Dick Cheney

[quote author="stepping_up" date=1244197285][quote author="Sunshine" date=1244193574][quote author="trrenter" date=1244153773][quote author="Sunshine" date=1244120302][quote author="trrenter" date=1244114990]His opinion is it isn't a federal issue it is a state issue <strong>so as VP there was no reason for him really to say one way or the other</strong>. If that is truly his opinion then I it makes sense that he didn't come out in support while in office since it isn't a federal issue in his mind.



I don't think Cheney ever really though that he would ever ascend to president after Bush squeeked in for the second time.</blockquote>


I don't buy it--what a crock of sh%t. I can think of a really good reason he SHOULD have expressed his views--to support his openly gay daughter and send a message to Americans that a Republican VP in an administration largely voted into office by the religious right supports gay marriage. The fact of the matter is that his party, GWB, the Christian Coalition and other nutters would have had a f!%king fit. I cannot believe we are discussing this poor excuse for a "leader."</blockquote>


So if Biden had a view that was completly contradictory to the Dem party line and Obama he should come out and openly express that view? A view or belief that could cause harm to Obama's voting block? A view that as you pointed out would probably cause voters to not vote that ticket.



That would really be a breach of faith and protocol.



For instance if Biden was Pro Life not Pro Choice which is contradictory to his party and Obama should he come out and say so? Of course not that is not his place to do that. It is his place to fall in party line unless/until he ascends to president or leaves office.



Then the VP (Biden in my example) would be free to voice his true opinion.</blockquote>


As I pointed out--and as you reiterated-- he didn't speak out because it was politically unpalatable to his party and his mouthpiece of a boss. My point was that the Dick's excuse-- that he didn't speak up while in office because he thinks it's a state issue-- is a crock. Would I expect Biden to publicly disclose a contrarian view? Unfortunately, no. That is the reality of American politics. I didn't expect Cheney to be a contrarian either. However, I would expect both Cheney and Biden to either keep their mouths shut after the fact, or actually speak truthfully about why they didn't speak out, rather than throw out some ridiculous excuse, as was done here. I pointed out other reasons why he should (or could) have spoken out, not because I think it was a politically palatable move, but because you said that "it makes sense that he didn't come out in support while in office since it isn't a federal issue in his mind." It makes me sad that people in this country continue to believe anything that comes out of the Dick's mouth.</blockquote>


I miss Trooper!!! :( :( :(</blockquote>


I know. I finally got the nerve to post on the blog and forums one night, and woke up the next morning to see the Irvine Housing Brokers announcement. Apparently I showed up to the party pretty damn late.
 
Doesn't the Republican party realise that the more Dick talks the more people are leaving the party. Him and Rush is all they have and it is not helping thier cause.
 
[quote author="OCCOBRA" date=1244263121]Doesn't the Republican party realise that the more Dick talks the more people are leaving the party. Him and Rush is all they have and it is not helping thier cause.</blockquote>


Sometimes I wonder about that. Obama is insanely popular, nary a negative comment about him anywhere. I watched some TV this weekend and I got to see the Obama?s and their new dog. Great coverage. No mention of North Korea in these fluff pieces and the death toll in Afghanistan barely makes the news.



Other then Dick and Rush nobody has really spoken out to oppose Obama?s policy.



I dont' think at this point it would be smart for any Republican that had any aspirations to advance their political career to do so either.



So you have two unpopular Republicans voicing their views on Obama. If it sticks great if it doesn?t oh well. I haven?t heard Obamas rebuttal on the fact that the CIA said the advanced interrogation techniques stopped an attack on Los Angeles.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1244517393]I haven?t heard Obamas rebuttal on the fact that the CIA said the advanced interrogation techniques stopped an attack on Los Angeles.</blockquote>


I doubt he will respond. By not responding he puts himself above the fray and marginalizes his opponents at the same time. It is a luxury only the most popular politicians have.
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1244520147][quote author="trrenter" date=1244517393]I haven?t heard Obamas rebuttal on the fact that the CIA said the advanced interrogation techniques stopped an attack on Los Angeles.</blockquote>


I doubt he will respond. By not responding he puts himself above the fray and marginalizes his opponents at the same time. It is a luxury only the most popular politicians have.</blockquote>


I would have to agree and that is why it makes sense for unpopular Republicans to engage in this type of back and forth with Obama. An popular republican would become unpopular very quickly if they challenged Obama at this point.



If the republicans were smart they would realize that Obama is insanely popular and that isn't going to change any time soon. The focus should shift to the Congress and Senate shifting a spotlight on the likes of Dodd and Pelosi.



Pelosi could really be the Cheney of the Democratic party.
 
Yeah, about that.



<a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/CNN_poll_Pelosi_has_Gingrichlike_approval_rating.html">http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/CNN_poll_Pelosi_has_Gingrichlike_approval_rating.html</a>



<blockquote>CNN poll: Pelosi has 'Gingrich-like' approval rating



The CIA torture briefings story line is taking its toll on Nancy Pelosi's approval ratings.



A CNN poll just released shows her approval rating has dropped from 51 percent in mid-January to 39 percent in a poll taken late last week as the CIA controversy was unfolding. Forty-eight percent of those polled "disapprove" of how Pelosi is handling her job as speaker.



While the drop for Pelosi is significant, some context is important -- in other polls, Republican leaders like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell remain well below Pelosi's current approval rating, so she's still relatively popular for a congressional leader.



Back home in her congressional district, however, Pelosi remains fairly popular, with a 58 percent approval rating, according to a SurveyUSA poll

</blockquote>


Good thing she doesn't have to stand nationwide election. How about that Gingrich guy? What brought him down anyway? He didn't have to quit.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1244528388]Yeah, about that.



<a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/CNN_poll_Pelosi_has_Gingrichlike_approval_rating.html">http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/CNN_poll_Pelosi_has_Gingrichlike_approval_rating.html</a>



<blockquote>CNN poll: Pelosi has 'Gingrich-like' approval rating



The CIA torture briefings story line is taking its toll on Nancy Pelosi's approval ratings.



A CNN poll just released shows her approval rating has dropped from 51 percent in mid-January to 39 percent in a poll taken late last week as the CIA controversy was unfolding. Forty-eight percent of those polled "disapprove" of how Pelosi is handling her job as speaker.



While the drop for Pelosi is significant, some context is important -- in other polls, Republican leaders like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell remain well below Pelosi's current approval rating, so she's still relatively popular for a congressional leader.



Back home in her congressional district, however, Pelosi remains fairly popular, with a 58 percent approval rating, according to a SurveyUSA poll

</blockquote>


Good thing she doesn't have to stand nationwide election. How about that Gingrich guy? What brought him down anyway? He didn't have to quit.</blockquote>


Further proves my point. Cross a popular president and it could cost you your career. What do Dick and Rush have to lose at this point? Nothing.



Pelosi, Dodd and Frank could be portrayed like the three monkeys of the Bush years. Hear no Evil, See no Evil and Speak no Evil while the Bush admin screwed up the country with out their input. They didn't even know what was going on at the time according to them.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1244586247][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1244528388]Yeah, about that.



<a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/CNN_poll_Pelosi_has_Gingrichlike_approval_rating.html">http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/CNN_poll_Pelosi_has_Gingrichlike_approval_rating.html</a>



<blockquote>CNN poll: Pelosi has 'Gingrich-like' approval rating



The CIA torture briefings story line is taking its toll on Nancy Pelosi's approval ratings.



A CNN poll just released shows her approval rating has dropped from 51 percent in mid-January to 39 percent in a poll taken late last week as the CIA controversy was unfolding. Forty-eight percent of those polled "disapprove" of how Pelosi is handling her job as speaker.



While the drop for Pelosi is significant, some context is important -- in other polls, Republican leaders like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell remain well below Pelosi's current approval rating, so she's still relatively popular for a congressional leader.



Back home in her congressional district, however, Pelosi remains fairly popular, with a 58 percent approval rating, according to a SurveyUSA poll

</blockquote>


Good thing she doesn't have to stand nationwide election. How about that Gingrich guy? What brought him down anyway? He didn't have to quit.</blockquote>


Further proves my point. Cross a popular president and it could cost you your career. What do Dick and Rush have to lose at this point? Nothing.



Pelosi, Dodd and Frank could be portrayed like the three monkeys of the Bush years. Hear no Evil, See no Evil and Speak no Evil while the Bush admin screwed up the country with out their input. They didn't even know what was going on at the time according to them.</blockquote>


And what ? be branded anti American for speaking truth to power by Karl Rove and company? How soon you forget!



I think Newt left because of the borderline moronic decisions to shut down government and impeach bill over Monica (a failed effort to energize the base and grab the unwashed middle) that failed, but why bring that up? Here we are, 35 years removed from Watergate and 9 from the Clinton years, and I still shake my head in amazement we never impeached Nixon, but we impeached Bill for something as petty as cheating on his wife and lying about it? Head over to the Nixon library and look at the new Watergate exhibit - we have forgotten what true malfeasance looks like. Newt took a page out of Nixon's playbook and fell on his sword before his own troubles buried him.



Somebody on TV spoke of Cheney the other day "He's old, white, bitter, and slightly out of touch - he's today?s face of the Republican Party!" I didn?t laugh not because it wasn?t funny ? I didn?t laugh because it was true and that sucks.



Most conservative leaning people miss the change that people were voting for in the last election - it wasn't against <em>politics or ideology.</em>. It was a change for <em>competence</em>.
 
That is exactly why Newt "left" office. His party was bleeding because of his decesion and he fell on his sword to try to stop the bleeding. The republicans were losing seats because of the impeachment trial.



I do beleive that Nixon would have been impeached given time he just beat em to the punch and then he was pardoned.



The point is what does Cheney have to lose by opposing Obama right now? His approval rating has actually gone up. Nobody on the right should even think to challenge Obama if they don't want to be marginalized.



Challenging Obama is essentially political suicide.



I disagree that people were voting for competence because quite frankly if that were true more then half of Congress would be gone as well. Democrats and republicans alike.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1244525049][quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1244520147][quote author="trrenter" date=1244517393]I haven?t heard Obamas rebuttal on the fact that the CIA said the advanced interrogation techniques stopped an attack on Los Angeles.</blockquote>


I doubt he will respond. By not responding he puts himself above the fray and marginalizes his opponents at the same time. It is a luxury only the most popular politicians have.</blockquote>


I would have to agree and that is why it makes sense for unpopular Republicans to engage in this type of back and forth with Obama. An popular republican would become unpopular very quickly if they challenged Obama at this point.



If the republicans were smart they would realize that Obama is insanely popular and that isn't going to change any time soon. The focus should shift to the Congress and Senate shifting a spotlight on the likes of Dodd and Pelosi.



Pelosi could really be the Cheney of the Democratic party.</blockquote>


Nobody cares about Pelosi, other than die hard Republicans.



Obama is in a very good position, and the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot by having their "big tent" moderate guys like Steele looking like buffoons and their extreme, unpopular guys like Rush and Cheney loudly taking up all the screen time.
 
All Nancy has to do to avoid the fate of Newt is not try to impeach Obama because the dog's papers are "out of order", and not try to shut down the government over paygo and she'll be set.



I'll be sure to send her a postcard and let her know.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1244591465] Most conservative leaning people miss the change that people were voting for in the last election - it wasn't against <em>politics or ideology.</em>. It was a change for <em>competence</em>.</blockquote>


What do you mean? Bush was simply <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2208132?wpisrc=newsletter">misunderestimated</a>.



[quote author="trrenter" date=1244599429] I disagree that people were voting for competence because quite frankly if that were true more then half of Congress would be gone as well. Democrats and republicans alike.</blockquote>


Maybe so, but more <em>than</em> half of Congress can articulate a sentence. Bush was a complete embarassment.



EDIT to clarify: The articulation jab is completely directed at Bush, not trrenter. While I emphasized "than" to point out the proper word choice, I didn't consider how it could be perceived within the context of a sentence wherein I was criticizing Bush's tendency to be quite inarticulate.
 
[quote author="Sunshine" date=1244636814][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1244591465] Most conservative leaning people miss the change that people were voting for in the last election - it wasn't against <em>politics or ideology.</em>. It was a change for <em>competence</em>.</blockquote>


What do you mean? Bush was simply <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2208132?wpisrc=newsletter">misunderestimated</a>.



[quote author="trrenter" date=1244599429] I disagree that people were voting for competence because quite frankly if that were true more then half of Congress would be gone as well. Democrats and republicans alike.</blockquote>


Maybe so, but more <em>than</em> half of Congress can articulate a sentence. Bush was a complete embarassment.



EDIT to clarify: The articulation jab is completely directed at Bush, not trrenter. While I emphasized "than" to point out the proper word choice, I didn't consider how it could be perceived within the context of a sentence wherein I was criticizing Bush's tendency to be quite inarticulate.</blockquote>


Ok Guys I get that you all think Bush is a moron. So lets just say I buy into the premise that Bush is/was a moron and a complete embarassment.



There is an old saying "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me."



Now even though half of Congress can articulate a sentence that doesn't mean they aren't morons too. I really take issue with EVERY democrat that was in office during the Bush admin at this point.



The Democrats should have challenged Bush the moron at every turn. Not only that they knew he was a liar so almost anything that came out of his mouth should be regarded as a lie.



The Dem's were fooled by Bush once they shouldn't have allowed it to happen a second time, a third time etc. etc. etc.



The Dem's that were in office during the Bush administration were fooled by a moron what does that say about them and their intelligence?



