GOP in a panic over Cheney?

How big a deal is the video of Cheney meeting Edwards?  When I first saw it, I thought, oh, that's nice ... it might get some play on TV given that there's a nice clip ... but overall the media will give Cheney a pass.

Well, at least one astute GOP observer http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/blog_10_6_04_1429.html has a different take.  RCP felt compelled to write a very defensive editorial.  And, they weren't trying to wave it off ... or find some reason to say that, well, those other meetings don't really count.  They were saying, oh, it MUST have been an oversight.  And, catch this part:  "All of that being said, it was a remarkably bad gaffe with potentially serious consequences. The Vice President needs to step up immediately and diffuse the situation."

RCP clearly thinks this is big enough to impact the election.  And, if they're right, it will be tough to diffuse.  Because, as soon as Cheney steps up and says, "jeez, honest mistake," then KE04 pulls out the howitzers on the "every Tuesday" part of the gaffe.  My wife, who is not a political junkie at all, thought that in light of what Cheney said in the debate, if it is widely publicized that Cheney presided on only 2 Tuesdays over the last 4 years, Bush is toast.  And, she is no polyanna.  She (and I) thought Cheney won the debate.  And, in any case, it totally undermines an attempt to feign bad memory.  Hard to say, "oh I also kind of forgot that I NEVER preside over the Senate on Tuesdays."

•  recommended

  -fink

  by fink on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 06:56:49 PM PDT

  •  jay, i wanted to email you this link to update

    this excellent post.

    check out Thomas Oliphant in today's Boston.com.

    it furthers your point that Cheney is losing all but the rabid loyalists...

    $

    by joby on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 08:32:05 AM PDT

•  Wondered about this too

  And of course, hasn't everyone forgot meeting someone at some point. So why is it a big deal for Cheney? Not only because higher expectations are attached to public figures. There is probably also some element here in which this false statement merges with a general perception that he is not honest, and calls forth the other scandals -- Halliburton's no-bid contracts, the energy task force, and so on.

  Also, Cheney may have opened the floodgates: if he is lying about one thing (and his comment was not coincidental--it was a part of an elaborate attack), what else is he lying about, and what about the people around him?

  by egordy on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 06:58:59 PM PDT

  •  Liberals Take Note

    I apologize for having posted this below but I agree that this is noteworthy and will explain why--conservatives think they have a monopoly on "values" which we all share. That is part of what made Obama's speech so powerful. Many of the values they think are theirs are, in fact, things we all share.

    Liberals or whatever often fail to hear what rings conservatives bells.  I believe this is worth noting as it is irrefutably a Cheney lie, and though it may not seem very important the attack got big play after the debate and, I believe, would have been especially effective with conservatives as it plays to the basic value of Edward's responsibility or lack there of. This not only destroys that whole line of attack, but instead of the attack line being the memorable sound bite of the night, the fact that the attack was a dishonest, baldfaced lie is the memorable sound bite. And yes, honesty, is another one of those things like responsibility that conservatives think they have the monopoly on.  So this strikes at their strength.
    

    by american dreamer on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:12:17 PM PDT

    •  And To Expand Further

      I came from a very conservative suburb.  This election I've really come to think that many folks have a tin ear for what moves many conservatives. I think of the "W stands for wrong" line Kerry tried.  In the populist conservatism of today, being wrong isn't the biggest sin by any means.  That's more a liberal value. Instead we need to focus on honesty, responsiblity, respect for god, country, and the military, etc.  And the simple truth is this administration is a failure in all of these.  

      One more example, I have never seen anyone comment on Bush's use of the term "deceiving" for Saddam Hussein. Libs couldn't hear it but Bush was calling Saddam the Devil. Google on Satan and deceiver. Colin Powell seemed to me to almost choke on the word when he used it before the UN.  He knew what it meant.  Don't you think it was odd that Saddam wasn't a liar, he didn't mislead the world, he was a "deceiver?"  Again, I have never seen this brought out as most of Bush's critics can't even hear it.

      by american dreamer on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:23:22 PM PDT

      •  A lot of this has to do with symbols

        Using an understanding of what symbols are powerful could be thought of as manipulation. Or it could be thought of as good use of research.

        Certainly the elder Bush did not make tours of flag factories and claim to love pork rinds and country music because he had a deep love for flags, pork rinds and country music?
         

        by egordy on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:29:34 PM PDT

        •  Indeed, Martin Luther King

          used this sort of Biblkical imagery all the time and none of us fault him for it. Its just the samrt thing to do in a society drenched in religion like this one. Treating it like "secret code" is just an admission that you aren't literate in the most read book in the country. There is no reason we can't use this language as well and it doesn't have to have theocratic implications. The bible is full of powerful stories that millions of people know. If you wantto communicate with people you should figure out how to use those stories.

          BTW, I'm an atheist.

          by Christopher Day on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 05:58:24 AM PDT

          •  MLK Did Use Biblical Imagery

            "I have been to the mountaintop, and I have seen the Promised Land," said just a couple of days before his assassination, is probably the most noteworthy example.  OTOH, he was very obvious about what he was doing.  No one could say he was using any kind of "coded language," which is what this seems to be.  Also, he never tried to suggest that his opponents such as Bull Connor and George Wallace were Satanic, or even sinners because of their racist policies.  

            "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

            by JJB on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 07:49:46 AM PDT

            •  I don't need to be convinced that

              MLK was a more decent and honest man than W. It is absolutely true that Bush is using biblical terminology in a manner that sails under the radar of most secular types. But calling this "code" is I think a non-starter, because it is only code to the biblically illiterate. It isn't code to the majority of folks in this country, black and white, progressive and reactionary, who are Christians and who were schooled in it as children. Instead of complaining about the use of language in this way I think we should be learning to do it ourselves. (Bible study for secular humanists!) Politics means talking in terms people understand. On many questions and for many people the best available terms are biblical. Our inability to use this terminology effectively and our disdain for those who can is rightly viewed by many as an expression of elitism. Its monopolization by the political right has enabled the real elite to pose as populists. We must smash their monopoly.

              by Christopher Day on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 09:08:28 AM PDT

              •  Well

                Being able to use it effectively is probably not going to sway anybody from the Fallwell/Robertson/Bob Jones U school of Christianity, and anyone of a progressive mindset is going to look behind the rhetoric and try to find the substance of proposals and policies worth voting for.  I am very dubious that this kind of thing needs to be brought to the forefront of the political debate, and in fact would find it alarming if it were.  We need less of this bombastic religiosity in our political life, not more.  And I say this as a regular churchgoer who is a lector at an Episcopal church.

                If anyone does try to do this, they'd better make sure they know what they're talking about.  Remember when Howard Dean tried this, and ended up with egg on his face after saying that the Book of Job was in the New Testament?

                "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

                by JJB on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 09:19:54 AM PDT

      •  Beelzebush

        V. interesting--I'd love to see a full diary on this.

        I've wondered how much of the RNC debate bounce was due to the crosses on the podium, as I couldn't think of anything else which seemed even remotely effective.

        Oh, and do you think "W Stands for Weak" is any better?

        by GussieFN on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:57:45 PM PDT

        •  W stands for LIAR

          that will do it

          by knowthings on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:05:26 PM PDT

          •  W stands for Whopper

            But I can't take credit -- saw it somewhere else last night.

            by kchappelle on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 06:30:40 AM PDT

        •  W is weak

          sounds good to my ear. Among the culturally conservative middle class suburban white folks in this group, strength is more important than correctness, so weak is more devastating than wrong.

          by pHunbalanced on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 06:16:45 AM PDT

          •  re:How About

            W is for Duh

            But then again, his supporters don't care that he's stupid.

            by deminva on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 08:00:39 AM PDT

      •  great posts!

        I'm going to go back over the rest of your posts - these two are some of the most cogent and thoughtful in a place full of cogent, thoughtful comments. You sharpen my thinking, thanks

        by storme on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:02:43 PM PDT

      •  Deceiver and other words of power

        I didn't catch the religious context of "deceiver," but my Bush-code-to-bible-base alarm went on high alert during the last part of his debate summation last Thursday:  

        I believe in the transformational power of liberty. I believe that the free Iraq is in this nation's interests. I believe a free Afghanistan is in this nation's interest.

        And I believe both a free Afghanistan and a free Iraq will serve as a powerful example for millions who plead in silence for liberty in the broader Middle East.

        We've done a lot of hard work together over the last three and a half years. We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace.

        It's this language, steeped in biblical imagery, that Democrats need to catch all the time so that we know when it's being used and for what purpose.  And, for that matter, we need to learn to use it ourselves when speaking to the religious conservative demographic.  It may be our only way to make a meaningful connection.

        by mrs deedop on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:49:05 PM PDT

        •  There's another phrase that crops up

          I noticed a repeated use of "enforce doctrine" in Bush speeches, and White House talking points, in reference to taking "freedom" to oppressed countries and liberating them from tyranny. It is lifted directly from Fundamentalist Christian polemics, which I find startling, and very telling.

          Look at the results of this Google search!
          

          by bumblebums on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 09:16:23 AM PDT

      •  I heard it...

        One more example, I have never seen anyone comment on Bush's use of the term "deceiving" for Saddam Hussein. Libs couldn't hear it but Bush was calling Saddam the Devil.

        ... loud and clear. But then I have religious background.

        It is also why I call Bush and this administration pathological in their deception.

        1. It is the truth

        2. It throws his words back onto him... to some degree.

        I will not call Bush the devil. He's too weak and incompetent for that.

        However, Bush and his administration are every bit the deceiver that Saddam ever was.

        by Andrew C White on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:07:48 PM PDT

        •  I always wondered about that:

          why the fundies are so willing to overlook the lies of the Bush administration, when in Christianity the main trait of Satan himself is that he lies.

          Of course, that might be a clue to the massive denial about the administration's dishonesty that many Bush supporters seem to suffer from...

          ...if they admit he lies, then no way can they support him. But what's the alternative:
          a. Admitting they were wrong/fooled
          b. Admitting a liberal may be the better choice
          (c. Admitting their leader shares traits with the Devil himself!)

          For many wingnuts it's probably easier and more comforting to close their eyes and convince themselves that the President would NEVER lie, that the Democrats MUST be making things up.

          by shelle on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:38:13 PM PDT

          •  Hate to say it, but the Bible says Christians will

            The weirdest thing to me about the fact that people who take Revelation literally being the biggest fans of Bush is that Revelation comes right out and says that many, many Christians are going to be misled by someone claiming to be their leader. That's the entire M.O. of the AntiChrist. If there is one, he's not going to be a professed Muslim or Hindu or a primarily secular leader. The whole point is that he will lead Christians astray, so he's going to be most popular with Christians.

            To me, as a Christian who doesn't take Revelation as an End Times handbook, it is nonetheless a warning not to follow political leaders who are lying to you while saying they're going to save your soul. It's pretty clear cut, IMO, but then biblical literalists never have impressed me with their logic skills.

            I don't believe in a literal End Times sort of AntiChrist, but I do think George W. Bush is just the type of leader we were warned against.

            by Magenta on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 05:43:14 AM PDT

            •  someone posted this link

              a while back.
              http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_9_27/ai_108881880

              by fahra on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 08:34:58 AM PDT

      •  probably why so many believe Saddam did 9/11

        You see, 9/11 was Satanic, Saddam works for Satan, bin Laden works for Satan, of course all of Satan's minions work together.  That's how they think.
        

        by Joe Buck on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:27:16 PM PDT

      •  Also Bush used the word "crusade" to

        describe our going to war with Iraq. The word crusade has been associated for thousands of years with the holy war (crusade) between the Muslims and Christians. Iraq thought Bush was declaring a holy war on their country.

        by maggiemae on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:58:46 PM PDT

        •  declaration

          Wasn't he?

          by worker control on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 12:46:40 AM PDT

        •  It was Bush's maddness to pick this war

          Also Bush used the word "crusade" to . . . describe our going to war with Iraq. The word crusade has been associated for thousands of years with the holy war (crusade) between the Muslims and Christians. Iraq thought Bush was declaring a holy war on their country.

          
          

          There is an interesting article Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Iraq kept up WMD pretence 'to deter Iran' that is based on interviews with Saddam by members of the Iraq Survey Group.  It seems that one of the ways that the man was deluded was that he thought that somehow the "secular" character of his regime as well as its size would in the end deter the America from invasion.

          This is what Juan Cole had to say about that:

          
          

          Saddam also was appears to have been convinced that the US would not attack his regime after September 11, because of its secular character. Saddam is often caricatured as a madman (and it is true that there is something wrong with the man), but in this remark he shows himself thinking rationally and expecing Bush to do the same.
          

          
          

          For a very good discussion of just why it was so irrational to launch this war in this place at this time take a look at the guest editorial on Juan Cole's site by Professor Joseph White, Director of the Center for Policy Studies at Case Western Reserve University.  He does a better job than Kerry has, at least up to now, of explaining why though it was the wrong war, at the wrong time, and the wrong place, now that it is joined somehow finding a way to see it to a conclusion that does not leave a failed terrorist filled state is the best of several bad choices.

          by Fred in Vermont on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 04:36:31 AM PDT

          •  Thank you for sharing the Prof. Joseph White

            commentary (via the Juan Cole website). The commentary has perfect gems of truth which I have longed to hear Kerry express to the American people, especially to Bush during the debates. Now that our idiot President and his cabinet have taken us to war, our options are extremely limited. This piece addresses the few options available concisely. Kerry needs to clear up the issue and make voters understand the "best of a bad situation" options.  

