Bob Schieffer asked the question: Mr. Dick Cheney, who would you rather have speak for the Republican Party, Colin Powell or Rush Limbaugh? Cheney did not even twitch, he said Limbaugh would be fine, I'm not aware that Powell is even a Republican now. Ouch! Colin Powell, we are talking about. Once upon a time, one of the most respected figures in the Republican Party.
Look, I am aware that there is plenty of resentment out there in Republicanville regarding Powell's endorsement of Obama, which was seen in some circles as 100% race based. Cheney seems to think that there is no virtue greater than loyalty, that an ounce of loyalty will wash away a gallon of stupidity. Not so. Consider that Powell was pretty dang loyal. He was paraded around like a fourth of July float, handed a script to read from about the dreadful dangers of WMDs in Iraq, and made to look like a fool. How's that for loyalty, Dick? Loyalty is supposed to work both ways. Powell responded by resigning at the beginning of Bush's second term without saying anything that was remotely resentful, claiming a desire to spend more time with the family. Yeah, right. I think that Powell showed more loyalty to the White House than the White House showed towards Powell. You condemn Powell for departing, right Cheney? But consider, maybe from his viewpoint he was the Republican Party, and maybe from where he stood it looked like you left him?
But enough history. We are talking about the future of the Republican Party, not the past. Powell is not the future of the Republican party, but neither is Limbaugh. In fact, Limbaugh does not even need to be on the LIST of possible spokespersons for the Republicans. And most definitely, Cheney is not even remotely representative of the future of the Republican Party- not if that Party is going to actually have a future. Here is what you needed to say, Cheney: "do I get a third alternative?" But hey, nobody who knows you would even remotely expect you to be bright enought, flexible enough, imaginative enough, to actually say something like that.
The depressing thing was that John McCain sort of echoed Cheney, saying that he did not want the Republican party to "moderate" its views on anything. Being moderate is not a vice. McCain, you used to be brighter than that, you were famous for your willingness to "reach across the aisle". What dumbed you down? Political parties change or die. Even Dems sometimes change- you don't see Obama talking about gun control, do you?
I guess I should be delighted when Cheney says these things, since it just makes the 2010 election look better for Dems. But it is also true that there is something to be lost in all this. Any ruling party benefits from sensible opposition, or it tends to overreach and dissipate its accomplishments. I don't think we are getting sensible opposition right now.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 17
~M
The real question is, are there any GOOD choices?
If the Republican party had any real interest in becoming more inclusive, middle-of-the-road, and realistically viable in the future they would do well to start listening to people like Powell and Meghan McCain. No sign of that kind of intelligent pragmatism is evident, however.
For Dems to lecture about how loyalty is not important is silly. Both parties demand it and your party is as rabid about it as most Repubs.
When one talks of a big tent, neither party truly represents that (how many pro lifers do the Dems have in leadership positions?) and most are full of groups often mutually hostile, held together by hatred/fear of the other party or the hope of the lesser of two evils.
Speaking as a Republican, unfortunately it appears that the third choice would be Karl Rove. If the GOP doesn't wake up and understand that the American public is sick and tired of the Three Amigos, then it's destiny for the party become extinct.