| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Meeting Was Not First for Cheney, Edwards | |
| 2004-10-06 | |
I am posting this article because I cannot believe the press is making a big deal of this. Perhaps I am contributing to the problem.
How about it being an example of Edwards not being straight with the American people by trying to deflect the issue of what a lousy senator he was. Notice none of the meetings mentioned above had anything to do with work which is Cheney's entire point? | |
| Posted by:Ol_Dirty_American |
| #17 Something just occurred to me: if simply being in the same room with someone means that you have indeed "met" them, then I know Majel Barrett and Leonard Nimoy! (from a Star Trek convention I attended some twenty-odd years ago) ;) |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-10-07 12:12:09 AM |
| #16 AJ...heh! No doubt the media will get right on that Cambodia thing now. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-10-06 11:57:54 PM |
| #15 Kerry confirms that he met with both Edwards and Cheney when they all visited Cambodia together. |
| Posted by: A Jackson 2004-10-06 11:54:32 PM |
| #14 ex lib - you'd be right if Cheney remembered these events - but it's highly unlikely that he does. Edwards is a Jr. Senator who went to ONE prayer breakfast, in 2001 where Cheney was present. And he shook hands with him twice. Once, at a large event - again where Edwards was just a bit player among probably hundreds of far more important participants. As a VP - everyone shakes his hand and remembers. Perhaps Cheney might have remembered the one at the broadcast - but again, Edwards just wasn't that noteworthy back. Hello, Hello, pleased to see ya. Good bye. Cheney meets THOUSANDS of important people every year. What makes you think he'd remember such brief and unmemorable encounters from (at that time) such a non-player? It would be like you being a vice principal in a large high school and then being accused of not remembering that you previously met one of the students. What it does tell us is that Edwards wasn't a stand-out kindof guy. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-10-06 11:30:46 PM |
| #13 LOL Capt America! And thanks dennisw: makes sense. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2004-10-06 10:49:50 PM |
| #12 Cheney's not telling everything, he also saw Senator Gone on the back of a milk carton |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-10-06 10:04:50 PM |
| #11 President of the Senate As President of the Senate (Article I, Section 3), the Vice President oversees procedural matters and is given the ability to cast a vote in the event of a tie. There is a strong convention within the U.S. Senate that the Vice President not use his position as President of the Senate to influence the passage of legislation or act in a partisan manner, except in the case of breaking tie votes. In fact, the Vice President is constitutionally prevented from voting except in the case of ties. In practice, the Vice President rarely presides over day-to-day matters in the Senate; in his place, the Senate chooses a President pro tempore (or "president for a time") to preside in the absence of the Vice President. __________________ What really happened is that John Edwards never had the class nor the grace to come up and introduce himself to Dick Cheney, his senior and his superior. Cheney said he is at the Senate every Tuesday. Yet he had never met John Edwards, been properly introduced there. |
| Posted by: dennisw 2004-10-06 7:53:44 PM |
| #10 oops, my comment above was wrt to post #8, sorry :). |
| Posted by: Ol_Dirty_American 2004-10-06 7:42:42 PM |
| #9 #7 You have got to be kidding. It is irrelevant that he saw him 3 times over the last 4 years in non working functions. Put it this way, it was true enough that Edwards did not remember meeting Chemey until after the debate. That is close enough for me. I don't remember people I meet one month ago and it is not like I meet hundreds of people per week which Cheney probably does. This is semantic bullsh*t. End of story. |
| Posted by: Ol_Dirty_American 2004-10-06 7:41:57 PM |
| #8 VAMark: where'd you get that information? Cheney's statement was hard hitting at the time. I'm discouraged that it wasn't true--it still would have been just as hard hitting if he said "I've seen you three times in the last four years, BUT NOT IN THE SENATE SESSIONS. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2004-10-06 5:20:01 PM |
| #7 Apparently Cheney has actually only presided over two Tuesday sessions in the last 3.5 years. Total trivia, but why did he bring it up? |
| Posted by: VAMark 2004-10-06 5:13:09 PM |
| #6 Stephanopolous was just flitting around for a good 5 min. of precious airtime in his seat as he pressed Cheyney's daughter ad nauseum over this point. Has your father revised his statement yet? Gosh, George, I don't think he's thought too much about it. Paraphrase |
| Posted by: chicago mike 2004-10-06 4:05:40 PM |
| #5 Pardon me while I vent: IT WAS A GODDAMNED JOKE!!!! Thanks for your indulgence. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-10-06 3:14:32 PM |
| #4 Advantage still goes to Cheney. Point was made that Senator Gone isn't a familiar face around the hallowed halls of the Senate. Ouch. And the 3 examples listed are brief handshake encounters that seem harldy memorable to a man who meets thousands of important people every year. MSM losing more credibility by applying resources to jump to defense of Edwards, while maintaining a thundering silence on the pen episode or other Kerry inconsistencies far worse than this. |
| Posted by: 2b 2004-10-06 12:26:45 PM |
| #3 All this is laughable, if this is the best that the Dimheads can come up with, how badly did Cheney really cream Edwards?... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-10-06 12:10:57 PM |
| #2 Well, Cheney's people should have checked for this before he used the line on national teevee. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2004-10-06 12:10:43 PM |
| #1 Maybe the little dork just didn't make much of an impression on Mr. Cheney. I can sympathize. |
| Posted by: BH 2004-10-06 12:08:38 PM |