"Today" reporter Chuck Todd on Thursday spun the dueling speeches of President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney as not "a fair fight." Speaking of the two May 21 addresses on the subject of terrorism, the NBC correspondent proclaimed, "Our latest poll indicates it's the most popular member of the Democratic Party facing off against one of the most unpopular members of the Republican Party."
In a follow-up interview with Republican strategist Nicolle Wallace and Democratic strategist Bob Shrum, host Matt Lauer asserted that with regards to issues like closing Guantanamo Bay and the use of enhanced interrogation, "this debate has been settled." He added, "It was settled back in November during the last election, when Americans chose to elect Barack Obama and move away from the legacy of the Bush administration." He mused, "So what does Dick Cheney have to gain or lose today?"
NBC's "Today" and ABC's "Good Morning America" also provided conflicting information on the timing of the two speeches. When asked by co-host Diane Sawyer if the President deliberately timed his speech to be a "high-noon duel" with Cheney, "This Week" anchor George Stephanopoulos responded, "I actually think he would prefer not to. No. This decision was made last week by the White House when they were getting hit for their reversals on the photo in the military tribunal issue." However, "Today" guest Shrum gave the opposite impression to NBC viewers. He exclaimed, "Democrats are happy about this. It is not an accident that the White House scheduled the President's speech after Cheney scheduled his."
At one point, Stephanopoulos gave a surprisingly candid analysis of Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. He explained, "But the President's problems on this counter-terrorism policy only begin with Vice President Cheney...As we saw yesterday, Democrats have abandoned him in droves over this question of what to do with the detainees."
Lauer also offered a few tough queries for Shrum. He asserted that the President has a major problem, "...That when Barack Obama stepped forward and announced the bold plan to close down that detention center, he didn't then follow it with a bold plan of what to do with the detainees. And until he does, this is going to fester."
A transcript of Lauer's interview with Wallace and Shrum, which aired at 7:07am EDT on May 21, follows:
[Special thanks to MRC intern Mike Sargent for transcribing the segment.]
MATT LAUER: Bob Shrum is a Democratic strategist, Nicolle Wallace is a Republican strategist and former Bush White House communications director, good morning to both of you
BOB SHRUM (Democratic strategist): Good morning.
NICOLLE WALLACE (Republican strategist): Good morning Matt.
LAUER: Hey Bob, let me start with you, with all due respect to Chuck Todd, he just said politically this isn't a fair fight because Dick Cheney is so unpopular. But if he's so unpopular, why is his speech today going to get so much attention? Isn't there something about Dick Cheney that when he speaks, people listen?
SHRUM: Oh, yeah. It's an irresistible magnetic kind of news event. But look– Democrats are happy about this. It is not an accident that the White House scheduled the President's speech after Cheney scheduled his. Democrats would put a sign up around the country saying, a wanted poster saying, "Wanted: Dick Cheney out there as much as possible." He's Mr. 18 percent. In the latest surveys people are giving 67, 68 percent in terms of trust on national security to President Obama. So it's not a fair fight.
LAUER: Nicole, in some ways this debate has been settled. It was settled back in November during the last election, when Americans chose to elect Barack Obama and move away from the legacy of the Bush administration. So what does Dick Cheney have to gain or lose today?
WALLACE: Well, this is really interesting. You know, we didn't really have a robust national security back-and-forth in the last presidential campaign. The economy, I'm sure even Mr. Shrum would agree, dominated the last presidential campaign. But the last campaign that Mr. Shrum ran, John Kerry versus George Bush, we did hash out these issues, and the Democratic Party is in real danger of making the same mistakes they have made before- being seen by the voters as blinking or flinching when it comes to taking the hard line that may not be politically popular but has certainly been proven effective in protecting this country from terrorism in the days and years now since 9/11. So, those will be the points the Vice President makes. And I think we've established he has complete magnificent indifference to his poll numbers. He doesn't care if people approve of him politically or personally. He just wants to make sure that this administration keeps us safe.
LAUER: Hey Bob, I know she called you there, but let me move on. This vote in the Senate on Wednesday, 90-6, to strip away the money that was set aside to close down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Democrats not happy about this either. Isn't this the symptom of a problem, the problem being this – that when Barack Obama stepped forward and announced the bold plan to close down that detention center, he didn't then follow it with a bold plan of what to do with the detainees. And until he does, this is going to fester.
SHRUM: Sure. And we're going to get the plan. I will bet you that we can come back in January and the center will be closed. You know, the interesting thing about this, is Nicolle wants to talk about 2004. It's kind of pathetic. Let's look ahead to 2010. Because in 2010 if Dick Cheney is the face of the Republican Party, he will do to Republicans what Herbert Hoover did to them in 1934, and they'll suffer a huge defeat in the midterm election.
LAUER: That's an unlikely scenario he'll be the face of the party in 2010, isn't it?
SHRUM: Well he is. He's out there right now, people are seeing him all the time. Republican strategists I’ve talked to, and I give Nicolle credit for either courage or foolhardiness. Most Republican strategists don't want to defend him being out there, don’t want him out there at all. When I see him, I think of that old phrase, and I paraphrase it, "bring him on." Let's hear more from him.
LAUER: Nicolle, last word on this.
WALLACE: I think being called foolish and brave by Bob Shrum is probably a compliment somewhere in there.
SHRUM: It wasn't an un-compliment. It was just a description.
WALLACE: Well, the Democratic obsession with playing politics with national security has bit them in the butt before and it will do it again.
SHRUM: It is a smear to say we want to play politics with national security. We have differences, that’s a smear.
LAUER: Bob Shrum and Nicolle Wallace. Thanks to both of you, I appreciate your time.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Cheney did a great
May 21, 2009 - 11:34 ET by Gat New YorkCheney did a great job.
Obama came to office and mercilessly kept bashing the prior administration without anyone speaking up in defense of the Bush Administration.
Cheney has become a clear voice of reason and has pushed Obama to revise his policies and even his rhetoric - until today.
There are growing numbers of people getting fed up with the left wing politicization of national security.
unfortunately about 6
May 21, 2009 - 11:51 ET by TruthMongerunfortunately about 6 f*cking years too late
"Earth to the media"
May 21, 2009 - 12:00 ET by kgCheney had this speech scheduled well before Obama decided to give a speech. It would not be far from the truth for Obama's speech to be a preemptive strike against Cheney. Obama did make it a point to blame Bush and add a few apologies in their names.
Take note NBC, it was rather noble and honorable for Cheney to postpone his speech until Obama (who butted in line) finished.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
kg... That he did...and
May 21, 2009 - 12:02 ET by bigtimerkg...
That he did...and the O-Team knew it well...they scheduled this intentionally, Cheney is under nobody's thumb now, he can speak the truth and defend what the administration did to protect and defend this country... I listened to both speeches...I was outraged with the arrogance, let alone with O's obvious anger regarding the vote in the Senate yesterday that went against what the Dictator wanted...how dare they!
I am glad AEI waited until O was done with his leftist blathering, and of course it was all about him... he even threw in his parents in his rhetoric....he is getting old fast.
Cheney...Thank YOU!
You have them on the defense...please do not back down!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Doubling down on arrogance
May 21, 2009 - 13:33 ET by ThisnThatArrogance is right. Did you hear him say "I am responsible for defending this country". "I?????!!! " It's not just the fact that he said "I". But when doing so, he implied very strongly -- "Not you".
You know how some people can make you feel that you're included within the "I" statement? Not with him. He is totally dismissive of any and all opinions and ideas, except from his inner circle of socialists. According to him, nothing was done correctly during the Bush years. That's why he has "inherited" all these problems, and why he has had to work so, so hard. In fact, in another part of his speech he actually said that "We have been wasting all this time on issues we inherited, instead of spending our time on things we should be doing instead". He really does double down on arrogance, doesn't he?
