On Face the Nation , Cheney chooses Limbaugh over Powell, "politically"

by LuvLuLu (May 10, 2009 12:31 pm ET)

8 1

Today on one of the Sunday morning talk shows, John McCain said that the Republican Party needs to have a big tent, to allow people who agree with the general philosphy of the party but have individual topics upon which they disagree to stay in the Republican Party.

Cheney's idea? To boot out anyone who doesn't agree 100% with Cheney. He'd boot out anyone who isn't dedicated to maintaining the political purity that he espouses.

Reply Report Abuse

by fairliberal (May 10, 2009 12:58 pm ET)
15

After the disgraceful way that the dems treated Joe Lieberman, they should keep their mouths shut on this issue.

Reply Report Abuse
- by 1st Republic 14th Star (May 10, 2009 1:08 pm ET)
  9 1
  
  What are you talking about? When Lieberman lost the Democratic primary for his Senate seat, ran as an independent, defeated the Democratic nominee, supported George W. Bush on everything including torture, spoke at the Republican national convention, and campaigned for the Republican presidential nominee, Democrats exacted revenge on him by allowing him to stay in their caucus and keep his seniority and committee chairmanships.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by fairliberal (May 10, 2009 2:15 pm ET)
    11
    
    After being a loyal Dem for about 20 years he had the audacity to stick with his conscience on the war issue and most dems worked hard to defeat him in the primary, how dare he think for himself. But the people of Conn and Joe had the last laugh. And the dems allowed him to stay in their caucus for one reason only, they wanted his vote and knew he was still a liberal on most issues. The dems reserve their loyality for morally bankrupt individuals like Ted Kennedy and turn their backs on honorable people like Liberman, how noble.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by jbrantow (May 10, 2009 2:35 pm ET)
      6
      
      "how dare he think for himself." What a joke statement comming from someone who supports republicans.....The party of doing anything for political purposes and whatever they're told to do.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by mybrotherskeeper (May 11, 2009 2:15 pm ET)
        1
        
        WARNING: What follows, for at least half of the page, are comments that take the discussion off-topic in reply to probable troll 'fairliberal.'
        
        Reply Report Abuse
    - by MickD (May 10, 2009 2:36 pm ET)
      5
      
      You have a strange compass for morality.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
    - by Brabantio (May 10, 2009 4:25 pm ET)
      7
      
      He had every right to think for himself. Democrats disagreed with his stance, and voted against him in the primary.
      
      What part of "democracy" don't you understand?
      
      Reply Report Abuse
    - by military_husband (May 10, 2009 7:36 pm ET)
      7
      
      You really need to check your facts. He lost the primary for more than just his stance on the war. I know because I was actually close enough to get local news. He lost the primary because he was never in the state, did not seem to care what the people wanted and found it more important to appear on Fox news than to meet with other Conn representatives. He barely even campaigned in the primary until he realized he was losing about 4 weeks out. Oh and ALMOST EVERY MAJOR DEMOCRAT backed him in the primary. In the general, no (some still did), but in the primary yes.
      
      AFTER he lost the primary he stayed in the state and off of Fox news. He suddenly talked about a responsible end to the war and of course claimed that his opponent hacked his website. He has since gone back on just about everything he said to get elected. He will lose next election to anyone willing to run against him from either party. He knew that and that is why he angled to get a spot in McCain's cabinet if he got elected. Now he is just holding space for the next Senator from Conn.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by fairliberal (May 10, 2009 10:47 pm ET)
        2
        
        Yes I was wrong about the support he had in the primary, while he was taking alot of heat from the left of the party, most major dems did in fact support him in the primary, including Dodd and Bill Clinton. And once he lost the primary , his fellow dems had no choice really but to support Lamont. So I must eat crow on this , I was wrong. But I do believe it was mainly his war position that cost him the primary, Lamont's primary position was that he was too close to Bush and Bush policies in general.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by Brabantio (May 11, 2009 12:32 am ET)
        3
        
        "But I do believe it was mainly his war position that cost him the primary, Lamont's primary position was that he was too close to Bush and Bush policies in general."
        
        I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but I don't know where that takes you. The war wasn't popular, and that was a huge factor. And of course Lamont painted him as close to Bush. When you've got a picture of Bush kissing someone, you use it. Lamont would have been crazy not to hammer that impression into people's minds.
        
        I have to add that Lieberman's position on hospitals refusing to give emergency contraception to rape victims, where he said that such people could simply go to another hospital, was atrocious. Even if he opposed the war I would vote against him in a primary for that reason alone, and I think many others would as well. It just didn't get as much play as the war issue, of course.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by worrierking (May 11, 2009 8:33 am ET)
        2
        
        You're correct Brab. Every woman I know in Connecticut is outraged over his lack of empathy towards rape victims.
        
        That and his support of the war was what cost him the Democratic primary.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by solon (May 11, 2009 1:42 pm ET)
        2
        
        I think it was more than just his support for the war I also think it was the way he insulted those AGAINST the war.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by Brabantio (May 11, 2009 4:44 pm ET)
        
        That's an excellent point and an important distinction to make.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by military_husband (May 11, 2009 1:15 am ET)
        1
        
        And still a bit off. Lamont did claim he was with Bush on the war, but he also talked about how Lieberman had abandoned the voters of Connecticut. He was almost never in the state and Lamont would talk about the number of days he had been in the state in the last 2 years on the campaign trail. No he lost for the same reason he won, the amount of time he spent in the state talking about things the voters actually cared about.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by Kingmaker (May 11, 2009 8:29 am ET)
        
        Part of "thinking for yourself" is the willingness to deal with the consequences for your actions. He lost the primary as a result of his descisions (which in retrospect were pretty horrible). He wasn't punished by the Democratic party. Exactly how much nicer should the Democrats have been? Nominated him again for VP?
        
