« I'm Invited! | Main | The Lies Of John McCain »

April 25, 2007

Oh, Snap!

Harry Reid on Dick Cheney:

"I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating."

April 25, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

After six years of bullying and getting their way, this administration has yet to learn they cannot intimidate Harry. He is tough, wily and relishes the fight.
Give em hell, Harry!

Posted by: vwcat | Apr 25, 2007 11:14:43 AM

Of course the quote everyone in the media reported was him calling Cheney the "chief attack dog", which - though true - comes off a lot more mean spirited and partisan.

Posted by: dma | Apr 25, 2007 11:40:06 AM

I don't know whether 9% is the right number, but the spirit is sure uplifting.

Frontline (PBS) last night, on the political factors that have shaped the global warming dispute in DC sure made Cheney shine as the bad boy of our times.

I can't wait to hear Moyers tonight for the second punch.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 25, 2007 11:40:32 AM

This administration is, indeed, unique and interesting in that neither the president, nor the VP, is running for office in the future so much of the political ass-covering you normally see coming into an election is not required. Regardless of how you feel about the president, I think the office itself is functioning more as the founders envisioned....elected officials making decisions based on something other than their political futures.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 25, 2007 11:52:36 AM

I dunno, I hope that quote isn't widely circulated. Responding to criticisms with poll figures is exactly stereotypical for Democrats and Reid in particular. I agree with Reid's sentiments, but I think to most people it just comes off as cynical.

Posted by: Tony V | Apr 25, 2007 11:52:57 AM

....elected officials making decisions based on something other than their political futures.

Fred has a good point. I have no idea exactly what the administration's decisions are based on - astrology? hallucinated voices? bloodlust? rolling dice? - but it certainly isn't consideration for their political futures, because they haven't got any.

Posted by: ajay | Apr 25, 2007 12:01:04 PM

I think the office itself is functioning more as the founders envisioned....elected officials making decisions based on something other than their political futures

Putting aside why we should care about "what the founders envisioned," I don't think that acting without regard for the will of the people is anyone's idea of the way the executive should behave.

Posted by: Jason | Apr 25, 2007 12:21:09 PM

"I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating."

Was that before or after he called Cheney Bush's attack dog? The level of political discourse from leaders on both sides on Iraq is pretty low. It doesn't rise too much above name-calling.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 25, 2007 12:38:25 PM

I don't think that acting without regard for the will of the people is anyone's idea of the way the executive should behave.

I'll remember that when bills come up on marrige protection, gun control and taxation.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 25, 2007 12:42:44 PM

"I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating."

Love it. Go Harry go!

Posted by: fiat lux | Apr 25, 2007 1:23:43 PM

According to a March WaPo article, Cheney's job approval rating is (or was, in March) actually 18%.

Which, according to the same article, makes him less popular than Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson, and even prolific genocidal murderer Joseph Stalin.

Posted by: litbrit | Apr 25, 2007 1:33:00 PM

Well, Michael Jackson can sing, and OJ can run. So they at least have some redeeming qualities.


I'll remember that when bills come up on marrige protection, gun control and taxation.

Fine with me, considering the public favors stricter gun control, and opposes more tax cuts for the rich and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Posted by: Jason | Apr 25, 2007 1:43:02 PM

No Jason, Fred said "protect marriage". Obviously, he means the criminalization of adultery and divorce.

Oh, and it's easy to ascertain the administration's decisions. Anything that works to forward the interests of the Republican party, increase the influence of the executive branch, and payback to their funders through tax breaks and cushy government jobs for unqualified and talentless offspring.

Posted by: verplanck colvin | Apr 25, 2007 3:03:26 PM

"Oh, and it's easy to ascertain the administration's decisions. Anything that works to forward the interests of the Republican party, increase the influence of the executive branch, and payback to their funders through tax breaks and cushy government jobs for unqualified and talentless offspring."
--This is different than any other administration's behavior in what way?

Posted by: FoolsMate | Apr 25, 2007 4:09:52 PM

Fine with me, considering the public favors stricter gun control, and opposes more tax cuts for the rich and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Gun control has always been a losing proposition. Oh, and all of those state constitutional amendments passed through referendum on marriage are what, just vapor? And you really think raising taxes on voters is popular?

Now I know you're nutz.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 25, 2007 4:26:20 PM

NY Times:

"Two-thirds of the adults surveyed Friday through Sunday said the laws covering the sale of handguns should be stricter and 27 percent said the laws should be kept as they are now. Only 5 percent said the laws should be less strict."

ABC News:

"Among all Americans, 58 percent say gay marriage should be illegal, but fewer, 42 percent, say it rises to the level of amending the U.S. Constitution."

The last one is from 2006; if you can find a more recent poll indicating majority support for a federal marriage amendment, I'll concede the point.


As to the larger issue, you're clouding things a bit because you're talking about issues that involve individual rights (guns, marriage), in which case "majority rules" is not necessarily the operative principle.

But with regard to things like taxes, spending, etc., I do think that the president and Congress should generally obey the will of the people. I don't support tax cuts for rich people, but if almost everybody else did, I'd have to yield.

Posted by: Jason | Apr 25, 2007 5:29:16 PM

I think the office itself is functioning more as the founders envisioned....

Gee Fred, I had no idea that the founding fathers were into all-out looting of the US Treasury, Soviet style authoritarianism and being compulsive liars. But if you say so.
Reid is spot on about Darth Cheney. The VP never even sticks his head up except to say something derisive about the political opposition (occassional appearances on the Rush Limbaugh Minstrel Show excepted).

Posted by: sprocket | Apr 25, 2007 6:02:27 PM

Fred: Cutting taxes polls well, balanced budgets poll well, and increased spending on all manner of things from the military to education polls well.

Feel free to square all those with each other. Meanwhile, the Party of Adults will be displaying something known to some as 'leadership'.

Posted by: NBarnes | Apr 25, 2007 6:30:15 PM

"Among all Americans, 58 percent say gay marriage should be illegal, but fewer, 42 percent, say it rises to the level of amending the U.S. Constitution."

That is true, Jason, today. However, wait until the activists get a sympathetic court to force other states to recognize homo 'marriage' and see what happens.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 25, 2007 6:38:34 PM

Meanwhile, the Party of Adults will be displaying something known to some as 'leadership'.

Party of Adults. Sure, while Pelosi and Reid both act like they're trying to settle this on the playground after school, with taunts and name-calling. Good to put "leadership" in quotes, though. What's Pelosi's constant justification of her policy on Iraq: it's what the American people want. And before the polls shifted very strongly that way, the Democrats weren't pushing for withdrawal; they were mostly justifying their support for the war. What a difference a poll makes.

However, wait until the activists get a sympathetic court to force other states to recognize homo 'marriage' and see what happens.

We already have a good idea what will happen, because it's already happened in Massachusetts. Same-sex couples will get married, and life will go on without marriage collapsing. Oh, and bigots will gnash their teeth.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 25, 2007 7:09:46 PM

In light of all the fag-bashing in here (Oh Fred, you're such a closet case), I'd like to chime in with an extra queeny, flamboyantly z-snapped "Oh no she di-int!

Posted by: Wells. | Apr 25, 2007 8:58:13 PM

Ain't democracy great!


"Having collected
nearly three times the required signatures needed for certification by the Secretary of State, the Protection of Marriage Amendment moved to a vote by the Massachusetts Legislature. A joint session of both the House and Senate met on January 2, 2007 and voted 62-134 (Click Here for Roll Call) to pass the Amendment, moving the process forward."



Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 25, 2007 9:36:08 PM

Don't be sure that bigotry will win yet, Fred. There's time for rationality to prevail. Whatever happens in the short term, though, gays will have full civil rights in your lifetime, and you'll just have to watch while the world goes on spinning.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 25, 2007 10:40:09 PM

Fred, will you marry me?

Posted by: Jason | Apr 26, 2007 12:21:40 AM

Snap indeed. Snap indeed.

Posted by: RW | Apr 26, 2007 12:42:24 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.