This is from the site Cheney wanted to send viewers to (though he got it wrong, no surprise), factcheck.org.

Even David Brooks on PBS complimented Edwards.

Hoops McCann | Email | Homepage | 10.06.04 - 10:44 am | #

RP | Email | Homepage | 10.06.04 - 10:44 am | #

He is constantly and obviously aroused on camera by whatever he feels is raw manly power. The cameras immediately after the debate last night captured him in a state of -- I kid you not -- near-orgasm.

He always does this when Bush/Cheney do these over the top, Village People masculine caricatures. He creams his jeans at their manly prowess.

Jim J | Email | Homepage | 10.06.04 - 10:52 am | #

It was a knockout all right - but Cheney delivered the uppercut to himself.

Magnum | Email | Homepage | 10.06.04 - 11:11 am | #

I thought Cheney looked rather tired and somewhat disinterested, especially towards the end. At one point, he was talking about 9/11 and counter-terrorism while having his chin resting upon his clapsed hands. That was not good.

I thought Edwards did much better as he showed passion and that Kerry/Edwards really wanted to lead this country.

After seeing both Cheney and W, it appeared to me that their attitude is "we're all going to die if we aren't re-elected, but we would rather be doing something else."

smarty jones | Email | Homepage | 10.06.04 - 11:25 am | #

Last night, we saw the Bush/Cheney administration condensed to 90 minutes. Not only did Dick Cheney lie about the big things -- for example, that he had never implied a connection between Saddam and 9/11, or that he and George Bush have never let up on Osama bin Laden, who remains free more than three years after murdering thousands of Americans. Even more telling, though, is that Cheney couldn't even tell the truth about the little things -- if he and John Edwards had ever met.

America deserves better.

MattB | Email | Homepage | 10.06.04 - 10:15 am | #

George Bailey 1, Mr. Potter 0.

sam simian | Email | Homepage | 10.06.04 - 10:19 am | #

went to market. And this little lie stayed at home. And this little lie had roast beef. And this little lie had none. And this little lie went wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee all the way to home to the naval observatory. The end.

The lie about not meeting Edwards is perfect becuase it is so variable.

"You know Jim, it's not important that the VP lied about not meeting John Edwards. What's more worrying is that he's lying about matters of national security. I guess when he starts he just can't stop."

"You know Bob, George Washington could never tell a lie. How far we have fallen to have a Vice President who seems to tell nothing but lies."

"How can you trust a Vice President to be credible in his dealings with foreign leaders when he isn't even credible about his meetings with American senators?"

by mapantsula on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 01:25:33 EST

Believe it or not, this is the first time in months of hitting my head against the wall that I've had an impact on the online church ladies. They think Bush won last week. They think Cheney "held Edwards accountable."

But when I gave them the link to the prayer breakfast photo, they gasped and called Cheney rude and remembered the funny look on Edwards' face when Cheney said he hadn't met him.

Apparently the fact that they met AT A PRAYER BREAKFAST and Cheney "forgot" it is meaningful on Planet Republicanbase.

Also, when you think about it, even if Edwards really had only showed up for a third of the votes or whatever, that's still hundreds of votes. They would have met. They did meet. A lot. We've just found photographic proof of two instances in the first 12 hours. And the frothy-mouthed baby masticator just thought it might be fun to make shit up for political gain. It looked nuclear for a moment, but in retrospect, their Sunday Punch comes across as cheap, clumsy and dishonest, and just the sort of "It's not the act itself, but the bad judgment that makes it an issue" thing that the press jumps all over, just like "Love Story" and "invented the internet" and all the piddly little molehill-into-mountain indignities they've kicked at us for the past decade.

Poland? Heck, Bush can't even remember the goddam ALAMO!
by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 08:45:14 EST

Also, the data on the attendance record, like that "most liberal member of the senate" claim, focuses on a cherry-picked part of Edwards' senate term. It is true that in 2003-4 his attendance record has been very low, though typical for a presidential candidate.

Prior to his entry in the race, Edwards attendance record for the first four years of his term was 95%, one of the highest in the Senate. And Cheney was chairing the senate for at least two of those years.

That number is below in this thread. See the post titled "Attendance Record" by BatmanRKC.

by rppa on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 09:45:32 EST

was so rattled by Edwards strong opening that he forgot that they had met when Elizabeth Dole was sworn in; that he forgot that they had met at the national prayer breakfast;that he forgot that they had met on Meet the Press.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 08:47:50 EST

he's been having "Senior Moments"

Lunch Lady
by Lunch Lady on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 10:00:40 EST

...so Cheney can claim that it slipped his mind that me met Edwards at a couple useless ceremonial functions. Here's, I think, the more damning point: Cheney had never med Edwards because Cheney, in his capacity of Presiding Officer of the Senate refuses to meet with Democrats.

The attendence issue is immaterial in this sense - Cheney hadn't met with Edwards because Cheney refused to meet with Edwards out of nothing but pure partisanship.

