 (none)

Apr 2001
2 - Fitzgerald
3 - Smith
4 - Allen
5 - Crapo
6 - Brownback
23 - Gregg
24 - Chafee
25 - Allen
26 - Allen
30 - Reid
Next?

by David Waldman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 06:13:59 PM PDT

[ Parent ]
You don't have to do that. (4.00)

You can do a text search on the Congressional Record here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r108query.html
If you search for the phrase "called to order by the Honorable John Edwards", you can find out when Edwards presided over the Senate.
If you search for the phrase "Called to order by the Vice-President", you hcan find out when Cheney did.
Notably, Edwards presided over the Senate seven times in the past four years, while Cheney presided over the Senate only three times.

Got $5.00? Boot an FMA Cosponsor!

by Drew on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:35:25 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Nice find (none)

Maybe a diary?

by jfern on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:35:51 PM PDT

[ Parent ]

Mystery Solved! (none)

We now know why Cheney prefers the sit down format. He wants to be sure that the TV viewers can't see the smoke and fire rising from his pants.

by LIsoundview on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 05:32:28 PM PDT
CBC Fifth Estate (none)

show on Cheney is on tv right now - also at the cbc website - www.cbc.ca. Main focus of show is Halliburton's corruptness under Cheney. An Irani-Canadian does 4 yrs in a Florida jail while Cheney and the bigwigs aren't charged. The Canadian was routing oilfield supplies from Halliburton to Iran, with the full knowledge of the company. Halliburton pays 4 million in fines the first year Cheney takes over - also does 70 million in business with Iraq and more with Libya - all illegal.
Show's back on - more to come

Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks but a heart transplant is free.

by dpc on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 06:29:27 PM PDT
Cheney on Fifth Estate - Pt 2 (none)

"Cheney was behind the plan of an orchestrated plan of misinformation on WMD and Iraq."
The OSP (Office of Special Plans) was Cheney's baby - it paid Chalabi, a convicted bank swindler who hadn't seen Iraq since he was 13, was getting over $300,000 a month. Regular CIA hates Cheney - accuse him of promoting "stovepiping and cherry-picking" information from the CIA and of getting rid of anybody who wouldn't dance with him. Valerie Plame is an example. Cheney visits CIA 8 times to get what he wants - shoddy reports/suggestions of Iraqi WMDs. Seymour Hersh is now commenting and it is getting even more damning to Cheney/Bush].
Great show - and there's a one-hour show coming up - next week? - on Bush. No Canadian seeing this could think of Cheney as anything but a very corrupt ideologue - and this is being shown on our national network - beauty.

Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks but a heart transplant is free.

by dpc on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 06:42:04 PM PDT
Go To (none)

www.cbc.ca and click on The Fifth Estate - An Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney.

Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks but a heart transplant is free.

by dpc on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 06:56:49 PM PDT
Well (none)

The responsibility for emphasizing this point lies with the DNC. They must have been aware of it all along. It's just too obvious. I cannot accept the fact that Edwards wasn't aware of this fact during the debate. Explanations: a) Inside the beltway wink and nod. b) We're screwed. c) Your address, a place closer than you think, a place we call--the twilight zone.

by sharkstooth on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:38:46 PM PDT
This is just for the start of the day (none)

There are usually several presiding officers during the day because nobody wants to sit there and preside for hours and hours. Ted Stevens is often listed as the presiding officer because he opens the Senate in the morning as the President Pro Tempore. However, he is rarely in the presiding officer's chair during the day. So, I believe the Vice President has presided more times than have been mentioned because he has had to come to break a tie a few times.

by NJDem on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:41:25 PM PDT
I now understand what Cheney meant... (none)

What he actually meant to say: "I am the president of the Senate. You are a Senator. Therefore you are my underling. You should have at least once sought me out to pay your respects. You knew I am regularly up on the Hill each Tuesday to attend Republican policy lunches. During the last 6 years you did not once wait by the door for me to finish lunch so that you could grovel before me and declare me your master."

by s0ck on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 01:12:28 AM PDT
Response from Dru Sefton and my reply (none)

I wrote to the 712 email addresses provided in another thread to reply to the debates, and got a personal reply from Ms. Dru Sefton at Newhouse News Service.
My initial email to her:

