Swing and a miss…
Conversation with Wife Rhetorica during the VP debate (re: Cheney claiming never to have met Edwards before that night):
Me: Oh, that was good! Wow.
Her: You think?
Me: Yeah…it’s like the Bensen put-down. This will be effective. Really good prep to think of such a thing.
Her: Hmmmmmmm…
Me: Wait a minute. How can that possibly be true?
Her: It’s got to be true. It would be so easy to check. Cheney wouldn’t make a mistake like that.
Me: Hmmmm…yeah…I mean, he’d look like a blithering idiot. But…never before tonight?
Her: It’s got to be true.
Me: I’ll bet you a photo shows up tomorrow.
Her: Maybe.
Me: This was bad. Bad prep. Or Cheney’s cannon just broke loose.
“I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer,” Cheney told the younger man, scolding him for poor attendance. “I’m up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they’re in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.” It took the Kerry campaign less than two hours to send reporters a picture of Cheney standing next to Edwards three years ago.
We remember certain moments in presidential debates because they are both dramatic and telling, e.g. Bensen’s put-down of Quayle and Reagan’s put-down of Mondale. These were moments of effective rhetoric. Also notice these remarks did not rely on specific facts. Both were matters of opinion–one delivered with humor and the other delivered with contempt. And both were matters of drama grounded in certain myths and/or master narratives. Did these moments sway voters? There’s no way to know. But these moments are talked about and studied. And rules are written to mitigate the sting of, or outlaw situations that foster, certain rebukes. That’s one measure of effectiveness.
Despite attempts to constrain the rhetoric with the current rules, any smart candidate looks for moments to apply an effective put-down. This is TV. It demands drama. It’s a no-brainer.
But a candidate must be smart about it. The press, partly driven by bloggers, is slowly waking up to its fact-checking duty. This case didn’t involve bloggers (as far as I know, anyway), but it easily could have. All it takes is the question and the desire to answer it. Or the desire of the opposition to set the record straight.
Was Cheney lying? Was he merely mistaken? It doesn’t matter. He reached for an effective rhetorical attack and missed–creating a (momentary) false reality, something worse than spin. And I think this is a greater political crime than either simple lying or being in error. He must have known the put-down was false. But I contend it wasn’t a lie he was trying to tell so much as a blow he was trying to strike–a blow that fit with his otherwise well-delivered points about Edwards’ political experience.
(Before you leave a comment chastising me for letting my liberal bias show, let me say that I comment upon this moment in the debate because, until proven false, I considered it the best rhetorical flourish of the night. I admired it. And I still would admire it had it been true and, therefore, effective.)
I saw the photo, and from that I can only deduce that the “learned” consider being in the same room with someone as a “meeting”. The more “simple-minded” of us consider a “meeting” to be a face-to-face contact, with perhaps a handshake or greeting. I love gottcha journalism, don’t you? I can’t wait for this election to be over — it’s been going on here since December 2002.
Yes…how silly of me!
Is the National Prayer Breakfast conducted in the Senate?
You mean Edwards will show up for a free breakfast but not for work? That seems like a problem that can be fixed. Just put out a tax funded buffet on the Senate floor during business hours and maybe Edwards will show up.
Tim…I’m sure President Bush would be very happy for Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards to be on the job during a presidential campaign
Figures I read in today’s paper demonstrate that Edward’s missed no more votes than usual before he started campaigning. Since he began, he’s missed 45 straight votes. Is this so difficult to understand? I look forward to 2008 when Republicans will have the opportunity to run for president and attend to business in the Congress. Yeah, right.
Much ado about nothing…unless you can “fool the rubes” and make it stick.
Since he began, he’s missed 45 straight votes. Is this so difficult to understand? I look forward to 2008 when Republicans will have the opportunity to run for president and attend to business in the Congress. Yeah, right.
Why wait until 2008? Was the Republican presidential candidate in 1996 from the Senate? Why, I believe he was!!
What would Dole do? What didn’t Lieberman do? What hasn’t Kerry or Edwards done?
Is this so difficult to understand, indeed.
Dole resigned. Good move. Takes away the bogus argument.
I respect Dole’s decision to resign from the Senate: it made clear his commitment to his bid for the presidency, while simultaneously allowing the people of Kansas to have a new Senator who would devote full attention to the job. But, really, do we mean to create a system in which, in order to run for president, a sittting senator of representative is compelled to resign his or her present position? That’s a sure-fire way to limit the number of people who will run for the presidency; in particular, senators from states with governors of the opposite political party (like Lieberman or Edwards) simply won’t run, given the certainty of hurting their party’s position in the Senate.
And while President Bush and Vice President Cheney may not have missed any votes in the present campaign, you can be sure than neither one is devoting his full attention to his elected office. Should a president have to resign his office to run for re-election? Texans weren’t getting their money’s worth from Bush in 1999 and 2000, as he devoted substantial time and energy to the primaries and general election. Should he have resigned then? Or do executives get a special dispensation?
There was a kernal of a point to Cheney’s attack: Edwards does not have all that much experience in government. Neither did Bush in 2000. But the argument that Edwards’s failure to be present for Senate votes while he is running for president (or vice president) should somehow disqualify him is specious.
Texans weren’t getting their money’s worth from Bush in 1999 and 2000, as he devoted substantial time and energy to the primaries and general election. Should he have resigned then? Or do executives get a special dispensation?
Bush makes right call: “Bush has announced he will forgo his Texas governor’s salary while he campaigns for the Oval Office. That means he will not collect the $316.01 he would be paid if he were in Texas performing his official duties as governor.”
Office of State Senator Jeff Wentworth: “If the governor is out of state for 24 hours or more, the lieutenant governor becomes acting governor and receives the governor’s salary, pro-rated on a daily basis.
“According to House Bill 1, the appropriations bill passed by the 76th Legislature this year, Governor George W. Bush is paid an annual salary of $115,345 in addition to his residence in the Governor’s Mansion. When Governor Bush is out of state, Lieutenant Governor Rick Perry receives $316 per day, instead of his regular salary of approximately $20 a day.”
Bush, Cheney Report 2000 Earnings: “Bush reported earning $70,554 in salary. Bush was governor of Texas until resigning in December.”
Now, these politicians on both sides of the aisle are independently wealthy. Are Kerry and Edwards are still collecting their salaries while missing votes? Should Kerry or Edwards resign? Not necessarily, but they should answer for the pay they are collecting while NOT representing their constituents in the Senate. And they should be held responsible by their constituents for being, effectively and this is a loaded term rhetorically, AWOL for a year or more during the campaign season. Cline says the argument is bogus. Fine, but then let’s be intellectually honest enough to remember the bogus arguments used when Dole ran in 1996, and Bush and Cheney were candidates in 1999-2000. Heck, Democrats are still making hay over Halliburton, so that pretty much puts the Kerry-Edwards billionaire ticket and the job they’re collecting tax-payer salaries to do less bogus, yes? Interesting that Lynn Cheney’s finances and work was scrutinized in 2000, but Teresa’s been able to keep her tax returns and finances secret, or is that private?
Do executives get special discompensation? No.