-Fe Wm.

by Irond Will on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 09:15:23 EST

it wasn't an offhand remark at all. it was rehearsed and was intended to be nuclear.

can't believe they didn't bother to fact-check it, though.

amateurs. shows what a bunch of power-mad lying little clowns they really are.

cheney's closing remarks: "if you don't vote for george bush, there'll be a biological weapon in your front yard by noontime tomorrow."

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato
by sunzoo on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 01:26:02 EST

and it was apparently effective, as Harball's panel reaction page on the debate leads off with airheadded Andrea Mitchell using Cheney's lie as proof of how Cheney "put edwards in his place", whatever the fuck that means.

So it was a lie with a purpose, which makes batting it back in his face all the more important.

by Lud on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 06:55:02 EST

The arrogance of Bushco gives me great hope for November 2, because it manifests in sloppy, lazy work and disastrous assumptions. I'm too lazy, in turn, to find the link, but I read a report on the first debate's Spin Alley in which Bush's aides were described as absolutely convinced that he would destroy Kerry, then utterly stunned that he came across as repetitive, petulant, and defensive.

Here we all were, speculating on the long discussions Rove and other aides were doubtless having about how much to medicate Bush: "But when we give him three of the blues and two of the reds, he slurs his words and his right eye closes." "I don't think we have a choice. He keeps saying that Zelbo's big mistake was not actually bringing a pistol with him."

But there's a real chance (I know, I know--it's hard to believe) that we were completely wrong. His aides thought they Kerry would be horrible and that Bush would trounce him. They apparently didn't bother to research Kerry's previous performance in debates. They apparently haven't noticed how their boss has become incapable of hiding his displeasure at any criticism. It apparently never occurred to them that Kerry is half a foot taller than Bush, a real advantage in presidential elections and one that would be exaggerated if their guy slouched and hugged his lectern like the porcelain throne on Saturday night. In their glee over winning those lights in front of Kerry, it apparently never occurred to them that he could learn to limit his answers to ninety seconds, but Bush couldn't learn to fill ninety seconds with anything but platitudes and non sequiturs.

After reading about their reactions to the first debate, I think they're more to blame for Bush's performance than he is. It would be one thing if that had betrayed any recognition that their guy had a history of exhibiting the very same traits that killed him Thursday. But they seemed truly shocked. And it's because they're true believers.

And of course, when you're a true believer, you don't let little things like facts or disinterested observations get in the way of what you already know.

Why is Bush going to lose? Because the same disdain for reality that led to Iraq, tax cuts, etc., is rife in his campaign.

My prediction: Kerry 405 - Bush 133
by deminva on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 09:10:03 EST

They're reading emails and text messages from debate watchers around the world. About an hour ago they were like, "Hey, uh.. can we hear from some supporters of Dick Cheney, please?"

Then, next report, they read a text message from a Cheney supporter, whining and complaining about how the other side was so desperate they had to go and waste time swarming online polls and contacting the media saying Edwards won, and how the GOP was too confident to bother doing that!

It was awesome.

All of Rove's forces and all of Rove's spin couldn't put Dubya together again.
by daria g on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 02:04:40 EST

Cheney was prepared to respond to the deferred payments he's goten from Halliburton, and, according to factcheck.org, he's taken great pains to divest all his interest in the company, including taking out an insurance policy against the deferred payments. However, John Edwards, didn't bring up the deferred salary. He was talking about the investigations into Halliburton fraud and his dealings with terrorist nations while CEO of Halliburton.

Cheney's response was to the wrong charge. I'm surprised this hasn't been picked up on more.

-- Let's go astroturfing! --
by fwiffo on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 09:14:06 EST

Not sure I can follow Slinkerwink's PhotoShop job

but here's my letter to the editor (intended for Iowa State University campus newspaper, 400 word limit and I got it to 390). If you like it, feel free to edit, cut, paste, repeat...

If there's one thing I've learned from the Bush/Cheney `04 Campaign, it's that if you repeat a lie (or shall I say an "intentionally misleading statement") often enough, with the aid of the conservative media echo chamber, people will begin to believe it. Vice President Dick Cheney has repeatedly, during interviews with the press and in campaign events across the country, emphasized an established, operational connection between al Qaida/the September 11 attacks and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 Commission refuted it, and now Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld also refute the connection. But Cheney continues to say it or imply it.

Dick Cheney finally encountered someone with the courage to vigorously cross-examine him, Democratic Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards. Last night during the debates, Cheney actually had the gall to say, "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..." Oh my goodness, but that is a whopper. There were at least three more times by my count that Cheney said something completely disingenuous and/or politically divisive and John Edwards called him on it. When Cheney had a chance for a rebuttal, he demurred. Vice President Cheney, I find you guilty of telling lies and making serial distortions to the American people.

The Bush/Cheney administration's neo-conservative policies have been an absolute train wreck. From siphoning off troops from Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Ladin to fight the wrong war at the wrong time in Iraq, to the rush to conflict when a fresh round of inspections was working, to blissful ignorance of the gathering threats in Iran and North Korea, this administration's actions have made America less safe. Granted we have taken out some of the top known leadership of al Qaida, but Bush/Cheney's reckless actions have stimulated the recruitment of new terrorists. Their go-it-alone cowboy mentality has alienated all but our strongest allies (and now Poland is pulling out, too!)

Oh, and that zinger about "The first time I [Dick Cheney] ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight." Nice sound byte, but there are at least two documented times they've met (Liddy Dole's inauguration as Senator and at a Presidential prayer breakfast in February 2001). Apparently, Elizabeth Edwards pointed this out to Cheney on stage after the debate. Hey, Dick: liar, liar, pants on fire!

by leftwingnut on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 01:42:00 EST

when a huge number of people say that Edwards' discussion of healthcare is the most important thing they got out of the debate.

by mcgrayc on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 01:59:06 EST

The moment Edwards mentioned Canadian discount prescription drugs, I declared it the knockout moment. Go frame by frame and you can SEE Darth's pacemaker missing a beat. After that, Edwards got to retell the story of his upbringing, offer hope to America, and hug his children, while the FMBM grumbled about terrorism and looked like Bob Dole after too much to drink. He had to be incoherent. He'd been knoked out.

by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 09:00:03 EST

My first and strongest impression of the debate was the old pale sneering bald grey haired guy vs. young healthy looking smiling dark haired guy? I am not talking in the shallow sense about Edwards being good looking, its more the healthy and happy vs. unhealthy and unhappy. People react better to healthy and happy. That's why GM,Pepsi and MCI use smiling good looking people on their ads.

by fnb on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 03:19:04 EST

Mumbly Grumbly

He even started off by wringing his hands like a villain in a cartoon!

GOP: All 9/11 All The Time
by wry twinger on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 08:58:20 EST

NO ENERGY QUESTIONS

Dick Cheney is Mr. Energy Task Force and yet she didn't ask a single question about future energy needs. This was a huge blunder on her part, especially since she wasted time by giving too many unnecessary rebuttals and by repeating questions. There were like two questions about malpractice and being a lawyer.

And what was that stupid question where they weren't supposed to mention their running mates' name? What is this, junior high? That was just dumb.

Cheney also said Iraqi security forces have "taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent." The United States does not keep track of Iraqi casualties, either civilian or in the security services. Recently, a senior U.S. official in Baghdad estimated that 750 Iraqi policemen have been killed but has no estimate of those wounded. The United States as of yesterday has had 1,061 deaths and 7,730 wounded.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10244-2004Oct5.html

I think if he counted all the pro-American Iraqi soldiers dead, the anti-American Iraqi soldiers dead, the Iraqi civilians dead, the dead Al-Aquaeda men, the dead Shiites/Iranians who crossed the border and got killed in Iraq he could easily prove that the Iraq war casualties were 90% non-US and 10% US! Wow! Coalition of the Dead!

by LibertyGuard on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 07:03:30 EST

Here are excerpts from today's NY Times editorial on the VP debate between chimpy stand-in Dick Halliburton and John Edwards:

"Mr. Cheney, who won over many voters four years ago with his grandfatherly demeanor during a debate with Joseph Lieberman, seemed tired and angry. He was particularly dyspeptic when he responded to criticism of his relationship with Halliburton by claiming that Mr. Edwards had a bad attendance record in the Senate...

Mr. Edwards is normally known for his wide grin and boyish appearance, but he was serious and tough last night. If his main task was to show that he could stand up to the older and more experienced vice president, he did everything he needed to do, especially during the discussion of foreign policy - the area that is supposed to be his weak suit. Mr. Edwards was particularly on point when Mr. Cheney attacked John Kerry as a lawmaker who had consistently voted against military expenditures. Much of the arms spending Mr. Kerry voted against, Mr. Edwards noted, was for the same programs Mr. Cheney had fought to cut when he was secretary of defense."

Full editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/opinion/06wed1.html?oref=login

by drplaud on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 07:12:04 EST

Washington Post has a pretty well done fact check article. But one egregious error leaped out at me:

Glenn Kessler and Jim VandeHei say:

Edwards asserted that "millionaires sitting by their swimming pool . . . pay a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving" in Iraq. President Bush last year cut the tax rate on dividends to 15 percent, whereas most soldiers would be in a 15 percent tax bracket -- and pay an effective rate much less after taking deductions for children and mortgages.

Two problems with this: one, it swallows the Republican sleight of hand that wants us to forget the heavily regressive payroll tax. According to experts, upwards of 80% of workers making less than $40,000 per year pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. Millionaires only pay payroll taxes on the first $80,000 of their income. And two, isn't it a little glib to the point of "let them eat cake" to suggest soldiers can take "deductions for children and mortgages" which most 18-23 year olds do not have?

I'm sure this is just the case that they were documenting so many Cheney lies that they felt they had to throw in some Edwards' staements for balance. The trouble is, Edwards is absolutely right on this one...

by KevStar on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 07:31:25 EST