Meghan McCain, Liz Cheney: Next gen: The Swamp
The Swamp
Chicago Tribune

Young McCain to old Cheney: 'You had your eight years, go away'

Posted April 23, 2009 6:00 PM

The Swamp

by Mark Silva

Time for some new blood in the Republican Party, says Meghan McCain, blood relative (daughter) of the GOP's losing 2008 presidential nominee. But it's not dad she's talking about here.

The blogger-writer-daughter of the Arizona senator, John McCain, who never was much of a friend to George W. Bush's machine (Karl Rove), suggests that it's time for Rove and Co. to start getting out of the way. That goes for Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich, too. (Somebody's feeling their oats.)

She was speaking on ABC's The View today.

But this really is Take Your Kids to Work Day, because Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president, also had some pointed things to say in the defense of her father, who has been fielding criticism for his own criticism of President Barack Obama. And that includes quite an argument about the interrogation (torture) tactics of the Bush-Cheney administration, which dad supported to their fullest in "the war on terror.''

McCain, on The View, said: "I wrote a post about how Karl Rove following me on Twitter was creepy and it was more of a metaphor for Karl Rove trying to be sort of the spokesperson for the Republican Party right now, and it was basically saying him twittering is not gonna make young people, you know, come to the Republican Party and I don't think any person my age is going to think that's cool and the DNC actually just did an ad and it has Karl Rove and Newt Gringich and Dick Cheney as the new faces of the Republican Party.''

"Oh my God,'' said cohost Joy Behar, "how scary.''

"Well I mean, it's hard for people like me that really want new energy and new blood when they.... It's very unprecedented for someone like Karl Rove or Dick Cheney to be criticizing the president,'' McCain said. "It's very unprecedented for a former vice president, you obviously, you know, Karl Rove, and I just, you know, my big criticism is just you had your eight years, go away.''

Liz Cheney, for her part, had this to say on MSNBC, in an appearance with Norah O'Donnell, transcript courtesy of the network:

NORAH O'DONNELL, MSNBC ANCHOR: Also, there may be some new information today on who signed off on tough tactics to question terrorists. The Senate Intelligence Committee now says Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice helped direct a small group of Justice Department lawyers who wrote memos authorizing these harsh interrogation practices. Also, Rice gave the first verbal OK for the use of waterboarding in July 2002.

Liz Cheney is a former deputy assistant secretary of state during the Bush administration and the daughter of the former vice president, Dick Cheney.

Liz, good to see you. Thanks so much for joining us.

LIZ CHENEY, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: Thanks, Norah. Good to be here.

O'DONNELL: Did the former vice president, Dick Cheney, was he the prime mover behind directing this small group of Justice Department lawyers to come up with an authorization for these harsh tactics?

L. CHENEY: That's actually not what the document says that you're referring to. There's absolutely no question that this was a program that was widely approved and supported within the administration. I think there's no secret here that the National Security Council reviewed the program. The National Security Council ensured that it had legal approval before going forward with these techniques.

But I want to go back to one thing we heard the attorney general say, Norah, which I found troubling. He said that he had not seen the memos or any memos talking about the effectiveness of this program. And I think it's very important for people to ask the question, had the president, before President Obama made the decision to release the tactics and the techniques, had nobody reviewed the effectiveness of the program? Had his attorney general and the president himself looked at whether in fact these programs had gained intelligence that was critical for saving -- for the security of the nation?

O'DONNELL: Well Liz, we'll get to that argument in a minute, about do the means justify the ends. Whether torture justifies...

L. CHENEY: Well, it wasn't torture, Norah, so that's not the right way to lay out the argument.

O'DONNELL: OK.

L. CHENEY: Everything done in this program, as has been laid out and described before, are tactics that our own people go through in SEER training and that our own people have gone through for many years. So it's really - does a fundamental disservice to those professionals who are conducting this very effective program and to those people who approved the program in order to keep this nation safe and prevent attacks through the program to call it torture.

O'DONNELL: Liz, the CIA, on its own after 2005, stopped waterboarding on its own. The U.S. prosecuted people for waterboarding after World War II.
So to suggest there's a consensus out there that waterboarding is not torture is not in fact accurate.

L. CHENEY: No, I think it is accurate. There were three people who were waterboarded. And two of those people are people who gave us incredibly important and useful information, information that saved American lives after they were waterboarded. Both Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah.

And I would just refer your viewers to the really important op-ed piece that Mike Hayden and Attorney General Mukasey wrote laying out why this program worked, why it was effective and what damage has now been done to our national security by releasing the tactics of this program (ph).

O'DONNELL: Well, the current director of the national intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, has said this about those particular memos, he says this, quote, "the information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances. But there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means."

We have a full screen of this - no, let me, I want to put this full screen up, because this is very important. Could we please get this up on the screen?

L. CHENEY: It is important, Norah, but let me comment to that.

O'DONNELL: The bottom line - the bottom line is that these techniques have hurt our image around the world.

L. CHENEY: Norah, I'm sure you know...

(CROSSTALK)

O'DONNELL: ... director says that the damage that has done has far outweighed any information that was gleaned. And in fact, there is a disagreement about whether other tactics other than waterboarding could have gotten valuable information.

L. CHENEY: Norah, I'm sure you know that actually the first statement that DNI Blair put out internally acknowledged the incredible effectiveness of these programs and acknowledged that very important intelligence had been gained. And that it was only after the White House got a hold of the statement, edited the statement, censored it I would say, and put it out publicly that his language changed.

So I think this is another instance where people need to take a very close look at the fact you've had four former CIA directors talk about how effective this program is and why memos should not have been released, and the fact that DNI Blair changed his assessment of the program should raise some questions in people's minds.

O'DONNELL: I want to get back again - we can debate this, but I want to get back to specifically, what role the vice president had in directing lawyers to authorize these memos. Was it from the vice president's office, Dick Cheney, who said to those men -- John Hugh (ph), Jay Bibby (ph)- we need to come up with a way to interrogate these al Qaeda suspects after 9/11? Why doesn't he own up to the fact that he was the prime mover behind that?

L. CHENEY: Norah, there was no direction of lawyers from the vice president. That's not how this process worked. And I think that you can look at exactly how the process worked, which is, the CIA said we have Abu Zubaydah and we think he's got important information that further attacks are imminent and therefore, we need to know what we can do.

And the National Security Council met and discussed this. This is actually all laid out in Senator Rockefeller's timeline, which doesn't say what you're alleging that it says, which makes clear that the questions laid out to OlC were, what's possible and when. And if you've read the memos, in fact, that were released, you'll see that they were very, very careful in laying out exactly what could be done and for exactly how long.

So the notion...

O'DONNELL: Well, let me put that up on the screen, because we do have that and that's the first full screen that I was going to get to, which is the Cheney and Rice signed off on these interrogations. Very first graphic...

(CROSSTALK)

L. CHENEY: But Norah, what you're doing is reading a headline - but Norah, you're reading a headline from an A.P. story or McClatchy story. That's not what the document itself says.

Now, I think it's very important, however, to be clear...

O'DONNELL: The Senate Intelligence lays out that in those initial meetings were the vice president..

L. CHENEY: Absolutely.

O'DONNELL: ... the national security adviser...

L. CHENEY: That's absolutely right.

O'DONNELL: ... Powell, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld were not in those initial meetings. So if those were that small group of people, why won't you say that the vice president was one of the prime movers in..

(CROSSTALK)

L. CHENEY: There's no question that the vice president of the United States supported the program, as did the national security adviser, as did the secretary of state, as did the attorney general, as did the entire National Security Council. There is nobody who has been clearer about being out there saying this is a good program, this saved American lives than the vice president. So there's nothing about owning up here, because this was a good program and people are very proud of what we've accomplished.

Now setting aside that, what you're doing is reading headlines and talking about direction of lawyers, which is a very different thing. And there's no assertion that that's what went on. The lawyers' opinions were sought in order to make sure that the program that the CIA ran stayed within the law. And the lawyers did a very responsible and professional job of laying out exactly what were the limits of how far we could go. And that is precisely what makes it so damaging that these memos have now been released.

O'DONNELL: Listen to yourself - listen to yourself, Liz, "how far we could go."

L. CHENEY: That's right.

O'DONNELL: How far could we go with detainees. I mean, how far...

L. CHENEY: Torture them in order to get information?

O'DONNELL: How far - no.

L. CHENEY: For how many minutes you could ask them certain kind of questions. How many...

(CROSSTALK)

L. CHENEY: I'm sorry, it's very, very important point.

O'DONNELL: It's a very important point.

L. CHENEY: It is a very important point.

O'DONNELL: The Geneva Convention were established...

L. CHENEY: Norah, there is nothing...

O'DONNELL: ... to protect our men and women in the military. So that America would be a beacon in the world so when our men and women are captured overseas that they would not be tortured. We would never want our people to...

L. CHENEY: Norah, are you going to give me a chance to answer your question?

O'DONNELL: Let me finish my point.

L. CHENEY: I get your point, Norah, but the point is - no, Norah, wait a second...

(CROSSTALK)

O'DONNELL: ... America no longer cares about torture?

L. CHENEY: That's not what the world is hearing, Norah. First of all...

(CROSSTALK)

O'DONNELL: .. and if gets valuable information, then OK, we're for it. Is that the message they send?

L. CHENEY: Norah, that may be what you're saying, but that's not what I'm saying.

O'DONNELL: OK.

