Another Cheney lie

Man, it's easier to catalogue the truthful statments... From Atrios:

Edwards' hometown newspaper:

CHENEY: "Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you Senator Gone." (An archive search finds no such reference in The News & Observer.

...Look, a mention in a weekly paper that isn't in his "hometown" does not qualify as his "hometown newspaper". If he'd said, "one newspaper in your home state," it would have been a stretch,* but not a lie. As said, it's a lie.

Yup. As for hometown papers, the Pilot is published in a town that is 20 miles away from Edwards' actualy home town.

I'm making it official -- Cheney is a pathological liar.

Update: Check out this great Conason piece from 2000 on Cheney's record on South Africa.

"Whitewashing" is the only word to describe the weak explanations offered by Dick Cheney about his votes on South Africa during the apartheid era. Ever since the peaceful advent of democracy in Pretoria, politicians like Cheney who habitually coddled the old racist regime have escaped accountability for their actions. And he is still relying on our customary national amnesia to wave away the questions raised by his vice presidential nomination.

For American conservatives who misused their influence to defend apartheid, the controversy over Cheney's congressional voting record actually presents an opportunity to own up to their terrible mistakes. Unfortunately, however, Cheney and his supporters have prevaricated and obfuscated rather than admitting forthrightly that they were on the wrong side.

That's why Cheney's talk of "freedom" is so hollow. In one of the premier human rights battles of our time, Cheney was firmly on the side of the racist Apartheid regime in South Africa.

•  Pathogical LIAR!!!

  Not lawyer.  Or was that on purpose??

  by pontificator on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:10:32 AM PDT

  •  OH my god!

    cracked me up!! bwahahahaahaaaa

    I'm sure he meant LIAR... but really. :)

    by badgerette on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:15:04 AM PDT

  •  Yikes

    This has happened a few times lately. Kos: slow down, take a breath, and do a quick edit before every post.

    Next you'll be confusing "Saddam" with "Osama"!

    (troll repellent: all above said in good cheer as friendly criticism)

    by Pops on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:16:09 AM PDT

  •  Didn't Darth

    flunk out of Yale Liar School?

    by pitbullEmily on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:20:45 AM PDT

  •  sanctions lie

    Cheney is a lying greedy bastard who lines his own pockets at the expense of America's security and then lies about it.

    From Liberal Oasis:

    Another potential sleeper issue is Edwards' hammering of Cheney's past support, as Halliburton CEO, for lifting sanctions on Iran.

    And Cheney's dishonest response.

    [...]

    It would not be surprising if voters were similarly shocked at hearing that CEO Cheney was so greedy that he would push for removing sanctions on a country that supports terrorism.

    Cheney offered a rebuttal of sorts, trying to make it sound like he was simply pushing for stronger multilateral sanctions over unilateral ones:

    At the time, I was talking specifically about this question of unilateral sanctions.

    What happens when we impose unilateral sanctions is, unless there's a collective effort, then other people move in and take advantage of the situation and you don't have any impact...

    But stronger sanctions are not what his argument was "at the time". This is:

    We seem to be sanction-happy as a government.

    The problem is that the good Lord didn't see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments.

    So there's an opening here to expose this lie and create some 2nd-day news.

    by miasmo on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:20:49 AM PDT

  •  need photoshop

    I've only got pictures of Bush's pants on fire.

    by mugsimo on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:27:51 AM PDT

  •  One image to rule them all

    I don't know who came up with this image, but I liked it enough to put it on my blog:

    CLICK FOR THE ONE IMAGE THAT PERFECTLY SUMS UP THE CHENEY-EDWARDS DEBATE

    by Hudson on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:15:01 AM PDT

•  Yikes!

  Do you really mean "pathological lawyer?"

  Or is that a Freudian slip?

  by SusanG on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:10:51 AM PDT

•  Damn Markos

  Cheney is MOST DEFINITELY NOT a pathological lawyer.

  For one thing, we make sure our clients do the lying, not us. Cheney does most of the lying for Bush.

  by Armando on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:13:26 AM PDT

•  uhhh

  I resemble that remark.

  lie-yer

  by willyr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:13:43 AM PDT

•  Kos, I think you need some more sleep

  <EOM>

  by maxentropy on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:13:48 AM PDT

•  best Op/Ed piece I've read on the VP debate.

  IF YOU WANT TO PERSUADE UNDECIDEDS WITH A SINGLE EMAIL THEN USE THIS...

  Cheney proves his irrelevance
  By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist  |  CLEVELAND
  October 6, 2004
  http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/06/cheney_proves_his_irrele vance/

  THE COUNTRY doesn't need Dick Cheney any more. After his 90 minutes on the stage last night, it is clear he is no longer an essential person in politics and government. What he brings to the table are liabilities.

  In debate against an opponent with the dangerously attractive attribute of freshness, Cheney paled -- literally. He's not special, it turns out. He doesn't know anything special, he hasn't done anything special, and for the future he doesn't offer anything special.

  Cheney is now just another vice president who has had his hour on the stage without really mattering or making a difference. Four years ago, he had a glow of the Wizard of Oz about him, filling an obvious hole in his running mate's background; last night, Cheney was just the grumpy old man behind the curtain.