-----Original Message-----
From: Mitchell Gore [mailto:wiseass.org@mac.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 11:44 AM
Subject: *SPAM* Senate Presiding President...?
Let's look at what Dick Cheney claimed at the VP debate shall we?
"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."--Dick Cheney, Vice Presidential Debates, 10/5/04
Here is a list of the Senate's Acting Presidents for every Tuesday session for 2001. A reward to whoever finds a Tuesday in 2001, 2002, 2003 or 2004 that Dick Cheney fulfilled his duties as President of the Senate here:
January 30 - Enzi
February 6 - Chafee
February 13 - Chafee
(snip)
9/28 - Stevens
10/05 - Stevens
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html
So Edwards has acted as President of the Senate the same number of times as Cheney, even though Cheney is Constitutionally obligated (only one of two mandated duties of a VP it is worth remembering) and in the almost 4 years since taking office, Cheney has acted as President of the Senate on Tuesday twice, the same number of times Edwards has and it isn't even his Constitutionally mandate responsibility to do so. So here is Cheney grossly exaggerating his claim to try and win votes in a desperate election campaign. So what did Bush in 2000 think of such behavior?
CROWLEY: The Gore camp says the vice president frequently travels with Witt to disaster sites and suggests that Gore's statement was a trivial honest mistake. George Bush says this is not about details, but about the larger picture.
BUSH: If there's pattern of just exaggeration and stretches to try to win votes, it says something about leadership as far as I'm concerned, because once you're the president, you can't stretch.
(http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0010/04/ip.00.html)
Guess the media still hasn't figured out how to use that newfangled thing that they are under the the misimpression that Gore claimed he invented (the Internet) and would rather give the GOP a pass on lies small and large.
So who in the media will finally wake up...?
cheers,
Mitch Gore
Portland OR
"Liberal" and "Progressive" are NOT pejoratives.
www.wiseass.org
Her reply:

On Oct 7, 2004, at 8:46 AM, Dru Sefton wrote:
What he means is, he's in the Senate meeting with leadership.
Remember: The veep is only required to preside over the Senate in person when it's necessary for him to break a tie vote.
Ms. Dru Sefton
National Correspondent
Newhouse News Service
Washington, D.C.
(202) 383-7879
Who am I? http://www.newhouse.com/sefton.html
Here is my reply:

Dear Ms. Sefton,
First of all, I would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to write me back. I appreciate that your time must be filed with many other pressing things, and do not always have time to reply to emails sent you on the issues of the day.
IN your reply, you stated that Dick Cheney's "only" requirement to break a tie-vote it is worth noting that Mr. Cheney is also required to be in the Senate to administer the oath of office to all incoming Freshman Senators, which is another occasion he met face to face and spoke with Sen. Edwards.
When Elizabeth Dole came to the Senate in early 2003 as an incoming Freshman Senator, according to long-standing Senate tradition she was personally introduced to by the Senior Senator of her state, Sen John Edwards. In fact there is video showing Mrs. Dole being sworn in (with he hand on Mrs. Edwards bible no less).
That said, your explanation that he "meant" was his meeting with the "leadership" is equally interesting, because he was specifically talking about presiding over the Senate, i.e. in the Chamber, in a false bravado statement in an attempt at innuendo that Edwards was shirking his duties, So I went and dug some more in light of your explanation. and find that explanation is not sound.
And now we discover that Mr. Cheney does indeed go regularly to Senate on a weekly basis, meeting with the leadership (which is Republican). Which even if we accept that desperate rationalization shows the glaring reality, Mr. Cheney only meets with members of the GOP caucus meetings.
According to MSNBC which did a post-debate interview with Senator Leahy from Vermont, and we now know that Mr. Cheney, unlike prior VPs, Mr. Cheney only meets with members of his own party.
According to the Los Angeles Times, they note that Mr. Cheney does attend the GOP senators' weekly luncheons (I assume this is on Tuesdays) to discuss party strategy. But only Republicans attend, and Mr. Cheney usually breezes into the building, goes to the meeting, then leaves without hobnobbing with Democrats.
In fact, Mr. Cheney was teased by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) for only associating with Republicans when, in an encounter on the Senate floor, Mr. Cheney dropped his now infamous "F-Bomb" on him. I guess that Mr. Cheney didn't tell Edwards to go "F" himself during the 2001 prayer breakfast or when Elizabeth Dole was introduced to him for her swearing in ceremony on the Senate floor, or when they met in the greenroom at Meet the Press in August of 2001.
Do you think Edwards was shirking his duties by not infiltrating the GOP leadership strategy meetings?
Don't you think this line of rationalization for his patently untrue and deceptive attempt at "gotcha" grandstanding holds water?
I also wonder what Mr. Cheney's own views about his sort of grandstanding and (even if we give him the most charitable out) has to say about such debate errors of fact?
Bush's running mate, former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, said he was "puzzled and saddened to learn" that Gore had misrepresented his actions during the 1998 wildfires in Texas.
"Al Gore has described these presidential debates as a job interview with the American people," Cheney said. "I've learned over the years that when somebody embellishes their resume in a job interview, you don't hire them.
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/04/campaign.wrap/
It certainly seems strange to me that such hypocritical behavior by Mr. Cheney goes unchallenged in the media. I do hope that in your capacity as a journalist you do what you can to keep the only occupation in the country that has specific Constitutional protections covering it working hard for the public's best interest in being told the scrupulously honest truth, on Cheney's disregard for such basic truths on relatively trivial inconsequential matters, such as wether or not he had met Edwards before makes you wonder what hundreds, if not thousands, of other lies and falsehoods he has told publicly.
Which leads me to another and much more serious and troubling question about Cheney's numerous false statements during the debate.
Specifically when Mr. Cheney stated "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." -- VP Dick Cheney [Presidential Debates, 10/5/04]
That is astounding claim, which is patently false in the most profound ways.
Here are just a few of the voluminous statements that Mr. Cheney made about a connection between Saddam Hussien and those who carried out the attacks of September 11th ( al-Qaeda ):
"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." -- VP Dick Cheney [Remarks, 12/2/02]
------------------------------------------------------------
"We now know based on documents that we've captured since we took Baghdad that they put [Yasin] on the payroll, gave him a monthly stipend and provided him with a house, sanctuary in effect, in Iraq in the aftermath of . . . the '93 attack on the World Trade Center." -- VP Dick Cheney [Rocky Mountain News, Interview, 1/10/04]
------------------------------------------------------------
"I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government." -- VP Dick Cheney [National Public Radio, "Morning Edition," 1/22/04]
------------------------------------------------------------
"Freedom still has enemies in Iraq, terrorists who are targeting the very success and freedom we're providing to that country. Recently, we intercepted a letter sent by a senior al Qaeda associate named Zarqawi to one of Osama bin Laden's top lieutenants...America will finish what we've begun in Iraq, and we will win an essential victory in this war on terror." -- VP Dick Cheney [Remarks, 2/27/04]
------------------------------------------------------------
"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." -- VP Dick Cheney [Remarks, 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." -- VP Dick Cheney [Remarks, 1/30/03]
------------------------------------------------------------
"It's clearly established in terms of training, provision of bomb-making experts, training of people with respect to chemical and biological warfare capabilities, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Iraq for training and so forth* -- VP Dick Cheney [CNBC's "Kudlow & Kramer," 6/4/04]
------------------------------------------------------------
"In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was in power, overseeing one of the bloodiest regimes of the 20th century* He had long established ties with al Qaeda." -- VP Dick Cheney [Orlando, FL, 6/14/04]
------------------------------------------------------------
"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." -- VP Dick Cheney [CNBC "Capital Report," 6/17/04]
------------------------------------------------------------
"If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." -- VP Dick Cheney [NBC, Meet the Press, 11/14/03] (emphasis mine)
------------------------------------------------------------
Borger: "Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, 'pretty well confirmed.'"
Cheney: "No, I never said that."
Borger: "OK."
Cheney: "I never said that." [CNBC "Capital Report," 6/17/04]
FLASHBACK
Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that--it's been pretty well confirmed that he (Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." [NBC, Meet the Press, 12/9/01]
------------------------------------------------------------
Russert: "The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?"
Cheney: "No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection." [NBC, Meet the Press, 11/14/03]
------------------------------------------------------------
I can certainly see why Mr. Cheney.
So as you and I can see from the above, Cheney has constantly conflated the perpetrators of the attacks of September 11th with the Saddam Hussein and this is just a handful of his statements, in concert with many other figures in his administration, even by George W. Bush. More glaring is that last exchange on June 17th of this year when he again made a statement which is flat-out, one hundred percent false.
I find such flagrantly deceptive and false statements made consistently by Mr. Cheney, about the most serious issue a nation can face (war) to be staggering, yet hardly anyone in the press corp seems to vigorously challenge these false statements.
Perhaps you can help explain to me where I am missing something in all of the above.
I would be very interested to hear your informed opinion on this much more serious falsehood (lie) by Mr. Cheney about the rationale for going to war.
Thank you in advance for your explanation on these issues, and again, for writing back to me.
cheers,
Mitch Gore
p.s. very curious as to why your response identifies my letter to you as "spam"...?
Wonder if she will write back after my reply?

cheers,
Mitch Gore
No one will change America for you. You must work to make it happen.

by Lestatdelc on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 10:05:33 PM PDT
(0 / 0)

by you on soon

If this is OK, click Post:

Or you may make changes below and Preview again, or Cancel this comment.

