Just Another Republican Lie, or a Sure Sign of Senility?

As someone who was sometimes know for his sarcasm, I thought it was a pretty good line when Cheny said to Edwards, "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight," implying, of course, that Edwards never showed up in the Senate, a charge he later elaborated on.

Turns out, unfortunately for Cheney, that the statement was a falsehood, either a deliberate lie or another line planted in Cheney's head by the Bush Administration's speech writers. One that Cheney should have caught, of course, when he studied his lines.

As harry pointed out at The Kudzu Files, even the Fox network was forced to point out that it wasn't true, pointing out several times where they had met. Other organizations like MoveOn.org included a photograph of the two standing next to each other at a prayer breakfast.

Perhaps Cheney is just getting older, as Ronald Reagan, Jr suggested just before the debates when he argued that it would have been unfair to make a man of Cheney's age with a pacemaker in his heart stand on stage for ninety minutes. Russert was quick to point out that Cheney was only 62, to which Ron, Jr could only reply "whoops."

Neither is it particularly reassuring that Cheney directed viewers of the debate to factcheck.com, not factcheck.org as he meant to do. I'm sure some Republican voters were surprised to be redirected to George Soro's web site instead of the Annenberg cite I've referred to here several times before.

Personally, I was shocked to find out that Cheney was only 62. He's been around so long and his political views are so dated that I'd always assumed he was part of my father's generation, not mine.

When Edwards pointed out that as a member of the House that Cheney, "was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors. He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa," I was absolutely convinced Cheney could not possibly have been part of my generation.

Though Edwards did little to convince me that he is someone I would want to take over the presidency, the thought of Cheney becoming president absolutely terrifies me. Given this choice, it seems like another clear reason to vote for Kerry.

11 thoughts on “Just Another Republican Lie, or a Sure Sign of Senility?

  1. First, to pretend that “conservative” viewpoints (assuming, of course, that that’s what you mean)don’t belong in your generation, is a joke. No one should harbor any specific viewpoint because of their generation. I hope that’s not what you’re suggesting. Besides that, Cheney’s views are far closer to the center than to the right wing, otherwise he wouldn’t be VP of the United States. That’s also why he was attempting to go toe to toe with Edward’s on which respective administration would take money from this group and give to that group, if elected.

    Second, it doesn’t matter what age you are, if you’re unhealthy then you might not be able to do certain things. I think we all know that Cheney has a weak heart and is not healthy. If a nineteen year old had heart problems he or she might not be able to participate in certain activities, regardless of how of their youth.

    Last, to assert that Ron Reagan Jr. made an argument, ever, is a stretch…

  2. Chreney is totally ruthless and completely amoral. I doubt it was anything but a deliberate lie. The Bushies don’t really care if they get caught in the lie later. They are so convinced of the rightness of their roles that they believe that as long as they stand/sit there and calmly but seriously tell the most outrageous lies the public will buy it as “leadership”. You can pretty much be guaranteed that if Cheney’s lips are moving he’s trying to mislead you or outright lying to you.

  3. While the “Bushies” may not have a corner on that market, I believe they’ve turned an art into a science. The Bush administration is so incredibly adept at double-speak, you just have to admire it — in a sick kind of way. (One of my favorites is the “Healthy Forest Initiative.”) They can sit there in complete seriousness and tell you that black is white. The whole trick is to say it enough that people believe it must be true. The fact that Cheney can say, with a straight face no less, that he never said there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam … you have to think he knows the irony in it all.

  4. As I think I’ve steadily pointed out, unfortunately both sides have distorted the truth to make their point. I’d prefer that the side I’d like to vote for wouldn’t do that.

    But the truth is that it’s impossible to tell the “truth” in two minutes so almost everything what we get is dumbed down and oversimplified.

    To suggest that Cheney is more mainstream than conservative because he was “elected” vice-president is ridiculous. He might get votes in Wyoming and a few other extremely conservative areas, but if he were running for president I wouldn’t need to keep making donations to the Democratic party and Kerry’s campaign. The election would be a slam dunk.

    Even the Republicans have suggested dumping him for a more popular Republican like McCain in order to actually help Bush gain votes.

  5. Just because Cheney isn’t the most popular does not mean he isn’t main stream. If you think Bush would take a chance on losing this election by bringing in someone who wasn’t mainstream then you’re kidding yourself.

    There’s no question that the Bush Administration lied. A simple visit to factcheck.org, however, clearly shows that both sides lie. So for everytime one wonders if Cheney sees the irony of it all, they should think back to the ’80’s. Reagan was pumping money into the military and his main opponent in Congress was John Kerry. And John Kerry actually compared himself to Ronald Reagan in the last debate. If voters are that stupid, they should definitely not be voting.

    And the (clear?) reasons to vote for Jesus Christ, I mean Kerry, are a lot of things, but they’re definitely not clear — except to the omniscient liberals who seem to see the world so clearly…

  6. I’m not saying that Kerry and Edwards don’t lie or distort the truth. It just seems that the Bush Administration is better at it. Their ability to communicate a consistent message is incredible. How many bits has Jon Stewart done compiling clips from administration personnel repeating the exact same words? And it works. If the American people hear the same thing said over and over by enough people, they begin to believe it.

  7. I normally don’t put much stock into Krugman’s watered down partisanship. But that is a good article, and I can’t argue with it. Ashcroft is incompetent, and the administration does refuse to acknowledge mistakes.

    We shouldn’t, because of that, paint a rosy picture of Kerry and Edwards. They need to explain why they voted for an unneccessary war, and how they will do better. The executive branch is limited, despite the power Bush has given it over the past four years. So, Kerry needs to show that he will do better than what Bush is limited to do further. Because, if Kerry is going to make no difference, then why should anyone vote for him?

What do you think?