The only consensus I see in that thread is one reached by you and a couple other conservatives over why liberals dislike Dick Cheney. The consensus being reached, I should note, without a single post from a liberal so much as mentioning Dick Cheney being posted between your request for information, and your agreement over why he is disliked. After you had your fill of slapping each other’s backs, there are precisely three responses from liberals. All of them contain significantly more reason to dislike Cheney than “He looks evil and is Republican.” The posts are:
This one comes closest to your charicture, and includes many petty things, but only after agreeing with Maureen’s substantial criticism. And, obviously, it is meant to be funny.
So, in point of fact, when you asked “several Cheney haters” (“several” being defined as “three”) why they hated Cheney, you actually received severe criticism of Cheney’s politics, personality, and personal ethics. Not simply “he looks evil and is Republican.” Your original claim is grossly inaccurate.
Dude, seriously, why are you being the killjoy? This has the potential for an 18 page diatribe about Cheney. Don’t stifle the seed in its first page, nurture it. Fertalize it (heh). Lighten up and allow the hate to flow.
Stalin was great. Hitler was great. Genghis Khan was great. Defining “great” as “having significant influence on the course of history by one’s own actions or will.” But great != good. More relevantly, great != likeable.
OK. Everything that involves Halliburton is Cheney’s fault. Got it. I assume Halliburton will win accolades and awards after Cheney dies? And it’s utterly shocking a CEO would receive a bonus or raise for acquiring another seemingly profitable company.
Aw, crap. The problem was only “potential”. And only “metastasized” after Cheney went to Washington. So Cheney is just outrighted blamed for all? Or should we really hammer the truth? Cheney isn’t Kreskin?
Wow, wouldacouldashoulda. Good argument.
A ton of cash and stock to the victims? Let’s all forget the victims when we see the stock go up.
Er, forget the above quote. This lawsuit didn’t put any money in Big Oil’s pockets. Who got rich off this deal?
I call shenanigans. How did Cheny allow anything that would cost Halliburton money? Surely his evilness is powerful enough to have the full force of Big Business to reign hellfire upon Wahington and Wall Street, backed by the GOP’s blessing? That, or he’s a good business man that realizes markets don’t instantly conform to the speed of their internet connection. Up in the air on that one.
So we’re talking about years before becoming VP, and years after giving up control of the company.
But if the name is there, that’s all that’s needed. At least for a columnist. Or a rabid Cheney foe. Or one and the same.
That’s is because I was (and am) pressed for time. In fact, I’m posting now from the home of a friend whose house I was headed to when posting the link above and she is pestering me mercilessly even now as I attempt to compose this post.
I believe the thread I cited illustrates perfectly the impotent responses to my question about specifics as to Cheney being “mean”. Miller’s claims to the contrary, I asked all the posters to the thread and only three responded, and in my opinion these few responses fall far short of providing specific incidences of Cheney’s behavior that would justify his reputation for being “mean”. I’m sure everyone here has either thought or said that someone should go fuck themselves, yet I’m equally sure that most, if not all, would not characterize themselves as being mean people as a result.
Additionally, Maureen’s post which Miller quotes is nothing but conjecture and biased opinion and falls far short IMO of showing any “meaness” on Cheney’s part – especially since the purpose of her post is to claim that he is “evil”, not “mean”, which also fits in perfectly with the way I paraphrased the responses I received in that thread.
I think this comes down to that difference between agreeing with policies and “likeability”… Cheney’s policy positions are pretty much identical to Bush’s, aside from a gay marriage amendment. But Cheney is Bush without the folksy demeanor, the outward Christianity, the love of baseball, the verbal miscues, the smirk, the Texas accent, and the footage of him constantly stabbing a pitchfork at brush on the ranch.
In other words, Cheney is Bush without the things that make him seem like an actual, breathing human being. Would you want to sit down to a beer with Dick Cheney? People say no because they don’t even know if Dick Cheney likes beer in the first place! He’s a pasty-skinned, mostly bald, kinda tubby white guy with round-frame glasses with a heart condition who is completely humorless in every single public appearance and who gives no tipoffs as to what he’s actually like as a person: The textbook definition of the asshole, ruthless businessmen that Americans aspire toward yet also hate at the same time. The man is Monty Burns without the laugh-inducing frailty.
