GOP Strategists to Cheney: Enough, Already
Some are concerned Cheney will be seen as the spokesman for the party
Enough, already. That's the reaction of many Republicans to Dick Cheney's surge of media appearances to defend the Bush administration, especially on national security issues. "I don't think anybody would call him and say, 'Shut up.' It wouldn't work," says a GOP strategist who formerly advised Ronald Reagan. "He obviously feels that his work as vice president is under attack. But he is not our best spokesman." The concern among Republican strategists is that the public will think Cheney is speaking for the GOP, and this won't be helpful because the former vice president remains an unpopular figure across the country. Another prominent GOP strategist says Cheney should lower his visibility and give younger party leaders a chance to take the spotlight.
Meanwhile, White House officials are pleased that the abrasive Cheney is drawing so much attention. "The former vice president has made his views pretty clear, and the president has made his views pretty clear," an Obama adviser said today. "We had a big debate on this during the campaign, and the president sees it as a debate that has been resolved because the American people spoke so clearly [in the election]."
Cheney's reasoning for going public has become a favorite topic on the political circuit in Washington. Some of those who know Cheney well say he is motivated by a desire to defend his legacy as a principal architect of George W. Bush's national security policies that are under attack from the Obama administration and congressional Democrats—especially the waterboarding of suspected terrorists that President Obama has defined as torture.
Cheney is said to genuinely believe that Obama is taking the wrong approach on national security, leaving America weaker. He is also angry that former Bush advisers may be prosecuted or face disbarment or legal censure because of the advice they gave internally to justify waterboarding. Cheney is described as deeply disappointed that President Bush didn't pardon Lewis Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, after Libby's conviction for misleading prosecutors trying to investigate leaks. (Bush did commute Libby's 30-month prison sentence.) And Cheney doesn't want other Bush advisers to be punished for, in his assessment, simply doing their jobs.
The former vice president stirred the pot Sunday in a CBS interview, arguing that "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding did not represent torture. The former vice president said that such methods were legal and that they generated important intelligence on terrorist activities. He argued that Obama's reversal of some of those policies made America less safe. Yesterday, in an interview on Fox News, Cheney repeated his criticisms. A week from tomorrow, Cheney is scheduled to address the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. His topic: "Keeping America Safe."
Reader Comments
To Mike...
You may want to pay attention to the post...
If less governement means spending 4.5 trillions dollars more? Yeah, I want more governement.
Trouble is the the **** republican are creating less govermenent by outsourcing it at a much higher cost to croonies and highest bidders (read found raisers).
DOD waste is incredible and it is one the three biggest US federal gvt expenditure. Why? Oursourcing, contracting jobs that can be done by uniformed personel at a much lesser cost and could give these folks a real oportunity when they get out.
Social security is the second one but then again... Looking at all the IOU written against it under the loop hole 'and all other purpose' (look at the text that created the SS - and the resulting raiding of the funds). Please make sure you see that those who paid SS all their lives are the ones left w/o anything. The governement left younger folks pay for all the IOUs by financing the SS of those who should be able to collect their own contributions. The SS is in good shape!!!! (If all the IOU were redeemable - They are not).
The third biggest is the IRS!!!! They spend almost as much as the DOD to collect taxes!!!
The rest is all a fraction of EACH of the first three... Read the numbers and start wondering where all the money we pay goes (other than interest).
It does not matter what party is at the helm on that aspect, they both cherish their pork and will prostitute the entire nation to their own 'special interest' groups.
If more govenment means less expenses? Let's roll! Who gives a rat ass who offers what?
If the **** republicans want to be elected? I will always vote against them since they screwed everything in the US and in the world.
If **** republican comes with a good idea? I'll vote for it.
If **** republican wants to be elected? I WILL VOTE AGAINST.
Cheney drew first blood...
Cheney was the first public criticism of President Good-Intentions/No-Experience that resonated.
On a political roll since inauguration, Obama started the stupid ball rolling by declassifying and publicizing memos concerning Bush administration 'enhanced' interrogation techniques. Obama did that while he -- not Bush -- was planning to put an increasing number of troops in harm's way. And Obama also did that while CIA operatives remained as before -- at risk.
So experienced Cheney called him on the prudence of that. Obama, on second thought, probably surprised that any criticism of him could catch on, backed off, and suggested Congress also back off from making political hay off of what he actually started.
But Grandma Pelosi sunk her tooth into the bait. Now look at her squirm to get the hook out of her mouth. Indeed, if she thought her best course of action was to win control of Congress rather than speak out against waterboarding years ago, she should now book a flight to Kabul and become president of Afghanistan.
So end result, staunch republicans are now looking at Pelosi and saying she stinks, while staunch democrats are looking at Cheney and saying he stinks. And neither of that is important to the middle.
In the middle, people noticing the stumbles, bumbles, and campaign sidesteps by Obama in light of further economic deterioration, like GM and Chrysler auto dealerships biting the dust, may be saying "Overall, on this one, Cheney made a good point -- and the economy continues to crumble."
Of Obama, Cheney, Pelosi, and now Panetta, only Panetta looks like a clear-cut class-act professional. His response in the matter, to stick up for his people, is beyond any partisan reproach. So to the middle, Panetta also came down on Cheney's side, although unintentionally and indirectly.
That's what worries democrats and democrat-leaning reporters, as the Cheneys and the Pelosis work to cancel each other out, and the Obama-appointed Panettas inadvertantly work against the democrats, more people may see Obama as being fallible, ineffective, and fiscally very expensive.
And that's before the stuff really hits the fan in Obama's 'Afpak' -- for US and Nato forces. Pakistanis in Swat Valley already got splattered with Obama -- not Bush.
So CJV
You sound like a guy that would support Colin "Americans want more government" Powell, am I right?
If so, you shouldn't talk.
advertisement
