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.)
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.
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)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson