Friday, May 22, 2009

NEW GOP SPOKESWOMAN and INTELLECTUAL

I’m probably not the first to say it, but dare I try anyway? LIZ CHENEY FOR PRESIDENT. Too much Dad Dick Cheney baggage you say? By the time she gets around to it (she’s not even old enough yet (43 in July) (she and hubby Perry have 5 children however)) Obama and the DSP (Democratic Socialist Party) will have spread California-style fiscal irresponsibility across the country. Democrats and Republicans alike will be stark-raving starved for a person with the REAL intelligence, reason, and clear-thinking perception that Ms. Cheney has been displaying recently.

She has been making the rounds of liberal and conservative talk shows with the likes of Anderson Cooper, Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity and others. Perhaps “FOR PRESIDENT” is a bit strong, but her ability to talk factually and not be buffaloed or cowed by her emotive interviewers (umm, where’s the beef?) has been earning her respect from liberals and huge kudos from conservatives.

Here is a blogger’s post impression on Anderson Cooper’s blog:

Jeff C: May 22nd, 2009 10:39 am ET

Very shocking interview. Liz is a tremendously intelligent woman who quite literally outclassed Anderson in this particular conversation. It was uncomfortable to observe Anderson continuously interrupt her, and in a sense struggle to paint a different picture to try to get his point across. Liz graciously displayed professionalism, during, what could be perceived to be an attempt to bully or impose a partisan ideal coming from Anderson’s position. A classic example of rationality versus emotion.

I’m historically a big fan of Anderson, which is why this conversation was such a big shock to me. I’ll be going out of my way to listen to Liz Cheney talk from this point forward. I’m glad Liz brought insight and merit to this issue to help me get off the fence.

_______________________

I haven’t watched the interview but you can watch it from the same page.

Another good excerpt:

COOPER: But --  more than 100 people are known to have died in U.S. custody. Twenty --  I think about 20 of those have been ruled a homicide. I mean, if -- if these were just tightly-controlled things, how come so many people are being murdered in U.S. custody?

L. CHENEY: Well, Anderson, I think that your question is highly irresponsible, and I think that you’re --

COOPER: Why?

L. CHENEY: Because you are conflating things that aren’t conflated.

COOPER: What --

L. CHENEY: When somebody dies or is murdered in U.S. custody, then we are a great nation, and we take the people who are responsible, and we put them on trial, as you’ve seen happen a number of times now throughout the last eight years. That is not the enhanced interrogation program. And to somehow suggest that those two things are the same, I think, willfully conflates something, and -- and ends up in a situation where we aren’t able to sort of take a truthful look at the last eight years as we go forward, because we are muddying the waters about what really happened in the last eight years.

COOPER: Do you personally have any reservations about what may have gone on with these enhanced interrogation techniques, as you call them, under CIA control, or in Abu Ghraib, or in Bagram, or in Guantanamo? I mean, do you have -- do you have any doubts at all? Because your father seems, very clearly, to have no doubts.

L. CHENEY: Look, of course -- of course, as my father made clear today, what happened at Abu Ghraib should not have happened. Nobody is defending what happened at Abu Ghraib. I have no doubts at all, no reservations and no regrets, and, in fact, I feel that we all owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women at the CIA who carried out this program. I think there are Americans alive today because of that program, and I think that it is the height of irresponsibility for the president to release those techniques, so that, you know, the terrorists can train to them, and now we have our hands tied. Every future president’s hand will be tied and will not be able to use those techniques, if necessary.

_______________________

(Now Anderson Cooper is probably buffaloed about what “conflated” means.)

conflate

  • verb combine into one.

— DERIVATIVES conflation noun.

— ORIGIN Latin conflare ‘kindle, fuse’.

Joe Scarborough Show Video (13 minutes long, after a commercial, of course).

Wikipedia Liz Cheney

Liz has been all over the media lately and thus is now all over the ‘Net.  Be sure and listen to her next time you have a chance. We ALL need people like her articulating clear and reasoned facts.

2 comments:

  1. George Bush (Shrub) took 8 years to ruin world economy & dash the well-earned hopes of millions of people at home and around the globe. Nowe the Republicans are criticizing President Obama for not rectifying their callous catastrophe in a mere five months in office.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good point (about giving Obama precious little time to correct things, at least). The economy had too much govt. intervention before Obama, and wayyy too much after. Free enterprise never performed so poorly, regardless. Greenspan said it all with "irrational exuberance", IMO. Let it all crash and take its natural course. We're getting the same results regardless. The govt. has rarely run at a profit over 225 years, and we expect THEM to bail us out?

    ReplyDelete