Just three things about this matter of Cheney and Edwards having met before the night they debated:

1) If Cheney's misstatement was done on purpose, it's worthy of condemnation, because I don't want those of us on the libertarian/right side of things to get into the habit of thinking the ends justify the means. (Or that information can be "false but accurate.") That's for some of the other guys.

2) It seems perfectly likely that Cheney just didn't remember. Those of us who aren't in public life probably can't imagine what it's like to have a job that involves meeting people by the thousands, and smiling at them and shaking their hands. And Cheney has spent decades doing this; it might not be natural at all for him to remember one junior senator, before that senator rose to prominence.

3) The best evidence that it was a simple oversight is the fact that Edwards forgot as well. How do we know this? We know it because Edwards didn't say anything about it during the debate. And he would have, too: both men were entirely willing to finish up a previous question before moving on to the one they were asked to speak on at any given moment. It would have been very easy for Edwards to say, "Before I answer that question, let me point out that I met the Vice President at a prayer breakfast." He didn't do that.

Posted by: Attila at 12:58 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Please, of course, Cheney's error was planned before the debate for full effect. That it was a lie - big deal. Cheney and Bush have plenty of lies and plenty of excuses. But no apologies - never. So, to recap, LMA. We went to war over WMDs and you yourself claimed definitive proof of their existence. I urged you repeatedly to send your proof to the President because he needed help. His excuses weren't proving valid. And now - again - no WMDs. No threat to the U.S.. No link to 9/11. Looks like your shepherd's been stretching things a-might and you've been fleeced.

Posted by: littlemrmahatma at October 08, 2004 10:38 AM (BZ0tI)

2 I'm not going to say that the invasion was a mistake, because I don't see it that way. I do think our intelligence could have been better. Naturally, I'm chastened by the fact that your guy has been voting to strengthen our intelligence services over the years. Oh, wait . . . .

Posted by: Attila Girl at October 08, 2004 04:34 PM (SuJa4)

3 Ooooh neat! ...Trolls!! Thanks Miss Attila! I thought the exact same thing once I heard they had been at the same prayer breakfast-thing. Edwards damn-sure would have corrected the VP if it had come to mind. Being in the same place, and even mentioning someones's name in a speech doesn't necessarily equate "meeting" someone. Edwards lack of memory of the event proves to me that they never "met" Best Regards!

Posted by: Zoot at October 08, 2004 05:46 PM (35sAZ)

4 I have known people who make such a dramatic impression on people around them that it takes three or four introductions to remember them. Good thing JE was seated stage right so people wouldn't become mesmerized by that mole on his lip.....

Posted by: John at October 08, 2004 10:29 PM (r4/LH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

My mother used to have an emotionally disturbed dog that yipped at everyone and barked, and jumped up at people—sometimes several feet into the air. It was a little miniature pinscher, and its barking was always somewhat comic in relationship to its size.

That's what Edwards reminded me of last night: a little yipping dog.

Posted by: Attila at 01:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . of a good word for George Soros other than asshole.

Posted by: Attila at 12:41 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

Shackleford sums up what he calls Kerry's "Tooth Fairy Diplomacy" plan for Iraq:

To recap Kerry's plan: a) call meetings b) do same thing as Bush only better cause I'm not Bush.

Posted by: Attila at 04:27 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

I was out this evening, so I watched the debate on tape.

I'd say Cheney made it clear that you can win a thing like this without losing your composure or lowering yourself to the other guy's level.

Kerry and Edwards are coming across as guys who have no better ideas than to attack everything the President does. And Edwards was painfully scripted tonight, repeating the same phrases over and over. When Cheney needed to underscore a point, he generally found fresh ways to express his most important ideas. (With the exception of his verbal tick, "the fact of the matter is." If Cheney were ever again to be in a public debate, that would be the drinking phrase.)

Note that on several occasions Cheney declined to use up all the seconds allotted to him, and on a few he "threw away" entire half minutes. He was selective about what he resonded to, and was entirely willing to wade out of the mud, as when he said his piece about gay marriage, heard that Edwards' rebuttal included an allusion to his own daughter—and when the spotlight came back to him simply thanked the senator "for his kind words about my family." This was an intensely classy way to avoid defending the one area where I suspect there is a policy disagreement with the course the administration has taken, and where there really wasn't anything left for him to say.

I was also struck by the fact that he listened closely to the instructions for the question about what they each brought to the table as potential VPs. He shared biographical material while also confessing his discomfort in talking about himself. He talked about why his working relationship with the President was so good, and what made it effective. And when it was Edwards' turn he couldn't even remember that he wasn't supposed to say his running mate's name, and shared nearly nothing about his own background. It was as if the prefabricated script had taken over, and the man himself had simply left the stage.