        Reply Report Abuse
    - by happygoluckytoyou2345 (May 11, 2009 9:59 am ET)
      
      most dems worked hard to defeat him in the primary, how dare he think for himself.
      
      WRONG... LIARMAN SHOULD THINK FOR HIMSELF.... so should the democrats.... JUST BECAUSE he was a dem of 20 years, when he stuck with his opinons---> THOSE OF HIS PARTY DISAGREED WITH HIM AND BOOTED HIS USELESS LYING ASS OUT OF THEIR PARTY... noble liarman is not in step with the party, and they booted him out---> sounds exactly like good decisions ALL AROUND
      
      Reply Report Abuse
- by LuvLuLu (May 10, 2009 1:20 pm ET)
  6
  
  So the Dems (and yes, it has to be capitalized as a Proper Noun - what grade are you in that you don't know that?) are supposed to give full support to a guy who spoke in favor of the opposition's nominee at the opposition party's nominating convention? After he ran against the guy who fairly and openly won the Democratic nomination? After he won because he got tons of Republicans votes in Connecticut?
  
  The Dems were not disgraceful in the way they treated Lieberman. In fact, they have given him more than he deserves, considering the way he's behaved.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by fairliberal (May 10, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
    9
    
    You are forgetting one important fact, he did not oppose any dem until after he had been stabbed in the back by his own party.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by catfish1968 (May 10, 2009 5:44 pm ET)
      5
      
      Lieberman was, and is, a terrible candidate. I wouldn't vote for him, ever.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
    - by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 10, 2009 6:23 pm ET)
      3
      
      he did not oppose any dem until after he had been stabbed in the back by his own party
      
      How, by losing the primary? That's democracy in action. I am not surprised you don't understand that. For the likes of you, stealing the election is the only way to win.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
- by worrierking (May 10, 2009 1:20 pm ET)
  7 1
  
  Why blame the Democrats for supporting the candidate that won the Democratic Primary in Connecticut?
  
  Do you think that the Republican Party will work to elect someone other than the winner of their primary?
  
  Your hypocrisy is showing.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by fairliberal (May 10, 2009 2:17 pm ET)
    1 10
    
    No it is your hypocracy that is showing, the dems worked hard to defeat him in the primary. Who did Dodd support for example.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by worrierking (May 10, 2009 4:45 pm ET)
      6
      
      You may not be up on what goes on in the State of Connecticut but as a former constituent of Joe's and someone who still spends a lot of time in the state I know that Joe has drifted more to the right as time passes.
      
      He has taken stands against consumers, sided with hospitals against rape victims, supported No Child Left Behind and sided with the Bush Justice department in it's attempt to legalize torture.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by fairliberal (May 10, 2009 6:44 pm ET)
        5
        
        Joe has always leaned right on defense and security issues and has always been solidly to the left on social and domestic issues. I don't think it was a matter of him changing but the party surely moved further left. But still it is unusual for a 3 term incumbent to be abandoned by his party.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by friedbergboy1422 (May 10, 2009 6:58 pm ET)
        6
        
        So, you support Lincoln Chafee as a Republican, correct? I can't believe that you think that Cheney supporting a talk show host who spouts red meat over the Secretary of State from his own administration is acceptable.
        
        Limbaugh is nothing but a stooge.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by military_husband (May 10, 2009 7:43 pm ET)
        5
        
        I will repeat it again here, almost all major democrats supported Lieberman in the primary. Pointing to one guy just does not cut it. He also lost because he was never in the state, decided doing national talk shows was more important than his constituents, AND disagreed with many in his STATE about the war. AFTER losing the primary, he almost never left the state, was not on all of the talk shows, called for "responsible end to the war in Iraq", and claimed his opponent hacked his website. He also had the Republican party defund their candidate and pretty much begged all republicans to vote for Lieberman. Now THAT is stabbing your candidate in the back!
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by worrierking (May 11, 2009 8:37 am ET)
        
        No one, will ever, in a million years, be elected Senator in Connecticut unless he's in support of defense.
        
        Connecticut has always led the nation in per capita defense contract spending.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
    - by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 10, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
      3
      
      No it is your hypocracy (sic) that is showing
      
      OK, now that you've mastered "I know you are, but what am I," can "I'm rubber, you're glue" be far behind?
      
      By the way, the word is "hypocrisy." "Hypocracy" means "government by syringe."
      
      Reply Report Abuse
- by canaanxing9025 (May 10, 2009 1:39 pm ET)
  1 6
  
  Fairliberal:
  
  A lot of people in Connecticut were disgusted by the way the Democrats treated Joe Liberman. The Democrats didn't seem to realize how well respected and popular he was with both sides . They blew it, and Joe Liberman is still a Senator.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by canaanxing9025 (May 10, 2009 1:41 pm ET)
    2
    
    Sorry, that is Lieberman - and he is my bleeping Senator :)
    
    Reply Report Abuse
  - by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 10, 2009 6:29 pm ET)
    3
    
    The Democrats didn't seem to realize how well respected and popular he was with both sides.
    
    So that's why he lost the Democratic primary and only won the Senate seat because the GOP abandoned their candidate and funded him? That puts the lie to your statement.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by canaanxing9025 (May 11, 2009 7:02 pm ET)
      
      Easy to refute wingnuts:
      
      "The Democrats didn't seem to realize how well respected and popular he was with both side."
      
      "... the GOP abandoned their candidate and funded him? That puts the lie to your statement."
      
      No, it proves my statement. Connecticut has long been proud of its' support for independents. As Fairliberal pointed out, Connecticut depends on defense for its economy, However, we are liberal on most social issues. Again, Joe was (is) well respected in the State, and that is why both Democrats and Republicans voted him. That is why he won.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
  - by military_husband (May 10, 2009 7:50 pm ET)
    3
    
    No, the people of Connecticut were not disgusted by the treatment of Lieberman. Maybe some were, but not all that many as can be seen quite clearly by his tanking approval rating over the last 2 years. He promised to be a good boy and listen to the people of the state and has done very little of that. He will not be missed after 2012.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
- by mybrotherskeeper (May 10, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
  5
  
  The way Joe Lieberman treated the Democratic Party at the GOP convention was inexecusable. He has no cause for complaint for any treatment he gets from any Democrat.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by fairliberal (May 10, 2009 3:31 pm ET)
    1 7
    
    You have it backwards as usual. after being mistreated by the dems for years , he gave it back to them. Good for him. Had the likes of Dodd and others not stabbed him in the back, he would still be a loyal dem.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by princeofwheels (May 10, 2009 5:23 pm ET)
      3
      
      Just so Joe votes YES on health care, then I'm happy.
      Spector too. Besides, knife wounds heal especially with SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE.
      Send over some more votes. Maybe Cheney will throw the Moral Majority out also. Keep throwin' Dick.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
    - by ewl94232 (May 10, 2009 6:38 pm ET)
      2
      
      fairliberal has it right and the rest of you are rewriting history, if you ever knew that history in the first place. Joe is a dedicated Liberal. Like most Liberals, prior to it becoming an issue they could scoop up part of the extreme anti-American-Imperialism fringe with, he is also a nationalist who cares about the defense of America and isn't offended by the idea of treating this countries' enemies like what they are, enemies. As Obama continues to pursue the war against whatever branching off of, mutation from or ally of Al Quaida is currently acting against us or our allies most of you will rediscover that Liberalism and pacifism aren't synonimus. Our biggest wars in the last hundred years were all started under Liberal administrations.
      
      Dick Cheney is even more poorly understood by most of you. But being incapable of objective thought on such subjects, you'll have to hope for time to heal that defecit.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by Stargnoc (May 12, 2009 8:05 pm ET)
        
        He's not a liberal, he's a morally bankrupt scumbag.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
    - by mybrotherskeeper (May 10, 2009 6:41 pm ET)
      2
      
      Re: "You have it backwards as usual."
      
      Well, OK. I do have to admit that I am not an expert on Connecticut politics. But unless you can provide just one example to back up the "as usual" part, I will have to assume you are an Ann Coulter fan who did not like my recent similar post about her not making sense "as usual."
      
      In his RNC convention speech, Lieberman mostly defended a friend he felt had been unfairly attacked, and pointed out (with convention-style exaggeration) that Obama was inexperienced. But he had also promised prior to his speech to only say good things about McCain, and not to attack Obama. He broke that promise.
      
      Here is how The Washington Post's Chris Cilliza summed things up, post-election, in his regular column, "The Fix:" http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/democratic-party/the-lieberman-conundrum.html
      
      BTW, I thought Lieberman had some good ideas when he ran for president in '04.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
    - by military_husband (May 10, 2009 7:54 pm ET)
      3
      
      Nope, you have it wrong. He mistreated his constituents by ignoring them. They told him to shape up in the primary and he appeared to listen during the campaign up to the general. It is clear now that he did not and will be gone soon enough.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
- by mari2jj2970 (May 10, 2009 9:41 pm ET)
  1
  
  Actually, Lieberman is still welcome in the DemocratIC caucus in the Senate and he has been treated very fairly even considering he worked for the opponent to the Democratic Candidate. While of late, Lieberman has seemed to get back to his normal self, any problem caucusing with the Democrats was Lieberman's problem. You see, I was a Republican and I have been to meetings and I know the sorts of discussions that have gone on in a Republican precinct meeting. Really low life sorts of plans when there is a Democratic President. After switching parties, so far, I have not found that sort of hate filled rhetoric amongst the Democrats. Time will tell. However, with the long history of malfeasance of the entire Bush junta I could not in conscience stay in the Republican Party. While obviously, Vic President Cheney led President Bush around by the nose, in the end, both of them are absolutely responsible for their criminal activities and the sooner they face a trial, the better for our entire country. I am now enjoying a breath of fresh air at Democratic precinct meetings.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by snoopy (May 10, 2009 10:44 pm ET)
  3
  
  After the disgraceful way republicans treated any american who dared disagree with them, they should move to russia where their methodology would be welcomed.
  
  BTW, you're gonna hate this graph. Bush really screwed your party...
  
  http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/bush-may-haunt-republicans-for.html
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by Luis81 (May 11, 2009 8:07 am ET)
  
  Please don't confuse Lieberman's party betrayel with Powell's refusal to abide by the Bush/Cheney preference towards cronyism.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by historygeek001 (May 11, 2009 1:10 pm ET)
  
  Fairliberal:
  
  Lieberman LOST THE PRIMARY TO NED LAMONT. HE L O S T. He does not deserve any special consideration just because he was so hungry for power that he decided to bail on the Democrats to maintain his seat. You're raving.
  