L. CHENEY: What I'm saying that is there were a series of tactics, a series of techniques that had all been done to our own people. We did not torture our own people, these techniques are not torture. The memos laid out...

O'DONNELL: Did we torture other people?

L. CHENEY: No.

O'DONNELL: You just said, we did not torture our own people.

L. CHENEY: Therefore, the tactics are not torture. We did not torture. The memos laid out the extent of exactly how far we could go before it would become torture, because it was important we not cross that line into torture.

As General Hayden and Attorney General Mukasey laid out, the problem is that now we've said to our enemies, look, this is exactly how far we're g going to go. So our enemies, who we know read this stuff online, will now train to be able to withstand that.

Now, setting that aside, this argument about the Geneva Conventions, in terms of the - you know, this idea that somehow al Qaeda abides by the Geneva Conventions. If al Qaeda captures an American, they cut his head off. So I think it's very important for us to sort of take a step back from the emotion of this and say we needed to be able to get evidence about imminent attacks.
We knew these guys had information, the information that was provided saved American lives, and the techniques were not torture. And I think it's important for the American people to be able to see the entire argument laid out.

O'DONNELL: OK. Liz Cheney, stay with us, because we're going to have much more not only about these particular harsh interrogation memos that some people are calling torture memos, whether the vice president will participate, will testify before a truth commission, and the future of the Republican Party. We've got a lot more coming up right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The world outside there, both our friends and our foes, will be quick to take advantage of a situation if they think they're dealing with a weak president or one who's not going to stand up and aggressively defend America's interests.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'DONNELL: Back with us is Liz Cheney, she, of course, the former deputy assistant secretary of state during the Bush administration and the daughter of the former vice president, Dick Cheney.

All right, Liz, did the vice president just call the president a weak president?

L. CHENEY: I think that he is concerned that some of the things that we've seen President Obama do, particularly on his overseas trip, in terms of not taking the opportunity to stand up and defend America when Daniel Ortega delivers a 50-minute screed against the United States...

O'DONNELL: Is that really appropriate, though, to call the current sitting president weak?

L. CHENEY: I think what he said is you begin to look weak and there's a danger if our enemies think we are weak. I think it's important to be very precise about what he said.

But I there's a real concern. I mean the message that we saw coming out of the last few foreign trips, you know, set aside republican and democrat, as an American, it concerns me when I've got a president who doesn't stand up and say, wait a minute. You know, I'm going to defend the United States of America because we are the beacon of hope for people all around the world.

O'DONNELL: He didn't said he wasn't going to defend America.

L. CHENEY: He didn't do it though, Norah. He didn't do it. He stood up after Ortega attacked the nation, attacked our policies for the last 40 years, and President Obama said, well, look I was only three months old.

Now, you know, that's not the kind of strong defense of the nation that I'd like to see.

O'DONNELL: Let me read to you what the former president, George W.
Bush, said on March 17th in Calgary. He said, quote, "I'm not going to spend my time criticizing him," talking about President Obama. "There are plenty of critics in the arena. He deserves my silence."

So Liz, what are you doing here? What's the vice president doing?

L. CHENEY: Well, the vice president thinks it's very important when you see the country begin to go down paths that are concerning and dangerous, and when you see the current administration making decisions that really do have the potential to make us less safe, in those circumstances, I would say the vice president doesn't' think that there's an obligation to be silent. In fact, I think he believes the opposite, which is that there's an obligation to stand up and say, wait a second. You know, there are important reasons why we put policies in place. They clearly kept us safe for seven years.

And it's very important as this administration now begins to dismantle some of those things, that the public, you know, understand and have the ability to have a debate about what direction we're going to go in.

O'DONNELL: The latest former vice president's approval ratings, Cheney, favorable, 21 percent, unfavorable 58 percent.

Is it possible that the American people have already made a judgment about whose right on this issue? They voted for change, they don't agree with your point of view, with your father's point of view?

L. CHENEY: You know, I think - obviously, they voted for change. I think there are lot of reasons why the republicans lost this election. I do think that the Republican Party needs to do some rebuilding.

But I think that all of that is domestic politics and poll numbers.
And I think that we are at a crossroads as a nation. We're at a moment where we can either remember that we're at war and remember that there are people out there who really would like to do us great damage and great harm and keep those policies in place that have kept us safe, or we go back to treating this like a law enforcement matter.

And I think when you're dealing with issues that are of that grave importance, spending a lot of time looking at poll numbers is irresponsible.

O'DONNELL: Well, the former vice president is now calling the sitting vice president essentially a weak president. That he's concerned he's going -- he said essentially said he's worried that he's no longer going to ask terrorists tough questions, which I'm sure our men and women are going to ask terrorists tough questions.

L. CHENEY: The question is, Norah....

(CROSSTALK)

O'DONNELL: ... answer the questions, I think that's the question.

(CROSSTALK)

O'DONNELL: ... did Vice President Cheney get permission from President Bush to speak out like this?

L. CHENEY: He doesn't need permission. But we were just watching...

O'DONNELL: Do they talk regularly?

L. CHENEY: They do.

But let me say one thing. We were just watching Attorney General Holder, and he made a very important point. He talked about the task forces that have been set up to review interrogation techniques. And this is one of the things that's so concerning about the release of these legal memos and it's another thing General Hayden points out.

President Obama said to his National Security Council, you tell me whether or not the tactics in the Army Field Manual are sufficient and you report back to me about whether those are sufficient to protection the nation.
And they haven't reported back yet. That is underway. That review is underway. And in the meantime, we have released the information about what other tactics are.

So it's really a situation where there's, you know, the president has not only tied his own hands, but he's tied potentially the hands of all future presidents by putting this material out before he himself even knew whether his task force was going to tell him, yes, you need those tactics.

O'DONNELL: Well, the Senate Armed Services Committee came out with a report yesterday. And the chairman of that committee, Carl Levin, said essentially, there's a direct link between what happened in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. That these types of interrogation practices led to what we saw at Abu Ghraib. And I think there's been a pretty general agreement across the world that what happened at Abu Ghraib was despicable.

L. CHENEY: Absolutely what happened at Abu Ghraib is despicable. What Senator Levin is saying and the report that you've mentioned, clearly you've heard republican members of Congress and republican senators on TV all day today pointing out that that was a partisan report.

So, Abu Ghraib was despicable, the people that did those things are being prosecuted and have been prosecuted and punished. That is not the CIA interrogation program. That was a situation in which people were doing things that were clearly against the law and they shouldn't have been doing. And it's a very convenient thing for, you know, democrats in Congress and people who are trying to sort of make partisan attacks here to point Abu Ghraib. I think we all should be able to say we agree that was a crime and that was despicable.
And that's not part of this current debate.

O'DONNELL: Well, the question is whether that led - some of those -- opening the door to those harsh interrogation tactics led to a misunderstanding that happened at Abu Ghraib.

We're going to have much more with Liz Cheney...

L. CHENEY: But I don't think there's any evidence that it did, by the way.

O'DONNELL: All right, when we come back, more with Liz Cheney, including what Megan McCain had to say to day about the former vice president.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'DONNELL: And we are back with Liz Cheney.

And Liz, I want to play for you something that Megan McCain, who of course is the daughter of John McCain, was co-hosting on "The View" this morning and she had some tough words for your father, the former vice president.

Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGAN MCCAIN, THE VIEW: The DNC just did an ad. And it has Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney as the new faces of the Republican Party...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh my God, how scary.

MCCAIN: Well, I mean, it's hard people like me that really want new energy and new blood when they - it's very unprecedented for someone like Karl Rove or Dick Cheney to be criticizing the president. It's very unprecedented a former vice president, you know, obviously Karl Rove - and I just - you know, my big criticism is just, you had your eight years, go away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O'DONNELL: You have a reaction to that?

L. CHENEY: Look I disagree with her. But I think it's great to have young people actively engaged in politics. And I think that one of the things that we're seeing that's, I think, is fascinating, in the early months of this administration, something that I thought would take longer, frankly. And I think you're seeing people around the country, young people in particular, look at those tea parties we had a couple of weeks ago, people coming out just saying, wait a second here. There are a lot of things that we love about this nation and we don't want to see those things take away.

So I think that, you know, it's terrific to have people engaged in the process. I would encourage more people to get engaged and I think it's a good thing for the party.

O'DONNELL: Do you think Sarah Palin is the future of the Republican Party?

L. CHENEY: I think that Sarah Palin's terrific. I think that there are a lot of young, you know, leaders out there that we see, people in Congress. I'm a big fan of Adam Putnam, who I hope will one day run for governor of Florida. People like Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan. You know, we've got a lot of very smart, very talented, young members of Congress, some governors out there as well, who I really do think represent, you know, where the party will go in the future.

O'DONNELL: And given that 90 percent of John McCain's voters were white in this past election, do you acknowledge your party has a long way to go when it comes to minorities and reaching out to younger people, too?

L. CHENEY: I do think we have a lot to do. And I think that the Obama campaign was a masterful campaign. And I think the new techniques that they set out and that they implemented are ones that we need to be studying closely and learning from and stealing the next time around.

O'DONNELL: All right, Liz Cheney, thank you so much for joining us
here on MNSBC.

L. CHENEY: Thanks, Norah. Great to be here.

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

Meghan McCain - dragging the angry old white guy party (GOP) kicking and sceaming into the 21st century.


You go girl!


Nobody, and I mean NObody, cares what Miss McCain has to say about anything, especially politics.

She is the equivalent of a Levi Johnston, a totally irrelevant person who the left find useful by family relation to a person who is famous- and her daddy needs to tell her to shut her mouth.

Wouldn't surprise me to find out someday that she's in the pay of the DNC- they certainly find her babbling useful.
.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/


Meghan McCain may be right about Rove and Co., but I hope she doesn’t fancy herself as some kind of GOP spokesperson either. She is way too ignorant and inarticulate for the job. That is, unless the GOP is looking to target Valley Girl voters. Ka-reepy. Totally gross. I mean, toe-tally.
.
It’s “precedent,” Meghan, and not “president.” (Watch the video.)
.
It’s too bad that Meghan doesn’t know there is “precedent” for people like Carl Rove and Dick Cheney to criticize a sitting president. Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford both criticized Duh’bya. So did a number of former Clinton cabinet members. Even Meghan’s daddy (McCain who?) started criticizing Duh’bya when it became politically expedient to do so. Whether and to what degree any of the criticism was (or is) valid is another question. All the same, politicians don’t loose their right to free speech due to retirement, even if they are talking about the president. The point is that someone like Meghan who is too shallow to know this isn’t the right person for the job of spokesperson. We don’t need any more Sarah Palin - Charles Gibson like encounters from people like Meghan talking for the GOP. (No, we don’t need some of the older faces either; but that is a different question.)


To save space, you could put Meg, Liz, Levi and Bo all on one entry.

No one would be the wiser.


***************
It’s too bad that Meghan doesn’t know there is “precedent” for people like Carl Rove and Dick Cheney
Posted by: John W. | April 23, 2009 8:30 PM
.


Yeah, the Gross Old Party shouldn't be targeting valley girls like Meghan McCain, they should stick with their tried and true formula of targeting old white farts who can't spell, like yourself.
.
Why change? I mean things couldn't get any worse for the GOP than they are now, right?
.


Megan comes off as an ignorant gofer exploited by the lefties to show off as a "new" voice. She has received attention from the lefty MSM because her last name in McCain. She is as clueless as valley girl who dropped out to hang with the "dudes". Also Mark, why do we see the Swamp post so much commentary from the MSNBC? From the tone of the questions here, one can see a definite lefty agenda being pursued. Most intelligent Americans know there is a pro-Obama bias in their stories and now we are hearing that their parent company, GE, may be involved in supporting the NBC news pro-Obanab agenda in order to receive potential government contracts(managing the cap and tax funds for green gas emission) worth millions (their financial division has received TARP bailout funds) for their bottom line, which has tanked. This is a troubling story. The lefties made a big deal over Halliburton and its cozy relations with Cheney so lets see if you have the same standards with GE/NBC news/MSNBC and the Obama WH. This is a growing story the Swamp bloodhounds should be all over.


"And that includes quite an argument about the interrogation (torture) tactics of the Bush-Cheney administration, which dad supported to their fullest in "the war on terror.''

Wow, she doesn't even know her own dad. He spoke out adamantly against waterboarding. John McCain called waterboarding "torture and illegal". He only appeared to support the Bush administration by voting against last years anti-torture bill because it was expedient at the time to do so, being in the republican primaries.


Speaking of showing one's bias, bubba Porter, here you are repeating the baseless claims of Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. And you might try watching MSNBC in the morning--so conservative you would love it. And speaking of capitalizing on one's last name, wow, that Liz Cheney is just as wacky as her dad.


Nothing mo' funny than resident self proclaimed genius and BushCo apologist John W eating crow and jumping off the reservation.

You'll be a democrat yet kid.

So funny.


* * * * *
Posted by: unemployed lawyer | April 24, 2009 12:43 AM
.
You must be unemployed because YOU can’t spell. I didn’t misspell any words. “Precedent” is a properly spelled word. Look it up. I was twitting Meghan because she used the word “president” when she should have been using the word “precedent.” So it looks like you have made a fool of yourself trying to do the same to me. They used to call that being hoisted on one’s own petard, you retard.
.
That’s funny. Sniff. Sniff. I smell JohnEEE-Boy and another one of his flatulent, flat-lined attempts at discrediting me under the screen name of “Anybody can be an attorney.” Is that you JohnEEE-Boy? Now, why would I want to be a Democrat? I believe freedom is the greatest good a government can secure to its citizens. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are serious about freedom. However, on the whole, Democrats are worse on this score because they want government to get much bigger and more intrusive into people’s lives. I can’t stand that viewpoint, in which case I won’t bring myself to join those who embrace it. If the Libertarian party wasn’t so weak, ineffectual and filled with anarchists, I would make it my political home.
.
PS - I’m not unemployed.
.
PPS - I am not a self-proclaimed genius. I have never used that term to describe myself. Also, I’ve never had much of a heart to defend Duh’bya.

PPPS- I didn’t go off the reservation in twitting Meghan. The reservation isn’t in orbit in outer space where she can be found.


Yeah, guys come on, you can't actually have expected John W to take a woman seriously, even if she is a Republican. He'd never do that. We all know that John much prefers his women to be seen and not heard and to let the men folk do all the thinking.


***********
It’s too bad that Meghan doesn’t know there is “precedent” for people like Carl Rove and Dick Cheney
Posted by: John W. | April 23, 2009 8:30 PM
****************
I didn’t misspell any words.
Posted by: John W. | April 24, 2009 1:36 PM
*****************


Karl Rove is spelled with a "K", you moron!


Try again, smart guy.



* * * * *
Posted by: unemployed lawyer | April 24, 2009 3:09 PM
.
Mistakenly using Carl for Karl isn’t a misspelling. It is simply using the wrong correctly spelled name. Both Carl and Karl are correct spellings, you dingbat.


It’s too bad that Meghan doesn’t know there is “precedent” for people like Carl Rove and Dick Cheney
Posted by: John W. | April 23, 2009 8:30 PM
****************
I didn’t misspell any words.
Posted by: John W. | April 24, 2009 1:36 PM
*****************


Karl Rove is spelled with a "K", you moron!


Try again, smart guy.


Posted by: unemployed lawyer | April 24, 2009 3:09 PM


And "loose" should be "lose" (unless politicians "release" or "unleash" their right to free speech when they retire). HOWEVER, in the grand scheme of things, this is a tiny point of contention that only someone (like me) who has lobbied in favor of the death penalty for misuse of the semicolon would argue. I buy the rest of the argument. Although Ms. McCain has as much right to her opinion as anyone else, she has no more authority on which to base that opinion than any other common person.
.
Which means she MAY be CORRECT.


*******************
Both Carl and Karl are correct spellings, you dingbat.

Posted by: John W. | April 24, 2009 3:49 PM
.


Not in the specific case that you used it.


That may be how it's spelled in your Ron Paul Dictionary but that's not how it's spelled in the real world.


Thanks for playing, "W".



Mistakenly using Carl for Karl isn’t a misspelling. It is simply using the wrong correctly spelled name. Both Carl and Karl are correct spellings, you dingbat.


Posted by: John W. | April 24, 2009 3:49 PM

Even when John W is wrong, he is absolutely right! He's the only infallible guy around, other than me, of course.


Wrong, unemployed lawyer!!!

You can misspell my name several ways and accidentally hit on other common names that may be similar, but if you use the wrong letters to spell my name, when you refer to me, I consider that a misspelling, nothing less. You weren't trying to spell those other names, you were trying to spell mine and you spelled it wrong. Period.

Even if we were to see it your way, as you try to justify (excuse) it, which you would never do for the opposition, it's still a mistake and it's wrong. Wrong is wrong is wrong.


Sorry, unemployed lawyer

Reading the top line, I misinterpreted John W's rationalization of his error as having come from you. My comments should have been directed at him.

Given his typically Republican logical contortion, it's no surprise his heroes are W, the Dick and his evil spawn Liz, who takes after the most evil of the cheney species, Mama Liz. Even the Dick pales in comparison.

BTW, I sarcastically spelled cheney just as I intended, as a species, not a human family.


Does John W. have any plans to turn this unpunctuated phrase into a sentence soon?

"The point is that someone like Meghan who is too shallow to know this isn’t the right person for the job of spokesperson. "


unemployed lawyer,
.

My original message, mistakenly addressed to you, was intended for John W., but I had been confused by the first line of your post.
.

I sent a message to this effect about an hour ago, but haven't seen it posted yet.


Yes, I meant to say “lose” and not “loose.” However, “lose,” and “Carl” are correctly spelled words. That doesn’t mean using them didn’t constitute mistakes. They clearly were mistakes, and I admit as much. But they weren’t SPELLING mistakes. In themselves, they were correctly spelled. They just weren’t the words that ought to have been used.
.
Happy now? Give it a rest, already. If the best you can do to attack my writing is to twit me for a couple misused words today, then you really have nothing to say. I don’t go around correcting your spelling, grammar or syntax errors, or anyone else’s. It’s pointless to do so in this blog.


* * * * *
Posted by: Martha W. | April 24, 2009 2:09 PM
.
Actually, I can take women very seriously. I have always taken my former female supervisors and co-workers. I just can’t take seriously people who are too ignorant to get out of their own way - regardless of whether they are male or female. Meghan McCain is one of them.


