Cheney's Shocking Attack On Palin - Was Dick Cheney Ever a True Conservative?

Did you all read Dick Cheney's outrageous and offensive attack on Sarah Palin? He said that it was a mistake for John McCain to select her as running mate in 2008.

John McCain was the main mistake on that ticket. Cheney didn't address that. That's what I would have addressed. The Palin pick was an act of desperation, and McCain was the one who was desperate. He got the nomination, but was convinced he would go nowhere without seemingly balancing out the ticket. Without Palin he gets maybe 30% of the popular vote in the General election.

Did the ploy work for McCain? Yes. Was Sarah ready to be president on a moment's notice? In my opinion no. Is Cheney right? From McCain's perspective no. The pick garnered him a respectable showing at the polls. From a purely logical opinion about whether Palin was ready to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, I personally think Cheney was right.

See: http://news.yahoo.com/dick-cheney-picking-sarah-palin-vp-mistake-130904846--abc-news-politics.html

After all the hell that Palin, her husband, and her children, have suffered being attacked by the mainstream media in the most personal terms, we get to hear this garbage coming out of Dick Cheney's mouth.

I do believe that Palin, her husband, and her children have been the recipient of terrible treatment. I don't think it was right, and I commend them for the way they have weathered the storm. I have also taken persons and entities to task when I though things were over the top. None the less, if you think she wasn't ready to be president on a moment's notice, it's not an attack on her to say so. It's definitely not an attack on the family. I'm not qualified to be president of Ford. If someone says I'm not qualified to be president of Ford, it's not an attack. It's merely that person's opinion, and an accurate one at that. I may not appreciate it, but the person was within his/her rights to say it. And if it was true, they should say it. Even if it wasn't true, they are entitled to their opinion and the right to say it. Politics does not dissolve our First Amendment rights.

I am still shaking with rage over Cheney's stupidity and lack of shame. Cheney should be ashamed of himself, and he should apologize.

I know you disagree with Cheney. There are others here who feel the same way you do about it. I do not think you or they should get so worked up over it. Whether you folks like it or not, there are reasoned Conservatives who do not see Sarah Palin the way you do. That does not mean you are wrong. It doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. Differences of opinion are reasoned as long as the ultimate goal of conversing parties is shared. Both of us want this nation returned to it's founding tenets and values. Both of us want to see our society return to some status of normalcy. We want our values to be respected. We have every right to expect them to be. I am convinced that Dick Cheney agrees with this. The point is, we share far more than we disagree on.

Is Sarah the future of Conservatism? I'm not convinced of it. Is she necessary for the return to Conservatism. I'm not convinced of that either. The only thing Sarah is undeniably necessary for, is the furthence of her own ambitions. I do not personally support her ambitions. In my opinion Sarah is more qualified to lead folks astray, than to lead them in the proper direction. I will explain this at the end of my post.

Palin electrified American conservatives in a way in which no candidate on the Presidential ticket has, with the exception of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

Compared to John McCain, Palin was going to appear as a natural saint. We knew very little about her. She was energetic and rattled off great sound-bites. I was glad she was chosen for the role. Everyone here was. I still didn't buy off on the idea she was enough reason to vote for McCain. Knowing McCain as we do, and remembering how Lyndonn Johnson was treated by the Kennedy brothers, I saw stop signs aplenty in Sarah's future, if McCain was elected. He wasn't going to listen to her. He was the lion of the Senate. She was some half-term governor from Alaska, of all places. (from his perspective) He didn't respect her, and that was revealed quite clearly in early 2009.

Palin is the Goldwater and Reagan of our time, because all three conservative heroes were opposed by the corrupt Rockefeller Republicans.

