He should learn from George Castanza-- you can’t go back later with a zinger that you missed the first time. Do you know the Seinfeld episode I’m talking about? 
At any rate, that WILL be the soundbite people play, and you can’t defuse it with an after-debate comment.
Oh yeah, well the jerk store called and they’re runnung out of YOU!
Too bad photographic evidence seems to contradict this. Too bad nobody at the AP would tackle this one and that a blog had to.
okay the AP actually has a story on this now.
That photo doesn’t do it for me. I think you need to find one of them shaking hands. Otherwise, they’re just two ships passing in the night…
Isn’t Bush not Junior? I thought since he was George W. Bush, and not HW, he wasn’t a Jr. Also, I don’t think HW took his keys away any of the times W was drinking and driving, but I could be wrong about that.
How about a quote from Cheney
Two ships that passed in the night, with one specifically greeting the other.
I’m hardly suggesting that Edwards should run back out to the cameras and try it out, for heavens’ sake, I’m just saying I’m surprised Cheney opened himself up like that. And if the Democrats can plant a good version of that answer in the public consciousness in the next 24 hours, that soundbite may not be around long.
Nope, that could easily just be a courtesy refrence from the guy leading the meeting. It’s gotta be shaking hands. That’s what you do when you “meet”.
I thought you were joking, but now I’m not so sure. You’re saying that they didn’t meet if they sat next to each other and Cheney addressed Edwards in his opening remarks?
No, you can’t be serious.
Seems that if Edwards recalled “meeting” Cheney he might have said as much. Sadly, Edward’s reply would have been no better - “No, Vice President, we met once, remember? At breakfest.”
Unlikely. Edwards, I recall, seldom has breakfast, and Cheney hasn’t a prayer.
Cheney also failed to mention that, while he does attend every Tuesday, these are for strategy meetings. With Republicans. Only Republicans.
He is unlikely to run into Edwards there.
The real criticism this was intended to convey is that Edwards is missing votes. I have no problem with this, because he is running for the Vice Presidency, for pete’s sake. Example: he was in Cleveland tonight, instead of Washington.
I was hopeful that he would respond by saying just that, and saying, “During my campaign, while you’ve been in Washington, I’ve been meeting with people all across this country. They’ve been sharing their concerns, and they feel…”
I didn’t see the debate, and the C-SPAN feed keeps dying every thirty seconds, but the snippits I caught indicate that the fairest way to assess the debate was to call it a tie. Neither person got a TKO on the other, though there were a few good sound bites from both of them.
I’d like to believe the media will call Cheney on his nonstop lying barriage (I can’t believe he denied ever linking Iraq and Al Qaeda with a straight face), but I doubt (a) the press will do it, nor (b) it will convince voters that Cheney is a lying dog.
As for Brutus’ loony assertion that only Evil Democrats™ jam public polls after debates, I refer you to this pre-dabate directive from Bush-Cheney '04:
And we’re not talking about an “unofficial” 529 or somesuch, we’re talking Bush-Cheney '04. But then, distorting the truth is a stock-in-trade for the GOP, annit?
No, you refer us to ‘The Daily Kos’, which in turn refers us to some post by some guy at some site. Credible as ever, rjung.
I’ve been in situations just like that myself where it would be fair to say I never met the person sitting next to me. I expect that the VP often buzzes in and out of meetings very quickly with a few prepared remarks. I think the look on Edwards’ face during the debate when he was called to task essentially for being a Senatorial lightweight said it all. If Edwards wants to press the issue in the days to come, I can imagine Cheney adding something like: “Well, if we did meet, you didn’t make much of an impression.” If Edwards is smart, he’ll let sleeping dogs lie.
And the whole point about ‘this is the first time we’ve met’ was to punctuate the fact that Edwards has an abysmal record. He’s a one-term senator, and he’s spent half of it running for President. Being a Senator is supposed to be a serious job. You’re there to represent the needs of your constituents. It looks to me like Edwards saw it as a springboard to higher glory. Cheney called him on it.
From that perspective, pointing out that you met at a luncheon somewhere or wherever they were supposed to have met doesn’t help your case.
I think Edwards is a better politician than Kerry, and he’d make a much better President. But he needs more experience. If he loses, he should put in a full term as Senator, and come back around 2012 when he’ll be 59, will have some experience on some serious committees, and has some gravitas behind him. With his natural talent, he’s got a great future if he doesn’t ruin it with overweening ambition.
Tonight Cheney made him look like a lightweight. Which he is. He’s only been in government for a few years. There are probably people on this board who understand foreign policy and economics better than he does. He needs a bit of seasoning.
But once he has it, he could be a superstar in the party.
I’m a committed Kerry voter, and I think Cheney took Edwards to the woodshed.
Of course, I should clarify: on presentation. The facts being tossed about in this debate were as slippery as a freshly oiled frog, but the position Cheney argued, at the end of the day, is pretty much indefensible (Iraq’s a mess, the rich-skewed tax cuts were a terrible idea, etc.).
And yet, Cheney put forward the perfect face for maximum public impact. He displayed just enough irritation to convey the feeling that he’s doing this out of a sense of duty but he has much more important things he could be doing. The choice to be seated gives him the aura of an administrator, a public servant behind a desk who gets things done, and he was able to rattle through his prepared material much more efficiently than his boss the other night. And, of course, he went back to the old standbys of reminding people just how shitless scared they’re supposed to be and implying that anything short of global carpet-bombing will expose the throats of the country’s children to Islamic gila monsters or something, a tack that obviously still has a lot of traction despite its utter moral bankruptcy.
In comparison, Edwards is smart, charismatic, and capable, but political. Cheney has a totally different style that makes the same old bullshit sound new and fresh and important. It’s bullshit, but he sells it like a wizard.
Yeah, and if the Daily Kos posts a link to an article in the New York Times, that automatically makes the article unsuitable, eh? :rolleyes:
You’re amusing when you’re desperate, Brutus.
Answer me this: Did he link to the NYT, or did he link to some fucking blog. You really should read your own ‘cites’ once or twice. (certainly not ‘cites’ in the traditional sense, but ‘The Daily Kos’ is about as good as can be expected from you.)
You are never amusing, just desperate.