To Thread - Forum Home

The Mudcat Café TM
https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=125345
88 messages

BS: Cheney in 2012

27 Nov 09 - 08:57 PM (#2775264)
Subject: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

CNN today was raising the possibility that real Republicans may back Dick Cheney for president in 2012, and mentioned lovely Sarah as a running mate. The flyer is not new, the Huffington Post ran the story "Cheney in 2012" a couple of times (09-1-09 and 10-17-09).

The gist is that if the 2012 election were to turn to national security, according to Wall Street Journal writer James Taranto, "it is hard to think of a better candidate ... than Richard B. Cheney."

I'm sure the prospect excites some of our notable contributors, and will take their minds off such dull topics as "Christmas rant."
Having taken on Iraq and spilled over into Afghanistan, where should 'lovable Dick' turn next?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/01/cheney-in-some-key-g_n_273470.html

27 Nov 09 - 09:09 PM (#2775265)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: GUEST,999

This should be added onto the "(Mayan) 2012" thread. It seems they both herald the end of civilization as we know it.

27 Nov 09 - 09:23 PM (#2775270)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Rapparee

Hell will freeze first.

27 Nov 09 - 09:32 PM (#2775277)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Alice

and pigs will fly

27 Nov 09 - 09:38 PM (#2775280)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Jeri

Regarding the 'end of civilization', I think that sums it up. Guy can't even aim a shotgun or rifle or whateverthehellitwas, and he wants to have the Big Red Button!? Holy caust, Batman!

27 Nov 09 - 09:44 PM (#2775282)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Riginslinger

Speaking of pigs, Cheney has experienced a number of health problems and he's too old to run. On top of that, he's still on speaking terms with his lesbian daughter, so people who go to church will never vote for him.
               If he was running with Sarah, if the stock market tanked during the campaign he'd die of a heart attack, and Sarah would be moved up to the top of the ticket. She, of course, would probably win, but Cheney would have to fall on his sword to allow it to happen. Somebody with 5 deferments during the Vietnam War would never allow himself to do that.

27 Nov 09 - 09:58 PM (#2775291)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Charley Noble

Rig-

You may be right on this one. Still I'd love to see the old warrior try, and then have us invade China and show the world how a major economic country should be run, and with Democracy too!

But that would be wrong (not to mention incredibly foolish)!

Charley Noble

27 Nov 09 - 10:02 PM (#2775293)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Greg F.

... real Republicans may back Dick Cheney...

Define "real Republican".

27 Nov 09 - 10:13 PM (#2775303)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Greg F.- ask CNN. That's where I heard it.

27 Nov 09 - 10:22 PM (#2775314)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ebbie

Woo hee. I dun think so.

28 Nov 09 - 12:42 AM (#2775368)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk

What a horrifying thought.

28 Nov 09 - 05:55 AM (#2775436)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: kendall

I heard he died at Auchwitz.....he fell out of the guard tower.

28 Nov 09 - 10:57 AM (#2775545)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: GUEST,bankley

stranger things have happened... I still think that he'd look good in an orange jump suit... or naked at the bottom of a neo-con henchmen pyramid

28 Nov 09 - 11:24 AM (#2775555)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: katlaughing

Judging from what the idjits around here seem to think, I don't think it is so unlikely. There are people who would vote for him in a heartbeat.

28 Nov 09 - 01:34 PM (#2775626)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Jeri

Ron, that's a little kinky, no?

Makes me think of that detail in 'A Garden of Earthly Delights' with the upside-down naked person and a daisy sticking out of their arse, but there's a banshee wind outside and the day's just been strange.

28 Nov 09 - 03:21 PM (#2775713)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: SharonA

A Cheney-Palin ticket?????? Gag me.

If either one of them is ever elected President OR Vice President (or, in Cheney's case, elected Vice President again), I swear I'm moving out of the country. Got room for one more, Canada?

28 Nov 09 - 04:11 PM (#2775733)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Peter T.

We have our own lying and torture problems.....

Peter T.

28 Nov 09 - 04:18 PM (#2775738)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Peter, are you speaking of our revered dearly beloved upright and forthright PM?

