Liz “BabyDick” Cheney and DNC: Ideological Soulmates?

A number of people have taken the DNC to task for its Rovian attack on RNC Chair Michael Steele for comments suggesting we might fail in Afghanistan (Glenn Greenwald, Greg Sargent, Adam Serwer). The only thing I would add to their comments is to note that not only a majority of the Democratic caucus in the House–as Glenn points out–but also two-thirds of Democrats in polls are ready to end the Afghan war, most of them strongly. Is the institutional Democratic Party trying to score political points on an issue that a solid majority of their party opposes? Really, we’ve gotten that stupid?!?

But what really demonstrates the stupidity of the move is how it puts us in ideological and political partnership with Liz “BabyDick” Cheney–who has called for Steele’s firing over his comments.

“RNC Chairman Michael Steele’s comments about the war in Afghanistan were deeply disappointing and wrong,” Cheney’s statement read. “The chairman of the Republican party must be unwavering in his support for American victory in the war on terror — a victory that cannot be accomplished if we do not prevail in Afghanistan. I endorse fully Bill Kristol’s letter to Chairman Steele. It is time for Chairman Steele to step down.”

Where BabyDick calls Steele’s comments “wrong” DNC calls them “unconscionable.” Where BabyDick demands that the RNC Chair “must be unwavering in support” for the Afghan war, DNC warns that Steele’s “words have consequences.”

Tim Kaine? A little unsolicited advice. BabyDick has spent a year and a half trying to undermine President Obama at every turn. She has done so using authoritarian dictates about what should and shouldn’t be done. It’s bad enough the party adopted a strategy pioneered by Karl Rove. But the day we’re moving in concert with Baby Dick and her Daddy? That’s a pretty good sign that we’ve made a mistake.

image_print
  1. Frank33 says:

    Meet the new neo-con, same as the old neo-con. I called Brad Woodhouse a “ratfucker” yesterday. But he is worse, as well as being a liar. “we went to Afghansistan because they attacked us…” No Chimpie had the this war already planned, however badly it was planned. The statement by Woodhouse is a DISGRACE. Woodhouse and Obama want perpetual war.

    Woodhouse has helped take the 2008 political victory that would end these wars, into a victory for the warmongers. He has the list of activists and volunteers and he has made damn sure they will not be used except to help Republicans. Of course I have been orphaned from the D’s.

    Playing defense has historically been difficult for the party in power, but Woodhouse has at his disposal an unprecedented campaign infrastructure brought by President Barack Obama to Washington. It includes a massive e-mail list of Democratic activists and thousands of volunteers around the country that were employed in unprecedented ways in the 2008 presidential campaign.

    • fatster says:

      Here’s a link for people, such as me, who aren’t as familiar with Brad Woodhouse as we should be. It’s an “official” DNC profile, and he does make a big point in it about having the huge data files (e-mail lists), at his fingertips. Thanks.

      • Frank33 says:

        I was so perturbed by this Party apparatchik that I forgot to put in the link. The statement by Woodhouse says “More War!” He also says let us sabotage the elections so we can “triangulate” with the corporations.

        “But because President Obama put his grassroots apparatus here, the DNC is doing similar work in terms of trying to help the president try to pass his agenda. The DNC is not just about party operations or trying to win elections.”

        Obviously if Obama had an agenda, that might be positive strategy. But I have no doubt that Woodhouse is not concerned about winning elections or the party. No, he wants to serve his offshore multinational corporate puppetmasters.

  2. Becca says:

    The problem is the DNC (and others) have jumped on Steele for voicing opposition about the Afghanistan war — when what they should have done was shine a bright spotlight on the outright lies Steele told.

    All wars are ultimately a ‘war of choice’ — but the choice that took us to Afghanistan was a response to 9/11 and the place perceived to be the main home base of Al-Qaeda, aided and abetted by the Taliban ruled government there. Here, Steele lied by implication.

    The President who took us there was not Obama, but Bush the Lesser. Here, Steele just lied about the facts.

    The fact we’re still there is because Bush and his neocons never bothered to finish the war they started, and in fact never had any plan to do so, ever. In this case, Steele lied about… well, everything.

