Cheney, or Darth Vader, at GOP dinner
-
- May
- 30
Vice President Dick Cheney was the featured speaker at the state Republican Committee’s dinner in Manhattan last night. At the start of his remarks, he noted that at least one New York politician has taken to calling him Darth Vader.
“I notice that Joe (Mondell0) did not mention that the junior senator from New York has begun calling me Darth Vader,” Cheney said to laughter. “I asked my wife recently if it didn’t bug her when people called me that. She said, ‘No, it humanizes you.’”
A transcript of Cheney’s remarks follows the jump
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you. A welcome like that is almost enough to make me want to run for office again. (Applause.) No, no, no. I said, almost. (Laughter.) But I—Joe, I appreciate your kind words, and I’m grateful to all of you for the warm welcome. I notice that Joe did not mention that the junior senator from New York has begun calling me Darth Vader. (Laughter.) I asked my wife recently if it didn’t bug her when people called me that. She said, “No, it humanizes you.” (Laughter.)
Let me thank all of you for the chance to join you this evening. I also want to acknowledge the party officials and officeholders who are here, including my good friend, Congressman Peter King—(applause); of course Assembly Leader—Minority Leader Jim Tedisco—(applause); and our Majority Leader in the Senate, Joe Bruno—(applause). It’s always a pleasure to see my longtime friend and former colleague from the Ford administration—a great mayor, one of the great Americans, our friend, Rudy Giuliani. (Applause.)
I’m grateful to everyone who worked so hard to put this event together tonight. And with your support, we’ll build a strong foundation for Republican victories come November. (Applause.) And I want to thank all of you for pitching in—and I bring greetings to one and all from the President of the United States, George W. Bush. (Applause.)
It was right here in Manhattan, of course, that the President and I were nominated for a second term in 2004. And New York certainly knows how to throw a party. We have fond memories of that week—the great hospitality, the superb convention, and the momentum that brought us to an historic re- election victory.
Now, of course, we’ve begun to focus on another big election. And if we all put our shoulders to the wheel between now and November, I’m confident we’ll see John McCain as the next President of the United States. (Applause.)
President Bush and I look forward to helping our candidates, up and down the ticket, throughout the important election year. And the stakes are very high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts, or national security, the right answers for our nation are not coming from Democrats, but from Republicans. (Applause.)
Right now, with the economy going through a rough patch, some in Washington view it as an excuse for expanding the size and scope of the federal government. Republicans believe that when Americans are facing tough times, the first thing we should do is let them keep more of their own money. (Applause.) That’s why the President proposed and signed a stimulus package with immediate, direct relief to the American taxpayer.
Both parties came together on the stimulus package. As a result, families are going to find it a little easier to pay their bills. Yet as we look down the road, there’s still more work to be done on the subject of taxes. Without action by the Congress, most of the Bush tax relief of the past seven years will be taken away. If that happens, the death tax, which is being phased out now, would suddenly return, at rates that top out at more than 50 percent. Taxes would go up on capital gains and dividends. The tax rate for every single income tax bracket would be increased. For taxpayers in the lowest bracket, the rate would increase by 50 percent. And the child tax credit would drop from $1,000 to $500 per child. The overall effect would be average tax increases of $1,800 a year in the tax bill of some 116 million Americans.
This is going to be one of the major dividing lines between the two parties in this election year—and we need to make sure that every voter in the country knows the difference. Remind your friends that whenever they hear Democratic politicians pledging to get rid of the Bush tax cuts, what they’re promising is a major tax hike for working families. And they wouldn’t have to move a muscle to do it, because under the law, that tax cuts simply expire a few years from now. That means it is all more—all the more critical to elect a Republican Congress to make the tax cuts permanent—and a Republican President to sign them into law. (Applause.)
Americans are certainly concerned as well about energy, because everyone’s paying higher prices at the pump. Our administration has worked with the Congress and private sector to increase the efficiency of cars and trucks, and to promote alternative fuels. But that’s not enough to meet the demands of the country—we also have to produce more oil and gas inside the United States. (Applause.)
Part of the problem in Washington is that a lot of our Democratic friends year after year have tried to stand in the way of more energy production. The plain truth is we can get a lot more energy here in America, and we can do it in an environmentally sound and friendly way. And it’s not just crude oil or natural gas production that’s being held up. Amazing as it may sound, we haven’t built a new refinery in the United States in 30 years—so now we have to import ever larger amounts of refined product and gasoline. Republicans believe more of the refining ought to be done right here in the United States, at American refineries, by American workers. (Applause.)
You and I belong to the party of low taxes, limited government, and free enterprise. We understand that government exists not to be the people’s master but rather the people’s servant. We understand the Constitution and the separation of powers—and that’s why we believe in putting good judges on the bench like John Roberts and Sam Alito. (Applause.)
Above all, ladies and gentlemen, we believe in protecting the United States of America—in defending our security, our values, and our way of life. (Applause.) President Bush has never lost sight of that responsibility. And for that reason, many Democrats who believe in a strong defense have stood by the President in the war on terror. Four years ago at Madison Square Garden, our keynote speaker was Senator Zell Miller of Georgia—a lifelong Democrat. Senator Miller spoke passionately about the Democratic Party that has lost its bearings on national security; a party that regards our own country as a negative force in the world. Senator Miller said, quote, “Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today’s Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.” And he added a thought that no citizen of this country should ever forget, quote: “Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don’t just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.” (Applause.)