Permalink

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Diary Recommended By

David Nir, pontificator, Roastbeef, jaydfwtx, Chris Bowers, Jefe Le Gran, thirdparty, emptywheel, arthur, demgoon, wetzel, Hamburglar, vitor, Jake McIntyre, mickey, Loudocracy, maxomai, MRL, Lestatdelc, Canadian Reader, dan s, gina, paradox, galiel, cat, Drew, David Waldman, astrolad, havah, kid oakland, paperbag, Coloradem, George, Aeolus, DaveOinSF, walden, Blackwaterside, TVOR, Bob in MN, Irfo, Pacific John, lapin, Merle, empath, trifly, edwardbanderson, bupkis, jefff, antibush, payingattentionandappalled, eafredel, joejoejoe, s0ck, miasmo, Tomato Observer, Zackpunk, mooncrow, windsngr, bruceh, neodem, beartums, DelRPCV, Natural Anthem, ubikkibu, bradnickel, brahn, kaleidescope, Blue the Wild Dog, Coco Nut, SVDem, mishar, harry xing, kjfitz, markymarx, Patch in Bklyn, ckerr, Joan in Seattle, esherard8, zubalove, saraswati, palooza, mikedallas23, tiberius, wytcld, Maryscott OConnor, mklainer, c, sphealey, lectric, traveler, Diane Chambers, Debby, badpolitiks, Del C, boy asunder, antigonos, ARingMD2B, Astral, rogun, hubcity, WWGray, fugitive, hyperstation, DCDemocrat, eoglesby, DyspepTex, SF Bay, waytac, sidthefish, swedishguy, DynomiteUVA, wastelandusa, willyr, djinniya, kenfair, Peregwyn, saluda, stellans, Karl the Idiot, fightcentristbias, expriest, mugsimo, ashke, DFWmom, PitterPatter, gypsy, kj, T Ann, FreedomFighter, redfox1, Duderino, Carnacki, MrSnrub, Zeuscomo, zic, philodeon, chopper, jedc, bumblebums, zeroooo, Poika, editman, expat germany, dj1s, mraker, zeitshabba, StevetheWeave, nyk33, seer23, binFranklin, TexasDemocrat, Vitarai, RubDMC, hermes, BTF, truthaboutkeyes, humbucker, Guy Inagorillasuit, drh, fwiffo, hillarious, eyeswideopen, ImJohnGalt, BartBoris, Italtransit, Miss Devore, concernedamerican, mediaddict, bobbygsu, Ted W, worriedmom, westegg, trusty, cyberKosFan, Sjoerd, PDXSteve, chi mai

(Load)

Recommended by Dave the pro

The stunning fantasy of pro-gun Kossacks
The diary " The Stunning Ignorance of Kossacks About Guns " is false advertising. The title has no relationship to the text, which is overwhelmingly truthful--but irrelevant--information. In fact, ...
by IncurablePartisan 872 comments 425 Recs
Denied Eagle Scout Rank, Teen Amassing Eagle Awards
You may have heard about Ryan Andresen, the scout who completed all requirements for Eagle award while being openly gay, but was denied the rank at the last minute because of the Boy Scouts of ...
by EagleOfFreedom 20 comments 47 Recs
Dear Food Service Employers,
I am your best customer. I can't cook, at all. As a result, I eat out quite a bit. Way too much, in fact. I'm not the casual customer who shows up once a month. I'm the regular who comes in three to ...
by ThatPoshGirl 234 comments 381 Recs
Romney joins the 47 percenters
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/. Current tally: Obama 50.5%, Romney 47 .9%. That is all.
by Superribbie 10 comments 6 Recs
Stopping Their Narrative
As we all know, the right wing echo-chamber is going into overdrive, trying to figure out which excuse to make stick, and what they tend to say is their typical garbage. The deniers tote out ...
by alphac2005 7 comments 10 Recs
Nobody Saved Our President's Butt
Sorry to rain on America's parade, but Barack Hussein Obama isn't up in the polls right now because Joe Biden won a vice presidential debate. If Obama wins the election, we're going to be hearing a ...
by tigercub 38 comments 18 Recs
Bloomberg News: Romney used church loophole to defer 15 years of taxes
I am keeping this short because I know absolutely nothing about blind trusts and capital gains taxes. I hope someone picks up this diary and makes it more rec-list friendly: http://www.bloomberg.com/
by mph2005 162 comments 280 Recs
You Have the Right To Bear Arms - Not Use Them to Intimidate Free Speech
The 2nd amendment allows you to purchase and own a firearm. That doesn't give you the right to use that firearm to shoot at signs advocating for a political candidate you dislike intensely, in this ...
by Steven D 9 comments 25 Recs
You'll cry watching Mister Rogers defend PBS in Congress
Richard Nixon, like Mitt Romney, wanted to cut PBS. ...Until Mister Rogers showed up in Congress.
by Q Tip 128 comments 217 Recs
Did Romney Cheat? - Vid - You Decide
OK, just found this at [Democratic Undergroundhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/1251119479] My sister called and pointed this out. She tells me the debaters are provided with paper and a pen. ...
by AnnetteK 107 comments 51 Recs

No current results.


Unpublish Diary (The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
Delete Diary (The diary will be removed.)

Daily Kos

News, Community, Action