I think there's a better case to be made, that Sarah is opposed by the GOPe. I wouldn't bother with the Rockefeller Republican line. It's enough to say that we have a common enemy Sarah and us, the establishment GOPe, the DNC, and the DNCp. I do want to caution you though. Just because someone is opposed by your enemies, it is not proof that person is your best and brightest. Our enemies told us John McCain was our best and brightest. As soon as he was nominated, he was described by them as our most intellectually and geriatrically challenged.

Sarah appeals to church-going people, which makes her very appealing to the Reagan Democrats who share her social values.

All well and good, but does this make her qualified to be president? No. It merely means that she may share some of our Christian and social values.

It was McCain who lost the election, not Palin.

It WAS McCain that lost the election. The old codger at times looked like he was dead set on doing it too. His pseudo endorsement of Obama was pitiful. I also observed that once he picked Sarah to be his running mate, he in large part allowed her to do the talking from there on out. She garnered him at least 15% of the vote IMO. Even here we saw many people saying they weren't going to vote for McCain, but when Sarah was brought on board, they would vote for the ticket.

Was Sarah right to join the ticket? Of course! She was a moderating factor. She was there to hopefully pull McCain back to the right. Was that going to happen once the election was over? I don't think there was even the remotest chance of that. I didn't think so back then either.

I have given it some thought though. What if Sarah had not joined that ticket? What if McCain had picked another warm bucket of horse sweat that shared his world outlook? If he was going to lose, wouldn't it have been better to see him go down with 10% of the vote? IMO, yes. This would have signaled the GOPe, that the gig was up. It would have forced them to come into the 21st Century with us, as a unified Conservative movement. Instead, we get Romney. I'm not faulting Sarah for her actions with regard to that ticket. I think what she did was entirely reasoned and admirable.

Cheney's disgusting attack, forces us to look at his alleged conservative credentials.

Okay, lets look at them.

Cheney was Gerald Ford's White House Chief of Staff, when America suffered its first military defeat in the 20th Century, when America removed its troops from Vietnam.

Okay Cheney was Ford's chief of staff. That isn't the same as being president. He operated at the will of President Ford.

The war's foundation was laid in the Eisenhower administration. I'm not convinced Eisenhower or even Kennedy envisioned what was to follow, but the "adviser" level reached 16,000 under Kennedy. The troop levels were brought up to 550,000 under Johnson, and passed off to Nixon and then Ford. Johnson/McNamara's execution of the war was as pathetic as it could possibly be. Nixon improved on the execution, but he was severely hampered by Congress. Our troops would kick the snot out of the NVC, and Congress would call a cease-fire. The media would call it a loss. The NVC would re-supply, and then our troops would have to do it all over again. All the while Nixon had Senators and Congressmen second guessing the war effort. Guys like Kerry were brought in to lie and denigrate the military for the NVC. You had Jane Fonda going over to Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of home grown Hanoi Janes in the streets in the capital. All of them were furious because Nixon was a killer. None of them concerned at all with what the NVC did. (And when millions died after we pulled out, not a peep from these scum sucking propagandist liars) Then this was handed off to President Ford, and Congress cut off funds to execute the war. So now you wish to categorize this as Cheney making the terrible decisions that cost us our first 20th Century military defeat? Really? Man do you have it in for Cheney or what.

Cheney played a role in the greatest humiliation that America has ever suffered in it's history. The only other military defeat that America suffered was by Britain in the War of 1812, but Britain was the world's leading super power in that time. Cheney, Gerald Ford, and Nelson Rockefeller, caused America to be defeated by Vietnam, a third world hell hole. Gerald Ford was the Jimmy Carter of the Republican Party, and Cheney was his top advisor.

Blaming Gerald Ford for the loss of Vietnam, makes about as much sense as blaming Bambi's mom for what happened to her. In your zeal to take Cheney down, you've more or less lost it. Stating that Gerald Ford was the Jimmy Carter of our party, reveals a lack of even the most sophomoric grasp of what Jimmy Carter was. Ford didn't undermine U. S. interests abroad, contribute to the dethroning of an ally, contribute to the starting of a war that cost over one million lives, and destabilize a region for over thirty years. And that was one of Carter's more brilliant moves. Gerald Ford = Jimmy Carter? Are you kidding us? Here's a hint. In your self-interest, just say YES.

Cheney served in the Cabinet of GHW Bush, when he (GEORGE BUSH) called for a new world order.

George Bush thought he was ushering in a New World Order. He was a blithering idiot for saying that. #1, we're a sovereign nation. #2, We don't believe in a world order body of collective governance #3, If he truly wanted to support such a thing, making it public was about the stupidest thing he could have done.

The whole nation's ears perked up at the mere mention. Stupid, stupid, stupid...

Where is Cheney's role in this? Oh that's right, there wasn't one. Come on...

Like Bush Sr. and Gerald Ford, Cheney is a Rockefeller Republican, who has succeeded in fooling people that he is a conservative.

I don't support every one of Cheney's views. Over the years I have disagreed with him from time to time. That doesn't mean that I find him to be a Leftist, or some sort of operative trying to do something evil against the United States on behalf of Rockefeller Republicans. At any rate, I prefer to think of them as establishment Republicans. I think them as the GOPe (elite, Eastern, or establishment - really makes no difference). They don't think like us. They need to be bounced out on their heads. With regard to Cheney's comments about Palin, I'm not convinced that Cheney doesn't like Conservatives. If THAT IS his take, I would consider him a part of the GOPe. Perhaps over time that will become evident. For right now, I tend to think he's focused on Palin and what he perceives as her weaknesses. I'm not thrilled with her either. Does that make me a card carrying GOPe member? If you think it does, please explain why I am angry that Romney is our nominee. Then why would I trash the RNC continually? Why do I oppose most of what it does? Explain why I praise Conservative individuals, Conservative ideals, and try to vote for the most qualified person who closely reflects Conservative thinking. Cheney's disagreement about Palin's qualification don't necessarily indicate anything other than he is not a big fan.

His open support for his daughter Mary's lesbian lifestyle, and for gay rights in general, shows his contempt for America's Bible believing Christians who love God more than they love corporate profits. Shame on you Dick Cheney!

Cheney's daughter is a homosexual. He supports her. If you wouldn't support your daughter just because she was a homosexual, that would tell me more about you than it would her.

I find homosexuality to be objectionable. I believe it is a sin. As a reasoned person, I still believe they are covered by the same U. S. Constitution you and I are. I am also a believer in the Golden rule. I will treat them as I would like to be treated, with respect. That does not mean that I condone what they are doing, and when confronted by them I have explained in as nice a manner as I could what I believe and why. I don't recall everything that Cheney has supported that is related to Homosexuality, but I do remember disagreeing with some of it. Does that make him evil. In the eyes of God, perhaps. I am not God. I believe good people make mistakes. I believe he is mistaken. I believe that you, I and everyone else make mistakes, even harbor mistakes. We have all sinned before God. We all continue to sin before God. Therefore I will continue to leave some judgments to God. I may not agree with something other people are doing, but if they are doing it in private, I'm not going to judge them and meet out some penalty.

That policy obviously doesn't cover things involving something additionally that is wrong, like involving children even if in private.

As for Cheney preferring corporate profits over loving God, I am amazed that you think they have to be mutually exclusive. Cheney agreed to take a position at Halliburton. A salary was agreed upon. He did his job in a professional manner. Halliburton is a firm that works hand in hand with our military. I want good people to work there. Why would I consider Cheney bad for having worked there?

His salary was thought to be in the range of about $20 million dollars per year. He gave up that salary to accept the offer of becoming a vice-presidential candidate. He wasn't even guaranteed a win. He served under Bush admirably. It also shows some level of dedication to the country, to accept that reduction in salaray.

He was very qualified to do what he did. I wasn't convinced that I wanted him to be the next president, but I do believe we could have done a lot worse. Looking at our nominee, I don't think there's any question that is true.

