Ah yes, add a touch of lawyerspeak, that will insulate him.
[hijack]
Don’t. He doesn’t deserve them. As has been noted (usually by me it seems) in every thread where Cheney is wrongly given credit for this, it was a flip-flop. In the 2000 campaign Cheney said essentially the same thing. As soon as Bush called for the amendment, Cheney supported him in it. When the amendment failed in the Senate, it became politically safe for Cheney to retreat to his former “let the states decide” position.
Flip flop, and a betrayal of his daughter in the guise of supporting her. No props for Cheney.
[/hijack]
I guess it depends on what your definition of “meeting” is. Cheney did not have meeting relations with that man!
Daniel
[Wonkette]…but Cheney would totally do him!..[/Wonkette]
Phew, now I can go back to the usual practice of warding against the evil eye when I see him. 
Between occasionally agreeing with public policy/economic statements that Pat Buchanan has made on news commentary shows and that, I was becoming deeply troubled…
You people slay me! Here’s a guy who is constantly on the go; meets thousands of people a year; attends untold numbers of social functions and fund-raisers; and has affairs of state that are of utmost importance on his mind most of the time, and you are so eager to paint him with the “liar” brush that you can’t understand how he would not recall meeting someone at a prayer breakfast several years ago.
Edwards is a senator; one would expect that Cheney would expect to know him from the Senate. Apparently even Edward’s own hometown newspaper refers to him as “Senator Gone,” so how is it that Cheney is a devious, mendacious liar when he has simply lost his previous encounter with Edwards in the whirlwind of people he’s encountered in his life, rather than remembering him from the Senate, where one would expect to have known him from?
All this hooey about how they actually did meet at one point is a tempest in a teapot. The fact remains that Edwards has been woefully absent from his Senatorial duties. That was the point Cheney was making, and hair-splitting from the opposition notwithstanding, that point is still just as valid.
We’re not saying it because he didn’t recall; we’re saying it because he made a false statement. If he couldn’t recall, he shoulda kept his damn mouth shut.
Given that the context was false–that he’s not hanging out with Democratic senators on a weekly basis anyway–I’m not real keen on cutting him much slack.
Daniel
Cheney deserves what he’s getting. This was prepared to be a sound bite and highlight reel clip from the debate to stick in voters’ minds and damage the Kerry campaign. He fired a shot cleanly into his own foot. Let him sleep in the bed that he has made.
This circuitous bit of logic is most amusing. How could he have known to keep his mouth shut if he didn’t know that he had forgotten meeting him, and if he had known he’d forgotten meeting him, he would have had to remember having met him in order to do so.
That’s quite a mixed metaphor there, Bob! 
From Cj’s link.
On Feb. 1, 2001, the vice president thanked Edwards by name at a Senate prayer breakfast and sat beside him during the event.
On April 8, 2001, Cheney and Edwards shook hands when they met off-camera during a taping of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” moderator Tim Russert said Wednesday on “Today.”
On Jan. 8, 2003, the two met when the first-term North Carolina senator accompanied Elizabeth Dole to her swearing-in by Cheney as a North Carolina senator, Edwards aides also said.
Is there any debate left?
Small minds are easily amused, eh? As impressed as I am by your multiple smileys (how DO you do that?), it’s not circular logic. If he wasn’t sure, he shoulda kept his fool mouth shut. Simple as that.
Maybe Cheney’s a Christian; maybe he should study up on the eighth amendment. He shouldn’t bear witness against his neighbor unless he’s damn sure that his testimony won’t be false.
But hey, never let it be said that you recognized the errors of your allies.
Daniel
Oh, just settle your cheap self down, Slick. Howzabout you actually read the rest of my post? Y’know, the part where I say that too much is being made of Cheney’s statement? Go on ahead, read. . .then come back here.
Now, what you need to do is blow the above right outta your ass, nimrod.
Goddamnit! I keep hoping that “you people” are bright enough to pick up on hyperbole for the sake of having some fun, then I’m proven wrong. Again. And again.
Well, yeah. That’s why I’ve treated it as such. “You people”, on the other hand, are creating a response that is light years beyond what is required.
Well sure he’s been gone. I’m not sure if you and “your people” have noticed or not, but he’s also been running for president initially and now vice president. Whether or not that is wise in your first term might actually be a debate, but your bloviating (as can be witnessed above) doesn’t do a damned thing to further it.
Why is no one mentioning that Edwards had every opportunity to debunk Cheney’s scathing remark by pointing out these meetings himself? Could it be because he’d forgotten them himself? It’s interesting to me that these meetings are now coming to light due to the research being employed by the media and Edwards’ own team, rather than from Edwards himself. And again, the point remains: Edwards’ attendance record in the Senate is abysmal, and this was the point Cheney was making. No one is disputing that. So isn’t this sort of like ignoring the theft of an automobile to argue over whether or not it should have been left unlocked?
This article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15414-2004Feb28.html
shows that Edwards would seem to have a better record in the Senate than Cheney implied.
He knows to keep his mouth shut because Washington politicians run into each other all the time, in all sorts of venues. Even if they’d never met in the well of the Senate floor (which is also false; Edwards was part of Elizabeth Dole’s swearing-in ceremony as a freshman Senator in January 2003), there are many other opportunities for them to have met - as the prayer breakfast and the “Meet the Press” episode illustrate.
“The first time I ever met you was when I walked on the stage tonight” is pretty definite; it doesn’t admit of any doubt. And that’s the whole point, in a way: Cheney’s sure of things that he’s got no business being sure of, that any reasonable person would doubt. Has that not been his calling card over the past few years? Now this drives home the point: Cheney doesn’t have doubts like we mere mortals do. He may be right; he may be wrong. But even when he’s wrong, he’s certain that he’s right.
If you want to go over a cliff, just follow Dick Cheney.
Perhaps because he decided that it was a potentially distracting side issue, and he wanted to pursue more important things in a limited time. (You get to be a good lawyer or good poilitician by quickly identifying what’s important to your side, and what’s not). Refuting it would have involved him dragging stuff out of his memory, and listing the times he remembered on the spot. Far better to let other people do more thorough research later to debunk Cheney’s claim.
Yeah–or it could be because:
- It was irrelevant, and he didn’t want to waste his time playing in irrelevancies; or
- He mostly stuck to scripted remarks throughout the night, and didn’t veer from them; or
- He was so shocked at something he knew to be false that he didn’t know how to address it; or
- He knew it was false, but didn’t have specific dates, and figured he’d clear the issue up via the media the next day, like he did.
Nothing like. Leaving an automobile unlocked is a careless mistake that allows a crime to occur. Having a soundbite for a debate, one obviously prepared ahead of time, be false due to poor preparation is negligence, and in no way causes the poor attendance record. Terrible analogy.
If Cheney admits he was wrong and apologizes for it, the story will be over. More likely, he’ll pull some stupid bullshit like you’re doing, trying to spin away from culpability.
Daniel
And just so that Bricker doesn’t miss it, I’ll take this opportunity to reiterate the contentions made in post #19. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5336107&postcount=19.
A thousand pardons, but I don’t recall how to shorten that down to a single word.
Again, how was he to know he wasn’t sure unless he remembered? Do you avoid mention of all the things you’ve forgotten?
And the multiple smiley thing is easy (assuming your question is genuine and you’re not just being snide ). Just click the smiley icon multiple times.