            Guess the little democrastic experiment in Iraq can be deemed a failure. No wonder Bush/Cheney et al, don't want to face reality!  

            by maggiemae on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 10:06:52 AM PDT

      •  I've thought for some time...

        That Bush might be REALLY hurt by an attack on his piety.  I know, that sounds unlikely, but the SBVT ads probably seemed unlikely too.

        If there are people of faith out there already inclined to suspect Bush (and many of us are Dems, of course), the suggestion that Bush just uses Christianity as a campaign prop might gain some real acceptance.  A lot of people would go, "Aha!  I knew it all along!"

        It's too late for this kind of stuff, I suppose, but it might be very effective for somebody to look into this, with a thorough investigation of Bush's cynical use of religious symbolism.  

        I'm particularly offended by the new video that's out right now, "Faith in the White House" that symbolically compares Bush to Christ.  Read Frank Rich's review.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/arts/03rich.html
        

        by Dumbo on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 02:04:39 AM PDT

        •  Sojurners

          Dumbo, maybe you know the  Sojourners?
          some quotes:
          Republicans say "liberals" will ban the Bible

          by Jim Wallis 09-29-2004
          Behind these partisan religious activities lies a fundamental assumption by top Republican operatives, that they own religion in America.

          or:
          Jimmy Swaggart tells congregation he'd kill gays

          by David Batstone 09-22-2004
          No matter how reassuring it is that Swaggart subsequently admits that gays - "like anyone else" - are worthy of divine redemption, the overall tenor of his sermon drives home the message that violence against gays is justified. It's a very simple, but thoroughly un-Christian logic: Your life is not worth much if God deems you an abomination. more>>
          

          by PeWi on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 03:10:36 AM PDT

          •  Dude! :)

            Thank you for that!  Very cool site!  

            I have it bookmarked and will be back.  

            by Dumbo on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 04:31:59 AM PDT

      •  You should do a diary about this

        Despite being brought up a Catholic, and having attended Catholic schools for 16 years, I was oblivious to all of this.  I imagine most of us were.  This is important, and needs to be more widely understood.

        by ScientistMom in NY on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 06:24:37 AM PDT

    •  fox news!?

      wow!

      via the american street, you know this has legs if even fox news is fact checking cheney!

      by selise on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:38:19 PM PDT

    •  Two brilliant comments...thanks...

      I think your break down of the Kerry "W stands for Wrong" meme is spot on.  And your point about Saddam the "deceiver" is cogent and chilling.  You've changed and deepened how I view Powell's UN testimony.

      One of the reasons I've tried to push 'accountability' as a theme is because I hope it is a meme that has the potential to cut through a GOP-friendly mindset.  I don't think we really ever get their "hard core"...but I do think we need to use words like "credibility" "accountability" and "responsibility" to Knock them off their Base.

      Bush was very comfortable up until that last debate...it's funny James Fallows' analysis of Bush's debate style in the Atlantic Monthly highlighted how Bush himself used "accountability" as his linking meme to defeat Ann Richards in his run for Governor of Texas.  It just spoke to folks.

      We need to turn this back on them, starting with Cheney's double lie and continuing into Friday's debate.  Remember, Cheney lied to make Edwards seem like someone who didn't live up to conservative values of timeliness and hard work.  We have to hold him accountable for this lie...or he wins...doubly.

      PS:  Post more here...we will read it!

      by kid oakland on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:27:14 PM PDT

      •  One thing...

        We're not trying to win over conservative voters, we're trying to win over the moderates/undecided.  Therefore the "W stands for Wrong" works fine.  I think people are misunderstanding who these ads are focused on.  

        by Asak on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:52:12 PM PDT

        •  I think that hits

          the crux of trying to "knock them off their base", trying to win over undecideds and rallyinig our  base.

          These last two debates have changed alot of things.  One of them is the usual Democratic palaver that most folks in this country tune out because we've heard it from everyone since Mondale.

          W stands for Wrong...is good.  And steps away from that history.  I hope to holding up a placard that reads just that on election day.  In fact, it's a "last two weeks" slogan really.

          But for right now....while we're still broadening, while we're still chasing fence sitters...I think some attempt to knock them off their base is in order.  We've got to shake the goddam tree.  Some of the fruit will get scooped up by the other side, but some of it will come to us.

          Accountability.  Credibility.  Responsilbility. Leadership. and Resoluteness are all fair game for these two debates....and the ads and spin that accompanies them....

          at that point, we follow that up with GOTV and rally everyone on our side of the fence:

          W stands for Wrong is a part of that.

          Wrong direction.  Wrong leadership.  Wrong Way.

          by kid oakland on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:59:42 PM PDT

        •  But I think...

          Kid Oakland is right when s/he says...

          One of the reasons I've tried to push 'accountability' as a theme is because I hope it is a meme that has the potential to cut through a GOP-friendly mindset.  I don't think we really ever get their "hard core"...but I do think we need to use words like "credibility" "accountability" and "responsibility" to Knock them off their Base.

          We won't win the hard core but those themes resonate with all of us and particularly, I think, with folks that aren't Dem or Rep but pick and choose based on which side has a candidate they can respect because they perceive them as being...credible, responsible, accountable... and I would add... reasonable.

          This administration is deceptive. Their credibility is lacking and it is plain to see for all but the blind.

          This administration lacks responsibility. They cannot accept responsibility for their actions, their failures, their weaknesses, nor even admit that they exist. This too, needs to be hammered home.

          This administration fudges the accounting and hides from reality.

          And lastly this administration is not reasonable in any way, shape or form. It is their way or the highway, with us or against us, black or white, right or wrong. There is no middle ground, no compromise, no respect for other viewpoints.

          This administration cannot be trusted. It is as simple as that. The question is how to best get that point across without alienating the very people that we need to persuade.

          by Andrew C White on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:23:13 PM PDT

          •  This is a very useful meme...

            Because it goes to credibility and illusions.  The analogy between Cheney's distortions about Iraq/911 and this are significant.

            by Dumbo on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 02:28:25 AM PDT

        •  The calculus of moderation

          Yes, it is the "moderates" or undecideds we are trying to win. I would argue that a large plurality, if not a majority, of the undecideds remaining in swing states fit the following description: already with us on most domestic socio-economic issues, disturbed by what many refer to as the "situation" in Iraq, generally in favor of a strong US military, generally conservative (though not zealous) regarding cultural issues, and deeply concerned about the "character" of their leaders.

