Things got testy between Wolf Blitzer and Dick Cheney. Video link here for the Iraq exchange. Ian has the video for the Mary Cheney questioning.  Bring up Cheney’s daughter and you get what you deserve:
BLITZER: You know, we’re out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you: your
daughter, Mary. She’s pregnant. All of us are happy she’s going to have a baby. You’re going to
have another grandchild. Some of the — some critics are suggesting — for example, a statement
from someone representing Focus on the Family, “Mary Cheney’s pregnancy raises the question
of what’s best for children. Just because it’s possible to conceive a child outside of the
relationship of a married mother and father doesn’t mean that it’s best for the child.” Do you want
to respond to that?
CHENEY: No.
BLITZER: She’s, obviously, a good daughter –
CHENEY: I’m delighted I’m about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf.
And obviously I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think,
frankly, you’re out of line with that question.
BLITZER: I think all of us appreciate –
CHENEY: I think you’re out of line.
BLITZER: We like your daughters. Believe me, I’m very sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I
like them both. That was a question that’s come up, and it’s a responsible, fair question.
CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree with you.
BLITZER: I want to congratulate you on having another grandchild.
This is the 04′ debates all over again. He wasn’t going to drag his daughter into the mud then, and he has even less reason to do so now. I know this will come as a total shock to all of you, but our elected officials don’t actually agree with everything their voting base does. Cheney was elected in 2000, and it was no secret to the country at that time, that the man had two daughters, one a hetrosexual and the other a homosexual
 And try to get a reaction from him on McCain and you may as well be talking to a wall:
BLITZER: He’s been very critical of you, John McCain.
CHENEY: Well, John’s a good man. He and I have known each other a long time and we
agree on many things and disagree on others.
BLITZER: He said, the other day — he said, “The president listens too much to the vice
president. Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he’s been very badly
served by both the vice president and, most of all, the secretary of Defense.” That was John
McCain.
CHENEY: So?
BLITZER: No reaction?
CHENEY: I just disagree with him.
BLITZER: He said, about the former Defense secretary, “Rumsfeld will go down in history,
along with NcNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of Defense –”
CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree. You heard my speech, when Don retired. I think
he’s done a superb job.
Allah has coverage of McCain’s comments. He does make a valid point:
It was just two years ago McCain had these kind words for Cheney:
“One of the most capable, experienced, intelligent and steady vice president’s this country has ever had….”~Senator John McCain (R) Arizona Source: Washington Post July 2004
Re 90 (Maria):
But I have faith in my country and this government. I believe we are a noble country, tainted by bad human mistakes. If we do not think there may be something better or we do not believe we can improve – what is the alternative, to just throw up our hands in disgust and give up?
I beieve we were once a noble country, but I do not have faith at all. The Dems and the Reps are concreted in power. The people are too apethic to do anyting about. I relize the real source of our problems are not the george Bush’s and Bill CLinton’s but the American people. Unless they wake up and do so soon, we are doomed and the two party system will be our down fall. The more time passes, the less likely this will occur, until eventually the real power the citizenry has is wrested from our control.
I feel sorry for any American who cannot forsee any improvements.
I guess you should pity me.
But FWIW, I pity folks that don’t realize how much troiuble we are really in.
“hideous illegal war”
What illegal war?
Please, give proof of this assertion.
Yes, he’s in charge. Yes, his post invasion strategy for Iraq has been tragic. But he’s not the only one responsible. Congress is the purse strings, and it was Congress who approved the resolution to invade Iraq.
Oh stop the Right Wing talking points PLEASE!! Congress approved based on the lies and garbage of this Admin and him!!!!
Balderdash. If you beleived in accountability, you wouldn’t be a Democrat. Yes- hold the Preident accountable, but since you “believe in accountability”you should also hold the Dems accountable. I just don’t see you doing that, and not just for the war but for the last 100 years of “business as usual”politics.
Again more of the same, attack the Dems and the so called Libs for lack of a better punching bag. I am holding the Rethugs accountable because they are the ones or recent that have lied, cheated, attempted to conquer and divide, cruised young pages, beat up their mistresses, doubled talked us into a frenzy, maligned the nation, robbed and invaded a soverign nation based on lies and garbage to name a few, after vowing not to do it.
Sir you are merely spewing Far Right talking points, you need to pull the kool-aid IV from your vains and wake up….
Your ilk is what is demolishing our country, love it or leave it, but don’t partner with those who wish to destroy it.
“Oh stop the Right Wing talking points PLEASE!! Congress approved based on the lies and garbage of this Admin and him!!!!”
I will now ask that you provide proof of your assertion that he lied to Congress to go to war. I have asked this of dozens of your ilk and no one has been able to provide said proof.
Your talking points are as predictable as the right’s. I acknowledge both sides faults in this situation. You ignore one sides faults, and wish to only focus on a “they did it” mentality.
“Again more of the same, attack the Dems and the so called Libs for lack of a better punching bag. I am holding the Rethugs accountable because they are the ones or recent that have lied, cheated, attempted to conquer and divide, cruised young pages, beat up their mistresses, doubled talked us into a frenzy, maligned the nation, robbed and invaded a soverign nation based on lies and garbage to name a few, after vowing not to do it.”
Au contraire.
I have regularly attacked the Republicans. They are to blame for much of this countries woes. I have no issue with that. What I am illuminating is your inability to acknowledge the fault of your party, the Democrats. The little tirade of yours only provides proof of your kool-aid drinking ways. myself, I refuse to do so.
See, I have no party Maria. I would not and could not get involved with them. If I did, I would have to take a series of very hot showers, and still would never feel clean.
“Your ilk is what is demolishing our country, love it or leave it, but don’t partner with those who wish to destroy it.”
I love my country. I don’t partner with either party- I am not such a fool to do so. I realize that both parties are highly corrupt, one no less so than the other. Both are targeted punching bags to me, but I will confront both sides when what they say is inaccurate, just like I have you today.
I will now ask that you provide proof of your assertion that he lied to Congress to go to war. I have asked this of dozens of your ilk and no one has been able to provide said proof.
Congress only voted on the information BushCo presented. They have all said many times over if they knew then what we know now they would have never stood behind him. Let’s just say he padded the evidence for war, what better accolade than to go down in history as the president who democratized the Middle East.
But God obviously has other plans….
You are entitles to your opinion on both parties, but you seem to favor the Republicans by your posts.
I guess that no one is going to respond to 97. Big surprise.
I guess that no one is going to respond to 97. Big surprise.
Of course not, no one woud answer my question either…
Re 104 (Maria):
In post 102 you said “Congress approved based on the lies and garbage of this Admin and him!!!!”. I responded with “I will now ask that you provide proof of your assertion that he lied to Congress to go to war. I have asked this of dozens of your ilk and no one has been able to provide said proof.”.
This is your reply?
“Congress only voted on the information BushCo presented. They have all said many times over if they knew then what we know now they would have never stood behind him. Let’s just say he padded the evidence for war…”
So, suddenly he went from “lying” to “padding evidence”? Where did he get the evidence he presented to Congress?
I still await proof your your assertion that he lied.
“You are entitles to your opinion on both parties, but you seem to favor the Republicans by your posts.”
I favor the truth, not Democrat or Republican talkinbg points.
97- Bob- you wrote a wonderful piece, but you have yet to show how the democratic agenda is not socialistic.
You have talked about the government growing so much under Bush, and used the example of putting 3 agencies under the control of 1 department…Is the CG a part of that because I am almost positive it is the 5th brach of the armed services.. If you are referring to spending, that is not government growth, unless it is spending for programs that were not a part of the administration before. If a POTUS increased spending to education, it does not mean that government grew it means that spending grew.
Your whole FEMA arguement makes no sense..could yould please write it coherantly? Are you talking about Katrina? Where is the fact that Blanco would not grant the feds the authority to take control? You must have overlooked a key part of that. You forgot some biggies in the entire arguement.
“I guess that no one is going to respond to 97. Big surprise.”
I’ll answer it. I want to stick with my discussion with maria however, so any response to this post will likely not be reponded to by me.
Re: DHS. Except for the part about FEMA being wonderfully functional b efore Bush. I agree. It is spot on.
Re The Dems being “socialist. America is a socialist country. While I agree the Dems are NOT a socialist party there ARE socialists within it. The Dems are liberal and socialism is a liberal concept so they tend to flock to said institution (big tent party, remember?). There are some socialists with the Rep party, just not to the degree of Dems.
Re “He (Bill Clinton) respected the obligations (if pernaps not the dignities) of the office.”
That’s a joke, right? The dignities are an obligation of the office. His stance on terrorism was horrid. His ONE sucess diplomatically (Stopping Pakistan and India from going to war) is the one bright spot of his tenure.
But, there have been Liberal Administrations here and in other nations that have been validated in the most important way possible – re-election with a strong economy.
When did that happen here? How about abroad? Support the assetion, please. Just like Bush, Clinton was re-elected with deception. Clinton has been the only liberal re-elected since LBJ so the assertion is hardly concrete. Great Society? War of Poverty? He only did what a Libertarian hates most: centralized power. So who is before that? ahhh yes…FDR. The argument can be made for sure. But his failures have also proven to be many (like the Social Security Tax).
“The second thing that pisses me off is the use of “liberal”as an insult. As much as I am NOT a liberal, a great many honorable people are, and it is by NO means a single-valued, black and white philosophy. Even though it’s one that I disagree with fundamentally, it’s as intellectually respectable as the Very Arch Conservatism of one of my greatest personal heroes, William F. Buckley, Jr, a man of socially conservative WASP credentials so profound that no freeper is worthy to meet the gaze of his patrician nostrils.”
This is spot on Bob. I agree with you 100% here. Many liberals are honorable folks, just as many conservatives are. The Dems and Reps BOTH demonize both those repsective philospies which is why I always assert the Dem is NOT the same as a liberal nor Reps are NOT the same as Reps. Most folks don’t seem to understand that it takes ideas from both of these philoshies to steer this great nation.
The reason I post this rant is this; I’m deeply concerned that the past nine years have the potential for utterly discrediting any legitimate Conservative views because of their association with incompetence, lies, and sheer xenophobic idiocy, none of which are by any stretch Conservative or conservative values. “Time tested and well proven”is the antithesis of fairly much everything Bush. But the argument that Bush is really a Radical Authoritarian Big Government Liberal = and very possibly thinks himself to be the Antichrist – is an essay for another day, should I bother. Others have made the point better and google is your friend.
And this is where you lost. me. I am for quatitative analytical empircal evidence of any sitution. When I think you are the same, you pull out the typical rhetoric filled emotionally charge substantively void accusations such as “incompetence, lies, and sheer xenophobic idiocy” and “and very possibly thinks himself to be the Antichrist”.
I agree with you- Bush is pro big government and I absolutely detest that. Radical? Then you’d have to say the same about other pro big government presidents such as LBJ, FDR and the Clintons. Bush has been no less incompetent than most any other administration of thr past 100 years though.
“The fact is that the majoritarian viewpoint WILL be Democratic very soon, because the fact is that most people’s politics are as fickle as their fashion sense and no more deeply founded. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of active voices worthy of calling the question and being taken seriously”
This is true. The reason though that we are in such a jam are the people, not the politicians. Most are complacent, and thery continue to put in the power the sme two choices presented to them Both are a loosing choice- none any better than the next. Clinton leave and Bush is placed into power. Bush leaves and you get a choice of Shillary, Obama, Guiliani, McCain, Edwards or Romney. Yeah…that will be an improvement. I see all kinds of ptential there! (That was sarcasm, BTW). Just more of the same. Hell do you actually think the 2006 Congressional elections changed anything?
“So if you seriously consider yourself a Conservative”
Well, I don’t consider myself a Conservative. I am a moderate because I am already well armed.
Ted where is the big government that you are talking about? What programs have been added that weren’t there before? Spending increases does not equate to bigger government..
The Iraq war aside Peejz, yes it does.
Spending increases means more active governemnt which translates into more governement inteference in our lives. Governement is not measured by how many programs it has, but by how much it taxes it’s citizenship, in addition to the governement debt created.
So, governemnet spending + governement debt=bigger governement.
111- No Ted, all spending means is more checks cut. Bigger government means more legislation and more government programs. A government is grown by the amount of programs it adds or laws that infinge on a state law that may not have been in place.
Spending is way up but we have not added new programs.
112 peejz:
I completely disagree. A basic fact of economics is that the degree between pure capitalism and pure communisim is known as socialism. Another basic fact of economics is that you can measure the degree of how socialist a country it by how much its citizens are taxed.
The more folks are taxed, the more socialist a country is. The more socialist a country is the bigger the government. Never in the history of the world has governement size been measured by how many programs there are.
For example if we combined SS, medicare, welfare and FEMA under one program does that actually reduce the governement size? By your measurement it would because 4 programs have been combined into one. However to support that program people are taxed the same.
if we combined SS, medicare, welfare and FEMA under one program does that actually reduce the governement size? By your measurement it would
No, because we have not eliminated any program…combining has nothing to do with it. We are being taxed less than under Clinton, so therefore how do you see a bigger government?
Measuring the difference between capitalism and socialism has no bearing on what we are talking about..You can have a big capitalistic government just as you can have a big socialistic government.
If we currently have 4 programs being funded by the government and add 2 brand new programs, we have increased the government.
I see Maria is spewing her Democrite talking points. But she’s a moderate, a centrist….sure…
If it walks like a duck…
114
Measuring the difference between capitalism and socialism has no bearing on what we are talking about..You can have a big capitalistic government just as you can have a big socialistic government.
It makes all the difference in what we are talking about. We are talking about governments and how various economies effect it.
You can not have a “capitalistic government”. You have a government that runs a country with a capitalistic modeled economy though. If that the case, the money made is made by the private sector and not the government. The government is smaller.
You can not have a “communist government” either. You have a government that runs a country with a capitalistic modeled economy though. It is a type of economy that the government owns all production of the citizens. The government is much larger, because they own everything.
There is no such thing as a pure “communist” or pure “capitalist” economy.
The degree of measure between communism and capitalism is called socialism. The more that the people are taxed, the more toward the communism end of the scale the country remains, and thus a larger government. The less people are taxed, the more towards capitalism a country is and the smaller the government.
“If we currently have 4 programs being funded by the government and add 2 brand new programs, we have increased the government. “
Of course, becasue you’ve increased governemet spending and the need for taxation. That is the standard. If you add programs using funds already available, then you have not increased government and the need for more tax.
If you have a program (lets say, the Vetern Administration) and cut the funding needed because there are just not as many veterns anymore then you decreased the governement size and the need for taxes.
Of course, becasue you’ve increased governemet spending and the need for taxation. That is the standard. If you add programs using funds already available, then you have not increased government and the need for more tax.
You have increased spending for new programs.
Let’s break down SS payments. In roughtly 5 years, the government will be paying at least double per month than what it does today. More people will be collecting in 5 years than they are today..The government will not increase because the payments are more. The government increased at the inception of the program.
The government increased when we added SS beneficiaries(illegals) that were not included in the orginal program.
If I use your formula, I don’t see government having grown under GWB. We are being taxed less, and keeping more in our pockets.
“You have increased spending for new programs.”.
It doesn’t matter if it is new or not. If you increase spending in real dollars for existing governement programs
“Let’s break down SS payments. In roughtly 5 years, the government will be paying at least double per month than what it does today. More people will be collecting in 5 years than they are today..The government will not increase because the payments are more. The government increased at the inception of the program.
The government increased when we added SS beneficiaries(illegals) that were not included in the orginal program.
If I use your formula, I don’t see government having grown under GWB. We are being taxed less, and keeping more in our pockets.
Ahh Peejz, and what you aren’t including is the national debt. How do you think it is paid? Yes…by taxes. But it is growing, not shrinking. It is a very basic formula when you boil it down. We spend more money than you have you must pay for it eventually.
Bush’s tax cut stimulated the economy, and I agree it was a good move. usually, the debt is measure as part of the GDP and cutting taxes increases that. But he has also increased government size, which is a bad move. Bush has increased real discretiuonary outlays by %35.8 thus far. But, I agree with the GWOT so just looking at non-dfefense discretionary outlays by 27.9%. I am a fiscal conservative. I think that non-defense discretionary outlays should be CCUT, like Reagan did (by 11%, FWIW). Reagan paid for his budget, as he only increased total outlays by 12%. Remember, this includes MASSIVE cold war spending and increased spending on the arm forces by 35%!
And it is paid for all eventually by us.