The melodramatics and the enemies list award goes to Rahm Emanuel: from Wiki:
Emanuel is known for his “take-no-prisoners attitude” that has earned him the nickname “Rahm-bo.”[13] Emanuel is said to have “mailed a rotten fish to a former coworker after the two parted ways.”[10] On the night after the 1996 election, “Emanuel was so angry at the president’s enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting ‘Dead! … Dead! … Dead!’ and plunging the knife into the table after every name.”
Add crazy to his list of skills.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Donating staff time to this type of low brow stuff is beneath office of the President.
It’s a bit amusing to see Bush supporters who seemed to take Karl Rove totally in stride now attempting to get everybody scared of Rahm Emanuel. Yeah, I think Emanuel does come across as kind of a partisan asshole. But the idea of somebody who approved of the Bush administration trying to paint Emanuel or the Obama administration in general as overly vindictive or partisan just makes me laugh.
Okay, now I’m really puzzled. You’re saying in sober earnest that having some Administration officials say critical things in public about political opponents who publicly criticize them is genuinely comparable to Nixonian shenanigans like going after opponents with tax audits and suing and prosecuting them?
Dude. Grip. I mean, I’m all in favor of cultivating a healthy distrust of political leaders of all stripes, and I would certainly never bet my underwear that the Obama White House is morally incapable of Nixonian dirty tricks.
But I do think it’s important to have evidence of such developments before we just start right in believing them. So far, nobody seems to have produced any evidence at all that the administration is doing anything worse to its political “enemies” than just saying snide things about them when they say snide things about the administration.
Again, I gotta wonder: where were these delicate sensibiities when the notorious “Mayberry Machiavellis” were running the show?
“Cheney,” and how on Earth can this criticism be taken seriously? Bush’s administration was, by any measure, far less successful than Clinton’s at fighting terrorism.
Well, I think Magiver’s right about the basic point that Obama, like Clinton, wants a more “tough-on-crime” approach to terrorist threats and less “taking it to the terrorists” via entanglement in foreign wars.
However, I disagree that Cheney just mentioned this in a spirit of neutral observation. He wanted to make the claim that Obama’s policy was wrong.
A fumbling which has way more blowback than anything any American policy did in Cuba. It could be reasonably said that there would have been no Islamic revolution in Iran if we hadn’t removed Mossadegh and re-installed Pahlavi.
Cheney’s chief roll in the Bush administration, at least the one to public view, seems to have been to overstate the case for invading Iraq, fear monger about what all those bad people are going to do, and perhaps issue orders to “out” CIA agents in retaliation for perceived slights. I’m awfully sorry for Mr. Cheney that Obama believes that the net effect of torture is more likely to be detrimental to the United States than aid it. He is not alone in these beliefs; others have said this, including some who were tasked with torturing detainees.
These are actions I view as reprehensible and frankly anti-American.
Now that you mention Wallace, though, we might mention his campaign against Truman in 1948 - with a party that had pretty much become the explicit tool of both domestic Communists and the Soviet Union.
You’re not thinking in the proper Cold War terms. Evil and immoral, no doubt. But they stabilized the country for a long time in terms of foreign policy, and set up a pro-Western government on the borders of the Soviet Union. The Shah was an asshole, but he was our asshole. I’m talking realpolitk, not what is right here.
I’m thinking in terms of eventually destabilizing the middle east, creating an air of distrust and fear among other Muslim countries, etc. If no Shah then no Islamic people’s revolution, no reason to prop up Saddam Hussein against a theocratic Iran, etc. There are a lot of really awful downstream “unintended consequences” that came from that and other Eisenhower era decisions.
I understand that it is easy to second guess these choices 50 years or so later, without the fear of a Soviet nuclear confrontation, but still I think that these were incorrect and unnecessary decisions.
Way to move the goalposts. None of your quote has jack to do with the topic of the thread: Cheney’s out-of-office criticism of the current admin, and whether it was appropriate and/or unusual. I pointed out that the last two democratic veeps had criticized their successors, and thus it’s unreasonable to attack Cheney for doing what Gore and Mondale also did.
Unless of course, you operate under the timeless political principle that “they can’t do it, but we can, because we’re right.”
Was your original interpretation of my distaste for Cheney. I was clarifying. My issues with him go back farther than last week.
