Cheney: Palin pick in ’08 “a mistake”

Hot Air ^ | JULY 29, 2012 | Ed Morrissey

[RobinMasters]

As we wait for Mitt Romney to pick his running mate in the next few weeks, the last successful GOP running mate has been privately advising the current GOP nominee and the head of his VP search committee, Beth Myers. Cheney believes that the #2 slot has to be filled with someone ready to take over the top job on Day 1 — and that John McCain flunked that test in 2008. In an interview with ABC News’ Jonathan Karl, Cheney called the selection of Sarah Palin “a mistake”:

[sickoflibs]

RE :”People, even Freepers, simply refuse to look at the facts and records of people once they’ve ‘fallen’ for their beloved candidates. It’s ALL about emotion. They’ll do anything but admit they were mistaken in picking the jerk in the first place! My GAWD, they’re not having a personal relationship with these politicians but you’d never know it. The emotion has to go or we are sunk!”

I was once a enthusiastic fan of Cheney, But that is long over. As late as early 2010 Cheney neo-con fans conveniently forgot he was for same-sex marriage and open homosexuality in the military, until he clearly and specifically said so. That was just another 'please deceive me' crowd.

I saw this Cheney interview on the show this morning and thought of the teeth gnashing that would happen here over it, and laughed.

This morning the Cheney explained that Palin wasn't ready to be POTUS after only 2 years as governor. Well DUH, everyone knew that after she tried to ‘answer’ the question :”Why do you think you are ready to take over as POTUS as VP?”. Well not ‘everybody’. The brain dead cultists went into a tizzy claiming it was an ‘unfair question’ "Why do think you are ready..." is an unfair question ???!!!

And contrary to some Palinistas wet dreams Palin did not run for the POTUS nomination this cycle.

Jeeze. Too much pointless drama. This is the best we got?

[hattend]

[sickoflibs]

RE :”All these politicians want is power and they don’t care who they use to get it! Democrats use blacks, gays, etc. Republicans use the Christian right, 2nd amendment folks, etc.”

I am with you on that AB 100%.

For decades Republicans had the advantage on national defense(since Reagan) and so they used flag-waving war/patriotism as a way to marginalize opponents but that completely backfired on them the past decade. They did it to themselves ala GWB gun to own head.

Obama is trusted more than Republicans on national defense by about 30 points or more. Obama?? Democrats?? Trusted?? This is total disaster that Republicans brought on. Romney rarely talks about national defense.

[JLS]

“An interesting perspective. Not sold, but I shall ponder it.”

I guess some alternatives are:

1. Having there Cheney the administration gave additional backbone after the terrorist attacks on NYC and Washington D.C. and this was more important that having a ready successor in line.

2. Having Cheney change his official state of residence from Texas to Wyoming was no big deal because Cheney is really a Washingtonian and the Dims would not have in the least be worried about it if they wanted to nominate a presidential candidate and a VEEP candidate from the same state. [As an aside, isn’t it curious that the Dims when litigating all over the place in 2000 did not sue to make Bush/Cheney forfeit the Texas electoral votes?]

Of course in my view following the lead of the Dims is not a good idea and being a Washingtonian is not a plus.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Bush/Cheney was a big mistake.”

That should be obvious by now. As was McCain . Unfortunately Republicans have gone down a similar path again.

[exit82]

Quite frankly, if you vote third party this time, you are helping Ob ama win re-electio n.

This year is different. Every election I have voted in for forty years, if I lost, I felt OK, we’ll get it next time.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Obama wins on Nov. 6 THERE WILL NOT BE A NEXT TIME.

So, no third party—not this year.

We’ll drag those GOP-E SOBs across the finish line one last time in order to save the country.

Then we stop being their red-headed stepchildren. They can go the way of the Whigs for all I care.

[Sea Parrot]

It is really quite simple, I have seen it time and time again. People with gay children taking any opposition to gays as a personal attack.

Palin is against gay (sad) special rights. Cheney has a gay daughter, so knee jerk concludes if Palin is against gays, she is personally against his daughter.

[Captain Beyond]

I am sorry but I have to totally disagree with Cheney on this. John McCain was not qualified enough to be president.

It was John McCain's show and he was blowing chunks with every campaign speech before Palin signed on. Then after she signed on he continued his losing ways with dismal speech after speech. Then there is John McCain's ties to the George Soros Tides Foundation and his idiotic campaign finance reform which he was more passioned about than his own presidential race. His constant attacks on his on Party. Then flying back for the TARP vote and going AWOL then making the all mighty quote of "B.O. will make a fine President" sealed his fate because at that point any American that was still at least a little bit interested in him saw he had given up or figured out he was not really interested in getting the gig in the first place.

Plus it is quite telling when the VP slot of the ticket is a bigger draw than the main attraction. That alone was a huge glaring tell that John McCain was not presidential material. John McCain was a loser from the beginning and no VP choice no matter who it was was going to be able to polish that turd into a viable winning campaign.

