Re-assessing the debate

“Unlike Cheney, Edwards is not spending today explaining any falsehoods.” – Boston Globe

“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

Kos has a list of all the presiding officer of the Senate on every Tuesday since 2001. Guess what? John Edwards has been acting president of the Senate at least as many times (twice) as Dick Cheney.

“His hometown paper has taken to calling him ‘Senator Gone.'” – Cheney

Um…no… According to the Raleigh News & Observer, the dig was in an editorial in a little paper called The Pilot.

The Pilot never itself called Edwards “Senator Gone.” Specifically, the editorial said the senator “is becoming known as ‘Senator Gone'”

“I don’t think it was at all accurate to say we have ‘taken to calling’ the senator anything,” Bouser said. “Remember, this was a one-time reference in an editorial that appeared 15 months ago.”

Not only that, but most of the editorials in the paper are critical of George Bush and in support of John Edwards.

“I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there’s clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror. And the point is that that’s the place where you’re most likely to see the terrorist come together with weapons of mass destruction, the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over the years.” – Cheney

It has everything. A denial that they ever said there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11. The assertion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that were likely to fall into the hands of terrorists. The incredible blindness to the fact that before we invaded Iraq, there may have been one or two al-Qaeda leaders in Baghdad, but now it is a rallying point for terrorist recruitment and a big, fat mess. And, as Newsweek points out, “a brand-new version of the events that led to war.”

I’m not even counting all the other listed fibs or all the other mischaracterizations of the Kerry/Edwards record at or

I must retract my earlier opinion that the Vice Presidential debate was a draw (or even a slight win for Cheney). While it is true both men stretched the facts to meet their agendas, Cheney is the one that’s having to explain himself, not Edwards. The aftermath of Dick Cheney’s “dot COM” and “Who the hell are you?” gaffes has made it easy for Bush opponents to press home credibility gap charges regarding Iraq. It set up an easy-to-understand rallying point at fact-checking sites and tossed a softball to The Daily Show (which, let’s be honest, is where a ton of people get their political news).

In the end, I think Dick Cheney’s debate performance actually hurt George Bush more than it helped him.

This entry was posted in Rants 'n' Whines. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Re-assessing the debate

  1. Scott says:

    Yeah, it’s pretty damning. Edwards, in hindsight, knew exactly how to handle him, too.

    Let the fact-checkers reveal the truth, instead of sounding petulant on-camera.

    Kerry’s back in play in Ohio and is extending his lead in PA. Things look better and better.

  2. Brian says:

    That Daily Kos post is priceless. My only question is why Edwards didn’t call Cheney on it right then and there.

  3. Solonor says:

    I think he was stunned. That, and the annoying fact that he had a hard time getting off the talking points and engaging in the debate. I’m not saying I was highly impressed with Edwards. What I’m saying is that Cheney’s boo-boos will hurt Bush more in the long run.

  4. Karan says:

    Edwards may not have known that he actually showed up at all…it’s possible they weren’t there on the same day. The truth is that Cheney’s job is to stay alive if the Cowboy dies. That’s it. and if you’re keeping track he’s almost blown that a couple of times.

Comments are closed.