          Not all "moderates" or undecideds are right in the middle on every issue or every category of issues. The reason Edwards has always played so well with these folks is that they are populists who are with us on domestic issues, winnable on foreign policy, but hoodwinked by the GOP on leadership/character.

          by pHunbalanced on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 06:28:08 AM PDT

  •  Sure

    But it seems like his lie was intentional to drive his point that Edwards has not been around the senate. Although, we know that Cheney hasn't really been around himself. Presiding only twice out of over 100. They've met 3 times. The most recent one was just last year.

    The focus really should be on how he lied about linking Iraq to 9/11. If anything they need to raise a stink about that.

    by Vot3 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:16:50 PM PDT

    •  Any Cheney lie that they can demonstrate with

      pictures becomes a metaphor for all Cheney's lies.  Yes, I agree that it would be best were all Americans to join hands and say, "Enough with these policies," but if Americans can only agree that Edwards and Cheney have met three times and Cheney lied about it, and that makes people think Cheney is a liar, well, why would I want to dispute that assessment.

      by DCDemocrat on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:25:19 PM PDT

      •  Cheney is the Joe Isuzu of American politics

        I think we should start calling him that.  For anyone who desn't recognize the reference, "Joe Isuzu" was a character in a LONG running series of car commercials who made exaggerated claims about their cars ("twin frozen yogurt machines in the back") while the screen below him said "HE'S LYING".

        Every time Cheney opens his mouth the screen below HIM should say the same thing!  This might be a good way of planting the idea of Cheney as a hopeless liar in the American psyche.

        by Jim in Chicago on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:46:50 PM PDT

        •  Ugghh -- that was a Dukakis line about Poppy....

          lamely delivered. It landed with a thud then, and since that ad campaign's been history for 15 years, well.... crickets and the occasional barking dog in the distance.

          Now, Dick "FactCheck" Cheney... there's one to try. Since Dubya likes to give people nicknames, lets just call Dick "FactCheck" Or, for the formalists, Vice President FactCheck. What a legacy.

          FactCheney.com. Quick, somebody register it.

          by fouro on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 12:01:05 AM PDT

          •  I don't think Kerry should say it

            It's more the kind of thing that should travel around the internet, talk radio, letters to the editor, etc. as just one more way of labeling this administration as untruthful.

            Remember: WE HAVE THE POWER

            (sigh)

            by Jim in Chicago on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 12:26:13 AM PDT

            •  Agreed - Above the fray...

              But the Factcheck theme is out there and can be pressed--better by Edwards cuz he was a recentt and highly visible victim of Drive-by Dick. Maybe "drive-by" is even better--easily understood as a hit and run coward tactic, leaving the scene of the crime, irrationality, irresponsibility.... simple mnemonics that the Chris Matthews' of the world love to repeat with glee.

              Guess thats an important point about how to infiltrate the bloodstream of the mainstream media:

              1. Does it roll off the tongue and feel slightly naughty?
                 
              2. Is there "art", preferably video?

              by fouro on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 06:15:27 AM PDT

          •  How about

            "Two Tuesday Dick"?

            by Olds88 on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 12:33:02 AM PDT

        •  Dick "Drive-by" Cheney

          

          by fouro on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 12:21:28 AM PDT

      •  A picture is worth a

        thousand words.

        Unlike others, I thought Cheney's performance was terrible -- he appealed to generalities in his responses except when attacking Kerry and Edwards directly and then was downright mean.  My first response at the conclusion was that if I had been Bush, I would have fired him.  (Yeah, Cheney wasn't as bad as Bush, but he's not going to fire himself and he always blames others for his failings.)  This picture will only reinforce the impression Cheney made because on some level all viewers, but the most ardent freepers, detected a stench about Cheney.  

        by Marie on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:55:24 PM PDT

      •  It's not just that they met three times

        The lie is far worse than that.

        Cheney constructed a picture in the audience's mind of Dick Cheney up there in the front of the classroom, Mr. Authority figure, taking roll week after week, and in all that time Edwards never shows up or makes no impression.  So it's not only that he had at least three meetings; is that his relationship with the truth is so casual that he would just make all this crap up just to score a good zinger.  He had to compound lie apon lie apon misleading impression just to score that point.

        If he would lie so casually about a small thing, how much more incentive does he have to lie about something that really matters to him?
        

        by Joe Buck on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:33:23 PM PDT

        •  It's the storyteller's maxim

          Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

          by patop on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:26:41 PM PDT

      •  That's it exactly.

        It's not so much Cheney lied about something significant. It's that Cheney lied about something easily documented. It's blatant and gives the (very correct) impression that he is a habitual liar. I'll take it.  

        by Magenta on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 05:50:36 AM PDT

    •  They need to raise a stink about anything

      Everybody who has eyes to see already knows Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Focusing on something that people are willfully blind to won't make them see. They need to raise a stink about anything they can make stick to him. Only if people question his credibility on meetings/Senate record/some/other/minor/deception may they come around to question him on the big lies.

      by zyx zyx on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:06:42 PM PDT

  •  It is important

    because if it is a simple error and Cheney forgot meeting him, it suggests that Edwards as a non GOP member wasn't important enough to register with Cheney.  He was invisible to Cheney, much the way the middle class and non GOP supporters are treated by this administration.

    It was also a line that was delivered with venom and agression.  For him to be that far off goes to his credibility.

    As for presiding over the senate for 2 Tuesdays in 4 years when he said he was up there almost every week, well that is just dilusional.

    by brighton on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:38:47 PM PDT

    •  Right.

      If Cheney, as President of the Senate, says that he never met Edwards, that speaks much volumes about Cheney-rather that about Edwards.

      It means that Cheney only speaks to Republicans-and as the old quote goes, Republicans speak only to God. heh.

      Think about it as a CEO: what if in 4 years you never met with a particular one of your VPs?

      by susanp on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:46:57 PM PDT

      •  The Intelligence Committee

        More than that, Cheney, who has always taken a deep interest in intelligence, is basically admitting he's never bothered to communicate with the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee - which is the one body outside the White House with the most oversight and influence on our intelligence agencies.

        Wouldn't a responsible White House invite the members of the Intelligence Committee over to review the intelligence on, say, a country you're preparing to invade based on that intelligence?

        Not Cheney's White House!
        

        by wytcld on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 07:02:12 AM PDT

  •  A small example of a big problem

    And of course, hasn't everyone forgot meeting someone at some point. So why is it a big deal for Cheney?

    Because Cheney wasn't simply responding to someone else's question: "John Edwards, you say? Now that you mention it, I don't think I have met him."

    No. He was aggressivley going after Edwards (for not being visible enough in the Seante? For not kissing the VP's ring?) and he was wrong, and not by a little (3 meetings).

    When you attack someone for something, you better have your facts straight. Or you lose your moral authority. Kind of reminds me of something...can't quite put my finger on it....

    by Joan in Seattle on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:22:43 PM PDT

    •  Right

      It's the difference between "Don't think I know the man" and "I know the man and I never met him". Cheney's claiming active knowledge about Edwards' behavior, not uncertainty.

      by badger on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:33:28 PM PDT

  •  you know why else it's a big deal?

