How Cheney's True Colors Make Us Crave Dramatic Change

If you've not seen it already, I invite you all to go to YouTube and watch the video labelled "Dick Cheney SO." With all the inevitable political jabbering and hype going on in this political season, it's a revelation to see how a simple non-verbal smirk can so eloquently sum up the tone, tenor and tactics of this disgraceful administration.

The video is eerily telling: Cheney cares not a wit about how the people who elected him (twice) feel about his and W's conduct of the war. I'm sure we'd get a similar condescending, amorphous comment from him on the economy too, as if to say: "Let us experts handle it...go back to your little lives."

Now I can't be the only one who feels a lingering outrage and antipathy for this arrogant, wrong-headed man, who has always pulled much of the strings behind the cluelessly resolute W. To be blunt, the sooner Dick retires to his ranch out West with his gun, the better. ("But mind the pedestrians, Richard!")

But enough negativity. On the other side of the spectrum, my 19-year-old daughter went down the day before Easter to register voters for Obama in Pennsylvania. I was duly admiring and impressed.

Even though it's helpful to have Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner throw parties to boost Obama's "cool factor" (not that he much needs it), the real energy and hope of this campaign are found in today's youth, roused from their accustomed torpor to begin taking charge of their futures, before we parents mess it up any further.

It seems they are the ones who most want Obama, the same man who delivered one of the most insightful and eloquent political speeches of our generation...the man who seems to be growing in stature and substance -- before our very eyes -- through his campaign.

Obama is a relatively fresh face on the political field, and even with his youthful, disarming bearing and inspiring oratory, the citizenry are bound to ask the "rational" questions like: "Is he fuzzy on the issues?" or "Can he be an effective Commander-in-Chief?"

I've watched and listened closely, and I don't catch any fuzziness or waffling that would make me doubt either his direction or his resolve. And looking back, I also note that numerous presidents have come out of nowhere in terms of visibility and done pretty well : think Bill Clinton, and further back, Truman.

Yet we keep hearing Hillary play the experience card as if it were an automatic key to the Oval Office. Clearly she is a bright, capable woman with some very good ideas, but as W. and Cheney reflect the present, she embodies the past -- and via her high-profile Senate career, a hefty slice of the bleak here and now as well. This must account for her own arrogance and defensiveness as she's sullied the tone of the Democratic contest.

Nearly 50 years ago, Jack Kennedy was well aware of his own inexperience going into to the Oval Office, and addressed it by scouring the country for the brightest minds in the country to join his team, achieving a pretty impressive line-up overall. He was also not averse to tapping the brains of past Presidents and statesmen like Eisenhower and Acheson.

Clearly Obama is doing the same thing, with folks like former Clinton foreign policy guru Tony Lake firmly in his corner, and accomplished figures like Bill Richardson pledging his support. And it is equally evident that like Kennedy, he is aware that his primary job is to set the tone for the nation, to lead.

Then, in formulating sensible policy that fuels the activism and idealism he creates, above all -- he must listen. And I think most would concede that Obama is a listener.

It's frustrating to have John McCain use this valuable time to advance his own platform, while the divided Dems continue to duke it out. But this makes it only more important that we nominate the person who can best unite the Party and move us on to victory in November. Given where things stand today, I think Obama will unite, and Hillary, divide.

But back to that ever-cuddly Mr. Cheney, to whom we should tip our collective hats. In the short time it took to prepare a response to a probing yet perfectly reasonable question, he crystallized all that's been wrong with this nation's governance over the past seven and a half years, why numerous Americans of all stripes are deserting the Republican Party, and finally, why an increasingly large block of our populace craves fundamental change, specifically in the form of Senator Barack Obama.

