posted
Don't know if anyone's seen this. It happened on the Senate Floor. Senator Leahy of Vermont stepped up to say "hello" to Cheney. Cheney took the opportunity to complain about Leahy's attacks on the awarding of Halliburton contracts in Iraq. Naturally, Leahy had his own beefs, pointing out he and colleagues didn't appreciate the silence of Cheney and others while those who opposed a certain judicial nominee were being labeled "anti-Catholic."
Evidently, Cheney ran out of coherent comments at that point. And he has announced he's not apologizing - that he "felt better" after saying it.
Remind me again about how this "family values" and "role model" stuff works?
quote:WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Typically a break from partisan warfare, this year's Senate class photo turned smiles into snarls as Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly used profanity toward one senior Democrat, sources said.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who was on the receiving end of Cheney's ire, confirmed that the vice president used profanity during Tuesday's class photo.
A spokesman for Cheney confirmed there was a "frank exchange of views."
Using profanity on the Senate floor while the Senate is session is against the rules. But the Senate was technically not in session at the time and the normal rules did not apply, a Senate official said.
The story, which was recounted by several sources, goes like this:
Cheney, who as president of the Senate was present for the picture day, turned to Leahy and scolded the senator over his recent criticism of the vice president for Halliburton's alleged war profiteering.
Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton, and Democrats have suggested that while serving in the Bush administration he helped win lucrative contracts for his former firm, including a no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq.
Cheney's office has said repeatedly that the vice president has no role in government contracting and has severed all financial ties with the Texas-based oil services conglomerate.
Cheney was chief executive officer of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000. He resigned when he became George Bush's running mate.
In response to Cheney, Leahy reminded Cheney that the vice president had once accused him of being a bad Catholic, to which Cheney replied either "f--- off" or "go f--- yourself."
quote:Cheney, interviewed by Fox News Friday, said he had no regrets about his remarks to Leahy. "I felt better after I said it," and he added, "A lot of my colleagues felt what I said badly needed to be said."
It's really interesting to see the VP explain his behavior this way. Instead of saying "I feel I have been treated unfairly by this man. I was tired and resorted to an obscenity.", He goes with: "it made me feel better. Cool."
Nice role modeling, Mr. Cheney.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It goes back to the question? Do I want a President who behaves better than I would, or do I want a president who shares my vices so that I feel less alone. I'm not looking for buddy, I'm looking for a leader and inspirer.
I'm not saying that I would not have done the same thing, I do know that I would be contrite, and that I ought not have done it.
posted
It doesn't do that for me, Book. Leahy was just exchanging pleasantries. Cheney started in on him and then Leahy reminded him he had reasons to feel wronged by Republicans. At that point, Cheney seems to have run out of things to say.
I think it's safe to say that both Bush and Cheney see themselves as role models.
For kids reading the news, what does the following communicate?
posted
Either way, it's not a big deal. And I don't believe for one moment that you are not a civil person. Would it have been less blunt to say, "I don't like you,you don't like me. So why don't we turn around and smile for the camera so I can go back to figuring out how to get you fired in '06."
posted
I don't understand. All I'm saying is that I find it highly amusing that the VP said f*** you to a congressman, and that I sorta admire him for it. I'm not shooting highbrow here at all.
EDIT: Also, it's virtually impossible for the VP to get a Congressman "fired."
[ June 26, 2004, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That the VP resorted to profanity doesn't bother me.
That the VP resorted to profanity so quickly in the exchange instead of countering or acknowledging the point, that bothers me.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I've been accused of using the same word far too often in my own life, I won't presume to censure the VP for saying that particular bon-mot. I don't generally use it directed at anyone, though. In fact, unless I'm smiling when I say it to my man after a particularly sharp short-person joke, I can't remember the last time I directed it at a person.
Has anyone noticed that we're not a particularly civil nation these days? Like him or not, despise him or not, the VP had no cause to direct that comment at another person. Period. Common courtesy. Does anyone remember the joke about "My, how nice!"? (Punchline is that the society lady's husband gave her the gift of charm school so whenever the other women were one-upping each other she could say, "My, how nice," instead of whatever the VP said.
posted
I heard his explanation...he said that he was annoyed that the guy was making attacks about him and questioning his ethics when he was not around...but then was action all warm and fuzzy when they saw each other.
While perhaps it was not the "right" thing to do...and he could have chosen another word...I can't say I blame him. If someone was bashing me when they talked to other people, but then acted all warm and fuzzy to my face I would be ticked. Plus, I just like seeing a politician being told off for being a politician. Of course, the fact that it was the VP that did the swearing…rather than another congressman makes it kind of bad, but I guess it shows that even a VP is human.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many of you folks got worked up when John Kerry flipped off the vetran who was heckling him? Was that civil discourse?
Anybody have any idea what kind of vocabulary Clinton had?
Is there anybody left in this country who actually gets offended consistantly by actions, instead of offended by any action done by somebody they politically disagree with?
Okay, that's not directed at the people in this thread. I admit I'm not on Hatrack enough any more to know some of your political alligences. It's mostly a rant on the trend in general.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I heard his explanation...he said that he was annoyed that the guy was making attacks about him and questioning his ethics when he was not around...but then was action all warm and fuzzy when they saw each other.
That is called politics. Been happening since Caeser got stabbed by all the politicians he thought loved him. Jeepers...I would think an insider like Cheney would realize that. Heck, talking behind people's backs and being sweet to them face to face starts in High School for goodness sake.
But, far be it from me to stop Bush Administration apologists from doing the "Clinton must have done it first or worse" routine. Like we haven't heard THAT before.