28 Nov 09 - 04:57 PM (#2775761)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: GUEST,999

And our neighbours to the south are now wanting us to extend our 2011 deadline (and remain in Afghanistan). Oh, joy.

28 Nov 09 - 05:09 PM (#2775768)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: DougR

Huffington Post? What a laugh.

DougR

28 Nov 09 - 05:48 PM (#2775782)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies

Sarah has a hell of a lot more passionate support than Cheney ever will.   And her supporters won't be satisfied with second fiddle.

28 Nov 09 - 05:50 PM (#2775785)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Katlaughing is speaking of the west (Wyoming, Montana, etc.). I hear much the same from the southern states.

Cheney could not carry an election (?) but he has many supporters. I would hope that the Republicans would make better choices of candidates in 2012 than Cheney and Palin.

One has only to look at the 2008 election map and figures to see that the Democrats hold on Congress is precarious and their programs could be derailed by small shifts in the next congressional vote.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html

29 Nov 09 - 01:06 PM (#2776133)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: MarkS

A Cheney candidacy is real unlikely. The guy has heart problems and the stress could probably not be tolerated.

29 Nov 09 - 04:52 PM (#2776274)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Wesley S

From what I can figure Cheney would be 71 in 2012. The oldest president elected so far was Regan at 69. So his age would be a factor.Aside from the fact that he would be a God-awful president.

29 Nov 09 - 05:26 PM (#2776295)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ref

I don't see him as a credible voice on international affairs. Norman Schwartzkopf derided his ridiculous advice in Gulf War I, wanting to drop the airborne into Iraq and send the armor after them a la Arnhem. Cheney has always impressed the kind of fools who think a mean-spirited snarl equals toughness. Cheney is a coward and a braggart. Bad combination for a leader.

29 Nov 09 - 08:49 PM (#2776413)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: GUEST,Lox

Over my dead body ........ probably ...

29 Nov 09 - 09:18 PM (#2776423)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Bill D

Not DICK Cheney... his daughter! (Liz?)

She was on the circuit chanting the Cheneyline for months!

29 Nov 09 - 10:24 PM (#2776456)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Greg F.

Gee, I dunno Douggie-boy; Arianna was your heroine when she supported Gingrich & Dole.

Which is it that pisses you off more- that she's an educated (unlike som FOX blatherskites I could name), independent woman or that she ultimately saw thru the right-wing bullshit?

30 Nov 09 - 12:27 PM (#2776844)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk

What I anticipate is a constitutional amendment in 2011 that will allow foreign-born citizens to run for president. Then Arnold Schwarzenneger will divorce his wife, marry Sarah Palin (who will also have divorced her husband), and the TWO of them will run jointly for the office of president, with Jeb Bush as the (strictly ceremonial) VP. Palin and Schwarzenneger will BOTH take the Oath of Office, and they will make all decisions together as the First Couple from that point on. They will rule by decree. It will be a Brave New World Order founded upon Strength, Courage, and above all, Discipline!

30 Nov 09 - 04:43 PM (#2777027)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Bobert

I just got off the phone with Sarah and asked her about her running as Cheney's VP and this is what she said: "I wouldn't let that man carry my jock strap!!!"... And that is a quote...

Guess it's that time of the month???

B~

30 Nov 09 - 09:21 PM (#2777205)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Charley Noble

Little Hawk-

Once again your age and wisdom shines through.

What a vision!

I think I need another drink...

Charley Noble

30 Nov 09 - 09:24 PM (#2777207)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies

Sarah does arouse more passionate support than Cheney ever will, as I said. But thinking about it, that does not exclude the possibility of Cheney in 2012--as VP on Sarah's ticket. I'd say he has experience being VP, adds "gravitas"--if you're the type who would vote for Sarah--and could possibly be the power behind the throne---again.

And as a campaigner--who would wish for a more vicious attack dog, one of the main VP roles in a campaign?

I sure wouldn't wish this for the country--or the world.   But it hinges on the war and economy issues--much too far in the future now to predict. Things have to improve or this ticket is a strong possibility.   Fortunately there's still a lot of time.

