- ‹ previous
- 1323 of 2798
- next ›
Should Dick Keep His Trap Shut?
Via ThinkProgress, I see that David Axelrod hit back today against Dick Cheney's recent criticisms of Obama's foreign policy. George Bush, by contrast, has said that Obama "deserves our silence," which prompted this from Axelrod: "He's behaved like a statesman. And as I’ve said before, here and elsewhere, I just don’t think the memo got passed down to the vice president."
I've been mulling this ever since Cheney started spouting off a few weeks ago, and I still haven't really made up my mind about it. Does an outgoing administration owe an incoming one silence? I don't think that's always been the case (historians please correct me here if I'm wrong), and I wonder if it really should be. Sure, it would be unseemly for ex-presidents and their staffs to engage in partisan feeding frenzies after they leave office, but is there really any reason why they should all take vows of silence? If Cheney thinks torture and warrantless wiretapping are vital to the nation's security, then maybe he should go ahead and say so. Why not?
Obviously this isn't the best time to bring this up, since after eight years of wrecking the country most of us really do think the Bushies ought to take a nice, long time out. But just in general, and assuming it's done in moderation, I'm not sure I see the harm in former administration mucky mucks continuing to express their (sincerely held!) opinions. Let a thousand flowers bloom and all that.
I don't think 'fairness' enters into politics.
One really good thing about our government is the peaceful transfer of power that happens via elections. This is a REALLY good thing, even when the new guys, for awhile, do things some of us really don't like.
So overall I think ex-politicans need to take a more or less supportive and backseat role. No vow of silence necessary, but toning things down is good.
Tripp
Cheney's not just bitching anout Obama.
He gave his former boss what for because he wouldn't pardon Scooter Libby. Who cares about all that lying to the FBI?
I think that former Presidents Clinton, Bush 41, and (especially) Carter all diminished themselves somewhat by mouthing off after they were out of office.
I don't think absolute
I don't think absolute silence is necessary, ex-Presidents often remain active in their respective political parties, and that almost necessarily involves a certain amount of trashing the new guy. Still, the higher-ups in the outgoing administration should give it a break for 6 months to a year, just to make it clear that they accept the new President and that he's in charge. One could imagine a popular outgoing President (say Clinton in 2000) dominating the media to stomp all over a new President who just barely won (say Bush in 2000) and making it very difficult for him to function.
Kinda wonder what Cheney think's he's doing though, everytime he opens his mouth he just gives the Obama admin an excuse to talk about how the now-hated Bush administration screwed everything up.
Well the Bush administration did screw things up.
So I don't know if the Obama administration is using this as an excuse. I see it more as pointing out the fact.
Agreed...
Obviously a judgment call, but as long as the ex-whoever's opposition wasn't *too* high profile, I'd say it's a good thing. Cheney can write books about how we're "Less Safe Now" for all I care - the new Administration's policies should be rational enough to withstand counterarguments, and it's not like the old Administration's arguments will be novel.
(By the way, where was B. Clinton when Bush was launching an unprovoked, aggressive war against an irrelevant country? The leading Democrats were absolutely cowardly).
((By the other way, will this comment be censored by your overactive spam blocker, as all my other comments have since I registered?))
I Don't Really Get It
I don't really think the previous administration owes the current one silence.
But reading the comments, I can see the viewpoint of Tripp and Simplicio.
Politics
I must say that I am increasingly disgusted with the Dems -- voting for a quarter trillion dollar give-away to the heirs of multi-millionaires; the WH doing an end-around Congress to make sure the fucking bankers can steal zillions (of taxpayer dollars), etc.
Cheney opening his mouth reminds me of how much worse it was / could be.
Preferable
Does an outgoing administration owe an incoming one silence?
I don't know about "owe" but given our lazy media's preference for gossip over policy, it is definitely better for the country if the last president and assorted higher-ups shut their yaps for a while.
Constructive Criticism
Getting advice and counsel from the previous administration would be a valuable asset to any new president, and there are scores of examples of where such assistance has been provided.
Generally it's given directly to the new administration, not via media outlets like FOX. And intent is very important here. Is the aim of the person providing the advice really to present alternate views and constructive criticism, or is it to poke the tiger and fan the flames of discontent in general?
With Cheney, many believe that he's so consistently wrong and out of touch, as demonstrated by the success (or lack thereof) of programs and dogmas he supported, that he can't possibly have good intentions at heart and therefore he should shut his pie hole.
Perhaps that's simply transference on my part.
Kevin
http://red-gecko.blogspot.com
let him yak
Is the aim of the person providing the advice really to present alternate views and constructive criticism, or is it to poke the tiger and fan the flames of discontent in general?
I don't think that's what this is. Well, it's obviously not the former, but I don't think it's the latter, either. This is Cheney's lame attempt to impose a different scoring method on the last 8 years. Rather than tallying up things like the costs of Afghanistan & Iraq (gajillions of dollars & thousands of American lives -- tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Afghani & Iraqi lives) and considering them against what they've accomplished (zero bin Ladens, zero al-Zawahiris, zero functioning Afghanistans, zero WMDs, & 1 barely functioning Iraq with an ethnically cleansed capitol), he's doing a "Hey, quick -- look over there! No attacks since 9/11!" Which, of course, happened on his watch in the first place. It's transparent, it's tasteless, and his Republican colleagues are begging him to stop. By all means, hand the man a microphone.
Let Cheney talk, I don't
Let Cheney talk, I don't think one administration owes the following one anything, and I think that Clinton and Carter's behavior has been just fine. Sometimes I wish they'd speak out more.
Cheney is a dipshit and an asshole and a liar -- he's not on TV enough.
Usually the former Prez and Vice Prez
Usually the former Prez and Vice Prez keep quiet not because they owe it to the new administration, but because they want to preserve a statesman aura that not only flatters them but helps sell books and speeches. Cheney is gabbing because he has nothing to lose. His popularity is in the dirt with the general population. His only constituency are the far-right stalwarts who will only think higher of him if he spouts off his partisan spiel.
Past History
Ike retired to his Gettysburg farm, and mostly kept quiet (at least in the sense of not making speeches against JFK and LBJ). LBJ talked only to Doris Kearns Goodwin, Nixon was disgraced, Ford was quiet, Carter has been vocal, particularly in the last few years, Reagan was ill, George H.W. was earning money and being an aristocrat, Clinton is a special case, since I think most of his criticisms of GW were in support of Hillary.
IMO, the ex-President should be relatively restrained, because we like our exes to come together for funerals and other civic occasions. We never get VP's together, so Cheney can shoot his mouth if he wants, and we can pay as little attention to him as he deserves.
Ike retired to his
Ike retired to his Gettysburg farm, and mostly kept quiet (at least in the sense of not making speeches against JFK and LBJ). LBJ talked only to Doris Kearns Goodwin, Nixon was disgraced, Ford was quiet, Carter has been vocal, particularly in the last few years, Reagan was ill, George H.W. was earning money and being an aristocrat, Clinton is a special case, since I think most of his criticisms of GW were in support of Hillary.
This would be better as a rap, please redo and resubmit for full credit.
What Dick should do, what Dick does uncorrelated.
Any discussion on what Dick should do is, of course, purely academic.
But it's Cheney
It could be that Cheney's a madman and an ideologue, which he is, in which case looking for a context in history or drawing lessons about what former leaders should do is largely irrelevant. It could also be that he's playing a strategic role. His shrieking helps rally the base, along with the other right-wing paranoia Blow and bloggers are noting, while allowing Bush to seem statesmanlike. The latter alone is a feat.
Personally, I'd much prefer
Personally, I'd much prefer he just died of shame or something.
It Depends
I think that competent administrations owe the next administration silence. I think that incompetent administrations owe the next administration criticism. I'm sure that Cheney is receiving Thank You notes from Obama.
Close your tags, people.
there you go.
You're welcomed.
Thank You Arachnae
</i>
Policy disagreements
Cheney can talk all he wants. I just wish someone would have the guts to ask him if he believes it was his policies of torture and warrantless wiretapping that made us so much safer.
Let him go on Rachel Maddow's show and discuss it with her.
Axelrod Doesn't Think So
The only reason someone of his position would want to bring this up now is to keep Cheney in the news. Obviously, the Obama people think they are doing better when they have a boogyman to take the heat off.
Advertising Jingles
"Let a thousand flowers bloom and all that."
Yes, and Arbeit macht frei and all that.
fair-weather opinion
This is another one of your fair-weather opinions Kevin. Picking away at the practice of ex-presidential silence perfectly suits the aims of the current Democratic president. Since you have no policy disagreement, you allow your partisanship to decide for you. However, I am certain that you would feel differently about this issue if somehow the roles were reversed, and a jabbering ex-vice-president was harming the Democratic party.
Sorry, Jon Karak
In addition to being wrong about everything else, you're wrong that Cheney's criticism is harming the Democratic Party.
Theodore Roosevelt
certainly didn't defer to William Howard Taft. He formed the Bull Moose Party, split the Republicans, and directly caused the election of Woodrow Wilson.
Truman also kept quiet. he
Truman also kept quiet. he made some comment when my cousin visited him as a boy about how he didn't care for ex-presidents criticizing him (guess he meant Hoover) so wasn't going to speak against any of his successors.
so will agree with Bill Harshaw that most ex-presidents have generally been muted in their comments, so will actually respect Bush's silence now.
Personally, I'd much prefer he just died of shame or something.
Cheney is such a black-hearted, amoral, self-absorbed SOB, he has no concept of what shame is. Or guilt. To quote from another thread on this site: Being a rich SOB means never having to say you're sorry.
Bush's Silence
"George Bush, by contrast, has said that Obama "deserves our silence,""
Any criticism by Bush will afford Obama an opportunity to remind people who got us into this incredible set of messes.
Historic precedence
Evan Meacham's bio of Andrew Jackson shows John Quincy Adams setting the precedent for the out-of-office president bitter over his successor - privately wounded, publicly stoic. This may be attributable to good manners but also common sense. Adams was eventually able to return to elected public life. Few signs that is one of Cheney's considerations.
Not even legal
I won't even refer to Bush or Cheney as President and Vice President. They stole both elections.
http://www.witnesstoacrime.com/dustjacket.pdf