Apparently there’s some confusion about what “the Right” in America is over the pond. Not to mention who are “top Republicans”:
In his audacious attack on a sitting president last week, Mr Cheney declared that America was less safe from terrorism after Mr Obama’s decision to abandon violent interrogation methods and close Guantanamo.
But once the cheering had died down on talk radio and cable television, discordant voices emerged from the Right to challenge Mr Cheney’s defence of the Bush-era legacy.
“Yeah, I disagree with Dick Cheney,” said Tom Ridge, who was appointed by the Bush-Cheney administration to set up and run the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks on America.
The other “top Republican” “from the Right” quoted is John McCain, who formed part of the political tag team with George Bush who seemed to do their best to squeeze the last drops of “the Right” out of the party. We just had the stark contrast of speeches on national security between a perpetual campaigner and vague spinner, and a statesman speaks his mind as always, and these squishes are whining about it. Pathetic.
[Update a few minutes later]
Oh, and Tom Ridge is an idiot:
Mr Ridge spoke out after back-to-back “dueling” speeches on national security by Mr Obama and Mr Cheney on Thursday. He took issue with much of what Mr Obama had to say, but particularly disliked Mr Cheney’s response.
“It’s just the whole notion of a Republican vice president giving a speech after the incumbent Democratic president,” Mr Ridge told CNN. “It’s gotta go beyond the politics of either party.”
The Cheney speech was planned weeks in advance. What was he supposed to do, cancel at the last minute so that he wouldn’t make The One look bad when he scheduled his to come first?
Max Boot? Rand, does Max Boot belong in the “RINO squish” category?
. . . BTW, “RINO squish” sounds like a Caribbean themed cocktail . . .
On the whole, President Obama is formulating sensible, centrist national-security policies By Max Boot
From the Left, I can criticize this interpretation easily enough:
But should the Right also criticize Max Boot, from the right?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGNiYTg0YWYzNTMxYjZlOGFjZWQzMWRhYTk4NThlMWI=
Why are you asking me for advice about the Right should do? If someone disagrees with Max Boot, they should say so, regardless of their political affiliation. I don’t understand the question.
I should add, that once again you’re trolling, coming in with a complete non sequitur to pathetically attempt (and fail) to score political points on my blog. What Max Boot thinks about Obama’s foreign policy has nothing to do with what a clueless British journalist thinks is “right wing,” or what I think of Tom Ridge and John McCain (i.e., not much).
Well, to be fair, to the average British journalist Obama is “right-wing.”
Well, to be fair, to the average British journalist Obama is “right-wing.”
In absolute terms, yes, but I don’t think they’d think he’s to the right of Dick Cheney.
Who should the Telegraph look to as the representatives of the Right in the U.S. today? In terms of public profile I’d say Cheney, Limbaugh and Gingrich. Anyone else?
The same people our own American media look to as representatives of The Right™ — Pat Buchanan and Arlen Specter.
“The Cheney speech was planned weeks in advance. What was he supposed to do, cancel at the last minute so that he wouldn’t make The One look bad when he scheduled his to come first?”
Rand. Yes, yes Cheney should have.
Don’t you know that it’s best for everyone to put aside their own interests and values, in order to help our Leaders?
We’re all in this together. Bundled you might say.
a statesman speaks his mind
If only his mind was more reliable. He’s the one who said that “There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more….” And that “[Saddam] is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”
Now he is saying things like: “The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people.”
To put this claim in perspective, there has only been one incident in U.S. history where additional information could have saved thousands of U.S. civilians from violent death, and that was 9/11. You could have waterboarded every terrorism suspect from, say, 1945 to 2001 and still not saved many more than 3,000 U.S. lives, because that’s all there were to be saved.
Now Cheney wants us to believe that absent waterboarding, hundreds of thousands of American civilians could have been saved between 2002 (when waterboarding began) and 2004 (when it was stopped). In other words, that a decimated Al Qaeda, chased from Afghanistan, with only one 1000+ casualty attack to their credit, would have killed a hundred times as many were it not for enhanced interrogation. The claim is unbelievable on its face.
It is also unbelievable because of what has happened, or not happened, since 2004. Bush, with access to all the same information that Cheney is using to make his claims, shut down enhanced interrogations. Is Cheney really saying that Bush turned his back on a program that was clearly saving thousands of civilian lives? Or is it possible that Bush, looking at the same information, was not as convinced?
It’s now been five years since they stopped waterboarding, and there has been no difference in the number of Americans killed by terrorists. Why are the terrorists — just a waterboarding away from killing 100,000 Americans between 2002 and 2004 — suddenly so impotent? Isn’t it possible that there would have been no U.S. civilian casualties from Al Qaeda terrorism from 2002 to 2009 even if we hadn’t used enhanced interrogation?
Cheney is not a statesman. He is making wildly implausible claims to justify his decisions and defend his personal legacy.
Three Cheers for Cheney!
And I always thought that Ridge came off being as dull as dishwater. Now it’s clear that the ‘dullness’ is deeper than just his presentation.
I’m surprised you are calling John McCain a squish. You are, right? Seems to me like Cheney spoke his mind, and then Ridge and McCain spoke their minds.
And upon speaking their minds revealed their squishiness.
Great the Telegraph is poaching from the Independent, that’s like the WSJ borrowing from the Nation. epic fail anyone. Yes
McCain was a squish, not able to distinguish the terrorists from his self.
what I don’t understand is why someone who loudly proclaims
they are neither a republican or a conservative or a rightist cares what the GOP leadership or doctrine is?
Mr Simberg routinely and loudly states that he doesn’t vote for republican candidates and he isn’t a republican, so why care what is going on in their leadership spats?
I doubt any answer other then name calling will occur for this question.
Yeah, why would someone who comments on politics in the US possibly want to make note of what Republicans do?
Mr Simberg routinely and loudly states that he doesn’t vote for republican candidates and he isn’t a republican, so why care what is going on in their leadership spats?
Because I’d like to actually have a party that I could be a member of and vote for that would have a chance of winning, and the Democrats are hopeless in that regard, you moron.
Odd, how come derailing the thread goes only one way?
What about Pelosi versus Panetta?
If waterboarding was so morally repellent to the Pelosi et al as they currently say it is, why didn’t they try to stop it when they were first briefed?
Or has the CIA been lying to them all this time? As the Speaker maintains. And if the CIA has been doing such a massive conspiracy, one that’s even ensnared Panetta why have the congressional Dems blocked an investigation?
I thought they were all about finding the truth.
“what I don’t understand is why someone who loudly proclaims
they are neither a republican or a conservative or a rightist cares what the GOP leadership or doctrine is? ”
By that logic why do YOU care about their leadership or doctrine? Are you a Republican or Conservative? If not why are you here repeatedly arguing about their leadership and doctrine?
Isn’t this just more of the chicken-hawk style argument?
What next? Will you rail against Rand for being critical of Obama? Afterall, why is someone that’s not a Democrat being critical of the democratic leadership?
What about Pelosi versus Panetta?
Panetta, who was not at the CIA at the time, has not denied Pelosi’s allegation. Look more carefully at what he said.
The insanity of the Fox News Right is shown by the fact that they give more attention to what Pelosi knew, than to what Bush et al were doing.
“The insanity of the Fox News Right is shown by the fact that they give more attention to what Pelosi knew, than to what Bush et al were doing.”
Your assumptions are just a little skewed to say the least but thanks for demonstrating your insanity.
The insanity of the Fox News Right is shown by the fact that they give more attention to what Pelosi knew, than to what Bush et al were doing.
What Bush et al were doing was responding to 9/11 you idiot. GOD you are so full of shit it makes my head hurt. You don’t even rise to the level of cave troll most of the time. Why don’t you take your drivel elsewhere.
What Pelosi knew is relevant because she claims she knew NUSSINK! NUSSINK!
Dimwit Pelosi just happens to be the one currently flailing about trying to cover her clueless hypocrisy with baseless allegations that the CIA engaged in criminal behaviour in deliberately misleading members of Congress. That seems like a pretty important accusation, especially as her heroic truth-finding Democratic pals suddenly seem uninterested in actually investigating the allegations.
“Because I’d like to actually have a party that I could be a member of and vote for that would have a chance of winning,”
So why not be active then?
Join the County republican party, actively campaign for your issues and donate to candidates who most closely match your cause.?
So why not be active then?
My blog gives me plenty of activity.
Dimwit Pelosi just happens to be the one currently flailing about trying to cover her clueless hypocrisy with baseless allegations that the CIA engaged in criminal behaviour in deliberately misleading members of Congress.
