TPM Reader LJ carts out the TPM hermeneutic to size up the contenders …
I was pondering your “GOP bitch slap theory” and was wondering how you think the various Democratic contenders would hold up to this kind of treatment in the general election. If the bitch slap is a real GOP tactic, they’ll need to be able to handle it.
Take Edwards, for example. I can’t help but recall him sitting next to Cheney during the 2006 VP debates – Cheney lies and says he’s never met John Edwards before and the next day there are pictures circulating showing Cheney and Edwards together at some kind of function. Why didn’t Edwards turn and call Cheney a bald faced liar? It would have grabbed the headlines and the next day the photos would’ve proven that Cheney is a bald faced liar. Cheney made him look weak. So I think Edwards is vulnerable to the bitch slap.
Obama. When the Australian Prime Minister said that Al Qaeda wants Obama to win, Obama responded that Howard needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war or else he’s just spewing empty rhetoric. He didn’t whine about being attacked. Howard’s attack seems rather Cheney-esque and I don’t think he succeeded in making Obama look weak.
Clinton. It seems to me that Clinton’s statement decrying the comments of Geffen and (somewhat bizzarely IMHO) demanding an apology from Obama is essentially whining. It’s not fair that Geffen said that. It’s not fair that Obama won’t apologize for something said by a third party. Doesn’t this show that she’s incredibly vulnerable to the GOP bitch slap?
TPM Reader DB on Cheney …
Why doesn’t a prominent Democrat come out and basically repeat your post on Cheney? Why can’t a Democrat on a Sunday morning talk show scream, “Cheney is a moron! He has no idea what the hell he is doing. He is an outright disaster. He should resign effective immediately and the country will be a lot better off.” There really is no downside to this (of course the press may disapprove of the lack of civility but they’ll get over it) if whoever says it stands by it and all the other Dems back them up. Cheney is incredibly unpopular, his policies suck and he is so far removed from reality he is a parody. The only reason he remains afloat is because he is a bully. Well it is about time someone called the bully’s bluff.
So true.
Maybe not precisely those words that DB advises. But pretty damn close. In the sometimes hothouse world of blogging we go off on tears and lose sight of the fact that not everyone believes what we see as obvious. But Dick Cheney’s an exceptional case. He stands on his own unique ground of ridiculousness. And because of that he’s not simply a bully but a glass bully. Outside of the very hard right wing of American politics, pretty much everyone now sees that Dick Cheney is a screw-up and a moron of historic proportions. If you know more of the ins and outs of the administration’s history you know that the hugest blunders were Cheney policies and the policies which weren’t totally stupid were ones he fought tooth and nail. The best place to see the change even among DC establishment journalists, who used to revere him (Broder probably still does, but I think he’s emeritus now) are in the set piece interviews. Each one is now followed by a Kabuki journo debrief in which half-smiling/half-awkward-looking reporters pick apart which statements seem incorrect, which are outright lies and which seem to come from a guy who’s simply lost his mind.
He’s the crazy uncle of American politics at this point.
You don’t even have to be snide. Treat him like the joke that he is and a look of recognition and agreement will come over most people’s faces.
Apropos of the post below, TPM Reader PP sends this in …
“Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we’d be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we’re in the last throes. I’m sure he forecast sun today,” Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over their heads to keep dry. “When Dick Cheney says it’s a good thing, you know that you’ve probably got some big problems.”
Yes.
President Carter gets into the act too …
As Cheney crosses the region underscoring the Bush administration’s commitment to the war in Iraq and rallying key American allies – Australia and Japan – he confronts a growing chorus of criticism at home.
Former President Jimmy Carter, in an interview to be aired Sunday morning by ABC News, sharply criticizes Cheney’s record on the war.
“If you go back and see what Vice President Cheney has said for the last three or four years concerning Iraq, his batting average is abysmally low,” Carter says of Cheney in an interview with George Stephanopoulos that will be shown on ABC News’ This Week.
“He hasn’t been right on hardly anything, in his prediction of what was going to happen . . . He’s just been almost completely wrong on just about everything he’s said.”
Maybe a little more ridicule and lampooning since Dick Cheney is such a joke. But this ain’t bad.
(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader JL for the tip.)
A reporter calls Veep Cheney on his Brits in Iraq malarkey and the Vice President ducks and hides. From the presser down under …
QUESTION: Mr. Vice President, you’ve said that the British draw-down from Iraq reflects their success there and not domestic considerations. Did the United States ask for them to redeploy those troops inside Iraq to take some strain off the U.S. forces involved in the Baghdad Security Plan and in al Anbar province? And if not, why not?
…
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, the Brits have been great allies in the efforts — mutual efforts in Iraq. They have been there from the very beginning, as have our Australian friends. They have to make decisions with respect to their forces based upon what they think makes sense. Prime Minister Blair did consult with President Bush in terms of moving forward, and the comments I made reflected their communications with us, the fact that they believe the situation has improved in Basra and southern Iraq, which has been their prime area of operation.
They’re going to continue to have a major presence there. They’re also I believe beefing up their operations in Afghanistan at the same time, so we’re very comfortable with their decision.
I think that’s called ducking the question, right? Maybe we can get some follow up on that one.
NRA crazies and their corporate sponsors cannibalize one of their brethren–’cause who wouldn’t want the right to vaporize prairie dogs with military-style assault rifles.
As Paul noted yesterday, another U.S. attorney has resigned, this one in Michigan. The Washington Post today confirms that “Margaret Chiara, the 63-year-old U.S. attorney in Grand Rapids, Mich., . . . was among a larger group of prosecutors who were first asked to resign Dec. 7.”
That brings to eight the number of U.S. attorneys pushed out in the post-mid-term-election purge. DOJ has said the total was less than 10, but has declined to be specific. Were there others we still don’t know about?
From the conservative Daily Telegraph:
Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.
To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran’s nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon.
A senior Israeli defence official said negotiations were now underway between the two countries for the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an “air corridor” in the event of the Israeli government deciding on unilateral military action to prevent Teheran developing nuclear weapons.
I suppose the Iraqis themselves–a sovereign country, we are reminded by the Bush Administration when it’s convenient–would be militarily helpless to stop Israeli overflights, but one can imagine that the backlash against U.S. troops by Iraqi Shiites would be swift and fierce. We might find ourselves longing for the days when we were merely caught in a civil war.
Update: Then again, the Israelis may need help just to find Iran.
Late update: Reuters reports that Israel is denying the report in the Telegraph. More here.
We all know intuitively that Dick Cheney is delusional when he says that the British partial withdrawal in southern Iraq is a sign of success in stabilizing the region; but, for a more concrete sense of how badly the British have failed and how cowardly Tony Blair has become, you can’t do better than Patrick Cockburn’s piece yesterday in The Independent.