Posted on 04/27/2009 6:16:05 PM PDT by GOPGuide
And John McCain’s defeat has been taken as the vindication of this premise.
We tried running the maverick reformer, the argument goes, and look what it got us. What Americans want is real conservatism, not some crypto-liberal imitation.
“Real conservatism,” in this narrative, means a particular strain of right-wingery: a conservatism of supply-side economics and stress positions, uninterested in social policy and dismissive of libertarian qualms about the national-security state. And Dick Cheney happens to be its diamond-hard distillation. The former vice-president kept his distance from the Bush administration’s attempts at domestic reform, and he had little time for the idealistic, religiously infused side of his boss’s policy agenda. He was for tax cuts at home and pre-emptive warfare overseas; anything else he seemed to disdain as sentimentalism.
This is precisely the sort of conservatism that’s ascendant in today’s much-reduced Republican Party, from the talk radio dials to the party’s grassroots. And a Cheney-for-President campaign would have been an instructive test of its political viability.
snip
We need to hear more: What was done and who approved it, and what intelligence we really gleaned from it. Not so that we can prosecute – unless the Democratic Party has taken leave of its senses – but so that we can learn, and pass judgment, and struggle toward consensus.
Here Dick Cheney, prodded by the ironies of history into demanding greater disclosure about programs he once sought to keep completely secret, has an important role to play. He wants to defend his record; let him defend it. And let the country judge.
But better if this debate had happened during the campaign season. And better, perhaps, if Cheney himself had been there to have it out.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Here is reality. The GOP primary voters chose McCain over a half dozen more conservative candidates. Conservatives hate McCain and conservatives failed to beat him. Cheney would have been beaten by a vastly wider margin than McCain.
Its single issue folks like heye2monn that got us oBOWma, by not voting “out of principal”. Yeah mclame was hard to pull for, even with Sarah, but its hard to imagine anyone worse than oBOWma.
What’s wrong with trying to get Cheney to run in 2012? He’s about the toughest bird around even with a squeeky ticker and he’ll only be 72 in 2012. I call for CHENEY/PALIN 2012.
Another fake conservative. All we need.
Looks like they misspelled “Asshat.”
GMTA.
Cheney would have demanded that Obama show his Original Birth Certificate and would have called him Hussein to his face
It seems like no one is concerned but a few of us on this forum about potential fake birth credentials for the Popular One. The “people’s” votes trump the Constitution!
Notice how the comments opens with “Editor’s choice” displayed? Like we can’t read and decide for ourselves? Soon the NYT will be gone and won’t be missed.
when talking to those in the gutter, sometimes one’s mouth must follow in order to resonate with the intended audience.
It doesn’t stop with just one state. Gays get married and then go to other states and battle over divorce and child custody and everything else. Under the constitution, disputes between the states have to be decided by federal courts and the Congress. Who knows what liberal appeals judges will do if we stand idly by, as you and Cheney want to do.
I’m not a single issue person. I believe in the Reaganite triad — strong defense, cutting taxes/reducing big spending government, and conservative on social issues.
Cheney is certainly preferable to Obomo-socialist. But for all his courage, talents and skills, Cheney cares only about two Reagan iissues — tax cuts and defense. Lacking a pro-life and pro-traditional marriage vision, he would not get much support from social conservatives on cold Iowa caucus nights. Palin drew huge crowds because she was social conservative, not because she favored tax cuts.
Sorry to mis-read your comments, but Mr. Cheney defers to the Constitution on any and all issues the Constitution leaves to the States. Regretably for you homosexuals marrying is one and other than Roe vs Wade abortion is another States’ Rights issues.
When you have enemies at our door, it is the greater importance to defend as well as getting the government out of our businesss and lives.
I think I am being realistic in considering that us getting a strong leader who is everything to everyone that is highly unlikely. Even the Founding Fathers may not have met your criteria.
My “best pick” for 2012 would be the Grand Team of CHENEY-PALIN. Even in my admittedly limited scope of influence, I will do whatever I can to make it happen.
Palin-Cheney is not too bad.
One can defer to the Constitution and still believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned as a badly written, poorly thought out decision (as do most conservatives and even a number of pro-choice liberal scholars).
Fighting homosexual marriage does not have to override or flout the Constitution. The Constitution allows for amendments. There is nothing unconstitutional about an amendment for traditional marriage. Leaving that aside, there are many ways to protect traditional marriage without violating conservative states rights. But most conservative policians — George W. — barely mention the issue.
Cheney obviously doesn’t feel comfortable talking about abortion and homosexual marriage. So he uses the Constitution argument as an excuse. He is perfectly willing to discuss murder and theft (other social issues) but plainly does not wish to go up against the liberal intelligentsia on marriage and abortion.
Meanwhile,our civilization continues to decay.
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.