    Cheney didn't just slip the point in as part of the conversation. (as a person might have with something like "I was in this meeting with Joe Schmoe" and it turns out it was actually Joe Doe) He put it in there to make a very specific, belittling rhetorical point--a point that turned on his being truthful.

    If it were the absolute truth that Cheney is there almost every Tuesday presiding over the senate and John Edwards is never there--well...that would be a pretty good shot, wouldn't it. However, if it turns out that this powerful rhetorical point hinges on a lie--that's a whole different ball of wax.

    by JMS on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 05:42:18 AM PDT

•  Sweet

  I love seeing the rats squirm.

  by Semblance on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 06:59:16 PM PDT

•  How appropriate.

  The Vice President needs to step up immediately and diffuse the situation.

  I was thinking he'd be better served by defusing it, but diffusing it is actually SOP.

  What can I say? If it works with non-junkies, I don't much care what it distracts from. On retarded minutiae do mighty contests turn. Or, if you prefer it old school (meaning the use of actual cliches, preferably without the word "retarded" in them), for want of a nail...

  by Kagro X on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:00:45 PM PDT

  •  Ooops!!!

    And, I repeated the spelling error (red-faced).

    by jay l on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:16:28 PM PDT

•  To put it mildly

  Cheney ain't the problem, and these commentators have to know it.  (Edwards, after all, had only about 40% of voters believing that he won his debate;  Kerry, a clear majority.)  But twenty-seven days from the election, they're committed no matter what.

  They're obviously dreading Friday in St. Louis.

  Kerry by 3-6 after St. Louis.

  Kerry by 6-10 after Tempe.

  by BSJinx2 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:01:02 PM PDT

  •  Temper your expectations for Fri....

    The corporate whore media will declare Chimp the winner even if he doesn't show up. Count on it....

    by Volvo Liberal on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:17:23 PM PDT

    •  They tried twice in the last week

      But people believed their lying eyes and not the talking heads- with a bit of help from us.  And I doubt the shrub's performance is going to improve-  desperate men rarely do.

      by BSJinx2 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:23:21 PM PDT

      •  Shrub won't be ready

        
        And I doubt the shrub's performance is going to improve-  desperate men rarely do
        

        
        It might have been a misstatement, but CNN's reporter with the Bush campaign made a reference to Bush "preparing for the next debate in the coming days" fifteen minutes ago on Aaron Brown.

        Considering that "coming days" includes tomorrow, Bush is more or less hosed.  I'd imagine he's currently feeling like the undergraduate who ignored his calculus class all term and now has to get a 100% to pass - all with about 24 hours to study in.

        by tomaxxamot on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:42:05 PM PDT

        •  Gallup is picking the audience

          Don't forget this point.  The audience is weak Kerry and weak bush.  From what I can determine that means that there is a 1 in a billion possibility that they would change there vote.  If they stack the hall like some of their polls, with 50% (weak) Bush supporters, 30% Kerry supporters and 20% actual undecided voters.  You could see an outcome much different from what you expect you will see.  W knows how to play his base.  If we get screwed on the audience, the media might be able to portray it as a W win.

          by DanD on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:19:47 PM PDT

          •  Exactly!!

            Some people may have forgotten this due to overexcitement or optimism. The audience is going to be stacked against Kerry. Gallup will make sure of that.

            The GOP and the media will make sure that this looks as good for Bush as possible. The best we can hope for is a draw. We can't go in there saying we're going to do fantastic, or that Bush is toast. Kerry can't have that kind of attitude, or he will lose.

            by JamesB3 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:00:13 PM PDT

            •  Fine. The audience is stacked

              But the format is rigged anyway.  No one is going to be allowed to just take the microphone and ask a question.  They are going to have to submit their question in advance, have it approved by the moderator and then wait to be called upon.  If they try to change their question, they are supposed to be cut off.  Gibson is going to have to make sure that there are an even number of questions to both candidates and that there is a mixture of softball and hardball questions.

              Bush refused to allow "undecided voters" to make up the audience because he knows that undecided voters are leaning to Kerry by 4-1.  That they insisted on this format for picking the audience is proof that they believe that.  I honestly don't blame him for this.

              Besides, Kerry has been dealing with hecklers and rude questions for over a year now.  He knows how to answer the GOP operatives that infiltrate his rallies. Before last week's debate, "Bubble Boy" hadn't spoken to anyone who disagreed with him in almost four years.

              by LeftCoastTimm on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 12:47:18 AM PDT

      •  I Absolutely Agree

        Short of a brain transplant,  I can't see Smirky McGoofus doing much better.

        They are desperately adjusting with his meds AND IT SHOWS.  Last week at the debate, he had STOPPED spewing saliva while pronouncing his "esses".  Very next day he's back at it.  Yesterday, it was bad - he said "Mash-a-shew-shish" trying to pronounce Kerry's home state. And the facial tics were back bigtime.

        I've also noticed that he's not nearly as bad in the morning as he is in the evening, lending credence to the fact that he dissapears early to hit the booze - which he does every chance he gets.

        Note the absence of Smirky's appearences in the evening.  No state dinners for years and he was famous for hauling ass out of them at 8 promptly no matter what.

        You got to feel sorry for the folks in charge of his meds.  It must be like playing Whack-A-Mole.  Smack one symptom down and up pops another.

        by mattman on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 05:04:42 AM PDT

        •  Whack-A-Mole

          I just burst out in laughter (LOL) at work over that one.  Now my coworkers think I'm nuts!

          by crady201 on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 08:43:01 AM PDT

•  The media's only story on this is

  that both sides lied, etc.

  Even many here seem to think this is no big deal, sadly.

  It seems like the media is doing their best to set Kerry up for a big fall on Friday, and to minimize any positive effects from Edwards' speech.

  by JamesB3 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:04:27 PM PDT

  •  You are one negative

    person.

    by Manny on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:23:47 PM PDT

    •  And you're gullible or blind.

      If you aren't prepared for really bad spin on Friday then you apparently aren't following any of this campaign. Stop expecting things to be wonderful and instead anticipate how the GOP and the media will use the next debate to their advantage. I mean the media is still trying to find ways to say that Cheney won the debate. From Richard Wolffe fawning over Cheney and saying that Edwards didn't live up to expectations, to the AP stories that "both" candidates lied, to the rigged ABC poll showing that Cheney won (via overampled Republicans).

      I have to admit that I do worry that this lie was done so there would be more focus on Kerry's Senate attendance record. Hopefully that wasn't the case and this will hurt Cheney, although the media is ignoring his other lies.

      by JamesB3 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:36:32 PM PDT

      •  Let them

        Kerry's senate record is actually pretty damned good, and well documented here, and elsewhere in terms that are easily disseminated...

