28
Apr
09

The Times’ New Human Dildo Wants Presi-Dick Cheney

Having spectacularly canned über-douche Bill Kristol, the New York Times sought a new token conservative columnist for their Op-Ed section (David Brooks doesn’t count, since he’s a known communist for not liking Sarah Palin). But they were left with a dilemma: Would they be able to find someone as TOTALLY misguided as their previous “lightning rod” conservative commentator? God knows if it’ll last, but newbie Russ Douthat is sure as shit gonna give it a go!

His new column, entitled “Cheney For President,” is full of the kind of reasoning that made Bill Kristol famous (i.e. it bears as much resemblance to real reason as Kool Aid does to real fruit).

Watching Dick Cheney defend the Bush administration’s interrogation policies, it’s been hard to escape the impression that both the Republican Party and the country would be better off today if Cheney, rather than John McCain, had been a candidate for president in 2008.

OK, so now we know Mr. Douthat is (a) batshit crazy, and (b) has a special kind of blindness that is totally unable to see poll numbers.

As a candidate, Cheney would have doubtless been as disciplined and ideologically consistent as McCain was feckless. In debates with Barack Obama, he would have been as cuttingly effective as he was in his encounters with Joe Lieberman and John Edwards in 2000 and 2004 respectively. And when he went down to a landslide loss, the conservative movement might – might! – have been jolted into the kind of rethinking that’s necessary if it hopes to regain power.

Ah, I see. So here’s a guy who’s going to make the common-sensical Republican argument: that the wrong conclusion has been drawn by their members after McCain’s loss. They need to go more center to be more inclusive, rather than further right, which is shrinking their base. Got it.

If a Cheney defeat could have been good for the Republican Party; a Cheney campaign could have been good for the country.

Wait, wha-huh?

The former vice-president’s post-election attacks on Obama are bad form, of course, under the peculiar rules of Washington politesse. But they’re part of an argument about the means and ends of our interrogation policy that should have happened during the general election and didn’t – because McCain wasn’t a supporter of the Bush-era approach, and Obama didn’t see a percentage in harping on the topic.

Wait, how the fuck did torture enter into this argument. Is it because it is, in and of itself, such tortured logic? Is it because it is torture to read? What the hell is going on here???

But better if this debate had happened during the campaign season. And better, perhaps, if Cheney himself had been there to have it out.

That’s your summation? But that doesn’t explain it at all! What the hell are you talking about???

I need a cookie.

About these ads

0 Responses to “The Times’ New Human Dildo Wants Presi-Dick Cheney”



  1. Leave a Comment

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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 390 other followers

%d bloggers like this: