Former New Yorker editor Tina Brown appeared on Tuesday's "Morning Joe" to rail against the "crazy jihad" and "one-man...hate-fest" of Dick Cheney. Brown, who is now the editor of the Daily Beast website, trashed the former Vice President for constantly appearing on cable news programs to attack the current administration and for claiming that Barack Obama is making America less safe. [Audio available here]
After asserting that Cheney is about as popular as Pakistan's President, Brown sneered, "In some ways, I kind of admire this kind of crazy jihad, this one man, kind of, hate-fest that he runs on cable shows. I mean, I guess he feels he has to defend what he did." Remarking on the Vice President's claim during Sunday's "Face the Nation" that he prefers Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell, the liberal journalist mocked, "'Cause when he said on that show that Rush Limbaugh, rather than Colin Powell, was the face of the party, it was like once again, that huge, fat crazy frame fills the screen and becomes the face of the party."
Co-host Mika Brzezinski offered Brown a word of caution, noting, "But, you know how these things change. I mean, if he [Cheney] is proved right and if it [a terrorist attack] happens fairly soon, in some way, believe me, things turn around in politics and the world of policy in a heartbeat." She also admired the "special confidence and strength" that the ex-VP exudes, a point that even Brown agreed with.
The former mainstream media editor hasn't always been so nasty. On August 9, 1999, she appeared on "Good Morning America" to laud the relationship between Bill and Hillary Clinton, embarrassingly stating, "What you feel is this is a couple who share the passion for the world, for doing good for politics, for making life better for other people. This is their great bond, and it really has brought them together with almost a sort of spiritual intensity."
[Hat tip to MRC intern Mike Sargent.]
A transcript of the May 12 exchange, which aired at 6:36am, follows:
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: And I wonder, Tina, if the White House doesn't want to hear from him, so this is his only avenue to express himself.
TINA BROWN: I'm sure the White House doesn't really want to hear from him. I have to ask myself at a certain point, you know, is Dick Cheney running for president? I mean, you know, there's a vacuum out there and maybe he thinks he's the guy to fill it. I mean, the fact that he has a 19 percent approval rate, you know, he could run with Zardari, who has the same approval rate in Pakistan. In some ways, I kind of admire this, kind of, crazy jihad, this one man, kind of, hate-fest that he runs on cable shows. I mean, I guess he feels he has to defend what he did. At least he's not chicken to do that.
MIKE BARNICLE: Well- Do you think it's a hate-fest? I think he is so obsessed with his role in history and he's smart enough to know that nearly everything he said during our involvement, during the buildup to war in Iraq and during the first two years in Iraq he was wrong on, he was categorically wrong.
BROWN: He doesn't see that way, and he believes that he will be justified in history and he is going to continue to fight that corner, you know, until he the day he goes out. I mean, in that sense, you have to admire the fact he's not run away to hide with an enormous book advance, which, you know, everybody else does. But, you know, he's so damaging to the Republican Party every time he comes out.
BARNICLE: Yes, he is.
BROWN: 'Cause when he said on that show that Rush Limbaugh rather than Colin Powell was the face of the party, it was like once again, that huge, fat crazy frame fills the screen and becomes the face of the party.
BRZEZINSKI: But, you know how these things change. I mean, if he is proved right and if it happens fairly soon in some way, believe me, things turn around in politics and the world of policy in a heartbeat.
BARNICLE: Don't- Don't we all think though- well, I don't know what we all think- I think that it's an admirable trait that he has that he clearly does not care what we say or what anyone says.
BROWN: Doesn't care, no.
BRZEZINSKI: There's a special confidence and strength.
BROWN: He doesn't care. But, after all, his hold stand is, he's based his entire bet on the fact there's going to be this incredible national disaster. You know, he's going to pedal along until the meteor hits. You know?
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
one forgets VP Dick-
May 12, 2009 - 15:51 ET by JIMMY1660did not fall off the hay wagon last night. he has been around for years, unlike BHO. He has no agenda, other than the love of his America.he has inside information he is basing his opinion on hard facts, he has given his life even over his health, to keep us safe.
he knows what he knows. if i had the same facts at hand i would listen, wouldn't you.
BHO- the one term DIMOCRAT
He has no agenda But I
May 12, 2009 - 16:10 ET by Dan The Man 2He has no agenda
But I believe he does and he is executing it before our very eyes much like an illusionist does.
Illusionist?
May 12, 2009 - 18:01 ET by retroconVP Cheney definitely has an agenda, and he's clearly articulating it!
Agenda: Bring facts to the public that the current administration is leaving out. Facts about USofA lives saved. Facts about effectiveness. Facts that the Odminstration does not want to present because it will minimize or negate the damage that they are trying very hard to inflict on anyone from the previous administration, using selective, calculated, and deliberate information releases.
A practice that, in the past, was the exclusive hallmark of banana republics, not the USofA.
The Media's Permission
May 12, 2009 - 16:01 ET by KC MulvilleThey're angry that someone dares to speak without their permission.
It's interesting how many of these media types avoid arguing the points being made, and try to dismiss the person making them. Of course, by any logical standard, the person who was vice president for the last eight years has more credible things to say than a journalist. But these Lords of Journalism feel perfectly comfortable elevating themselves to a level of authority above everyone else.
A la Katie Couric, they feel they have the right to shape everyone's worldview.
we must understand these
May 12, 2009 - 23:32 ET by TruthMongerwe must understand these people were defending their kindred spirits al queda and saddam hussein...
as tina so aptly says - they must feel like they have to defend what they did...
because they do - and will always have to - for the rest of eternity - and that's a major bummer even for their particularly vigorous spin mafia...
Palin/Prejean 2012
Pardon me for noticing
May 12, 2009 - 16:05 ET by allanfbut the hatred and name calling seems to be coming straight from Tina. Cheney doesn't seem angry to me at all.
That's the great thing about Cheney....
May 12, 2009 - 16:12 ET by Prester John....he's calm and rational and cool, doesn't make it personal and just lays out the facts and his opinions, knowing that it drives the MSM and Libs completely insane.
And on the inside he's laughing his a$$ off.
they've always said there's
May 12, 2009 - 23:50 ET by TruthMongerthey've always said there's nothing like using hatred to tear down the evils of hatred - leftwing principle at its finest
Palin/Prejean 2012
Tina jabbers a lot
May 12, 2009 - 16:06 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonBut she has never offered any proof that she is right and Dick Cheney is wrong.
But tina, if you can read this, i welcome your offerings of proof that the man is wrong and the nation is just as safe now as it has been for the last eight years.
http://gjresult.com
Let's see... The past
May 12, 2009 - 16:23 ET by JerLet's see...
The past administration: Nearly 3000 Americans killed on 9/11 while Bush/Cheney were asleep at the wheel.
The current administration: 0
But, it's still early.
Jer
You're a liar.
May 12, 2009 - 16:35 ET by mattmBush inherited a dismantled intelligence system from Clinton-Gore, who slept through the 1993 WTC attack, The Cole bombing, Mogadishu, etc. etc.
The blood of those 3000 is on the hands of Clinton, Gore, Jamie Gorelick, Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, and the rest of the leftoids who thought a weak national defense was a good idea - including YOU, if you agreed with the appeasment policies of the Left.
No, but you're obviously an
May 12, 2009 - 17:05 ET by JerNo, but you're obviously an ignorarmus.
Bush and Cheney were repeatedly warned about the imminent threat of Al Qaeda. They ignored it and concentrated on missile defense and sabre-rattling against Iraq.
Jer
2002 called
May 12, 2009 - 17:30 ET by Jnobleit wants your DNC-approved talking point back
I don't read or utilize
May 12, 2009 - 17:39 ET by JerI don't read or utilize talking points, Jnoble. I do read works of history, acquaint myself with facts, and draw my own conclusions. Then I praise or criticize accordingly. I've given Bush/Cheney a great deal of credit where I thought it was due. 9/11 is not one of those occasions.
Jer
If you read the facts, Jer...
May 12, 2009 - 17:54 ET by timotheThen you would also be forced to agree that US intelligence in 2001 was exceptionally weak and underfunded, largely due to the continued military cuts by Clinton Administration.
After doing a significant study on the matter myself, I have concluded that neither Bush nor Clinton were at fault for 9/11. An enemy as determined as Al Queda was going to succeed in their goal of a spectacular terrorist attack. If 9/11 didn't work, they would have tried other acts until something did work. I don't think there was any way we could have completely stopped Al Queda from committing a single act of terrorism against the USA prior to 9/11. We simply were not prepared for Jihad at that time, nor could we have been.
"Contempt prior to investigation is ignorance."
Thanks, timothe... A
May 12, 2009 - 18:13 ET by JerThanks, timothe...
A reasoned and sound analysis. My conclusion differs slightly. In my opinion both Clinton and Bush made serious mistakes--but still problematic that 9/11 could or would have been prevented.
Jer
Your reading of what history?
May 12, 2009 - 23:32 ET by merlin61Sorry, but your history is wrong. Gore, Clinton,
etc.were the ones who did not respond and cut
our military. Clinton could have gotten Usama,
but he screwed that up and ignored all the other
attacks. That's why we were attacked on 9/11
Weakness by Clinton, and now we have weakness
by Obama and that's why Cheney is warning us.
Jer - You're the
May 12, 2009 - 17:51 ET by Gat New YorkJer - You're the ignoramous.
Those terrorists had already trained inside the U.S. and were set to go before Bush/Cheney tookm office. 9/11 happened because of a dismantled intelligence network on Clinton's watch. It took place because Clinton didn't have the kahones to shoot bin Laden over half dozen times. It took place because Clinton/Gore chose to ignore the recommended actions to significantly increase airport security from a Gore Commission which would have prevented 9/11.
Getting a warning about al Qaeda threat of an attack inside the U.S. without any idea of timing, place, and method means zero. That lame left wing loon excuse doesn't work.
Crack a book Gat, and don't
May 12, 2009 - 18:08 ET by JerCrack a book Gat, and don't rely on history according to Limbaugh and Hannity. How many cruise missiles did Bush/Cheney launch before 9/11 against Bin Laden versus Clinton? Which administration had him boxed in at Tora Bora and let him slip away? Which administration failed to utilize armed drones to take Bin Laden out? [Hint: it wasn't Clinton} Which administration was explicitly warned by the Hart-Rudman commission on terrorism of impending terrorist attacks? Which administration was explictity warned during the transition period on three separate occasions by Clinton and his top advisors that Al Qaeda would be the number one threat with which it must confront? Why was Tenet running aroung with his hair on fire during the summer of 2001 because of unprecedented intelligence chatter? Who decided to go on a month-long vacation just a few weeks before 9/11? Which Regan administration expert gave Clinton high marks for his efforts combatting terrorism, except that he thought he was too focused on Bin Laden?
Jer
Cruise Missiles and bin Laden
May 12, 2009 - 18:16 ET by LionKingRefresh my memory ... when did Clinton launch against bin Laden?
1.) Launching cruise
May 12, 2009 - 19:32 ET by BD1.) Launching cruise missiles against abandoned camps would have been a waste.
2.) Regarding Tora Bora, How do you box anyone in against a mountain pass in which you are not capable of securing the pass by which the enemy is fleeing? Would you have dropped the 75th Ranger Regiment into the mountains at 12,000 feet into areas with no soft terrain for LZ and that were serving as ratlines for the fleeing forces? Can you say debacle worse than the drop of Gen Sosabowski's Polish Brigade at Arnhem?
3.) Which administration failed to utilize armed drones to take Bin Laden out? Have you ever seen UAV imagery? Can you be certain Bin Ladin was in the crosshairs? I encourage you to check out Military.com's Shock and Awe page which has countless video's shot from various UAV's.
4.) Which administration was explictity warned during the transition period on three separate occasions by Clinton and his top advisors that Al Qaeda would be the number one threat with which it must confront? WHy not China? nKorea? I recall what 2000 was like and must confess that terrorism was not my number one concern.
Hey, BD... Just saw
May 12, 2009 - 20:49 ET by JerHey, BD...
Just saw this. You make some very good points--about 75% with which I agree [or at least don't strongly disagree]. I need to sign out and take care of a few things (geez, I'm beginning to sound like bigtimer), but I plan to be back later tonite or tomorrow.
Jer
Oh yeah, Gat, one more
May 12, 2009 - 18:23 ET by JerOh yeah, Gat, one more thing...
Compared to you an ignoramus is a towering intellect.
[Just kidding, none of you guys are ignorami--but neither am I a "liar".]
Jer
Jer
May 13, 2009 - 00:05 ET by MrShyWhat part of what mattm wrote, above, do you not get or have a beef with?
Why do you jump on here and point to Bush/Cheney's 7 1/2 months of, granted, not having the looming threat right at the top of their radar, when they were simply inheriting (yes, I'm using the word, but it applies here) an extremely laissez-faire culture regarding terrorism by the previous administration.
What mattm said is dead-on and factual, that Clinton/Gore's two terms -- 8 YEARS -- were spent doing nothing (whilst, indeed, vital resources shrank) while 2/26 in 1993 killing 6 and nearly bringing down one WTC tower happened, bombings of our embassies in Africa in 1996 and 1998 killing hundreds happened, and the Cole bombing in 2000 killing some 17 of our soldiers happened.
Horribly, 9/11/2001 happened, and surely if it was somehow foiled -- again, when our communication and resources were so chaotic on the heels of an administration that didn't care much about national security and bungled it's foreign policy -- some other attack on our soil (Al Qeada's obvious intended next target) was inevitable until we woke up.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Here's a clue, Shy...
May 13, 2009 - 00:50 ET by JerHere's a clue, Shy...
When someone with whom I'm not even engaged in a dialogue jumps into a thread and immediately calls me a liar, it hardly establishes a basis for a productive exchange.
Is that a satisfactory reason for having a "beef"?
Jer
It was extremely inflammatory Uncle Jer.
May 13, 2009 - 01:17 ET by JWFIt is an extremely unfair comparison made on a conservative site.
The past administration: Nearly 3000 Americans killed on 9/11 while Bush/Cheney were asleep at the wheel.
The current administration: 0
But, it's still early.
The Bush administration came in to office at a time of peace when this country had not been attacked on domestic soil by outside forces for some 50 years. The few attacks such as the 1993 attacks on the World Trade Center were considered criminal in nature and did not result in a great loss of property or life. Up until that time, Al Qaeda had attacked only military and embassy targets. No one forsaw the attacks of 9/11.
The Obama administrations came in to office after the largest attack on U.S. soil ever by outsiders or insiders only a scant 8 years earlier. It came in to office knowing that more attacks were planned and thwarted by the previous administration. It came in when this country was still on a wartime footing and had 2 fronts in 2 different countries with the highest placed perpetrator of the 9/11 attack still on the loose.
The Bush administration may or may not have been asleep prior to 9/11 but it most certainly did a 180 if it was asleep.
Whereas the Obama administration is massively ramping up spending in every sector of the government but one, defense. It is cutting back on defense spending. It is systematically destroying or talking of destroying the programs the previous administration put in place to protect us. It exposed the enhanced interrogation program. It announced plans to close Gitmo with no plan of where to actually place the prisoners. It plans to place the budgets of Iraq and Afghanistan under the normal Pentagon budget. Which can only result in rationing battle costs, not a way to win a war. It has second guessed the previous administration by announcing a witch hunt for those involved in the EIT program, placing a chill on all CIA personnel currently involved in the GWOT. It refuses to call a spade a spade, referring to terrorists as human caused disaster as though they are purposely driving around late 70's Pinto's. It wants to rename GWOT. Oh, I am getting tired, you insert the rest.
No one would call you names if you were not acting like an inflammatory troll.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF...
May 13, 2009 - 01:28 ET by JerI'm going to bed.
But a couple of quick points. Agreed, it was a controversial post. But it was not inflammatory. I've praised Bush/Cheney lavishly on a number of issues--including post 9/11 national security, enhanced interrogation, etc. [which puts me at odds with most liberals.]
However, I do not believe they were properly focused on Al Qaeda pre-911. Most here may disagree, but it's my opinion and I don't deserve to be addressed as a Liar for expressing it.
Finally, you say no one would call me names if I were not acting like an inflammatory troll. Baloney. You've obviously missed a lot of my posts. I have made some absolutely innocuous, respectful comments and in turn been called every name in the book. I'll be more than happy to provide examples.
Jer
Nobody was focused on Al Qaeda pre-911.
May 13, 2009 - 01:34 ET by JWFThat is how they got away with it. It is disengenuous to focus solely on Bush.
Are you forgetting who you are talking to Uncler Jer? I read you posts all teh time. I even have a website. www.UncleJerWatch.com.
JWF
May 13, 2009 - 01:52 ET by MrShyExactly. And great post, above, which starkly exposes how this new administration's priorities are skewed -- whether deliberate or not -- and that's being kind.
And yes, Jer's childish scorecard of civilian deaths under Bush vs. Obama was just that, childish... and insulting, really, and inflammatory, and indeed disengenuous/intellectually dishonest.
Impressive, Jer. You packed a lot of b.s. in one cute post.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Look Shy... Stop with the
May 13, 2009 - 02:01 ET by JerLook Shy...
Stop with the insults. I'm getting tired of this "intellectual dishonesty" slur you've been gratuitously throwing at me lately.
On the very afternoon of 9/11, while I and Democrats were rallying around President Bush and praising his leadership--I listened to the right-wing talkers saying Bill Clinton is solely to blame for the attacks--he has the blood of thousands on his hands. I specifically heard Kim Peterson and Neal Boortz say it. It was disgusting. And it was a constant theme for months thereafter. So please don't lecture me about childish and inflammatory comments, when you obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Jer
Look... Jer
May 13, 2009 - 02:35 ET by MrShyGet thicker skin. You know what site you're on.
You make this argument -- which I see you exhausting a lot of your energy doing, on many of your posts -- that because you're "the most 'fair' liberal" "compared to most" that you're buffered from being taken to task. Because you make less dumb arguments than others, we should leave you alone?
