Apparently, dissent is no longer the highest form of patriotism.
There is a difference between constructive criticism and just being a reprehensible old man.
What I find interesting is that even though GWB was to most Republicans a likable guy and always had his, albeit small here, share of supporters, I don’t really recall anyone being fond of Cheney. He’s kind of like the creepy great uncle you’re sort of afraid of getting stuck alone with but is still invited to the family gatherings.
Very true. Nixon was ten times the statesman that Cheney is. We should also remember that the administration Nixon was a part of ended a war and didn’t begin any, and didn’t leave the country in a mess. The worst thing Kennedy said about them, the missile gap, turned out to be bogus.
In another country Cheney is the kind of person who would support setting someone up with dictatorial powers to “save” the country. I wonder if he truly appreciates how much he is hated.
The silver lining is - we don’t have to worry about what Stewart and Colbert can make fun of any more.
I think astorian’s point is valid. Let the man speak, and refute what he says. Calling him names is a cheap shot and makes the point for the other side.
Are we absolutely 100% positive that Cheney will not run for President? Is he gambling that Obama will fail and therefore pave the way for him? I’m paranoid, I need reassurance.
Carter and Clinton had no problem voicing their opinions during the Bush administration so you’re a little late with this thread. Aside from that, you’re attacking the messenger and not debating what he said which is quickly becoming an Obama trait.
Waitaminnit, now. It was Ike (remember, we’re talking about that administration, not Nixon’s own) who refused to allow the scheduled national elections in Vietnam for fear Ho Chi Minh would win, and who first sent “advisors” to support the unpopular South Vietnamese government.
John Nance Garner kicked my dog.
Well, you should have been a bit more circumspect in your praise of Henry A Wallace.
ETA: Gotta admit, though, that was pretty dickish of him.
Cheney/Palin in 2012!
It could also be very reasonably argued that Nixon had more to do with winning the Cold War than any other President, including the sainted-by-Republicans Reagan. Nixon’s brilliant success in forging detente with China fundamentally altered the entire world’s strategic balance, and specifically tilted the balance of power bewtween NATO and the USSR towards NATO.
He may have been a creep but he did good things. Cheney did nothing good.
Yes, and it’s sheer coincidence that all the ones who disagree with you on policy are the latter.
I liked him more than GWB.
We stopped elections and sent advisers all over the place. That was what we did in those days. I suspect Ike was confident enough of his dick size (to keep the metaphor going) to not escalate. You might ding him more justifiably for setting up Bay of Pigs.
John Calhoun was a serious dick. He was a major pro-slavery advocate that spent the last twenty years of his life telling southerners that defending slavery was a matter of honor and they should never compromise an inch. He did as much as any man to make the civil war inevitable. And the result ironically was the destruction of everything he had stood for.
Really? Whom else has Shibboleth called ‘a reprehensible old man’?
Obama trait? Care to elaborate, besides claiming that Obama attacked Limbaugh, which isn’t even close to true?
There’s a difference between dissenting and being a fearmongering jackass.
Right … I’m sure his beef with Dick is based in some sort of nuanced analysis of the criticisms, not on sheer partisanship. :rolleyes:
Nice job moving the goalposts. First everybody who disagreed with him was a reprehensible old man, now he’s a victim of Cheney Derangement Syndrome. :rolleyes:
Not that it will interfere with your political beliefs but Limbaugh was singled out by David Axelrod as a matter of White House policy:
He also helps decide which fights to pick and which ones to avoid, making him a leading voice in setting the political tone in Washington. The recent back-and-forth with Rush Limbaugh, for example, was explicitly authorized by Mr. Axelrod, who told aides that it was not a moment to sit quietly after Mr. Limbaugh said he hoped that Mr. Obama would “fail.”
The enemy’s list mentality falls in line with Axlerod’s long time friend Rahm Emanuel. 2 peas in a pod.
All Chaney did is point out that Obama is going down the same road as Clinton did and treat terrorism like it was a law enforcement matter. I suspect he’ll be the next White House pinata.
I think Cheney’s goal is: Whenever people hear his name, they think “big dick.”
:dubious: I think you’re maybe being a bit melodramatic here, especially with your invocation of the concept of the enemies list. The original Nixonian “enemies list”
Are you trying to suggest that Administration insiders like Axelrod and Emanuel are operating along these lines? AFAICT, all they’re doing is publicly criticizing a few high-profile public figures who publicly criticize them. Doesn’t seem very nefarious to me, so I think we can all ease up on the worrying about how poor defenseless Dick Cheney is going to be smashed like a “pinata” by the unbridled savagery of the Obama administration.*
And by the way, I don’t see anything particularly nefarious in Cheney’s current pissing and moaning about Obama’s foreign policy, either. It’s a free country.
However, Jack Batty’s right that if it’s not nefarious or treasonous, it’s nonetheless pretty hypocritical on Cheney’s part. Look at how he whined about criticism of his own Administration’s policies back in 2004:
He thought it was harmful in 2006, too:
So when you criticize Bush/Cheney policies, you’re helping the terrorists, but criticizing Obama policies is just fine. Hmm.
- Although, I must admit that I was pretty shocked by the sheer foul viciousness of what Obama said about Limbaugh. I mean, there the President was in a meeting with senators and all, and he actually used language like “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” :eek: :eek: Goodness me, did you ever hear anything so ruthlessly hateful?? I mean, I don’t like Limbaugh at all myself, but I don’t understand how anybody could say anything so horrible about another human being. I just have to wonder if our culture can even survive the raw, bare-knuckled bloodthirsty levels of partisan antagonism that this Administration is unleashing on us. I cried for hours when I heard about it.
:rolleyes: