I'm Kicking Myself (sorta)

For missing the VP debates last night. I really didn't have time to watch, but afterwards the wife gave me the rundown, and then listening to talk radio this morning it sounds like Edwards got his butt handed to him on a platter, as the old saying goes. It's a shame I missed that. I was busy reading First Amendment law and remembering my friend Ryan's theory about how the Supreme Court operates: "Scalia brought the crack. Brennan brought the pipe. They put the crack in the pipe, smoked up for a while, and then wrote this opinion." Mr. Justice Brennan has since passed on, of course, but the theory still seems to hold.

Anyhoo, a couple of observations:

Neal Boortz has a poll up about who won the debate. 98% of his listeners say Cheney won. Of course, that's not a scientific poll, and it might say more about his audience than it does about the debate itself. Just keep that in mind. Boortz' page also has information about the Halliburton myth.

Conservative Blogger Round-up

Ace has a great picture of the Edwards, a la another whiny young apprentice not yet schooled in the ways of the Force. "

Allah has links to basically every political blogger in the whole universe, with their synopses of the debate. I'll simply thank him for his roundup so I don't have to do it myself. Who am I kidding - I didn't really have to do it in the first place.

Liberal Blogger Round-up

(Note: by clicking the links below, you are giving traffic to liberals. You have been warned).

Interesting stuff over at "Screw Them" Kos's place. The man seems to relish in Cheney's "lie" about never meeting Edwards, and he's got the video clips to prove it. I'm sorry, is that the best you can do? In case you missed it, Cheney absolutley humiliated Edwards by claiming they had never even met, even though Cheney is the president of the Senate. The point of Cheney's remark was to highlight Edwards' - to put it diplomatically - absenteeism. So lacking in any substantive attacks, he calls Cheney's statement a lie. But which is worse, Cheney never meeting the man because he never shows up for work, or Cheney meeting the man and forgetting because Edwards is such an unremarkable person?

Incidentally, neither of the video clips used by Kos as "proof" that the two met is proof at all. In both cases, Edwards is standing behind Cheney.

The best part about Kos' site, though, is how much he focuses on directing readers to on-line polls. That's good times. Substance doesn't matter, only on-line polls. Sweet.

Josh "nouseforamiddlename" Marshall (see how clever I am?) claims to have the goods, but he has the same picture Kos used (showing Edwards behind the Vice President), and then a video clip of Cheney speaking that doesn't show Edwards at all. I'm sorry, this is proof of what, now? And lower, Marshall makes the statement "I think the debate spin -- if the Dems are even remotely sensible -- will turn heavily on the great number of straight-up falsehoods Cheney told during the debate."

Problem is, of course, that Dems are not even remotely sensible. Look who they nominated, for crying out loud. And if the best they can do is harp on Cheney having met Edwards, they are in a sad state indeed.

And Atrios has another juicy tidbit. Cheney stated (again, this is in connection with his criticism of Edwards not showing up for work) that "Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you Senator Gone." Atrios did an archive search of The News and Observer and found no such statement. It seems the quote is from here, a weekly paper that isn't even in Edwards' hometown.

(Pause while my reading audience gasps).

I'm sorry, but are you the same Atrios who thinks "fake but accurate" is a reasonable thing to say? Follow me, for a second. According to liberals, writing about Dan Rather's memogate, it doesn't matter that the specific documents involved were forgeries because the information contained in the forgeries was true.

Now the Vice President is making a substantive attack on Edwards because Edwards doesn't like to show up for work (although he does draw a paycheck). Libs think they have proven conclusively that the details of Cheney's attack are wrong, and therefore Cheney is a liar. But for the sake of consistency, they argue that Cheney's criticisms are fake but accurate - that is, he got some of the details wrong on the sources, but the substance of the charge is still there.

No, I'm just messing with you. Liberals aren't concerned with consistency. "Fake but accurate" only applies to their people.

And incidentally, a quick search of Google for the phrase "Senator gone" brings up this article, highlighting Edwards' failure to show up for work. Key quote: "There’s a reason why North Carolina newspapers have started calling John Edwards 'Senator Gone.'"

And in case you care, Atrios has his facts wrong. Check out my sleuthing efforts. You may be impressed. The Pilot, which is the paper in which the "Senator Gone" quote first appeared, is published in Southern Pines, NC. Go to Mapquest, type that in, and then come back here. According to his homepage, Edwards was born in Robbins, NC. Open a new window, go to Mapquest, and type that in. Compare and contrast. I'm not familiar with the area, having never been to North Carolina, but Mapquest thinks Southern Pines and Robbins are the exact same place.

In conclusion, Atrios is a LIIIIAAAAAAAARRRRR! (the same word he used for Cheney, when he thought Cheney had his facts wrong).