I'm hearing "first half to Cheney, second half to Edwards." The people who say that are grading on an age-adjusted curve. This one was Cheney's, in large part because people are not voting for a litigator: they want a Chief Executive. Someone who doesn't just poke holes in others' records, but gets things done.

Finally, the VP went on the attack early on when he felt he had to. Offered another opportunity to kick the senator in the teeth, he didn't do it. Another example of restraint.

I don't want to send anyone into a tizzy here, but I'm thinking of voting Bush-Cheney this November. Leaning that way.

Update: Joyner has his own analysis, plus a roundup-by-trackback.

Posted by: Attila at 01:08 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Cheney blew one big time!!! In telling Edwards to check his facts he referred him to Factcheck.COM which is an anti-Bush site. George Soros must be thrilled!

Cheney meant to say Factcheck.ORG but don't expect an admission of fault from Cheney. Maybe he did mean Soros's site - Freudian slip sort of thing.

Posted by: littlemrmahatma at October 06, 2004 10:01 AM (BZ0tI)

2 Could have sword he said ".net," but then I know the URL and might have just heard what I expected to hear. No need to ask you which one you go to more often

Posted by: Attila Girl at October 06, 2004 12:34 PM (SuJa4)

3 He didn't say NET, though you obviously frequent that site for your facts. The URL is mentioned in the transcripts which you can find on the Web. Yep, Cheney was right on the money on that one.

Posted by: littlemrmahatma at October 06, 2004 01:23 PM (BZ0tI)

4 Wow. "Sword" for "sworn." How did I even manage to do that? (The n key is nowhere near the d key.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at October 11, 2004 04:46 AM (SuJa4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Protein Wisdom has the list of affirmations John Edwards will be using today to prep himself for the Big Night. Including

3. "When you mention ‘tax cuts for the wealthy,’ try not to giggle like you did that time with Kennedy over a pitcher of Bombay Sapphire martinis.

UPDATE: I'm taking input on whether I should delete the spam comment on this entry. It's kind of hilarious, and it clearly wasn't written by the person whose blog it's attributed to. Your thoughts?

UPDATE 2: The spammer is apparently stalking another blogger. I was asked to remove the spam, but I couldn't bear to—it's so . . . refreshing. So I've removed the web address of the blogger who's a victim of his/her efforts. For more information on the most bizarre stalker I've ever heard of, go here, and of course do check out the actual blog.

UPDATE 3: It's a Kate-a-lanche! Welcome, Small Dead Animals readers.

Posted by: Attila at 03:42 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Dean Esmay is running an excellent interview with Van Odell of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I know you're all tired of hearing about the Swifties, but this does have some fascinating material in it, and it clears up a few common misconceptions about the SBVfT and their assertions. Odell served with John Kerry in Vietnam longer than anyone else did.

Here's a teaser:

DW: Do you consider the members of Kerry's crew, who have backed his version of the story, to be liars? If not, why do you believe their perceptions of the events in question differ so widely from your own?

VO: No I don't consider them liars. I consider them led by Kerry right now. One of the incidents that I can talk about, why I think their story differs, is that Rassman said he heard gunfire from the bank. I didn't see any gunfire and I was at the highest point of the field. I think Rassman just heard our gunfire, and when we realized we weren't under fire we stopped.

You would otherwise have to ask them why they think their memories are different. So far only Del Sandusky has been allowed to talk to reporters, so we really don't know what the others have to say.

I don't know why these guys' memories differ, you will have to ask them. I only know that over 60 who served in An Thoi--and we had about a hundred men in our division at any one time--we've got 60 people from there who say his service was questionable in Viet Nam and who take him to task for lying about us as murderers and war criminals when he came back in 1971. That stacks up to only 7 of his own swift boat people that follow him.

Read the whole thing; it's fascinating.

In other news, it's no longer called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The organization has merged with the POWs for Truth, and it's now Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth. A new commerical has come out that concentrates on the experience of POWs; you can watch it here, and you might note that the site now uses four different video players, so those of us who weren't able to watch the ads before can see them now.

The POWs for Truth also produced a long-running video, Stolen Honor, which you can see clips of and order here.

Posted by: Attila at 02:48 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 414 words, total size 3 kb.

I always forget what a genius he is, and that I have to read him every day, or regret it. Some snippets of his post-debate analysis:

I could talk about the blogger party tonight where the luminaries of the Northern Alliance gathered to watch the debate, and peck out snark and insight. It was quite a sight: bloggers on the sofa, laptops open, family and friends gathered behind, all eyes and ears on the big TV. Behold the ankle-biting pajama-clad ticks!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I was standing behind the sofas, pacing, reading the blog entries before they were posted. (The very definition of having upper echelon access, perhaps.) But I had to leave early, and while I regretted leaving the party, I was also glad. I hate the debates. I have a vision of 65 million undecided Americans tuning in and making a snap judgment for all the wrong reasons. Wow, he pounded the podium to emphasize each word - but the other guy pounded each syllable. WhatÂ’s this about sealing Fallujer? Is it leaking? Did they have a flood?