30 Nov 09 - 09:36 PM (#2777216)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: frogprince

I know that there seems to be some credibilty to the idea that many Americans will vote for the candidate they would most like to have a beer with. But I truly hope that not that many would want to vote for the one they would most like to waterboard a Muslim with.

01 Dec 09 - 08:10 AM (#2777439)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Greg F.

...not that many would want to vote for the one they would most like to waterboard a Muslim with.

Don't wager too much money on it- ignorance coupled with fear can work wonders.

01 Dec 09 - 12:07 PM (#2777631)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Bee-dubya-ell

Dick Cheney does not deserve to be President of the US. He deserves a special room in Hell, with Osama Bin Laden as his cell mate.

I believe he intentionally ignored warnings that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks in hopes that a terrorist attack could be used as a propaganda tool to further his agenda. I don't believe he expected anything as huge as what actually happened - he expected an attack with tens of casualties, not thousands - but the fact that he was willing to allow even one person to be used as a sacrificial lamb to further his own neocon goals makes him an accessory to murder.


-------


As for Sarah Palin, if she were to actually attempt a run at the Presidency in 2012, her Republican primary opponents would chew her up and spit her out in small bloody chunks. She resigned an elected position to go off and be a celebrity. She's a quitter who reneged on her promise to the people of her state. Will she quit again if the Presidency isn't what she expected? It's one thing when Democrats say such things, but it's absolutely damning when her fellow Republicans say them, and if she enters the primaries they will be said.

If she's going to be part of the 2012 Republican ticket, it will be a reprise as Vice President so she doesn't have to go through the primary system*. As VP candidate the same Republicans who would have done their best to destroy her in the primaries can all rally to her defense as those mean old Democrats tell nasty vicious lies about her.


* As an aside, I think the current system of, essentially, appointing US Vice Presidential nominees is ludicrous. I firmly believe that VP nominees should be chosen from among the pool of Presidential primary candidates. That way we'd know that if he or she should ever assume the Presidency, we'd be getting someone who was at least interested enough in the job to have attempted to earn it instead of having had it presented gratis by the party PR experts.

01 Dec 09 - 12:34 PM (#2777659)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Donuel

Cheney despite his protestations of everyone but himself, is completly irrelvant. He is an old impotent man who clings to his delusion of elder statesmanship. Let him.

Instead of feeling outraged by the man who was formerly Dick Cheney, feel sad for him. Let him go.

Allow him to peacefully and compassionatley fade away. Let him leave this Earth with forgiveness.

Please allow this man to die eventually of an expected yet agonizing heart attack at 2:45AM on January 21st alone and linger in extreme palin for weeks until all the medical machinery in the world can no longer sustain this man's evil sick and twisted life of fear.

My God bless.

01 Dec 09 - 02:19 PM (#2777754)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Few doubt that 2010 will bring Democrat defeats in many ridings; they will lose control of their agenda. This will lead to a Republican victory in 2012 if they select a strong presidential candidate.

Dick Cheney will be a strong campaigner in 2010 for candidates in many states; Sarah Palin also will campaign across the country, but I doubt her influence.
2012 again will see Cheney as a strong campaigner although doubtfully as a presidential candidate. Huckabee is making noises, but there is no way he could carry a convention. A stronger contender is needed.

Regardless of the errors that led to the stupid war in Iraq, Obama will continue the war effort in Afghanistan; that will require troops for several more years while the effort slowly dies without resolution.

01 Dec 09 - 06:27 PM (#2777979)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies

Q--you're a Canadian after all.   I bet a nickel that very few Democrats--probably zero--will be defeated in any US ridings. Perhaps you can tell us which ones.







Now back to the originally scheduled program.


Obviously it's dangerous to predict the future. But that doesn't stop us from blithely giving it a try.   And of course all we have to go on is the past.

But, given those caveats, it seems Mudcatters are still doing an awful lot of whistling in the dark--as I've said more than once before.

"....if she were actually to attempt a run...". Would that it were so.

But I'm afraid it's not quite that simple.   As you know, primaries and caucuses are about passion. On the Republican side that has meant, for several elections now, 1) anti-abortion, 2)   anti-homosexuality   and 3) pro gun rights.

