What About Dick's Senate Attendance???? Proof in the Pudding...

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Cheney Attendance at Senate
by Dave the pro
Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 17:30:44 GMT

(From the diaries, Cheney presided over the Senate a grand total of two times the past four years -- just one more time than Edwards, who did so once. Slightly edited -- kos)
"Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session."
--Dick Cheney

The extended entry has the presiding officers over the last four years for every Tuesday session.

Diaries :: Dave the pro's diary ::
Here is a list of the Senate's Acting Presidents for every Tuesday session for 2001.

January 30 - Enzi
February 6 - Chafee
February 13 - Chafee
February 27 - Allen
March 6 - Burns
March 13 - Reid
March 20 - DeWine
March 27 - Chafee
April 3 - Smith
April 24 - Chafee
May 1 - Chafee
May 8 - Chafee
May 15 - Frist
May 22 - Chafee
June 5 - Enzi
June 12 - Byrd
June 19 - Carper
June 26 - Bayh
July 10 - Nelson
July 17 - Clinton
July 24 - Byrd
July 31 - Stabenaw
September 25 - Wellstone
October 2 - Clinton
October 9 - Clinton
October 16 - Edwards!!!!!
October 23- Byrd
October 30 - Bingaman
November 13 - Murray
November 27 - Jeffords
December 4 - Stabenaw
December 11 - Carnahan
December 18 - Nelson

A reward to whoever finds a Tuesday in 2002, 2003 or 2004 that Dick Cheney fulfilled his duties as President of the Senate here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html

2002

Tue 1/29 - Nelson
Tue 2/5 - Kohl
Tue 2/12 - Stabenow
Tue 2/26 - Landrieu
Tue 3/5 - Edwards
Tue 3/12 - Landrieu
Tue 3/19 - Miller
Tue 4/9 - Cleland
Tue 4/16 - Reed
Tue 4/23 - Wellstone
Tue 4/30 - Nelson
Tue 5/7 - Miller
Tue 5/14 - Cleland
Tue 5/21 - Nelson
Tue 6/4 - Durbin
Tue 6/11 - Corzine
Tue 6/18 - Dayton
Tue 6/25 - Landrieu
Tue 7/9 - Reed
Tue 7/16 - Corzine
Tue 7/23 - Reed
Tue 7/30 - Clinton
Tue 9/3 - Reed
Tue 9/10 - Corzine
Tue 9/17 - Reid
Tue 9/24 - Stabenow
Tue 10/1 - Miller
Tue 10/8 - Miller
Tue 10/15 - Reid
Tue 11/12 - CHENEY! -- WE HAVE A WINNER!
Tue 11/19 - Barkley (MN)

2003

Jan 7 *Cheney*
Jan 14 Stevens
Jan 22 Stevens
Jan 28 Stevens
Feb 4 Stevens
Feb 11 Stevens
Feb 25 Stevens
Mar 4 Stevens
Mar 11 Stevens
Mar 18 Stevens
Mar 25 Stevens
Apr 1 Stevens
Apr 8 Stevens
Apr 29 Stevens
May 6 Talent
May 13 Ensign
May 20 Alexander
June 3 Stevens
June 10 Stevens
June 18 Murkowski
June 24 Coleman
July 8 Stevens
July 15 Stevens
July 22 Chaffee
July 29 Stevens
Sept 2 Stevens
Sept 9 Stevens
Sept 16 Stevens
Sept 23 Stevens
Sept 30 Sununu
Oct 21 Stevens
Oct 28 Stevens
Nov 4 Stevens
Nov 11 Warner
Nov 18 Stevens
Dec 9 Stevens

2004

1/20 - Stevens
1/27 - Enzi
2/3 - Stevens
2/10 - Stevens
3/2 - Stevens
3/9 - Hagel
3/16 - Sununu
3/23 - Stevens
3/30 - Ensign
4/6 - Cornyn
4/20 - Stevens
4/27 - Chambliss
5/4 - Stevens
5/11 - Stevens
5/18 - Stevens
6/1 - Stevens
6/8 - Hutchinson
6/15 - Stevens
6/22 - Allard
7/6 - Burns
7/13 - Stevens
7/20 - Enzi
9/7 - Stevens
9/14 - Chafee
9/21 - Enzi
9/28 - Stevens
10/05 - Stevens

Another good source of information is the Congressional Record, which records ALL congressional proceedings, as well as, member attendance.

