Robert S. Becker
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Sunday 5 August 2012
“All Cheney did was affirm the incontrovertible national consensus: Sarah Palin is, was, and will always be demonstrably unqualified to be president.”

Cheney Gets Palinized in Tea Party Food Fight

Article image

Mercifully brief, this week’s rousing Cheney-Palin-McCain food fight delivers more brash hijinks to liberals and Democrats than NBC’s controversial, jingoist Olympic coverage. Really, Dark Vader takes on the Tundra Hussy with pinwheel-loaded McCain pulling up the rear? Summertime, and the punditry’s easy. No doubt, after this merry episode in GOP dissension, we face months of Romney drudgery, slogging through a brittle convention, all the while deflecting Bain/tax/culture scandals until November. 

Beyond the pleasure of the inexhaustible Palin farce, why shouldn’t subtle ironists delight when the great demonic V.P. declares unfit, only four years later, a rogue V.P. pick fully ensconced on the trash heap? Ah, the grudge-filled Cheney gives Romney unsolicited V.P. advice while excoriating his arch-rival McCain.  Did Cheney forget, by impugning the perennial victim – Palin the growling pit bull – he’d foment not just McCain gurgling but fusillades of Tea Party frenzy against “the GOP establishment”? 

All Cheney did was affirm the incontrovertible national consensus: Sarah Palin is, was, and will always be demonstrably unqualified to be president. Or V.P. Or dogcatcher. How valuable: hindsight from the Dubya hindquarter now settles on the great ‘08 “mistake.” You think? Palin’s 17% “approval” last year barely topped BP’s showing (16% for nature’s nemesis-in-chief). But who cares when the rightwing fur flies? Mid-summer, news doldrums, and Mitt Romney veers between pathetic, deranged, and deadly dull, punctuated only by sparkling gaffes.   

Lame Leading the Lame 

And Sarah's ever defensive, poor-me victim’s response was to blame (presumably senile) Cheney getting suckered (at this last date?) by a false, four-year old  “lamestream press” narrative. What lames leading what lamestream? Would that detail a boob who knew nothing beyond Alaska, refused to learn, yet trusted her ordained, gut-driven mama grizzly fury? So, her indefatigable sugar daddy McCain again rushes in, the tragic dupe forever stuck defending Palin’s folly. Rather than denying "the mistake," McCain reverts illogically to his irrelevant fray with Cheney over torture.   

Nominally, Cheney’s zinger was simple a Romney warning – for Palin’s no factor, even a GOP negative in most battleground states. Plus, the renegade hussy malls the “GOP establishment” with withering disdain. The party of Cheney, dreaming of rightwing hegemony (White House, Pentagon, Supreme Court and House, maybe the Senate), dreads any wider division in the Rethug ranks. Only with strings and wire now do casino billionaires, Wall Street banksters, energy barons, libertarians, evangelicals, secessionists, militant nutcases, abortion-haters, the Romney shape-shifter and Romney skeptics unite. 

And any such food fights, as they impact close Senate races, if not the presidency, make them about something. Woodrow Wilson once quipped, “Some men grow in office, and others merely swell.”  Today’s midgets, like McCain and Cheney, shrivel into parodies of what decent politicians once were. Cheney hardly need advise Romney on caution. Excepting his arrogant blunders, the Mitt clone replicates Bush-Cheney’s imperatives, reactionary policy and advisers.   

Doubling Down, Cheap Shots    

Pathetically, every time McCain must defend Palin simply for being herself, gone is all his maverick roguery, replaced by defiance of rationality and prudent election judgment, for defending the weak Tea Party Queen costs more than it gains nationally. It’s not as if the barracuda’s humiliating fiasco of a “narrative” taught her anything: she’s dying to see Romney “go rogue” and pick the madcap, unstable Rep. Allen West (FL) type for V.P., then re-ignite wholly futile smears tying Obama to Rev. Wright, Marxists and radicals.  OMG. Yes, the Palin victory package remains impugning Obama as an anti-American, African-based, subversive, socialistic shill.  What, no birther rerun?  Call the Donald.    