Of all the candidates, there is no question who has the anti-abortion vote locked up tight:   the only one who has "walked the walk":   Sarah. In the Iowa caucus this is likely to pay off in spades. Unless she loses this title between now and then. As I said, it's much too soon now to predict anything.

But she is in fact also quite strong on the other 2 "true believer" issues. Who's the poster girl of the NRA? Cheney?

The "quitter" label, much as the notion may comfort Mudcatters now, will likely be ancient history by 2012. And how many anti-abortionists in Iowa and elsewhere do you think care about "quitter" even now?   You'd best pick a low number.

Sarah's audience's in the US are often rapturous. That's not true of any other Republican at this point. And it translates into going the second mile--and then some--for her.

Also, look at the head of steam Obama had coming out of Iowa.   Iowa can make a huge difference.


And who knows how many women are ready for a woman president--even this one?   She already has the Susan B Anthony Society (anti-abortion) eating out of her hand. All she has to do is tack back to the center--sound reasonable on the campaign trail in the general election--note the Mudcatter who already thinks she can sound reasonable. And the war and/or economy issues (especially, as I've observed before, unemployment) to continue to be strongly negative for President Obama in 2012--as, like it or not, they appear to be now.


We can hope that 2012 will not be like 1980--but nobody knows.

It's much too early to write off Sarah--unfortunately.

01 Dec 09 - 06:41 PM (#2777991)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Bill D

Oh, pooh, Ron! *grin*...Sarah is not gonna run! It would require WORK...win or lose! She is in this for $$$$$$. People are (sadly) paying her big bucks to show up and be a celebrity and pretend she has clout! Many Republican are begging her to stay away!

What Democrats there are who take her even halfway seriously are hoping she WILL run for something and make an even bigger travesty of their (the Republican's) situation.

01 Dec 09 - 08:34 PM (#2778053)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

No problem if I want to return to the states, but I have no wish to.
I could order the Cheney mask that amazon.com is selling for $14.+ and not even bother with going to the consulate for the paper work.

Ron, Canadian politics are so dull that many Canadians know more about U. S. politics than they do about Canadian; they see and hear the same stuff, including polls, that Americans do.

As you say, the war/economic issues will continue to be negative for Obama. There will be a shift in Congress in 2010; small, but sufficient to put his objectives on hold.

01 Dec 09 - 09:45 PM (#2778068)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ref

Palin is nothing but an opportunist. Bill D has her pegged. I'm intrigued by Little Hawk's theory, though. Maybe those Republicans and her admirers in the MSM want to be disciplined by her?

01 Dec 09 - 10:48 PM (#2778113)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies

"Palin is nothing but an opportunist".   And how was, for instance, Reagan, not an opportunist?

It goes with the territory.

How many politicians have been disqualified by being "an opportunist"?

That's a weak reed to disqualify Palin.

It's time for Mudcatters to stop underestimating the opposition.   Liberals have been doing it for quite a while--and paying the price.   And I consider myself a liberal--though trying to be one who recognizes reality, and tries to deal with it.

By 2011 she'll be a millionaire easily.   Then it's on to the next challenge.

01 Dec 09 - 10:51 PM (#2778114)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies

I didn't however say that the war and economy issues will continue to be negative for President Obama.

What I said is that IF that is the case, he will have serious problems--from any Republican.

And she is in a very good position to win the lion's share of primaries. At this point--it's still much too far in the future to predict anything.

01 Dec 09 - 11:00 PM (#2778117)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies

I misspoke.   She's already a millionaire.   Now she builds up debts among fellow politicians by speaking (for conservatives, of course).   Then in 2011 she collects on those debts.   Sound familiar? Check Reagan's trajectory.

02 Dec 09 - 01:48 AM (#2778185)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk

You're right, Ron, and that's exactly what Schwarzennegger is counting on. Mark my words. ;-) You vill be living in ze Fourth Reich by 2013, und you vill luff it! Or else.

02 Dec 09 - 05:45 AM (#2778279)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: kendall

I would like to see Dick head Cheney and Caribou Barbie run for the big office. It would be a one way trip to the dustbin of history where they would join the likes of Father Coughlin (sp), Westbrook Pegler and Joe McCarty.