  In presidential campaigns, that is the key to the veeps. They matter if they add something major, help solve a big problem, or provide the second element of a coalition. They are usually more important on the way into office than after they've been there, and last night was no exception.

  In 2000, with George W. Bush running against an experienced, accomplished vice president, Cheney turned out to be important to the know-little Texas governor's election. His debate performance against Al Gore's running mate, Senator Joe Lieberman, provided the added element of reassurance that the one-time conservative congressman from Wyoming and defense secretary seemed a decent fellow who could help govern the country.

  Cheney ceased to have that status a long time ago. Now he has to deal with the accumulating credibility detritus of his incumbency. Just this week, he ran into disclosures from an increasingly angry and bitter intelligence community that he suppressed requests for more troops in Iraq, couldn't even persuade Donald Rumsfeld about ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and probably also suppressed dissenting opinions about the significance of those famous aluminum tubes that never ended up being used in Iraq's nonexistent nuclear weapons program.

  Cheney went into office with the typical benefit of the doubt. Now, more people in polls express unfavorable views about him than favorable ones. As he showed last night, the only way he can deal with questions about his repeated misleading of the public on matters of war and peace is by ignoring the questions and launching into another effort to make Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda seem part of the same coalition and then questioning the patriotism of all who criticize him. It can seem like decent television, but in fact it undermines his president politically as much as it helps rally the Republican base.

  John Edwards had the political discipline to resist the temptation to behave with Cheney's off-putting nastiness, restricting himself to one powerful recitation of the vice president's long record of extreme right-wing position on race relations and education. He helps John Kerry politically, but what was important last night was that he helped demonstrate that Cheney isn't a big player anymore, that Edwards can play on the same stage, and therefore that the country is free to change leaders next month.

  by km4 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:14:00 AM PDT

•  See TAPPED

  Even more complete debunking at Tapped Online:
  http://www.prospect.org/weblog/

  by beartums on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:14:37 AM PDT

•  Thanks for the edits, guys

  And yeah, I DEFINITELY need more sleep.

  But that can wait to November 3rd.

  by kos on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:15:25 AM PDT

  •  Nobody Call Kos on 11/3...

    ... unless one of wins the Mega Millions and finances his site for a few years.  ;)

    by filkertom on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:04:46 AM PDT

•  Factcheck.com or Factcheck.org

  Slate caught a good story about how George Soros took Cheney's blunder about the URL and used it against him by quickly getting the URL and forwarding browsers to his site.  If you're going to respond with a web site instead of your own words, at least get the URL right!  

  by DrJK on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:15:29 AM PDT

  •  time for change

    ..and you know that brings up another point that just really bothers me about the current Bush administration - his reluctance to embrace change, especially when it comes to science and technology.  You'd think the first administration in the 21st Century would understand how to utilize the internet.  It really IS making a difference in activating our base and being able to deflect the retoric and flat out lies that they have historically been able to get away with.

    I think the repugs might be finally seeing it, but it's going to be way to late for this administration.  

    by xNativeTexan on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:34:45 AM PDT

•  A lawyer, a liar

  And blind justice sees higher
  Misanthrope, lycanthrope, end of the line
  November coming and boy I feel fine.

  by adamgreenfield on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:15:39 AM PDT

  •  Whoa, the spin is turning on it's head!

    Olbermann reverses on VP debate in light of new evidence
    
    Olbermann reverses his descision, greatly revises his article, and gives a big time whack to Cheney and the GOP!
    
    Political Physics

    by cgilbert01 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:07:55 AM PDT

•  And today the "hometown" newspaper...

  ...has this to say:

  It's not every day that a non-daily paper in a small town gets mentioned in a nationally televised debate in prime time. But it happened to The Pilot Tuesday night.

  "His hometown newspaper has taken to calling him `Senator Gone,'" Vice President Richard Cheney said of his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Edwards.

  Well, not exactly.

  The Pilot hasn't "taken to calling him" anything. In fact, the vice president's obscure reference sent us scrambling to our library. And sure enough, we did publish an editorial 15 months ago, on June 25, 2003, headlined, "Edwards Should Do His Day Job." In it, we noted that Sen. Jesse Helms used to be called "Senator No." And we added: "Four and a half years into his first term, John Edwards is becoming known as Senator Gone."

  The reference was to Edwards' frequent absences from the Senate floor as he traveled here and there (mostly there) pursuing his presidential ambitions.

  But we also wrote: "Members of the senator's staff point out that Edwards' attendance record this year has been better than the three other Democratic senators who are campaigning for president -- Joe Lieberman, Richard Gephardt and Bob Graham. And the aides also say none of the votes Edwards missed was close, so his presence on the floor would not have changed the outcome."

  by Meteor Blades on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:16:11 AM PDT

  •  awesome

    my mother and grandparents are from Southern Pines. Good to see The Pilot, conservative though it may be, corrected the record.

    by willyr on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:21:23 AM PDT

    •  in the same congressional district

      NC 6

      William Jordan is running against long time incumbent Republican Howard Coble.  

      stop by http://www.jordan4congress.com and see what he has to say and how you can help.