Writing about Sarah Palin splits my readers, my friends, and frivolous critics, just as she divides her state, the country and the McCain legacy. Before Palin’s legs, hips, and breasts dazzled McCain, he had enough credibility as war-hero, “maverick senator” and campaign reformer to win party nomination. Then along came the harpy and McCain will go to his grave (and beyond) defending not just this fiasco (per his own apologetic campaign manager) but any and all subsequent, loudmouth misbehavior she manufactures on cue.    

Look, Sarah, you win the booby prize, our most polarizing, most disliked, most distrusted American politician. If FOX news didn’t sustain your clownish trash-talk, the “lamestream media” would long ago have cast out your “narrative” as fish-wrap news. Your incredible disapproval numbers alone, even in badly suckered Alaska, disqualify you as political pundit – for you know nothing you didn't fail to learn years ago. Perhaps you function as performance artist competing for the imposter hall of fame by riding the veneer of celebrity well past the pull date, even beyond the force of ridicule.     

Not Just Hated by Dems?    

What remains for this phony maverick is the ultimate in fabricated innocence. It’s not just liberals, or Cheney, or McCain’s staff who happily eviscerate Palin. This grizzly must defend her lair against the hurtful, evil torrent of “many, many comments from those within the GOP establishment.” It’s both comic and pathetic that she seems unaware of the inevitable, evolutionary termination from the unholy cross of lipsticked pit bull with mama grizzly. Narcissism, let alone mixed metaphors, reigns supreme over such madness, as fellow crazy Liz Cheney rushes in to her defense by defying her father, however for her still “the best VP ever.”    

Hey, Lizzie, guess what percentage of fellow citizens approved your “best ever” V.P. as he slunk from office: a staggeringly low 13 percent. By 2011, that inched up to 18%, as memories fade, comparable to Palin and BP. If there are more visibly divisive, less compassionate dangers to America plodding (and plotting) mischief than Palin and Cheney (Dick and Liz), they remain beyond my purview. That these two rightwing thugs are openly scuffling, batting whether our most disgraced, failed vice president merits attention when dumping on our most disgraced, half-time, ex-governor – well, perfect for August politics.    

That Palin’s credibility since McCain defines a rock-bottom national reputation, that she won’t be a telling factor in the Obama-Romney fisticuffs – more good news. Let her muck about in backwater Tea Party Texas primaries. Go for it, bring it on: never retreat, just reload your powder-dry, obsolete musket and fire at will. Pop goes that weasel.



Get Email Alerts from NationofChange

Top Stories

23 comments on "Cheney Gets Palinized in Tea Party Food Fight"

Robert S. Becker

August 05, 2012 3:15pm

"perhaps in time America might begin to just say "No" to flimflam, snake oil and "free cookies"."

This trollish reading represents one of the most fanciful, purposively wrong misreadings of my essays in years. Right, I am just quaking in my boots because Cheney dumped on Palin, then got stupidely defended by the senile Sugar Daddy. There is about as much dread to the left in this food fight as Banh's wimpy, perverted logic.

You obviously don't know when your heroine is being kidded, ridiculed, derided and proved irrelevant to what the adults do in America. If she were not the very vehicle of cosmic flimflam and snake oil (right, death panels and Obama is unAmerican), your foolish talk would be more suitable for someone being taken off to an institution -- and not of higher learning.

harlie

August 06, 2012 5:50am

Mr. Becker,

You have obviously missed a couple essential points in the 'Comments' below.

An essay, after it is let loose on the public, finds its meaning in how a reader understands it. If what we hear your essay say is not what you meant to convey then it is up to you to rewrite it so that it will be understood correctly. Duh.

National of Change is not an elitist journal. No requirements for 'higher learning' before a person responds.

Your rebuttals remind me of those of St. Jerome--destroy and ridicule the person and not his ideas. This approach is barbaric.

pkibble

August 06, 2012 10:40am

May I add a few more "essential points?"

1. An essay, after it is let loose on the public, finds its meaning in how a reader understands it.

This proposition assumes that there is no inherent "meaning" in any statement. Rather, such meaning results from whatever "understanding" a reader brings to the statement.

