Cheney said that he’d “pay to see” a debate between Rush and Obama and has repeatedly said that Obama has left the nation open to attack. Why don’t we get a “wow, he’s talking about the sitting president” here?
Dick Cheney still has higher status in the Village than Barack Obama. It’s that simple.
TPM video via SGW: "I Guess Rush Limbaugh Was Busy". This is priceless and a very nearly perfect response.
Benen: QUOTE OF THE DAY....
Former Vice President Dick Cheney was in rare form yesterday, appearing on CNN and repeating a variety of foolish and false talking points. Reporters asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today if he had any response to Cheney's comments. Gibbs said:"I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy. So they trotted out the next most popular member of the Republican cabal."
Given Cheney's dishonest demagoguery yesterday, Gibbs' hard-hitting response seems entirely appropriate.
But that probably won't stop news outlets from jumping all over this. Matt Yglesias noted that ABC News' Rick Klein, for example, was taken aback by Gibbs' comment:
Wow -- we're talking about the former vice president here."
In context, I suspect Klein meant that Cheney, as a man of alleged stature, deserves more deference from the White House press secretary. But if that's what Klein meant, I suspect he has the problem backwards.
We are talking about the former vice president here, which is exactly why the real outrage isn't Robert Gibbs being mean to him, it's Dick Cheney's decision to deceive a national television audience with absurd attacks and ridiculous claims. Klein is offended by Gibbs' sarcasm when he should be offended by Cheney's mendacity.
I suppose the argument is that Cheney was a national figure who deserves respect by virtue of his former office. I'd note, though, that we're talking about a man who, at a friendly gathering on the Senate floor, told a respected Democratic senator, "Go f*** yourself," and instead of apologizing, bragged about how pleased he was with himself.
Do Cheney's political allies really want to get into a discussion about respect?
- Yglesias: Rick Klein: Leave Dick Cheney Alooooooone
Asked about Dick Cheney’s ridiculous Sunday remarks just now, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was appropriately dismissive: “I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy,” he said, so they had to bring out “the next most powerful member of the Republican cabal.” The Note’s Rick Klein is getting the vapors:Gibbs on Chney critique: “I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy.” wow — we’re talking about the former vice president here
The way I look at it, the idea of respectful debate has no real meaning unless you actually deny respect to someone. Cheney seems like a good candidate.
- Jed Lewison has the video of Chip Reid
(Reid: Can I ask you, when you referred to the former Vice President, that was a really hard-hitting, kind of sarcastic response you had. This is a former Vice President of the United States. Is that the attitude—is that the sanctioned tone toward the former Vice President of the United States from this White House now?) Hopefully Gibbs answer helped calm Reid down, but if not, he should consider a couple of things. First, lighten up -- most people like Gibbs' sense of humor. You don't have to laugh at it, but don't be the sourpuss ruining it for everybody else! Second, if you're interested in decorum, start with Cheney, who spent an hour berating the President of the United States. After all, IOKIYAR is not a good thing.:- DougJ: He’s still big time in the Village
This is weird, though predictable. Beltway reporters are attacking Gibbs for his “I guess Rush was busy” comments about Dick Cheney.... ... ...Cheney said that he’d “pay to see” a debate between Rush and Obama and has repeatedly said that Obama has left the nation open to attack. Why don’t we get a “wow, he’s talking about the sitting president” here?
Dick Cheney still has higher status in the Village than Barack Obama. It’s that simple.
- Aravosis: Arianna: What If Jon Stewart, Instead of John King, Interviewed Dick Cheney
Great concept, great article. Arianna was especially upset with the way CNN's John King couched his "hardest" questions for Cheney in terms like "some people say" that the economy was better before Bush took office (those people would be called "economists.") Here's Arianna Huffington:
"There are people..." "They would say..." "And they have some numbers to back up their case."
These are not some numbers that belong to some people being trotted to make their case. These numbers are actual data -- empirical evidence. It would be as if King were interviewing a flat-earther and asked him: "There are people on this planet, watching this interview right now, who would say that the earth is round. And they have some pictures taken from outer space to back up their case. So what would you say to someone out there who is saying that?"
