Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cheney's fading credibility (Thomas Oliphant/Boston Globe Agitprop)
Boston Globe ^ | October 7, 2004 | Thomas Oliphant

Posted on 10/07/2004 8:41:51 AM PDT by Lance Romance

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: Lance Romance

Oliphant makes me think of "Ichabod Crane". I can just see the Headless Horseman chasing him.


21 posted on 10/07/2004 9:01:08 AM PDT by TracyPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lance Romance
And from Today's Letters to the Editor:

Bush falters with no script

October 6, 2004

I KNOW WHY George Bush grimaced and frowned so much at the first debate (besides the fact that he didn't have Dick Cheney beside him). He was outraged that someone would have the nerve to question his judgment.p> At his infrequent news conferences he answers only a few questions, and he can choose reporters he is comfortable with. He isn't used to the insolence of someone criticizing him -- the person allegedly picked by God to be president.

It is going to take years to undo the damage this president has done but less than a month to send him back to Texas, where I'm sure he will be more comfortable without annoyances such as John Kerry and the public he has lied to and abused.

CAROLE K. HOCH
Charlestown

22 posted on 10/07/2004 9:03:02 AM PDT by Lance Romance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lance Romance

This is the idiot who wrote a column back in August headlined "SMEAR BY VETERANS MAY HURT BUSH". He was talking about the Swift Boat Vets' ads.


23 posted on 10/07/2004 9:04:51 AM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lance Romance
Oliphant had unlimited access to the White House for 8 years under Clinton.

Unless Kerry wins, the next 4 years of re-runs of The West Wing will be the closest the bow-tied bum-kisser will get.

24 posted on 10/07/2004 9:05:11 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: falcon1966

I'm sure Cheney had this quip planned in advance. It seems like a variation on the Lloyd Bentson quipe to Dan Quayle when he said, 'Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine, and you are no Jack Kennedy.'

Kennedy administration people say that Bentson never even knew JFK and that he made this up for dramatic effect. I suspect that Oliphant has never called Bentson out for this, but rather just cackles over Bentson's debating skills.


25 posted on 10/07/2004 9:05:46 AM PDT by orangelobster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lance Romance
By the way, is it just me or does Thomas Oliphant look like the sterotypical pedophile?

That's John Corzine. Now, that guy looks like a child molester to me. IMHO, of course.


26 posted on 10/07/2004 9:10:40 AM PDT by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Two Dawgs

Susan Spenser.


27 posted on 10/07/2004 9:13:40 AM PDT by RexBeach (Before God makes you greedy, he makes you stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lance Romance
Can whoever is sending Oliphant his testosterone tablets send a bottle of Midol out to Carole?
28 posted on 10/07/2004 9:14:35 AM PDT by laredo44 (Liberty is not the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Oliphant hasn't been himself since his mentor and role model, Orville Reddenbacker, passed away.


29 posted on 10/07/2004 9:16:10 AM PDT by Puddleglum (If O'Neill worked for Nixon, who was Kerry working for? Ho Chi Min?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jackbill

Remeber when Lloyd Bentson told Dan Quayle "he was no John Kennedy?" When he said this he also said that John Kennedy was a friend of his. This was later proven not to be true. He may of been near him a couple of times. No one said a word, because the bigger point was more important. Apparently, that is missed on the MSM this time.


30 posted on 10/07/2004 9:16:16 AM PDT by Mylesdad (Is everything a conspiracy theory to those guys????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina

That is the appropriate after-the-fact explanation. But the fact of the matter is that the VP overreached. It would have been just as effective to say "I've never seen you on the Senate floor." But, for dramatic effect, he went for the "never met you until we walked out here," and it was not true.


31 posted on 10/07/2004 9:16:44 AM PDT by lugsoul (Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lance Romance
Unlike Cheney, Edwards is not spending today explaining any falsehoods.

Why not? I wasn't married in the state I currently live in, yet when we moved here, it was required to recognize the marriage performed by the state where we were married. Yet Edwards repeatedly claimed that no state has ever been required to do so.