Martha:
.
I have not had a good week. I meant to say "I have always taken my former female supervisors and co-workers SERIOUSLY." I don't know why I left off the last word.


* * * * *
Posted by: spelling correction | April 24, 2009 7:48 PM
.
No, frankly I don’t plan to add any more punctuation to the sentence you mentioned. If you don’t like it, then you can print it and pencil in the commas to punctuate the dependent clause yourself. And it’s not un-punctuated, it’s under-punctuated.
.
You and “unemployed lawyer” can stop now. You would go broke and starve if you got paid for pointing out my spelling and punctuation mistakes. I do make such mistakes, but not often. In any event, I don’t feel any particular compunction to be letter-perfect on this board. No one else seems to either.


***************
I just can’t take seriously people who are too ignorant to get out of their own way - regardless of whether they are male or female. Meghan McCain is one of them.


Posted by: John W. | April 24, 2009 8:09 PM
................


I have a hard time taking people like you seriously, especially when you commit the very same errors that you are accussing others (Meghan McCain) of making. You may not like Meghan McCain (and I don't because I'm a Democrat) but she is making a very good point, one that you nuts should be listening to instead of mocking.


PS - no one is buying this bull that you're not a Republican. That's a neat trick that you play but from your comments I can tell that when you do vote you vote Republican.


* * * * *
Posted by: unemployed lawyer | April 24, 2009 11:40 PM
.
Sorry, you are wrong. My main criticism of Meghan wasn't for her misuse of English. If that’s all you got out of my posts, then you are too dull minded to deal with.
.
What disqualifies Meghan from the job of spokesperson is the fact that she doesn’t know enough about government or politics to understand what she’s talking about. That was my stated beef with her. Her statement, that it was “un-presidented for someone like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney to be criticizing the president” (her gaffes included) was just one example of how empty her comments are. When she does give her views of government and politics, they are all touchy-feely and lacking in substance. In her blog entries on “The Daily Beast” she constantly refers to “core GOP values,” but she fails to tell us what those “values” are. She has written that the Republican Party needs to be more “progressive” while, again, failing to mention exactly what she means by that. No one wants to follow her around with a dog-poop scooper to find out what she means by “progressive,” or how being “progressive” somehow matches up with a return to “core GOP values.” In short, when it comes to substance, Meghan is just another Sarah Palin with a different job description.
.
I know what you like about Meghan, though. You like it when she says stuff like, “But as harsh as I’ve been about some elements of the GOP, I find aspects of the Democratic Party infinitely worse.” She is, after all, her father’s daughter.


* * * * *
Posted by: unemployed lawyer | April 24, 2009 11:40 PM
.
PS - I voted for Bob Barr in the last election because I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Meghan’s dad.


************
What disqualifies Meghan from the job of spokesperson is the fact that she doesn’t know enough about government or politics to understand what she’s talking about.
Posted by: John W. | April 25, 2009 12:27 PM
.........


And you do (Bob Barr)? Not from what I've seen.


If you're not a Republican then why do you give a damn what Meghan McCain has to say? You're full of crap "W", you spend as much or more time on here bashing Democrats and defending Republicans than anyone does.



************************
She has written that the Republican Party needs to be more “progressive” while, again, failing to mention exactly what she means by that. No one wants to follow her around with a dog-poop scooper to find out what she means by “progressive,”
Posted by: John W. | April 25, 2009 12:22 PM
.


Meghan McCain spoke at a gathering of Log Cabin Republicans last week. If that doesn't give your thick head some sort of idea about what being a progressive Republican means then I don't know what does.



