Oh, Cheney
Tweet
In an otherwise unsurprising article about how the Bush administration’s only tactic left is to get the same con rubes who voted for them in ’00, ’02, and ’04 to show up at the polls for them (that he is the President of the entire United States is a foreign concept to Bush, and why his poor showing with independents will keep his presidency in the dog house for the remainder of its existence), the worst vice president in American history – Dick Cheney (there is legitimitate competition for Bush being the worst ever – Cheney is in a low class of his own) – he says this:
“Nancy is not in sync with the vast majority of the American people,” Cheney said, referring to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), who would become speaker if Democrats took over the House.
I would like to note for the record that the creepy veep has a net approval rating in all 50 states of a whopping -27%.
That’s about as out of “sync” as you can possibly get.
23 Responses to “Oh, Cheney”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Man, Oliver, I love irony.
Don’t you?
If someone doesn’t find Cheney’s statement comical, then they just don’t have any “funny-bone” in their body.
The really funny thing is, cheney isn’t running for anything, neither is Bush!
Nancy however, is.
-27%? Is that a real figure? ROFL.
Sorry, Pedro, I’m not following you.
Herein lies the problem.
The “con rubes” who voted Republican in 2000, 2002, and 2004 are voters who, one way or another, rejected the offerings of the Democrat party and its candidates.
Don’t call consumers STUPID just because they don’t buy your product.
No, Republican voters are stupid. That’s a fact.
As I said….(clears throat)….herein lies the problem.
Don’t call consumers STUPID just because they don’t buy your product.
What do you call consumers who continue to buy the same inferior product every two years?
Sorry duros, I wasn’t clear…
My point is that all this wailing and gnashing of teeth during an election about Bush/Cheney is really useless. You are comparing the popularity of people who will not every run for office again, with someone who is currently running (for Majority Leader). Nancy’s popularity is an issue, Bush/Cheney isn’t (at least from an election standpoint).
Rory hits the nail on the head. It is the hard core liberals like OW who miss the point that representative democracy is about the good of the COUNTRY, not “your team” winning. But of course, that is why they continue to lose elections, also, by the way, why OW will never get one of those plush government jobs in a democratic administration: He doesn’t play well with others…
Bush and Cheney still have their jobs, right? They are still the grand poobas of the Republican Party, are they not?
So, yes, their popularity is still an issue. At least for the next 2 years.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the concept of a Lame Duck Presidency used, even celebrated, for minor political advantage, before now.
Bush and Cheney’s popularity is important to the extent that this election is as much a referendum of their leadership as anything else. If you disagree with the president but he’s not up for election, are you more likely to vote for the congressional candidate who supports the president or the candidate who stands for something different?
The suggestion that Bush and Cheney’s popularity doesn’t matter because they aren’t running for election is to dodge the larger point that Oliver makes: the American people are rejecting/have rejected this failed administration.
Bush and Cheney do not represent the American mainstream anymore, if they ever did. That’s why Republican candidates are treating them as if they were toxic in races all across the country.
Nail+head=Frameone
I don’t think it is accurate to state that the mid-terms are a reflection on this current administration.
If the republicans lose here, it is because the republican congress has done next to nothing. It has been spending like Jimmy Carter on crack, it had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the immigration debate, etc. believe me, the republican congress has done enough to piss off republicans to deserve to lose on their own merits.
Here is the scary question for democrats:
What if you lose? If the democrats lose this one, they are going to have to completely re-vamp, because it will be clear that they are completely out of step with the rest of america.
Pedro,
I’ve gotta hand it to you. Just when I thought that the contest for stupidest neocon on OW’s blog was wrapped up by the Duggster, you step up to the plate and belt one out of the park.
It is the hard core liberals like OW who miss the point that representative democracy is about the good of the COUNTRY, not “your team” winning.