Dick is a liar! And Edwards didn't call him out on it!

[exstatic]

bla bla bla distorted liberal rantings again[/yonibore]

[exstatic]

...or maybe he just lied again.

[whottt]

He never said he was presiding over the senate every tuesday. He said he was up in the senate most every tues.

[exstatic]

Prove that he was there. According to Cheney, if the record shows that you weren't there, you weren't there, right Dick?

[Marcus Bryant]

Johnny Appleseed didn't seem to think Cheney was wrong. I wonder why.

[Samurai Jane]

You can take this for whatever it's worth, and I don't consider this solid proof by any means, but I recall watching CSPAN or whatever channel that shows the Senate proceedings and seeing Cheney there just a few weeks ago, I believe it was when they were discussing the taxes. (Yes, I was bored..) According to that list he wasn't there at all in 2004.

[Marcus Bryant]

This doesn't exactly prove that Cheney was not in his office at the Senate, just that he wasn't presiding over the Senate proceedings.

[1369]

So Cheney said he was up in the Senate on most Tuesdays. How does that make him a liar? He is not bound to be present during roll call during all sessions, and has no vote unless the Senate is equally divided on a vote. Did you ever stop to think that he made his rounds of the Senate, and then left to fulfill his duties as the Vice President?

*Edit*
Marcus beat me to the punch.

[JoeChalupa]

Maybe he just strolled in to say hello or tell somebody to go....well, you know.

[Nbadan]

and then left to fulfill his duties as the Vice President?

What else is there for the VP to do? One of his major responsibilities is to preside over the Senate. Mr. Cheney cared so little for his responsibilitites that he couldn't even stick around for policy debate?

[Samurai Jane]

Well, again, you can take this for what it's worth, but the session that I happened to be watching, he was there listening to the policy debate.

[NameDropper]

Rumor has it Cheney was either with them, or against them.

[Marcus Bryant]

Again, just because he was not presiding over a session does not mean that he was not in the Senate building meeting with senators. I think Edwards' reaction during the debate was most telling.

[JoeChalupa]

http://img71.exs.cx/img71/650/familyguyfuck.jpg

[whottt]

Time for you to retake 5th grade govt 101. It's almost laughable how stupid the democrats must think their voters are...it'd be laughable...but unfortunately... they're right...they can simply throw anything out there and you guys will act like you have uncovered some huge conspiracy. You are owned.

Without going into one of my usual lengthy diatribes in which I try to educate, but usually end up embarrasing, my opponent..I'll just say:

All you need to look at is the "oh shit" look on Edwards face when Chaney made that comment. As for me, I work for a democrat lawyer and I have no doubt that Chaney's comment was a bullseye.



And I'll leave you with 2 questions..

1.Which is it? Is Chaney running the country or is he blowing off his senate duties?

2. Given the change in our country since Sept 11th 2001, and the fact that this has been one of the most active legislative periods in recent US history, and given the fact that the Vice Pres casts the tie breaking vote in the Senate...I'm pretty sure it was in his greedy lying interest to be hanging around JIC.

Which VP has been called on to use that vote the most out of the past 30 years?



In fact, without checking the numbers myself...I'd be willing to bet that Chaney has cast more deciding votes in his first term as VP than probably any other VP in the past 40 years, probably since WWII, maybe even longer......I'd be willing to bet he has already cast as many as Gore did in his entire 8 year term. Can't do that if he's not around.

[Nbadan]

I'd be willing to bet that Chaney has cast more deciding votes in his first term as VP than probably any other VP in the past 40 years, probably since WWII, maybe even longer......I'd be willing to bet he has already cast as many as Gore did in his entire 8 year term. Can't do that if he's not around.

Are you willing to put all of your $500 V money on that bet?

[whottt]

I'm willing to bet he has cast as many as Gore did in his entire 8 year term..yeah. I'm definitely willing to go out on that limb.


I'm not willing to go out on the limb that he did it more than any VP in the ColdWar, WWII or Viet Nam Eras..I'm sure of myself but I'm not that sure...But the Clinton era? Gurantee it.

[bigzak25]

either way, two wrongs don't make a right...stop making excuses for golden boy.

he came across as well spoken to me in the "debate"....i was listening on radio for a good part of it...he had some valid points...this election is about kerry vs bush though....and kerry has no backbone....case closed.

[whottt]

Are we on or not Dan? No web searching bitch. You got to bet in good faith. 500 V Bucks says Chaney has used that vote as many or more times as Gore did in his two terms combined.

