VP Debate: Edwards vs Cheney

[member 5645]

edit, I don't really care. Will just watch the fireworks.

 

[kat]

Moonbear, You're really barking up the wrong tree. It would be VERY rare for the VP to regularly preside over the senate meetings, instead the senate chooses a President Pro Tempore (President for a time) to preside for the VP. Maybe it's a little to nuanced for the left (!) but Cheney never said he was up thaare in the senate presiding every Tuesday...He said he's up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session
Edward, as a Senator...would be expected to attend Senate meetings...he's been somewhat AWOL...hence he's been labeled "not re-electable" in his own state.

 

[Moonbear]

Kat, of course I know that the president pro tem usually resides over Senate sessions, it wasn't necessary to be snide about that. That's the reason I went looking for more details about Cheney's comment. As for the "Senator Gone" comment, the Pilot Newspaper, which is Edwards' hometown paper, has published an explanation of how that comment was, as is typical of the Bush/Cheney campaign, taken out of context:

http://www.thepilot.com/opinion/100604PilotEditorial2.html [Broken]

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.”

If you read through some of the criticisms of Edwards in North Carolina, it's actually not that he isn't voting, but that his voting record is liberal and they wanted a conservative.

 

[kat]

Kat, of course I know that the president pro tem usually resides over Senate sessions, it wasn't necessary to be snide about that.

So...you make this loooooong detailed post about Cheney not presiding over senate knowing full well that it wouldn't be something a VP would regularly do...presenting it as though he's been neglecting his duty...and I'm the one who's snide? Hello? *BoNk*

That's the reason I went looking for more details about Cheney's comment. As for the "Senator Gone" comment, the Pilot Newspaper, which is Edwards' hometown paper, has published an explanation of how that comment was, as is typical of the Bush/Cheney campaign, taken out of context:

http://www.thepilot.com/opinion/100604PilotEditorial2.html [Broken]

I didn't say anything abotu the Senator Gone" comment...but evidently, considering the way you took Cheney's comment you're as guilty as anyone of taking things out of context...and it's pot calling kettle black

If you read through some of the criticisms of Edwards in North Carolina, it's actually not that he isn't voting, but that his voting record is liberal and they wanted a conservative.

Actually, now that you mention that I do remember reading somewhere that, IN PART, he was not re-electable because he ran on a moderate platform and yet has consistently voted far left.

 

[Moonbear]

So...you make this loooooong detailed post about Cheney not presiding over senate knowing full well that it wouldn't be something a VP would regularly do...presenting it as though he's been neglecting his duty...and I'm the one who's snide? Hello? *BoNk*

Nope, what I took as snide was this comment:

Maybe it's a little to nuanced for the left (!)

I was providing the evidence for the statement that Cheney has only presided over two sessions. The statement was brought up earlier too and refutes Cheney's statement that he is presiding over the senate. According to the Constitution, that is his job, but the reality is that most VPs defer that role to the President Pro Tem, so his using that statement to give weight to the statement that followed it was misleading. My post wasn't all that detailed, it was just a list.

I didn't say anything abotu the Senator Gone" comment...but evidently, considering the way you took Cheney's comment you're as guilty as anyone of taking things out of context...and it's pot calling kettle black

Nope, you didn't say "Senator Gone." Cheney did. This thread is about the debate.

You did, however, say:

he's been somewhat AWOL...hence he's been labeled "not re-electable" in his own state.

Perhaps you weren't referring to the "Senator Gone" comment that Cheney made (he did still make that comment), but I'm not sure how else you intended to use the term "AWOL." It didn't seem to be in the context of military service.

Actually, now that you mention that I do remember reading somewhere that, IN PART, he was not re-electable because he ran on a moderate platform and yet has consistently voted far left.

On that, yes, he is a Democratic candidate, and votes consistent with that party, so I would agree it's not likely he'd get re-elected to the Senate in a Republican state. But Cheney didn't say he wasn't re-electable in his state, he chose to refer to the "Senator Gone" angle.

 

[plover]

Just for the record here's the transcript of Cheney's remark.

Originally said by VP Cheney
The reason they keep trying to attack Halliburton is because they want to obscure their own record.

And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee.

You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform.

Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.

Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.

Hmm... in context Cheney's remarks are also an ad hominem argument.

Might as well include Edwards response too.

Originally said by Sen. Edwards
That was a complete distortion of my record. I know that won't come as a shock.

The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he 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.

It's amazing to hear him criticize either my record or John Kerry's.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Of course the truth of the matter is that they vote when they need to. The rest is already a done deal; which is why they don't bother to show up.