02 Dec 09 - 07:24 AM (#2778354)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies

Sorry.   The parallel between Reagan and Sarah is far stronger than between Sarah and Joe McCarthy, for instance.

There are all sorts of people, not just the great unwashed, who are ready to vote for Sarah.   And she, not Cheney, would be at the head of the ticket (in the dystopia I envision). Though he would make a classically typical VP--in the campaign at least.   Question of course as to whether she would let herself be steered while in office as much as the faux cowboy we just had for 8 years.

I was talking yesterday to a friend of mine at work here in the DC area (who's also in the same choral group). He's a tenor--but I don't hold that against him.

I asked him if he could imagine voting for Sarah.   He's intelligent, articulate, a computer expert, and a good-natured guy. And very conservative politically, though not musically.   Voting for Sarah?. He immediately said:   "Absolutely."

Watch out, people.   Sarah is a big threat. Far bigger than anybody else on the Republican side at this point.   And for the reasons I cited: The passionate support she has. And the chance to make inroads among women.

The broken record yet again: it all hinges on the war and the economy.   Both have to improve drastically between now and 2012, or President Obama has big trouble.   From any Republican.   And Sarah is the strongest.

02 Dec 09 - 08:20 AM (#2778399)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: kendall

Logic and politics have never been Mates.

02 Dec 09 - 09:59 AM (#2778475)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Donuel

right on Bee dubya ell


Many of you have forgotten that this man has had 6 heart attacks.
I have thought if he had a pig or a baboon heart transplant he might become more human.

Gravitas my ass.

02 Dec 09 - 06:19 PM (#2779014)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies

Thanks, Donuel, for your unbiased observation. If you read carefully you might find that I said "gravitas" to those who might vote for Sarah.   Interesting that you put yourself in that category. You learn something new every day.

02 Dec 09 - 07:37 PM (#2779066)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ref

Palin has also proven to have a remarkably "tin" ear for politics. She's been invited to speak to groups in Iowa and New Hampshire recently. In both cases, she demanded $100,000 fees and veto power over the presence of any media. This is NOT how you build support i those places.

03 Dec 09 - 08:27 PM (#2780134)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies

Re: Palin's "tin ear" for politics. This is dubious.   I wish you were correct but I suspect there's an element of wishful thinking.

1)   source please for $100,000 fees and veto power over media. NB:   this must be requested by the Palin group, not, for instance the Mall of America

2) Did she in fact give the planned speech?

3) If so, what was the reaction of the audience--attendees, not the press

What you need is proof that the Palin fever is ebbing. I have seen none.

03 Dec 09 - 08:28 PM (#2780135)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies

"...not the press?"

04 Dec 09 - 03:56 PM (#2780800)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Riginslinger

Well, what then?

04 Dec 09 - 04:46 PM (#2780840)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Ref is incorrect about Sarah Palin requesting $100,000 to speak in Iowa.
The "Iowa Family Policy Center" planned to raise that sum to bring her to the state. No indication that she had asked for the money. Newsweek and other reports; but all sorts of bullshit blogs trying to make a story out of it.

Groups supporting Palin are beginning to raise money to support a 2012 bid; nothing different from any other projected campaign.

04 Dec 09 - 09:09 PM (#2781011)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies

"no indication that she had asked for the money"

That's why I asked for a source on this.

It's a bit discouraging how blithely some of my fellow liberals accept rumors as long as they are unfavorable to opponents.

Insisting on sources and facts is an aspect of dealing with reality--which some, it seems, prefer not to do. In the long run, you have to do it--or you lose.

Wishful thinking doesn't win many elections.

04 Dec 09 - 09:38 PM (#2781023)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ebbie

Someone remarked that Cheney is an "old man"- did you realize that his birthdate is January 30, 1941?

04 Dec 09 - 10:35 PM (#2781037)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Riginslinger

Wow, he sure looks older than that, and his cardiovascular system must be 106 years of age, probably because of what he refers to as a "free market economy." It produces a lot of cheeseburgers, because that's all people can afford to eat anymore.

05 Dec 09 - 01:22 PM (#2781410)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Should Colin Powell move into the ring? Who would be a creditable candidate in 2012 other than Sarah Palin?

