jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (38 posts)

Shocking: Cheney's schilling for Romney

  1. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Hot off email from Washington post

    When Mitt Romney arrives Thursday at the gates of Teton Pines, a majestic Wyoming country club where captains of industry flock each summer to golf on an Arnold Palmer-designed course, his purpose will be greater than spending another evening separating rich people from their money.

    Romney will be taking a big step toward becoming the official head of the Republican Party, as the presumptive presidential nominee is feted at a $30,000-a-couple dinner at the home of Dick Cheney, the living thread connecting the past five Republican presidencies.

    By hosting a fundraiser for Romney, the former vice president — who in his retirement remains a powerful leader of foreign-policy neoconservatives yet a deeply polarizing figure outside of the Republican base — will make his grandest gesture so far to pass a torch to Romney.

    “This does not look to me like Bush-Cheney redux,” said former congressman Vin Weber, a veteran of the Bush-Cheney campaigns and a senior policy adviser to Romney.

    That's funny they should say that. That was the SECOND THING that popped into my mind.
    The first was -- I wonder if Cheney will invite any of the guests hunting with him?
    lol

    I can't post the link but hopefully someone else can!

    1. profile image0
      rickyliceaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Not the neoCONS again.
      Romney has already pandered to them promising to increase defense spending, perhaps he plans to "bomb bomb bomb iran" as well.

      1. profile image0
        SassySue1963posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        A strong defense does not mean anyone is looking to go to war. President Obama has already given our space program over to the Russians, is trying to give our guns over to NATO and has cut defense down to the bone. Better wake up before we are sitting ducks for whoever wants us.

        1. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          His plan is to cut the United States Navy to its smallest number of ships since before WWI ---- WWI !!!

          A strong Navy is essential for a safe and peaceful sea - to suggest other wise is foolish.

    2. LauraGT profile image86
      LauraGTposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oh PLEASE let them go hunting together!!!

    3. undermyhat profile image60
      undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this



      You mean they didn't have to push Obama off the course before the big, evil Republican meeting.  He has played more golf than any other President and more than either Eisenhower or GWB - both of whom were mocked for golfing.

  2. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago

    Shocking: Republicans are pulling for Republicans, while Democrats are pulling for Democrats!

  3. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Barack's got Bill out there stumping.
    Don't see W lifting a finger for old Mitt though. Do ya?

    1. Reality Bytes profile image89
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Billy sure is a slippery one though.


      In an interview with CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight," Clinton, a top Obama surrogate who is set to raise cash with the president next week, directly contradicted Democrats who have attacked Romney's business record, suggesting it does qualify him for president.

      "I think he had a good business career," Clinton told guest host Harvey Weinstein, a movie mogul who is one of Obama's top fundraisers. "There's no question that in terms of getting up and going to the office and, you know, basically performing the essential functions of the office, the man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."

      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/bil … d=16474493

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image80
        Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        He also said

        ""The Obama proposals and the Obama record will be far better for the American economy and most Americans than those that Gov. Romney has laid out," Clinton said. "And that's what the election ought to be about."

        1. Reality Bytes profile image89
          Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Deleted

          1. JSChams profile image61
            JSChamsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            He also said to Ted Kennedy before the 2008 election"Come on Ted. A couple years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee." Referring to Barack.
            No love lost there.

      2. undermyhat profile image60
        undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You also didn't see GHWB or Ronald Reagan campaigning for candidates, why?  Because, appropriately, they viewed the position of former President to be honored and sacred.  Washington set the standard that Democrats like Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and FDR all ignored, a standard embraced by more decent men like Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan and both GW and GHW Bush.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You're joking about Ronald Reagan, aren't you?
          I think the main reason he didn't campaign for later candidates had more to do with his mental state than anything else.
          W keeps a low profile because he doesn't want more shoes thrown at him.

          1. undermyhat profile image60
            undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Dead seriouis about Reagan and GWB was in Iraq when the shoe was thrown by a Bath Party friendly reporter.  Reagan did hold his office in high regard - why would you contend otherwise?

          2. American View profile image54
            American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No question Reagan kept a low profile due to poor health. But Bush keeps a low profile because that is who he is. Bush was never one for the spotlight which is why he was not a good public speaker. Here in Texas we hear about all the charitable events he does but there is almost never any pictures or news interviews with what he is involved in. Bush is actually very active.

            1. undermyhat profile image60
              undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              He has been very active in charities for wounded warriors - starting and running a mountain bike ride.

              1. American View profile image54
                American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                He has held many other functions than the recent 3 day endurance bike ride on behalf of the wounded warriors. He has also been involved in many other charitable events such as several medical research fund raisers, several to assist the poor in the state of Texas just to name a few.

                1. undermyhat profile image60
                  undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I think the bike ride is an annual event.  If you notice has exchewed the high dollar public speaking tour also.  Liberals mocked Reagan for making money as a speaker - something he did for years before his term as California governor - but refuse tohold Bill Clinton to the same standard --- oops ANY standard.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                    PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Bush has not "exchewed [sic] the high dollar public speaking tour"  unless you think $15 million dollars in speaking fees is not high dollar.  Google it and you will see.

                    I won't provide a link because you will undoubtedly find any source I provide to be questionable.

                    1. undermyhat profile image60
                      undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Good for him.  I am glad I am wrong.  exschew) hard to type with work gloves on - big glove fingers hit many keys at once. erxscfhndesw = eschew

        2. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Really?

          http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/09/us/19 … ation.html

          "In his first comment on the 1992 Republican primary campaign, former President Ronald Reagan tonight endorsed the re-election of his successor, George Bush."

          "The endorsement appears to be the opening salvo in what is expected to be stepped up activity on behalf of Mr. Bush in the 10 days leading up to the Feb. 18 primary.

          The President is scheduled to campaign in New Hampshire on Wednesday and Saturday, and officials with the campaign say negative campaign commercials have been prepared...."

          1. undermyhat profile image60
            undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Really? ?  I wasn't aware that it was 2000 and that Barrack Obama was Bill Clinton's Vice-President.  There is a difference.  Would a archived report from FoxNews be acceptable as a source?

            1. PrettyPanther profile image84
              PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, okay, a diffference.  roll

              And, yes, I have never been one to automatically reject a source.  I know others do that here, but I reject faulty reporting, regardless of the source.

              Do you have evidence that factual errors exist in this archived report?

              1. undermyhat profile image60
                undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The difference is that GHWB was Vice President to Reagan - that is a significant difference.  BHO was despised rival to Hillary of whom Bill Clinton said that he would have been serving drinks in old days.  That isn't enough difference?

                I do like it when partisan sources write things like - unnamed "campaign sources say..."  Clear indicator of a bogus line.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                  PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It was your contention that Republican former presidents are somehow displaying more reverence for the office of President by not campaigning for other candidates for the office.  I showed that Reagn did, and now you claim there is a "difference."

                  Well, I contend that both GHWB and GWB were damaged goods who were not invited to campaign due  their lack of popularity.  GHWB was a one-term president most known for breaking his "read my lips, no new taxes" promise, and we all know that GWB's level of unpopularity makes him a liability.

                  Clinton, on the other hand, is quite popular and definitely an asset.

                  1. undermyhat profile image60
                    undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this
      3. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'd take W over Cheney any day. I'm pretty sure ol' George has a heart.

        1. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Cheney has a brand new heart and it supports homosexual "marriage."  Isn't that better than lying, idiot, Jesus freak GWB?

          1. Two Minute Review profile image61
            Two Minute Reviewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Cheney's been on record supporting gay marriage for almost a decade. Say whatever else you want about the guy, but he was way ahead of the curve on this one. That's what happens when you have a gay daughter like our former VP...

            1. undermyhat profile image60
              undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I am aware of this.  he made several statements to that effect as VP candidate and VP.  Just evidence that he is not the fossilized man that liberals like to think he is.  Whether I agree or disagree, he is a human and there for both more flexible and less flexiable than others perceive him.  It is where the observer stands that matters.

    2. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 5 years ago

      He also said President Obama was wrong about not extending the tax cuts.
      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06 … -tax-cuts/

      Clinton learned during his first term how to compromise and work both sides of the aisle. President Obama has decided if Congress won't do what he wants, he'll over reach his powers to do it anyway. That in itself is a pretty scary concept.

    3. Two Minute Review profile image61
      Two Minute Reviewposted 5 years ago

      "Schilling" is either a former major league pitcher (and current failed businessman) or the artist who recorded the hit "Major Tom".

      "Shilling" is the act of speaking for someone else, and that is certainly what Cheney is doing here. I don't know how anyone with a rational brain can deduce that Romney would be anything like Bush. Other than their party affiliation, what do they have in common? One was a renown alcoholic, the other never touched the stuff. One is a Mormon, the other a Christian. I've seen no indication that Romney will be anything like Bush. Quite the opposite, I think his ability to work with the other side on key issues is remarkable. He doesn't want to talk about healthcare, or his entire career as a governor much at all, but he had to deal with a state legislature that was 85% Democrat. Does that count for nothing? I know what he's SAYING; he has to say a lot of that. Do you think Obama expected to realistically keep all his promises? Remember "I'll cut the deficit in half" and "close Guantanamo within a year" and "healthcare debates will be on "C-SPAN"? You have to make bold statements to get elected. Do I realistically think that Romney can get the unemployment rate to under 6%? Of COURSE not. Ask Democrats defending Obama these days, and they'll argue that there's little the president can even do by himself. But it's red meat, and politicians do it all the time...

    4. Nouveau Skeptic profile image72
      Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago

      Does anyone not already know about Cheney's role as kingmaker?

      1. undermyhat profile image60
        undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Do we have kings?  What role does he play?  Does he get that many more votes than any other America?

        1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image72
          Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "king·mak·er (k ng m k r). n. One who has the political power to influence the selection of a candidate for high public office."

          1. undermyhat profile image60
            undermyhatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Do you honestly believe that one need genuflect to Dick Cheney to be elected President as a Republican?

            1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image72
              Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Oh come one, he is influential in deciding who gets the position. This is very clear.

     
    working