      Remember, Coble is the man that said it was a good idea to lock up Japanese Americans during WWII.

      (see NY Times piece)http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/02.16.03_nytimes_coble.pdf

      by oldnorthstate on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:13:13 AM PDT

    •  The Pilot's Not All That Conservative

      I oughta know. I write a weekly column for them.

      http://www.thepilot.com/opinion/100304D-Rhoades.html

      And the archives at:

      http://dusty.booksnbytes.com/

      Call me a conservative and I'll punch you right in the mouth.

      by JDRhoades on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 04:15:45 PM PDT

  •  Don't forget partisan scheduling games by Frist

    Frist over and over has intentionally tried to set important votes at the same date and time there were well-known scheduled appearances by Kerry and Edwards. For example, Kerry and Edwards both had to appear at Democratic Primary debates via satellite link-up due to Frist moving an important vote to intentionally conflict with the debate when the debates date and time were known long in advance.

    by nyetsoup4you on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:24:05 AM PDT

  •  To be fair(I can't believe I'm saying this)...

    The News and Observer did publish an article critical of Edwards for missing votes entitled Edwards misses votes in the Capitol; however, I guess the truth didn't sound as good as "senator gone"

    http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/edwards/eyeonedwards/story/1693601p-7940540c.html

    by tiberius on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:29:50 AM PDT

•  Still not concerned with this

  or the "never met" flap... much more concerned with the huge policy-related lies told by Cheney that have still gone unrebutted.

  I understand the need to fuel the "Cheney's a dishonest bastard" message, but our energies are better spent on the bigger stuff, not on screenshots and hometown papers.
  We all have bigger fish to fry - if you don't believe me, juxtapose this with the article right below it on DeLay and the Ethics Committee.
  Every second we spend going after Cheney for his little lies would be better spent holding his ass - and other leaders' as well - to the flames for the relevant stuff. What will undecideds probably care about more - whether or not Cheney lied about meeting Edwards before (prepared line or not), or whether Cheney lied to the American public about the nature of our foreign affairs yet again.
  That, not this, is evidence of pathological dishonesty, and that is what we should be hammering him for relentlessly. I think this peripherial stuff is a waste of time - spend the time it took to search through the archives of those local newspapers trying to help Ben Konop, Christine Cegelis, the dKos 12, or our favorite presidential ticket.
  </lecture>
  -OxL

  by OxyLiberal on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:17:08 AM PDT

  •  Yes and no ...

    ...the "peripheral" stuff is a good jab that puts doubts into the minds of those fence straddlers who are leaning Bush-Cheney with an OBVIOUS lie - one everybody can see and quickly understand. That softens them up for the follow-up punches, which  nail Cheney on the more substantive stuff where it really counts.

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:29:43 AM PDT

    •  it also helps that it's new

      there's no "that's old news - I've heard it" going on.

      by sendtoscott on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:40:34 AM PDT

  •  Yet it is important

    I don't agree here.  I think this is an opportunity to label Chaney in the minds of the public at large.    If successful, then forever after his words must always be taken with the caveat that he might be making it up.  Also, if the zenith of our ranking of politicians is populated by those of renouned truthfulness (George Washington, Abraham Lincoln) then the liar must surely occupy the nadir.  And just as this is the supreme indictment of a politician, I would argue it is something people least want to hear and is most quickly, guiltily forgotten.  

    Is this man at his core a liar?  I do not take up this question lightly.  Indeed to even consider it as possibly factual is disquieting.  If true, then it goes a long way to explaining the behavior of this administration.  

    by SeniorDingDong on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:03:56 AM PDT

    •  Not to mention

      The fact that these things aren't treated as trivial by the press. Was it really important who Erich Seagal used as the model for Oliver in Love Story?

      Of course not. But was used to bludgeon Al Gore nonetheless.

      by hamletta on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:52:52 PM PDT

•  THIS is what we need to hit on

  Reading your post, Kos, it occurs to me that the Mandela and MLK votes are things we can really hit Cheney with.  My office mate was expressed shock at those votes this morning (he didn't know about them previously).  

  by TrentL on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:17:30 AM PDT

•  asdf

  CNN has reposted their "who won" poll after
  taking it down last night.  

  http://www.cnn.com/

  by JoelK in AZ on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:17:35 AM PDT

•  Big lies and little lies

  If you're the NC Senator, than an NC paper is sort of a hometown paper, but home state would have been more accurate.  I think the point is not that Cheney is a pathological liar so much as he has no qualms about fudging facts.

  I'd rather focus on how he fudges intelligence and warps it to justify going to war.

  by Steve G on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:18:01 AM PDT

•  Here's what the Pilot actually said

  The editorial that addresses this very question says:
  "Well, not exactly.
  The Pilot hasn't 'taken to calling him' anything. In fact, the vice president's obscure reference sent us scrambling to our library."
  And in a bit of snark: "Thanks for the plug, Mr. Vice President. We're proud to count you among our many readers."

  In another editorial today, the pilot calls the debate a draw but says:
  "Call it a draw.
  But even if you do, the outcome of Tuesday night's vice-presidential debate still amounts to a kind of victory for Moore County's own Sen. John Edwards. For a relative newcomer to the Washington political scene to go up against a seasoned pro like Vice President Richard Cheney and still solidly hold his own amounts to an impressive performance in anybody's book."
  This editorial finishes with: "But on a personal level, however they feel about Edwards' politics, home-county folks have to agree that he did them proud on Tuesday night."

  by soonergrunt on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:18:04 AM PDT

•  Wow

  You think that's bad, check out this consolidated diary of Cheney's senate record vs Edwards.

  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/13738/2854

  Most Tuesdays?  My ass!

  by Craziel on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:18:15 AM PDT

•  Florida voting debacle

  Somewhat OT, but check out this sample of Florida's electronic voting set up.  

  http://www.wearabledissent.com/101/floridavote.html

  by ubarquat on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:18:35 AM PDT

•  Well, BUSH's hometown paper calls him a danger

  Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq.

  by jm1963 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:19:44 AM PDT

  •  and that really is his hometown paper! (n/t)

    by frisco on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 03:10:16 PM PDT

•  OOPS, ref to above

  http://news.iconoclast-texas.com/web/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm

  by jm1963 on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:20:31 AM PDT

•  The Times' VP Debate Fact Check

  Times says Cheney was the much bigger liar:

  When Points Weren't Personal, Liberties Were Taken With the Truth
  By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM

  n a debate laden with detailed assertions and rebuttals more than with rhetorical flashes, Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards often stretched the facts last night on issues including the war in Iraq and medical malpractice lawsuits.

  Often the matters were old saws, like Mr. Edwards's suggestion of an improper relationship between the Bush administration and the Halliburton Company, or Mr. Cheney's assertion that Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee and Mr. Edwards's running mate, had voted nearly 100 times to raise taxes.

  But on matters like Iraq, taxes and jobs, the liberties the vice presidential candidates took with the truth are worthy of scrutiny.

  Iraq and Al Qaeda

  Mr. Edwards accused the vice president of having justified the invasion of Iraq by saying a link existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Mr. Cheney declared, "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

  What Mr. Cheney said was only partly true, because while he has never explicitly made the link, he has on several occasions strongly suggested that evidence pointed to such a connection.

  The vice president went furthest along these lines on Sept. 8, 2002, on "Meet the Press" on NBC.

  "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11," he said. "I can't say that. On the other hand," he went on to say, since a previous interview on the show, "new information has come to light," adding "there has been reporting that suggest that there have been a number of contacts over the years."

  He said that Mohamed Atta, one of the lead Sept. 11 hijackers, was "in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debate's about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there. Again, it's the intelligence business."

  Investigations later concluded that Mr. Atta was not in Prague at that time. Nor did Mr. Cheney's frequent accusations of deep contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda hold up, though there apparently were contacts. A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded, "The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda throughout the 1990's but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship."

  The Senate report added that the C.I.A.'s assessment that "there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an Al Qaeda attack was responsible and objective."

  Weapons Votes

  Mr. Cheney said that Mr. Kerry had repeatedly voted against spending for military weapons systems in the last years of the cold war. That is true. But Mr. Cheney, as secretary of defense in the first Bush administration, opposed some of the systems himself, including the Apache helicopter and the F-14 aircraft.

  Halliburton

  Mr. Edwards suggested an improper relationship between the Bush administration and Halliburton, the company with large contracts in Iraq that Mr. Cheney led before he ran for vice president.

  Mr. Edwards was right that Halliburton holds a no-bid contract for services in Iraq, is under investigation for overcharges and is still being paid by the government. But there is no evidence Mr. Cheney has pulled strings on Halliburton's behalf since becoming vice president. And the independent Government Accountability Office concluded that Halliburton was the only company that could have provided the services the Army needed at the outset of the war and was thus justified in having received the noncompetitive contract.

  War Costs and Casualties

  Some factual disputes were echoes from last week's debate between the presidential candidates, including the cost of the war - Mr. Edwards put the figure at $200 billion, but only $119 billion has been spent so far. Another issue was the proportion of casualties borne by the United States: Mr. Edwards said 90 percent of fatalities, but that includes only foreign troops killed, and does not count approximately 700 Iraqi security forces said to have died.

  Taxes

  Mr. Edwards said that under the Bush-Cheney tax laws, millionaires receiving dividends paid taxes at a lower rate than did troops fighting in Iraq. The 2003 tax law lowered the rate on stock dividends to 15 percent. Many soldiers pay a rate higher than that on some of their income.

  Mr. Cheney said that Mr. Kerry had voted 98 times to raise taxes. No question, he cast votes for higher taxes. But the number Mr. Cheney cited included multiple votes on the same legislation. Mr. Edwards said Mr. Kerry had voted against the overall legislation to cut taxes because the benefits went largely to the wealthy.

  Mr. Cheney said that 900,000 small businesses would be affected by the Kerry proposal to raise taxes on individuals with incomes of more than $200,000. The Tax Policy Center found that only about 5 percent of small businesses would be affected by the Kerry plan and that much of the income of the business operators who would be affected came from sources other than their businesses.