Even if you accept this idea as self-evidently true (which I do not), the problem is that there can never be a universal consensus about what the "meaning" of any given statement actually is. Every reader will bring to a text his or her own opinions, based on personal experiences and values, that will shape the "meaning" he or she finds in an author's words.

Thus, a single sentence can generate a hundred different opinions---hence the field of hermeneutics, the interpretation of religious or literary texts. Your reference to St. Jerome indicates you have some familiarity with the history of Biblical scholarship, so you are clearly aware of the multiple and conflicting "understandings" of Scriptural "meaning" that different readers have produced.

To say that everyone is thereby entitled to his or her own "understanding" of a statement is not to say that one "understanding" is as good as another. To have any "meaning," a reader's interpretation ("understanding") must be supported by evidence, logic, the whole chain of reasoning that other readers can recognize, if not agree with.

Being able to link together a chain of reasoning from unambiguously defined premises to their entailed conclusions is not a product of "higher learning" or "elitist" snobbery but rather of an ability to think clearly. Of course arguments can be valid (internally consistent) but still false if their premises are faulty, hence the cause of so much readerly "misunderstanding." I am free to say the moon is made of green cheese , but other readers are likewise free to question the quality of my evidence, or simple grasp of reality, etc.

2. If what we hear your essay say is not what you meant to convey then it is up to you to rewrite it so that it will be understood correctly.

So what we have here is a failure to communicate, and the blame falls exclusively on the author. Who is the collective and allegedly unitary "we" in this sentence? As noted in point 1, this fictive entity presupposes the possibility of some harmonious consensus, i.e., that what "we hear" in an essay will produce a unanimity of opinion. It also presupposes the possibility that certain readers will not willfully choose to misread what is plainly there on the page. This has nothing to do with the lack of clarity or precision on the author's part. As a review of comment strings on any political blog will show, ideological bias frequently impairs what some readers "hear" a writer saying. A hundred revisions would not "correct" such self-imposed auditory impairments.

3. Your rebuttals remind me of those of St. Jerome--destroy and ridicule the person and not his ideas.

An oddly inapposite allusion, if you'll pardon the "meaning" I bring to your words. This presupposes that there are "ideas" as opposed to ideological tropisms to ridicule and destroy, but let that pass. St. Jerome was a rigid dogmatist whose polemical style assumed what it needed to prove, i.e., he began from the initial premise that he had an exclusive patent on Scriptural Truth and scorned anyone who didn't concur with that premise.

Mr. Becker strikes me as St. Jerome's opposite number. As someone who's followed his commentaries, I've noted that he has had many respectful disagreements with other posters and is open to fresh evidence that supports divergent viewpoints. But he clearly has little time or patience for those whose only interest is to the divert the argument down some rhetorical blind alley that has minimal relation to the topic at hand. If that's "barbaric," then I guess we have a different "understanding" of the "meaning" of civilized debate.

Robert S. Becker

August 06, 2012 11:30am

Wonderfully lucid, Mr Kibble (too genuine not to be your real name. Good for you. I like people who stand by their actual names).

Your clarity is likely too logical (or should we say "elitist") for those like Harlie who wholly eschew IDEAs for personal attack. Sorry for the big words. Anyone who would falsely call another "barbaric" when the name-caller makes no effort to present an argument (like, I disagree when you call Palin a dim bulb, why, she's sharp as a tack") is not having a discussion or exchange -- in this case, we have a simple term for such name-calling abuse, absent context or logic or thought: a dump. And yes, let your mind wander to other related images for there are useful analogs galore when the barbaric swing through the trees. Watch out below.

Robert S. Becker

August 06, 2012 10:36am

Who are you, Harlie, the thought police? I didn't challenge anyone's right to project their own meaning on my piece, just thought it useful to note the overdone misreading. I didn't especially attack the Tea Party here (though I have elsewhere) so turning this essay into a Tea Party assault is a gross distortion, as in misreading, as in someone who went to sleep -- or more likely a troll with a hidden agenda to defend the Palinistas.

True, everyone gets to have his/her own opinion -- even the author. Imagine that. If you find my responses, typically rational and on point, to be "barbaric", then you are attempting to CENSOR me with improper judgments, which I find barbaric. Make any larger, relevant points, even if capable strongly disagree, but don't set up fake access standards by which your lightweight opinions have merit while mine (or any other well-meaning contributor who wanders in) are "barbaric." Writers are not responsible if the dim bulbs miss the obvious and blatant focus. Duh.

There is nothing elitist in pointing out when someone goes nasty-personal, as you do so readily -- and I note for the historical record nothing you wrote had anything to do with the ideas in my piece, nor any ideas another commenter brought up. Nor any ideas at all, except fabricated, false ones. Duh.

Yours was simply a crude St. Jerome "attack on my right to have and express an opinion. That removes you from rational discussion in my judgment and I won't respond again to someone who has really, really "missed the essential points" about free speech. Duh, as you say, revealingly. And barbaric. And without any personal attack on YOU, just what you wrote (if you can make that distinction).

Banh

August 05, 2012 2:44pm

The fact that Sarah Palin scares the living piss out of the Leftist media, the Dems, Socialists and the Marxist-lites really gives me some pleasure. Add to that some fear in the NeoCon faction, and I do believe we're getting somewhere.

It's when there is no fear, no attack, no focus on someone as well-known and outspoken as Sarah Palin that I would worry. I do believe we have a winner, folks. Just like the Ron Pauls, the Alan Wests and those who question the absolute corruption in our political system, Sarah Palin has only just begun to cause a Maalox Moment for those who like their political corruption sunny-side-up with extra "bacon".

If we could only calculate the cost in dollars for the total anti-Sarah Palin campaign since 2008, to include the late night talk show airtime, Saturday Night Live and CNN-snooze, we could graph this on a dollar-per-line basis.

I LOVE IT... this little lady from Alaska has the entire friggin hen house a-cacklin' like a fox just took possession of the keys. That tells me we're moving in the right direction. After the last bait-and-switch campaign delivered by Barack Obama, perhaps in time America might begin to just say "No" to flimflam, snake oil and "free cookies". Mystery meat and meatloaf do not make a good restaurant menu, just as Marxism and Fascism don't make a good election.

It's anyone's bet how and when we extract our collective head from our collective butt in this country when choosing leaders. Thank God for the Sarah Palins, the Tea Party, anyone who questions the status quo con job in DC. I do notice however, that the Left seems to walk straight for their political cliff. No rifts, no quarrels, no dissent in the Party. I guess socialism is socialism, no matter what flavor.

Sarah Palin is only the beginning of "change".

pkibble

August 05, 2012 7:02pm

Will someone please remember to lock that troll gate? The spectacle of nose-pickers hunting-and-pecking over their keyboards, eyes glittering with dim wit as they squeeze out another "killer" one liner, is as sad as it is comical. Can't their therapists find something more productive for them to do than producing the equivalent of fecal finger painting? Now excuse me while I Windex my computer screen.

Anyway, Bahn, I'm glad the the last word ("change") of your post is in quotes, since that implies you're being ironic and thus everything you've written prior to that is just a wink-nudge snarkathon that shouldn't be take seriously. No worries: anyone with at least a low double-digit IQ should immediately understand that your deeply felt little mash note to the Moosburger mafiosa is an exercise in peerless satire.

One of many diamonds in the rough: "Thank God for the Sarah Palins, the Tea Party, anyone who questions the status quo con job in DC. " Yup, thank Your Imaginary Playmate and his chief emissaries on earth, Charlie and Dave Koch, prime cash cows for the faux "grass roots" Teabaggers. Because if anyone is going to "shake up" the status quo, it's these anti-Establishment outliers , so long as the Establishment is understood to mean what used to be called "the democratic process." They've taken the old Beltway game of the Best Government Money Can Buy to stratospheric levels not seen since the Gilded Age.

So, I get it: what you mean by "change" is actually this Back to the Future retrofitting of the system that makes electoral politics a private club for high-rollers only. And hey, maybe sometimes they'll even flick a few crumbs from the table toward the slavering Bahns of the world---just enough to keep them in line.

