# Dick Cheney a Sartorial Embarrassment **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2005, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243 "2005-01-29T04:33:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/181 "2005-01-31T15:17:39Z")
Sorry, **FinnAgain** , I thought I was being clear. _Cespoke_ is a little play on _bespoke_. Bespoke clothes are custom made and are supposed to suggest refinement as well as wealth. To say that Mr Cheney’s hat was “cespoke” ( c comes after b) would be to denigrate Mr Cheney’s hat, the wee logo on it and the cod military name badge on his jacket. You wouldn’t find the word in the dictionary because I just made it up. That’s English. Coin away: if it sticks, it’ll end up in the dictionary. I am perfectly aware that “unsartorial” is an unusual construction. Using it to some extent supposes that the word sartorial has already begun to change meanings from “relating to tailoring” to “slightly pretentious way to describe one’s clothes”. But to some extent it suggests spin. “Sartorial splendour” is, these days, fulsome (in the old sense) praise. But fulsome (in the new sense) praise is the praise of the unthinking, too. It is fulsome in the new sense only in its intent. The twisting of the term was part of the reference to Nixon’s famous statement that “If the President does it, it’s not illegal” - in part a comment on the current US administration; in part a comment on this thread. I swear off one-liners for a week (Mr Curt, he resting :D). ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/182 "2005-01-31T15:29:53Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Yeep. > > So it was not a woosh, you’re saying if the vice president wears something then it’s not ‘unsartorial’? > Moreoever, I’m not sure what context you think it is clear in, but it sure as heck aint that one. Unsartorial would mean ‘not tailored’, or going with the secondary definition, ‘not clothing’. Saying that if the VP wore it is becomes tailored makes no sense, so I figured it was a woosh. Unless you’re simply using the second definition and saying that if he’s wearing it it’s clothing? > Am I misunderstanding you here? > > This went totally over my head. As far as I’m aware, cespoke isn’t even a word. And I don’t understand what that would have to do with Nixon. Would you please clear up my ignorance? Is that, also, a woosh? > > Oh, and, by the way, both [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) and [merriamwebster.com](http://merriamwebster.com) say that unsartorial isn’t a word. Heh. Nixon once stated that, “If the President does it, it’s not a crime,” or something to that effect. Since then, it’s become sort of a joke. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/183 "2005-01-31T16:02:51Z")
> [@Girl Next Door](#): > > [Cheney’s Auschwitz outfit raises eyebrows](http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/01/28/auschwitz.cheney.reut/index.html) > > What the hell? Did Air Force Two lose his luggage? I thought that this was a spoff story! :eek: Mr. Cheney is **truly** a “Dick”. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/184 "2005-01-31T19:20:44Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Dude, you seem to take it as some sort of personal affront that some people on this board don’t think exactly the way you do. You apparently have a lot of trouble formulating a coherent argument against their positions, so you attempt to shout them down with belittlement and insult. You also are a coward, in that you only act the way you do here because of your anonymity, and I am sure that you know you’d be wearing your ass between your ears if you ever said some of the things you say here to real, live people. That makes you a common bully in my book. > > Actually, I find it fascinating, this drive you seem to have to make a complete fool of yourself in front of thousands of strangers. Mania is interesting, sometimes. Please on’t stop on my account. I always pictured him looking exactly like the Hamburgler for some reason. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/185 "2005-02-01T00:30:36Z")
**hawthorne** : Thank you for your patience and for clearing up my confusion. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/186 "2005-02-01T01:14:13Z")
I’ll lay money that Dick’s mother would not have had him dress that way–nor would any mother. It was careless, arrogant and self-centered. You people are surprised? Pssst: blood thinners don’t make you cold; they also don’t make your blood “thinner”–they act in various ways to delay coagulation. Perhaps his “good” coat was at the cleaners. I have no possible explanation for his headgear. Temporary insanity? Careless attire + solemn ocassion=arrogant stupidity. And yes, I would be as critical (probably MORE critical) if “my guy” (any Dem) had worn the same thing. The reason I would be more critical is b/c I expect more from my side–if I am supporting or have invested in you, you better show me your best at all times etc. **Brutus** is mad b/c he ran out and bought that exact outift, and now realizes that maybe he shouldn’t wear it to any funeral except his own… ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/187 "2005-02-01T01:40:17Z")
> [@TVeblen](#): > > This is the sound of yet another political thread being crapped on. Except this wasn’t a political thread. It was a partisan swipe at Cheney, and one utterly devoid of substance. C’mon, now, the Bush Administration is supposed to be the worst in history. With all of the other potential topics–war, terrorism, civil rights, the environment, the economy, etc., the best target the OP could come up with is the Vice President’s _hat_? That said, I don’t think this thread was at all unusual or inappopriate given the style and substance of Pit Threads over the last 5+ years. What is strange is your overreaction to the replies. If people are going to post stupid jibe threads, it is unrealistic not to expect other people to respond. Otherwise, we’d be left with: OP: “Bush is a poopy-head” Replies 1-200: “Yeah!” What would be the point of that? I suggest that your ire against political shit-slinging, while understandable, is misplaced, in this case. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/188 "2005-02-01T01:46:08Z")
How, pray tell, was this partisan? Are you in the **Brutus** school of thought where anybody who criticizes Bush is a rabid enemy? If the criticism is valid, it’s still partisan? If a republican makes the criticism, they become a partisan democrat? Sorry, I don’t buy it. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/189 "2005-02-01T02:13:26Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > How, pray tell, was this partisan? :rolleyes: > [@gobear](#): > > …Then again, given the attitudes of the current administration and its supporters, it’s not surprising that they have contempt for the victims of the Holocaust. Cheney’s on the side of the torturers, not their victims. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/190 "2005-02-01T02:15:59Z")
**Gobear** was out of line, but he’s one person. How was this entire thread partisan? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/191 "2005-02-01T02:18:52Z")
And, by the way, opposition to something isn’t partisan. Support is. For instance, supporting a politican’s choice even when it’s blatantly obvious that there are legitimate grievances. [Another cite for the definiton](http://merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=partisan&x=0&y=0) > [@](#): > > a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; **especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance** ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/192 "2005-02-01T02:29:16Z")
Of course, the entire Partisan/non-partisan thing ignores the fact that the man was dressed like a potato sack in front of the most powerful men on Earth. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/193 "2005-02-01T02:30:23Z")
**Bosda** , you partisan!!! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/194 "2005-02-01T02:37:52Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > And, by the way, opposition to something isn’t partisan. Support is. For instance, supporting a politican’s choice even when it’s blatantly obvious that there are legitimate grievances… You don’t get to just pick and choose various words out of the definition and make your own. Cute try, though. Quite plainly, the ‘cause’ of so many lefties is rabid opposition to the Bush administration, and damn the common sense. The more blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning the opposition, the better. Besides, the hour is a bit late to try to claim ‘nonpartisan’ status for the packs of roving Bush-haters out there, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/195 "2005-02-01T02:43:36Z")
Just testing the quick reply. I can think of nothing to say that will even possibly make the Cheney partisans think that just maybe their guy dressed like a bit of a doofus. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/196 "2005-02-01T02:44:07Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > You don’t get to just pick and choose various words out of the definition and make your own. Cute try, though. I linked to the entire definition, twice, **Brutus**. And I highlighted one portion. I wasn’t cherry picking. Swing and a miss. > [@Brutus](#): > > Quite plainly, the ‘cause’ of so many lefties is rabid opposition to the Bush administration, Clearly. :rolleyes: > [@Brutus](#): > > and damn the common sense. Indeed. > [@Brutus](#): > > The more blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning the opposition, the better. Like refusing to admit that wearing a hat with writing on it to a sombre memorial service is a faux pas just, just because the guy who screwed up is part of your party? > [@Brutus](#): > > Besides, the hour is a bit late to try to claim ‘nonpartisan’ status for the packs of roving Bush-haters out there, you know. Sorry, your attempt to play identity politics and define other people won’t hold. I seriously doubt that anybody’s political philosophy consists of ‘supporting anti-bush’ ideology. Miracle of miracles, I’m reasonably sure that people had personal convictions before W came on the scene. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/197 "2005-02-01T02:53:57Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] I linked to the entire definition, twice, **Brutus**. And I highlighted one portion. I wasn’t cherry picking. [quote] Yes you were, Oh Disingenuous One! You ever so cleverly just skip over the first bit of the definition. The definition you provided, with the parts you blatantly ignore bolded: > [@](#): > > **a firm adherent to a party ,faction, cause** , or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance Pick any of them, and the ‘Loyal Opposition’ fits the bill, your attempts at weaseling aside. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/198 "2005-02-01T02:56:35Z")
Coding fixed: > [@FinnAgain](#): > > I linked to the entire definition, twice, Brutus. And I highlighted one portion. > I wasn’t cherry picking. Yes you were, Oh Disingenuous One! You ever so cleverly just skip over the first bit of the definition. The definition you provided, with the parts you blatantly ignore bolded: > [@](#): > > **a firm adherent to a party ,faction, cause, or person** ; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance Pick any of them, and the ‘Loyal Opposition’ fits the bill, your attempts at weaseling aside. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/199 "2005-02-01T02:58:40Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; **especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance** That is the [entire definition](http://merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=partisan&x=0&y=0) **Brutus**. Out of the two of us, one is being obfuscatory. Guess who? I posted the whole thing, I bolded the second half. You’re claiming I was somehow dishonest or left something out? In other words, you’re lying. Cut it out. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243/200 "2005-02-01T03:01:11Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > That is the [entire definition](http://merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=partisan&x=0&y=0) **Brutus**. Out of the two of us, one is being obfuscatory. Guess who? > > I posted the whole thing, I bolded the second half. You’re claiming I was somehow dishonest or left something out? In other words, you’re lying. Cut it out. So the first half just poof! dissappears, huh? That is some goofy method of interpreting definitions that you have there. I bet it only applies when you don’t like half the definition. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dick-cheney-a-sartorial-embarrassment/287243.md?page=11)