Cheney's fading credibility (Thomas Oliphant/Boston Globe Agitprop)

Boston Globe ^ | October 7, 2004 | Thomas Oliphant

[Lance Romance]

Cheney's fading credibility

By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist  |  October 7, 2004

THE BIG moment, like so many Dick Cheney moments in recent years, turned out to be a flat-out falsehood.

From the audience, I could sense that after a poor, defensive start, the once-steady and reassuring vice president, who threw his credibility into the trash can during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, was building to a memorized zinger from his Wyoming practice sessions because he was using uncharacteristically political language and completely dodging the issue presented in the debate's ninth question - about the endless Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

After John Edwards had demonstrated his command of the issue in his own response, Cheney responded by attacking, of all things, Edwards's attendance record in the Senate, reciting his handlers' catchy name for him, Senator Gone, and then, after a dramatic pause, concluding: ''The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.''

[TracyPA]

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

[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

[jackbill]

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.

[Semper Paratus]

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.

[orangelobster]

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.

[Hank Rearden]

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.

[RexBeach]

Susan Spenser.

[laredo44]

Can whoever is sending Oliphant his testosterone tablets send a bottle of Midol out to Carole?

[Puddleglum]

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

[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.

[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.

[freespirited]

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.

[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.

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.

[bray]

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

[AaronInCarolina]

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.

[lugsoul]

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.

[Pharlap]

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.

[GSWarrior]

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

[sinkspur]

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.

[Frank_2001]

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.........