Thanks also for your novel take on our MarxistsocoalistcommieKenyan Muslim Prez and his "free cookies." Oddly enough, he's rather successfully managed to impersonate your standard-issue Rethuglicrat Washington insider, who took his ideas for "reforming" the healthcare system from Romney/The Heritage Foundation (those Jacobin radicals) and who appointed Wall Street hustlers as his chief economic advisers (worshipers not of Karl Marx ----duh!---but of Robert Rubin).

Obama could have appointed Paul Krugman or Joseph Stiglitz, economists with strong leftist sympathies (although Krugman favors NAFTA), but instead he chose the former head of Goldman Sachs, etc. Yeah, that's clearly the leading edge of statism there, straight out of Das Kapital. Study history much? Just asking.

And of course a "Marxist" like Obama would typically single out Ronald Reagan for praise as one of the major political game-changers, about whom Barry Guevara said:

I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.

He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s, and government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people just tapped into -- he tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

Wow, definitely a Viva la Revolucion moment! Man those barricades, comrades!

As for the thumb-tongued twit from our northern climes, it's only a matter of time before she's reduced to cutting ribbons at the newest WalMart opening in Gopher Prairie, ID. (The best laffapalooza this year? not 30 Rock or Modern Family but HBO's Game Change, where Julianne Moore's hilarious impersonation of the queen of dim bulbdom shown with paradoxical brilliance.)

Of course Palin will always have her fan base before she finally sinks into the tar pits of richly deserved obscurity---a base made up of angry, frustrated, willfully clueless types who have a sense that they've been screwed (true) but then end up hoping the screwer will maybe buy them dinner afterwards.

It's touching, in a nauseating kind of way---everyone needs someone!. But then as any conservatard serial abuser can tell you, there's always someone out there who's begging for one more poke in the snout. Cue Tammy Wynette warbling "Stand By Your Man," with Karl Rove and the Koch Bros as backup chorus.

BozoAdult

August 06, 2012 2:04pm

Post of the fuckin' year!

Robert S. Becker

August 05, 2012 2:40pm

Datdemdar:

Hate to be legalistic but not sure if simply offering in opinion, that someone isn't qualified to be president, falls under the slander laws. They involve knowingly making false and defamatory statements that injure someone's value -- and Palin is a public figure so slander is nearly impossible to establish, in financial terms.

Banh

August 05, 2012 2:54pm

Robert, like her or not, Sarah Palin has caused extreme heartburn and stress in Establishment politics. I believe this is a great thing. She does question the Beltway corruption, of which Cheney, Bush, Bush, Clintons (2), Obama, etc are part. If someone doesn't begin to wake us up from this zombie parade called presidential elections, we are toast.

All the bullcrap about "teabaggers", etc, is over the top in terms of slander, but it should tell us that we're nearing a line in the sand. There is a contest coming which may not be part of the election, and both Dems and Reps need to realize that the machine in DC is not user-friendly for the public. We have become perhaps the "dumb and dumber" of world cultures in the way we suck up slick speeches, rhetoric and outright propaganda.

What ARE we drinking as a country?

Robert S. Becker

August 05, 2012 11:23pm

I won't respond again to such delusional logic. Palin supported Bush and Cheney and she will support Romney. She is a Republican dupe, standard order politician who just suckers folks like you to think she's a rogue or a maverick. She loved Reagan and Bush I and hates Democrats because she's a true, blue party hack. Name one establishment figure in a major state (NOT Texas) who cares a whit what she does. And she's NOT against "presidential elections," not at all so you've off in your own Tea Party world.

datdemdar

August 05, 2012 1:30pm

This is great. Gotta like it. Another Palin put-down by the mouth of one of the worse VPs in american history.

What I would like to now see is Palin take Cheney to court for slander which would create more media frenzy and show the public how much these two deserve each other in a race and justification of their own self-importance.

May the best bogus ego win. The one true thing is they are both Media Sluts when the time and opportunity presents itself.

Robert S. Becker

August 05, 2012 12:27pm

http://www.politicususa.com/mitt-romney-replaces-sarah-palin-americas-ha...

Gee, I shift one week from pommeling Romney to ridiculing Palin-Cheney and look what pops up:

Mitt Romney Replaces Sarah Palin as America’s Most Hated Politician

By: Jason Easley on PoliticusUSA

RobertMStahl

August 05, 2012 12:26pm

It get's more hilarious when you consider the whole reason for the Tea Party was Ron Paul, who completely escapes mention. How can we reason when there is no genesis. Try "What is Life" by Lynn Margulis, but don't stop there.

Ron Paul
Tea Party

Ron Paul
Tea Party

Ron Paul
Tea Party

Ron Paul
Tea Party

Ron Paul
Tea Party

Robert S. Becker

August 05, 2012 11:59am

typos corrected, apologies:

Did Cheney forget, by impugning the perennial victim – Palin the growling pit bull – he’d foment not JUST McCain gurgling but fusillades of Tea Party frenzy against “the GOP establishment”?

Plus, the renegade hussy MAULS the “GOP establishment” with withering disdain.

And Sarah's ever defensive, poor-me victim’s response was to blame (presumably senile) Cheney getting suckered (at this LATE date?) by a false, four-year old “lamestream press” narrative.

Robert S. Becker

August 05, 2012 11:34am

Larronm: When did George Will endorse the Tea Party, or Palin (whom he dislikes) as anything more than a popular uprising against taxation and government. I'd like to know what he say that was so positive about such an anti-intellectual group?

larronm

August 05, 2012 10:44am

I can't help but wonder what it is that George Will finds so attractive about the Tea Party? I know he's smart, but is he just playing with us to attract readers of his column? Ms. Palin is a nit-wit, Mr. Cheney, while intellegent, has problems with reality. We've known for some time that W. is, essentially, a nincompoop. As for poor Mr. Romney, it is becoming incresingly clear that he is not only and empty suit, but a pathalogical liar. So why do you suppose so many people support them?

BozoAdult

August 06, 2012 1:53pm

Cheney doesn't have a problem with reality. The reality is he favors the philosophy of the 20th Century Nazi Party.

William Bednarz

August 05, 2012 10:36am

Cheney's a man of a thousand words attempting to make him self appear intelligent.......
A man with a bad heart that really didn't qualify for a transplant..however -by whatever strings he or someone pulled he got a transplant
I believe in medical science.......I berlieve a persons heart goes bad for a reason or reasons.....and that a transplant is a waste of time....theory ONLY A MATTER OF TIME FOR THE NEW HEART TO GO BAD.....A GOOD HEART IN A BAD PERSON......that wants to talk about Wink-Wink ???
a waste of time - money - and a heart ( he never had a heart before )

William Bednarz

August 05, 2012 10:36am

Cheney's a man of a thousand words attempting to make him self appear intelligent.......
A man with a bad heart that really didn't qualify for a transplant..however -by whatever strings he or someone pulled he got a transplant
I believe in medical science.......I berlieve a persons heart goes bad for a reason or reasons.....and that a transplant is a waste of time....theory ONLY A MATTER OF TIME FOR THE NEW HEART TO GO BAD.....A GOOD HEART IN A BAD PERSON......that wants to talk about Wink-Wink ???
a waste of time - money - and a heart ( he never had a heart before )

Curtis Smay

August 05, 2012 10:13am

Mitt Romney is even less qualified than Palin. The republicans are almost out of business. The Palin , Tea Party is a group of people that are all infected by idiot syndrome. What is this country coming to ? Vote Democrat and support OWS with actions and money , if millions of people support OWS it will help keep us from civil war. Civil war will put you in the refugee stage of cowardice.

Ronni85

August 05, 2012 9:44am

Cheney is a war monger. Palin is a know-nothing loudmouth. WE should leave them both in the hole they dug themselves into and ignore them from now forward.
They deserve each other!

Jeffrey Hill

August 05, 2012 9:29am

Fox Noise valued Sarah Palin so much that Rupert Murdoch paid her $12,000,000.00 for 10 months worth of "contributing" in 2009.