        Names on MANY sponsored and cosigned bills and resolutions...

        And BCCI Iran Contra....

        Think the Pugs REALLY want to start talking about BCCI or IranContra?

        Thought not.

        by RedDan on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:40:09 PM PDT

        •  Don't call them Pugs

          Pugs are nice little creatures.

          by joeesha on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:20:35 PM PDT

      •  James, its over

        We are going to win this thing.  There is nothing left for Bush/Cheney to hold on to.  All of the news for them is bad.  Irag?  Bad!  Economy? Bad!  Weapons of mass destruction? Bad!  They have thrown every thing that they had against John Kerry and John Edwards and IT ISN'T STICKING!  In case you didn't notice, the big bad media did not cowtow to Bush this time.  This election is breaking, and it is breaking to us.

        by Manny on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:46:23 PM PDT

        •  Did you see MSNBC last night?

          Come on, Manny, you're an intelligent man. This ain't over 'til it's over, as Yogi Berra would say. Remember that the jobs report is going to be rigged in Bush's favor, and that it was only the horrified reaction from the public after Thursday's debate that led the press to take a few small critiicsms at Bush. They have been punished and may not be as critical on Friday.

          Kerry really has to pull off a miracle here. We can't just say "it's over". We can't get overconfident, or underestimate Bush. Not for a second. Look what happened when THEY got overconfident.

          by JamesB3 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:49:18 PM PDT

          •  We are 27 days away from the election

            There is no more time to turn things around.  Unless Bush comes up with an "October surprise", there isn't enough time!

            Of course, you are right about complacency.  But do you really think that Kerry is going to choke on Friday?  Do you really think that the media will be able to concvince the country that Bush wins when he  obviously didn't?  

            You mentioned MSNBC last night, and I agree, it was repulsive.  But guess what?  Today they aren't talking about a Cheney win, they are talking, at best, a tie.  And guess what?  A tie is a win for Edwards.

            We are winning.  And we need to keep moving this mementum forward.  Your incessant negativity is old hat, and I am well tired of it.

            by Manny on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:56:07 PM PDT

          •  James, the corporate media

            still needs to be believed.  I have not spoken with a single person who believes that Bush won the last debate.  Not one, and that includes conservatives and Repubs.  Bush's odorous performance simply can't be spun beyond stinko - it is by far the worst performance by a participant in Presidential debates in the TV era.  If that's what you mean by Kerry "needing to pull off a miracle", I disagree.  Bush has more pressure on himself than he ever had in his life.  And he isn't used to pressure.

            by wozzle on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:04:32 PM PDT

            •  I've met one

              I don't think they believed it, but they were sure willing to yell that he won.  It was funny as they are a very weak rep.  Someone that I would expect to go for Kerry, but no, something odd is going on there.  Later in the day I was in the warehouse and speaking to a hard core rep I know.  He looks at me and asks me if I watched the debate, and I say yes.  Then he says at 9:45 I said Kerry is kicking Bushs ass.  About that time the other person came walking by.  Heard what was being said and very quickly walked away kind of ashamed.   So I have met one person that would say that Bush won the first debate.  And they said it about as convincingly as W said most of his lines.

              by DanD on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:24:05 PM PDT

            •  bush is now under pressure

              more than he has ever been under in his whole sorry career. he cannot become a policy wonk by friday. impossible. so he will stumble through this town hall, forced at some points to speak broadly about principles and ideals. that is not going to impress undecided voters. most regular people, people outside bush's base, want answers. they want adult dialogue. bush has none to offer. his schtick works for challengers, sometimes, but not for incumbent CIC's.

              but: cornered animals bite! i really hope he tries to take a piece out of big john, because that is a big mistake. i am praying his ego, and renewed confidence after his speech today in front of his screaming nitwit fans, drive him to get real, real cocky friday.

              it's the best thing that could happen for us: bush on the attack one on one.

              by maskling11 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:17:11 PM PDT

              •  Bush and Cheney both...

                ... seemed to have a set of talking points they want to repeat over and over and over again. This seems to be their plan of attack. Attack Kerry by repetition. Cheney had more stuff to throw in there and made it look better then weak little boy George did but I sat back at one point and realized that Cheney really didn't have much more material to work with then George did.

                Is it just me? When Bush and Cheney repeat "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" doesn't it just enforce the idea that it IS> the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place? Isn't that a failing theme for them? Aren't they just playing our hand for us?

                I think these guys... and I include Rove here... have been insulating themselves too long. They played to stacked audiences, lock away dissent, lock out democrats from legislative decision making, and pretty much seem to be believing their own male cattle fecal matter.

                To me, they appear to be completely out of touch. I'm not sure they realize how badly they are losing this debate thing. Their lines ain't playin in Peoria.

                Here's hoping they don't realize it anytime too soon.

                by Andrew C White on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:39:43 PM PDT

                •  Yes

                  That "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" line is horrible. It reinforces the idea that the war was in fact wrong, especially coming from their mouths.

                  My girlfriend and I had that reaction to Bush last week. Cheney was better at saying it because at least he didn't stumble over his words.

                  But I don't think that line is a good one at all.

                  Ben P

                  by Ben P on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:49:45 PM PDT

                  •  Here's hoping...

                    ... they say it again and again and again.

                    (and again and again and again and again)

                    by Andrew C White on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:56:33 PM PDT

                •  The smart rejoinder from Kerry...

                  ...If that gets trotted out in either debates left, this the response:

                  "Before you impetuously invaded Iraq, you didn't care what the rest of the world thought, now when you are losing an election, you suddenly attack me for speaking telling the truth because you claim the truth will offend the rest of the world.

                  That, Mr. President is the simplistic petulant behavior that insults the people who should be our allies in cleaning up the mess you got us into through deception, as I might add your fellow Americans."

                  Mitch Gore

                  Wanna win in '08...?

                  Put your money where your mouth is.

                  by Lestatdelc on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:25:44 PM PDT

                •  Repeating "Wrong War"...

                  Their problem in repeating the "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" line, is that Bush and Cheney say it almost with a figurative wink at us-- like, yes, we agree with that statement, but we must make believe for the troops that we all don't agree with it.
                  

                  by npb7768 on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 02:21:31 AM PDT

              •  Bush Won't Win But...

                I agree with your comment, but  we have to be alert for attempts by the media to say that any minimal improvement in Shrub's performance is a "win".

                There was no way to spin that first debate into a Bush win, but the media will be eagerly trying to show they are "balanced" this time. A rapid and massive response from us is probably going to be more important this time than in the first debate.

                by bramish on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 09:05:18 AM PDT

      •  Then

        get out there, write letters/emails, and get on the press's case!

