Quote:
Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 5 2004, 10:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 5 2004, 10:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 5 2004, 09:43 PM
Edwards alluded to some investigations into some wrondoings and shady deals while Cheney was the boss at Halliburton. Is that relevant?
Also, what is with Cheney's "these guys aren't qualified" business? Both Kerry and Edwards are far more qualified to be the president than the president was when he took office. What was he? Governor of Texas for three years and a part owner of the Texas Rangers before that? It doesn't make sense to try to pull that one out but it seems the Democrats will let them get away with it. If you ask me, signing a cheque for Nolan Ryan doesn't qualify you for much more than signing a cheque for Nolan Ryan.
|
Yes, it is relavent, and it does look bad for Cheney.
You can find a link about the investigation
here
I don't care who you are, if you are supposed to be represnting the people, your party or what ever. If you aren't showing up for 70% of the votes, you aren't doing your job. [/b][/quote]
I thought that attendance record stuff was a good point but it didn't seem to stick too well though. More than once Cheney went off on a sentence like "he showed up for just 42 per cent of the votes in in 2000 and missed 4 out of 9 votes on proposition A12B and voted 19% of the time against a 13% tax cut for people making less than 46%the median income". Obviously I made that up , but that's how it sounded to me and I pay a lot of attention to this stuff. People that don't -- well, it probably sounded worse to them.