Dick Cheney — Will save Republican Party

In a Newsweek article Jon Meacham states his case for “WHY DICK CHENEY SHOULD RUN IN 2012.”

He says, “A campaign would also give us an occasion that history denied us in 2008: an opportunity to adjudicate the George W. Bush years in a direct way. As John McCain pointed out in the fall of 2008, he is not Bush. Nor is Cheney, but the former vice president would make the case for the harder-line elements of the Bush world view. Far from fading away, Cheney has been the voice of the opposition since the inauguration. Wouldn’t it be more productive and even illuminating if he took his arguments out of the realm of punditry and into the arena of electoral politics? Are we more or less secure because of the conduct of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Does the former vice president still believe in a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Did the counterterror measures adopted in the aftermath of the attacks go too far? Let’s have the fight and see what the country thinks.”

Other questions we might be able to settle —

  • Would his war criminal record be a selling point with today’s new anti-war right?
  • Since he embodies the America of old white men, could that myth be dispelled?
  • Can Cheney prove he is actually alive?  It’s rumored he died of his last heart attack and some are saying they’ve seen his long-form death certificate — complete with the seal!
  • Is he truly devoid of knowledge of recent U.S. history, history over which he himself presided?  He led the charge into Iraq in 2003 even after having warned in 1991 that such a strategy would lead to a quagmire.  The U.S. wars of the last six decades (including the four for which Cheney shares responsibility) have all been marred by mishap, bad intelligence, flawed geopolitical analysis—and lack of necessity.
  • Is it true he supported the McCain / Palin ticket because he knew only that keystone cops duo could have made the tragic incompetence of the previous fools look good in the history books?

What would be his campaign promises and slogans, would he emphasize his lack of civility, his well-known health problems, would he continue to loudly defend torture?



Filed under Cheney, Elections, hate groups, Radical Rightwing groups, Republicans

25 responses to “Dick Cheney — Will save Republican Party

  1. I think Cheney may well view himself as the “savior” of the GOP. He, however, will prefer to do it from the outside, not as the candidate; the puppeteer, not the puppet.

    For whom will he save the party, BTW?

  2. Have we, or anyone, figured out what the Republican Party currently stands for? Seems there are several differing interpretations that are at odds with one another.

  3. lilacluvr

    Didn’t Liz Cheney say a few weeks back that her father should run for president? Or was it some Fox News butt-kisser that brought up that topic?

    What I find amazing is the fact that for 8 years during the Bush Administration – Cheney was in some undisclosed location and we never heard from him.

    Now that he is out of office – this man’s face is everywhere and we can’t shut him up.

    We need to find that undisclosed location and throw this nutcase back in there and then lock the door behind us as we are throwing the key in the nearest ocean.

    • concertgrandpianoman

      See Cathy O’Brien and Mark Phillips’ book TRANCE Formation of America.
      She was a frequent Reagan White House visitor among Cheney, Bush, son Bush, military notables, international notables—saved by Mark Phillip, in an intrege of alleged cocaine traffickking operations wherein Cheney pattern of use may connect his medical anurisms–tp why he shoots a person at his “hunts” to wait three days in case of a blood test for the cocaine to self purge his body.

  4. I’m actually a fan of him running in 2012. 🙂 Guess I can’t get enough of that snarl… Imagine how attractive he would be to the Independent voters who decide elections.

  5. I still contend today’s Republican Party (who seem not to know what they stand for any better than we do) will nominate a candidate who isn’t someone Independents would vote for.

    What a conundrum!

    The Party can’t nominate someone who isn’t ‘pure’ and that purity will turn off voters outside their 18 percenters. The ‘Purists’ are a regional party with too few votes to win at the national level.

    • Yes, quite the conundrum. To get the nomination, the winning candidate must pass the litmus tests imposed by the faithful, but to do so will likely cause independents to not vote for him/her.

      However, if the economy doesn’t get better (jobs in particular) the same voters may not vote for the Democratic party candidate, either, and sit it out, which could result in the GOP winning the office regardless.

    • Even if a candidate gets only the voters of his/her party, don’t those registered with the Democratic Party outnumber those registered with the Republican Party?

      How many registered Republicans are like me?

      Since opposing the other party and doing everything to prevent them having anything that might be perceived as a victory in governing is the goal, what difference does it make who wins?

      • You are assuming that there would be Democrats voting as a whole for the party’s candidate, a dangerous assumption to make right now. Two reasons it is dangerous: 1) No guarantee that all Democrats would vote; 2) if voting, no guarantee that some would not vote for the GOP candidate.