  Afghanistan

  Mr. Cheney said that two and a half years ago, Mr. Edwards said the situation in Afghanistan "was chaotic, the situation was deteriorating, the warlords were about to take over." Noting that elections are scheduled to take place in four days, the vice president said his opponent "just got it wrong."

  In an October 2002 speech in Washington, Mr. Edwards called Afghanistan "largely unstable," with much of the country "under the control of drug lords and warlords."

  Last night Mr. Edwards stuck to essentially that description, saying that contrary to the "rosy scenario" described by Mr. Cheney, "What's actually happened is, they're now providing 75 percent of the world's opium" and "large parts of the country are under the control of drug lords and warlords."

  The Drug Enforcement Administration has reported that opium production in Afghanistan has soared since the end of Taliban rule in 2001, from 74 metric tons in 2001 to 2,965 metric tons last year. The government of President Hamid Karzai does not control large parts of the country.

  Jobs

  Mr. Edwards said that the nation has lost 1.6 million private-sector jobs since Mr. Bush took office, while Mr. Cheney said the nation has added 1.7 million jobs in the past year.

  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of payroll jobs has declined by about 900,000 since Mr. Bush took office. Mr. Edwards's higher number comes from isolating private-sector jobs, not taking into account increases in state, local and federal government jobs.

  Mr. Cheney was correct in saying that the nation has added about 1.7 million jobs in the past year. But employment has yet to return to its level before the 2001 recession and a sharp decline in manufacturing employment continued for nearly two years after the recession officially ended in November 2001.

  More importantly, in the view of many economists, employment growth has lagged even further behind the growth in population. The nation's adult work force climbs by more than a million people every year. So even if the number of jobs returns to its level of January 2001, as many as three million more people would still be unemployed or underemployed than they were then.

  Voting Records

  Mr. Cheney said correctly that Mr. Edwards had missed most votes in the Senate this year, as well as many committee meetings. Candidates for president and vice president generally skip all but the most important votes because they are on the campaign trail.

  Mr. Cheney said that Mr. Edwards had been absent so often that he had never even met him before last night. Mr. Edwards said later last night that he and Mr. Cheney had in fact met twice before, at a prayer breakfast in 2001 and at the swearing-in last year of Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina.

  Mr. Edwards was correct in saying that Mr. Cheney, as a member of the House, had voted against such measures as the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, Head Start and creation of the Department of Education.

  by BrooklynBoy on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:22:56 AM PDT

•  New CNN.com poll:

  Created: Wednesday, October 06, 2004, at 12:26:52 EDT  

  Who do you think won last night's vice presidential debate?  

  Vice President Dick Cheney      37%  13719 votes  

  Sen. John Edwards               63%  23475 votes  

                                Total: 37194 votes  
  

  by clueless on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:23:29 AM PDT

  •  Linakge?

    Freeping is necessary and demonstrates loyalty to the great cause!! :P

    by Craziel on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:24:01 AM PDT

  •  Updated CNN.com poll:

    Created: Wednesday, October 06, 2004, at 12:26:52 EDT  

    Who do you think won last night's vice presidential debate?  

    Vice President Dick Cheney      37%  23024 votes  

    Sen. John Edwards               63%  39954 votes  

                               Total: 62978 votes  

    by clueless on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:00:41 AM PDT

    •  Updated CNN.com poll:

      Created: Wednesday, October 06, 2004, at 12:26:52 EDT  

      Who do you think won last night's vice presidential debate?

      Vice President Dick Cheney      36%  86704 votes  

      Sen. John Edwards                   64%  153749 votes  

      Total:                                              240453 votes  

      by clueless on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 04:27:44 PM PDT

•  Good Grief, Charlie Brown!

  If I were to go over Cheney's statements with a red pen, the paper would start to look like Dead Alive: The Sequel.

  by mugsimo on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:25:44 AM PDT

•  I linked to this in another thread

  but I think it got lost.

  Here's another picture, courtesy of Drudge:

  

  by up2date on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:27:09 AM PDT

•  Moore County

  This area of NC is right next to Fort Bragg, quite conservative, and quite rich. Many gold courses AND the PGA comes through there once a year.

  Think this is "Edwards Home Town"? Look at the 2000 Presidential Results for the county.

  MOORE 100% of precincts  
  Candidates Votes  Vote %
  Bush 16,072  63 %
  Gore  9,412  37 %
  Browne   94   0 %
  Buchanan 72   0 %

  I call BULLSHIT! (except you already did...)

  by RNinNC on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:31:52 AM PDT

•  Did ya hear?

  After spending 90 minutes sitting next to Johnny Sunshine last night, the positive aura must have rubbed off on Dick "Lon" Cheney.  Cheney was spotted this morning approaching a puppy, and, guess what?  Instead of eating it he patted it on the head!

  by wry twinger on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:41:20 AM PDT

•  The Pilot Newspaper . .

  I live in Southern Pines, NC where this paper is published. Did anyone notice the date on the newpaper . . . Wednesday, Oct. 6 . . . this paper comes out 3 times a week; Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday. There is no way Cheney could have seen this last night at the debate; the paper is not available on-line or on the street until the day it comes out . . .