In that same election year, another prominent Democrat known to all of you gave his endorsement to George W. Bush. This Democrat said that the President was, quote, “the only one running who appreciated the threat of Islamic terrorism to American values and Western civilization and was prepared to wage a war to defend those values.” Those are the words of Mayor Ed Koch. (Applause.)
And yet another Democrat of national standing has been appalled by the direction his party has taken on national security. Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut is a statesman whose Democratic credentials could not be more impeccable—(applause). After all, he ran against me for Vice President in 2000. (Laughter.) Yet in his most recent campaign, Joe was targeted for political extinction by his fellow Democrats. One by one, they turned their backs on him. Joe’s old running mate, Al Gore, abandoned him. His Connecticut colleague and best friend in the Senate, Chris Dodd, campaigned against him. In a tough political fight, Joe Lieberman was dropped by his own party simply because of his firm stand in the war on terror—a stand he has consistently held, in good times and bad. (Applause.)
In an article last week, Joe Lieberman wrote about the Democratic Party that he grew up in. It was, he said, “A party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that 1/4 understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that what we—that we would fall divided.” That’s the way it used to be. But today, Senator Lieberman points out, the Democratic Party is “further to the left than it has been 1/4 in the last 20 years.” He finds no evidence that the party leadership will stand up to the left wing—and so Joe has proudly endorsed our nominee, John McCain. (Applause.)
As I said earlier, the stakes are high in this election. We’re in the midst of a war against a determined enemy—an enemy that showed its faces in this very city on September 11th. After the attacks of that day, President Bush told the nation to prepare for a struggle that would not be easy, or brief, or predictable in its course. He pledged never to grow tired in his own work as leader of the country and Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces. He has honored that pledge in full. (Applause.)
Since 9/11, our administration had to make a lot of tough decisions on national security. As a result, the enemies of the country have been kept off balance. I don’t think the terrorists put their feet up after 9/11 and said, “Well, let’s not hit the United States again.” They wanted to hit us. They planned on it. They tried to do it. And now that we’ve gone more than six and a half years without another 9/11 is no accident. (Applause.) It is an achievement. And the credit goes to some very dedicated Americans in intelligence, law enforcement, and the military; to vital new laws passed by Congress; and strong leadership by the President of the United States. (Applause.)
From the beginning, we’ve understood that this war is a battle of ideas. So when we confronted terror states and outlaw regimes, we didn’t just remove the dictators and leave the people to their fate. We’ve stood with them to build institutions of freedom and democracy—the very institutions that overcome the ideologies of hatred and murder. The work goes on—and our strategy in Iraq, with a surge of operations begun more than a year ago is succeeding brilliantly. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. (Applause.) But that would be an act of betrayal and dishonor—and it is not going to happen on our watch. (Applause.) Two months ago I was in Iraq and spoke to several thousand of our troops deployed there at Balad. Our men and women are dedicated to victory. And I remember the strong response the troops gave on one point in particular—when I said that we are going to get this job done right, so that another generation of Americans doesn’t have to go back and do it again. (Applause.)
Against that background, this election year poses one fundamental question on national security: Who is serious about fighting and winning the war on terror, on every front? The choice is going to be very clear. On one side is the Democratic Party—led by the likes of Senator Harry Reid, who said more than a year ago that the war in Iraq was lost. A Democratic Party whose leaders in Congress permitted a vital surveillance law to expire, leaving the United States more vulnerable to terrorist attack. A Democratic Party that operates in tandem with MoveOn.Org, a fringe group that ran a full-page ad in the New York Times attacking the character and the courage of General Dave Petraeus. A Democratic Party that has, in Joe Lieberman’s words, “kowtowed” to the opinions of the far left rather than challenging them.
On the other side of this divide is the Republican Party—whose leaders have supported the war on terror, regardless of what the polls say or the pundits declare. A Republican Party whose presidential nominee has served this nation with courage, a nominee committed to victory for freedom’s cause, a nominee who speaks of idealism, and backs it up with good judgment, consistency, a record of achievement, and genuine American heroism. (Applause.)
Faced with that choice, and with the options laid out clearly before them, there’s no doubt in my mind that the American people are going to choose Republican leadership on November 4th. (Applause.)
In a little over seven months, we’ll turn our responsibility over to others. But this evening, ladies and gentlemen, with much yet to do at home and abroad, President Bush and I remain grateful for the opportunity to serve this nation. We’re grateful to all of you for your support, not just for us but for our party here in New York. In the weeks and months ahead, with an economy to strengthen and a war to fight, we’ll stay focused on the business of the people, and we will come to a strong finish. With your help, we’ll leave our jobs in good hands. And with your help, we’ll see many Republican victories across New York and this great country come November.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
This entry was posted
on Friday, May 30th, 2008 at 12:04 pm by Glenn Blain.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: 
| 
| 
Email This
He is not a bad guy but he needs new material. He has told that joke publicly a number of times.
this was a very poor move on the part of the state committee
cheney’s popularity is lower than bushes.particularly here
in new york where guys like rudy can win ..but guys like
cheney cannot…featuring cheney may appeal to the conservative party but once again, it demonstrates that
republicans are catering to the hard right in a blue state
This was an awesome speech. Cheney should have been the President, and Dubya the VP.