Her “baseless allegations” are seconded by Bob Graham.
And again, how can knowing about torture possibly be worse than committing it?
Her “baseless allegations” are seconded by Bob Graham.
Another dimwit.
how can knowing about torture possibly be worse than committing it?
No one said it was. That’s actually a pretty pathetic attempt at a straw man.
Another dimwit.
A “dimwit” who keeps meticulous written records, whose records have been shown to be more accurate than the CIA’s on more than one occasion.
how can knowing about torture possibly be worse than committing it?
No one said it was. That’s actually a pretty pathetic attempt at a straw man.
Gingrich has called for Pelosi to resign for saying she hadn’t been briefed when she had; he did not call on Bush or Cheney to resign for saying thay didn’t torture when they did. The Congressional GOP voted for an investigation into Pelosi’s statements; they have not called for an investigation into torture.
This “straw man” is very real.
Ahh… nice to see that the response to “What about Pelosi?” is “She was right!”
“Panetta, who was not at the CIA at the time, has not denied Pelosi’s allegation. Look more carefully at what he said.”
Oh-kay. Then why isn’t Panetta going though his organization looking for the people that lied before he did it? If Pelosi’s allegations are correct, shouldn’t it be very worrying to him. Shouldn’t he be going though the CIA to look for the people that lie to Congress “all the time”?
If only to cover his own ass and clear the name of the organization he currently heads.
“And again, how can knowing about torture possibly be worse than committing it?”
It’s still quite wrong. If you know about torture and do nothing about it, then you’re an accomplice to it. Kind of like how if you know about a murder and don’t talk about it you’re culpable there.
If one accepts that Bush et al are guilty of torture, then those on the Left that were informed and did nothing are also morally and legally in trouble as well.
“Bush or Cheney to resign for saying thay didn’t torture when they did.”
The comment “We did this, but it wasn’t torture” is a little different though.
I find it very amusing that the lawyer party is upset that the businessman party asked lawyers “Ok, what can we do that isn’t torture.”
Then actually used the lawyer’s responses to form policy.
And the Single-Party-In-Charge of all four (yes, four) branches can’t even get the cats going in the same direction long enough to write a bill, “Torture shall be henceforth defined as ….”
Gingrich has called for Pelosi to resign for saying she hadn’t been briefed when she had; he did not call on Bush or Cheney to resign for saying thay didn’t torture when they did.
That’s because they didn’t.
“My blog gives me plenty of activity.”
I guess the phrase “All Talk, No Action” applies here?
Obviously not, since in politics, much of the action is talk. Just ask Barack Obama.
Going back to the original question – who is in charge of the Republican Party?
One would presume that the party’s nominee for President in 2008 and a senior cabinet official in the previous administration would constitute, if not “in charge,” senior leadership. So if they aren’t running the show, who is? Rush Limbaugh?
Why would you assume that anyone is in charge of the Republican Party? There’s certainly no evidence for the proposition.
Rand:
That’s because they [Bush and Cheney] didn’t [torture].
Susan J. Crawford, convening authority of the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, says otherwise.
There is more evidence that detainees were tortured than there is that Pelosi lied. Why are you, the GOP, Newt Gingrich and Fox News more concerned about Pelosi knew than about what Bush and Cheney did?
There is more evidence that detainees were tortured than there is that Pelosi lied.
No, there is abundant public evidence that Pelosi is lying, since she tells a different story every time she talks about it.
And as others have noted, if Bush and Cheney tortured, she is a legal accomplice, and now lying about it. Why should she not be held accountable as well? Can’t have it both ways.
What’s hilarious is that she was so stupid as to pick a fight with the CIA, which is accountable to no one.
> Going back to the original question – who is in charge of the Republican Party?
What does “in charge of the Republican Party” mean?
At Google, for example, if you don’t do what the folks in charge want you to do, they can replace you with someone who does.
There are folks in charge of various organizations that have “Republican” in their names. Yes, they can fire/not hire folks who don’t toe their line, but that’s a small fraction of Republicans and doesn’t even include any elected officials.
And as others have noted, if Bush and Cheney tortured, she is a legal accomplice, and now lying about it. Why should she not be held accountable as well? Can’t have it both ways.