  And you are right Southern Pines is not Edwards hometown, though he does have a lot of fans down here.

  I think it is very peculiar that Cheney got a hold of this . . .

  by jhewett on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:45:54 AM PDT

  •  southern pines

    help spread the word down there and get the vote out for william jordan

    http://www.jordan4congress.com

    getting a few votes for jordan could be enough to push bowles over the top in the run for the senate and quite possibly give North Carolina to Kerry.

    by oldnorthstate on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:14:34 AM PDT

    •  Bowles

      Actually Bowles is doing quite well. I don't know the latest poll numbers, but he has the name recognition. Dems actually do pretty well in congressional races; anything can happen. We are also in the midst of the governor's race with the incumbent, Easley who is a Dem. He also has the lead in the polls at present.

      by jhewett on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 01:21:43 PM PDT

      •  Burr's Closing the Gap on Bowles

        Largely due to an ad blitz (and I do mean blitz--I've seen the same ad run back to back) Showing Bowles standing with "his old boss Bill Clinton" and claiming Bowles supported sending textile jobs overseas.

        Told 'em NAFTA'd come back to bite 'em in the ass.

        by JDRhoades on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 04:27:24 PM PDT

•  Lowering the Bar Even MORE

  Just found this little LTE gem here in Raleigh. Made me laugh, considering how much we talk about setting the bar for Bush. Check it out:

  He showed up

  After watching Thursday night's presidential debate, the thought occurred to me that had Winston Churchill or FDR taken time out while waging war to debate the opposition, it is quite possible that, like President Bush, they too would have performed as poorly as he did. However, we can still give Bush credit for at least making an effort while under considerable stress with the demands of his office.
  (NAME)
  Raleigh

  Say whatever you will about Bush, but he was ON THAT STAGE, DAMMIT!
  

  by RNinNC on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:49:05 AM PDT

  •  Leave the poor guy alone...

    it's HARD WORK showing up and having to answer questions and everything.

    by getmeoutofdixie on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:11:20 AM PDT

•  Clearly this is how

  Cheney got anywhere in life. He lies like it's the truth. Not just twisty, not shifty, not just lawyerly "is" is--but bold out loud lying like he's telling the truth. And in a vaccuum that's going to suck people in, I suppose, but it completely withers when faced with a little rudimentary fact-checking.

  In the White House, though, the fact checkers have been banished. No wonder things are the way they are.

  by JMS on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:50:36 AM PDT

•  Reminds me of an old punk rock song:

  you lie you love to lie bull and brag screw around liar for hire do anything liar for hire use anything liar for hire do anything liar for hire get out get out gotta get you out get you out of here get rid of you nobody wants you nobody needs you nobody's gonna die for you nobody wants you nobody needs you nobody's gonna die for you you just cut cut yourself off you don't count anymore you were a friend i trusted you i trusted you trust no more

  -- Liar for Hire by D.O.A.

  by kwyzkl on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:53:38 AM PDT

•  Central America

  That's why Cheney's talk of "freedom" is so hollow.

  And THAT is why it is so disturbing that progressives have stood by and allowed these neo-conservatives to claim the mantle of human rights, freedom and democracy.  Historically speaking, these neo-con wolves have consistently disregarded or belittled the concept of human rights and their hands are dripping with the blood of thousands of innocents whose lives were taken from them in the name of strenthening US Foreign policy.   These neo-cons shamefacedly talk about Hussein and his mass graves, when their very own policies were instrumental in creating thousands of mass graves all over Central America.  As they say in Spanish "Estos compadres ya no tienen sangre en la cara."  These are the LAST people who should be guiding the discussion on human rights, and yet, progressives have not once tried to seriously challenge the notion that it is the neo-conservatives who care more about human dignitity and respect for human rights.

  Tonight was a PERFECT entrance for such a discussion, as Cheney himself brought up El Salvador, but once again, I don't hear anyone saying "What?!  YOU want to talk about human rights?!  You're shitting me, right?!"
  

  by Michi on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:55:03 AM PDT

•  The Bigger Lies

  Our soldiers won't get killed over the "first time ever I saw your face" lie.

  They are getting killed over the White House briefed Allawi lies. Compare today's NYT description of his briefing on the situation in Iraq to fellow Council members, who know the day to day situation and can't be fooled, to his White House coached speech to Congress.

  They are getting killed over the need to try and give credibility to the statements that Iraq is stabilising. They are getting killed by the urgent pre-election pushes by our military into no-go areas.

  Northern Ireland is a perfect example of this type of urban fighting situation. The military went in, the IRA faded away. The military left and handed over to the Ulster Constabulary, the IRA returned. No direct confrontation, no "battle".

  The spin is clearly seen if military or White House spokespeople claim some sort of "victory". This type of war can only be won - if it can ever be won - by years of attrition. The IRA was eventually weakened after forty years but never finally defeated. For every terrorist lost, a new generation arose. All the time, the polls showed a majority in Northern Ireland wanted peace. But still the gunmen found safe havens in the housing sprawls of the cities. The composition and nature of the insurgency, the ethnic and cultural differences, the tribal and religous divisions in Iraq are ten times worse than in Northern Ireland.