I respect Cheney. I may agree or disagree with him regarding Palin, but I do not see why a disagreement on this has to mean he is pure evil. I'm just not buying what you're selling here.

Why I said that I think she is more qualified to lead astray, than lead in the right direction.

Palin sucks up a lot of oxygen in the room. She has turned the focus of too many Conservatives solely to her. She endorses Republican candidates in a hap-hazard manner. A number of times she has actually backed the more liberal candidate. Once again this election, she chose at least one individual to support, where there was a clearly better candidate.

Her support for John McCain reveals that she cannot clearly discern Conservative over Flaming Leftist. She has signaled that she wants to register the illegal immigrants so they can stay here and work. We started out with amnesty. Then that was downgraded to pathway without amnesty. Now we've downgraded it again to registering so they can stay here. Folks, these are all amnesty and we're only play semantic games. Conservatives don't play that game. It's not in our nature to do it. We have to look ourselves and accept it if we're doing it. And if we're doing it, we have to stop it.

So what does Sarah wind up doing. She winds up part of the time asking us to vote for the wrong people. We are pushing to ouster the liberals in Washington, D. C., from both parties. Is she helping? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Is that good enough? Should a Conservative be able to spot a Conservative or not? Should we be supporting any people who are more liberal that others they are running against? The honest answer to that is no.

Palin at least part of the time is backing the wrong candidates. Palin does not understand the illegal alien issue. She is evidently not aware of the true nature of Soros, Kerry, Feingold, the Tides Foundation, Terressa Heinz Kerry, and other players John McCain has chosen to join efforts with over the years. And yet, she wants to lead.

Some folks are buying it. I am not. She is a populist first, a moderate Republican second. She is capable of ratting off some pretty nice sound bites. So is Mitt Romney.

No, you're right, she is not as bad as Mitt Romney. None the less, a person who backs some of the people and things she does, is not a person I trust.

If folks have her deeply lodged in their political receptor, I think it could blind them to better people. I also think it could blind them to her true qualifications.

I would ask people to make up a resume with her history on it.

Would you hire her for the job you seem to want her for, with that resume. If you were a board member reviewing applications, would you even call her in for an interview with five to ten other resume's on your desk? No..., you wouldn't.

Sometimes liking someone isn't enough. I know some people think I hate her. In all honesty, I don't. I will admit to being somewhat annoyed with her. Don't let that stop you though. I'm sure folks will let me know justs how much I really do hate her.

Palin is the people's conservative, while Cheney is the corporate conservative. God, family, and country, are at the center of Palin's conservatism, while corporations are at the center of Cheney's so-called conservatism. Go Sarah! I wish you would run again in 2016, this time at the top of the ticket. Reagan was elected on his third Presidential campaign, after failing in 1968 and 1976. You are young, and you still have plenty of time left. Go Sarah!

Ultimately, Palin is little more than a populist. Cheney is an ailing old man that has performed well in the corporate/government positions he has held. He deserves our respect. I believe that Cheney has every bit as much right to claim to be about God, family, and country as Palin does. His wife Lynn is a national treasure. If the measure of a man is the woman he has chosen to live his life with, and who loves him dearly, Dick Cheney is a brilliant man. We don't know of anything Cheney has done that was illegal or anti-U. S. To denegrate him for having held a corporate job at a company closely affiliated with our military efforts, is in a word... shameful. It is beneath what a Christian should be doing. I am hopeful that after all the hype that is sure to come around 2016 if 2009/10 were any indication, Palin will decide to go home to Alaska a devote herself to her family.

This is not to state I don't like the woman. It is to state that I think she has exceeded her true value to the cause. I don't not want her continually parsing our candidates and topics on FoxNews, with the same insight that found her thinking we needed John McCain back in Washington for another six years, or illegal aliens in our nation in perpetuity...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.