Posted by: Cortillaen | 05/14/2009

UPDATED – Dick Cheney: Man With A Spine

UPDATE AT BOTTOM: O-n-Co deny the public evidence that Mr. Cheney has a point.

An article in today’s Washington Post came to my attention regarding the outspokenness of one Mr. Cheney.  Needless to say, I promptly became incensed at the unfair handling of the subject by the author, Dan Balz.  Flaying was in order, and, due to the distinct unavailability of Balz, I decided to flay his hit piece instead.  If you’re the sort who thinks Mr. Cheney should shut up or that he should not be addressed as “Mr. Cheney”, begone with you.  You’ll only be offended, then mocked mercilessly should you make the mistake of addressing to me your grievance.  For everyone else, enjoy.

As vice president, Richard B. Cheney famously spent much of the past eight years in undisclosed locations and offering private advice to President George W. Bush. But past was not prologue.

In other words, even with the media trying to make his life a “candid camera” hell, the Vice-President was working behind the scenes to keep the country safe and the President informed (you know, his job), unlike the new guy who seems to think being VP means making sure everyone on the planet knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is unafraid to sound like an utter moron on a regular basis.  Do they make Tinactin in a mouthwash?

Today Cheney is the most visible — and controversial — critic of President Obama’s national security policies and, to the alarm of many people in the Republican Party…

Curious…  Do we have any examples of these “many people”?  I mean, surely such a large group concerned with the well-being of their party would have some moderately high-profile examples to display for us.  No?

His running argument with the new administration has spawned a noisy side debate all its own: By leading the criticism, is Cheney doing more harm than good to the causes he has taken up and to the political well-being of his party?

You know, for such a “noisy debate”, it’s managed to completely elude my attention.  In fact, the only ones who seem to be arguing that Cheney is hurting his causes or party are the ones who have a vested interest in such harm occurring, namely O-n-Co’s water-carriers masquerading as the media and the marginally more honest Democrat operatives who admit to being such.  See, I’ve been a conservative for over a decade (read, roughly half my life), plenty long enough to learn the basics of political “news”:  First, when the media hypes something, it’s either to hurt Republicans and/or conservatives, or it’s to help liberals and Democrats.  Second, when the media, in the process of doing the above, refuses to drop names, they’re simply making it up because they couldn’t actually find anyone reputable to support their pre-made fiction.

His defenders believe he has sparked a discussion of vital importance to the safety of the country, and they hold up Obama’s reversal of a decision to release photos of detainee abuse as a sign that Cheney is having an effect. But there is a potential political price that his party may pay in having one of the highest officials in an administration repudiated in the last election continue to argue his case long after the voters have rendered their decision.

Two things are utterly wrong here:  First, there really isn’t any special price.  If it weren’t Mr. Cheney, you’d have latched onto someone else to use for lopsided “reports” painting a much worse picture than reality.  To claim that Mr. Cheney’s actions are costing his party is about as dishonest as you can get.  What is hurting his party is slanted coverage like yours, intent upon casting him as hurting the party.  It’s a catch 22 in your favor to use your power in the media this way.  Either the GOP lets Mr. Cheney continue doing their job, causing some people to accept your claims at face value and distance themselves from what they now perceive as a fracturing party, or the party pushes the spot-on and popular-with-conservatives Mr. Cheney away, hurting themselves in the process.

Second, how long will it take you people to understand that Obama did not win against Bush/Cheney?  I know, I know, it’s a moot question since that lie is one people like you propagated endlessly during the election season.  Let me spell it out for you:  McCain was a far cry from Bush, and even further from Mr. Cheney.  The fact that McCain lost could only be viewed as a repudiation of Bush/Cheney if McCain’s administration would have been very similar to its predecessor, something that would take a rather large leap of illogic to believe (closing Guantanamo Bay ring any bells?).  McCain’s loss was primarily due to a media almost completely in the tank for the man they refused to even begin to vet and McCain’s refusal to fight for the office and secondarily due to a repudiation of McCain’s weak stances.  The administration Mr. Cheney kept running was unrelated except to partisan hacks and the weak-minded fools who actually take the media’s words at face value.

Cheney entered the arena this winter in a politically weak position after that election.

I’m not going to repeat myself, so look above and get a grip.

His personal favorability ratings were and are still low. A Gallup poll in late March found that 30 percent of respondents gave him a favorable rating, while 63 percent rated him unfavorably.

Just for comparison, how are Pelosi and Reid’s approval ratings?  Oh, right.  Crashing through the floor.  Funny how that seems unimportant when you’re trying to turn one of the few Republicans with a backbone into a liability.

That is why his high-profile defense of controversial Bush administration policies has caused queasiness among Republican political strategists.

Again, who are these “queasy” people?  Why won’t you tell us?

But Cheney remains powerful enough that most of his GOP critics are not willing to take him on in public.

Ah, so we’ll hide behind the “these people really exist, but they aren’t willing to be named” excuse for making stuff up.

“The fact that most people want to talk [without attribution] shows what a problem it continues to be,” said one Republican strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid.

Uh-huh.  No name, still, but you expect us to simply take your word that some non-extraneous Republican said this.  Sorry, I don’t buy it.  I tend to fall back on a long-honed reaction to anonymous “quotes”:  If the author doesn’t name a source, the author is the source.  Even the notoriously unreliable wikipedia has better standards than this.

“Cheney continues to be a force among many members of our base, and while he is entirely unhelpful, no one has the standing to show him the door.”

See, this is the kind of crap that validates my point.  Parse this sentence for a moment.  “Cheney mobilizes a large part of our base…”  Okay, he’s helpful.  “… but he’s unhelpful…”  Um, so you think, and can demonstrate, that he does more damage than good, even as a strong mobilizer?  “… and no one will get rid of him.”  Wait, people have realized that his net effect is negative, but they won’t get rid of him?  I can’t imagine a real Republican saying that.  We’re talking about politicians, here.  If something hurts them, under the bus it goes, but this writer expects us to believe that a large portion of the Reps are simply too fearful of one man to do something for the greater good of the party.  Nope, not buying it.  Mostly because I’ve seen how Mr. Cheney affects conservatives, especially the common folk worried about this country’s future, and I know that most Republicans, political slime though they are, understand that Mr. Cheney is the closest thing to a leader the party has right now.  Unfortunately for them, he won’t become a real leader for the simple reason that he is not interested in leading.  There’s a reason the ticket had “Cheney” after the slash both times.  He simply wants to get his message out and make people consider how much the current administration is gambling with the nation’s security.

What drives a man who stayed out of the spotlight as vice president, who passed up an opportunity to run for the White House in his own right in 2008, to emerge in such a prominent role after the election?

I just covered this, no?

Mary Matalin, who was a spokeswoman for Cheney during the early years of the Bush presidency, believes her former boss is motivated mainly by his principles. Had Obama not moved so precipitously to undo the Bush policies about which he feels so strongly, she believes, Cheney would have held his fire.

“If Barack Obama had come in and done what he said he was going to do and look at the stuff and see what is working, then Cheney would have continued to do what he was doing — working on memoirs, finishing his house,” she said. “He’s got a good life. He’s got stuff going on. He doesn’t care about being on TV. There’s no more politics there. He’s not settling any scores. He just wants people to understand.”

Ahhh!  A name!  And the person gets it!  It’s a miracle!

“This isn’t about partisan politics, it’s about what’s right for the country,” said Liz Cheney, the former vice president’s daughter and a former State Department official. “Every American, whether you’re a Republican, Democrat or independent, would agree that before critical decisions are made about national security of the nation, we ought to have a full and fair debate.”

Cheney’s daughter was among those who pointed to yesterday’s White House reversal on the detainee photos as evidence that a vocal, public debate over the new administration’s policies can make a difference.

Another name, and another person who cuts through the media-spun cobwebs like a cleaver.  Amazing how accurate, insightful, and rational these attributed quotes are, isn’t it?  It’s almost like the anonymous ones are just fakes dreamt up by a Democrat and anonymized to give his opinions undue weight…  Oh, right, that’s what I’ve been saying all along.

Another GOP strategist, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, pointed out the conundrum for Republicans over the former vice president’s current role. “Even if he’s right, he’s absolutely the wrong messenger,” this strategist said. His main worry, he added, is that Cheney keeps the public focused on the past, rather than the future. “We want Bush to be a very distant memory in the next election. The more Cheney is on the front burner, the more difficult it’s going to be.”

Oh, look, back to the ghosts.  Curiously, this one seems to think Bush was an abysmal failure who handed Obama the election.  Isn’t that the media’s line?  Do I need to say it again?

“He’s perfectly entitled to make his case, and given that Dick Cheney is as popular as Britney Spears at a Sunday school teacher convention, we hope he continues to be the face of the Republican Party,” said Hari Sevugan, national press secretary for the Democratic National Committee. “His continued presence reminds people that the GOP is unwilling to put forward new ideas or leadership, and so long as he continues to be the voice of the Republican cause, he ensures that the Republican Party will remain the party of the past.”

Hey, another name… and a quote that makes my day.  Wanna know why?  Take a look at how perfectly this quote, by a named Democrat honcho, aligns with all of the anonymous, supposedly Republican, quotes above.  Now take a look at how the two quotes from named Republicans are completely different from all of the others.  If you had to place all the quotes on a sliding scale based on how similar they sound, don’t you think the anonymous ones would be clustered with the admitted Democrat one while the named Republican ones would be together off somewhere else?  Hmmm…
In other news, this is the last paragraph before the page break online. Isn’t it nice that the article gives the last line to the “Cheney sucks” crowd?  And the title?  And the first, what, six paragraphs?  What do you think someone just browsing titles and the first couple of paragraphs (read:  everyone with a life) is going to get out of this story?  “Cheney is a selfish jerk who is hurting the already weak Republicans by not shutting up,” sound about right?  Well, on to the second page.

Liz Cheney strongly disagreed with the claim that her father’s vocal defense of Bush administration policies has caused significant unrest within the GOP. She said he has received phone calls, e-mails and letters from people around the country, from officials in government and from members of the military and their families, thanking him for standing up and speaking out. “He’s got hundreds of people coming to him saying, ‘Please keep doing what you’re doing,’ ” she said.

Well, well, well.  Now Mr. Balz can claim that this wasn’t a hit piece because it mentions that Mr. Cheney has gotten a lot of support.  Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that the entire first page was crafted to give brief readers (again, most of them) the impression that the only support Mr. Cheney is getting is from his daughter and a lackey.  This is just here as source of “Nuh-uh!”s should Balzy be called on his hit piece.  Well, consider yourself called, Balz.  Too bad I already poked holes in your defense.

Since leaving the White House in January, Cheney has accused Obama of making the country less safe, disagreed with orders to close the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, defended the Bush administration’s harsh interrogation techniques and called for a public airing of classified information on the controversial program. On Sunday, he said he would pick Rush Limbaugh over former secretary of state Colin L. Powell as a model for the Republican Party and virtually wrote his onetime colleague out of the GOP.

That’d be the “onetime colleague” who endorsed the other party’s presidential nominee, right?  Just checking since, you know, stabbing your party in the back to support the guy who’s now wrecking the country isn’t exceptionally conducive to being loved by the man who is criticizing the wrecker.

Cheney has made clear that part of his motivation is to defend against possible legal action against Bush officials who authorized or carried out the controversial interrogation policies. He recently told Stephen F. Hayes of the Weekly Standard that he remembers how, during the Iran-contra scandal in the Reagan administration, senior officials often ran for cover, leaving “the little guys out to dry.” He said he is determined to defend those people now. “I don’t know whether anybody else will, but I sure as hell will,” he told Hayes.

So Mr. Cheney is standing up for the people who have been trying to protect our country and are now being threatened with contrived legal retribution (for carrying out legal orders to which high-ranked Democrats consented) because the new administration is looking to score points with the “murderous monsters deserve the same rights as citizens!” crowd.  I’m sorry, is there supposed to be a problem with this?  Sounds to me like Mr. Cheney is taking a stand on principles, politics be damned, which is more than can be said of 99% of both parties, and those principles are the “no man left behind” sort that a certain ex-Marine (nope, they aren’t just an urban legend) has abandoned.  To this I say, “Mr. Cheney, thank you.”

Cheney has filled a vacuum within the Republican Party at a time when there are few other leaders who can command such attention. Bush has chosen to stay silent during his first months out of office, as have some other high-ranking members of his administration.

Hm, the Republicans sit on their hands hoping that playing nice will get them fair treatment (Hah!  Such a quaint little idea, that) until Mr. Cheney gets fed up and lambastes the idiots (the Dem ones, mind you) for being idiots.  Even if we assume that any of those anonymous quotes came from real, non-plant Republicans not of the Specter variety, they don’t have any credibility telling Mr. Cheney to pipe down when he’s doing the job they’re too blasted cowardly to do.  As for Bush, he’s always been the sort to simply do his thing without dealing with the media anymore than he has to, so nothing’s actually changed for him.  Defending himself would be nice, but he just wants to be left alone now, and Mr. Cheney handles the defense better anyway.

Republicans who defend Cheney take issue with the argument that it is inappropriate for a former vice president to challenge an incumbent administration. They point to former vice president Al Gore, who took on Bush over the war in Iraq, and to former president Jimmy Carter, who has repeatedly challenged Republican presidents.

Rarely has an official from one administration moved so quickly and aggressively to criticize a new president. Most vice presidents in the past century have sought the White House as presidential candidates, putting themselves before the country and accepting the judgment of the voters. Those who were defeated went quietly to the sidelines, at least for some time.

“So the ‘He’s breaking protocol!’ line isn’t going to fly with so many people able to quickly find out it’s a blatant lie…  I know, let’s change it to, ‘He didn’t stay quiet as long as the others!’  It’s the same thing, only more squishy!”  Yyyyeah.  Maybe Mr. Cheney’s fast response is because of a fast stimulus.  Cause and effect, Mac.  Did you ever consider that “rarely has an official from one administration moved so quickly and aggressively to criticize a new president” because rarely has the new president “moved so quickly and aggressively” to obliterate all traces of the former administration, turn our country into a fascist mockery of what it once was, and undo every effort the former administration undertook to protect the nation?  That might have something to do with it.  I’m sure you’d much rather have Mr. Cheney twiddle his thumbs with the rest of the Reps until your “saviour” is finished remaking the country in his own demented image, but a lot of us out here are glad Mr. Cheney has a spine.

Matalin said she believes that Cheney does not buy the argument that his outspoken critique of the administration will have long-term implications for the GOP. He has been in politics long enough, she said, to remember when the Republican Party was on its back, only to rebound and prosper. “He says he’s been through several of these cycles where the only thing that brings you back is to stand on your principles and apply those principles to the issues of the day.”

But she added that Cheney is “not trying to be the party spokesman. It’s not political to him. It’s a policy thing, and you cannot deny that the debate is engaged and engaged on principle.”

Gotta make sure to end the piece, out of sight for most people, with a little more “Nuh-uh!” material, eh, Balz?  If you had put these quotes, ones with not only a name but sense and understanding, in the first few paragraphs, a lot of people might have come away with a different view of Mr. Cheney, and that just wouldn’t do for you.  The fact that you included this particular quote that perfectly sums up Mr. Cheney’s actions as deliberate, rational, constructive for the GOP, politically unmotivated, and based on convictions makes me thing that you understand the truth, but the way you hid it at the end of a story few will read completely makes me think you want to (what else?), hide the truth.  The real story here is not that Mr. Cheney is hurting the party (he isn’t), that a significant number of Republicans think he should pipe down (they don’t), or that Mr. Cheney is seeking attention (he isn’t).  The real story is that people like you, Balz, are using partial truths and outright fabrications to twist and spin Mr. Cheney’s principled stand into something to use against your political enemies.

UPDATE

Mr. Cheney requested the release of some classified documents a while back, documents which detail the benefits that so-called “torture” has produced for the nation.  Keep in mind that Mr. Cheney already knows most, if not all, of the contents of these documents, so he isn’t flailing blindly in an attempt to find something, anything to support his position.  On the contrary, he knows the support is there, and he wants the American people to be able to read it and decide for themselves.  The new administration, barring colossal ignorance of vital information (not out of the question), also knows what these documents contain.  Hence, it is no surprise at all that Mr. Cheney’s request has been denied.

White House officials have told reporters and members of Congress that the Cheney memos do not bolster the case for enhanced interrogation, as Cheney has suggested.  But they have nonetheless refused to release them. President Obama has the legal authority to declassify the documents “with the wave of his hand,” according to one expert.

Hmm…  Both sides know the contents, but they have differing opinons on whether or not the documents support Mr. Cheney’s arguments.  This calls for a bit of… *insert fanfare here* Rational Thought!  In this situation, which group is more likely to be telling the truth?  Consider, Mr. Cheney has everything to lose if the documents actually do not support him.  Should that be the case, their release would utterly discredit him and, given that the media is only interested in doing this, stigmatize any other arguments he makes.  On the other side, the Obama administration has nothing to lose and everything to gain by releasing the documents… if they’re telling the truth.  Again, their biggest detractor would be rendered impotent.  So why don’t they release the documents and be done with him?  Well, the truth is, as always, in their actions rather than their words.  They refuse to release the documents because they know that Mr. Cheney knows that the documents support his claims.  That’s the only remotely rational explanation for their actions.  So, basically, we arrive at my update header:  “O-n-Co deny the public evidence that Mr. Cheney has a point.”

Now, we come to one of the most incredibly bald-faced, glaring lies I’ve ever heard, courtesy of that paragon of virtue, Attorney General Holder:  “It is not our intention to try to advance a political agenda or to hide things from the American people.”  Really?  How can he say that with a straight face when his administration cut parts of the Director of National Intelligence’s letter, parts like, “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country” and the mention that Congress had been briefed on the methods being used?  Now, after pledging faithfulness to FOIA (from Obama’s own words, “The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.“), we have the OA declining to release documents that would detail this “high value information” by using a FOIA technicality regarding a vastly encompassing request in a current legal challenge, a technicality that certainly did not keep them from disclosing the information they felt would make their predecessors and the CIA look bad.  How is that anything except selective disclosure with the intent to mislead the public?

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Cortillaen, You are much wise beyond your years, It does my heart good that someone under 30 get’s it. And you are a fantastic writer…..WOW
    Steve

  2. Thanks, Steve. It’s good to know someone actually read the post. I think a lot of my reluctance to take the time to write up posts is imagining that they simply won’t get read. Why bother, you know? These days, startup blogs with no external support don’t have much of a chance to get read by more than a handful of people, and the quality of my writing is irrelevant if it isn’t reaching people. I can’t help but think the net needs a few sites dedicated to promoting new blogs from various perspectives.
    I’ll probably just turn the blog into a collection of my comments from various sources and the occasional post like this. My comments tend to get rather long, so having a single location to reference them later seems like a good idea. I’ve already made some use of the abortion thread. This way, even if I don’t get much in the way of conventional traffic, the blog still serves a purpose.
    Eh, sorry for the little rant, and thanks again for stopping by. 😉

  3. Cort,

    LOL-If Matthew doesn’t give you your own blog over there, then he’s an idiot.

    Excellent piece.

    -Dave

  4. I second Steve’s comments. And –I am thrilled that someone under thirty can spell and string more than four words in a row into a sentence. With those skills and an obvious understanding of the machinations of the political mind, I predict a bright future for you.

    Over the next couple of years it will be tough hoeing, with the mindless drooling at the feet of the Magic Messiah, but as each of his bubbles burst and more people get to look behind the curtain, I truly believe the pendulum will swing back to traditional, conservative American values.

    Stick to the good fight.

    God willing, we will persevere.

  5. PS If Dick Cheney’s public persona had been this visible while in office, it would, in my opinion, hd a very positive effect on the nation. We have lost all our heroes. (Not reallly all, some are just not clearly visible now but are surfacing (e.g Rohrabacher, Hunter). Newt has strapped on his testosterone bag and jumped into the fray. He is a political shark and it is obvious he smells blood in the water.

    I can only hope.

  6. Ack, that last reply of mine turned into a monster. I’ll keep this one to five sentences or less (excluding these two) and see what happens. 😉

    I’ve got to give most of the credit for my literacy to my parents. They read to me most nights before I could read, and them being an elementary teacher and an accountant (who could have majored in English) meant constant corrections. A voracious appetite for books, especially fantasy and sci-fi, didn’t hurt my vocabulary any, although I occasionally mispronounce words because I’ve only seen them in print.

    I think a lot of people are already starting to see through the veil as even some of O-n-Co’s media supporters are starting to get more critical of the administration’s idiocy and blunders. I certainly can’t fault Cheney for mostly staying away from the spotlight and just doing his job, though I agree that letting him explain things in his no-nonsense style would have helped. As for heroes, I think one of the best things going for us right now is an upswing of online, conservative personae like Steven Crowder and HTWW who can push back at least a little in the fight to mold the malleable minds of the online masses.

    Shoot, I went a bit over. Maybe I’ll pull it off next time.

  7. Outstanding analysis and well written.

  8. I have to agree with everyone – well written. This is also the format I have used in responding to emails for almost as long as you’ve lived, Mr. youngster!

    Pulling apart a Leftist’s missive (amazing, isn’t it, that they get paid for that??) piece by piece, or point by point, is my favorite way. Especially since I find myself yelling at the screen as I read. It seems the best way for my bile to flow. And yours flowed just as well.

    As I have stated on other sites, the Left is doing a daily assault . . . well, heck, let me post something here that got zero response elsewhere.

    ———————————-
    Several times daily now we hear the attack from the ‘childish’ Left on the ‘adult’ Conservatives as an unending drumbeat. ”Bush – Bad, Hussein – Good”, over and over and over and over. Of course, the spirited ‘journalists’ (of a sort) have replaced the ‘Bush’ name with Cheney, Palin, Rice . . . whoever. It’s the same old meme, however – Conservatives=Evil.

    That’s the only way for the Left to make any headway into the minds of the Ignorant Masses – by the constant flagrant beat (imagine Keith Moon on steroids) that pounds the message so deep into the tiny, mostly unused, brains of the dumbest generation in the history of this once great nation.

    The media has free reign over the ignorant minds and they are sowing as much hate and lies as they can. Their harvest is in question, however, as they are helping to bolster a once disorganized, confused, and distraught Conservative base.

    What may grow out of the tumultuous onslaught could be more than the Left bargained for. I’m anxious to see just what that may be.
    ———————————-

    There, I have bested your maximum sentence post. Or something.

    Cheney, in my opinion, should replace Steele if he doesn’t want to be President. Mister Richard Cheney is one of the most intelligent, patriotic, Conservative Americans I have ever known. Thanks for taking the time to beat up a – – – how did I put it? Ah, yes, one of the ”tiny, mostly unused, brains of the dumbest generation in the history of this once great nation”.

    Keep up the good work!

    Doktor Verbose

  9. Cort,

    Did you happen to get my super-long post? Gosh, I hope so because not only did I not save it but I’ve forgotten what it was. Oh yeah – it was long. Super Long.

    Oh, well.

  10. Yep, just noticed it sitting in the spam box (for no reason I can discern) and approved it. I hope you’ll understand if I refrain from responding to any part save the second sentence. I’d just be reiterating your sentiments and burning more space, I’m afraid. As for the style, I believe “fisking” is the given term, correct? I may not have been around quite so long as others, but fisking and the Hammer-O-Words™ have been my primary tools since I started floating about. The biggest problem is trying to stay somewhere remotely on topic. Tangents and tangents from tangents and… you get the picture. For my sig on another (mostly non-political) site: “Entertaining more trains (of thought) than Nazi Germany and derailing most of them.” See? Already off on a tangent… 😉

  11. Cortillaen,

    Thanks! Gee, now you know why I was a tad concerned. Without saving that rant I would have never remembered it enough to reproduce it.

    Fisking? Dunno. It’s not in the FireFox spellchecker. I just meant the breaking down of a long article or email and replying to the pertinent points or ideas. BTW – you do it much better than I ever did. And no nasties meant about your age – I wish I had your brains when I was young. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been – somebody. (That last bit was for the Oscar committee’s consideration.)

    Here’s something I did on Lucianne about Mr. VP Cheny –

    Although I understand most of the ”Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda” folk’s opinions this is now and the future is what counts.

    Right Now – Mr. Vice President Cheney, I would love for you to be our President. However, the Darth Vader thing will not go away soon enough for you to be elected.

    However, you should, as I have stated many times recently on many sites, replace Steele as the leader of the GOP. You can bring the party back to what it was and what it should be. And the beauty of this position is that not one single Leftist can steal it from you (okay, I didn’t mean that pun) through ACORN shenanigans or the media’s constant negative bashing.

    Mr. Vice President, you ARE the man. The man we need to bring this country back to what America once was. We here await your move and support you in whatever you do and however you decide to fight for America.
    ————————-

    Oh and I Love tangentrines!! Those little macadamia oranges, right?
    8)

    Thanks again –
    The Dok

  12. Just found you had a blog, and thought I would pop over and peruse. You never disappoint 😉

  13. Except for the part where I never post anymore, eh? *cough* Not that that’s likely to get any better with the new third-shift job and stepping up my time with the recruiting office…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: