The Big Dick Flips Off America

Cheney Flipping Off the American PeopleThere’s no doubt the Bush administration has an awfully high opinion of itself. The president once famously said that he couldn’t think of a mistake he’d made in office. But The Big DickTM? He has mondo-hubris.

Listen to this exchange:

Reporter: “Two-thirds of Americans say it’s not worth fighting (the War of Error), and they’re looking at the value gain versus the cost in American lives, certainly, and Iraqi lives.”

Cheney: “So?”

Reporter: “So - you don’t care what the American people think?”

Cheney: “No, I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls. Think about what would have happened if Abraham Lincoln had paid attention to polls, if they had had polls during the Civil War. He never would have succeeded if he hadn’t had a clear objective, a vision for where he wanted to go, and he was willing to withstand the slings and arrows of the political wars in order to get there.”

Um, Dick? I’ve studied Abraham Lincoln and let me tell you, you’re no Abraham Lincoln. I’m suspicious that you’re not even human.

Using your logic, as long as a person “has a clear objective, a vision for where he wants to go” he can do as he damn well pleases. He can ignore advice. He can show contempt for his nation and the laws that govern it. He can play the iceberg to the Titanic. Heck, he can even just toddle off on his buddy’s boat for a day of fishing as people die in the place he just left behind.

Dick, the model for that sort of behavior isn’t Lincoln, it’s Saddam Hussein. You know, that guy you went over to kick out? The one who was a baaad, baaad man who needed to be dealt with? The one who so threatened you? Surely you remember him. He was the one with the WMD that only appears after you sprinkle lemon juice on them.

Dick, I’m going to engage in some of your logic. Here’s my “clear objective and vision”: you are a dangerously megalomaniacal imbecile. You are also a man who deserves to be tossed into the trash bin of loony politicians who became so full of themselves they forgot to adhere to the “polls” that really count - the elections - the elections that put their cholesterol filled, arrogance-fattened asses in office.

I’m sad to say that I respect Saddam Hussein more than you and your idiot savant friend, George DicklessTM. At least Saddam never pretended to be anything other than what he was - a bragging despotic tyrant.

More’s the pity I can’t say the same thing for you.

Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

9 Responses to “The Big Dick Flips Off America”

  1. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    See, Here’s the thing: in a direct democracy, the people directly make all decisions. What we’ve got is a republic with both democratic and non democratic institutions. In a republic, the people indirectly elect a president and, in the present USA, directly elect their congressional representatives to govern for them, to make decisions according to their own best lights…just as in the case of Abraham Lincoln regarding the civil war.

    Of course, ignoring advice is always going to happen in every presidency because a president will be receiving, ideally, advice from different people giving different advice. It is quite impossible to take everyone’s advice so you take the advice that seems best to you and implement it. It makes no sense to criticize a president, indeed anyone at the head of any institution, for ignoring advice per se. You can criticize him for not taking certain advice that you think would have been better than the course he did take but to criticize Bush for ignoring advice is unrealistic.

  2. christopher Radulich Says:

    Lincoln did not take us to war. In fact he very specifically said he was not going to free the slaves. The south took us to war and Lincoln freed the slaves as a propaganda move to shore up support for the war.

    To answer So to the polls is absurd. Not that they have to follow the polls( though isn’t that the point conservatives make about judges not following the will of the people) but some acknowledgment of the will of the people should be expected.

  3. Craig R. Harmon Says:


    That Lincoln did not take the nation to war to free the slaves is absolutely correct but blockades on ships bound for the south and all out war were hardly the only available responses to southern secession and the pointless and futile firing on Ft. Sumter. It seems so counter historical to say that Lincoln didn’t lead us to war. He certainly did. Not to free the slaves, of course, but to repair the union.

    I agree with you 100% that to answer, “So,” to the polls is certainly absurd, politically but he’s not looking to run for public office after January 2009 so he can afford to be blunt. He ought, however, to take some time to consider how such bluntness might effect the races for Republicans who ARE looking forward, hopefully, to public office after January 2009. Such casual dismissal by the Republican Vice-President of the United States could easily be seen as another reason to abandon the Republicans. But then, neither Bush nor Cheney are known for their nuanced argument, much to the detriment of the public discourse in this country over the last six plus years.

    But, on the other hand, he’s also correct. We don’t elect people to lead by polls. We elect them to do what they think is right. We do so in recognition that the people are not in the best position to know what is right in many situations because the government has far greater access to information than the public, precisely because there is so much information that cannot be made public.

    But, on the third hand, precisely because the public cannot know many of the things that the government knows, those who govern must be able to lead in the sense of building public support for its policies; something this administration has been woefully poor at.

  4. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    But I was not thinking so much of the “leading us to war” aspect of Lincoln as his continued conduct of the war in the face of strong and vocal opposition within the North as the war wore on. It is arguable that making the civil war about slavery was the only way to keep sufficient support for the war to continue to conduct the war to its conclusion.

  5. Christopher Radulich Says:

    It is arguable that making the civil war about slavery was the only way to keep sufficient support for the war to continue to conduct the war to its conclusion.

    Which is the point. He had bad polls and did something to attempt to turn them around. He did not ignore the polls.

    Johnson also continued his war when the public turned against him. His response was not to run again.

  6. Craig R. Harmon Says:


    Okay. I get that. Bush has made a major change against strong opposition that has, slowly, brought about changes in public opinion: the surge of troops coinciding with a, in some ways, radically different execution by putting Gen. Petraeus in charge of what is his own co-authored anti-insurgency plan. But what was Bush to do. He had already played the “Iraq war as liberation of an oppressed people” card before ever invading. Having done so, that Lincolnesque change was lost”. What might he have done in reaction to tanking support in the polls? But my point was that Lincoln did not just roll over and play dead because the war was unpopular. He battled on, supporting his own vision in spite of tremendous pressure to end it and concede the South’s right of sucession. He didn’t. Now I’m not saying that Bush = Lincoln. That would be silly. I’m saying that neither Bush nor Lincoln were swayed into abandoning a war that they led the country into by tanking popularity and support even within his own region.

    Johnson’s decision was mere concession to reality. No power on earth could have re-elected Johnson. But, of course, Bush was in fact re-elected in 2004. I’m arguing that the surge was Bush’s equivalent of Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation, a rhetorical device that was no longer available to Bush since he had long ago exploited it and it had come into derision. Rather than a rhetorical change, Bush chose a tactical change. It has not been as successful yet as Lincoln’s change but it has been successful enough to stave off Congress’s repeated attempts to end the war. And the polls do show some movement in the population’s opinions away from ever deepening unpopularity to increasing ambivalence as people recognize that things have improved in Iraq.

  7. Christopher Radulich Says:

    I’m not saying that Bush & co should change because of the polls. The vietnam protests were a great deal more emotional and bigger than anything against Iraq. Assuming that Bush & co truely belief their own propaganda than they will stay.

    You just don’t winning any points for your side by telling your constituancy that you have a high disdain for their opinion.

  8. libhomo Says:

    Referring to Cheney as “Big Dick” is really ironic. Men who exhibit his kind of behavior usually are overcompensating for having unusually small penises.

  9. Omnipotent Poobah Says:

    True, but you have to admit, he’s a pretty big dick too.

Leave a Reply