05 Dec 09 - 01:24 PM (#2781411)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk

How about Condoleeza Rice? ;-)

05 Dec 09 - 01:31 PM (#2781415)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: pdq

"Should Colin Powell move into the ring?"

As a Demcrat?

He endorsed Obama and turned his back on McCain.

05 Dec 09 - 01:38 PM (#2781420)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk

If you did away with those 2 goddamn f*cking parties and had people run as independent people with their own ideas rather than representatives of some f*cking political party, that wouldn't be a problem, would it?

Do you get that I don't like political parties? ;-)

05 Dec 09 - 01:40 PM (#2781421)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Haven't heard of Rice for awhile.
Professor of Political Science at Stanford, where she had been Provost; Also with the Hoover Institute, according to Wikipedia.
Not a bad choice, but perhaps too low key to stir up sufficient support.
She did stir up some pretty nasty attacks from the far lefties.

05 Dec 09 - 01:45 PM (#2781427)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies

A lot can happen between now and, say, 2011, but at this point Palin has the Republican nomination for 2012--and nobody else comes remotely close. Just because of the way the primary system is set up---to reward passion.

I used to think Jindal was a live possibility--but his profile is so low these days you can't even see him.   That could change--who knows?

05 Dec 09 - 01:50 PM (#2781433)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk

Well, I was being a bit flippant, but Condoleeza Rice might actually be a pretty strong candidate for the Republicans. It would be amusing to see them "out-liberal" the Democrats by running the first Black AND female candidate for president. Yikes! What a conundrum it would be for both extreme liberal activists and extreme redneck Republican voters. If Condoleeza could also "come out" and announce that she is a lesbian (or a bisexual?) before she runs for president, that would just add the icing to the cake! Traditional voting blocs for both sides would get turned on their heads.

LOL! And what grist for the media. I have to write a letter to Ms. Rice and the Republican National Committee suggesting that they give it a go.

Speaking more seriously about it, though, I remember talking to a longtime Republican back during the later years of the Bush administration. He admitted that George Bush had become a real disappointment, but he said he'd vote for Condoleeza Rice in an instant, and that she'd make a great president. I think a fair number of other people in the USA might feel the same as he did. She is seen as smart, tough-minded, and capable by a great many people.

05 Dec 09 - 02:01 PM (#2781441)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: pdq

She can play some real mean Chopin on the piano, too.

05 Dec 09 - 02:07 PM (#2781449)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk

No kidding?

Well, good for her.

05 Dec 09 - 02:11 PM (#2781452)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: ToeRag

Hush,there goes the promter's bell. Now the curtain rises.

05 Dec 09 - 05:28 PM (#2781597)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies

Flash:   Sarah is cozying up to the crackpots. She said on a (conservative) radio interview--I believe the name is Andrews-- just recently that President Obama's birth certificate is a "fair question.   I don't have a problem with that."

The more she does that sort of thing, the less likely anybody who thinks will vote for her. And that includes a fair number of Republicans. She should be pressed on this point in every interview she gives from now on. She did back away later after the interview--but she should be forced to totally disassociate herself from the "birther" movement--or face the scorn of every sentient being. The main goal actually being to get her to refuse to sever ties with this group--and therefore brand herself as close to a crackpot.   Guilt by association works in politics--the Right certainly uses it.

Maybe this runaway train can be stopped after all.

05 Dec 09 - 05:33 PM (#2781599)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies

The name of the "host" is Rusty Humphries.

05 Dec 09 - 06:25 PM (#2781641)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk

"or face the scorn of every sentient being"

Say what???? Are you suggesting, Ron, that anyone who thinks Obama may not have been born in the USA is not sentient???

(I'm obviously asking that question tongue-in-cheek. ;-) But isn't it going a bit far to insist that people who hold some opinion that differs from yours are incapable of even thinking?)

I bet there are sentient beings out there who think Obama was born outside the USA.

I'm not one of them, though I have no way of being absolutely certain where he was born... I frankly don't even care where he was born! I don't think it matters. But I do realize it's a burning issue for some Americans.