All these people trying to pin that lost on Palin are either delusional, lying and trying to rewrite history to cover their rear-ends, or begging for invites for the liberal hollywood cocktail party scene. Only one person can be blamed for that failure and that is John McCain and the losers in the GOP that nominated him during the primaries and no one else.

I mean come on McCain has 22 years experience in goverment and was running against an inexperienced community organizer with barely 2 years in the Senate. Yet He LOST!!! With all that experience on his side he was only able to barly squeak by in a couple of the debates. Case made right there.

[Vaquero]

Didn’t say she wouldnt be better than the crud we have...said just the opposite in my post.

I do agree that in a civilized society where there are no Chicago street activists that have the ability to become _resident....in a normal country, Palin was a few years short of the optimum in politics to be in that position.

I voted for McLame because of Palin not in spite of her.

[Captain Beyond]

Bottom line if your Presidential hopes ride on your VP selection you have no business running for the office in the first place. It is up to the presidential nominee to sell it to the public and nobody else.

[AuntB]

“AuntB, I don’t support everything Cheney does. When he says something I agree with, I voice approval. When he says something I don’t agree with, I voice disapproval.”

I know, that’s why I pinged you.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

[Eagle Forgotten]

You write:

There is no doubt in my mind that if Obama wins on Nov. 6 THERE WILL NOT BE A NEXT TIME.

So, no third party—not this year.

It's overwhelmingly likely that, even with an Obama win, the Republicans will keep the House. That will greatly limit the damage Obama can do. (There's an argument that Romney could in fact do more damage, because party loyalists in Congress would support liberal proposals from him that they would have opposed from Obama.)

We’ll drag those GOP-E SOBs across the finish line one last time in order to save the country.

Unfortunately, that "one last time" rationale often leads to enabling. You'll sincerely see your vote as the last time but you can't label it that way. Your vote will be indistinguishable from those of the RINOs and other Romneyites who consider Gingrich and Santorum (and Palin and DeMint and so on) to be right-wing kooks.

[wordsofearnest]

Winner winner Chicken dinner

[exit82]

It's overwhelmingly likely that, even with an Obama win, the Republicans will keep the House. That will greatly limit the damage Obama can do.

Quite frankly, they have not limited the damage Obama is doing, especially with Boehner at the helm.So , it is very doubtful a GOP led House alone will limit O bama. They can't find their testicles now, so there is little hope they will find them after 1/1/13.

We really ned the Senate as well, and hey, look at that firecracker Mitch McConnell. Wow, the Dems quake when he comes in to the room//s.

That McConnell cannot make Reid look like the Searchlight NV village idiot that he is, is very telling.

I really don't care what my vote accomplishes or how it is labeled as long as the prime directive is met: the defeat and removal of Obama and his utterly corrupt Administration from office on 1/20/13.

If that is not accomplished because a bunch of folks sat on their hands bemoaning the GOP nominee, then nothing else will matter. There won't be a free America to worry about any longer.

The clear and present danger is upon us now. And there are only 99 days in which to affect the outcome.

[Eagle Forgotten]

As for Boehner and McConnell, let me say delicately that they would not be my first choices for the leadership posts. Nor my second. Nor my third. Etc.

BUT it goes too far to say that the House hasn't limited the damage that Obama is doing. The Republican capture of the House was the only reason the Bush tax cuts were extended. The biggest steps of the Obama administration, namely the stimulus and Obamacare, were passed when the Dems had the House. Neither bill would have a hope of succeeding now. Just through party loyalty, the House Republicans will block major lefty proposals from Obama.

I agree with you that Boehner/McConnell "can't find their testicles now, so there is little hope they will find them after 1/1/13." That's a reason not to support Romney, though. When President Romney proposes a liberal bill -- so that he can look like "moderate Mitt" and win media praise and cruise to re-election -- will Congressional Republicans say no to him, as they've repeatedly said no to Obama? I don't think they will.

My bottom line is that I disagree with your conclusion that, if Obama wins, "There won't be a free America to worry about any longer." I think there will be a 2016 election and a genuine conservative will have an excellent chance.

[exit82]

My bottom line is that I disagree with your conclusion that, if Obama wins, "There won't be a free America to worry about any longer." I think there will be a 2016 election and a genuine conservative will have an excellent chance.

I know that this is the root for our differing views. The only way, if Obama gets reelected, that your sunny view of 2016 occurs is for a military coup or a second American revolution takes place between now and then.

The country has not been so threatened since 1860. A second Obama term will not end well for anybody.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

The fix was in then to.

The thing about the new world order commies is basically, heads they win, tails we lose. We either are stuck with a commie like Obama pushing us toward totalitarian socialism (to advance the new world order) or arch RINOs like McLame and Romney, using the full power of the world’s banks to push us into the new world order.

In any event, they win and we lose.

I really, really grieve for people’s grandchildren and great grandchildren. America as we know it is on the verge of ceasing to exist.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Koolaid or none, does it matter?

The fix is in. We conservatives have no representation. The power structure acts in its own best interest, not ours.

Drink the Koolaid or don’t drink it. What does it matter?

[lepton]

heh. Bingo.