Insults? I'm just calling you out. I have a big clue what I'm talking about in matters of national security.
Disgusting? That scorecard thing of yours I sort of find disgusting. Putting most of the blame on Clinton is where most of the blame belongs, on many levels, and plenty of NB'ers tirelessly make very good arguments to back this up, including myself. But you feel compelled to continue playing Jer the Fair Guy on this issue, and I'm not having any of it.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Fine, Shy...I'll call
May 13, 2009 - 02:54 ET by JerFine, Shy...
I'll call you out, too. I've pointed out a number of times that I've been critical of the left, but where on these boards other than associated with mentioning my praise of Bush have I ever said I was the "most fair liberal" "compared to most". You put it in quotes, so back it up Ace.
We've had the 9/11 discussions before. I've provided plenty of sources. How about you, the self-proclaimed national security authority? Frankly, Shy, to date I'm underwhelmed with your expertise. Thus far, about all I've seen from you is opinion masquerading as fact. Go peddle your nonsense to somebody a little more gullible.
Jer
Jer
May 13, 2009 - 03:08 ET by MrShy"I've provided plenty of sources. How about you..."
Sources? What sources?
As for my (" ") quotes, they were not literal quotes but your-essence quotes, with regards to Bush. I was referring to this:
"I have praised George Bush far more than any other liberal at this site--probably moreso than many of the NB Republicans."
There, I used *actual* quotes, quoting you. Happy now?
EDIT: and this one (real quotes, Jer, just for you! :)):
"I've given Bush/Cheney a great deal of credit where I thought it was due."
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Shy... I fully
May 13, 2009 - 03:22 ET by JerShy...
I fully acknowledge that I have on many occasions noted that I've praised Bush, and I referred to my statement made a little earlier tonite about praising him "far more than other libs" here. My reading of your post was that you were suggesting I have over the course of my membership here often claimed to be the "most fair liberal" at NB. If that was a misinterpretation, I apologize.
Jer
Jer
May 13, 2009 - 03:33 ET by MrShyWell, actually, you do get defensive a lot and HAVE made this sort of claim in many of your debates, outside of this thread. You'll deny it, but it is sort of your mechanism to get us to go easy on you.
You can believe you're "fair" with Bush all you want, but I won't let you off the hook when you spread the blame evenly between him, his predecessor and his successor.
In Clinton's two terms he dismantled and de-emphasized military and intelligence and let Al Queda run amok. In Bush's two terms, he strengthened our military, went to war with the Middle East, as he should have, and he's made our country AND the world a lot safer. Obama, in his short time in office, not a decade removed from the worst attack on our soil, is fast reverting us back to pre-9/11 behavior. It's how it really is, and it's scary.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Shy... Believe me, I
May 13, 2009 - 03:42 ET by JerShy...
Believe me, I would much rather not to have to go to the trouble of pointing out the content and tone of previous posts. But when I'm still accused of being a liberal troll, a far-left extremist, a socialist, a typical lefty Bush hater, someone who never criticizes Democrats or liberals and despises conservatives and loathes the military, I sometimes find it necessary to point out the fallacy.
Make sense?
Jer
Jer #2
May 13, 2009 - 03:18 ET by MrShyJer, you're still a liberal, and I greatly admire Bush the man AND the president, so I stand by him at several turns (but not all of them, believe me.)
National security and terrorism/9/11 are a couple of those turns, however, where he simply shines, IMO.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Shy...
May 13, 2009 - 03:30 ET by JerI likewise stand by Bush on post 9/11 national security, terrorism and Afghanistan. I believe he was lax on terrorism pre-9/11 and that the intervention in Iraq was premature. Those are my opinions. I'm sorry you and others feel the scorecard was inflammatory. But even considering this is a conservative site, the level of "inflammation" is microscopic compared to what I witness on a daily basis about Obama, and frequently about the Clintons.
Jer
Tag Team
May 13, 2009 - 03:36 ET by JWFPremature? We waited 12 years for heavens sake.
Please pick another adverb.
"Premature" is not an
May 13, 2009 - 03:46 ET by Jer"Premature" is not an adverb, JWF.
Jer
Yes, Lolly, thanks for focusing on the weak joke.
May 13, 2009 - 04:00 ET by JWFAnd letting the more powerful actual statement above it stand.
I am fully aware it was not an adverb Lolly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWYmEICNgOQ
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF
May 13, 2009 - 03:47 ET by MrShyI know, I love the constant moving of the goalposts regarding Iraq.
Iraq FACTS:
It's right in the middle of the Middle East.
It was being ruled by a totally unpredictable, unstable thug of a dictator, killing his own people.
It borders with (in between) Iran and Syria, two other despot states we eventually have to deal with.
We were "dealing" with Saddam and his shananigans, like you said, for over a decade.
We SHOULD have taken him out a decade before.
And yet, liberals scream and whine something different each time: It was premature... They didn't attack us... It was illegal... Saddam was contained.... yada yada.... And we put up with the stupid Monday Morning Quarterback blather endlessly.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
"But even considering this
May 13, 2009 - 03:40 ET by MrShy"But even considering this is a conservative site, the level of "inflammation" is microscopic compared to what I witness on a daily basis about Obama, and frequently about the Clintons."
Still, it comes to you from a conservative site. You don't have to be here, and no one's twisting your arm to stay.
And if you want to play the "microscopic compared to..." game, what you witness (which are words, on a conservative site) are microscopic to the insane vitriol, fear-mongering, and hate I witness every day on TV, in op-eds, in comments on sites all over, on the streets of NYC, at my workplace, AT PARTIES, from my own brother and friends, etc..
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Believe me...they've got
May 13, 2009 - 03:49 ET by JerBelieve me...they've got nothin' on southern conservatives, including many of my friends, when it comes to vitriol.
Jer
Still, it comes to you from
May 13, 2009 - 04:25 ET by JerStill, it comes to you from a conservative site. You don't have to be here, and no one's twisting your arm to stay.