I'll bet a lot of FReepers who have never set foot in law school can explain to you why this was so.

32 posted on 10/07/2004 9:23:26 AM PDT by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
That is the appropriate after-the-fact explanation. But the fact of the matter is that the VP overreached. It would have been just as effective to say "I've never seen you on the Senate floor." But, for dramatic effect, he went for the "never met you until we walked out here," and it was not true.

It is only over-reaching if he knowingly over-stated that fact. Surely you are not suggesting that Cheney made that statement while remembering actual meetings? That would be extraordinarily risky, and would not have been worth the risk. If he had knowingly lied, he ran the risk that Edwards could have slam-dunked him right there on the podium on live nationwide tv. There is no way Cheney would have risked that. It is apparently clear that Cheney did not remember any previous meetings, nor did Edwards. These guys make passing encounters with thousands of people where they don't really interact. This is the first time they probably ever did anything but say a cordial hello.
33 posted on 10/07/2004 9:25:03 AM PDT by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lance Romance

The Stone-age press sinks below the surface of the tarpit...


34 posted on 10/07/2004 9:26:47 AM PDT by bray (Hey Dingbat, how do you say Tax-Evasion in Portugese???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mylesdad
Remeber when Lloyd Bentson told Dan Quayle "he was no John Kennedy?" When he said this he also said that John Kennedy was a friend of his. This was later proven not to be true. He may of been near him a couple of times. No one said a word, because the bigger point was more important. Apparently, that is missed on the MSM this time.

Kerry, in the first presidential debate flat-out declared he had never used the word "Lie" regarding President Bush. This was easily proved to be a mis-statement. Yet Cheney's mis-statement is far more innocent and benign in that correcting Cheney's mis-statement does not reverse the point that Cheney was making... that Edwards rarely made appearances in the Senate chambers. Pointing out that they may have had passing social encounters does not change the point he was making. However, in Kerry's mis-statement, correcting his mis-statement totally reverses the point he was making... another flip-flop so to speak.
35 posted on 10/07/2004 9:30:22 AM PDT by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina
Umm... Cheney introduced him at the prayer breakfast. And used Edwards' Bible for Liddy Dole's swearing in. By any estimation, that's a little more than a cordial hello. And that's what we know about because Edwards' wife brought it up. Betcha there are a couple of staffers reviewing hours of c-span to catch the two of them in the Senate together.

Am I saying he did it on purpose? No. I think he did it carelessly. It would have been easy enough for his staff to run a quick search for joint appearances. It is that kind of carelessness that allows distractions from the message. Now, the impact of the statement is lost in the discussion. If he had stuck to the facts, the impact of the statement wouldn't have been undermined in the least.

36 posted on 10/07/2004 9:30:53 AM PDT by lugsoul (Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lance Romance

John Kerry's rallying cry has been "Bring It On." Actually, "Bring It On" is the title of a recent movie about high school cheerleading squads. Clearly John Edwards is a cheerleader type. Having seen John Kerry in his wind surfing get up, and that NASA clean suit, I cannot get the picture out of my mind of both Johns traipsing around in their cheerleanding uniforms, pom poms and all.


37 posted on 10/07/2004 9:31:44 AM PDT by Pharlap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lance Romance

Didn't this guy write practically the same exact column yesterday?


38 posted on 10/07/2004 9:31:44 AM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
But, for dramatic effect, he went for the "never met you until we walked out here," and it was not true.

Why didn't Edwards correct him? That would have embarrassed the hell out of Cheney.

Have you ever met somebody but not met them? I meet people in my client's accounts all the time, but I would never remember meeting them two years later.

39 posted on 10/07/2004 9:34:17 AM PDT by sinkspur ("I exist in the fevered swamps of traditional arcana. "--Cardinal Fanfani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Edwards is full of Shiite on that one, it's the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution. So if a couple of sodomites get legally married in Massachusetts and decide to move to Nebraska.........


40 posted on 10/07/2004 9:34:30 AM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson