"When Cheney first began pushing back against Barack Obama’s repeated and scornful assessments of the Bush administration, most analysts figured that Cheney was tilting at windmills — and that the GOP needed to distance themselves from Cheney. The rapid re-evaluation appears to have made hash of that advice. If Cheney — a politician as unpopular as Richard Nixon — could strengthen his standing by demanding an honest debate from the President, then perhaps other Republicans should be following suit."-- Ed Morrissey, having one of those "D'oh!" moments, which can sure use up a lot of Hot Air.
"An honest debate"? What is "an honest debate" in this environment? Dick Cheney can take on the president only because he's Dick Cheney and he has the position and resources to do so. The CIA can take on Nancy Pelosi, sure, but the farther we are from power - out here in "TV Land" - we can be shouted down, right or wrong, by anyone, at any time, for any reason. Sabotaged even, in any number of appropriately cowardly fashions.
Republican or Democrat, we know the first reaction of cowards, as Ed Morrissey points out above, is to "distance themselves" from anyone determined to have "an honest debate". How far away they stand, or whether they possibly take action, is determined by how angry the mark becomes - which is usually determined by how big and stupid a lie (or lies) a mark was being asked to swallow - our only point being you can count on it that, unless it's meant ironically, cowards will always come up with something other than "Let's have 'an honest debate.'" They couldn't be called cowards otherwise.
Why, you start that "honest debate" stuff and who knows where it could lead?
No comments:
Post a Comment
COMMENTS ARE BACK ON