The Dem's had enough seats to block anything Bush wanted to enact. If, as they say today, it was all the Bush admin's doing they are guilty of not opposing that moron at every turn. That is part of the opposition parties responsibility, to speak out against what the party in power is doing wrong. Especially if the party is led by an idiot.



Last I checked this is a democracy and these people were free to voice their opposition at every turn, and they should have done so as loudly then as they do now. The Republicans did not enjoy a fillibuster proof majority so essentially the Dem's could have blocked every bad decesion that moron made by simply towing the party line and shutting Bush down.



Lets call it like it is the Dem's that are in Congress now are trying to get a free pass for their part in this mess and it seems like people are buying it.



Let's all stick out our finger and point to Bush and blame him for everything. The Democrats led by Obama are now smarter because we have the best POTUS ever leading them. Now they can't make the same stupid decesions they made for the previous 8 years.
 
I wrote Feinstein and Boxer on numerous occasions screaming for them to do something to stop the insanity. Feinstein would send canned responses that were not an exact fit for the reason I was writing. At least Boxer had her people try to explain why it wasn't feasible to impeach Bush. I didn't agree with her, but she at least responded. TR is right... Congress let the adminstration trample all over the Constitution and were totally spineless about it.
 
Forgot one thing. Yes Bush had some really great speaking gaff's as Potus. Lets not try to use that to prove he is a moron because Obama in his short time in office is making some doozies himself.



<strong><blockquote>?I have a very tough schedule and I would love nothing more than to have a leisurely week in Paris, stroll down the Seine, take my wife out to a nice meal, have a picnic in Luxembourg Gardens,? Obama said, pointing out that he was caught up in dealing with the pressing financial crisis at home.</blockquote></strong>



The Seine is a river I think Obama is buying into the press and thinks he can walk on water.



During Sotomayers nomination speech he said that the constitution was written 20 centuries ago.



During a speech he recoginized the Sec of Defense "William Gates" umm isn't the secretary of Defense Robert Gates? Could you imagine the field day the media would have with that if Bush said it?



On the eve of the Mexican holiday, Obama on Monday had an event in the East Room of the White House with Mexico's Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan (sahr-oo-KHAN').



Obama joked that it was "Cinco de Cuatro," botching a play on the Spanish word for "four" when he meant to say "Cuatro de Mayo," or the Fourth of May. He tried again, but he still did not get it right.



I just googled Obama gaffs and plenty came up. Youtube has some really good ones.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1244671732]



Ok Guys I get that you all think Bush is a moron.</blockquote>


I've never said any such thing. I don't believe that for a minute.



<blockquote>So lets just say I buy into the premise that Bush is/was a moron and a complete embarassment.</blockquote>


No, I take issue with GOP apologists who claimed that Bush was a poor public speaker, and then the same GOP apologists go to guns against Obama - save one thing. The gaffes by Barry, well, aren't.



[quote author="trrenter" date=1244673869]Forgot one thing. Yes Bush had some really great speaking gaff's as Potus. Lets not try to use that to prove he is a moron because Obama in his short time in office is making some doozies himself.



<strong><blockquote>?I have a very tough schedule and I would love nothing more than to have a leisurely week in Paris, stroll down the Seine, take my wife out to a nice meal, have a picnic in Luxembourg Gardens,? Obama said, pointing out that he was caught up in dealing with the pressing financial crisis at home.</blockquote></strong>



The Seine is a river I think Obama is buying into the press and thinks he can walk on water.</blockquote>


Nice try, no dice.



<a href="http://community.roughguides.com/planning/journalEntryFreeForm.asp?JournalID=34403&EntryID=16931&n=Riding+and+Strolling+the+Seine">http://community.roughguides.com/planning/journalEntryFreeForm.asp?JournalID=34403&EntryID=16931&n=Riding+and+Strolling+the+Seine</a>



Lots of people walk the Seine.



<blockquote>We strayed from the river to find Place des Vosges (oldest square in Paris, dating from 1610, and home of Victor Hugo) and enjoyed another walk along the Seine to the Louvre stop to meet our ride on the quay. Only one stop, Champs-Elysees, was between us and our return to Eiffel Tower, near our hotel.

</blockquote>


Here is a sample shot from Google using "stroll down the Seine" as keywords and using the image search function.



<img src="http://www.hebig.com/seine_paris.jpg" alt="" />



[scarcasm]Why would anyone want to stoll down the Seine? Nothing to see there but water! He must be claiming to be the Messiah![/scarcasm]



Attention GOP Luddites! GOOGLE! USE IT before you try to be petty and get your ass handed to you.
 
