Just a quick thought to share. Many people have latched on to the “Cheney lied when he said that he had never met Edwards” bandwagon.
What is significant about that? Why is that important? There is no doubt that politicians meet hundreds if not thousands of people, so it wouldn’t be much of a surprise if they did not remember everyone they had met.
If you want to go after Cheney there are lots of ways that offer more substance. To me the aforementioned complaint is similar to saying that he is a bad guy because he likes corned beef with mayo. Certainly not something that I would eat or endorse eating, but not a meaningful way to judge the character of a person.
(Visited 36 times, 1 visits today)
Even if we agree that these are speeches it doesn’t delineate for me the impact of Cheney saying that he never met Edwards.
The debates are not a “back and forth debate” They are mini speaches. The debate by default fails because all the questions are known.
Did you see that part of the debate? It was Cheneys crowning moment. It was perfect. It was well timed. It had a pause for dramitic effect. It was not an off the cuff remark. It was meant to be a crushing blow.
Prior to the debate one of the comentatiors on the Tv stated that cheney had been working on this speach starting in aug. I have no idea how true this is.
4 years ago we attacted our demorcrat runner everytime he made a mistake like this. (and he did make lots of mistakes)
I don’t buy that argument. That presumes that Cheney never deviates from the speech, that there is no spontaneous commentary. And in a back and forth debate I don’t accept the idea that there is no spontaneous thought.
But let’s say that it was intended to be dramatic, how much drama is there. 435 members of the house and 100 senators, 535 members of Congress.
That is a lot of people to remember. And what difference does it make. It doesn’t prove anything. It doesn’t provide an assessment of his ability to perform the responsibilities included in this position.
It doesn’t provide an analysis of his past or present performance. In what context does it demonstrate anything that is meaningful?
I am not trying to be difficult, I don’t see what the issue is. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Jack, you might have a point if it was an off-the-cuff remark. But, the whole thing was a highly polished speach. I think it was something planned by him and his speach writers for dramitic effect.
When I heard the comment, I didn’t take it literally. Cheney was clearly just trying to make a point…that the issues that Edwards were touting as so important were not important enough for him to be there for the votes that were taken.