A Sea Of Red

Robert Barnett, who negotiated Cheney's book contract, passed word to potential publishers that the memoir would be packed with news, said the article published on the Post Web site, and Cheney himself has said, without explanation, that "the statute of limitations has expired" on many of his secrets.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08 ... ng-advice/


Does anyone else feel like this is a bad idea?

I heard he is supposed to tell how President Bush stopped listening to him in his second term. I bet nothing he can say will be verifiable. Which in the end could serve to further splinter the republican base. What I'm not sure of is if he is trying to defend a legacy (Really, a vice-presidential legacy?) or if he is just that cantankerous.

Either way, this is clearly Gore's fault. Whatever happened to vice-presidents just fading away into obscurity?

GoUNCA wrote:I heard he is supposed to tell how President Bush stopped listening to him in his second term. I bet nothing he can say will be verifiable. Which in the end could serve to further splinter the republican base. What I'm not sure of is if he is trying to defend a legacy (Really, a vice-presidential legacy?) or if he is just that cantankerous.

Either way, this is clearly Gore's fault. Whatever happened to vice-presidents just fading away into obscurity?

Ask Richard Nixon about that last question...

The weird thing about the critics of the Bush Administration was that they said that they were idiots, and yet at the same time, evil masterminds. The critics explained this by saying that Bush was a dopey puppet, and Cheney was the puppet master.

Whatever. I just wish they'd all just shut up.

Liberty4Life wrote: Either way, this is clearly Gore's fault. Whatever happened to vice-presidents just fading away into obscurity?

Ask Richard Nixon about that last question...
[/quote]

Or John C. Calhoun.

Cheney would have to have a following to start with in order to splinter the GOP. He's old and no longer a factor.

I guess the best example would be Teddy Roosevelt.

Sly Fox wrote:Cheney would have to have a following to start with in order to splinter the GOP. He's old and no longer a factor.

I disagree. He has a following -- the left-wing media, who'll deify him if it means nailing Bush.

Liberty4Life wrote:

Sly Fox wrote:Cheney would have to have a following to start with in order to splinter the GOP. He's old and no longer a factor.

I disagree. He has a following -- the left-wing media, who'll deify him if it means nailing Bush.

I rest my case.

Smart liberals care very little about nailing Bush right now (they still care about his ideology and governing style). Why would they? He has been thoroughly nailed and is being quiet. Splintering was a strong word for me to use. With the 24 hour news cycle it would probably be a little bump of formed factions.

"Smart Liberal"

Excellent example of an oxymoron.

GoUNCA wrote:

Liberty4Life wrote:

Sly Fox wrote:Cheney would have to have a following to start with in order to splinter the GOP. He's old and no longer a factor.

I disagree. He has a following -- the left-wing media, who'll deify him if it means nailing Bush.

I rest my case.

Smart liberals care very little about nailing Bush right now (they still care about his ideology and governing style). Why would they? He has been thoroughly nailed and is being quiet. Splintering was a strong word for me to use. With the 24 hour news cycle it would probably be a little bump of formed factions.

Well, take a look at some of the Dems running for office right now. They're still running on the anti-Bush platform.

The Democrats, for those who haven't noticed, aren't content with winning elections and getting policy passed. They are out to destroy their opponents (which, in turn, allows them to win elections). And policy is secondary to winning elections.

Back in 2002, Tom Daschle said something to the effect like, every 100 points the stock market drops, the Democrats pick up four seats. That is blatant politicization... They wanted the country to fail so they could get power back.

When the democrats see Dick Cheney bashing Bush, ohhh, they'll jump all over that, as if to say 'see! take a look at your stupid Republicans!' If the Democrats can force a substantial number of conservatives to jump off the GOP and join the libertarians or the Constitutionalists or the Ron Paul-ites, they'll do it.

Liberty4Life wrote: The Democrats, for those who haven't noticed, aren't content with winning elections and getting policy passed. They are out to destroy their opponents (which, in turn, allows them to win elections). And policy is secondary to winning elections.

Back in 2002, Tom Daschle said something to the effect like, every 100 points the stock market drops, the Democrats pick up four seats. That is blatant politicization... They wanted the country to fail so they could get power back.

Ummmmm....welcome to politics, I guess. It's a huge surprise, I know. Not even modern or US politics mind you. Anthony Everitt has a great biography of Cicero you should read.

If you think I can't pick out a whole lot of blatant politicization statements from Republicans then you would be sorely disappointed (I would actually argue that fear mongering is more the republican specialty in the last decade). If I remember correctly, your old school president was pretty good for blatant politicization statements, which I guess he is the same as Tom Daschle.... So don't give me the "one side is better than the other" angle. You'll only end up with egg on your face.

GoUNCA wrote:

Liberty4Life wrote: The Democrats, for those who haven't noticed, aren't content with winning elections and getting policy passed. They are out to destroy their opponents (which, in turn, allows them to win elections). And policy is secondary to winning elections.

Back in 2002, Tom Daschle said something to the effect like, every 100 points the stock market drops, the Democrats pick up four seats. That is blatant politicization... They wanted the country to fail so they could get power back.

Ummmmm....welcome to politics, I guess. It's a huge surprise, I know. Not even modern or US politics mind you. Anthony Everitt has a great biography of Cicero you should read.

If you think I can't pick out a whole lot of blatant politicization statements from Republicans then you would be sorely disappointed (I would actually argue that fear mongering is more the republican specialty in the last decade). If I remember correctly, your old school president was pretty good for blatant politicization statements, which I guess he is the same as Tom Daschle.... So don't give me the "one side is better than the other" angle. You'll only end up with egg on your face.

Don't get me wrong, crazies on the Republican side are just as bad as crazies on the Democrat side. I remember how the crazies acted during the Clinton presidency. I remember some televangelist trying to hawk this Clinton Conspiracy video (oh wait, I'm on a Liberty Univ. message board, am I not allowed to say that?)

Getting back on topic... I believe that Cheney wants to exonerate himself somewhat, and if it comes at the expense of bashing Bush, then so be it. An in-the-tank-for-the-Dems media will be all-too-willing to greet him with open arms.