But mostly I hate the debates because I simply cannot abide hearing certain statements I’ve been hearing over, and over, and over again. I can’t take any more talk about bringing allies to the table. Which ones? Brazil? Mynmar? Microfrickin’nesia? Are there some incredibly important and powerful nations out there whose existence has hitherto escaped me? Fermany? Gerance? The Galactic Order of the Belgian Dominion? Did we piss off the Vulcans? Who? If we mean “France and Germany,” then please explain to me why the reluctant participation of these two countries somehow bestows the magic kiss of legitimacy. They want in? Fine. They don’t? Fine. At this point mooning over France is like being that sophomore loser dorm pal who spent his dateless weekends telling his loser roommate about a high school sweetheart who stood him up for the prom. Give it up. Move on. I understand; they are wise and nuanced, we are young and dumb. We’re the cowboy leaning with his back against the bar, elbows on the rail, watching the door; we need our European betters to teach us how to ape the subtle forms of Nijinsky, limbs arrayed in the exquisite form of the Dying Swan. Understood. But I don’t want to be the Dying Swan. And I don’t want posture lessons from a country that spent the last 20 years flopping on its back and grabbing its ankles when Saddam showed up waving stacks of Francs in exchange for bang-sticks. Don’t you think I know about France’s relations with Saddam? Surely the advocates of the French Touch must know, and don’t care. Or they don’t know – in which case their advice is useless.

Germany? Whatever.

And it took lots of dead Americans to be able to say that.

Also dead Russians. Is Russia the great ally weÂ’ve dissed? If we invite Russia to help, then we have to tell them things. I donÂ’t want to tell them things. At least as they relate to the battlefield.

Perhaps the “ally” is that big blue wobbly mass known as the UN, that paragon of moral clarity, that conscience of the globe. You want to really anger a UN official? Tow his car. Short of that you can get away with anything. (Sudan is on the human rights commission, to cite a prominent and amusing detail. It’s like putting Tony Soprano on the New Jersey Waste Management Regulation Board.) I don’t worry that the UN is angry with us. I’d be worried if they weren’t. And I find it interesting that someone who would complain about outsourcing peevishly notes that we hired HALLIBURTON to do the work instead of throwing buckets of billions to French and German contractors who sold them the jets and built the bunkers.

. . . . . . . .

I’m not enthused about a [Arab] summit, unless we get to set the agenda. Item one: get over the frickin’ Jews, people. They’re not going anywhere, and if they do they’re taking all of you with them. Item two: You poke the hornet’s nest one more time and the skies of Tehran and Riyahd will darken with 747s, which will disgorge a fleet of Jeeps. We will ride around with bullhorns and announce that all women are free to leave, with their children, so they can live in a society where they get to show some shin without having some gynophobic wanker whip them with sticks. Your choice! Madrassas and no women, or a live-and-let-live world with women, and cable TV and the odd cold beer now and then, if you like. Beer will not be mandatory. We’re not the sort of people who impose beer on the unwilling. But you know, on 9/11 we recognized the downside of coexisting with societies that want to hang people for having a Pabst after a hot day. Your choice. Item three: we’re going to play a video of the events of 9/11. And then we’ll have a discussion. We’re willing to entertain all sorts of commentary, with one proviso: the moment you use the word “but,” you’re escorted from the building and put back on a plane home. You can never come to the US again. Your nice condo in the new Trump building will be sold for five dollars to a nice Jewish lesbian couple we met the other day at parent’s night at our school in Park Slope. One’s an artist, the other’s a lawyer.

. . . . . . . .

So, I get it. We are wrong and bad and stupid and stupidly wrong-bad. We failed to make France act as though it wasnÂ’t, you know, France, a militarily insignificant nation that is understandably motivated by self-interest, and we havenÂ’t convened a summit so we could be castigated for ignoring the extralegal use of Israeli helicopters to turn Hamas kingpins into indistinct red smears. YouÂ’d think we nuked Paris and converted everyone to Lutheranism.

HereÂ’s the thing. IÂ’d really like to live in John KerryÂ’s world. It seems like such a rational, sensible place, where handshakes and signatures have the power to change the face of the planet. If only the terrorists lived there as well.

That was a longish quote; hope he doesn't sue me. And, for crying out loud, go read the whole thing.

Posted by: Attila at 03:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1088 words, total size 6 kb.

The Commissar quotes a Gallup poll that brought to his mind the saying, "one more such victory, and I am lost."

Dean Esmay points out that sometimes the person who appears to have "won" in the first few days after a debate isn't the same person who's supposedly "won" a few weeks later. History sometimes behaves differently than that weekend's Sunday shows.

Posted by: Attila at 03:18 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's the transcript of last night's debate.

Posted by: Attila at 01:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.