What is this “we” shit?
Cheney is consistent, I’ll give him that. I was not disputing any point of yours that Cheney is doing anything that Gore or Mondale didn’t. I was responding to the part of the OP that questioned if Cheney was the biggest dick ex VP. He was certainly the biggest dick VP in my lifetime; glad to see him stick to his guns.
It’s called realpolitik but it’s not actually very smart. The issue is when the American government has to make a choice between supporting an unpopular regime that’s willing to make deals with the United States or support a popular regime that isn’t willing to subordinate itself to us. We often seem to choose the former option, as seen in Iran, Vietnam, the Philippines, Zaire, Latin America. We justify it by saying that we need allies even if they’re distasteful and it’s the “smart” thing to do. But how does it play out in the long run? The fact that these regimes are unpopular with their people doesn’t disappear. The dissent builds up decade by decade and in pretty much every case, the unpopular regime ends up being overthrown. And by then, the United States has become linked with the hated regime. In retrospect, it would have been a smarter move to have supported the popular movement against the unpopular regime and get in good with the side that usually wins in the end. The problem is that most government figures think too much in the short term view of what will work for the next four years rather than the what’s best for the country’s interests for the next four decades.
I’ve never defended Rove nor does his past behavior act as some kind of Karmic excuse for Emanuel.
You’re not puzzled, you’re at a loss for words trying to defend Rove-II. This was supposed to be an administration of change. If you want to talk about Nixon and tax audits that’s find but I really don’t think he’s going to run again. I’m more concerned about the current administration’s inability to hire people who PAY taxes starting with the person in charge of collecting them. At a time of financial crisis Geitner can’t fill his own department with qualified people but the administration has time to devote to discussing Limbaugh.
Not all the stuff we did made sense even in the short run. But Iran stayed on our side for 25 years, and if the Shah had been a bit more reasonable (partially our fault, to be sure) it might have stayed stable a lot longer. Vietnam was stupid on the face of it, since it wasn’t a place that was strategically important. I’m not sure about your point on the Philippines. While we did support Marcos, we also greased his way out the door.
Zaire is an interesting case. I lived there, back when it was still the Congo. I suspect that killing Lumumba was a bad move, but he might not have been as much of a saint as he is now considered by some. When I was there the UN was fighting Tshombe in Katanga. On one hand he seemed far the better leader than Adoula, who was in charge when I was there, but on the other he was being supported by Belgian mining interests who wanted to loot the place. Tshombe eventually did become PM of the whole place, and while better than most he was no George Washington. Sometimes you gotta make do with what you have. It’s not like the place got any better after Mobutu fled, after all.
I’m not at a loss for words at all. I’ve been saying all along that the administration appears to be doing nothing more nefarious than publicly criticizing political opponents who publicly criticize them, and I don’t see that kind of mutual squabbling as a particularly big deal.
I think your efforts to portray it as comparable to Nixonian or Rovian machinations are ludicrously melodramatic and over-the-top.
I repeat: I certainly don’t regard Obama or any of his henchfolks as necessarily intrinsically morally superior to Rovian or even Nixonian machinations. I haven’t shared their bunkers or their beds and I’m definitely not gonna go bail for their honor, sight unseen.
However, I do think it’s reasonable to ask for evidence of actual nasty machinations before I start tut-tutting about how dreadful they are. At present, you seem to have nothing at all but some mouthy administration honchos publicly sniping back at some mouthy conservatives who publicly sniped at them.
Hey, you’re the one who brought up the “enemies list”. If you don’t approve of comparisons with Nixon, then don’t make them.
Sounds like you want conservatives to be able to criticize the Obama administration without having the administration criticize them in return. Why should they go along with that?
I think it’s because the liberals in power are supposed to be maintaining the honor of the office, and the criticizing conservatives have no honor to maintain?
Boy, conservatives are really freaking out that we finally have a Democrat in office who refuses to meekly take all the crap that Republicans throw at him without punching back. It’s so unfair!
Okay, now I’m really puzzled. You’re saying in sober earnest that having some Administration officials say critical things in public about political opponents who publicly criticize them is genuinely comparable to Nixonian shenanigans like going after opponents with tax audits and suing and prosecuting them?