Posted by M. Wright | Filed in: Uncategorized
For those of you seeing this for the first time, this is another update in Fishkite’s ongoing public service, holding Vice President Dick Cheney accountable for something he said during the Vice Presidential Debate in 2004: “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.” Cheney also pointed to Sen. Edwards’ poor attendance record: “Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you “Senator Gone.”
This time we will take a look at the year 2005 and see how Cheney’s statement looks after the first year of his second term as Vice President.
So how did he do? Not well. With a full calendar year in view, it appears Vice President Cheney only fulfilled his duty as the Senate’s presiding officer on a Tuesday… once.
Of the 34 Tuesdays the Senate was in session, Cheney acted as presiding officer just one time, on Jan. 4. Thus, he only carried out this obligation 2.94% of the time in 2005.
Liberals and conservatives alike should be appalled by the Vice President’s performance. If the White House had a more reliable and effective advocate working with members of the Senate, I feel certain that President Bush’s policies would have enjoyed a better reception on Capitol Hill, and priorities such as Social Security reform would have had a better chance breaking through the stagnation and red tape.
2005 Tuesdays / presiding officer
Dec 27 - not in session
Dec 20 - Isakson
Dec 13 - Allard
Dec 6 - not in session
Nov 29 - not in session
Nov 22 - not in session
Nov 15 - Vitter
Nov 8 - Stevens
Nov 1 - Stevens
Oct 25 - Isakson
Oct 18 - Leahy/Stevens
Oct 11 - not in session
Oct 4 - Burr
Sept 27 - Stevens
Sept 20 - Stevens
Sept 13 - Stevens
Sept 6 - Stevens
Aug 30 - not in session
Aug 23 - not in session
Aug 16 - not in session
Aug 9 - not in session
Aug 2 - not in session
July 26 - Stevens
July 19 - Sununu
July 12 - Vitter
July 5 - not in session
June 28 - Stevens
June 21 - Stevens
June 14 - Stevens
June 7 - Ensign
May 31 - not in session
May 24 - Murkowski
May 17 - Vitter
May 10 - Vitter
May 3 - not in session
Apr 26 - Talent
Apr 19 - DeMint
Apr 12 - Vitter
Apr 5 - Stevens
Mar 29 - not in session
Mar 22 - not in session
Mar 15 - Thune
Mar 8 - Murkowski
Mar 1 - Coburn
Feb 22 - not in session
Feb 15 - Vitter
Feb 8 - Stevens
Feb 1 - Murkowski
Jan 25 - Stevens
Jan 18 - not in session
Jan 11 - not in session
Jan 4 - Cheney
February 1st, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Dear Fishkite,
It is amazing, as I survey some of Cheney’s er, confabulations, so to speak, made during his debate with Mr. Edwards, that Mr. Edwards failed to reprove Mr. Cheney right then and there. If Edwards in fact knew that he had met Cheney before, and that Cheney publicly acknowledged Mr. Edwards’ presence from a function’s dias; that Cheney had not “presided” over the Senate “most Tuesdays” and that Edwards himself had filled that role on a couple of occasions; how, pray tell, does Edwards not set the record straight instantly? Had he done so, he would have cleaned the floor with Mr. Cheney. Curious, to say the least.
I found this paragraph in an essay re: the history of the VP presiding in the Senate. It’s interesting that:
“During the twentieth century, the role of the vice president has evolved into more of an executive branch position. Now, the vice president is usually seen as an integral part of a president’s administration and presides over the Senate only on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed. Yet, even though the nature of the job has changed, it is still greatly affected by the personality and skills of the individual incumbent.”
Re: Tie-breakers, the essay states notes that
“More than half the total number of 233 tie-breaking votes occurred before 1850, with John Adams holding the record at 29 votes, followed closely by John C. Calhoun with 28. Since the 1870s, no vice president has cast as many as 10 tie-breaking votes. While vice presidents have used their votes chiefly on legislative issues, they have also broken ties on the election of Senate officers, as well as on the appointment of committees in 1881 when the parties were evenly represented in the Senate.”
All this is not really germane to your post. Perhaps my point is even a bit silly. But faulting a VP for being ABSENT from the Senate is perhaps also a bit silly, since his presence is hardly required or even expected. However, since Cheney claimed he was around “most Tuesdays,” well, it is not wrong or silly to upbraid him for positing a verifiable fiction. I applaud you for holding his feet to the fire.
Peace and mirth,
Gnade
February 5th, 2006 at 12:10 am
As a former Senate Page who worked about 50 hours a week on the Senate floor last spring, I would like to point out that you (and many other Americans) misunderstood the VP’s statement. Yes, Cheney never served as the presiding officer during my 20 weeks of service. But, his “most Tuesdays” comment is very accurate. Every Tuesday (or some Wednesdays), the Senate recesses from 12:30 ET to 2:15 for Party Policy lunches. The Republicans hold there meeting in the Mansfield room while the Democrats meet in the LBJ room.
During my 20 weeks, the Senate was in session 15 weeks if I am counting right. Out of those 15 weeks, Cheney only missed 2 policy lunches. During his 13 “Tuesday” appearance, he usually would arrive around 11:45 and go to his Capitol office, only about 10 feet from the Senate floor on the north side of the Chamber. During the policy meetings, Cheney, Majority Leader Frist, and Policy Committee Chairman Kyl (R-AZ) both took and active role leading it.
In addition to the 13 Tuesday appearance, I remember Cheney coming to the Capitol on 3 late Thursday nights in case he was needed to break a vote. Each time he arrived around 10 PM and sat in the chamber around Senator Coleman’s seat until the sometime between midnight and 1 AM. He never was needed to cast a vote. I also saw him led the Senate processional from the Senate Chamber to the House Chamber before the Senate at the State of the Union address and during it too.
Also, Cheney is not nearly as fat as he appears on TV. Senator Kennedy is a good 100 pounds heavier than Cheney.
God Bless America,
Trevor
February 6th, 2006 at 11:59 am
Alright, Trevor! Way to add something first-hand to the discussion! I thought I had heard something along these lines elsewhere. Perhaps this explains why Edwards did not go after Cheney for what has been deemed a confabulation.
If you’re bonafide, and your report is accurate, I retract my earlier statement re: Cheney’s alleged misdeed. I posted the historical info re: VP/Senate role in order to flush out the birds you kicked up with this informative comment. Thanks. I knew there was more to it all.
Peace.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Very good post. Thank you for calling attention to this!
February 16th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Bill:
Be careful flushing out birds around the Vice President, you are likely to be injured while doing so!
-Clarke