Is Lyn Cheney the new Queen of Mean?

==I watched the interview on Youtube and she did not, as you claim, hem and haw. She is no more a hypocrite than any of the other liars in Washington, or those partisans who support them (democrat and republican). Btw I think she is right about CNN, and FOX, showing that video. Both were wrong.

==Webb's novel is/was immoral trash. In the wake of Mark Fowley, the last thing we need is yet another pervert in Washington. Sadly neither party has given the good people of Virginia a candidate worth supporting. I think there is a difference between Cheney's book and Webb's book. The difference is that Cheney's characters were adults, not children like Webb's. Sort of like the difference between Bill Clinton and Mark Fowley.

 

Blitzer set a trap for Lynn Cheney and ended up caught in it himself.

She ate him alive.

 

You're asking a loaded question, alanspal. Why not "What do you think of Lyn Cheney's appearance on the _________ show?"

 

She was just protecting her husband, as any wife would. What is apparant from the discussion is how low and irrelevent the debate between democrats and republicans has become. Your book is more x rated than my book? That is the debate of the day for this election? Time for two new parties.

 

Did I miss something? Is Lynn Cheney running for something? Why is this even relevant?

 

Her daughter is a queen or king one and she wrote a book about the subject so who knows?

 

No, she is not running for anything. However, she injected herself into this meaningless debate about who wrote the most x rated book. She of her free will chose to go on CNN and be interviewed. Had she not wanted the questions asked, she wouldnt have answered them or not allowed the interview to be aired. No one forced her to the CNN studio. That has nothing to do with anything. What does is the ignorant issues the two parties debate over.

 

Sounds like a smear campaign backfired. For an author, Lynn Cheney was awfully evasive about what was in the books she wrote.

But isn't this kind of thing exactly what Americans now expect from the Bush administration?

 

Yea, in spite of what Carpro says, she definately was bothered by the questions, and actually didn't answer the question Wolf asked.

Unfortunately, yes it is.

 

==Let's drop the partisan spin and be perfectly frank about this, ok? Avoiding questions, lying, double talk, immorality, greed, and self indulgence is not just a problem with the Bush administration or the republican party. Rather it is a problem with the republican party, the democrat party, and probably 95-98% of the people we have elected to "represent us" (which they don't do). Until we wake up to this simple fact we will continue down this path to no place.

 

Why do people have such a problem with the name of the political parties?

[Nitpick]It is Democratic Party, not Democrat party. You don't say Republic party, so why Democrat party? A capital "D" Democrat is one who is a member of the Democratic party.[/Nitpick]

 

==Sorry. Force of habit mixed with anger. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I now wonder how her book sales will skyrocket!!!

She is a genius!

 

Doesn't appear to be confined to any specific political party -- seems inherent in politics in general. Doesn't appear to be confined to the current administration, either.

Perhaps being successful in politics requires "exactly what Americans now expect"? Or what Americans have always experienced.

 

The Republican party is the party of those who describe themselves as Republicans.

The Democrat party is the party of those who describe themselves as Democrats, not Democratics.

Makes perfect sense when you stop to think about it.

Republicans are just as democratic as democrats are.

 

For some, it is just an easy mistake. For you, once again, you are wrong.
http://www.dnc.org/

 

It is axiomatic that power corrupts. And Bush and his cronies have had more power than any American president in history. With the predictable effects. If it had been a democrat so endowed, then we wouild have seen a similar result. Perhaps, if a person of good character was president, it would not have been so much, so quickly. But the result would have been the same eventually.

I heard Robin Williams say, (apparently as part of a movie scene) "Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed frequently, for the same reason."

Amen to that.

 

==Actually we are seeing a similar situation with the democrats. They are just as dirty, just as greedy, just as immoral, and just as willing to do what it takes to gain political advantage as the republicans. The Clinton/Gore years provide many wonderful examples of this. As does the current situation with Harry Reid, and the democratic congressman in Louisiana who stuffed thousands of dollars in his freezer.

They are all crooks. Trying to prove some distinction between the two parties is like trying to prove a distinction between Lucifer and the AntiChrist. It is a meaningless exercise because evil is evil no matter how you slice the pie. So you can spare me the "Bush and his cronies" line. While I have no doubt that it is a true line I do doubt that it can be applied to the Bush administration in a unique way. All of them, democrats and republicans, have cronies and the vast majority of them are dishonest. If you wish to defend one group over the other be my guest, but I think we would all be better off if we are honest about the situation.

==It has been so long since we have had a truly good man in office I guess that is just theory. Sadly I am not sure one can be a truly good man and get elected president in this country today.

==I agree. Washington is a baby with dirty diapers. Sadly I don't think Americans are fed-up enough to take off, and throw away, the dirty diaper and replace it with a fresh, clean diaper.

My proof? We keep electing the same clowns. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
The Republican party is the party of those who describe themselves as Republicans.

The Democrat party is the party of those who describe themselves as Democrats, not Democratics.

Makes perfect sense when you stop to think about it.

Republicans are just as democratic as democrats are.

Maybe.

Republican takes the same form and uses the same word when used as a adjective or noun. Makes it easy. The title (noun form) of the party being Republican Party. That is not descriptive. It is a title using the noun.

Applying the same grammatical rules, the title of the Democrat Party should use the noun form of the word which is democrat. One would use the descriptive form of the word, democratic, to describe the party or one of it's members, not as the title of the party.

Either way, I'll call it the democrat party just to irk it's members, if for no other reason. Get used to it.