  Reply Report Abuse

by dsdnburg112 (May 11, 2009 9:55 am ET)

The former co-president, Richard Bruce Cheney and the RNC leader, Rush "Boss" Limbaugh talked the United States into an illegal war with Iraq costing taxpayers trillions of dollars. The aftermath of which has caused millions of innocent people in America and The Middle-East to be killed, injured or displaced from their homes.

It is very difficult to believe that the team of Cheney/Limbaugh would have an ounce of support from anyone in the world for the torture and carnage that this war has brought.

However, for some unknown reason, the Pro-life, Lemming, Christian, Conservative, Republican community stay solidly in favor on these issues. They are undoubtedly faithfull to their leaders, at any cost, and agree with all the Cheney/Limbaugh ill-fated decisions.

God help us if the Cheney/Limbaugh political party ever regains power!

Reply Report Abuse
- by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 11, 2009 1:40 pm ET)
  1
  
  "The aftermath of which has caused millions of innocent people in America and The Middle-East to be killed, injured or displaced from their homes."
  
  THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!
  How many people in the U.S. have been displaced or killed because of Iraq? How many people in Iraq? I'm afraid your hysteria has out run your keyboard!
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by mybrotherskeeper (May 11, 2009 2:12 pm ET)
    1
    
    I believe at least two million Iraqis have been displaced, and in addition to the 5,000 or so U.S. combat fatalities, there have been at least 10,000 other U.S. casualties, including a large number of severe head injuries, and a fairly high number of suicides as well among combat veterans.
    
    Reply Report Abuse

by DAWUSS (May 10, 2009 1:06 pm ET)

Is anyone surprised?

Reply Report Abuse

by canaanxing9025 (May 10, 2009 1:06 pm ET)

6

I just wish that someone in the Republican Party would stand up to Rush Limbaugh. He and his ilk are destroying the Party with their lies, half truths, hate mongering and anger. Until the Party disowns him and his rhetoric, they will remain the the minority Party.

Sadly,the nation will be the worse for it. We need reasonable people debating reasonably, not people who just want to be quoted for the sake of their egos and personal wealth.

Reply Report Abuse

by dave (May 10, 2009 1:59 pm ET)
1 1

The R party is destroying itself. Rush is right by letting them know it. Their core values have gone out the window....they do not know who they are anymore, as they are merely going for political expediency. McCain as a candidate for President should prove it.

Reply Report Abuse
- by friedbergboy1422 (May 10, 2009 7:02 pm ET)
  5
  
  What are their core values that Limbaugh is reminding them of? He supported every move of the Bush/Cheney regime. They grew government, he loved it. They spent like crazy, Limbaugh didn't care. They invaded a country that never attacked us. He went right along with it. Every deficit that was raised was raised without a peep from Limbaugh.
  
  Rush is a thrice-divorced man who is the spokesperson for the "family values party. How can anyone take him, or the party who kisses up to him, seriously?
  
  Reply Report Abuse

by hurricaneyankee52983 (May 10, 2009 4:03 pm ET)
3

CANAANXING,I couldent agree with you more .It is pathetic that the REPUBLICAN PARTY is letting this brain dead reactionary speak for them. He will lead them down the drain and they will have no one toblame but themselves.

Reply Report Abuse

by mybrotherskeeper (May 11, 2009 2:30 pm ET)

Most Americans have an unfavorable view of Limbaugh. Even among Republicans, he does not have a majority favorability rating.

Reply Report Abuse

by captfoster2 (May 10, 2009 2:05 pm ET)

5

If this is the direction that Dick Cheney is happy with... that the GOP is headed by Rush Limbaugh and a dying ideology...

Then by all means... enjoy.

Of course the question is this... what will die out first... the GOP or Cheney's ticker? Neither will die off quick enough!

Reply Report Abuse

by mybrotherskeeper (May 10, 2009 3:17 pm ET)
3

I thought Cheney saying Colin Powell had already left the Republican Party was bigger news than his stating his preference for Rush Limbaugh-style Republicanism over Colin Powell-style Republicanism. (As I recall, Cheney never favored sanctioning South Africa over apartheid, either.)

Neither Cheney nor the Republican Party are showing too many signs of life these days, so I am not sure how much his opinion matters. But his view of Colin Polin is nothing new, and in fact was largely responsible for Donald Rumsfeld becoming Defense Secretary.

Reply Report Abuse
- by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 10, 2009 6:33 pm ET)
  1
  
  I thought Cheney saying Colin Powell had already left the Republican Party was bigger news than his stating his preference for Rush Limbaugh-style Republicanism over Colin Powell-style Republicanism.
  
  It might have been news, if Cheney had any way of knowing that other than reading tea leaves or consulting a palm reader. Colin Powell, at last check, is still a member of the Republican Party. Once again Cheney lies as easily as he breathes. I would say he lies as easily as his heart beats, but he needs assistance with that.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by mybrotherskeeper (May 10, 2009 6:46 pm ET)
    
    I think it was news because it was a direct attack on Colin Powell, not because Cheney has any real reason to think Powell has left the party.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
  - by hurricaneyankee52983 (May 11, 2009 12:26 pm ET)
    
    EASY, Your assuming that CHENEY has a heart.
    
    Reply Report Abuse

by justmehla8885 (May 10, 2009 2:18 pm ET)

Cheny is what I would call A Radical Republican. I was taught in high school history a radical is someone who just wants to control and destroy that he can not. A Revolutionary is someone who wants to make things better.

Cheny fits in with all extremist radicals. He can not see life that is not life as he sees it.
Cheny, Joe McCarthy, Limbaugh, bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Lucifer’s real and physiological. In the best and the worst reside the same base survival instincts. Even in our Religions is heard there is but one God. If you don’t believe you go to eternal damnation.

Cheny is a master manipulator however. He knows this will stir the pot. And note he specifically said, “POLITICALLY”. He can try to act cool later and say Powel is nice but, 'We are right, should rule, and you should do things our way.

As we reflect on an America that was supreme in all things, we don’t much like to see our being on the top not just equal but on the top threatened. If we stay there, we will be at war not for generations but for ever.

That is what Cheny and Limbaugh offer.

Reply Report Abuse

by mybrotherskeeper (May 11, 2009 2:23 pm ET)

I think that Cheney is an extremist, "free market" ideologue.

Just look at his record of support for Enron.

(For details, please see "Enron: What Dick Cheney Knew" available at:[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020415/nichols/single?rel=nofollow])

Reply Report Abuse

by jbrantow (May 10, 2009 2:39 pm ET)

6 1

Cheney would cheerlead for Joseph Goebbels if he were on a republican ticket.

Reply Report Abuse

by thefoolonthehill12 (May 10, 2009 3:04 pm ET)
1

Nah, Goebbels would work for rovesputin. Cheney is more of a Himmler man.

Reply Report Abuse

by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 10, 2009 6:33 pm ET)
1

He cheered for Karl Rove. Same thing.

Reply Report Abuse

by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 10, 2009 6:37 pm ET)
1 3

Here's an Bloomberg quote from the interview:
Cheney added that “there is room for moderates in the Republican party,” citing former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Virginia Representative Eric Cantor.

“But the suggestion our Democratic friends always make is somehow, you know, if you Republicans were just more like Democrats, you’d win elections. Well, I don’t buy that,” he said. “I think we win elections when we have good solid conservative principles to run upon and base our policies on those principles.”

Reply Report Abuse
- by mary59 (May 10, 2009 7:10 pm ET)
  3
  
  Jeb Bush is a moderate? Mitt Romney? Eric Cantor? Can't get my brain wrapped around your use of labels. If by moderate, not a psycho, I guess allright. How about moderate=corporately owned and operated? That seems to be the modern "solid conservative principles" that these folks share.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 10, 2009 8:11 pm ET)
    3
    
    Those are not my labels, but Bloomberg's. However, the only person in that trio that I'm familiar with is Romney, whom I would call a 'Rockefeller Republican,' not really a conservative on social issues, and only opportunistically committed to fiscal conservatism.
    I think that Cheney is correct, why bother with two parties if one of them is only going to be 'liberal-lite.' McCain's pathetic showing against a freshman senator with zero experience shows the futility of the 'Powell' approach to party rehabilitation.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by Col. Harlan Sanders (May 10, 2009 8:50 pm ET)
      1
      
      I encourage Cheney and his fellow party operatives to continue to choose lying propagandists over sensible conservatives.
      
      Contrary to posters above who think the GOP needs to keep itself alive by disowning nuts like Limbaugh, to the end of maintaining two viable parties, I think the GOP is beyond help.
      
      I'd much rather see the GOP fade away (something they should have done a few decades ago) and make room for another political party to take the place of the deranged cult that they have become.
      
      At the same time I was watching the Cheney clip above, I flipped on Fox news to see MIke Huckabee jamming with Neil Sedaka.And I couldn't decide who of the three was more irrelevant or out of touch with the world in 2009.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
    - by mary59 (May 10, 2009 9:26 pm ET)
      2
      
      Liberal lite? Again, I think you'll have to explain your labelling process.
      
      I think the Republican Party is simply all over the map in negativity, but as far as "principles" go, I don't see any.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
    - by my4cents (May 10, 2009 9:33 pm ET)
      1
      
      If 'Rockefeller Republican' = opportunist, you nailed it. That's what Romney is.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
    - by my4cents (May 10, 2009 9:38 pm ET)
      2
      
      "McCain's pathetic showing against a freshman senator with zero experience shows the futility of the 'Powell' approach to party rehabilitation."
      
      That is the Republicans conundrum. Move more to the right and be assured of the 29,26,23,21% support or move to reality and be willing to compete and sell their ideas to the rest 70%.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 10, 2009 10:17 pm ET)
        3
        
        So, your advice for the GOP would be to abandon the conservative principles that in 1994 recaptured the dominance they enjoyed from 1860 - 1932, and do what - win by being slightly less liberal than the Democrats? That was Bob Dole and John McCain- "liberal lite."
        If my memory serves me, Reagan, who was truly conservative (unlike Bush's 'compassionate conservatism') did a little better than 29,26,23,21% support. In national referendums from from 1968 thru 1992, the conservative philosophy won the presidency (Carter was an anomaly). 41 appeared to be no more conservative than Clinton, and W ran as a conservative, but was certainly not a fiscal conservative.
        The GOP needs to be true to its principles, otherwise it is (deservedly) doomed to minority status.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by mary59 (May 11, 2009 12:15 am ET)
        3
        
        Again, what conservative principles are you talking about? Fiscal responsibility? I don't see that Reagan's deficits fit that description. We'd have to go back to Eisenhauer to find any fiscal conservatism.
        