  The biggest lie is that this will not cost many more lives of our soldiers and, thank you for reminding us as if we needed to be Mr Cheyney, of Iraqis.

  The unasked question has to be "How many more coffins will be carried in the anonymous gloom of the transport holds of freight planes as a result of this falsely initiated war before enough is enough?"

  by Welshman on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 10:59:56 AM PDT

•  Gwen Ifill sucked, by the way

  I thought she was lame, asking repetitive boring questions and failing to hit topics like energy and immigration.

  Here's a review of her performance from Salon:

  If Cheney and Edwards want to feel better about their performances Tuesday night, they can take solace in this. As bad as they were, moderator Gwen Ifill was even worse. She lost track of the order of questioning at one point, then cut off Edwards mid-sentence in order to correct her error. She suggested -- in a bizarre non sequitur -- that Kerry and Edwards were "trying to have it both ways" by opposing gay marriage when Kerry comes from a state whose highest court backs gay marriage. She claimed, falsely, that Kerry "changed his mind about whether to authorize the president to go to war." And she imposed -- and then actually enforced -- a silly rule prohibiting the candidates from mentioning their running mates by name while talking about their own qualifications.

  by existenz on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:01:23 AM PDT

•  I'll say again...

  I'm making it official -- Cheney is a pathological liar.

  This whole administration is pathologically deceptive.

  Sometimes its lies, sometimes it is slight of hand, sometimes it is deceptive wording, sometimes it is "plausible deniability" but it is so constant that it is clearly pathological and the bottom line is that a representative of this administration... at any place... at any time... on any subject... says something...

  then you cannot believe them or take them at face value. The problem is systemic.

  by Andrew C White on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:06:49 AM PDT

•  Pinehurst

  Cheney was quoting a paper from Pinehurst NC. Ever been to Pinehurst? It's a cleared patch in the middle of the woods and little else.

  by jonathanjo on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:09:21 AM PDT

  •  Pinhurst is great

    if you are really rich and play golf.

    by oldnorthstate on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:15:46 AM PDT

    •  Now watch this drive? n/t

      by jonathanjo on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:53:26 AM PDT

  •  The Pilot

    Is actually in Southern Pines, where I grew up. Pinehurst is the rich town, Southern Pines is where most of the middle-class prfessionals live, and Aberdeen is Blue-collar. Robbins, where Edwards is from, is hard-core redneck.

    It's an interesting county to live in.

    by JDRhoades on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 04:30:20 PM PDT

•  Just google it.

  "Senator Gone" + "Edwards" gets a grand total of (drumroll) 47 hits, all but two of them from a right-wing fringe site.  The other two are the same article from USA Today, in which a NC GOP staff member is quoted (without attribution) as saying Tarheels call Edwards "Senator Gone".

  by republicans are idiots on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:16:39 AM PDT

  •  As a North Carolina resident

    Never heard the nickname.

    NEVER
    

    by cskendrick on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:26:19 AM PDT

    •  I Get the Damn Paper Every Week

      And I didn't remember the Senator Gone crack.

      by JDRhoades on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 04:31:26 PM PDT

      •  Divorced from reality

        
        Somewhere, out there, is a Republiverse where all Dick Cheney's stories are true.

        The only problem is that ain't here. :)

        by cskendrick on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 06:31:21 PM PDT

•  Tricky Dick's Turn-About

  The CBS News website ran an article on September 9th that was actually titled Tricky Dick's Turn-About. It's a blistering, point by point indictment of Cheney's hypocrisy.

  
  [Cheney's] image has been augmented by the vice president's attacks on Senator John Kerry for supposedly working to cut defense and block intelligence reform, for misunderstanding terrorism, and for taking inconsistent positions on Iraq.

  But a look more deeply at Cheney's career shows our current vice president either suffers from amnesia, self-hatred, or a little bit of both. It was Congressman Cheney, after all -- not Senator Kerry -- who contradicted his own party during the height of the Cold War and called for President Ronald Reagan to "take a whack" at defense spending. It was Defense Secretary Cheney -- not Senator Kerry -- who in 1992 blocked critical intelligence reforms and bragged to Congress about gutting defense spending.

  In fact, the vice president's previous actions are remarkably consistent with behavior he now excoriates. His blustery rhetoric is designed not only to distort Kerry's record but to hide his own.
  

  The rest of the story is a must-read, if you want the item by item facts behind these assertions.

  
  
  Ok, I'll give you one bonus excerpt, but you have to promise to read the full story if you read this final paragraph.

  When asked why he believes Dick Cheney is such a valuable member of the Republican Party's ticket in 2004, President Bush said simply "Dick Cheney can be President. Next." It was a comment designed to instill total confidence in the vice president's judgment. But if we are to take the Bush campaign's rhetoric seriously, only one conclusion can be drawn: Dick Cheney, judged by his record, is the real threat to America's national security.
  

  Ok, remember, you promised.

  by Carneades on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:17:06 AM PDT

•  What's up with the NY Post?