It’s the people braying for Pelosi’s blood who are having it both ways: they want her punished without punishing Bush and Cheney, when at worst she was aware of their crimes.
By all means, investigate and punish Pelosi, but start with the ringleaders before you start worrying about the accessories to the crime.
At a glance, I think there are a number of people that are influential in the Republican party. I’d consider the people who manage the party infrastructure and the higher ranking politicians as being closest to being “in charge”. Ideologues like Limbaugh or Gingrich have some influence, but I don’t understand why anyone would consider them in charge.
Senator McCain’s voting record suggests that he might be somewhat to the left of the median Republican senator, but still well within the fat part of the Republican senatorial bell curve.
http://voteview.ucsd.edu/Clinton_and_Obama.htm
That would put him distinctly to the right of the median US voter, remembering that US voters have been electing more Democrats than Republicans to Congress lately.
Given that he won his party’s nomination in the last election, that would seem to make him both a ‘top Republican” and a major figure “from the Right”
It’s the people braying for Pelosi’s blood who are having it both ways: they want here punished without punishing Bush and Cheney, when at worst she was aware of their crimes.
You’re apparently a little slow. We want Pelosi punished because she’s lying about the CIA and a moron. We don’t think that Cheney and Bush committed any crimes.
We want Pelosi punished because she’s lying about the CIA and a moron.
Thanks for the clarification. So you’re claiming that you consider lying about intelligence briefings a firing offense.
There was an analogous case a few years back. DOE scientists briefed then-NSC Condoleeza Rice of their conclusion that Iraq’s aluminum tubes were probably not acquired for use in nuclear centrifuges. Rice then went on television to say that the tubes are “really only useful” for nuclear weapons development.
Did you call for Rice’s resignation then? Of course not. Your beef with Pelosi isn’t her lying; her lying is just a stick to beat her with. Your beef with her is that she’s a liberal Democrat. Why not drop the faux outrage over “lying about the CIA” and admit that it’s all about politics.
Given that he won his party’s nomination in the last election, that would seem to make him both a ‘top Republican” and a major figure “from the Right”
John McCain was not nominated by “the Right.” He was nominated by the media, the so-called “moderates” and Democrats in open primaries. He may have been a leader of the Republican Party last fall, but is no longer.
So you’re claiming that you consider lying about intelligence briefings a firing offense.
No, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I make no such claim.
And I have no idea whether Condi was lying or not, but I certainly wouldn’t have been unhappy if she had resigned. I wasn’t very impressed with her performance.
As for Pelosi, I didn’t say I wanted her to resign, because I don’t want her to resign. I said I wanted her punished. The way I want her punished is to remain in place, and continue to make an ass of herself, and her ass of a political party, right up until November, 2010, whereupon she shall lose her speakership, if not her very seat.
“bviously not, since in politics, much of the action is talk”
Much of the action is talk, is true. But, if all you do is talk, then you just become another blow hard. Obama talks a lot. Obama also does.
You may not agree with his actions, but, he’s got an agenda he’s executing.
You have an agenda, but it’s all talk. BTW calling people Morons, dimwits and traitors isn’t an argument for effectiveness.
…calling people Morons, dimwits and traitors isn’t an argument for effectiveness.
You may not actually be a moron. I suppose you could just be playing one on the Internet for some reason, but I call them the way I see them. Do you think that being a troll like you is an argument for effectiveness?
Rand – you said He may have been a leader of the Republican Party last fall, but is no longer..
My question still stands – who do you consider to be a leader of the Republican party, and however much or little they diverge, of the conservative movement?
I consider Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Mitch McConnell, Michael Steel, John Boehner, Jim DeMint, among others, to be leaders of the Republican Party. I think that they are much more aligned with the conservative movement than George Bush or John McCain ever were.
“John McCain was not nominated by “the Right.” He was nominated by the media, the so-called “moderates” and Democrats in open primaries.”
How many open primaries occurred before Super Tuesday?
“Ronald Reagan showed us that Deficits don’t matter”– RBC 2002
That’s a conservative?
Perhaps Jack Lee will explain his position on deficits. He appears to oppose large Republican deficits but support even larger Democrat deficits. Yet, he thinks that Clinton’s smaller deficits (and modest surpluses) were a good thing.
Could it be that his position actually has nothing to do with deficits, that he supports whatever a Dem does and opposes whatever a Repub does?