Oregon writer, Rain Trueax, and Oregon painter, Diane Widler Wenzel co-author Rainy Day Thought. Diane generally posts on Wednesdays and Rain on Saturdays. There may be extra days or changes as situations warrant. Comments are always welcome and appreciated as it turns an article into a discussion.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Will he just go away? Apparently not..

It's hard not to be irritated at not only Dick Cheney but also the part of the media and American public who follow along with whatever he says, at least in the media's case, because it suits their need for excitement and fear. The one good thing I can say for Cheney is he doesn't appear to be encouraging revolution. Imagine what it means to reach that point where that is praise for a Republican from a leftie.

Cheney's goals appear to be several-fold. He obviously wants to rile up the American people. He is clearly not willing to accept lack of power. He is telling us much about the power he did have during the Bush/Cheney administration. He may be worried about criminal prosecutions in the future He is also evidently trying to market a memoir and this kind of media blitz might raise its price. You know one thing about him, from what he did after his first time in power, there's never enough money.

Here are a couple of articles that feel about like I do. The first is the wish that Cheney would be ignored as any other nutty person is ignored. Fat chance but good try: Jane Smiley

The McClatchy Report is about the success that Cheney claimed he had with his policies, the actual facts, and points out where he lied.

Are Americans really this gullible? Some certainly are. I am not really so upset with Cheney. By now we know who he is. But what about those who lap up what he says as if it was gospel? Do they check facts? Do they care? It appears not. Are they as afraid of getting on a freeway as they are of another terrorist attack? I am not saying there is nothing to worry about with terrorism but there are many things in life to fear. Hiding under a bed doesn't protect us. Being frightened leads to mistakes that often makes the results of fear worse than the possible thing we feared. Cheney has one tool to use and he's out there marketing it again.

For part of his time in office, Cheney did a number on Bush. We can pretty well tell what Bush ended up feeling about it by how he transformed his policies on torture, on Gitmo to one ending up much more like what Obama is continuing. The final clue is that Bush issued no pardons before he left office.

Cheney is a manipulator. He has his best success with Rush Limbaugh types. He apparently relishes the excitement of war but didn't want to fight one himself. He is now seeking to create a groundswell of opinion to force Obama to do what he wants. He is no different than he was when he was Vice President.

There is one way to get him to go away. Quit listening to him but that isn't happening and the last I heard his popularity was up to 37%. That does not surprise me given the divide in this country. I just wish that 37% would look at the facts he is claiming, test them against what is out there for information, and then recognize Cheney for what he is, a selfish, bitter man, who has done all the damage he should be permitted to do. Ignore him. If they don't, he'll likely be on their GOP ticket in 2012. Doesn't that just inspire a great feeling!

If he just keeps that same 37%, the ones who never questioned Bush/Cheney during the 8 years they had power, it will be fine; but if we have another terrorist attack, something that nobody can guarantee won't happen, then I don't know what the great middle will do. Logic is no part of the answer.


Paul said...

Dick Cheney is a schmuck and so is that blowhard Rush Limbaugh. If the Republicans continue to follow their lead they will become the new Whigs!!

ainelivia said...

Irritating, yes that's a good word. But I have never trusted the man; something about the way he spoke, in half-truths. And the way he looked at cameras and people the angle of his head, his eyes never quite looking directly at anyone or anything, there is some sense of aggression behind that body language. I oft thought that the message was, "don't question me".

And of course I am convinced that he and many of his like-minded associates, were born chewing on a copy of Machiavelli's "The Prince".

Thanks for the article links.

Ingineer66 said...

I agree logic is no part of the answer and I hope that Cheney has no part of the next GOP ticket. But by bashing the previous administration like no other in recent history the Obama administration has given much more attention to Cheney than would have otherwise happened.

I saw this editorial cartoon by Robert Ariail in the Sacramento Bee, which is one of the most liberal papers in the US.


Darlene said...

No surprise that I agree with you. I always compared him to Rasputin. He is an oily creep.

Rain said...

Obama is doing what he was elected to do, ingineer and I don't see him bashing Bush at all. Give some examples. There are those, like me, who definitely have bashed that administration but look at what they did. You don't think that ruining the economy, torturing against all laws or logic, taking away citizen rights, starting a war with no justification, deserves some bashing? I think Republicans have done the same thing regarding Clinton and still bash him.

Ingineer66 said...

Bush did not start every speech with a comment about the last 8 years. Obama has made several jabs at the Bush administration but now is starting to utilize some of the Bush policies. Such as military tribunals for terrorists. And just wait soon he will be extending the deadline for closing Gitmo and extending the deadline for removing troops from Iraq.

Ingineer66 said...

On Obama doing what he was elected to do, do you mean by appointing a racist that thinks the courts make the laws to the Supreme Court.

And here is the link to my earlier editorial post.

Cheney Cartoon

Rain said...

First of all Bush did not inherit a failed economy or a war that made no sense, nor an administration that had broken laws that it was getting away with. Bush though started out with saying he was restoring morality to the White House. What that meant to him was no blow jobs in the Oval Office and not whether he lied about a war. Still the idea of restoring morality wasn't a slam against Clinton? And they accused Clinton people of desecrating the White House, stealing stuff, and destroying equipment which was proven to be lies. Tell me again he didn't do what they all do?

As for her being s tacist for saying as a hispanic woman she might have insights and do a better job than a white like say Ginrich, that's ridiculous to call that racism. Your party is listening to the wrong people and if you follow Newt, you will follow him to a party that ceases to exist. Look at who you guys have speaking for you!

I am DELIGHTED with his pick and if I had been at home, I'd have written about it. She's a wonderful choice and I hope that we get a positive and not destructive confirmation process. You got in two of the most conservative justices we have seen with Alito and Roberts and now you wanted a moderate for Obama's pick! Hurrah for Obama!!!!

Ingineer66 said...

Rain I have to disagree with you here. The economy was going downhill as of September of 2000 and there was a war in Bosnia that was inherited by Bush. Not on as grand of scale, but still. Anyway I do not want to argue about that.

What I am amazed with is that you think Soto-Mayer is a terrific pick. If a white male would have made the statement that she made, he would have been tarred and feathered. I am not listening to anybody but her own voice as she was captured (much to her chagrin) on tape.

And I did not say I wanted him to pick a moderate. Obama said he was a uniter and would govern from the center. Now I did not expect that from him, but many in this country did. And he has done nothing but govern from the far left.

She believes that discrimination based solely on skin color is ok as proven by her position on the New Haven Connecticut Fire Department promotion test case. And she believes that laws are made by the judicial branch instead of the legislative branch. She is not a good pick. The guy from Los Angeles that was on the short list sounded like a much better pick.

Rain said...

Men have been saying that right along that only white men should have power. They did it in ways that mattered more than a casual comment. One of many others but that got taken out of context.

Obama has been doing what he said he'd do-- surprise surprise surprise. and I don't see him as extreme left. We will have to agree to disagree.

I think her background is great. I might change my mind but the few things I have heard to me are great. Remember conservatives (so-called anyway) have 5 votes. One liberal leftie won't change that. My upset over Roberts and Alito is likely equal to yours. I wanted an extreme liberal as balance. A moderate was not what we got when O'Connor resigned

Rain said...

here is the context that your oh so wise newt gingrich jumped upon. You have such quality on the right--

The larger context of the sentence is Sotomayor addressing former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's famous quote that "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases."

"I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement," Sotomayor says. "First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society," she said. "Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown."

"However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give," she continued. "For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

She went on to say that "each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

Ingineer66 said...

I hope you are correct on the judge.
What would you consider extreme left?
I don't know if Obama is extreme left compared to Pol Pot, but maybe further left than Francois Mitterrand.

Rain said...

I would call you extreme right by how you attack anything obama does and praise what the right does (unless he does what the right wants).

In this case with the judge, you don't know anything about her. What you parroted back was the talk radio and tv points-- practically word for word. Next time you can vote for Newt and be happier.

The abortion rights people are worried she may not uphold Roe v Wade. She has voted for business many times and the thing that irks so many was that she said a community has a right to try to integrate their work force when the majority of their citizens are of one or another race. They decided the test they used wasn't balanced and tried to withdraw it. They were sued. She voted to say that the fire department had the right to run their own business. Had they wanted to keep more whites, you'd have approved of them having that power. Because they didn't do what you like, you are upset. She voted how she saw the law! And it's what she said in that quote that I put in the previous comment. She tries to use who she is and what she knows but also the law. Nobody can do otherwise. Look at how your four stooges vote consistently in the court now. I don't have to know who voted to take away our rights. it will always be the right wing extremists that we had and the two Bush added. With a majority of 5, it's amazing that you righties want to see more conservatives on that court. The choice to replace O'Connor, who was a moderate conservative, decided how I would feel when we got our choice. The only place righties like moderates is in the democratic party!

What I think is it's good you didn't vote for Obama. You'd have been very upset, but keep in mind, that those who did, want what he is doing.

Going toward Europe on things like health care may be what many Americans want. Bush did a lot of things that lean toward socialism. The dog eat dog world is not how many people feel. There are those who like government doing things but want it done efficiently. When you compare him to who you did, expect me to say you voted for a regime that was fascist, headed us toward a dicatorship, enjoyed the power of torture, didn't keep us safe, and maybe reincarnated from the Nazis in some cases! Your extreme view only stirs up extreme views and when you use an evil dictatorship's name to even talk about Obama, it infuriates me. Obama has done nothing like the Bush regime. How dare you compare him to those who did.

What Obama has done so far is what the country wanted in the majority. If in 4 years, they don't like it, he'll be out. That's how it works. I sure didn't like what Bush did; so am fine that you don't like the guy you didn't vote for. From my standpoint, he's doing the most things he promised of any president I can recall... and where he's not going so fast that way, he's still edging toward it but in a practical way.

Rain said...

Did you bother to read what Sotomayor actually said in context?

Ingineer66 said...

Yes I did read what she said in context. Like I said before I am more upset with her rulings not with sound bites. And I have not watched anything about her on TV and not much on talk radio. Other than just now on the news on the radio they played a clip from the presidents PR man Gibbs that Obama does not really know how she feels about the right to privacy even though he said he would only appoint a judge that believed in the right to privacy (as in abortion).

I am not extreme right. I am far from it. I am pro-choice and fairly liberal when it comes to social issues.

As for what Obama does. Just wait until after the mid term elections when inflation goes to 20% which will hurt the poor the most. We will have to pay the piper on his smoke and mirrors stimulus spending eventually.