* * * * *
Posted by: unemployed lawyer | April 25, 2009 3:22 PM
.
You ask, “If you're not a Republican then why do you give a damn what Meghan McCain has to say?”
.
The answer is simple. I share many views and beliefs in common with Republicans, although I am far from being in complete agreement with them. Therefore, I am interested in seeing that people within the Republican Party remain like-minded, and not get led astray by talking heads like McCain or his daughter Meghan. That’s why I care.
.
Then you say, “? You're full of crap "W", you spend as much or more time on here bashing Democrats and defending Republicans than anyone does.”
.
To which I reply: Think what you like. When I disagree with Democrats or agree with Republicans, it isn’t because I’m rooting for one side or the other. It’s because I happen to hold a particular view in which I either agree with Republicans or disagree with Democrats. I neither agree with Republicans nor disagree with Democrats all of the time. Sometimes I disagree with both of them. If you think I agree with or defend Republicans all the time, or oppose Democrats all the time, it is your vivid imagination at work. My views are consistent with those of the Libertarian Party (with some notable exceptions that aren’t relevant to my differences with either Republicans or Democrats).
.
I am not going to bother to tell how or why Republicans and Libertarians agree on a number of issues. The fact you don’t know the points on which they agree is simply further proof that you have been talking from sheer ignorance. I invite you to take a look at the Libertarian Party web site and see just how Libertarians differ from Democrats on many basic issues. I should also point out that Bob Barr was once a Republican Congressman, and that Ron Paul (a Republican) was once the Libertarian Party nominee for president. That should give you some idea of the grounds on which their views overlap.
.
And then, in a separate post, you wrote: “Meghan McCain spoke at a gathering of Log Cabin Republicans last week. If that doesn't give your thick head some sort of idea about what being a progressive Republican means then I don't know what does.”
.
You have to be kidding if you think her support for Log Cabin Republicans is an example of being “progressive.” You are a hypocrite for saying so. As a dyed in the wool Democrat, you can’t possibly believe Log Cabin Republicans are “progressive.” That’s because they don’t believe more government or big government is the answer to all problems. Progressive Democrats like you, on the other hand, are supposed to believe that more government involvement is a good way to promote social, political and economic progress. The need to superimpose government control onto society is always at the core of the so-called “progressive” belief system. That’s why progressives always looks and smells a little bit like socialists. In contrast, it doesn’t take a “progressive” to embracing gays and lesbians as people who ought to be free, and who deserve a political voice and the protection of the laws. You are one confused puppy if you think progressivism and social liberalism are anything alike.


Oops. I meant to say, “That’s why progressivism always looks and smells a little bit like socialism.” I didn’t change the nouns. Shucks.


*************
Oops. I meant to say, “That’s why progressivism always looks and smells a little bit like socialism.” I didn’t change the nouns. Shucks.

Posted by: John W. | April 25, 2009 10:45 PM
*****************


Ooooh, Johnny W used the scary socialism word..!


Your Repug team tried that during the general election and it didn't work for you then, so what makes you think it's going to work for you now?


It's obvious that you've never learned the fine art of knowing when to shut up and quit making a fool of yourself. You're a single man, aren't you?



******************
I invite you to take a look at the Libertarian Party web site and see just how Libertarians differ from Democrats on many basic issues. I should also point out that Bob Barr was once a Republican Congressman, and that Ron Paul (a Republican) was once the Libertarian Party nominee for president. That should give you some idea of the grounds on which their views overlap.
Posted by: John W. | April 25, 2009 9:35 PM
*************


"The Libertarian Party" - yeah I know who you are. You're the extremist wing of the Repug party. You're the nuts who like to go around hoarding weapons and blowing up govenment buildings. You're also big on racism and bigotry.


I'm guessing you were out teabagging with you're pals last week.



* * * * *
Posted by: unemployed lawyer | April 26, 2009 5:54 PM
.
You mind is enslaved to the B.S. spewed by the idiots on the blogs you visit of you think for a second that Libertarians are weapons hoarders, demolition aficionados, racists or bigots. But, then again, we already knew that about you, didn’t we? If you ever care to rise above your current state of total ignorance, go and give yourself an education. Learn what freedom really means. As of now, you wouldn’t know what it was if it bit you.


“Ooooh, Johnny W used the scary socialism word..!”
.
Your Repug team tried that during the general election and it didn't work for you then, so what makes you think it's going to work for you now?”
.
Posted by: unemployed lawyer | April 26, 2009 5:25 PM
.
I call it as I see it, and not because someone in any particular Party suggested that is what it is. What we are witnessing is a push for greater collectivization and greater power for the federal government to function as a central point for handing out benefits. Collectivization and centralization of power are the very essence of socialism. All the ad hominem remarks you care to toss around do no address the TRUTH that what we are seeing is, in fact, the creep of more socialism into our country.
.
Furthermore, I find your willingness to accept this state of affairs to be pathetic. It shows me that you are a spineless, spiritless waste of gravity, with absolutely no appreciation for freedom. Drones like you will eventually turn this country into a miserable bunch of beggars and slaves. Were you not so terribly obnoxious, I might actually pity you.


*****************
You mind is enslaved to the B.S. spewed by the idiots on the blogs you visit of you think for a second that Libertarians are weapons hoarders, demolition aficionados, racists or bigots.
Posted by: John W. | April 26, 2009 7:39 PM
**************


No, my mind is my own. I'm not a slave to a crackpot ideology (Libertarian/Republican) like you are.


I think we're finished here. I'm getting tired of toying with you, so go ahead and have the last word, you dope.



Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "q" in the field below:

Barack Obama
Want to see more photos? Click here

Play "Budget Hero"

Play Budget Hero

Latest polls

News, but funnier

Cartoon

Walt Handelsman

Cartoon

The Lowe- Down

Cartoon

Joe Fournier

Cartoon

Editorial cartoons

Quizzes

Rahm Emanuel

Know the real Rahm?

McCain

Presidential trivia