No Vas,



First I spoke in absolutes to make a point. So let me hit the correct keys here. Edit, Find Replace. In find box type in "you all" and in the replace box type in many of you. So now it reads <blockquote>Ok Guys I get that <strong>many of you</strong> think Bush is a moron.</blockquote>


<blockquote>No, I take issue with GOP apologists who claimed that Bush was a poor public speaker, and then the same GOP apologists go to guns against Obama - save one thing. The gaffes by Barry, well, aren?t.</blockquote>


This wasn't the tone or premise of my post. The tone and premise are that the Dem's are hiding behind Bush and blaming him for everything and denying their culpability in the last 8 years.



<blockquote>Attention GOP Luddites! GOOGLE! USE IT before you try to be petty and get your ass handed to you. </blockquote>


Fine I did use google and found more then a few Gaff's you found one you disagree is a gaff. Had Bush made the Seine comment it would have been considered a gaff but that is niether here nor there simply because that wasn't the only one Obmaa has made. How about the Constitution being written 20 centuries ago? William instead of Robert Gates. There are 57 states evidently in the U.S. Cuatro De Cinco plus his many teleprompter Gaffs.



<blockquote>Nice try, no dice.</blockquote>


Did you google all of the other gaffs? Did you go to youtube as I suggested and look at some of those? Let's just focus on the one you can argue isn't a gaff instead.



<blockquote>No, I take issue with GOP apologists who claimed that Bush was a poor public speaker, and then the same GOP apologists go to guns against Obama - save one thing. The gaffes by Barry, well, aren?t.</blockquote>


Again that wasn't the premise of my post either. The premise was that you cannot JUST use his Bush's gaffs to prove his ignorance otherwise you would have to assume Obama, or any other speaker, that makes a public gaff is ignorant. The gaff itself does not prove a person ignorant. If that were the only evidence needed to prove someone ignorant then by that logic Obama is ignorant. <strong>I am not claiming Obama to be ignorant because he has made some gaffs.</strong>



So....... I can edit All to Many.



I can erase the Seine gaff because you think that is not a gaff.



What about the rest of what I said.



<strong>Do the Dems get to wash their hand of all responsibility for the last 8 years. Seems like Dem liberal apoligists would like that.</strong>



And for clarification if I can find a few more instances where Obama misspoke will that make him a Moron. Oh on that line just becuase some one is a GOOD public speaker does that make them intelligent?
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1244679787] Oh on that line just becuase some one is a GOOD public speaker does that make them intelligent?</blockquote>


Certainly not. However, do we really need to argue about the importance of verbal communication skills? How many paid speaking engagements has Bush had since he left office? I know, I know, he's on sabbatical and not accepting any yet (hopefully, he's spending his time [del]sharpening [/del] developing his public speaking skills).



It doesn't matter what the message is if it isn't <em>delivered </em>well, cannot be understood, or is otherwise misinterpreted. When a public speaker effectively and clearly communicates a message, there may or may not be a presumption of competence. It depends on the audience, and the presumption is rebuttable. However, when the single-most important public speaker in our country repeatedly stumbles through his sentences--or cannot speak in intelligible sentences (e.g., no verb or subject is present)--the result is a presumption of stupidity (speaking in absolutes to make my point, of course). This presumption is also rebuttable, but Bush has not rebutted it insofar as I--a decline to state voter--am concerned. Bush is inarticulate and his inability to effectively communicate was detrimental to his presidency. That there are still Bush [del]apoligists [/del]apologists is alarming. Most of the GOP has moved on; I'd suggest that you do the same.
 
Again I am not apologizing for Bush and his administration. The premise to me is simple.



You have two ?mainstream opposing? parties in the USA, the Republicans and the Democrats. This is one of the checks and balances we have in our country in regards to safeguarding our rights as Americans.



If the party that is not in power disagrees with what the party in power is doing it is part of their responsibility to loudly oppose the injustices they believe are occurring. They have several ways to do this.



I do not disagree with the thought that an inarticulate person can be deemed as stupid even if that isn?t true.



<blockquote>Bush is inarticulate and his inability to effectively communicate was detrimental to his presidency.</blockquote>


I will even agree with the above statement.



Now though I go back to my orginal argument which isn?t to argue the merits of Bush as a president. My argument is why didn?t the Democrats like Pelosi, Dodd, Frank et al do more to stop and oppose Bush. They certainly had the power base to do it.



My problem is that it appears to me that there were many Democrats that should be labeled incompetent, especially if the let Bush and Cheney fool them or bully them. They are even more culpable given the fact that bush couldn?t even effectively communicate his thoughts as you pointed out.



Instead the Democrats are pointing at Bush and trying to absolve themselves of all responsibility for the 8 years Bush was in office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top