Comments

[JerryColana]

Excellent point John. History will, as it already has, explain the vice president's as well as the president's position. When they picked him to run in 2000 along with the original (and former) secretary of defense, all 3 Americans for a New Century -http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm - one could not help but feel where the wind was blowing. I am voting for Barak Obama simply because these past 8 years have been no different as if the government had been overthrown by an overwhelming force that has run the country into the ground. I'll say it again - run into the ground. Sorry. In the world of business; both families of the two top current men, know all about corporate welfare, operating differential subsidies and how the transport industry set's the price of oil per barrel. They understand the implementation of sanctions, the declaration of war and how all of this impacts the GNP, GDP and our economy in general. They also understand how to keep the oligarch and it's associates going. As businessmen; they are very efficient. For example; the vice president spoke in the interview about improvement for the better and staying on course vs. fluctuation in polls. His interpertation of improvement does not include those who have died and those who have once again been, to put politely - counted out. A great read for further information is a book by Kevin Phillips - former Reagan aid - called; American Dynasty. It's introduction is also on You Tube.

[Alaskan1029]

Any of you think he was abbreviating an answer he has provided one million times previously? As in "So...what would the public have us do? Would it be in the best interest of our people or our country to walk away from this conflict prior to handing it over to a competent government and well trained force?" I believe he has nothing further to add and is frustrated with the constant barrage of RETREAT! with no reasonable option provided by those so willing to abandon the unprepared. Why we are there is past tense; the question is, do we want to make another mistake (assuming the liberal mantra "we had no good reason to go!" is sound) by leaving prematurely? How 'bout less time bitching and more providing productive input as to the best exit strategy? I don't blame Mr. Cheney his response. I am sure he is frustrated with the question. And remember, although most libs don't believe it, he is human too.

[mrqapla]

Why do we tolerate this? Help Congressman Wexler being impeachment hearings.

http://wexlerwantshearings.com/

[chinohillster]

The attitude of the President and Vice President (and it must be said, the majority of the political class in the United States) reminds me of the backdrop of Charles Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities", or Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables" - callous, unfeeling rulers and an exploited underclass.

There is something simply reptilian in the Vice President's attitude towards those serving in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas of the world - yes, they volunteered, but there is a contract of honor involved - these young people give their lives in service, and their government is OBLIGATED to see that they receive ALL the benefits they are entitled to: medical, occupational, psychological and educational. NO veteran should ever have to sleep under a freeway, NO veteran should ever have to starve, NO veteran should ever want to medical/dental/psychological care or education - it is the LEAST our society owes them!

[MajorKong]

Boy, I'm sure glad Cheney isn't an elitist like that there John Kerry feller.

[SuiginTou7]

"Out of the mouth of babes" never ringed so true. We need change. Keep talking Dick, every sound comes out of your mouth only makes us determined to stop you.

[m888m]

What is Cheney thinking?! At least one would think he'd pretend to care about what the public wants. His level of insensitivity--not just emotional, but even politically--is shocking. This guy is politically tone deaf.

[Rescisco]

The Vice President is a sad case of a public man who has more respect for his own bad judgement than he does for the American people. One would think this a disqualification for the office he holds but, upon reflection, it seems to be the new norm in an increasingly dirty little political system that long ago ceased to be connected to the ideals that gave it birth. The vastness of private or special interests, their total conquest and abuse of government, and the cleverness of their paid agents have tamed the public spirit in the name of private wealth and power. No one wants to stir them up so much as to be accused of lukewarm patriotsim. Few will even think of trying for they have been conditioned to believe it does not matter or that nothing can be done. The new boss will be the same as the old boss regardless of party banner. At least, that's the effect people like the Vice President believe they have produced. Its up to us to prove them wrong.

[Guitarsandmore]

We will not be united if you, John Farr, and people like you continue to pick one Democratic candidate as a favorite and heavily criticize the other Democratic candidate. Please see Christine Pelosi's blog post on Huff po.

As far as Cheney is concerned you would think he would be smart enough to continue the charade, continue the lie, and at least pretend he cares what people think. But no, he is just a common thug.

[Liberal2]

I was going to say something similar. Too many partisan HuffPost bloggers (and posters!), while making a salient point about the importance of the coming election, use it to throw a rock. Both sides are equally guilty.