You’re right, my earlier summary was incorrect. You specifically asked why people think he’s mean. Israfel immediately answered:
Two unrelated posts later, you respond:
You’ve already reached your decision, without actually hearing one opinion from any of the people you were polling. Note that Israfel is not describing his own position: he’s describing why he thinks other people think Cheney is mean. From this, you go straight to “a whole cadre of people.” Who are these people? Who, specifically, in that thread is part of that cadre?
It was not intended to show meaness. She starts out by stating that her problem with him has nothing to do with him being “mean.” She does not think he’s mean because he’s evil. She thinks he’s evil because of “his policies, his modus operandi, [and] the fact that he’s … getting a large number of [Americans] killed.” I don’t really see “conjecture” there, unless you were refering to the bit about keeping his heart in a jar. It’s true, we don’t know where Cheney keeps his heart. Personally, I think he keeps in inside a perfect emerald at the top of a minaret in a distant kingdom. Who knows? The point is, Maureen doesn’t think he’s mean just 'cause he’s evil. She made no claim about his meanness one way or the other.
Also, “biased opinion” is redundant.
Of the other two posts in that thread, Tracy Lord’s does not mention “meanness” at all, although it does mention the Leahy incident. The only poster who responded to you who thought Cheney was “mean” was Askia, whose comment prompted your question in the first place, and who cites Cheney swearing at Leahy as evidence of him being “mean.” I agree, this is weak evidence. Cheney swearing at Leahy is probably the only thing he’s done in his entire life that I whole-heartedly approve of. (Nothing specific against Leahy, I’m just hold the belief that all politicians need to be cursed at as often as possible.) However, weak as it is, this is still more of a reason than “He’s evil and Republican.”
So, your claim that “the consensus” in that thread was that people think Cheney is mean because he “looks evil and is Republican” are shown to be entirely baseless. Two posters thought he was evil instead of mean, and one poster thought he was mean, but not because he was evil. No one mentioned him being a Republican, so I guess we can mark that one down as “conjecture” on your part. I can’t bring myself to use the phrase “biased opinion” with a straight face, so you’re off the hook on that one.
How long did it take the unforseen problems in Iraq to ‘metastasize’? Who did the ‘unforseeing’ there?
You claimed that "The guy has the brains to know where to push, where to back off, and where to say “fuck it, I’m taking over and making a decision”, yet you’re willing to give him a pass for repeated inability to see obvious problems?
Cheney doesn’t need to be Kreskin, but there are a fair number of other CEOs at big companies that haven’t instigated 5 billion dollar fuckups. Given that fact, I think you idolize the VP’s brainy abilities a bit too much.
Miller, we can quibble over semantics all night, but the fact remains that the responses I received regarding specific incidences illustrating Cheney’s alleged meanness were ‘impotent’, to say the least…exactly as I suggested.
Clearly, the revulsion most of the posters here have toward him is politically motivated rather than based on his actual behavior. People here think of him as mean because it suits their purpose, not because it’s an actual fact.
So he shoots the guy in the face, and when the Texas Hway cops come to give him a breath test and maybe talk things over a little…he says he’s too busy right now for that, come back in the morning, maybe…
His politics and his behaviour are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing when he hold a position such as Vice-President of the United States. What he does in public office is inseperable from his politics.
I have no trouble conceding that my dislike of Cheney is politically motivated. It is motivated by his politics and by his actions in pursuit of those politics, nearly all of which i am in strong disagreement with.
Your allegation, earlier in this thread, was that those who dislike Cheney hold the following position:
That’s quite different from disliking him for the specific policies and politics that he supports and promotes.
Every time i think you’ve reached the nadir of illogicality and lack of comprehension, you prove me wrong. It’s quite impressive, really.