[JoeChalupa]

WTF!? This is about Cheney saying he's there almost every Tuesday and it looks like he may have pumped himself up a little too much.

[exstatic]

Nice backpedal, whottt.

[1369]

Gore cast tie breaking votes a total of 4 times during his two terms, Cheney has cast 6 during his term.

Source: US Senate Web Site (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/VPTies.pdf)

[1369]

Looks like Whott just made a cool $500 in funny money.

[Marcus Bryant]

"Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session."
--Dick Cheney

So can Cheney be "in the Senate" while "they're in session" without presiding over the actual session?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Dickhead serves as President of the Senate. That means that he PRESIDES over precedings in the Senate. Tuesdays are also when both parties hold their caucus meetings. Do you expect to see Edwards at Republican caucus meetings, or are you just that dumb?

Damn you guys will believe anything Cheney and Dubya spew.
I suppose you all believe their shit don't stink either?

[whottt]

Trying to say Cheney isn't there is stupid with the heavy transitional agenda this administration has had...due to the switch to republican control...to the changes required by Sept 2001...

I mean the criticism is that this guy has a hard on for mideast oil...yet you guys think he is going to be fucking off with the key vote...

It's totally contradictory...the crats are just throwing shit against the wall and hoping it sticks with their lemming voters.

And excs...STFU...I'm willing to bet he's done it more than any VP since WWII, I'm just not willing to bet the full 500 on that...

I mean as the odds go up the amount you risk goes down if you are any kind of a sensible bettor.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

It isn't about if Cheney cast a tie-breaking vote or not.

It his pompous remark stating something that isn't true.
But then again he lies so freakin' much he really believes his own BS.

[Marcus Bryant]

serves as President of the Senate. That means that he PRESIDES over precedings in the Senate

Unless, perhaps, just perhaps, he defers to the President Pro Tempore. Where is the rule that if Cheney is in the Senate building he has to actually preside over the session?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Well then he should have said "I'm in the building on most Tuesdays".

[Marcus Bryant]

Here's what he said:


"Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session."
--Dick Cheney


So as Vice President he is the President of the Senate which means he is the ultimate presiding officer. That is correct.

Then he says that he is "in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session". So if he can be "in the Senate" when "they're in session" without having to be the "presiding officer" I don't see the problem.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

You never see the problems when it comes to this administration.

[whottt]

Marcus is kicking your ass with 5th grade govt...President Pro Tempore...and even that role has tons of standins...

Bottom line Chaney has cast more deciding votes in 4 years than Gore did in 8...he cast more deciding votes than sessions over which he presided...I think the VP generally does not preside...I think that is the general rule and it has been for a long long time. However, unless he wants the president and his fellow party members crawling up his ass he is going to be available to cast that vote as much as possible. Especially when we are in a war.

Figure it out...of course he's going to be around if he is the deciding vote...I mean which is it? Is he war hawk? An Oil war profiteer? Or is he a screwoff? It's 1 or the other...it can't be both(unless of course you are John Fucking Kerry).

[Marcus Bryant]

Oh, I've seen plenty of problems with this administration. But I've also seen plenty of problems with the criticisms levelled at it.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Again you bumbling idiots, this is about Cheney flat out lying.

Perhaps you'd read better if you weren't having to look through Dubya's asshole.

[Marcus Bryant]

this is about Cheney flat out lying.


Yes, the discussion has been about that in this thread. Thanks for noticing.

[exstatic]

whottt- You got challenged, realized you were talking out of your ass, and backed off. That's a backpedal.

PUNK'D

[whottt]

How'd I get punked? I said I'd be willing to bet, I am willing to bet on anything I said.

But I was only willing to be 500 precious Vbucks on Cheney VS Gore...I fucking win.

Where is Dan anyway? I mean I see him posting...but he has yet to return to this thread...how convenient...why do I get the feeling I am not going to like what he has to say about the bet when he returns...

[exstatic]

I'd be willing to bet that Chaney has cast more deciding votes in his first term as VP than probably any other VP in the past 40 years, probably since WWII, maybe even longer......


I'm not willing to go out on the limb that he did it more than any VP in the ColdWar, WWII or Viet Nam Eras..I'm sure of myself but I'm not that sure...

BACKPEDAL

[whottt]

It's not a backpedal...limb = 500 V Bucks...I'm still willing to bet on the WWII issue, just not my entire vbuck fortune...are you a moron that doesn't realize why you would not bet as much on some bets as you would on others?

Let me spell it out for you...

I am willing to bet Chaney has cast more deciding votes in his first term than any other VP in the past 40 years. Maybe even since WWII.

I am only willing to bet 500 VBucks... that Chaney cast more than Gore did in his two terms combined. I won this one by the way.

I wasn't alive for WWII you see...so I am not as sure on that as I am on an era in which I lived.

I am willing to bet 50 dollars on a lot of bets...I am not willing to bet my entire life savings on a lot of bets...are you too stupid to realize the difference in stakes or the odds?

[whottt]

And BTW...what you are doing is called changing the subject so no one notices how badly you got your ass kicked on the attendance issue.

[Samurai Jane]

So, what we basically have is 4 more votes than the number of times the list says he was even there. I submit that this list is severely lacking as credible evidence as it does not even reflect the 6 times we know Cheney was there. (Can he vote without being in attendance???) Without further proof, this topic is not even worth arguing about anymore.

[exstatic]

How did my ass get kicked on the attendance issue? So far, we have one poster who saw Cheney on TV exactly one more time than the two times he's on the record.

Presiding as President of the Senate
Cheney 2
Edwards 1

That's on the record. That's a fact. Anything else is conjecture, but since you live and die by conjecture, I wouldn't expect you to know the difference.

[exstatic]

I agree, SJ. It does beg questions about his bringing Edwards to task, though.

[Yonivore]

Prove that he was there. According to Cheney, if the record shows that you weren't there, you weren't there, right Dick?
What day did he tell that guy to go fuck himself? Is that day on the list?

Did he miss any opportunities to break a Senate tie?

[SpursWoman]

What's funny is most of you are missing his point entirely, you're so damn defensive and quick to get your knickers in a twist over anything a Republican says that it has completely destroyed your ability to "get it."

Edwards is NOTORIOUS for missing Senate votes...the Bush campaign DID NOT come up with "Senator Gone", his very own constituents in Carolina did.

Senators are elected by the people to represent them, you know--that whole government of the people, for the people, etc? And if he's not showing up, he's not really representing anything but his own interests, is he? He's doing the people of Carolina a great disservice and you guys are fucking defending it. Unreal.

Actually, I take that back...you aren't really defending it...you're turning it into another "...so what, BUSH/CHENEY...blah, blah, blah"....to divert attention away from it. Because apparently it's difficult to come to the realization that Edwards' shit more than likely does, in fact, stink.


Oooooo, ooooh!!! CHENEY LIED!!! OOOhhhh, oohhh!


In tribute to my favorite, conspicously missing poster:



facetious

adj : cleverly amusing in tone; "a bantering tone"; "facetious remarks"; "tongue-in-cheek" [syn: bantering, tongue-in-cheek]

[Spurminator]

You never see the problems when it comes to this administration.

And you only do.

I love when partisans play the partisan card.

I propose a rule: If you haven't never argued for the opposition at least once in your last 5,000 posts, you don't get to call someone out for being biased. I think that's fair.

[exstatic]

Yoni is officially muted.

[whottt]

And exlaxtic has oficially forgotten the title of this thread:



What About Dick's Senate Attendance???? Proof in the Pudding...


LOL

[IcemanCometh]

so if edwards is senator gone is bush president gone? he has more "vacations" to his presidential retreat than any president ever. that i am willing to bet 500 vbucks on whott you cheesedick. of course we all know what those vacations really are.


as far as dick how could he have attended senate from his undisclosed location?

[whottt]

I'd slow down on the VBuck betting if I were you...you seem to be zeroed out.

[exstatic]

Actually, Ice's Vbucks are out on bets. He was #1 in the entire forum after MNF, winning huge on KC. He had over 1700

[SpursWoman]

so if edwards is senator gone is bush president gone? he has more "vacations" to his presidential retreat than any president ever.


Actually, I take that back...you aren't really defending it...you're turning it into another "...so what, BUSH/CHENEY...blah, blah, blah"....to divert attention away from it. Because apparently it's difficult to come to the realization that Edwards' shit more than likely does, in fact, stink.



See what I mean? :fro

[IcemanCometh]

the strategy of the administration is to obfuscate the issue by deflecting all attention from them and their failures onto pointless arguments about what the opponent had for lunch on dec 18th 1997

[Nbadan]

Actually, the bet was...


