] I think that both Cheney and Edwards were occasionally guilty of
] being party mouthpieces who were repeating stuff that they
] didn't really believe,

And this is exactly the job of the VP. You float the contraversal ideas and take the heat from the press so the president doesn't have too.

As for Cheney's "I never meet you" bit, I'm amazed you fell into arguing its literal merits. Cheney certainly didn't mean he physcially had never met Edwards, and Edwards knows he met Cheney. The comment was not a "lie" that Edwards should have call him on, as you so profess. It was a slight, a dig at Edward and his lack of experience in Washington. It was a way of saying "you've not important enough to have run in my circles. You didn't even make the radar screen." Oh course Edwards wouldn't bring that up while in the debate. The last thing he wanted was to waste valueable time trying to combat this his experience. So he (I agree, poorly) stayed off the defensive and addressed other issues. After the debate was the time to address Cheney on the slight.

This whole "he has no experience in Washington, so he can't be VP" is a completely groundless statement to anyone who knows history. JFK was mayor, and then a 2 term Senator before running for *president*. He tried to get the VP nomination in 1956, after only *one* term in the Senate. And most of his time in the Senate, he was having back issues and wasn't in Washington. (Check Wikipedia). And lack of Washington experience is not a bad thing. JFK is *the* president referenced by political science professors when discussing the importance of presidential advisors to craft US policy.

Further, the people who stupidly spread this whole "no Washington experience" line interestingly enough tend to be Bush Supportor. That man was 2 term state governor for god sakes. Morons, and Hippocrits.

This whole "Edwards is only a 2 term Senator, and isn't qualified to be a 'heart-beat-away'" is expounded by uneducated fools.

Acidus wrote:
] ] I think that both Cheney and Edwards were occasionally
] guilty of
] ] being party mouthpieces who were repeating stuff that they
] ] didn't really believe,

] As for Cheney's "I never meet you" bit, I'm amazed you fell
] into arguing its literal merits. Cheney certainly didn't mean
] he physcially had never met Edwards, and Edwards knows he met
] Cheney. The comment was not a "lie" that Edwards should have
] call him on, as you so profess. It was a slight, a dig at
] Edward and his lack of experience in Washington. It was a way
] of saying "you've not important enough to have run in my
] circles. You didn't even make the radar screen." Oh course
] Edwards wouldn't bring that up while in the debate. The last
] thing he wanted was to waste valueable time trying to combat
] this his experience. So he (I agree, poorly) stayed off the
] defensive and addressed other issues. After the debate was the
] time to address Cheney on the slight.

No, I can't bend my brain into that kind of a pretzel to buy that argument. It wasn't a case of Edwards choosing not to respond.

C'mon, if Cheney said, "I never met you," and Edwards could have retorted, "We've never met? But we have, Mr. Vice President. I sat next to you for three hours at a prayer breakfast, and you called me by name. This is just another example of you being so out of touch with reality that you can't even tell who you're talking to." It would have been the *perfect* retort, and would have been the knockout punch that would have been on every newspaper's headline the next day.

Nope, Edwards just plain didn't remember either.

] Nope, Edwards just plain didn't remember either.

Grrr... I'll get you next time my pretty! [puff of smoke]

Acidus wrote:
] ] Nope, Edwards just plain didn't remember either.
]
] Grrr... I'll get you next time my pretty! [puff of smoke]

Mmmm, PhreakNIC. Milk, cookies, and vodka! :)

k wrote:
] ] WASHINGTON - Sen. John Edwards and Vice President Cheney
] clashed
] ] repeatedly in their debate last night, making
] impressive-sounding
] ] but misleading statements on issues including the war in
] Iraq,
] ] tax cuts and each other's records, often omitting key facts
] along
] ] the way.
]
] Here are my own thoughts, after watching the debate live.
]
] ...
]
] Also, there was one time that Cheney said something that was
] incorrect, which was when he said he'd never met Edwards
] before.
]
] [ Well, actually, there were a number of times Cheney said
] things that were either misleading or patently false. Edwards
] too. Wether ones misleadings were worse than the others is a
] matter each person must decide for themselves, but they're
] there. You're correct that Cheney's much better able to make
] his lies sound like well reasoned truth, however. He's a
] professional, and he's been around a while... he doesn't get
] worked up and he's got a solid command of the "facts" he wants
] to put forth.

Yes, which is more than I can say for you.

]
] Annenberg's FactCheck.org Points them out
] http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272
]
] I think Edwards' errors are both less frequent and less
] egregious than Cheney's. -k]

Yes, you would think that. Please kill yourself already. You are boring and you have taken adamist's place as being the most worthless piece of trash on the system. I was right about you. You don't deserve to live.