I have always found Obama wanting due to his claim to know how to "change Washington." His inability to similarly change democratic primary mudslinging is, to me, proof he can't change anything. Indeed, I can't decide whether he's an idealistic fool or a liar. As for "bringing everyone to the table", if he can't set aside his emotions about Senator Clinton in order to consider a partnership ticket, how can he work with the rethugs that are promoting 100 years of religious war, destruction of the environment, the eradication of the middle class, etc. If rethug are less offensive, he isn't the right person to be the democratic nominee.

These two centerpiece arguments of his campaign are demonstrated false by his own words. And many of his supporters are even worse.

[joyncassie]

I am on a crusade to get Democrats to ignore Cheney!!! By putting Cheney in the press to look like as big of a lunatic as possible, the Republican party is making McCain look like the voice of "Sanity". PLEASE IGNORE THIS GUY, stop giving him what he wants!!! He doesn't care how much we hate him!!!

[SuiginTou7]

I disagree, using Chenny's words as well as McCain's (100 years of war) works agaisnt the republicans.

[desmirl]

Draft Dodger Dick Cheney who belittles the men and women in uniform with his 'So?' comment. How could thinking people have voted for him? How could thinking people have voted for Bush? We are involved in an ongoing occupation of a country that never threatened (let alone attacked) the United States. Our jobs are being oursourced. The dollar isn't just weak, it's all but invisible. Companies still in thet United States are laying people off. And still, there are those who think Cheney is worthy of respect. Oh, my.....

[gjklbc]

Sadly, the mojority of voters were more cocerned with boys kissing boys than boys dying in Iraq. That's why people voted for him.

[MelloY]

But....he had foreign policy experience..... /snark

I wish people would use this as an example of how much experience really means....

[JoeBlough]

desmirl,

You say "How could thinking people have voted for him?".

The point is, they weren't thinking. Remember, this administration had everyone ratched up on FEAR. People were too scared to think for themselves, but let the government do their thinking for them. The same people who ran out for plastic sheeting and duct tape (because the government told them to) voted Bush/Cheney back into office. We are no longer the home of the Brave.

[Marlyn]

NOW Dick Cheney has told Saudi Arabia that the USA will bomb hundreds of sites in IRAN with nuclear weapons. The day after Cheney left his Saudi friends, it was published in their state controlled newspaper. Admiral Fallon had said if he received the command to bomb Iran, he would NOT do it. Now that he has resigned, there is nothing to stop Bush and Cheney UNLESS we IMPEACH. WHY doesn't Congress take action?

[charlietuna11]

don't make light of experiance..very few if any has brought as much experiance to the washington scene than dick cheney. who could possibly doubt the great compassion and moral strength he has displayed. you can't satisfy some people, i have friends who actually believe cheney visited iraq last week to see if there were any last minute contracts he could redirect to the haliburtons.. i for one believe he was there to support our troops..what a guy..

[Marlyn]

"i for one believe he was there to support our troops" ??? I for one think he was there to tell them we were about to attack Iran with nuclear weapons.

[Liberal2]

Now, now, Marlyn, Charlie was only admitting he's the only rethug fool who believed Cheney was there to support the troops he sent into a stupid and illegal war. (Yes, I think Cheney was more responsible than Bush, but Bush signed the orders, so he's not exempt from blame and punishment,)

Speaking about "ones," I, for one, hope no American officer obeys any order to use a nuclear weapon against Iran. While I can certainly envision a case where such an action would be necessary, the present situation is in no way anywhere like that. Use of nuclear weapons against Iran would, in fact, bring the entire world down on the US. If such an order were given, whether obeyed or not, impeachment and conviction would (should!!) immediately follow.

Any White House discussion (not the Pentagon's contingency planning) regarding use of nuclear weapons against Iran screams for impeachment. Richard Nixon was once secretly contacted by the Soviet Union and asked to join in an attack against China, nuclear weapons were not off the table. Nixion to his credit said no. Apparently Bush has discussed a nuclear strike, you may recall his interest in developing a nuclear "bunker-buster." Bush *IS* over the edge.