        How do you define "conservative"?
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 11, 2009 1:26 pm ET)
        1
        
        Reagan did not have a fiscally responsible Congress to work with. (Remember that 'poster boy' of term limits, Rostenkowski? I don't remember the name of the Mass. Representative "all politics is local." Those guys would rather have raised taxes and increased government spending even if it meant the death of their own mothers.) Reagan had to allow the federal government to 'shut down' on more than one occasion to force Congress to act responsibly - and if I remember correctly, he was the one that 'blinked' in one of those confrontations. The GOP Congress of 1994-98 forced Clinton to cooperate and brought some fiscal responsibility to the budgeting process. There hasn't been much conservatism on either side of the aisle, but there is some hope of it in the GOP, none among Democrats. Kennedy was the last national Democrat to espouse any kind of fiscally conservative approach, and he was none too conservative. But the Democratic party has been deranged ever since Viet Nam.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by solon (May 11, 2009 1:50 pm ET)
        1
        
        As usual you dont know what you are talking about. Almost EVERY YEAR, Congress sent Raygun budgets that were LESS than he asked for. Raygun wasnt fiscally responsible.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by political_left-religious_right (May 12, 2009 9:57 am ET)
        
        How is it that Clinton continually balanced the budget within his presidential tenure (something no Republican has done since Eisenhower), and left the White House with a surplus? Now that's fiscal responsibility!
        
        Reply Report Abuse
    - by military_husband (May 11, 2009 1:27 am ET)
      3
      
      McCain was liberal lite? ON what issues?? Seriously, he was against torture... until the primaries and then it was fine. He was outside the conservatives on illegal immigration, but then turned on HIS OWN BILL once the primaries got started. He scoffed at abortions being legal if the mother's welfare was at steak. He had the crowds chanting "Drill baby drill!" at his rallies. He had no problems calling Obama all sorts of names until a woman called him an Arab and then he jumped in to say "No, he's a good man" as if an Arab could not be a good man. (watch the video, he is nodding along with her until she says Arab)
      McCain was liberal lite back in 2000, maybe even in 2002, but that label was gone loooong ago. Check his voting records for the last 4 years and it is clear his "maverick" label peeled off a few years back.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 11, 2009 1:05 pm ET)
        1
        
        What a candidate says on the campaign trail and what he does in office are usually two different things. McCain-Feingold is an excellent example of McCain's 'liberal-lite' behavior. McCain is a 'RINO,' just like Specter and Powell. I voted for him, because liberal-lite is better than socialist-heavy. But this 'base' wasn't energized. Had he been elected, he would have governed left-of-center.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by military_husband (May 11, 2009 2:09 pm ET)
        1
        
        McCain lost because he ran to the far right of everything he was saying earlier. You can claim he was "on the campaign trail" so that makes it ok, but that is just plain silly. The campaign trail is EXACTLY when the entire electorate is now listening so it is the time you should be moving to the center, not out to the right. He lost because most Americans saw him moving away from the McCain they liked back in 2000. He stopped backing the McCain Feingold bill as well so there goes that piece of "liberal lite" junk. Other than that, what was he liberal on? I gave a long list of areas he moved to the right on over the last 2 years, can you give me something he moved to the left on?
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 11, 2009 2:44 pm ET)
        1
        
        That McCain didn't run on his record (which is the only valid predictor of future performance) is not an excuse for him. I don't think lying about who you really are on the campaign trail makes it OK. Most politicians do that, Obama certainly did, and McCain had to. Had he run as John McCain, he would have gotten 35% instead of 47%. McCain had to 'move to the right' in his rhetoric at least (I don't think he actually had changed any of his positions, he was just posturing to get elected) in an effort to get GOP votes! Any GOP candidate who has to win over GOP voters in a general election will lose. Period.
        McCain is just as much a Republican as Specter, why would any conservative trust him?
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by mjh (May 11, 2009 3:20 pm ET)
        1
        
        "I don't think lying about who you really are on the campaign trail makes it OK. Most politicians do that, Obama certainly did, and McCain had to."
        
        Please name one specific thing about himself Obama lied about on the campaign trail.
        
        Countdown to a mention of Obama's birth certificate:
        5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . .
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by military_husband (May 11, 2009 4:20 pm ET)
        1
        
        See, that is where you are wrong again. He DID run on his record. His record for the last 2 years was to vote with Bush about 90% of the time. He voted with the Republicans on issues over 90% so how is that "liberal lite"? Unless you think the entire party is liberal lite (in which case you would have to be as far right as you can possibly get) he is pretty much in with the rest of the Republican party. And please don't go back to what he did or said in 200 because in political terms that has no bearing on where he or the party was in 2008. Everyone talks about immigration and earmark reform as if those 2 issues balance out every other issue where he is clearly far right. And even on those issues he moved to the right.
        
        And what makes you sure he would have gotten 35% and not 52%? He lost on the issues he was far to the right on. He lost on the war. He lost on health care reform. He lost on government oversight. He did not lose on immigration and earmarks.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
- by mybrotherskeeper (May 11, 2009 2:09 pm ET)
  
  Notice that Cheney does not mention Schwarzenegger or Huckabee or even Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.
  
  Reply Report Abuse

by Martha (May 10, 2009 7:02 pm ET)

This is Cheneys good for life, any time, any place any where,note from his doctor;

Please excuse DICK because I have diagnosed him with the following;

"Disordered Narcissism"

Please expect to find,

Lack of empathy is a hallmark of narcissistic disorders, and sufferers find it extremely difficult to understand others' (and their own) emotional states and impact.