Gee, you have an amazing grasp of the obvious, Einstein. I'll be sure an add that gem to your national security portfolio.
As far as staying or leaving, I guess that's either my decision or the mods' isn't it? So don't fret about it.
Jer
By the way, Shy... In two
May 13, 2009 - 03:13 ET by JerBy the way, Shy...
In two short sentences you managed to accuse me of being childish [twice], insulting, inflammatory, disengenuous, intellectually dishonest, and posting bullshit [bs].
But hey, not to be construed as "insults"..."just calling me out."
Get your brain back in your head, Shy.
Jer
Jer
May 13, 2009 - 03:22 ET by MrShyI saw it and I called it. I'm sure you'll sleep just fine tonight.
And you missed one. I also accused you of having thin skin.
Returning with another post that announces to everyone reading what a meanie I'm being to Jer (oh, and sending off PM's telling Mr. Meanie to knock it off) further demonstrates this. :)
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
It's the first time I have
May 13, 2009 - 03:35 ET by JerIt's the first time I have ever sent a negative PM to anyone. I did it because I was stunned. I thought we had always had a very friendly relationship.
Jer
Wasn't the "thin skin" claim in another post? They're all running together at this point. :-)
BTW, Shy,
May 13, 2009 - 03:53 ET by JerBTW, Shy, if I had known you were going to publicize a personal message, I would have posted the content on the thread. Why not go ahead and do so if you're so determined to disclose it. It's certainly nothing I'm ashamed of.
Jer
Since MrShy doesn't mind
May 13, 2009 - 05:06 ET by JerSince MrShy doesn't mind revealing--and mischaracterizing--a portion of a confidential PM, but is apparently too much of a coward to post it in its entirety, I'll do so:
From: Jer
To: MrShy
Subject" What the hell is wrong?
Date: May 13, 2009 - 03:20
You have been here only slightly longer than I have. I have been consistently courteous and complimentary to you in the past two years. You also should be aware that for a "lib" I have been pretty balanced in my criticsms [sic]. But, frankly, I've about had it with this intellectual dishonesty bullshit. I thought you were being facetious when you said it was no more Mr. Nice Guy, but I guess you were dead serious. It's not very appealing however.
[signed] Jer
Thats it--which Shy characterized as Jer "sending off PM's telling Mr. Meanie to knock it off."
Jer
Wow Jer
May 13, 2009 - 12:49 ET by MrShyHow old are you?
It was absolutely silly of you to PM me, and with one whiney, "you've insulted me now xx number of times" post after another, the petulant drama, the PM, and now this post... it's all mounting evidence of how immature you are and how being loved by each and every NB'er is of paramount importance to you.
Quit it, and keep the discourse here, where it belongs. If we throw a few small bombs at each other, fine. It won't kill you. It doesn't kill me.
With certain issues I defend Bush big time, so when you come on here making idiotic comparisons about deaths under each president, just to get a rise, be prepared to take some mild lumps -- which is all I'm handing out.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Shy...
May 13, 2009 - 15:18 ET by JerOld enough to know the difference between a.) an appropriate "calling out" and b.) gratuitous insults from someone who has publicly declared he is no longer "Mr. Nice Guy".
And I'm mature enough to keep confidential PMs private. Look, son, why don't you take a short break from using NB as your personal PR vehicle to promote your career, and devote some time to your manners.
Jer
building straw men
May 13, 2009 - 15:26 ET by MrShy"gratuitous insults" ??
Jer, you're a silly man, is all I can fathom at this point. Your take on things, and especially your warped perception of how I've treated you, is upside down, to say the least.
Anyway, all the best. Have the last word, as I know you will.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
LOL JWF...Not many entries
May 13, 2009 - 01:51 ET by JerLOL JWF...Not many entries are there?
Disengenuous to focus solely on Bush? I haven't. If you have really read most of my posts, you would know I have also been very critical of Clinton regarding his anti-Al Qaeda measures.
Furthermore, I am certain I have praised George Bush far more than any other liberal at this site--probably moreso than many of the NB Republicans. These personal attacks when I do happen to criticize him however are completely out of line.
BTW...Just in the past 12 hours, I have complimented Prejean and blasted Shuster...praised the character of George Bush and excoriated Sykes...Previously, I have said only nice things about Palin, called for the firing of Mike Malloy and David Ehrenstein, slammed Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow and Ted Rall, condemned the left's attacks on Bush, acknowledged the intellectual force of Dick Cheney, and consistently expressed my admiration and support for our military. If you ever have two or three hours, scan my posts over the past two years and see for yourself.
Jer
Context Uncle Jer, you always want context.
May 13, 2009 - 02:20 ET by JWFMr. Johnson wanted proof from mrs. tina as to how Uncle Cheney was wrong.
You provided a response that Bush was asleep at the wheel. Hardly exonerating of Uncle Cheney. Nor is it very proofy.
Then you gave the Obama administration a big thumbs up. Stating 0 deaths yet. The Bush administration's books are closed. Whereas we are still in chapter one of the Obama books. And as I stated previously, he started on a war footing and is dismantling the previous administrations work. So again, no very proofy.
And again context Uncle Jer. I was referring to your post here. Not the vast works of Uncle Jer writ large. To provide context, even Hitler had a dog and a fiancee that he loved and took care of. It does not excuse his other actions.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Right, Hitler took care of
May 13, 2009 - 02:33 ET by JerRight, Hitler took care of his dog by dropping a couple of cyanide tablets in its mouth and watching it die a horrible death.
Read some of Mr. Johnson's recent posts to get a flavor of how he feels about providing proof. This is a guy who gloats about his "mean-spirited" rhetoric in his bio, and refers to Christopher Reeve as "that superman guy who fell off his horsie" who then tried to bilk the taxpayers for his care. That Mr. Johnson is indeed a paragon of decency. Any concern about his inflammatory comments?
The Bush administration is closed? Fine. Maybe you should advise your compatriots who are still waging an all-out war against Clinton that his administration is closed also.
Jer
I believe I saw the post where someone linked to this thread...
May 13, 2009 - 03:45 ET by JWF...that is how I got here.
I would prolly feel a little sorry for you but it appeared you and balboa were tagteaming him. You should not team up with the exception to the rule iffy troll.
I saw Mr. Johnson's post concerning the superman guy that fell of a horse. I let it go. Gotta pick your battles Uncle Jer. Sometimes you gotta look and go, you know, that is a bucket of poo I really don't want to step in.
Also the Hitler thing was an example to make a point. Not really meant as a tangent to jump off on.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Sorry, but you're mistaken, JWF...
May 13, 2009 - 04:19 ET by JerSorry, but you're mistaken, JWF...
Tom in NC posted a comment that I thought was a little unclear, so I asked him for a clarification. At that point, Willis--the self-described purveyor of hateful rhetoric--jumped in and posted a reply to me containing one of the most insensitive comments I've ever read at NB. I objected to it. Do you have a problem with that?
Jer
You gonna kick my tushy Uncle Jer?
May 13, 2009 - 05:34 ET by JWFDo you have a problem with that? Do you? Punk! Huh? Punk! Do you? Punk!
I don't have a problem with that Uncle Jer. Please don't go and I quote "all biblical" on my tushy. Uncle Jer appears not to be in a good mood so I will just drop it.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
I apologize JWF... But
May 13, 2009 - 15:23 ET by JerI apologize JWF...
But I've been getting my "tushy" kicked from one thread to another, so I guess I'm just kicking back wherever I can.
Jer
uh... Slight correction jer.
May 13, 2009 - 16:23 ET by Willis_Leon_Johnson"At that point, Willis--the self-described purveyor of hateful rhetoric--"
I never posted such a 'self-description'.
Methinks thou doest prevaricate.
As far as the rest of my remark, he did fall off his horse, and he did want the taxpayers to foot his medical bills.
If my rejecting THAT plan is 'insensitive' then go print your revised dictionary so the rest of us can keep up.
http://gjresult.com
Willis...
May 13, 2009 - 16:41 ET by JerWell, you certainly made an explicit reference to it in your bio, didn't deny it, and indeed appeared to revel in it. Then you start posting at this site and prove it with incredibly insensitive, mocking remarks about a dead man who had suffered an horrific and devastating injury in a tragic accident.
Nor have you provided a shred of evidence Reeve wanted taxpayers to foot his medical bills.
Jer
Yer fun jer.
May 13, 2009 - 16:59 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonThere is plenty of perfectly good video of him requesting the federal government provide funding for people in his position.
The fact that he included others in his plea does not dismiss his desire to have HIS medical bills paid through deductions from YOUR paycheck.
Even if I did provide the proof, you would refuse to accept it because it did not come from the liberal talking points memo that yoou subscribe to.
So, why should I bother with the legwork?
Do your own homework and prove me wrong. Your sayso is not proof of me being wrong.
http://gjresult.com
Yer a blast, willis...
May 13, 2009 - 17:47 ET by JerYou and I are exactly the same age, which means we both were educated in an era where reading skills were strongly emphasized. Alas, yours apparently need a little brushing up.
I never said you were wrong. I requested evidence to support your assertion. If you choose not to provide it, that's your prerogative.
Jer
Yer fun jer
May 13, 2009 - 18:09 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonIf mine need a little brushing, your skills need dug up and soaked in naval jelly for a few months to remove the rust and decay.
But, this thread isn't about us is it jer?
You keep trying to make it about something different than the headline would suggest.
Why are you trying to deflect others from the subject and attempting to make it about me and what a big, bad, meanie I am?
I apologize Jer, I have yet to look over your bio. Is there anything of value I could glean from that?
As you read from mine, and I brought the whole thing here to save everybody time.
"I am 61, male, conservative, and on occasion, brutally honest.
I do not believe in political correctness, and making sure that people understand their words and actions affect other people.
I have been permanently banned from the Grand Junction, CO Daily
Sentinel website for making the liberals feel bad with my 'mean
spirited, hateful speech'. Life is GOOD!!!"
I am fully capable of making liberals feel bad. Like it or not little buddy, I enjoy causing sleepless nights.
I use logic, accurate history, facts, and a natural inborn love for irritating those who would destroy MY country, regardless of their protestations to the contrary.
If we are truly the same age, then you should have noticed how destructive socialism, communism, facism, etc., are to the populations of the countries that were so inflicted.
Your liberal tendencies lead me to believe that you would prefer that my fellow Americans be enslaved to a government that holds no value of Freedom for its Citizens.
We just don't seem to be destined to be lifelong friends and bestest buddies throughout eternity.
http://gjresult.com
Does naval jelly really
May 13, 2009 - 18:32 ET by JerDoes naval jelly really work? I'll give it a try. That aside, sorry to disappoint you, but I don't lose any sleep over anything that's ever posted here.
We are indeed the same age, although my birthday is next week. Consequently, chances are that I'm slightly your elder. So, show me some respect, youngster. :-)
Regarding the 'bestest buddy' thing. I don't know. I've started out on the wrong foot with several here with whom I now get along very well. Anything's possible.
Jer
btw...I've never gotten around to posting a bio. Maybe some day.
jer does naval jelly work?
May 13, 2009 - 18:34 ET by botgyes but it's not for your bellybutton
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
WHAT!?
May 13, 2009 - 18:45 ET by JerYou mean I've been walking around all these years with gooey shirts for nothin'? About time somebody told me.
Jer
Very good
May 13, 2009 - 18:54 ET by general companyYour liberal tendencies lead me to believe that you would prefer that
my fellow Americans be enslaved to a government that holds no value of
Freedom for its Citizens.
Amen brother.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
That sorta put the cards on the table
May 14, 2009 - 08:22 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonNow, nobody can say they weren't warned for my 'mean spirited, hateful' return volleys, can they?
http://gjresult.com
Re Gorelick
May 12, 2009 - 17:34 ET by slickwillie2001Yes, and it was brilliant of the democratics to put Gorelick on the 9/11 Commission. That kept her off of the witness stand where she should have been, testifying about the wall she put up between intelligence and law enforcement.
Considering her role in the collapse of Fannie and Freddie, she is one of the few Americans at the center of responsibility for both 9/11 and the financial collapse.
I forgot
May 12, 2009 - 16:37 ET by general companyHow many times were we attacked during Clinton? Wonder how many would had died on 9/11 if Clinton would had succured OBL
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
You hang in there jer
May 12, 2009 - 21:56 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonYour brain transplant is in the works.
We have one that has been tested and proven to function normally.
You current model can be refurbished, and possibly sold as new since it has never been used.
The klintons had more to do with destroying the intelligence gathering abilities of the national security agencies.
Provable facts, but don't take my word for it, do your own research.
http://gjresult.com
Provable facts? But
May 12, 2009 - 22:13 ET by JerProvable facts? But you're too intellectually lazy to actually prove them? Why Willis, I'm flabbergasted! Wait, that came out wrong. I would be flabbergasted if you actually backed up any of your naked assertions.
Jer
whoa thar jer
May 12, 2009 - 22:20 ET by botgyou really want to claim ignorance here?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Did you know that Cheerios
May 12, 2009 - 22:22 ET by balboaDid you know that Cheerios can make you clairvoyant?
That was almost funny Bal.
May 12, 2009 - 22:36 ET by RESTLESS 1I suppose you are referring to this?
Ain't big gubmint grand?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
No, I'm making outrageous
May 12, 2009 - 22:39 ET by balboaNo, I'm making outrageous claims and then if Willis wants proof I'm gonna tell him to do his own research. :-)
so Bals gonna claim he's ignorant
May 12, 2009 - 22:50 ET by botgof the Clinton administration?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Huh
May 12, 2009 - 22:53 ET by RESTLESS 1I guess it's just a coincidence then.
Still, what absurd claims did willis make?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Perhaps, botg
May 12, 2009 - 22:23 ET by RESTLESS 1it is ignorance that claims Jer?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
It is a constant battle, Restless...
May 12, 2009 - 22:59 ET by JerIgnorance tries to claim me every day I visit NB. The sheer quantity almost overwhelms me on occasion, but fortunately my intellectual prowess has thus far managed to fend it off. :-)
Jer
botg... You mean I'm
May 12, 2009 - 22:50 ET by Jerbotg...
You mean I'm supposed to just automatically agree with a statement that doesn't even make grammatical sense?
Jer
so Jer
May 12, 2009 - 22:58 ET by botgyou are going to say that you are ignorant of the Clinton administration's lowering the capabilities of intelligence gathering.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
botg...
May 12, 2009 - 23:12 ET by JerI'll concede there should have been more human assets. That was a failure by the Clinton administration. However, I don't recall Bush/Cheney raising the issue in the campaign, or any reference to it in the Republican platform, or that the problem was addressed after Bush became president--nor was anything done to dismantle the fictional Gorelick "wall". In fact, I heard precious little about terrorism period from the Bush folks prior to 9/11.
Jer
so if you stipulate
May 12, 2009 - 23:15 ET by botgwhy question?
and obsfucate with a mention of Bush?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
agreed - the whole point of
May 12, 2009 - 23:46 ET by TruthMongeragreed - the whole point of this thread is about tina exposing former VP Cheney as being a one-man hate-filled jihad with a fat ugly frame - or something like that - obviously not as nice as she and her fat-ugly-Cheny-hating-jihadist friends are
Palin/Prejean 2012
Awesome
May 13, 2009 - 09:01 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonJust simple awesome.
That chain was a fun read and I thank all participants.
http://gjresult.com
This is why you are
May 13, 2009 - 09:05 ET by mattmThis is why you are a liar. You say things like "the fictional Gorelick "wall."" There is nothing fictional about the FACT that the Clinton administration had a policy which kept intel agencies blind to what each other were doing. This is a fact, so if you know it's a fact but speak otherwise, you're a liar. If your not a liar, your ignorant - or delusional.
Go back to the hole you crawled out of.
Wrong again, mattm...
May 13, 2009 - 15:24 ET by JerGorelick did not erect a "wall" out of raw materials. She merely provided an overdue clarification of preexisting uncertainties regarding appropriate divisions of responsibilty and authority. Tom Kean has acknowledged that Gorelick in no way undermined the work of the intel agencies.
But you wouldn't know that, because you don't read. You simply choose to remain an uninformed, witless flamer who continually embarrassess himself by spewing nonsense and spinning fables.
Jer.
silly person...
May 12, 2009 - 22:30 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonYou claim that I am wrong with no proof whatsoever.
The onus of proof is on you.
And from all outward appearances, a gentle sneeze would 'flabbergast' you.
You make ridiculous claims, then try to shift the focus to others.
http://gjresult.com
Thank God for Dick Cheney...
May 12, 2009 - 16:08 ET by jawebster1he is the only prominent Republican to stand up to the Democrats and the media (same thing) and that is why he is drawing all the flak. We need more Republicans like him to stand up and tell the truth about what is happening to our country. Republicans can win the argument if they would only stand up for Reagan principles and fire back. They need to follow the lead of Cheney, Limbaugh and Hannity and not Colin Powell. They need to unite and fight! Jim Webster
I haven't heard any hate.
May 12, 2009 - 16:26 ET by sevenWe all know Cheney for all his years has a lot more info than Obama has or ever had. Obama is going on 3 weaks as a used car salesman selling the dodge Rahm. Obama may know more about his car business than Cheney does. Will the dodge Rahm get a contract for military vehicles?
They can't just disagree
May 12, 2009 - 16:28 ET by mattmThey can't just disagree and explain why. They have to pull out their full arsenal of demogogic hate, pointing fingers while three fingers are pointing back at them. Why?
Two reasons: 1. It's a good way to demonize your opposition, and 2. you don't have to have any facts to back back up what you say - which makes this tactic very convenient for Libs.
I saw a number of
May 12, 2009 - 16:53 ET by SickofLibsTingles hosted quite the Cheney-is-Crazy-Hatefest yesterday. Virtually every clip of Cheney was him being pushed around in a wheelchair. Making him appear as Mr. Burns of The Simpsons. Now how long was he confined to a wheelchair exactly? A week or two?
Sooo transparent... and pretty sickening.
Why does the left take it so hard?
May 12, 2009 - 17:29 ET by IamTinmanWhy does the left take it so hard when someone like Cheney, Sarah Palin, or Miss California stand behind something they truly believe?
Is it because the left has no foundation of principles or standards to rely on for support?
Oh, and Tina you hasn't-been and never-will be, "'Cause when he said on that show that Rush Limbaugh, rather than Colin Powell, was the face of the party," is most assuredly NOT what Cheney said but a typical leftist spin. There's a Job opening in the MSNBC mailroom. Better take it.
Tina had better calm down
May 12, 2009 - 17:32 ET by Jnobleshe might spill some of her cosmo on her dress, thus making her unpresentable at tonight's socialite party in the Hamptons. What WILL the others think??
I must have still been half-asleep...
May 12, 2009 - 17:47 ET by timothe....because I watched this today and I didn't think Ms. Brown was all that heavy-handed in her assessment of Cheney. In fact, this discussion went much longer than the snippet Scott pulled for his article and in most of her commentary, she was fairly even-handed.
On the other hand, the partisanship shown by Eugene Robinson later in the show when he was arguing torture with Liz Cheney was so over the top, it was despicable. To her credit, Liz handled herself very well and demonstrated she had a much better handle of the facts than the Washington Post columnist.
"Contempt prior to investigation is ignorance."
Brown: "In some ways, I kind
May 12, 2009 - 17:57 ET by deerjerkydaveBrown: "In some ways, I kind of admire this kind of crazy jihad, this one man, kind of, hate-fest that he runs on cable shows. I mean, I guess he feels he has to defend what he did"
What did Cheney do that was so hateful? Did he say something racist? Bigoted? Homophobic?
No.
He dared to challenge the anointed One.
You go, Tina! You're a genius.
May 12, 2009 - 18:06 ET by danebramageWhile I feel sorry for the targets of their venom, I applaud inside every time a lefty says these sorts of things (which means I'm applauding a lot these days). They're digging their own graves and filling them back in behind them as they go.
Peter Pan's Envy
May 12, 2009 - 18:06 ET by CortillaenDoes anyone believe, even for a second, that Tina Brown would ever describe real jihadis as being on a "crazy jihad"? This is just insane! Our faux news companies have effectively banned the use of this word, created by Muslims to mean a "holy war", in regards to that very group, but a partisan hack feels completely at ease using it to slander a former VP.
You know, I think I understand these people. It's all just politics to them, isn't it? Never let a good crisis go to waste, and never let a good pejorative go unused against your opponents. Never mind the fact that real people out there want us all dead. Never mind that those people view "jihad" as an absolute order from their god to convert or kill the targets. Never mind that the man to be slandered has done nothing but exercise his First Amendment rights and status as former VP to make known how dangerous the current administration's actions are. All that matters is that this word, right now, can be used to make him sound bad, reality be damned. They. Are. Children. Eternally stuck in the phase of playground insults and gossip, they can't even grasp how pathetically narrow-minded they truly are.
This is what our media, the primary source of information for a large part of the country, has become: Nothing more than childish political hacks myopically dedicated to attacking anyone who dissents with their side. They play their games of politics under the guise of news and critical commentary, utterly oblivious to the very real consequences. Any tactic, any lie, any attack is fully justified in their minds because those minds are forever stuck in the childish world where they are good, and their opponents are evil. For all the accusations that conservatives live in a world devoid of grays, the liberal mind is home of the starkest contrast, an arbitrary one at that. I can't even begin to imagine what it's like living in a world where every disagreement is cast, not in facts and logic, but in terms of good and evil. However, it becomes ever more clear that a disturbingly large number of people in all manner of stations, most disturbingly the ones in positions to shape public opinion, are very much at home in that world.
www.daybydaycartoon.... Proving that conservative comedy is very real.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." - Miyamoto Musashi
The 9/11 terrorists trained
May 12, 2009 - 19:16 ET by eaglewingz08The 9/11 terrorists trained under Clinton Presidency and clearly expected a Gore Presidency afterwards. In which case, they probably would have gotten a handwringing about what we did wrong and the chickens coming home to roost. Unfortunately for them, Cheney and Bush observed where Clinton policy went wrong, and it took the better part of eight months to reverse the dangerous policies of the Clinton Administration that left the nation at risk. Unfortunately the last piece wasn't in place until 9/10/01, by which time the attack was already in motion. I hope we aren't attacked again, but given some of the reckless policies of Obama, I fear that we will be and then those who released our EIT memos will have a lot to answer for.
I agree to a point
May 12, 2009 - 20:32 ET by quimperThe terrorists did train under the Clinton presidency. But, with all due respect, hindsight is 20/20. If you want to go back far enough, Reagan was the one who gave Bin Laden the tools. It doesn't matter at this point.
We, as the general public will never be privy to the classified information the President and his cabinet have. We will probably never know what really went on behind the scenes. It just isn't our right to know, in the name of national security.
Fact: 8 months into his first term, President George W. Bush's country was attacked on his watch. Whether he suspected or knew anything was going to happen, we'll never know.
Fact: It hasn't happened again. Whether you agree with the tactics, the wars, the policies, the pain in the rear policies at the airport, we have not been attacked again. Something has gone right.
Fact: These people want us dead. Every last one of us, and the more horrific the death the better. All bets were off when Americans' heads were being chopped off and released on youtube. This war is guerilla warfare. We're not fighting an army here.
Sorry this got a little long. Since this is actually about former VP Dick Cheney, I've got to laugh that we've seen more of him in the last 3 months than we did the last 8 years. He kind of reminds me of that uncle that only pops in when there's a free meal. Grouchy but endearing.
Notice how this business of
May 13, 2009 - 04:11 ET by RR GOPNotice how this business of branding those that aren't Communists as 'haters' and 'racists' is reaching a crescendo?
I can't see that this tactic is accomplishing anything.
BTW, I haven't heard anything 'hateful' coming out of Dick Cheney's mouth so I have no idea what the hell she's talking about.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).