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
TnT....His constant use
May 21, 2009 - 13:51 ET by bigtimerTnT....
His constant use of "I" is really wearing thin.....Soros and all behind the scenes really need to tell him to tamp it down...problem is, they aren't going to be able to control this mad dictator anymore either...and it is showing, it's creeping in their everyday...he is going to do what he wants, as long as he can get away with it, he will use back-door channels via the Justice Dept. as long as he can, even if court challenges are brought, but in the meantime the damage he and Holder along with his other team of leftists he has put in various dept. will hurt this country as much as they can inflict....
We had all better pay attention....attend Tea Parties if you can or whatever way we can voice our opinion...because even now the Senate dems are in CYA mode ...going against him...and he isn't taking that kindly, and it showed today...
...and then for the cherry on top, Cheney cut him off at the knee-caps....it was priceless.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Obama has been attacking
May 21, 2009 - 18:32 ET by Gat New YorkObama has been attacking Bush/Cheney relentlessly since he took office and it is about time that one of them pushed back and put Obama in his place.
Obama, for someone who doesn't want to litigate the past, pointed fingers at Bush/Cheney 22 times in that speech in addition to his patented lies.
The GOP was looking for a voice? For now and on this issue it's Dick Cheney.
Cheney is effective
May 21, 2009 - 11:54 ET by Tom Paine"…with all due respect to Chuck Todd, he just said politically this isn't a fair fight because Dick Cheney is so unpopular. But if he's so unpopular, why is his speech today going to get so much attention?"
Roh Roh! Matt just inadvertently blurted out the truth. The big problem for libs is that people are listening to Dick Cheney which is why Barry is out there going on the defensive. Add those 4 nuts captured in New York in the middle of planning a "man caused disaster" and Team Barry looks like the naive amateur night on national security that it is.
Catch the new Dem talking point?
May 21, 2009 - 11:42 ET by Red JeepThe new liberal talking point that was expressed by someone on the Morning Joe show today and the President repeated in his speech today is that we can close Gitmo because our prisons are strong enough to hold these terrorists. Bait and Switch.
That is not what worries people. American lawyers worry people. Get the terrorists here and lawyers will work to release them out of the front doors of our prisons onto our streets.
Gitmo needs to stay open
May 21, 2009 - 11:58 ET by richb313Sure the detainees or what ever you want to call them could be housed in US prisons without fear of escape, that is not the point. The detainees cannot communicate with thier terrorist bretheren from GITMO. In a US prison, even supermax prisons, criminal enterprises are often run from the inside. This is the real security concern.
OJ had lawyers.
May 22, 2009 - 00:21 ET by JWFThe got him off scott free despite him leaving his blood at the crime scene and taking home the blood of the 2 victims.
True...but he had a
May 22, 2009 - 01:03 ET by JerTrue...but he had a perfectly reasonable explanation, didn't he? I forget. Oh yeah, he was the victim of the most elaborate police conspiracy in the history of criminal investigations.
Jer
Terrified
May 21, 2009 - 11:43 ET by herbivoreThe MSM and Dems are terrified of Cheney and Limbaugh. They're both extremely articulate and, unlike Obama, actually make sense when they talk. And Cheney simply destroys when going head-to-head with pundits in interviews and that infuriates the entire bee-hive.
How much does the media love Obama? See the second "article" down ;-)...Addition of Pews, Kneelers Welcomed by White House Press Corps - http://nationalht.bl...
Cheney disliked by stupid liberals..loved by smart conservatives
May 21, 2009 - 11:44 ET by jefflebowskiThe liberal smear tools in moveon.org did a real job on an intelligent, honorable statesman like Dick Cheney. He is the best voice the Republicans have at the moment! I wish he'd been this fired up the 8 years the Repubs were getting hammered with lies but not defending themselves! Stupid liberals worship the con man Obama because they are too lazy to study the issues! The fact that the MSM continues to smear Cheney tells me he is on the right path!
Angry White Dude
www.angrywhitedude.c...
yes.
May 21, 2009 - 11:51 ET by katainkentif they badmouth someone you know they're slipping and looking for traction.
if they bring them on for interviews *cough* Meghan McCain *cough* and allow them airtime you know they can't be good :)
___________________________________________
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past - George Orwell - 1984
Let's just use two
May 21, 2009 - 11:46 ET by ThisnThatLet's just use two examples, shall we? Example 1: Carter criticises Bush administration, and staunchly defended the efforts by fellow Democrat Bill Clinton to go after Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda after the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. Example 2: Jimmy Carter is taking issue with just about everything George W. Bush has done in office.
Nowhere -- and I mean nowhere -- did I hear Matt Lauer or any other MSM-type say this about Carter: Nicole, in some ways this debate has been settled. It was settled back in November during the last election, when Americans chose to elect George Bush and move away from the legacy of the Clinton administration.
This debate has been settled? What the hell does that mean, anyway? And who gave Lauer the right to make that declaration? The only way you get to say that is if you and your whole MSM-supporting cast, including all competors, are totally, 100% in the tank for dictator obama.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
Elections settle debates
May 21, 2009 - 12:19 ET by KC MulvilleNo, they don't. They set policy. The debate continues.
I don't have to tell anyone why. Examine it for yourself. No matter who you voted for, did you agree with everything that candidate stood for? Of course not, unless you subsist on Kool-Aid. Well, how much did you agree with? Or did you vote for someone, not because of policies, but because of personality?
Seriously, when you vote for someone, do you agree with all of their policies? If you live in a democratic republic as we do, you have to surrender the fantasy that your political leaders will exclusively enforce your personal agenda. Every politician is a mixed bag. Voters have to decide how much each issue is worth for themselves. Everyone has to just lump it on some issues, and try again during the next election.
Elections decide policy, but they don't end debate. With over 300 million people, we can't intellectually persuade everyone first, and then set policy by unanimous agreement. While each policy is put in place by elections, we continue the debate.
When Matt Lauer, or anyone else, argues that the election settled the debate, they're trying to prevent further dialogue. When liberals win, the debate is over (e.g., this issue), but when they lose, they claim that younger people will change the result later on, so why not just act as if they won the debate anyway (e.g., gay marriage)? It's always heads we win, tails you lose.
Besides, this last election wasn't a choice between Obama and Bush's security policy. Bush wasn't even on thr ballot. The position that Obama is taking now is exactly the position John McCain held during the campaign.
I tried tuning into
May 21, 2009 - 11:49 ET by Chris NormanI tried tuning into Obama's speech this morning, but after a minute of listening to his affected, sing-song cadence and his pompous, "nobler than thou" tone, I was forced to turn it off. I just don't get how anyone can listen to this windbag, speech after speech after speech after speech. He just must be wearing thin - even with some of his supporters.
By the way, when he said we were the nation that won WWII and the Cold War, I wanted to say, "Well, if it had been up to people like you at the time, we wouldn't have even tried ".
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
I read transcripts
May 21, 2009 - 11:52 ET by katainkentI don't know how anyone does it either. If I hear the words "let me make this perfectly clear" I want to grind my teeth.
___________________________________________
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past - George Orwell - 1984
They made fun of Richard
May 21, 2009 - 12:01 ET by Chris NormanThey made fun of Richard Nixon for using that phrase - in fact, it became every impressionists tag line for him.
At least Dick Cheney talks to us like we're all adults and not dependent children waiting for pompous "words of wisdom" from Big Daddy.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
When (if I have to) listen
May 21, 2009 - 11:57 ET by dasherWhen (if I have to) listen to Obama... all I can think of; "What a Pompous Ass".
"Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P.J.O'Rourke
Listening to him makes my
May 21, 2009 - 11:59 ET by Chris NormanListening to him makes my skin crawl.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Morning Chris... Did you
May 21, 2009 - 12:06 ET by bigtimerMorning Chris...
Did you listen to Cheney's speech?
I listened to both...I listened to O because I knew what he was attempting to do to whatever Cheney had to say, plus he is angry about yesterdays vote in the Senate.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Mornin' bt, I couldn't
May 21, 2009 - 12:23 ET by Chris NormanMornin' bt,
I couldn't stay to listen to Cheney - I had to get to work. I'll try to catch it later on You Tube or Fox, if they rebroadcast (at least excerpts). I like how Cheney talks to us like we're equals. He doesn't have to use "soaring rhetoric" to get his point across. I'd trust him in a heartbeat over Obama.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Hi Chris... I'm just
May 21, 2009 - 18:20 ET by bigtimerHi Chris...
I'm just catching up too today...I've been in and out, trying to catch up with work around here...plus after a bit a person gets burnt out...anyway, if you can catch Cheney do so, it isn't boring, and he is never grandiose...it's just the facts....Jack, just the facts.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
When I listen to Obama,
May 21, 2009 - 17:35 ET by ckc1227When I listen to Obama, it's all I can do to keep from slitting my wrists. That's why I do everything I can to avoid listening to the clown.
ckc... You aren't
May 21, 2009 - 18:24 ET by bigtimerckc...
You aren't alone...today was one of the first days in quite awhile for a political junkie like me that could stand to listen to all of his self-serving Dictatorshipness...(I know it isn't a word, just needed to throw that in there.)
I was screaming please just STFU after about 20 minutes...I made it through it all....but it was torture...pure torture.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Cheney is on Offensive
May 21, 2009 - 11:52 ET by richb313The MSM is wondering what Dick Cheney is doing speaking at all. Matt Lauer wondered what was in it for him(refering to Cheney). Cheney cleared it up for Matt, nothing. That's right Matt, nothing. Dick isn't doing it because he will get some advantage out of speaking up, he is doing it for possibly two reasons.
1. Dick Cheney is more concerned about the security of the United States than he is of his own position. Those who even know a little about the man will find this to be consistent with his charector.
2. Dick Cheney is defending President Bush. He knows that Bush will not speak up to defend himself. All the Bush's were rasied in such a way that to beat your own drum was not only unseemly but it also meant that your position was wrong to begin with. Cheney knows that Washington DC does not work that way. He is simply defending the honor of not only the former President but his friend.
Shame on the Democrats for lowering to trivial political advantage the very policies they supported but now years later they can distance themselves from. All the Democrats save one or two were on board at the time. There was no arm twisting. They are the ones who are the biggest hypocrites.
Oh, the unfairness of it all.
May 21, 2009 - 11:55 ET by easygoerSure, it's unfair. Unfair to Obama, that is. I'd love to see Obama debate Cheney. Cheney marshalls his facts, is unflappable and is hard to gainsay. Obama is lost without a script.
What has he to gain?
May 21, 2009 - 11:57 ET by mattmWhat has he to gain? Simple, the safety and security of the country he loves. Whereas the misguided policies of the Obamanation will produce the opposite.
"decided last November..." I guess Lauer believes that an electoral victory gives the president dictatorial powers...unles a republican wins....
Re Bamster 5/21 Teleprompting
May 21, 2009 - 11:59 ET by slickwillie2001Re the Bamster's morning teleprompting, I was struck by how defensive he looked, and how much slower he spoke than usual. There were sharp interruptions for applause, so much that I wonder if a Jay Leno-style 'applause' sign might have been installed to clue in the democratics.
Still there's the tennis match effect. I don't understand why an administration praised so universally for their media-savvy can't take care of this. The effect that you end up with on a televised speech is that he never faces the camera and addresses the folks at home. It makes him look like he doesn't want to look us in the eye, always a sign of dishonesty. I know it's not, but that's the teleprompter effect.
It would be interesting to take both speakers and their speeches, and take away the Bamster's teleprompter, and Vice President Cheney's cue cards, and let them each give their speech then.
Obama none too sharp on Thursdays
May 21, 2009 - 12:04 ET by SickofLibsWednesday night parties, of course.
Swivel Head
May 21, 2009 - 12:04 ET by Red JeepSwivel Head
"Ooh that's a smear, that's a smear!"
May 21, 2009 - 12:02 ET by SickofLibsGet a pen. Draw an angry face on your thumb then begin whining. And there you have the Master Strategist Shrum.
He calls Nicolle pathetic and foolhardy and then whines that SHE smeared the Democrats by having the chutzpa to point out the truth that Obama & Co. are in fact playing politics with our security. How many proven lies, reversals, backtracks, obfuscations, broken promises, etc. does it take for an intelligent person not to see this?
I guess Shrum does not believe the new CNN poll that shows Cheney's approval at 37%, NOT 18%, and that it's up 8 points since January - that's what got these people scared.
And ps: Shrum, when the moderator gives your opponent the last word, shut your freakin' piehole.
We have a "president" who appears to want to apologize...
May 21, 2009 - 12:03 ET by R D Helm...to the terrorists who wish to kill us all.
Obama's "speech" was a crock of BS.
Cheney absolutely clobbered Obama is his speech.
-Dave
Yep Dave... I listened to
May 21, 2009 - 12:14 ET by bigtimerYep Dave...
I listened to both...have 4 pages of notes jotted down....
Now the msm will be in the usual spin mode....
So much of what O said was infuriating...moreso than usual.
He is becoming a Dictator to the utmost....unless people listened to it all and understood what he is trying to do now via back channels via the Justice Dept. etc because he did not get his way yesterday with Congress on money funded for the closing of Gitmo...he will do so another way, I heard how at the end, he will of course seek the approval of congress, but you weren't sure what the hell he was talking about in that regard....which is exactly what he intended.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
bt, Hopefully, this the
May 21, 2009 - 12:27 ET by Chris Normanbt,
Hopefully, this the first chink in the Obama armor. His own perty in Congress has defied him (over saving their own skins) and things may never be the same for them. If he starts to go around congress, etc. to get his way, some more people will sour on him. This could be his Amnesty Bill.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Read Cheney's transcript
May 21, 2009 - 15:28 ET by Clear thinkerRead Cheney's transcript and you will read the words of a true patriot!
Take the 'I am not a racist' pledge http://iamnotaracist.wordpress.com/
Paging R D Helm...(Thurs.)
May 21, 2009 - 15:23 ET by Georgia GirlDave,
Would you check your PM box? Need a weather report where you are...pls. forgive the interruption on the thread, people. :)
Thanks,
GG
Oh, the unfairness of it all....
May 21, 2009 - 12:15 ET by Pilgrim1949....that an opinion (let alone a litany of the cold, hard facts) should cause so much as an offending ripple on the placid waters in which (or on which?) The One merrily sails along.
As unfair as bringing an empty-handed(headed!?) handshake to a potential fight involving nuclear weapons.
Nuclear program + weapons-making capability + currently operational 2000km missle = *yawn* on the part of our PresBo.
Smart diplomacy. Just don't want it to be Maxwell Smart, after "something terrible this way comes" and Mr. Smart has to admit, "Misssed it by that much!"
The Obama Albatross is around "OUR" neck!!!!!
May 21, 2009 - 12:33 ET by Roscoe MendagoThe "Wonderful One" in his campaign speech, made reference to an Albatross being around our necks from previous decisions concerning GITMO, well the only ALBATROSS around our necks is Obama himself and the sooner he's gone the better off America will be!!!!
Did Obama say anything of substance? What I heard was typical Obama speak, flowery pronouncements with all the weight and relevance to actual solutions as a high school valedictory speech. Can this empty headed spewing of pompous poo actually lead us to the land of enhanced security? Not likely, he's going to continue dazzling his sycophantic minions with leg tingling rhetoric while he allows our security, economy, and individual freedoms go down the drain, all the while he struts around doing his leading with the chin Il Duce pose.