King's desperate attempt to distance himself from the question would be laughable if it weren't so repellent. It's not him asking Cheney why we should listen to him. It's not him putting forward objective data. It's some strawman viewers, so please don't hold it against him. And please, please come back. And tell your friends.
This is the problem with King and too many in the Pontius Pilot traditional media: They are so caught up in the obsolete notion that the truth always lies in the middle, they have to pretend that there are two sides to every issue -- and even two sides to straightforward data.
Someone needs to kidnap King and take him to a deprogramming center -- preferably one run by Jon Stewart and his team.
Okay that made laugh.
Sudbay: Even Republicans don't like Republican leaders: "The approval rating of GOP leaders among Republicans has plummeted 12 points in a month"
Greg Sargent took a look at the latest Pew Poll and found what two other recent polls, from Rasmussen and DailyKos, have also shown. Republicans don't like their Republican leaders:The approval rating of GOP leaders among Republicans has plummeted 12 points in a month, down from 55% in February to a minority of 43% now. That’s striking.Maybe even Republicans think taking money for nothing but talk is wrong. And, probably a few of them know that if Obama fails, the nation fails.
Not only that, but approval of GOP leaders overall has dropped to 28% overall — the lowest rating for GOP leaders in 12 years of Pew polling.
In fact, approval of Republican congressional leaders has fallen from 34% in February to 28% currently, the lowest rating for GOP leaders in nearly 14 years of Pew Research surveys.
Why is this happening? Is it general lack of morale among Republicans? Is it that GOP voters are frustrated that their leaders haven’t succeeded in blocking Obama’s agenda? Or could it be that the Dem strategy of using Rush Limbaugh to drive a wedge between die-hard partisan Republicans and those who want to see Obama succeed is working? Something is turning Republicans against their own leadership — in big numbers.
BarbinMD: The Democratic National Committee continues to highlight The Party of No ... no plans, no ideas, no responsibility:
Think Progress: Obama administration rejects Sanford’s attempt to redirect stimulus funds.
Last week, Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) said he would ask the Obama administration if he could redirect $700 million in federal stimulus money to pay down the state’s debt — instead of for its original purpose of school funding and public safety. The Obama administration today rejected his request, saying that the legislation doesn’t allow Obama to “make an exception for that cash”:Think Progress: McCain flips on AIG bailout one more time: We never should have rescued them.The $787 billion stimulus legislation sets strict rules for the $53.6 billion being sent to help state budgets, Orszag wrote. It calls for 82 percent of the money to be used for public schools and colleges and 18 percent on public safety and other government services. “Congress has not authorized the executive branch to waive any of the above statutory requirements,” Orszag’s one-page letter said.
Sanford has said he will outright reject part of the stimulus money if the administration says no to him. Last week, state Senate Finance Committee Chairman Hugh Leatherman — a Republican — introduced legislation allowing the state to spend the money in spite of Sanford’s opposition.
Last fall, as AIG teetered on the edge of collapse, then-Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) came out against using government resources to rescue the firm. Less than 24 hours later, McCain decided that a bailout was necessary because, as he put it, “there are literally millions of people whose retirement, whose investment, whose insurance were at risk here.” But today — after learning of the AIG’s plans to award $165 million in bonuses to its employees — McCain apparently decided that saving “literally millions of people” from financial ruin wasn’t worth it:
While McCain seems to believe that the only way to deal with AIG’s misuse of its bailout funds is to not to offer such bailouts in the first place, other options exist. As Pat Garofalo explains, nationalizing AIG and giving the Treasury Department “outright control over the hiring and firing of executives and the payment of bonuses and dividends” would be a far more efficient strategy.
Yglesias: Michael Steele: Warming is Really Cooling
Conservatives are in a weird posture on climate change. Their financial backers are very much against taking action to avoid catastrophe. And they perceive, correctly, that the kind of steps that could avoid catastrophe are likely to offend a large swathe of powerful interests and be met with skepticism by the public at large. But they can’t really say “massive global catastrophe is a small price to pay for short-term political gain.” So you get weird flailing like this:
We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I use my fingers as quotation marks, is part of the cooling process. Greenland, which is covered in ice, it was once called Greenland for a reason, right? Iceland, which is now green. Oh I love this. Like we know what this planet is all about. How long have we been here? How long? Not very long.
...
No comments:
Post a Comment