National Republican Party May Finally Becoming Cognizant that they may be too Negative

"Richard N. Bond, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee," recently stated: “Some days you’re rolling the barrel, and some days you’re rolling in the barrel. The fact is that right now, Republicans are rolling in the barrel.” The former chairman's observation was intended to provide some context to the recent hard times being faced by the GOP.

Adam Nagourney has observed that: "The latest round of intramural debate came on Sunday when Dick Cheney,"

"the former vice president, assailed not only President Obama, but also Colin Powell, the former secretary of state, a Republican who endorsed Mr. Obama.

"Mr. Cheney said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” program that he would prefer Rush Limbaugh,"

"the conservative radio commentator, to Mr. Powell, a member of the shrinking class of moderate Republicans, as spokesman for his party. Within hours, the Democratic National Committee had used video from that interview — along with other Sunday morning appearances by Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and Senator John McCain of Arizona, last year’s Republican presidential nominee — to produce a mocking Web advertisement that sought to portray Republicans as negative, out-of-touch and mired in the past.

President Obama and his administration have successfully keep the GOP off balance with well coordinated attacks since last November's presidential election. At first, the Democrats pointed out the Republicans complete failure to come up with a plan; any plan, that was "forward-looking" to challenge the Democrat's agenda. Now the GOP is in a quandary regarding: "How to say it."

"A party that has over the years been the home of a series of optimistic figures in American politics — from Ronald Reagan"

"to Jack Kemp, who died last week, to (at times) George W. Bush — is increasingly coming across as downbeat or angry. And it is something that has Republicans increasingly worried."

Nagourney asks: "How important is this? Certainly, the Republican party’s first task obstacle is finding compelling leaders to make the case against the Democrats, as it builds itself back up for the elections of 2010 and 2012. And of course it has to hone an agenda that offers specific alternatives to Mr. Obama’s far-reaching shifts in economic, social and national security policy.

"Yet tone matters, Nagourney explains. Time and time again, Americans have responded to optimism, delivered even in — indeed, particularly in — the most dire times, and even when that sunny message cloaked an attack. In many ways, Reagan’s presidency was symbolized by one 1984 reelection advertisement, “It’s morning again in America,” just as Bill Clinton’s was by his choice of Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop” as a musical reminder that he was “thinking about tomorrow.”

"Mike Murphy, a one-time senior adviser to Mr. McCain, argued that Mr. McCain’s hopes of winning the presidency were doomed when he lost the “Happy Warrior” stance that had defined his political persona for so long, and simply went on the attack last year. “Tone is important,” he said.P

“Ultimately, the message has to be about big things,” said Mr. Murphy. “But tone is how you wrap it.”

"The Republicans’ task would not be an easy one even in the best of times. In Mr. Obama,"

"they face a very popular president who, benefiting from big legislative majorities, has generally not needed to spend much time attacking Republicans himself, leaving that job to aides and surrogates. It is certainly not lost on Republicans that there has been a sharp uptick in the number of Americans who think the country is headed in the right direction — the best measure of optimism — since Mr. Obama has taken office.

"By contrast, the Republican Party in general — and leaders like Mr. Cheney in particular — are viewed unfavorably by a significant majority of Americans. That makes for a tough environment to break through and get a hearing. And it can become a spiral: going on the attack typically has the effect of making Americans sour on the attacker as well.

"Mr. Bond said that to return to power, Republicans have “to play error-free ball” and hope for what he described as the inevitable overreach by a party now so firmly in control of government. The real complication, he said, is coming up with “strong public alternatives” to make the case against Democratic policies, without appearing to be obstreperous or angry, or feeding the Democrats’ attempt to paint Republicans as “the party of ‘no.’

“They have to avoid being stigmatized as a bad bunch of people,” he said of the Republicans.

Nagourney explains: "The Democrats took obvious delight in the new round of attention paid to Mr. Cheney, Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Limbaugh, none of whom, it seems fair to say, are graduates of the Happy Warrior school of politics. Mr. Murphy said the influence of people like Mr. Limbaugh is overrated — “He doesn’t have that much power; he has the power to make a lot of noise” — and that over time, less-known leaders are going to develop the voice the party needs.

Nagourney uses Mike Murphy's observations to sum up: “We have a mix of the same old party dogma, but then you see new people popping up: Huntsman, Cantor, Jeb Bush,” said Mr. Murphy, referring to Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. of Utah, and Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the Republican Whip, and Mr. Bush, the former governor of Florida. “You have to pick through all of that to hear the right ideas.”

But it is not only figures from the party’s past. For many Republicans, the party struck the wrong tone when Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina — who also is frequently mentioned as a potential presidential candidate in 2012 — refused a portion of the stimulus money authorized for his state as part of the economic recovery package.

"That high-profile act of defiance drew Mr. Sanford national attention, as well as sharp attack by many people in his own state, including Republicans. It was a reminder, if Republicans needed one, of the challenges the party faces in the months ahead.

“It’s definitely going to be a work in progress,” Mr. Bond said.

David Letterman Versus Dick Cheney

Nothing exposes the pulse of the nation's temperament more than the material that the late-night comedians are using to fuel laughter. Here is a sampler of recent jabs taken by David Letterman at former vice-president Dick Cheney

Here is Lettremn commenting on Cheney's criticism of Persident Obama's appearance at te summit of the Americas.

Here Letterman has fun with mocking the "Dick Cheney's lie count."

Here is an monologue by Letterman poking fun at "top ten things heard at Dick Cheneys Birthday Party."

Here, during an interview with former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan, Letterman expresses his opinions about Dick Cheney for his audience: "My feeling about Cheney and also Bush but especially Cheney is that he just couldn't care less about Americans. And the same is true of George Bush. And all they really want to do is somehow kiss up to the oil people so they can get some great annuity when they're out of office ... (Peeling off imaginary bills) 'There you go, Dick, nice job. There's a couple of billion for your trouble.' He pretty much put Haliburton in business and the outsourcing of military resources to private mercenary groups and so forth ... Is there any humanity in either of these guys?"

Letterman takes a political ad approach to enumerating reasons why Dick Cheney is "Just a Big Bad Bowl of Bad"

P

In an early sketch, Letterman referers to Cheney as "More Machine than man."

Here is Letterman spoofing Cheney in 2006.

The Vice Presidency of Dick Cheney: His No Regrets Legacy of Disgrace and Dishonor

The Philadelphia Inquirer has written an editorial on the soon to be former Vice President, Dick Cheney. Vice President Dick Cheney was the experienced Washington pro whose decade’s long familiarity with the corridors of power in our nation’s capital was supposed to serve as the mentor to the newly elected, younger, more charismatic, but less experienced compassionate conservative George Bush. At least that’s how the media touted Cheney’s own recommendation of himself to serve as Bush’s Vice President. George Bush was touted as a bipartisan leader whose governing style would bring Americans together for the greater good of the nation. The oddity of all the hype was that nothing ended up working like it was supposed to. Bush viewed the presidency much as a CEO who headed up a corporation and he ended up delegating many of his powers away to those who served under him. Bush decided and others governed; at least that’s what the American people have come to understand from the masses of books written so far about the Bush Presidency. But instead of offering advice and guidance; Cheney saw an opportunity to take advantage of Bush’s lax leadership style and assumed powers far beyond any other vice president in American history. In fact, Bush and Cheney acted with such indiscretion that they quickly assumed powers that superseded the Constitution. The Bush Administration, under advisement by its own Justice Department and with the support of an acquiescing Congress that was firmly controlled by the Republican Party, made the legal distinction that the Constitution intentionally allowed for a hierarchical, unified executive branch of the federal government that placed the President at the apex of the nation’s government. Bush and Cheney effectively gave themselves complete control over the government and they governed for eight years with those principles in mind. Now, however, the eight years of Bush rule are nearly over and the administration; suffering from pitifully low public opinion ratings and soon to be displaced by a Democratic President and Congress, have launched a “Legacy Project” to smooth over the rough edges of public sentiment by giving the administration their own opportunity to define the first draft of the historic record of the Bush Administration. Bush went to bat first to give an overview that would define the shape and fill the contours of history from Bush’s ‘first hand’ knowledge of what really happened. Later, other administration officials would fill in the details to provide the administration with an exemplary record of accomplishment. Enter Cheney. The Vice President who never bothered with telling the truth in the past, because governing, from Cheney’s point of view, didn’t mean that his take on events needed to line up with the facts. For Cheney, truth was a commodity that he used to construct a reality that always placed the Bush Administration in the most unassailable position possible, thus protecting the administration against criticism. This practice of switch and bait that was played with the truth worked well enough for Bush to gain a second term in office before the frequency of telling lies could no longer outpace the truth. And once the truth about the Bush Administration’s deceptions gained general acceptance among the citizenry, Bush lost the trust of the vast majority of the American people. Now all we are left with is farce: “In an interview just before Christmas with the administration-friendly Fox News, Cheney offered no regrets about the invasion of Iraq, the illegal tapping of American citizens' phones and e-mail by government agents, or the torture of terror suspects. He defended former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and said he "did a good job" - despite the failures in Iraq. In an earlier interview with ABC News, Cheney suggested the administration would have invaded Iraq even without the bogus intelligence claiming Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. That certainly conforms with what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said took place at the very first National Security Council meeting 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before the Sept. 11 terror attacks. At the meeting, O'Neill says, the main topic of discussion was regime change in Iraq.” To add justification to going to war with Iraq after the terrible events of September 11th, 2001, the Bush White House forged documents, twisted intelligence reports and spread false claims that Saddam Hussein controlled stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that he was prepared to unleash on America and its allies. When former ambassador Joseph Wilson “accused the administration of doctoring prewar intelligence on Iraq in a New York Times commentary, it was a top aide to President Bush and Vice President Cheney, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby who outed “the name of Wilson's wife, CIA official Valerie Plame,.. to reporters in 2003. After years of denying the torturing of terrorist suspects; “Cheney said recently that he approved of the administration's use of coercive interrogation tactics, including waterboarding - which is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. But Cheney doesn't think rules apply to the White House. He seemed proud of the broad expansion of executive power that he helped craft and implement... So much for checks and balances, let alone the Constitution.” The time for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney has long passed with just days left in their terms of office. But it is not too late, nor should it be overlooked that once out of office, Bush, Cheney and other suspected lawbreakers in the administration be investigated with all appropriate dispatch and if found.