What Cheney doesn’t get is that Lynne wasn’t trying to be funny when she said it humanized him.
Thank you, I’m here all week. Try the chicken.
NY GOP made over $700,000 last night because of the Cheney’s visit. Last night it was all about money and Cheney delivered as many came to see our Vice President.
Conservative Party made a ton also at their annual dinner last night as they had to open up another floor to accommodate them many tables. A host of Republicans attended as they need the Conservative Line Statewide to win their elections and maintain their seats.
“as they needed the conservative line…to maintain their
seats” ergo the conservative party made a ton of money..
I would call that extortion ..plain and simple…
Is Bush Becoming Irrelevant?
By Patrick Buchanan
After losing both houses of Congress in the 1994 election, Bill Clinton expostulated: The president of the United States is not irrelevant!
On learning his trusted aide from Texas Scott McClellan has denounced as an “unnecessary war” the same Iraq war McClellan defended from the White House podium, George Bush must feel as Clinton did.
The synchronized savagery of the attacks on McClellan as turncoat suggests he drew blood. For what he has done is offer confirmation to the president’s war critics, from within the White House inner circle, that Bush’s motive in going to war was not a clear and present danger of attack by Iraq with weapons of mass destruction, but to advance a Bush crusade to impose democracy on the Middle East.
Neoconservative ideology, not U.S. national interests, McClellan is saying, motivated Bush to launch one of the longest and most divisive wars in U.S. history.
When loyalists defect and seek to profit from that defection, it is usually a sign of a failing presidency. And, indeed, events suggest that history is passing Bush by.
Despite the administration’s designation of Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, and of Syria and Iran as state sponsors of terror with whom we do not negotiate, America’s clients are ignoring America.
Israel has ignored Bush’s demand that it stop building and expanding settlements on a West Bank that is to be the heartland of a Palestinian state. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been secretly negotiating with Syria for the return of the Golan Heights in exchange for peace.
When America refused to play honest broker between Jerusalem and Damascus, Turkey, at Israel’s request, stepped into the role.
The pro-American Lebanese government of Prime Minister Siniora has negotiated a truce and power-sharing arrangement with Hezbollah, giving that militant Shiite movement and party veto power in the Beirut government. Egypt is negotiating with Hamas for a truce in the Israeli-Gaza war and to effect the exchange of a captured Israeli solider held by Hamas for Hamas fighters held in Israel.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard, designated a terrorist organization by the Senate, helped to arrange the ceasefire between government forces and the Mahdi Army in Basra and Sadr City. While the United States has used the roughest of language to denounce Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president has been received as an honored guest by the Iraqi government we support and by the Ayatollah Sistani, who has yet to meet a high-ranking American.
When Bush went to the Middle East to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Israel as the Zionist he has become, he was criticized by a Palestinian leader who survives on U.S. aid. When he went to Riyadh to plead for an increase in the flow of oil, he got a token concession from the king.
In Pakistan, the new government has been negotiating a truce with the radicalized frontier provinces, which would leave the Taliban with a privileged sanctuary from which to prepare their annual offensives to overthrow the government in Kabul and expel the Americans, as their fathers expelled the Russians.
As Russia and China move closer together to oppose U.S. missile defenses and the U.S. presence, military and economic, in the Caucasus and Central Asia, Latin America seems to be going its own leftward way. The halcyon days of the Alliance for Progress are long gone.
The world seems to be waiting for Bush to depart and for the next American president. For the foreign policy differences between John McCain and Barack Obama are as real and stark as they have been since the Reagan-Carter election of 1980, or the Nixon-McGovern election of 1972.
Looking back on the years since 9-11, it is hard to give the Bush foreign policy passing grades. We pushed NATO eastward and alienated Russia. We have 140,000 Army and Marine Corps troops tied down in Iraq in a war now in its sixth year, from which our NATO allies have all extricated themselves. We have another war going in Afghanistan, where the situation is as grave as it has been since we went in.
The Bush democracy crusade was put on the shelf after producing election triumphs for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. And the Bush Doctrine of preventive war, after Iraq, appears to be headed there, as well.
America remains the first economic and military power on earth. But after seven years of Bush, we no longer inspire the awe or hopes we once did. We are no longer the world hegemonic power of the neocons’ depiction. And the reason is that Bush embraced their utopian ideology of democratic empire and listened to their siren’s call to be the Churchill of his age.
Of Bush, it may be said he was a far better politician and candidate than his father, but as a statesman and world leader, he could not carry the old man’s loafers
the above is compliments of pat buchanan..not a fan of
bush 41 originally..but now its a much different story
This is too much. Your comments are becoming like the movie, Groundhog Day. It goes something like this, Cheney and Bush are too conservative… Only Centrists can win… The NY Republican Party is too conservative… But Pat Buchanan a man who left the GOP to form a party of one and who is one of the most socially conservative political analysts in the country should be the party’s standardbearer…
Oh, and since Chuck Hagel is against the war and agrees with me that make me a conservative… Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean are also against the war and since Chuck Hagel and Pat Buchanan are against the war and I define them as true conservatives, thus Dennis Kunich, Howard Dean, and Mike Edelman are all true conservatives… And anyone who criticizes them or me is a radical, neo-conservative, or right-wing nut… This makes absolutely no sense to anyone but if I keep repeating and appearing on Newsmakers people will listen to me…
nice to see you back..apparently you are unfamiliar with
what conservative political doctrine is..that is traditional
conservative doctrine…you are enamored with what it has
turned into…you are enamored with the bush cheney administration and have fallen for their interpretation
of conservatism…which is reall a spin off version of
conservatism that has as its basis an imperial US
which attempts to nationbuild and impose democracy and
which abandons traditional diplomacy…why limit yourself
to Chuck Hagel…take a look at Jim Baker, or Colin Powell
or any one of Bush 41’s advisors…They hardly agree
with Kucinich or Dean on anything but they do agree
the war was a foreign policy debacle..along with about
80% of Americans …you are clearly in sympathy with
the neoconservative group that has hijacked the administration ….thats too bad..because it is the single
reason that republicans are becoming a permanent minority
party…and in New york recent registration figures add
400,000 new democrats and 4100 new republicans..
do you have any reasonable explanation..or do you think
that new york republicans have done a great job in
making their party appeal to independents which by
the way is the fastest growing party in the nation…
I haven’t claimed to be a true conservative…my claim
is to be a true republican…not a neo con version
or a mike long version..or a donald rumsfeld version
I’ll stick with ronald reagan and bush 41…for starters
and Nixon and Ford…but not the present gang in the
white house…they have lost their way and the American
people know it…Republicans want government out
of their pockets and out of their bedrooms…the conservative movement has put the government back in the
bedroom and in the case of the necons back in their
pockets because of the huge deficits necessary to fund
the stupid ill thought out, war that we cannot win
The Consultant really does sound like “Groundhog Day.” As I posted a few days ago, he’s boring. He’s a broken record, as the old saying goes from back when they made records. And he quotes Pat Buchanan, who is sometimes right but is often a total wack job. For instance, his new book says there was no need for WW II and blames Churchill.
Good guy for the Consultant to quote. Yeah. Right.
“Republicans want government out
of their pockets and out of their bedrooms.”
Funny, but did not just post a whole article by Pat Buchanan. You seem to be quoting Buchanan quite a bit when it is convenient. He doesn’t want government out of people’s bedrooms. And wait, didn’t you argue that the Bush tax cuts were for the rich and that you can’t cut taxes during a war, which would mean that Reagan was wrong to cut taxes during the cold war? Doesn’t seem like you want government out of our pockets either.
I previously wrote (mocking you, I might add), “And anyone who criticizes them or me [the Consultant] is a radical, neo-conservative, or right-wing nut…”
And guess what, you proved me point. That is what you called me as soon as criticized your positions. None of your arguments logically follow.
Your arguments are not in line with Jim Baker but more in line with Scott McClellan. Like McClellan, you have no idea what you are talking about and you want to bash Bush to enhance your own reputation when the chips are down. Unlike McClellan, you will not be collecting any money for your book and will have to settle for writing poorly written and argued articles and appears on local news stations.
even a broken clock is right twice a day…Buchanan
has said a lot of nutty things about “the jews”
the “negroes” “hitler”...I am familiar with all of
it…but…he is still a bright guy who in this case
happens to be correct..the necon movement is an
extension of the same people that were socialists
in the 1950’s…with one consistant thread running
through their radical philosophy both as socialists
and now as radical conservatives..and that is the
preservation of the state of Israel…unfortunately
what they have advocated has made Israel..more at
risk, more the pariah nation, and more on its own
than ever before…what they have advocated has
made the arab nations less willing to recognize
israel and more willing to lob rockets into her
neighborhoods…Bush and the neocons believe that
imposing democracy is possible…well its not…
you want peace in the area…dismantle the settlements
don’t topple regimes…take all that money and
compensate the settlers rather than rebuilding
the infrastructure of Iraq
you might want to read stephen sneigoski in that regard
and then we can discuss it
a recent article in the The Nation, Jason Vest discusses the immense influence in the current Bush administration of people from two major neocon research organizations, JINSA and CSP. Vest details the close links among the two organizations, right-wing politicians, arms merchants, military men, Jewish billionaires, and Republican administrations. [16]
Regarding JINSA, Vest writes:
Founded in 1976 by neoconservatives concerned that the United States might not be able to provide Israel with adequate military supplies in the event of another Arab-Israeli war, over the past twenty-five years JINSA has gone from a loose-knit proto-group to a $1.4-million-a-year operation with a formidable array of Washington power players on its rolls. Until the beginning of the current Bush administration, JINSA’s board of advisors included such heavy hitters as Cheney, John Bolton (now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control) and Douglas J. Feith, the third-highest-ranking executive in the Pentagon. Both Perle and former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey, two of the loudest voices in the attack-Iraq chorus, are still on the board, as are such Reagan-era relics as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Eugene Rostow, and [Michael] Ledeen — Oliver North’s Iran/contra liaison with the Israelis. [17]
Vest notes that “dozens” of JINSA and CSP “members have ascended to powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same agenda continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which they came. Industrious and persistent, they’ve managed to weave a number of issues — support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general — into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core.” And Vest continues: “On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war — not just with Iraq, but ‘total war,’ as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it last year. For this crew, ‘regime change’ by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative.” [18]
Let’s recapitulate Vest’s major points. The JINSA/CSP network has “support for the Israeli right at its core.” In line with the views of the Israeli right, it has advocated a Middle Eastern war to eliminate the enemies of Israel. And members of the JINSA/CSP network have gained influential foreign policy positions in Republican administrations, most especially in the current administration of George W. Bush.
Wow… The Nation Magazine!!! The source of all that is good in the world… Unless, of course your politics like 98% of Americans are to the right of Ralph Nader. Was the Socialist Worker unavailable?
Obviously, you have some issues with your own background. Otherwise, you wouldn’t find these conspiracy theories so persuasive.
The Consultant is losing it. The socialists of the ‘50s have morphed into today’s environmental movement. That is just what it is at the heart of it, or the root of it.
The heirs of the socialists of the fifties are Mr. Cheney, Dick Rumsfeld, and Ollie North?
read about the neocons …it is an eyeopener..where the
movement started..why it started and who is in it..
it is hard to believe that cheney rumsfeld and condi
could buy into their half baked theories..which were
touted by clarke, wolfowitz, kagen etc…
Oh, boy. Mister Consultant has gone over the edge.
Read about the mysterious and very powerful Maurice Strong, his goals and his close ties to Al Gore. See what Strong has been up to for a long time. Including Crestone, Colo. Read about who and what are running the “environmental” movements. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Earth Liberation Front, and many others. It’s the old left-wing socialist crowd and/or their followers.
From So I Married an Axe Murderer
Stuart Mackenzie: Well, it’s a well known fact, Sonny Jim, that there’s a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows.
Tony Giardino: So who’s in this Pentavirate?
Stuart Mackenzie: The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went tits up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee beady eyes, and that smug look on his face. “Oh, you’re gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!”
Charlie Mackenzie: Dad, how can you hate “The Colonel”?
Stuart Mackenzie: Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes ya crave it fortnightly, smartass!
This how ridiculous “The Consultant” sounds
read the article and then we can talk….
I hate to break it to this self-professed Consultant but Richard Clarke was against the war in Iraq and is not a neoconservative. Kagan far from being a socialist in the 1950’s was an infant. He got his start with George Schultz. A realist and not a neoconservative. Wolfowitz, has been a harsh critic of Israeli settlements. A far cry from doing the bidding of Israel.
Not only is the Consultant grossly uninformed but highly offensive and defamatory. See a shrink, man. I really just hope his views are not indicative of those whom he has allegedly consulted for such as the Spano brothers, DiFiore, or Pirro.
Not only should the moderators of this blog consider removing the self-professed “Consultant’s” comments but the Westchester GOP should sever all his ties with him. An openly racist person would not appear on television on behalf of the Westchester Republicans and neither should a person who harbors ill will to a certain segment of the American population based on ethnicity. Just because one has a Jewish surname, although no relationship with the jewish religion or culture, does not give him free reign to be a bigot.
Although the term neoconservative is in common usage, a brief description of the group might be helpful. Many of the first-generation neocons originally were liberal Democrats, or even socialists and Marxists, often Trotskyites. They drifted to the right in the 1960s and 1970s as the Democratic Party moved to the antiwar McGovernite left. And concern for Israel loomed large in that rightward drift. As political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg puts it:
One major factor that drew them inexorably to the right was their attachment to Israel and their growing frustration during the 1960s with a Democratic party that was becoming increasingly opposed to American military preparedness and increasingly enamored of Third World causes [e.g., Palestinian rights]. In the Reaganite right’s hard-line anti-communism, commitment to American military strength, and willingness to intervene politically and militarily in the affairs of other nations to promote democratic values (and American interests), neocons found a political movement that would guarantee Israel’s security. [2]
For some time prior to September 11, 2001, neoconservatives had publicly advocated an American war on Iraq. The 9/11 atrocities provided the pretext. The idea that neocons are the motivating force behind the U.S. movement for war has been broached by a number of commentators. For instance, Joshua Micah Marshall authored an article in The Washington Monthly titled: “Bomb Saddam?: How the obsession of a few neocon hawks became the central goal of U.S. foreign policy.” And in the leftist e-journal CounterPunch, Kathleen and Bill Christison wrote:
Stop with the racism crap..this is a foreign policy discussion …those who are in the neocon camp
use antisemitism as a shield to protect them from
legitimate criticism..but the facts are the facts..
why is it when you criticize the US policy in the middle
east many people decide you are a bigot…so you cannot
have a different opinion on what best preserves the state
of Israel as a Jewish entity….unless you tow the neocon
line..which by the way is not the line of 60% of the
Israeli population which you will find out when Olmert
is booted out and the new female prime minister takes
over….she realizes that the settlements have to go..
and they will…stop justifying lousy policy based
on your view of the world…
it just shows how completely out of touch republicans are inviting the VP unless they are going to be pushing “cheney health care” for all
Your obsession with the Middle East is not matched by your knowledge of the facts. This blog post had nothing to do with Israel or Iraq; it just shows that you are completely obsessed with the issue. You have made numerous libelous remarks on this blog without ANY REGARD FOR THE FACTS. You deliberately mischaracterize public figure’s views with impunity. That is libel. The problem is not that you have a different opinion, the problem is you have a viewpoint i.e. the Jews led us to war with Iraq that is both false and offensive. Jews in this country have been blamed for every war throughout American history. This in turn has led to anti-Semitism. Substituting the word “neo-conservative” for “Jew” does not clean up your comments.
You are a conspiracy theorist without any facts at your disposal. I just demonstrated that your characterization of Clarke, Wolfowitz, and Kagan was completely false. Instead, of any kind of response you went off on a tangent about something else. Instead of responding to arguments, you recite talking points, OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
The Westchester Republican party needs to disassociate itself from you and your Lyndon LaRouche point of view and this blog needs to monitor your remarks. Failure to do so puts this blog in danger of being sued
hey rick…nobody is blaming “the jews” you need to separate
those neocons, some of whom are jewish and some not, who have a view of the world that puts the security of Israel
first and leads them to a view of the middle east which in
fact puts Israel in jeopardy…do you think Israel is safer
now than before the Iraqi invasion. Iraq was Iran’s worst
enemy…Iran had to guard against Iraqi intentions under
Hussein…now Iran is empowered..because of the invasion
our armed forces are stretched to the limit…Israel is
privately negotiating with Syria because Syria is afraid
of Iran as well…something the US did not want Israel
to do…IT is the neoconservatives who got us into the
mess we are in…You do not have to be jewish to push
the idea of invading the middle east to protect Israel
in fact the Reverend Hagee and many other evangelicals
endorse the same policy…but for very different reasons
having to do with the return of the messiah…and stop
accusing me of anti semitism…your way out of order…
the subject of american foreign policy is not based on
who is a member of what religion..but the issue of whether
the necons have made Israel their number one concern and
have formulated a foreign policy that is dangerous and
departs from traditional american foreign policy from
both the right and the left is a fair subject for debate
these are not talking points…and your suggestion that
their is some sort of liability in discussing what has
been in the mainstream news is lucircous…be a little
less defensive and a little more objective…
Quoting Pat Buchanan verbatim and then trying to defend an idea that is at the fringe of American political thought on the far left and far right does not make it accurate. Writing defamatory material is actionable. Given that you work at a law firm and are a public figure, you should be more careful about what you write. Your comments are now preserved on the Internet and are a matter of public record. I am not sure your colleagues would appreciate you devoting much of your workday towards blogging inflamatory material. Given how badly the Westchester Republican does, I doubt they would want to be associated with your opinions either. Just as John McCain had to distance himself from John Hagee, they would be wise to distance themselves from many of your remarks and you personally.
rick…all that was posted has been said before…
in a political context nothing is actionable…
it sounds like you just want to intimidate me..maybe
you should call msnbc who pays buchanan for his opinions
and make the same arguments…their is nothing fringe
about the arguments that traditioanl american foreign policy has been totally undermined by the bush administration…it is hardly a far left contention
in fact there are plenty of centrist republicans
who are totally disgusted with what the Iraqi invasion
has done to compromise US standing in that part of the
world…I suggest you read a little more about the
topic…Chuck Hagel for example would agree with me
and he is hardly a radical….those in the neocon inner
circle and under their influence include our vice
president…I don’t understand quite frankly what you
find inflammatory about any of this…The substance
of this discussion appears in H’Aaretz regularly..
in fact below is a piece by gershom gorenberg appearing
in prospect…
By asking for a deus ex machina to intervene in Israeli politics, Yehoshua was demonstrating the despair of Israel’s peace camp. The left’s once-forbidden positions—a two-state solution, evacuating settlements—are now boringly respectable. Olmert, a recovering rightist, supports them. But nothing happens. Why can’t a winged figure descend to get the plot moving? America has filled that role for Israel before, vetoing UN security council condemnations, providing aid. Someone simply needs to tell the gods what Israel actually needs.
I write this not to mock Yehoshua but to agree with him. As a progressive Israeli, I long to see a shift in US policy. With Yehoshua, I believe that the right actions by the US could awaken public support here in Israel for the steps needed to reach peace.
I also believe there’s no chance that President Bush will take Yehoshua’s advice. If a member of the US congress made a similar proposal, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) would almost certainly encourage donations to his opponent in November’s election. Does this mean that “the Israel lobby” controls the levers of US middle east policy, as John J Mearsheimer and Stephen M Walt argued in their famous book of that name last year? Not exactly. (Mearsheimer and Walt are both distinguished international affairs academics from, respectively, Chicago and Harvard universities. Their book, which caused a storm of criticism and accusations of anti-semitism, argued that US foreign policy is distorted by unconditional support for Israel, secured by a powerful “Israel lobby.”) But they overstated their case in several ways. They credited a poorly defined “lobby” with exaggerated power, while failing to do the investigative research which could have painted a more accurate picture of the extent and limits of that power.
your view is limited to the AIPAC view…it is outdated
and does not serve the interests of the state of Israel
I did not express any views on the Arab-Israeli conflict other than to point out you have a fringe opinion. I am not sure how you can point out that I have an “AIPAC view” other than that anyone who disagrees with you, which is the vast majority of Americans, you classify as an extremist. Pat Buchanan, is mainly put on MSNBC because he is an anti-Bush Republican. Buchanan’s career without a doubt has been hurt by his remarks and his quixotic runs for President. As for AIPAC’s view, AIPAC has members with different views and they have supported every peace agreement that Israel has signed, so I am not sure what you are talking about. Your argument boils down to citing a left-wing Israeli as evidence that your view is in the mainstream and pro-Israeli. That is equivalent to someone in another country who is an Anti-American claiming that they are expressing pro-American viewpoints because they agree with Noam Chomsky. It is a poor argument.
As I mentioned, you should be very careful about not writing defamatory material and ethnic slurs on this blog. I am not sure if other Westchester Republican party leaders are quite aware of your viewpoints and I think that when they do become informed, that your “consulting” career will come to an abrupt end unless you drastically change course. Although I am independent and not a Republican, I now realize why Westchester County is basically a one-party county. Voters don’t appreciate intolerance from party big-wigs. You are incorrect regarding the law about what is actionable. There is no speech and debate clause in the U.S. Constitution that is applicable to unelected bloggers.
rick..the arab Israeli conflict is not the issue..here
the issue is the conduct of American Foreign Policy…which
you can either discuss or not..so far you have accused me
of ethnic slurs, not being a good republican, blogging
during work hours (today is saturday) and attempting
to suggest my consulting career could be over…
all of that is called intimidation..you my friend have
communicated a threat over the internet..I, on the
other hand am attempting to engage in a conversation
about protecting the ability of Israel to remain a
Jewish state, and to have safe and secure borders
which has not been helped by the Bush/Cheney neocon
approach…you have accussed my criticism of being
fringe…which means you have some dog in the hunt
I have no idea which..but this is a topic that is not
going away..as we learn more and more about how we
got snookered into a war in which we have lost
4000 souls and over 100,000 have catastropic injuries
the issue on the table will be how did we make such
an error.and remember while he was running Bush said
he was not into nation building…I do not view
this as a partisan ie Republican vs Democratic issue
This has to do with how America views its roll in the
world and how best to protect Israel…The neocons
many of whom are jewish (so what) except that because
of their desire to preserve Israel took a particular
tack with which I disagree…and in fact which I believe
has been proven to have weakened our ability to protect
Israel…Now you don’t have to agree with me…But
your attempt to stiffle discussion is something that
wouldn’t take place in a talmud study course…you have
displayed intollerance because I have dared challenge what
you think is mainstream belief..It is not…it is radical
conservative/neocon belief that has been sold to some
Americans…I happen to reject it….If we can discuss
african americans voting for Barry…and we can discuss
poor whites voting for Hillary and refusing to vote
for Barrack, why can’t we discuss the interests of jewish
americans in Israel…I’ll tell you why..because you have
a monolithic view of the situation…and think it is
a reflection on “the jews” when it has nothing to do
with jewish people .but has everything to do with
ideology…have a good weekend….and between you and
me..as between my “business” interests and my personal
beliefs…I’ll choose to defend the latter..because
with intimidators like you….our democracy needs a breath
of fresh air…if you can’t discuss an issue without
name calling and threats you are missing out on some
very important policy questions…
That is very interesting spin. It is nice that you have at least somewhat toned down your rhetoric. You claim it has nothing to do with Jews and than you state specifically that you are discussing Jewish Americans relationship with Israel but that is not politically correct do so. I have no point tried to threaten you. I merely explained that your actions have consequences. You seem to think that you can mischaracterize others positions and insult them without any damage to your reputation. I have not accused you of being a bad republican so I am not sure where that is coming from. It is obvious that your opinions are out of the mainstream and that the more you make people aware of your opinion, the less likely they are to hire you. Any campaign that hires you, is going to have answer questions about your beliefs and thus, it becomes less about the candidate and more about you. Similar to John McCain having lobbyists or Barack Obama have to answer for his pastor’s beliefs. I don’t think any person running in Westchester, wants to have someone advising them whom blame Jewish neocons for the war in Iraq and who quotes conspiracy theorists. That is not a threat. That is stating something that you are obviously oblivious to. If you believe so strongly in your beliefs, I would ask that you make all candidates that you consult for of your personal beliefs so they can make an informed decision. It would be interesting to know how many people involved in Westchester politics are aware of your foreign policy positions. You are perfectly free to express your opinion providing it doesn’t violate this blog’s policy but there are repercussions for making disgusting remarks.
Yesterdya, Rick mentionend Lyndon LaRouche. It does sound like the Consultant shares at least some of that same mind-set. The Consultant lost me on this one when said yesterday’s socialists evolved into today’s Neo-Cons. That is not true. As I posted earlier, all the old socialists and their current followers have moved into the environmental, “green” and conservation causes. That is easily confirmed.
