Such low standards will probably enable you to discourse with the likes of Starving Artist long after I’ve given up on them. I’m not sure if I pity you or admire you for this my friend.
Enjoy,
Steven
Any politician running for office is going to put the best face possible on their record, and I understand that.
But what we’re talking about here is making up completely gratuitous lies.
Does Cheney preside over the Senate most Tuesdays? No; he almost never presides over the Senate.
If he hadn’t met Edwards, would that have any connection with Edwards’ Senate attendance record? No. Given Cheney’s Senate attendance record, there’s no reason to expect that Cheney would remember Edwards from that context, even if Edwards had a 100% attendance record.
Had Cheney met Edwards? Yes. Several times.
The point here being that not only was Cheney wrong about having not met Edwards; the implication he was trying to leave voters with - that Cheney would have met him if only Edwards showed up at his job more often - was a flat-out lie. Because Cheney’s claim about being there most Tuesdays was a flat-out lie.
And of course, the Raleigh News & Observer - Edwards’ hometown paper - had never “taken to calling” Edwards “Senator Gone” - and Cheney had no reason to think that it had.
Amidst all the other big, deliberate lies, is there any reason to think Cheney merely ‘got it wrong’ about having not met Edwards? Hell, no.
I could never be a politician because I have an absolutely awful memory for faces. I’m not about to accuse someone of not showing up to meetings because I can’t remember him, though. In a debate, a prepared statement should not be subject to memory. (The factcheck.com snafu is clearly a case of bad memory, and funny, but not a negative.) Shouldn’t someone on his preparation team have checked this out?
Your second point is the most important one. The accusation itself is not that important, I agree, but what is important of what it shows about their callous disregard for the truth. Is it that surprising that the guy who keeps insisting that their is an aQ - Saddam connection long after it has been disproven, who keeps expecting to find WMDs, who lies about everything, would lie about this too? They’re so used to getting away with it that they don’t care anymore. They are a textbook example of the Big Lie technique. So it is not unshrewd - it is accurately assessing the proven gullibility of the public.
Maybe the reason they missed is that while Cheney is evil, he’s not stupid. He knows this stuff better than Bush does, and he’s better qualified, in the technical sense, to be President than Bush is.
No, Cheney was just showing his disdain for the public by spouting these lies. And some of us show they deserve this disdain by defending the lies.
Cheney is a proven liar about much weightier matters, so why is it a surprise he lied about this, too? He seems to be in training for a “World’s Most Dishonest Man” contest.
The thing that gets me is that there are a bunch of conservative dickheads going around today saying “Ha ha ha, Senator Edwards doesn’t go to the Senate, he he he, his hometown newspaper called him ‘Senator Gone’”. What was it Goebbels said about propaganda?
You Bush supporters - how does it feel to know that the stupidity and gullibility of the electorate are the primary tools your guy has chosen in seeking reelection?
Not Goebbels, FriFritz Kippler
A partisan site, true, but I think the history is accurate. (To be honest, I thought it was Goebbels too.)
True, Cheney was stupid to make that definitive claim (he really should have said “not to my recollection”). Stupid of him. But it doesn’t mean he has no memory for faces.
Going back to myself for a second. I actually do have a decent memory for faces (I remember movie star faces in a second–scary in my memory there–everyone tells me so). But that isn’t the problem. Knowing who somebody is and recognizing who they are isn’t my problem, it’s remembering whether or not I saw them or met them.
For instance, growing up in Southern California (and having a scary memory for movie trivia), means that I have seen or encountered many celebrities (or not-so-celebrities, but people I recognize). I know exactly who they are, will always know exactly who they are. And usually, I remember that I saw them in real life somewhere. But not always. It’s gotten so that there have been so many encounters over the years, I’m getting a little fuzzy. Did I see Charles Grodin at the Universal commisary, or was it someone else? (Answer: Yes I did see him.) There are others that I’m not always so sure about, but at times I feel pretty confident that I remember encountering 'em all. But the truth is – not always. And you’d think I’d remember, because they are famous and I’m a movie buff and everything. But when the years pass and you see so many of them, it gets kind of jumbled sometimes, you know?
It’s not the remembering of faces–of the identity of the individual–that is the problem, it’s the remembering if I met them, passed by them on the street, or just saw them on TV a jillion times that sometimes is a problem. Perhaps Cheney has the same problem, amplified 100x times because he’s far busier than me. Could be.
It sure as hell shouldn’t, which is why I cannot figure out why Cheney didn’t say, "To my recollection . . . " Because as Starving Artist has pointed out, then Cheney can say, “Oh yeah. That. You think that encounter counts?”
Eh. I think it shows a lack of foresight, or a moment of stupidity or carelessness, OR a moment of super-confident “I know I never met him, I KNOW.” which turned out to be false (I can see this happening to me too). When all he had to do is add, "To my recollection . . . " and he didn’t. That’s just stupid. Unshrewd. And I think that Cheney, say what you will about him, has that shrewd edge to him. I think he missed out on this because he just did. Out of stupidity or misplaced overconfidence or something.
Or, he has some other (shrewd, evil, who knows) reason for it. But I can’t imagine what that is. It seems to be pretty obvious to me, this is biting him in the butt.
I’m starting to think he didn’t care one way or the other. If it’s true, then it’s a slam. If it’s not true, then it’s a distraction that forces everybody to argue about this insignificant little deception and pull attention away from the MASSIVE DECEPTION THAT LED US TO AND KEEPS US IN A FRAUDULENT WAR. Win-win!
The quote in dispute was Cheney’s version of “All Switzerland have to show for 600 years of peace was the cuckoo clock”.
Cheney, I believe, was saying that Edwards did not undertake actions that would get Edwards distinguished from the other Senators, to the extent that Cheney would notice, until the debate just past. The metaphor, if Cheney intended the quote to be as a metaphor, was a pretty good one. As an absolute verifiable fact, in the Age of Nitpick, the quote of course gets shredded.
This point is one of the major ones in Cheney’s lies, I think. After all, they had already proved that the public believe what they’re told when they pushed the whole WMD/aQ/Saddam story and saw that people continued to believe it, even when there was evidence to the contrary.
How many of the audience would have bothered to check their facts about Edwards the next day to see if Cheney was telling the truth or not? He managed to portray Edwards as a slacker - quite convincingly - and that is the impression that will stick in people’s minds. After all, how many Americans even know what Edward’s home town is? How would they know the name of his local paper or how to access it if they weren’t online? I think Cheney was banking on people coming away from that debate with the impression that Edwards was such a lazy git that he wasn’t even respected by the people who elected him … who cares what the facts are … Cheney said it on TV, and that makes it ‘fact’ in some people’s mind.
In that debate, IMO, Cheney was showing his disrespect for the electorate.
however, the tactict used (lie, lie, lie some more, evidence comes in disputing your lie, pounce on it ‘aha, see this proves what I said was true’) has been very effective for them. why should they change? Reports after reports come out demonstrating that they ignored evidence that was contrary to their agenda, especially, it seems, when that evidence was stronger than the rumors that supported their agenda, and they come back, with a straight face saying “see, we were right”.
fuckers.
This is CHENEY, not Bush. We Americans have come to expect the vice president to say what he means, and not need the benefit of the tortured parsing we accord our president. If Dick wanted to go all poesy on us for the evening, he should have issued a disclaimer before starting the debate.