        As to your final point, that may well depend upon the 2010 elections.

  6. Do you think 2010 will see people elected who have a different goal? That would be a great day for Americans!

  7. I think 2010 may well result in the election of sufficient numbers of the GOP to effectively bring things to a halt unless their demands are met. It seems to me that such scenario is always (almost; 1948 is an exception) a negative to the incumbent running for reelection in the next Presidential election.

  8. So no change to the partisanship of the congress critters, just a change to the clearly defined majority.

    That should work, but we’ve seen gridlock before and that’s not terribly better.

    Maybe this will be the time for a strong third party? Maybe the yellow dog Democrats will form a new party or the conservatives or the Ron Paulers? Using the term conservatives was an attempt to delineate them from Republicans. (shrugs shoulders)

  9. The way the Electoral College is structured, a strong third party is not likely in a national election. I think that such isn’t likely in congressional elections, either.

  10. I read someplace that due to the struggles within the Republican Party they may change their winner take all primary structure. Do you think that’s possible, probable, not gonna happen?

  11. lilacluvr

    Didn’t I hear there is a movement with the goal of doing away with the Electoral College?

    Maybe we should not do away with the Electoral College and we should just mandate term limits – (like Tiarht ran on when campaigning and then decided he was so much above such needless promises). After all, God has put Tiarht in his position of power.

  12. lilacluvr

    Did anyone else see Rachel Maddow last night? She was talking about Sam Brownback and the rest of his Evangelical friends (C-Street Family, Rick Warren and others).

    She was talking about Uganda and the influence these fine Evangelical fantatics have had on the leaders of Uganda. It seems some Uganda leader has proposed (or adopted by now) a law in which to execute gay people.

    Rick Warren has recently stated that he cannot interfere in Uganda’s politics. And the rest of the evangelicals mentioned by Rachel are not saying anything against this new Uganda law.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t evangelicals supposed to be against murder? Aren’t evangelicals all about moral justice and human rights?

    Seems to me that once again these evangelicals push their ideology so much and then when something tragic happens (like Tiller’s murder), they all hide their faces when the chickens come home to roost.

    Each and every execution of a gay person in Uganda, based on the fact they are simply gay, is blood on each and every evangelical in America that took part in their ideologic hate being spread.

    May God have mercy on their souls.

    • Zippy

      Rick Warren has recently stated that he cannot interfere in Uganda’s politics.

      . . . but interfering is US politics is okay. Wow.

      Genuine clergy of principle condemn what is wrong regardless of the politics of it. There is no law that same he may not “interfere” by criticizing something plainly stupid and evil

      But if he has no business criticizing the murders of gay people over that, how can he justify the supporting legal persecution of gay people here?

      The only consistent principle emerging: fucking with gay people is GOOD.!

      Not what I’d call a Christ-like attitude.

  13. Read Cathy O’Brien’s book TRANCE Formation of America to learn about Cheney’s offices at the Pentagon and White House during Reagan/Bush era. Her recall is confirmed as “accurate” in my cross checking with Senator Bird’s office staff as
    allegation being “all true.”

    Also read Columbus Dispatch, December 15, 2003, Nation section, by two Toledo Blade investigative reporters—allegedly Cheney ordered Sadam captured that day for its timing to pull attention from the Toledo Blade Washington DC assigned reports’ report.

  14. lilacluvr

    Those who claim to be so righteous oftentimes emerge as the worst ones in the bunch.

    I read somewhere that Cheney’s have some rather valuable original paintings of nudes. When an interviewer asked Mrs. Cheney why they did not display the paintings – if it was because they were so valuable and they did not want their young grandchildren around them – and Mrs. Cheney told her the reason was because they were nudes and that wasn’t proper for young children to view.

    Wow, owning nudes and hiding them in a closet is okay but having them on display is not?

    In my opinion, the Cheneys (Lynne, Dick and their lovely daughter Liz) all profess to be such lovely Christian people and ‘real’ Americans and ‘real’ Republicans – but yet I bet their personal lives would scare the hell out of the average person.

    • That’s what I dislike most — the faces they put on that hide the truth. If a person can’t be who they are they need to do some soul searching.

      Real Americans come in every color, national origin, sex, sexual persuasion, socioeconomic status, education level, status in their community, occupation… I don’t know what a Republican is supposed to be (I lose track of the requirements) but would make a wild guess the political party is a mixed bag too, just not allowed to show their differences.