This makes maintaining close or intimate relationships significantly harder. They may find it difficult to perceive or admit this, or may interpret it as a virtue.

It is also worth noting that the individual expressions of grandiosity or arrogance vary with the person's value system. A person will generally attempt to display superiority as he or she defines it.

Overreacts to criticism, becoming angry or humiliated

Uses others to reach goals

Exaggerates own importance

Entertains unrealistic fantasies about achievements, power, beauty, intelligence or romance

Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment

Seeks constant attention and positive reinforcement from others

Is easily jealous

Has a sense of extreme entitlement

Is exploitative of others

Lacks empathy

Displays arrogant, haughty and proud behaviour.

Uses denial mechanism to downplay own inadequacies or failings

Uses rationalization mechanism to justify self-centered behavior

Another symptom, although rare, is to replicate Darth Vaders' voice and sinister appearance.

Reply Report Abuse

by roninkannushi1711 (May 10, 2009 10:08 pm ET)

1

There you have it, sports fans. Grand Puppet Master Cheney has endorsed Rush, "Sepsis," Limbaugh! Sepsis is perfect; talks, blames, and does not do anything, for anyone but himself. Perfect fit, or what? A toxic seed of bigotry. Is there anything else we need, in a maturing world? The flow of progress will not be impeded by negative resistance. Once empowered by the lack of communication, is now threatened by the light of knowledge.
Limbaugh-Palin 2012?

Reply Report Abuse

by mjh (May 10, 2009 10:47 pm ET)

3

Heh heh heh -- I guess it's now official.

We've already had the alleged national party chairman forced to apologize/kiss up to Rush . . . now, we have a two-term VP doing the same.

So if you didn't believe it before, believe it now . . . and just think: didn't some in the press actually mock Obama when he declared that Limpballs was the "leader" of the Republican Party?

All I can say is, hey -- if the GOP wants to be led by a drug-addicted, pedophiliac radio shock jock, go right ahead . . . not only will they be able to write off both 2010 and 2012, they'll likely go the way of the Whigs.

To fairlyawingnut [fairliberal]: just out of curiosity, do you believe that Arlen Specter left the GOP for the same reason Joe Lieberman left the Democratic party?

Reply Report Abuse

by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 11, 2009 2:52 pm ET)
1

Limbaugh is an entertainer, not a politician. I'd much rather have Limbaugh lead the GOP than prostitutes (my apologies to any prostitutes reading this) like Powell, Specter or McCain.

Reply Report Abuse
- by mjh (May 11, 2009 3:23 pm ET)
  1
  
  "I'd much rather have Limbaugh lead the GOP than prostitutes (my apologies to any prostitutes reading this) like Powell, Specter or McCain."
  
  Given Limpballs' thrice-married status and his proclivities with young boys, you may may get your wish . . .
  
  .
  
  Reply Report Abuse
- by worrierking (May 11, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
  1
  
  Why not just change the name of the party to the Conservative Party?
  
  Everyone who isn't a hard line conservative has already been ostracized. Most of the Republicans who were considered great leaders were not conservatives but pragmatists who tried to lead a nation.
  
  Today's Republican Party would not have welcomed Lincoln, Eisenhower or Theodore Roosevelt.
  
  Even the heroes of your party, like St. Ronald, were more backstory than substance.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 11, 2009 4:37 pm ET)
    1
    
    "Today's Republican Party would not have welcomed Lincoln, Eisenhower or Theodore Roosevelt."
    That's not at all true. What is true is that the Democratic party would not allow the likes of FDR or Truman to carry their party's banner. FDR actually welcomed America's entrance into WW2, and Truman used nukes. Neither one would survive in the present Democratic party.
    The GOP was founded as the party of freedom and its long-term posture has been to favor limited government. Pragmatism doesn't rule out conservatism. Conservatism is very pragmatic. Given a real choice, the citizens of the U.S. prefer those who promise them more freedom, less government interference and less taxation.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by Brabantio (May 11, 2009 4:51 pm ET)
      1
      
      What fuels your fantasy that Democrats would oppose entering a WWII situation today? Afghanistan was widely supported. Perhaps you're laboring under some delusion that Democrats oppose entering wars for any reason whatsoever.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by solon (May 11, 2009 5:17 pm ET)
        
        Just another in his long line of fantasies. Rush said it, he beleives it, that settles it. Thus works the Limborg hivemind
        
        Reply Report Abuse
      - by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 11, 2009 8:27 pm ET)
        
        What fuels my fantasy that Pelosi & Reid are not in support of the war on terror? Gee, let me count the ways.
        Democrats have taken an anti-military, blame-America-first position since Viet Nam. Theirs is the vocabulary of surrender.
        Iraq was widely supported too, until it looked like there might be some political gain in opposing it.
        My point is not that rank and file Democrats wouldn't support any war, my point is that anyone who presently does support the war on terror is drummed out of the party (remember Joe Lieberman?) by the party apparatus. MoveOn.org and the Daily Kos are the leading edge of the Democratic party.
        Don't kid yourself. The present day Democratic Party would be unrecognizable to FDR and Truman.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by solon (May 11, 2009 10:13 pm ET)
        
        You dont have a point. You have delusions. You have talking points anti military. That is plain bunk. You believe it because you have been told to I dont have to kid myself the same way I dont have to tune into AMHateradio to find out what I think. I am one of those guys in the reality based universe and frankly you arent. Your rant was what you usually post. Hate Democrats hate liberals fantasies. No connection whatsoever with reality. This IS the party of FDR and Truman. You just WISH it werent. You just think things become true because you say them in hateful rants like this one.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by Brabantio (May 12, 2009 12:07 am ET)
        
        I don't think anyone can possibly imagine how you came up with the idea that the war on terror is equivalent to someone running over Europe. Explaining that is going to be a tough hill for you to climb. Without that, then you grant that there's a difference in the justification for various military endeavors, and cases like Vietnam and Iraq don't fare as well as WWII.
        
        Again, your suggestion was that a situation like WWII would spur opposition to waging war by Democrats. The fact that Democrats opposed overthrowing a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with the attacks against us is completely irrelevant, since it's nothing at all like dealing with someone who is actually in the process of taking over an entire continent. Not all wars are the same, and you have no basis for claiming that Democrats would oppose entering such a war today.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by mikehuck1976 (May 12, 2009 6:54 pm ET)
        
        And you wonder why the right wing-controlled Republicans now have no power. Your delusions speak for themselves.
        
        I think it's a wonderful idea. Support torture, advocate for secession, eliminate any moderates in your own party, advance more tax cuts for the wealthy as conservative fiscal policy. It is all working wonderfully for you guys.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
    - by worrierking (May 11, 2009 7:28 pm ET)
      
      And now your gong to say that like every Democratic male in my family did on December 8, 1941, all of you loyal Republicans went down to the enlistment offices in March 2003 and offered to put your asses on the line to fight in Iraq, right?
      
      And everyone of your heroes in government today, humped the rice paddies in Vietnam, right?
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by edrossinoelwein9669 (May 11, 2009 8:35 pm ET)
        
        No, what I'm saying is that the Democratic party of FDR and Truman was not infected with the 'blame-America-first' syndrome that is so prevalent amongst what poses as Democrats today. JFK never apologized to anyone for the United States. Truman never apologized to Japan for using nukes to end the war. FDR never apologized to anyone for anything. LBJ never apologized for escalating the war in Viet Nam.
        Clinton apologized to anyone who would listen except the American public whom he lied to. And Obama might as well do a 'World Apology Tour.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by tman418 (May 11, 2009 11:42 pm ET)
        
        Another troglodyte who ignored Obama's statement that Europe showed unacceptable anti-Americanism (and pointed out that they "blame American first").
        
        Who did Obama apologize to, exactly?
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by tman418 (May 11, 2009 11:44 pm ET)
        
        And who did Clinton apologize to again?
        
        And what did he lie about, without using the Monica Lewinksy scandal?
        
        Reply Report Abuse

by rkcomments (May 10, 2009 11:25 pm ET)

1

More evidence of Cheney's inferiority complex. Just shows losers always band together. One weasel who escaped serving in the military sides with another loser who did the same.

It never ceases to amaze me how the guys who evaded military service are the loudest when it comes to supporting sending others to fight.

Reply Report Abuse

by ewl94232 (May 11, 2009 12:17 pm ET)
1

Don't you talk about Bill Clinton and Barak Obama that way!

Reply Report Abuse
- by solon (May 11, 2009 1:51 pm ET)
  
  I know you are but what am I??? My but that was clever here the fifteen thousandth time you rightwingers have used it.
  
  Reply Report Abuse

by NG_Officer (May 11, 2009 9:30 am ET)

Has anyone noticed Cheney's heavy breathing when he speaks? I am no doctor, but it sounds like emphysema. I think the years of smoking are finally catching up to him.

Reply Report Abuse

by teabaggers ♥ [wing]NUTS (May 11, 2009 3:46 pm ET)

1

just because you endorse a presidential candidate, it doesnt indicate you have become an advocate for that person's party. there were many republicans who endorsed obama in 2008... even republican voters who voiced their opinions on youtube of all places.

we all know limbaugh is not a legitimate republican compared to a former general and sec of state like colin powell. that is just a ridiculous accusation. has limbaugh ever run for office or actually made strategic decisions that effected the country? no... he just sits his druggie butt on a comfortable chair behind a mic saying whatever he wants and making $400 mil. yet, cheney makes him out to be a serious individual because he agrees with him and powell doesnt. god for bid anybody disagrees with you, mr cheney. many apologies. why dont you just go back to living in your bat cave and let us move on from seeing you on every talk show?

Reply Report Abuse

by urightme3596 (May 11, 2009 6:17 pm ET)

It just makes my day when Chaney (Mr. popular/among far far right) goes on the air to drive more moderate Republicans and Independents over to left of center. The icing on the cake Sunday was when he cozies up to Rush the other bogeyman. What a gift.

Reply Report Abuse

by robrob (May 11, 2009 11:31 pm ET)

Recent polls indicate only 21% of respondents self identified as Republicans. Give Rush and Cheney much longer and they'll get that number into the teens, one moderate at a time.

Reply Report Abuse

by whatup (May 11, 2009 7:47 pm ET)

More soundbites.

I also noticed that the comments were QUICKLY CLOSED on the Savage soundbites. Too many Savage-positive comments. HA

This SOUNDBITE media stinks!

Reply Report Abuse

On Face the Nation, Cheney chooses Limbaugh over Powell, "politically"

Most Popular Tags

RSS Feeds


	Username or Email Password Forgot your password? or Create An Account Email Username (required, for posting on forums) Zip Code Click here to subscribe to Media Matters action alerts and newsletters. or Log in to an existing account

On Face the Nation, Cheney chooses Limbaugh over Powell, "politically"

Most Popular Tags

RSS Feeds

Connect & Share