05 Dec 09 - 07:39 PM (#2781701)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Q (Frank Staplin)

Obama's birth certificate, and his family's friends , testify to his Hawaiian birth. This question was much circulated in emails and blogs in the election. It should have died out by now.
In interviews, Palin tends to talk from the top of her head. She must learn to control herself or she will not be taken seriously.

05 Dec 09 - 10:15 PM (#2781788)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ref

Little Hawk, those people who'd vote for Condoleeza Rice are as delusional as any who'd vote for Caribou Barbie. Rice had clearly reached her level of incompetence as National Security Adviser. Remember "Nobody thought they'd fly jets into buildings" as her excuse for how flat-footed they were about 9/11? In documented reality, MANY security experts had predicted exactly that. She's another one who won't last under the hot lights of actual candidacy.

05 Dec 09 - 11:24 PM (#2781820)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk

Oh, I quite agree with you, Ref. Yes, they are delusional. I sure as hell would not vote for Condoleeza Rice, let me tell you.

05 Dec 09 - 11:29 PM (#2781822)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: frogprince

L.H., I seriously doubt that more than a small minority of the "birthers" could come up with as much hard evidence of their place of birth as there is for Obama's. To me, that puts most of them outside the realm of "sentient" thinking/defensible opinion, at least as to the point in question.

05 Dec 09 - 11:43 PM (#2781831)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk

Ah, yes...but they are still quite sure where they were born! Regardless of evidence. ;-) Why? Well, because because people whom they feel they can trust (meaning their parents) told them where they were born, and that's what they go on, regardless of the presence (or not) of some apparently relevant official document saying where they were born.

An official document can be filled out in error. It can be a lie. It can be forged. Nothing else will convince a person of where they were born more than hearing about it from someone they personally trust...such as their Mom or Dad.

Since the birthers never knew Obama's Mom or Dad, all they really have to go on is various opinions that they hear from other people, and a birth certificate they've heard about also from other people. If they don't trust the people they've hear about it from, then they won't believe it. If they do believe the people they hear about it from who say that Obama wasn't born in America, then that's what they'll believe.

You see?

People believe what they wish to believe. This is true of almost all people almost all the time. Only when confronted with massive and irrefutable evidence to the contrary will they alter their favored set of beliefs.

Within their chosen set of beliefs, they are sentient and rational. But their sentience or at least their rationality stops dead at the barrier beyond which they are unwilling to go, and that barrier is the outer boundary of what they want to believe.

Watch a movie "The Downfall" about the last days in Hitler's bunker for a chilling demonstration of those dynamics at work in some highly intelligent people....but people hemmed in by strong political beliefs. Some of them eventually broke past the barriers of their own chosen beliefs and saw the reality of the situation. Others could not do so, and they chose death instead.

05 Dec 09 - 11:52 PM (#2781835)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: frogprince

It wouldn't take diddly for someone with substantial resources to forge a birth certificate, "short form" or "long form"; but let's see you do a credible job of inserting a forged birth announcement into the 40 year old archives of two newspapers.

06 Dec 09 - 03:41 AM (#2781905)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk

Excellent point! I find it quite persuasive.

However, I think you underestimate the sheer mental determination of people who want to believe something. What they will do is say, "I don't believe that story about the 40-year old newspapers. I think the news people who are spreading that story have been paid off by the Obama campaign to falsify the information, and I think the pictures they've shown on the media are faked, digitally altered. I won't believe it until I HOLD one of those old newspapers in my very own hands."

And they just go on listening to whoever says what they already want to hear.

Isn't that what most people do most of the time? They read what they agree with, seek out information that helps their case, listen to whoever says what they want to hear, and ignore or discount the rest.

06 Dec 09 - 08:39 AM (#2782030)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ref

What the "birthers" care about, like most of the Tea Party crowd, is that someone who isn't pink is living in the White House.

06 Dec 09 - 08:54 PM (#2782511)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk

Plus...he's a Democrat! Don't forget that. It's a double whammy.

06 Dec 09 - 09:32 PM (#2782533)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ref

'Cause Democrats aren't REAL Presidents!