Isn't he wonderful....
Obama showed such anger and determination
May 21, 2009 - 12:50 ET by Southern voterin his speech in order to show the world that no one can now accuse the U S of abusing terrorist detainees in our prisons...terrorist accused of murdering U S citizens ...yet Obama continues to show a determined unwilliness to afford the same anger and determination in values and protection against the abuseive means taken to murder millions of helpless babies during abortion...
Matt Lauer asserted that
May 21, 2009 - 13:09 ET by Jack BauerSure Matty, sure.
Right up to the moment Americans wake up one morning to the news that a US city has been attacked by Islamo-terrorists and that thousands are feared dead and dying.
I guess the debate will then be "unsettled" again.
And let's get one thing straight Matty boy -- that will all be on the head of the Obama campaign slash administration.
OBAMA ARROGANCE AND INCOMPETENCE OWNS THE NEXT MASSIVE TERROR ATTACK ON AMERICANS.
Liberals FEAR the Tea Parties
May 21, 2009 - 13:40 ET by jefflebowskiLiberals trash everyone and thing they consider a threat to their socialistic agenda. They love the McCains because they know RINO's keep liberals in power. They trash Cheney and the Tea Parties because they realize for the first time since the original tea party the middle class, taxpayer is off the couch and angry! California shows that.
We are expecting 50,000 people at our July 4th America's Tea Party in Dallas/Ft. Worth. Our first tea party in February had 350. Fear the Tea Party!
Angry White Dude
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Ridiculous Statement by NBC
May 21, 2009 - 13:47 ET by BondPlainBondDue to the NBC's rampant and obvious lack of journalistic and personal integrity, its publicized and admitted allegiance to Obama, it was unable to speak the truth in that it might be construed to be unfair to compare the highly intelligent and vastly experienced former Vice President to the teleprompter-dependent and incredibly inexperienced present President, especially on issues of national security.
By the way, NBC, life and terrorism are not fair. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Chuckie, do you really think Dick Cheney gives a rats ass
May 21, 2009 - 13:58 ET by JTPabout your stupid highschool popularity contest?
this isn't a fair fight because Dick Cheneyis so unpopular
Everything he says and does is for this country and its security. It has nothing to do to what you and your friends think of him.
Live for yourself...there's no one else more worth living for.
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more"- Rush--Anthem
Cheney Vs B.O.
May 21, 2009 - 14:13 ET by grumpyoldbOf course it's unfair. Your putting an honest ex-VP up against a crook.....
The Media is against Dick Cheney because...
May 21, 2009 - 15:10 ET by jawebster1they are mostly Democrats. Dick Cheney, by talking directly to the American people without the filter of the media, will win the argument. He has truth on his side and no one has ever beaten him in a debate. The media will do their best to destroy him, just as they have tried, without success, to destroy any prominent Conservative. Rush, Sean, Bush and Sarah Palin come to mind. Today, Obama and Cheney gave their speeches on National Security one after another. No question Cheney gave the stronger speech. Let's see how the biased media spins it. Jim Webster
As a poster on MM's site
May 21, 2009 - 15:14 ET by AppyAmericanAs a poster on MM's site said, and I agree, just change the name of GITMO to the "Kumbaya Center for Man Made Disaster Makers" and be done with it. He gets to say he closed GITMO, his minions will be none the wiser, terrorists get to stay in their Carribean paradise and everybody is happy. Looks like a plan to me. Actually, Papa Louie just wanted to change the name. I'll have to take credit for the rest.
Ironic that NBC, a very disliked Network...
May 21, 2009 - 19:00 ET by jawebster1calls someone disliked. I happen to like Dick Cheney very much and I can't stand NBC and MSNBC. Can't stand Obama either. He needs to be impeached before he ruins this still great, but floundering Country. Jim Webster
Funny How MSMers Say the Debate is Over
May 21, 2009 - 20:35 ET by allanfIf you have to say the "debate is over" you know its not Matt.