Finally, Pat Buchanan is about 75 percent nuts.
the old socialists realized socialism didn’t work
so they found a new calling..neoconservatism…that
doesn’t work either….you are welcome to read
a full and viable explanation if you like of the transition
between the two..and for rick..my own personal foreign policy beliefs are only germain if I am the candidate
kind of like my religion…it is not germain nor is it
a litmus test for employment which is where you go
far astry..because once someones personal foreign policy
beliefs are part of whether he can work.why not ask
about his spiritual beliefs as well..you sound a bit
like a very liberal joe mccarthy to me…spread the
word that he’s a communist and black list him from
motion pictures..that would be the effect of what you
are suggesting
Sorry for the two typos in my earlier comment. I was interrupted midway. Consultant, why do you ignore the fact, not theory, that the entire environmental, “green” and conservation movements (really one and the same) are the havens of the old socialists and their present-day acolytes? Look at what is going on and what they are attempting to do.
Stopping the US from drilling for its own oil is just of dozens of examples. If it was any more obvious, it would be written across the sky in letters a mile high.
Mr. Consultant should read a history book. It seems his knowledge of McCarthyism is as limited as his knowlege neoconservatives. Joe McCarthy falsely accused many of being communists. You are not falsely being accused of anything. The blacklisting from the motion picture industry for one’s politics, which has little to do with moviemaking is far different from someone not being hired as a political consultant because of their extreme foreign policy viewpoints.
It is naive to think that one’s political consultant has nothing to do with the political candidate’s policies and/or that it will not become an issue. You were the same person arguing that Reverand Wright’s sermons should somehow hurt Barack Obama when Reverand Wright was giving spiritual and not political advice. So it is a little disingenuous to then argue that a pastor’s opinions matter but not a spiritual advisor.
If you are so confident of your opinions please post under your real name and publish in local papers your opinions on foreign policy matters. I am not even sure that the journal news would publish your opinions on Iraq.
There is the theme of “the right war, for the wrong reasons.” I think this is how history may eventually judge our liberation of Iraq.
Just watching Scott McClellan on Meet The Press, I think his credibility would be greater had he been like J. F. TerHorst, President Ford’s first press secretary, who resigned in protest after Ford pardoned Nixon. (Disclosure: I favored the pardon, as a young voter.)
But McClellan is a soft Texan who went along for the ride, and whose loyalty to a man who had been a great governor of Texas shrouded his judgment. (Read Bob Dole’s statement concerning his book and character.)
As for Cheney, I had admired him since 1975, when he was Ford’s chief of staff. But his conflicts have apparently caught up with him. Sad.
I am starting to feel like one of those Democrats in 1968 who began to feel that a war started by, and exacerbated by, a president of their own party, is about to cause repudiation of that party by the great middle in our country.
McClellan is engaged in revisionist history. As MTP made clear, everything he criticized when he was press secretary, he has now embraced. I am not sure if his motivation is his own reputation or paying back the Bush administration for forcing him out but I hope it is the former and not the latter. McClellan was the most inarticulate press secretary in recent history. His best performance was on MTP. There were numerous articles at the time he was press secretary from both liberal and conservative journalists lampooning him. For whatever reason, President Bush was loyal to him and refused to fire him sooner and he paid back the administration with a tell-all book.
I happen to think some of his contentions are false. But regardless of whether they are true or false, bosses should have an expectation that certain conversations should remain private. McClellan, seems to have no concept of loyalty or disretion. Given his poor performance as press secretary and his tell-all book, I have to think his political career is over. Who would want an employee that they could not trust to keep certain discussions private?
I thought Tim Russert’s performance was terrible. He has been much tougher on certain people like Rudy Giuliani than others. He could have asked more questions regarding McClellan’s manuscript proposal in which he praised Bush and he spoke about the liberal media. Journalists such as Keith Olbermann, were originally criticized in his proposal and then he later went on this show. He could have asked questions about McClellan’s motivation for doing this. About his firing and his mother’s ill-fated campaign from governor of Texas. Instead, he kind of asked questions from a liberal point of view and didn’t really follow up with a more precise number with regards to the donation of his book proceeds.
Actually, Ian, Tim Russert was no tougher on McClellan than he has been on Al Gore or almost anybody I’ve seen Russert interview.
McClellan didn’t acquit himself as well as he could have.
His book advance couldn’t have been that great (I’m in the business, and am aware of what Public Affairs gives up front.)
He’ll nevertheless make money off the book, given the angry liberals who want to trash the president.
Tim, so you think that Russert was as tough on McClellan as he was on Giuliani? I would suggest that you go on the MTP website and watch Giuliani’s interview again. Russert tries to be fair but many times for whatever reason, he is easier on some than others.
Just out of curiousity, what would you guess the range of his advance was? I would respectfully disagree with you on McClellan’s performance. Give the fact that McClellan is not quick on his feet and Russert had tons of material at his disposal, McClellan did about as well as someone of his ability could do. He is not exactly Joe Lockhart or Tony Snow or Ed Gillespie.
Hi Ian: Just going to nod off, and maybe watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Leatherface, 1990), but glad for your inquiry. (You and I may compare Russert interviews anon.)
I’m guessing Public Affairs paid McClellan up front approximately $50k. He’ll earn much more in royalties. Now, who knows: given the change in his original book proposal versus the finished book, other parties may have chipped in more money since last year, but it might have been negligible.
Some figures let their vanity get in the way of practicality. Not so Richard Clarke, who in 2004 got an up front advance of comfortable proportions (six figures) to write his scathing rebuke of the Bush Administration.
More tomorrow—
Thanks for the info.