06 Dec 09 - 09:35 PM (#2782535)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk

Now you're talkin'! Want to join the Young Republicans? ;-)

06 Dec 09 - 10:01 PM (#2782546)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies

Re: "sentient being":

LH--you really need to make it a high priority to hear Micca sing his great song:   "Hyperbole".

Ch: "I never meant to be taken literally/ I never thought (he) would/.   If (he) can't understand hyperbole/ It's damn near time he should"

There's a poster here who loves to wax lyrical on the "$ystem". The difference between me and this poster is that I know when I'm using hyperbole. The other poster in question however actually seems to be dead serious in believing in an omnipotent and oppressive "$ystem", when to quite a few readers it seems clear his depiction of the political situation is classic hyperbole.

I do like the phrase "sentient being". But not by quite a bit as much as the poster in question likes to talk about his "$ystem".

06 Dec 09 - 10:37 PM (#2782557)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk

Ron, it is you who are making the mistake of taking me literally in that post you allude to. ;-) You must get a better feel for my freewheeling sense of humour in these political discussions. The joke was meant to be shared with you and others, not debated as if it were serious commentary. Of course I knew you were using hyperbole when you said "sentient being". After all, you're not stupid, are you?

The word I use is "$ySStem". The $ part symbolizes the immense power of money that controls and manages the ruling $ySStem and allows it to manipulate both elections and legislation. The "SS" symbolizes the authoritarian, quasi-fascist methodology and intentions behind it all...a la Hitler's famous (or infamous?) SS corps.

The $ySStem is not omnipotent, because it's too stupid and unwieldy and far too unrealistic to ever become omnipotent...though it certainly desires to do so.

07 Dec 09 - 07:16 AM (#2782759)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Ron Davies

Ah LH, but the question is if you are in fact using hyperbole when referring to the "$$ystem".   (It's your word--the spelling doesn't come easy for the rest of us).

If you are using hyperbole when you say "$$ystem", or however you spell it, hats off to you.

Otherwise it's just too pat an answer for economic phenomena.

07 Dec 09 - 01:36 PM (#2783055)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Little Hawk

Well, Ron, it's a little hard to say if it's hyperbole or not. On the one hand, what I mean by "the $ySStem" is simply "the way things work in an overall sense in the present society".

That is, I don't mean that there is a specific and perfectly organized hierarchy of controllers with specific officers in place at every level, and that has the whole thing organized right down to to every jot and tittle, and which controls everything in detail. No.

But what I do mean is that the forces of Big Money control what generally occurs in an overall sense in terms of politics, war, legislation, and marketing, and that those forces are in the hands of relatively few people...all of them very rich. They are, of course, in it for their own gain, so there is much infighting among them.

So is that hyperbole or is it not?

07 Dec 09 - 02:58 PM (#2783122)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Regarding the 'end of civilization', I think that sums it up. Guy can't even aim a shotgun or rifle or whateverthehellitwas, and he wants to have the Big Red Button!? Holy caust, Batman!""

He's not the screw-up who can't aim a shotgun Jeri, he's the f**king brain dead target who doesn't know enough not to stand in front of ole dead-eye Georgie W Bush, when HE has a loaded crowd killer in his hands.

Don T

08 Dec 09 - 11:05 AM (#2783766)
Subject: RE: BS: Cheney in 2012
From: GUEST,seth in Olympia

I've always kind of appreciated Cheney's snarling, anti-hero personality. I love the image of Cheney at the Holocaust commeration in Germany a few years ago, the rest of the world leaders in somber and appropriate dark suits and ties, and Cheney lookin' like he's been trying to clear the fuckin' blockage on his fuckin' snowblower! Too bad his politics suck, and that he seems to be a awful excuse for anyone who ever had anything to do with public policy.
And I don't begrudge him his five deferments. That is the combination that a lot of young men were trying to put together then. I wish I could have made that "five-fecta" work like he did.
I 'd like to suggest some candidates to run with Cheney in 2012:Miles Davis,Jerry Lee Lewis, Charles Bukowski,Clifton Chenier, Sonny Boy Williamson, Mississippi Big Joe Williams, Tom Waits... I don't think not being alive should prevent one from being a candidate, as long as you are born in the U.S.
from seth