        I just sent out over 100 emails to various news outlets complaining about Cheney's lies.

        by wisdude on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:24:53 PM PDT

      •  No way that Bush,

        "The Vacation President" can raise the issue of absenteeism on anybody. That's not where I'd be concentrating my energy if I were Kerry.

        by a gilas girl on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:58:10 PM PDT

        •  chutzpah

          You probably thought that about his Vietnam record too...

          by Preston on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 04:20:45 AM PDT

          •  point taken

            but no I didn't, it was al ways pretty clear to me that W would get a pass from the electorate on the Vietnam/TANG thing.

            Good example, though, touche.
            ;)

            by a gilas girl on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 06:56:27 AM PDT

      •  James, you do have a talent

        for finding the cloud for every silver lining.
        Doesn't mean you are wrong, though.
        Doesn't mean you are right, either.
        This isn't Kerry's first time at the rodeo, and nothing short of a brain-transplant will make up for Bush's self-indulgent, lazy, four years of life in an echo chamber.
        Bush will do better--- because short of peeing his pants on national TV, he can't do worse.
        I'm thinking Kerry might do better, too.
        Not long to wait to see who's right.
        You will excuse me if I hope that you are mistaken :)
        

        by IsraelHand on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 12:26:15 AM PDT

  •  Why do people argue about JamesB3

    Come on, he is our resident pessimist

    Let it go

    And James, that's a good comment, think I'll give it a 3

    by knowthings on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:46:31 PM PDT

•  Call me cynical...

  ... but could this possibly be much ado over what amounts to a nonissue? Focus media and pundit attention on something which has absolutely no real merit aside from proving that Chaney is willing to conveniently forget things in order to generate a punchy soundbyte, and get them away from the serious lies and allegations like Haliburton's involvement with libya + iran, his claim that he never connected iraq with 9/11, etc?

  If I were in that situation, I'd probably be trying to deflect and distract in every way within my power, including building a non-story to epic proportions so as to deride the media who start commenting on the topic as the ones making a mountain from a molehill.

  by Hatamoto on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:05:31 PM PDT

  •  It was important

    about Gore.  Why shouldn't it be important about Cheney?

    It fits into the K/E meme that they live in an alternate reality.

    by Unstable Isotope on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:15:05 PM PDT

    •  Gore...

      ... didn't have the SCLM on his side. They decided (by whatever mechanism) that the best angle to play was the 'boring liar' schtick. I don't know if Chaney will receive the same treatment.

      If he does, then its excellent news, because Dick will have brought attention that will undoubtably be unwanted. I have my doubts that what's good for the goose will be good for the Vader, tho. ;)

      by Hatamoto on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:56:40 PM PDT

  •  what lies will the lazy media cover?

    lies about war? lies about halliburton? about anything that REALLY matters?  tv news is asleep...

    but i bet they would be MORE than willing to cover this one... its simple, doesn't challenge the mythology (usa foreign policy is always for the good of the all), good sound bites, good visuals in the tape libraries....

    yeah, i'd rather have cheney's lying about something that really matters be the focus of some real reporting on the nightly news. but cheney DOES lie, A LOT. and covering that is better than nothing.

    you may have a winner here....

    by selise on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:15:37 PM PDT

    •  the media covers this one because

      there is video of it actually happening. If there is video, the media will cover it. And that's the key to having a story with legs. Every pundit jackass can run the rebuttal clips. Look at the stories that have been the media's focus:

      Bush huffing like a schoolboy > on video

      Cheney lying about meeting Edwards > meetings on video

      Cheney's denial he's ever linked Iraq and Al Qaida > definitely recorded on video many times.

      So maybe we should be looking for the stories that have video legs. They're easier to pitch and easier for the SCLM to run with.

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

      •  actually

        a very good point.  The media love a good story, and anything that happens on video is a good story.

        So, let's feed them video.

        by BrooklynRaider on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:04:55 PM PDT

      •  Excellent point

        I hadn't considered the SCLM's inherent laziness when it comes to this sort of thing... you're right, it will get a lot more attention if the package comes wrapped with a videotape ribbon.

        Why persue a story that involves abstracts like investigation and connect-the-dots deduction when you can play 'gotcha' using easily aired video clips?

        Perhaps we should start digging around for the various clips of chaney'n'pals drawing the direct line between iraq + 9/11 to follow up with. Start with the "He lied about meeting edwards" trip and follow up with the bigger lie. The ol' one-two punch.

        by Hatamoto on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:02:09 PM PDT

      •  Just did an extended diary entry here...

        that goes into a bit more detail

        Apologies for the diary whoring.

        by saynuk on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 08:28:28 AM PDT

    •  The Media will cover it ...

      The media will cover the lie about having not met Edwards before that night b/c it can be shown to be false through video clips and it is irrefutable.

      If you are trying to show that Cheney lied about saying or implying that there was a Saddam & 9/11 connection, the media can use video but then they have to place the video in context. They will then find themsleves arguing with the Republicans over whether Cheney said what he said and/or whether he implied what the media said he implied.  In other words, the waters can be easily muddied.

      First, the video of meeting Edwards is clear. There is no argument about what was implied or meant by it. It stands on its own. So, they cannot muddy the waters on this "lie".

      Like other fellow Kosians have said, Cheney could say he made a mistake but that ol' dog won't hunt  b/c Cheney put his own reputation on the line when he said that he had never met Edwards before that night. He didn't say I don't think I have ever met ... he said emphatically that he had never met Edwards. So nuance won't work for Cheney or his supporters on this one.

      And it's not just one meeting caught on video ...there are several at least that show Cheney and Edwards together.

      Second, the context works against Cheney. He said that he had never met Edwards in the context of his being up to the Senate every Tuesday. If he had only presided over the Senate 2 times over his term in office, then clearly he was putting a lie into a lying context.

      That's the problem Cheney has ... it's a "lie wrapped in a lie" ... no stretching of truth .. no misleading statement ... a simple lie that everyone can see for themselves. And that makes it perfect for the media.

      Third, this "lie within a lie" provides the context that Kerry/Edwards can use as a wedge to expose the whole Bush/Cheney underbelly of misrepresentations, misdirections, obfuscations, and outright falsehoods.

      Last, if Bush/Cheney can be shown to be lying about simple things to tar Kerry/Edwards then this can be used to shield Kerry/Edwards against future hits ... "they were lying then and they're lying now".

      by Jon B Good on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 12:38:34 AM PDT

  •  That would be true if the media

    actually cared about investigating Cheney's scandals. They don't. They will talk about this since it's a stupid gaffe. This also takes away from the intended spin that Cheney is so tough and strong and Edwards is out of his league. All the GOP can do is say "oh well I didn't remember meeting you", which makes him look senile, or just do what the Thugs I know are doing -- blithely ignore any claims or say "oh well he never met Edwards in the Senate, what does that say about Edwards" which only opens up a line of attack about Cheney's lies on presiding over the Senate.

    I just hope that the Democrats and Kerry are ready for Friday, because the media and the GOP are going to devastate Kerry. I don't know if he realizes that.

    by JamesB3 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:21:53 PM PDT

    •  Friday

      I just hope that the Democrats and Kerry are ready for Friday, because the media and the GOP are going to devastate Kerry. I don't know if he realizes that.

      Two things are worth bearing in mind with regard to Friday. First, historically, of those who have chosen to watch a presidential debate, most people watch the first one. So Kerry very well may have already jumped the highest hurdle, as far as the debates themselves go.

      Second, what day of the week does the Bush administration normally choose for releasing self-incriminating documents? What day of the week are people the least likely to focus on all things political? Friday. Even if things go poorly for Kerry, this coming Friday, a large segment of the voters won't be paying attention until the following Monday, which is a mere two days before the last of the three debates on the 13th.

      by machopicasso on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:41:01 PM PDT

      •  Jobs Report

        hmmmmm...

        by RedDan on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:42:02 PM PDT

        •  Isn't that the one that will be rigged?

          by JamesB3 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:49:46 PM PDT

          •  James

            ALL the jobs reports are rigged, nonetheless, they still come out bad for Bush.

            by a gilas girl on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:05:51 PM PDT

            •  Now that is how to reply to James

              thanks for a perfect example

              by knowthings on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:17:53 PM PDT

            •  Some do, some don't.

              A few of the reports this year were spun as big wins for Bush. And this one will be too if he's rigging the data in his favor. This will be only hours before the debate, and it will give him huge momentum.

              by JamesB3 on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 04:06:32 AM PDT

              •  Of course they were SPUN

                as big wins, hell, these fools are spinning Iraq as a success for crying out loud.  That doesn't mean the so-called good reports are good, and folks on the ground know this.  Nobody outside of financial reporters/pundits has ever bought that Bush's economy is working.  Even the spun definition of a "good report" is mediocre.  Economic spin is the stuff that is the most distant from voters: remember, the average person doesn't understand or pay attention to econo-speak, they live the economy and judge it on things like wages/jobs, mortgage rates, cost of living, job security, increased debt.  Dips in the GDP or "consumer confidence" are empty phrases.  

                Economic spin can be accomplished rather easily and can be successful with the fools in newsrooms, but it doesn't carry nearly as much weight with voters as foreign policy spin, cultural politics spin, and law and order spin.

                by a gilas girl on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 06:53:57 AM PDT

        •  Is there in fact a jobs report due out on Friday?

          If there is and if it's good (in that rigged sense of 'good'), then I would've expected the White House to push for its release a day or two before the Friday night debate; you know, to let the good news linger in the press for a day or two. In fact, I'd say they've made a mistake in not releasing it in advance of Friday.

          On the other hand, if they can't even rig it to be good, then they'll release it late Friday afternoon, and Kerry can at least capitalize on it for those Americans who can't seem to find anything better on t.v., Friday night.

          by machopicasso on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:00:50 PM PDT

          •  BLS Reports Are Fixed

            Regarding their time of release. They cannot be released early and are always released at 8:30 am. The potential for market manipulation is too great to allow for anything else.

            That's not to say there is never information leaked ahead of time, but the White House cannot move the release date or time of the report.
            

            by Davidsfr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:07:41 PM PDT

          •  There's a diary on it

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/121312/527 Friday AM

            by storme on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:57:46 PM PDT

    •  Kerry Has Been

      AGONIZINGLY skillful in his maneuvering of this campaign. As many nights as Ive gone to bed with my stomach in knots, Kerry has shown that he has a plan. He is following it, and whether we initially like the small steps he takes (and sometimes they LOOK like missteps at the time), he is pulling out on top at exactly the right time.

      Trust me, you know, I know, WE know, and most importantly KERRY knows that the Repubs arent through blowing smoke and bullshit. We will sweat bullets, but he will end up doing what is right. And he will win. And then we can all look back and laugh.

      Until then, buy stock in Pepto and Visine (so you can stay sick 'n glued to dKos)

      by RNinNC on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:53:02 PM PDT

      •  Hope you're right

        But the inability of Kerry and Edwards to explain their votes against the $87 billion Iraq appropriations bill (and it's such a good and easy explanation) is REALLY hurting their campaign.  It goes to the heart of people's worry about his ability to carry out the War on Wahhabism and the "flip-flop" charge.  Maybe he's saving it for later -- there has to be something done, or else it will be a major reason for defeat.

        by philgoblue on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 05:34:49 AM PDT

        •  Best Response Ive Heard

          here was to ask the QUESTIONER why there were two votes to begin with? Why didnt it pass the first time when Kerry supported the proposal, and what were the differences between the proprosals that lead to votes changing the second time around.

          It at least shuts people up when you turn the table and make THEM attempt to explain the situation as they see it. Just screaming "He Flip-Flopped" doesnt show they understand. These questions force them to face the fact that they dont truly get it, but CAN if they will just listen..... TO WHAT I SAY!!!.

          by RNinNC on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 06:40:02 AM PDT

    •  That's the Spirit!

      >> I just hope that the Democrats and Kerry are ready for Friday, because the media and the GOP are going to devastate Kerry. I don't know if he realizes that. >>

      They haven't managed yet, and all their strategy so far has been foiled.

      I think Friday may be the time Kerry delivers the decivise blows to Bush, turns the swiftboat upon him and decimates him.

      Someone on this site, who seemed to speak with a degree of insider knowledge, claimed that Kerry's strategy was not to win the first debate, but just to make a respectable showing. In fact that is what he seemed to do--Bush was so bad that it became a decisive win for Kerry.

      The poster I refer to said that he believed Kerry would attack Bush in the second debate and rattle him, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that happen. Kerry was expected to be aggressive in the first debate, and he wasn't that aggressive, so I doubt Bush will expect him to be more aggressive in the town hall forum, which is usually a more congenial setting. Kerry will have to be clever about how he goes about doing it, but I think we could see him really get under Bush's skin and cause something of a meltdown.

      If that happens, get out the butter and jam, Bush will most definitely be toast!
      

      by Davidsfr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 08:04:03 PM PDT

      •  hoping kerry will be ready

        is good. he has been preparing for this half his life. ya know, i hear he does this kind of thing for a living.

        he will be ready. it's bush who is not ready.

        by maskling11 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 09:23:50 PM PDT

      •  Kerry was subtly aggressive in the first debate

        Quoting from W's father's book on the probable results of toppling Saddam was certainly designed to rattle him.

        by ScientistMom in NY on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 06:12:46 AM PDT

    •  James, I have this vision of you