    To argue the problem is Steele has gone squishy on war… well, that’s what his GOP friends ought to be doing and we have no reason to help them.

    • spanishinquisition says:

      “The fact we’re still there is because Bush and his neocons never bothered to finish the war they started, and in fact never had any plan to do so, ever. In this case, Steele lied about… well, everything.”

      Obama has no plans on finishing the war and Obama has in fact given direct proof of this irrespective of what he has said about timetables and whatnot. The proof is Obama’s proposal for Gitmo North. The whole idea of having a place for indefinite detentions is the necessity for their to be a war to legally justify the claimed war powers allowing indefinite detention. If Obama truly planned on ending the war, all this would be about was closing Gitmo rather than having a second step of finding a replacement Gitmo. As long as we are errecting permanent structures to house indefinite detainees, that is the politicians signally they have no intent on ending the war irrespective of what they say.

  3. bobschacht says:

    I think the problem here is that Obama is the first Democratic president after Bill Clinton– the most successful Democratic president, by some measures (i.e., he got elected to two terms, brought the only war he fought to a successful conclusion, and finished with a budgetary surplus), since FDR. So as an initial strategy, Obama sought to continue the Clinton legacy by appointing his well-qualified wife to DOS, and adopting DLC policies at the DNC (and much else, as well, such as adopting Rubinesque economic policies.)

    Remember, too, that some of the more odious policies of Bush the Lesser were begun, on a much smaller scale, by Clinton. It will take at least another year for Obama to find his own sea legs. He will be helped, in this regard, if he can avoid Clinton’s 1994 losses. But if he loses the House or Senate, he will continue to cling tightly to the Clinton apron strings.

    Bob in AZ

    • tanbark says:

      “but if he loses the House or Senate he will continue to cling tightly to the Clinton apron strings.”

      If, in 2011, his approval numbers get down into the 30’s, he won’t be clinging to the Clinton apron strings; I think the strings may be tied around his neck for use as a garrotte, if Hillary bails out of State to run against him.

    • mattcarmody says:

      Clinton hid behind NATO to commit his war crimes in the former Yugoslavia such as the use of depleted uranium and his commanders in that theater allowed the Kosovo Liberation Army to import huge quantities of heroin into western Europe in collaboration with their Islamic brethren in Afghanistan.

      As far as I can tell there isn’t much difference between the DLC and the DNC.

    • mui1 says:

      Nah, too afraid of lawsuits, I think. They’re all be dragged into the sewers with Dad-dy. Probably even Obama.

  4. dakine01 says:

    It’s bad enough the party adopted a strategy pioneered by Karl Rove. But the day we’re moving in concert with Baby Dick and her Daddy? That’s a pretty good sign that we’ve made a mistake.

    And that’s a big a** ding ef’fing ding!

  5. tanbark says:

    We need to make a distinction…the one that Liz didn’t make:

    When Steele said that Obama had “engaged” us in Afghanistan, it was, of course, an obscene lie; worthy of the most outraged scorn.

    But when Steele was talking about hisory’s lesson, about not invading Afghanistan, and more broadly, not engaging in a land war in Asia, then, for some as yet unexplained reason, he was speaking the truth that runs counter to the innate greed and testosterone of the American power-elite. And that’s why Liz Cheyney called for his resignation.

    Bush’s wars, which of course, are now Obama’s wars, are the cancer on us which the republicans cannot bear to see removed. Evidently, Barack Obama and the democrats in power don’t want to remove them, either.

    The wars are the Rock of Gibraltar for the American right. If they fall, then the entire conservative construct will be at risk. Anything might happen.

    I don’t think that they’ll be ended voluntarily by any American president. I think anyone elected will share enough of the republican sentiment about them as the Alpine redoubts for the corporate ethic, to keep them going, even if it means his or her political demise.

  6. PJEvans says:

    Is the institutional Democratic Party trying to score political points on an issue that a solid majority of their party opposes?

    Why not? They’ve been doing just exactly that for the last year.
    Which is why I’m returning with prejudice their latest request for money. (‘Dear idiots’ is how my note starts.)

  7. Palli says:

    I don’t think that they’ll be ended voluntarily by any American president.

    Possibly because that American president would not live though a term. The military industrial complex has a firm grip on the continuing mythology of the glory of war. In reality, only the sick survive war and then they have to forget to live. Plus we got all those American mercenaries- they would come home to fight for the corporations- hell with overseas operations when you can kill a few dissidents and get home to kiss the kids goodnight.
    Another barrier to presidents ending wars is unemployment- what would the statistic look like if those young men and women came home, particularly now?

    • dakine01 says:

      Don’t forget, that there are large numbers of National Guardsmen and Women and Reservists that are over there.

      Folks who could be back here helping instead to clean-up from both natural and man-made disasters.

      Or at least back in their jobs they had to leave when called to active duty.

      • Palli says:

        Yes, I didn’t mean to seem to overlook the National Guard. They had to fight this foreign war instead of Katrina, forest fires, tornados and floods we have had in last nine years the last and I hope the jobs they had to leave will be waiting for them but in this economy- perhaps not. Are there statistics about job retention for returning vets? I know there is a law but in America today labor laws are for the breaking.

      • bobschacht says:

        Amen to that! One of the many travesties of these wars of choice is that they have perverted and subverted the proper function of the National Guard and Reservists, even to pinning them with stop loss orders. National Guard units, especially any of those from Gulf Coast states, should be top priority for rotation back home.

        Bob in AZ

    • carolbeth says:

      Maybe some higher numbers, but they’d simply be replacing those who are no longer receiving benefits (the new homeless?). How many people fell off the rolls this month due to Congress’ unwillingness to prevent societal collapse?

      Another question (realized by somebody above)is the numbers of “broken” people. The military doesn’t fully take care of them, so those who can’t work will be “fostered” by families or live on the streets, too.

      War on the cheap -at least for the Hawks- You broke it, you throw it away.

      • Palli says:

        You are right- what a croc the unemployment stats; I keep forgetting about that institutional lie even though I’m a part of the unclaimed -given up crowd.
        OT but this brings up the Social Security issue: no retirement before 70- Who are they kidding? A 67 year-old still working the mines! Not to mention, who has job security after 55 except maybe politicians and corporate CEOs? Fired at 60 because management can get a kid for less to do your job and then 10 years before you qualify for SS. How blatant can the ruling class get!

  8. playfyte says:

    These people are so rabid with their mean spirited slant that they even attack each other. It seems that I have heard very little in the way of ideas and joining the fight to help solve problems over the last year and a great deal of finger pointing and critical rhetoric condeming anything and everything within reach. I am a conservative also but first I am an american. At some point I expect the GOP to sit down and roll up their sleeves and add something positive to the process. It is begining to be very obvious that what they are doing is simply contaminating the process with this tactic of getting concessions from the DEMs and then when it comes time to vote yea or nay they consistently vote no to almost everything, even when they get all the concessions they ask for. Meanwhile we the citizens are looking at all this and seeing that there is nothing but a food fight in our government. We expect more than finger pointing, political maneuvering and speeches criticizing the other side. You reep what you sow. If or when the time comes that the GOP gains the majority then we can expect that the DEMs will use the same tactics and again, we will get the same gridlock and poor productivity from the government that we have had for the last twenty years. Meanwhile the rest of the world is busy solving their problems, improving what they can in their countries and leaving us in the dust. It is a shame too. We have so much potential to achieve so much if there was some real bipartisanship. It seems that we the people can handle most of our problems if the government would get in step with us instead of insisting that they and only they have the answers to everything that is wrong. Both sides are guilty of this.

  9. Margaret says:

    I don’t think it’s about the war so much as it is about Democratic points vs Republican points. These people see things in those terms to the exclusion of everything else. BOTH parties have shown that suffering and death are nothing to them if it gets them points to use against their opposite.

  10. Neil says:

    The problem with fighting al Quada with the military is that prevailing military doctrine calls for overwhelming force and a recognition that military alone will not win these wars, they’ll simply provide securiy while nation building, for decades on end, “wins” it.

    Perhaps the Catfood commission could convene all of our best military minds to develop a new doctrine for combating terrorist enemies that doesn’t cost us our future anyway.

    After progressives got over the shock and awe of being called terrorist sympathizers, we mocked the idiotic jingoism rhetoric being served up by the Bush administration. Now the DNC is employing it. God help us.

  11. workingclass says:

    Obama, the DNC and the evil spawn of five deferments Dick are all war mongers. They all tell the same tired lies about the reasons for war in Bananastan. None of this is news.

    Whats new is the Chair of the RNC saying the war is a mistake. He is right of course but unfortunately he has no clout.

  12. ShotoJamf says:

    Things are getting so surreal these days that it’s almost beyond belief. If I wasn’t absolutely certain of the quality of reporting here at FDL, I’d think I was hallucinating. The problem is that I know I’m not.

    Another bullseye, EW.

  13. ratfood says:

    The fact we’re still there is because Bush and his neocons never bothered to finish the war they started, and in fact never had any plan to do so, ever.

    I disagree. The diversion of resources to Iraq might have accelerated the erosion of our effort in Afghanistan but it would have turned into a quagmire regardless.

    We were undoubtedly justified in whacking the Taliban for their support of AQ but we should have immediately declared victory and come home. Afghanistan is essentially ungovernable and the longer foreign occupiers are present the more the locals will resent them. Steele might have revised the history but he’s correct that there will be no successful outcome for the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan.

    • ShotoJamf says:

      We were undoubtedly justified in whacking the Taliban for their support of AQ but we should have immediately declared victory and come home. Afghanistan is essentially ungovernable and the longer foreign occupiers are present the more the locals will resent them. Steele might have revised the history but he’s correct that there will be no successful outcome for the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan.

      Yup on all counts.

      • ratfood says:

        Seems almost comical that the first time Steele’s job has been placed in serious jeopardy resulted from his having uttered a statement which was partly true.

        Tim Kaine never tells the truth, so his job is probably safe.

  14. Sixth Estate says:

    Obama is not stupid. The war industry will be throwing a lot of money Obama’s way after he leaves office. He just has to make sure to give them everything they want while he’s in office. Just look at how the financial industry thanked Bill Clinton for repealing Glass–Steagall and keeping the derivatives marked unregulated (despite the efforts of Brooksley Born):

    The New York investment giant Goldman Sachs paid [Bill Clinton] $650,000 for four speeches in recent years. Its employees and PAC have given [Hillary Clinton] $270,000 since 2000 — putting it second on the list of her most generous political patrons.

    The banking firm Citigroup, whose employees and PAC have been Hillary Clinton’s top source of campaign donations, with more than $320,000, paid her husband $250,000 for a speech in France in 2004.

    Obama is set to become a very wealthy man. Democratic politicians who want to share in the wealth will get behind his war agenda.

  15. proleft says:

    The DNC will never learn that continuing the Rethugs’ failed policies such as this totally useless war will only bite them in the back.

  16. grandmashelia1 says:

    Yes, the DNC now spits on the AntiWar part of its base. But we already figured out they never had any intention of ending the monstrous evil of these illegal wars of occupation, murder, & pillage, and have been lying all along about that, as they rubber stamp hundreds of billions to fund them. And then determine to pay for them by looting Social Security, paid for & owned by taxpayers.

    How is it that the teabaggers are able to mount idiotic protests everywhere, but no effective mass anti-war or “Hands off Social Security” protests appear? Where are the people who rose to elect Obama, believing that hopey changey thing?

    Crickets chirping…

  17. sonofloud says:

    I wonder how many democrats agree with Obama’s assassination orders of a US citizen without trial?

  18. iremember54 says:

    Like Father like er Son, the press has made both of them into what they are.

    Why would anyone even care what Daddy or er Son has to say.

  19. cregan says:

    This is meant tongue in cheek, but when did you think politicians didn’t engage in politics?

    More to the real point; when did you think Democratic elected officials ceased to be politicians? Further, when did you think columnists, pollsters, consultants, etc. existed for any reason other than to promote whatever politics their favorite politician was promoting??