  Has the NY Post always been this Kool-Aid swillingly pro-Bush/Cheney?

  by wry twinger on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:22:54 AM PDT

  •  uh, yes

    murdoch, i think

    by kwyzkl on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:53:23 AM PDT

  •  Oops, link doesn't seem to work

    but it's just another mindless, knee-jerk pro-admin editorial....

    by wry twinger on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:11:22 PM PDT

•  South Africa

  I didn't know about Cheney's record regarding aparthaid in South Africa.  Now in retrospect, I'm wondering if I'm the only one who can't get "diplomatic immunity" our of my mind when I think of Cheney.

  by davidks on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 11:58:51 AM PDT

  •  South Africa is the important matter....

    In response to this post -- I am disappointed that so many have focused on the NC Newspaper matter -- and so few have dug into Edwards mention of Cheney's recorded vote on a resolution regarding the continued imprisonment of Mandela.  The apartheid policy / South African issue is the one of real consequence.  

    Cheney has explained his vote in the past -- his rational is that the ANC was "Communist" and because Mandela was an ANC leader, that made him a communist.  Thus -- releasing him from Prison would have been wrong.  

    There is no question that in the ANC's struggle against apartheid, they accepted support from whoever was willing to help -- for instance all the towns and cities in the US that withdrew investments from companies doing business in SA, and all the private and public universities in the US (like Harvard) who cleared their portfolios of SA investments.  But the ANC also had support from Arab Nationalists -- Arafat and Qaddafi, for instance.  And the whole EU had a maze of supportive programs.  

    This should lead to asking the question -- What was Cheney really supporting with his reactionary support of racist apartheid ideas?  

    Second -- when Bush went to Africa, he did hand-stands so as not to have to meet with Mandela -- what's the deal?  In contrast, the current SA president, Mebeki, was educated in the former Soviet Union during the Apartheid era -- if they are still holding to anti-Soviet grudges, you wonder whey Mebeki is approved?  There is lots to consider here, and it is of far more consequence than what an NC weekly paper said.  

    by Sara on Thu Oct 07, 2004 at 05:07:24 AM PDT

•  Cheney Bio on Canadian TV Tonight

  CBC's The Fifth Estate presents "The Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney" Wed. 9 PM E.T.

  
  This is the story of Dick Cheney's vision of America. But he has selective vision.

  Cheney's remarkable life story involves the relentless accumulation of power in every form. He's been uniquely involved in a large share of U.S. policy and strategy over the past two decades, and regardless of the outcome of this fall's election, he will continue to be one of the most powerful and well-connected men in the world. the fifth estate will show how he accomplished this, what it involved in terms of costs for others, and what history's judgment could be.

  WEB FEATURE COMING SOON

  Fifth Estate web site.
  

  by Gooserock on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:04:33 PM PDT

•  While we're talking about hometown papers...

  Let's not forget that Bush's hometown paper in Crawford endorsed Kerry and completely trashed Bush.

  by Bea on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 12:35:53 PM PDT

•  Holy shit - it really is pathological!!!

  Has anyone tallied up whether he had any single continuous response that was not (at least partially) a lie last night?

  This guy shouldn't just be Gore-d.  That would be too light on him.  He should get the royal media "full monty" flambe treatment!

  by frisco on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 02:58:16 PM PDT

•  Senator Gone

  Josh Marshall has the scoop.  

  The Pilot corrects Cheney's usage of the term "Seantor Gone.

  http://www.thepilot.com/opinion/100604PilotEditorial2.html

  by Aeryl on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 04:20:27 PM PDT

•  Talk about hometown papers ...

  Bush's hometown paper in Crawford Texas endoresed Kerry.  

  by poppymccool on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 06:31:37 PM PDT

•  More blasting on "Senator Gone"

  The rural paper "The Pilot" referred to by Cheney published two editorials today in response to the comment.

  One says they think Edwards 'More than held his own'

  http://www.thepilot.com/opinion/100604PilotEditorial.html

  the other refers specifically to the comment, and The Pilot states (what a surprise!) that Cheney Distorted their editorial!

  http://www.thepilot.com/opinion/100604PilotEditorial2.html

  A couple juicy quotes from this second, short piece:  
  

  It's not every day that a non-daily paper in a small town gets mentioned in a nationally televised debate in prime time. But it happened to The Pilot Tuesday night.

  "His hometown newspaper has taken to calling him `Senator Gone,'" Vice President Richard Cheney said of his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Edwards.

  Well, not exactly.

  ...
  The Pilot hasn't "taken to calling him" anything. In fact, the vice president's obscure reference sent us scrambling to our library.  ... The reference was to Edwards' frequent absences from the Senate floor as he traveled here and there (mostly there) pursuing his presidential ambitions.

  But we also wrote: "Members of the senator's staff point out that Edwards' attendance record this year has been better than the three other Democratic senators who are campaigning for president -- Joe Lieberman, Richard Gephardt and Bob Graham.
  

  Seems that The Pilot is flattered by the attention, but thinks Cheney was lying, too!

  The original 'Senator Gone' editorial is listed here  (I think it was referenced earlier in the thread)

  http://www.thepilot.com/weblinks/062503PilotEditorial.html

  by ScrewySquirrel on Wed Oct 06, 2004 at 07:04:25 PM PDT