I mean, holy shit, are you serious? Have you not been paying attention (to anything other than Fox News) for the past six years? Which party is dead-set against having voter-verifiable paper receipts for voting machines? Which party runs the voting machine companies? Which party makes sure that minority (read: Democratic) districts repeatedly have too few ballots, or machines, or workers? Which party steamrolled over the hand-count of the ballots in 2000? Which party was behind the illegal off-census-year redistricting in Texas?
I could go on, but hopefully you see my point. There may be Democrats who put themselves above the country, but the current batch of Republicans are the slimiest bunch of self-serving scumfucks to ever slither their way into office.
-ND-
If the democrats lose this one, they are going to have to completely re-vamp, because it will be clear that they are completely out of step with the rest of america.
‘pends on what you mean by ‘lose’, of course. If you mean ‘actually lose seats in the house and senate’ then I might agree. If you mean ‘fail to gain control of both houses of congress’, then no. All that would show is the effect of anti-democratic redistricting and incumbency-protection that the R’s have been working on for the last decade or so.
I don’t think it is accurate to state that the mid-terms are a reflection on this current administration.
OK.
This would be the first time in history the mid-terms weren’t a reflection on the sitting administration.
Still think this is funny, though.
..from his underground bunker beneath the Naval Observatory. Just got his finger on the pulse of the American people, don’t he?
Now you see wilbur, there you go again. If the demos lose, it isn’t their fault. That is guaranteed to keep the leftists losing into the near future. You note all the republicans bitching about the crappy legislating the congress is doing? It is because we recognize they are doing a poor job, and believe in responsibility. We aren’t blaming it on Diebold, or redistricting or whatever. And because of that we remain a vibrant party with ideas that get updated. I hope for the republicans to lose the house, so the country can get a clear view of the idiocy of the leftists, and we won’t have to listen to the constant mewling of the democrats complaining they have no power. That is the ticket to a big fat (R) next to the next presidents name…
pedro, I know you think you can win every argument with increasingly risible bromides about whiny democrats and ‘responsible’ republicans, but you’re obviously side-stepping the issue. The issue is what you mean by ‘lose’. I predict that even if the dems only fall one seat short of controlling both houses, you’ll be among the first to trumpet it as a resounding repudiation of liberalism and (irony of ironies, given your comments above) a thundering vote of confidence for Bush/Cheney.
Go ahead, tell me that you won’t. When you do, I’ll invite my moonbat colleagues here to copy-and-paste your words into their scrapbooks, because they will have frequent opportunities in the future to haul them out and make you eat them.
Oh I definately will. Because if they lose by one vote, it will be a crushing defeat.
Here you have an unpopular president, a do-nothing complacent congress and a midterm election, and the opposition party can’t win? That is an unvarnished “loss”
Holy crap wilbur, won’t YOU believe that is a complete disavowment by the american people of the democratic party platform?
Hell if the democrats win the best that can be said is that the party in power lost a mid-term…big whoop, like THAT has never happened before. And the advantage for the republicans is that come ’08 we can blame all the bad stuff on the democrats!
Sweet, we win both ways…I feel like a wall street broker!
I take it I imagined all the gloating when the Republicans won the 1998 midterms.
So, pedro, if the democrats win both houses, even by a billion votes, it’s not a referendum on Bush/Cheney, but if they fail to gain control, even by just one vote, it’s a thundering vote of confidence in Bush Cheney?
And back in 2004 when an awkward New England dork with waffle issues came within a few thousand diebold votes in Ohio of unseating a commander-in-chief in a time of war: that was a
stirring mandate for the GOP as well, wasn’t it?
I must admit some grudging admiration for the symmetrical pefection of your dishonesty.
Forgot to add: I do think you’re right that if the D’s do win both houses, then two years from now the Republicans will be blaming them heartily for whatever’s left of the mess that the Republicans have made of things since 1994.
Almost makes me hope that the Dems do come up a bit short: win enough seats to keep the Republicans from doing their worst, but leaving it crystal clear whose mess it all is.
I said ‘almost’. I guess that’s why I’m not a Republican — I just can’t bring myself to that level of cynical Machiavellian calculation.
You say either way you’re a winner. Wrong. Either way we’re all losers.