I'd be willing to bet that Chaney has cast more deciding votes in his first term as VP than probably any other VP in the past 40 years, probably since WWII, maybe even longer......I'd be willing to bet he has already cast as many as Gore did in his entire 8 year term. Can't do that if he's not around.

Of course, you don't have to go back 40 years, or even 30 years. All you have to go back to is VP George Walker Bush who casts 7 tie-breaking votes in the Senate between 1981-1989. Last I heard 7 is still more than 6, although with the Fed fuzzy math, you never know for sure.

[whottt]

Actually, the bet was...



Of course, you don't have to go back 40 years, or even 30 years. All you have to go back to is VP George Walker Bush who casts 7 tie-breaking votes in the Senate between 1981-1989. Last I heard 7 is still more than 6, although with the Fed fuzzy math, you never know for sure.

He cast all 7 in the first or second term? I don't believe it. There's a reason I specifically singled out Gore
when I said his entire 8 year term.


So the part that should be blacked out is this:
I'd be willing to bet that Chaney has cast more deciding votes in his first term as VP than probably any other VP in the past 40 years

Go recheck your source and figure out that I am right....

[whottt]

I went and looked at 1369's list myself.

1. George Bush cast 7 votes in both his terms combined, he never cast more than 4 in a single term.

Whottt is right.

2.The combined total of all the VP's before that...going back 40 years is 7. This spans LBJ, Hubert Humphrey, Rockerfeller, Agnew, Ford and Mondale.

Richard Nixon used his vote 8 times in two terms but never more than 4 times in a single term.

Whottt is still right.

That takes us back over 50 years of Whottt being right.

What did whottt say originally? 40 years.

Then you finally get to the guy who did it more in a 4 year term, Allen Barkley 49-53...who cast the deciding vote 8 times.

And finally Whottt is wrong...but I wouldn't have bet 500 V Bucks on that long of a shot.


But technically...Cheney's first term isn't over yet. It ends in 05. I don't expect a democrat to be fair about that...

After all....Kerry calls Bush a failure for not having the Iraq war solved in a year in a half...He promises to solve it in 4 years...and he gets the year and a half of rebuilding put in by the Bush administration.

[Nbadan]

Chaney has cast more deciding votes in his first term as VP than probably any other VP in the past 40 years

Technically, that can be interpreted to mean that Cheney has cast more tie-breaking votes in 4 years than any other Vice President did in 8 years. You even reenforced this assumption with the following sentence...


that Chaney cast more than Gore did in his two terms combined

Now, why would you single out Gore and not every other VP going back 40 years for this qualifier? Simple. You didn't, but nice spin though.

[whottt]

Um I did single out Gore specifically with that qualifier, how in the fuck can you say I didn't..it's right there in front of you...Do you see any other VP's name mentioned specifically other than Gore's?


I made that clear, epmhatically clear, 100% and I made sure it was clear when you asked me if I wanted to bet 500 VBUCKS...

It was not a reinforcement, it was a specific claim. I claimed two different things there...

And the reason I specifically singled out Gore...why? What would be the obvious reason? The fact that he was the VP of most recent administration other than the current, in what was a particularly smooth era of US history..that I just lived through as a relatively mature and somewhat politically active adult. It was the administration I had the most seeing eye knowledge of, other than the current, not to mention one that I supported.

I have absolutely no problems admitting my claims were not all accurate...You have a problem admitting the ones that were accurate..Cheney has not cast more deciding votes in his first term than any other VP since WWII..I am wrong there...but he cast more than any VP of the past 40 years...I am right there. And he has cast more than Gore did in both terms combined...I am definitely right there. There's a reason I was only willing to bet 500$ on one of the 3 claims I made...

[Nbadan]

Look, If you want to get into specifics you also said...


probably since WWII, maybe even longer

Alben W. Barkley (1949-1953) had 8 in 4 years well before WW2. So pay up.

[whottt]

Look, If you want to get into specifics you also said...



Alben W. Barkley (1949-1953) had 8 in 4 years well before WW2. So pay up.

I'm wrong on that...but when you asked me if I was willing to bet 500$ on that I said no. I told what part I was willing to bet 500$ on. You weren't here to accept...you continued posting in other threads for a bit and returned 12 hours later.

And TECHNICALLY, Cheney's first term isn't over yet, which means, TECHNICALLY none of my claims are wrong yet, if you want to get TECHNICAL about it.

[Nbadan]

I'm wrong on that...but when you asked me if I was willing to bet 500$ on that I said no. I told what part I was willing to bet 500$ on. You weren't here to accept...you continued posting in other threads for a bit and returned 12 hours later.

Nope, that was my last post of the day. This is why I am not holding you to the bet, but at the time I left, I was right.

[whottt]

You can't hold me to a bet I didn't agree to anyway. Not when the stakes are for 500 VBucks. You're mad if you think I'd carelessly risk my entire VBuck fortune like that...

And Cheney's first term isn't over yet anyway. There's going to be some very heavy legislative periods coming up....if Bush and Cheney lose the election they are going to be really heavy.

But you have totally missed the point...there is everything to indicate Cheney has been the most active VP in the Senate since 1949-1953, and one of the most active in history. A far cry from the claims made at the beginning of this thread.

And there is nothing in here to disprove Cheney's allegations that Edwards often shirks his Senate duties.

The only thing proven in this thread is that modern crats are largely ignorant of the role the VP fills in the Senate, and what his responsibilities are on a (tues)day to (tues)day basis.

[Nbadan]

The only thing proven in this thread is that modern crats are largely ignorant of the role the VP fills in the Senate, and what his responsibilities are on a (tues)day to (tues)day basis.

No, the real important thing that was proven is that it is ok for you boobleheads to criticize Kerry for not being on the Senate Intelligence Committee roll call, even though he has said he was there for most of the private meetings, but its not ok for Progressives to criticize Cheney for not being on the Senate attendance roll call.

Hypocritical? You tell me.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Whott it proves is that the original reason for the post cannot be disputed by the conservatives on this board.

[SpursWoman]

So you don't think there is any difference in the responsibilities of the Vice President of the United States and *just* a US Senator?

Especially in a time of war.....that they should be held to the exact same standards? No excuses?


I'm just curious....

[Marcus Bryant]

So we're back to the fact that Cheney could be at the Senate without actually having to preside over it while it was in session.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Stop evading the issue!!!!!!

Cheney lied. 'nuff said.

[Marcus Bryant]

How is that evading the issue?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

I don't give a hoot about whether or not Cheney was presiding or not.
The fact is he said he had never met Edwards before and that was a fat, bold faced lie. You do remember what a lie is don't you?

Or is it only a lie if you are a democrat?

[Marcus Bryant]

What is the subject of this thread?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

That Cheney is a liar.

[SpursWoman]

Cheney's point of the whole damn interlude was that Edwards' ass is rarely there when it counts. I really don't think he GAF about a breakfast or whatever, it's certainly not relevant to his duty. So he showed up for free food and a photo op. BFD.

How does that possibly equate to, you know, whether or not he actually GAF enough to be there, representing the people of Carolina, actually voting on the key issues he professes to support?

Hard to say you're for reducing the tax-burden of the middle class when he didn't even make it a point to be there to vote for extending the current relief efforts due to expire. Or is it only common sense if your a Republican?

[Yonivore]

Yoni is officially muted.
Yoni is officially busy.

No one answered my question. Did the day that Cheney told that prick to go fuck himself appear on the list at the beginning of this post? And, did Cheney ever miss a voting opportunity as President of the Senate?

I believe the answer to both questions is no. And, I further believe that since the answer to the first is no, the list posted neither represents Cheney's presence in the chamber of Edward's absence.

[Yonivore]

so if edwards is senator gone is bush president gone? he has more "vacations" to his presidential retreat than any president ever. that i am willing to bet 500 vbucks on whott you cheesedick. of course we all know what those vacations really are.


as far as dick how could he have attended senate from his undisclosed location?
Man, you people need a fucking government lesson.

The Vice President is only needed in the Senate chamber to break a tie. That Vice President Cheney attempts to make a visit every week is laudable but unnecessary...the Administrative Branch keeps a close tab, through liaisons, on which legislation is liable to need the Veeps deciding vote.

No, on the matter of the President's "vacations." The President of the United States takes his office with him wherever he goes. Senators don't have that luxury, it's why Senator Dole resigned to run for President. Senators are paid to represent the people by voting their conscience (LOL), in chambers, on all matters brought before them for a vote...Edwards missed that opportunity more than 70% of the time. His constituents are rightly pissed at Senator "Gone."

[Yonivore]

Stop evading the issue!!!!!!

Cheney lied. 'nuff said.
I disagree. I, too, find Edwards a rather forgettable character.