Monday, March 16, 2009

Cheney: "Rush is a good guy"

In his typical charismatic fashion, Dick Cheney let it be known in a national TV interview that he has no doubts "Rush" Limbaugh is a "good guy".

One might expect that the late Generalissimo Francisco Franco also ranks fairly high on the Cheney-scale of "Good-Guy-ed-ness".

15 comments:

RCJ said...

Let's not forget the Nat'l Lampoon headline when Franco departed this mortal coil...
"Franco Dies - Goes to Hell"

perhaps that is the Bohemian Grove of "Good-guy-ed-ness"

Anonymous said...

And this is different from Barack Obama's association with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and ACORN how if i may ask????

robert said...

Anonymous: Ms Cassandra isn't talking about Barack Obama. Whether she loves or loathes him is beside the point.

The world is not made up of two enormous blocks of us and them (or Democrats and Republicans).

No one, no group has a monopoly on truth...

S said...

Cheney is dead right not to balme the Bush admin for the ceconomic crisis. The cancer has been growing since the 70s. And while B/C were just the last bucket carriers the real accelerators of the rot where in the Clinton regime. Dem/Rep aside, the shared philosphy that got hus here is the ex anti outcome sought. taking pot shots at B/C was fun for the ideologues for 8 years. Move on already.

"Cassandra" said...

S, I do not think that holds up under analysis or reasonable scrutiny. While Clinton admin unquestionably squandered opportunities in many spheres, to insure sustainability, B/C set everything alight incinerating any hope of a return to something sustainable without a cataclysm. By 2004, we were definitively beyond the "point of no return". I know not what blame you absolve them.

Anonymous said...

Dick Cheney's Brain -----"Keep lying to yourself & then keep on "parroting" the same lies to the media".We all know that he is much smarter than that.
IMHO the MSM media has lost all credibility by not questioning his unchanged & badly rehearsed answers that he keeps repeating no matter what the question being asked is.His last refuge might be Fox News that will always support his antics (or even Hush Bimbo).

Anonymous said...

The main reason that Cheney is different from Ayers or Wright is that he was Vice President...

S said...

Your argument is a red herring. I assume the next leg of your synthesis is to pullout the Clinton "surpluses." Perhaps you can articulate for me how the tech bubble, the Rubin strong dollar policy (and godfather of moral hazard) and the maestro's disgust for free markets led to anything more than an aberration. I might suggest the Atimes article on the rise of China by Henry L. He does an excellent job of diagnosing the problem beginning back with the 70s break. Much of the blame lies in Clinton acerbating the globalization meme, which Atimes points to as a derivative of the US looking to figure out where China sat in the new world order construct of Bush I. Clinton had so many failings, putting aside his innate brilliance, that it is difficult to figure out where to begin. Whether it was his abysmal handling of the Asia Crisis, the Mexico bailout, the LTCM crisis or the cheerleading of the tech bubble – remember the superhighway – the entire financial model he pursued was one of exploiting the wage labor arbitrate and the capital account surplus. People call Rubin brilliant for the vendor financing scheme – which was really nothing more than more of 80s vintage Japan – but then again he was a scummy merger arb guy. Bush inherited a disaster in the form of a collapsing bubble. He did his very best under the tried and true outsource to the Fed model to carry on and reflate (sounds familiar). And then there was 911 and the attacks. By 2004 I assume you are referring to Iraq? Well inquiring minds can differ on whether that was a fruitful enterprise, but the more penetrating question is barring the venture (which drove some nice EPS growth/innovation for the defense complex – they still count in the GDP numbers) where would the economy be today? Wheat if instead of going into Iraq we stayed in Afghan? What if we didn’t find OBL but escalated. What if Pakistan came unhinged and we had to occupy? What if what if what if? What Bush haters can’t wrap their head around is that the prosperity of the late 90s circa Clinton was as fake as the home equity ATM. Bush was handed a very bad hand and one he made worse with wars and spending. I make no defense of his decisions, but to argue that somehow we as an economy would be in a different place is just patently false. The US economy was hollowed out a while ago which is why we needed the serial bubble blowing. Those are the facts.

Anonymous said...

Well ! Both sides are trying to push Bush out of any serious discussion for different motives,however it is too early to defend his infantile paralysis as the memory is still quite fresh and consequences still unfolding.
Meanwhile,as a powerless populace we can go on with the blame game for policies that have been long-standing no matter how much the elected officials try to dance around them.DEMOCRACY IS OVERRATED.

burnside said...

not at all. democracy is too seldom deployed by its adherents.

Anonymous said...

"Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear" --- Alan Corenk

Anonymous said...

This post is as garbled as the Picasso that adorns it.

Anonymous said...

Funny,lol.
Good luck with your thesis on Cheney.

Big said...

Mistress Cassandra,

きょみがあります

にほんじんですか?

どうもありがとございました

you are the greatest!

おおまぐろ

kramsmarba said...

This an an economic wisdom of the first order. Do carry on.