But, I like Dag's point...saying the word was one thing. Saying afterwards that he "felt better" after doing it and not apologizing, that is another. Very liberal of him.
posted
The Bush admin seems to think anything Clinton did was bad. Clinton was well spoken, and pronounced words correctly. So Bush must consistently talk about something that doesn't exist (nucular weapons), and pause for five seconds in the middle of long sentances.
Clinton ran the economy smoothly, and used a proven economic system that didn't rely on rich people doing what they don't do. So naturally Bush tries trickle down economics, which never has, never does, and never will work.
Clinton did something wrong, was caught, appologised for it, and fixed his family. Bush started a war on false pretenses is continually denying that he did, and isn't doing anything to fix it.
Clinton never got angry when talking with someone he dissagreed with, kept a level head, and was always cordial with even his most fierce opponents. So naturally Dick acts like a dick.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My post wasn't a "Clinton probably did it first." We all know he did it first. Read a few books on Clinton if you think he was level headed. "All Too Human," the Woodward book on his first 100 days, Dick Morris's book.
My post was on how "It's only a big deal if conservatives do it."
Which I actually guess I should take as sort of a compliment. If actions that are commonplace for guys like Clinton and Kerry are newsworthy when done by conservatives, I guess all conservatives can take that as a compliment--even liberals expect more, and usually get, a higher standard from our guys than from theirs.
Look--facts are facts. Kerry swears, often at embarrassing and inoportune times (he, the man who gained fame for his outspoken war protesters, couldn't handle a few people protesting him whith out resorting to obscene gestures). Clinton swore. Cheney Swears. Bush has been caught on mike swearing, at embarrasing and innoportune times.
Can we just agree that politicians swear, get over it, and move on?
Or, get outraged at all the swearing they're all doing, and elect a different class of person to public office?
Pots have to be carefull.
That goes both ways, believe me. I'm not saying that just against liberals. I think a large part of the current hatred of George W. Bush is the direct result of the conservative's constant attempts to strain at gnats in their attempts to find things Clinton was doing wrong, when in reality they could have gotten over it when they took over congress and considered that mandate enough.
Now their own actions are backfiring--people are looking for the worst possible reasons and motivations in everything Bush does. People hated Reagan, but I don't recall him being subjected to the moment-by-moment scrutity Clinton seemed to be under.
Talk radio really is largely responsible for this. Talk radio does a lot of good, in that it exposes the public to things the mainstream media may not, but it also becomes a chore, trying to find some new and entertaining way to rip your enemies a new one every day.
Stuff that really shouldn't suprise anybody is treated like it has suddenly caused the world to spin off it's axis.
I'm just asking for a bit of a step back to the world of reality, where we judge actions based on the actual merits of those actions, rather than get knee-jerk defensive of "our guy," while getting Crazy-Go-Nuts in our attempts to find ways to prove the other guy is the devil.
I mean, come on, folks. We really are talking about politicians here. They're all motivated by a strange mix of desire to serve to the public and obtain power and fame and adulation. They're all a mix of saccarine and salt. They're all part Teddy Bear and part Firecracker.
Honest to goodness, there's enough legitamite issues for us to debate and ideas for us to get worked up about--there's enough wind already blowing that we really don't need to whip up our homebrewed teapot tempests just to keep the storm going.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
There are degrees to this sort of behavior. What i find inherently reproachable is not the interaction itself, although i find it dramatically irresponsible of the Vice President of the USA to behave so in front of so many people. What i find so destestible is his defense for his actions.
"A lot of my colleagues felt what I said badly needed to be said."
What kind of excuse is that? I don't care -who- thinks it needed to be said. You don't justify your actions based on what other people's opinions are. So much for bringing back accountability and personal responsibility to the White House.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never understood why certain words get people in such an uproar. Telling someone to go f*ck themselves is just a shorter way of saying, "I don't like you, you don't like me. So why don't we turn around and smile for the camera so I can go back to figuring out how to get you fired in '06." About the same meaning, but with one you are not out of breath. I am not going to think that you are a better person for wasting five seconds of my life rather than one.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Telling someone to go f*ck themselves is just a shorter way of saying, "I don't like you, you don't like me.
The same way calling someone a nigger is a simplified version of saying "I don't like you man of color and if you were my slave I'd whip you at this exact moment."
Lead on Christian White Man! Lead on!
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm...I wonder if I could get away with saying "all my coworkers that it was well deserved" when I start telling stores to f*ck off or to learn how to do their own f*cking jobs.
The last part isn't my trying to save me breath (lord knows that it wouldn't help if I tried to speak rationally to them), it's expressing the emotions that I feel, and trying to shock them back into listening to the poor soul on the phone.
While I do acknowledge that other people swear too (and I can swear like a sailor after a few minutes of dealing with people at work), I expect a professional demeanor from people that I work with, at stores where I shop, and by the people who represent me. The way I see it is that people expect it of me while I'm at work, so I should be able to expect the same time of professionalism when people are at their jobs.
posted
The way I see it, those expectations are unreasonable, and rather than foisting them upon those lucky enough to not have to deal with them, why not encourage anyone who challenges them? I honestly could care less if the guy at the restaurant tells me to have a shitty day, as long as my food is of good quality. To me, professionalism implies competence, not sugar-coating. Perhaps if the f*ckers at Hardee's cursed more they could pay attention to my order and fill it correctly after I repeat it three times. Well, that is too much to expect of Hardee's, but McDonald's.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For Cheney to abuse his power as President of the Senate by telling a Senator in the minority party to "**** off" or whatever it was, is a shame to republicans everywhere. Republicans have a responsibility as the majority party not to abuse their power and brush off the opposition.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, please, it wasn't an abuse of power. It was rudeness, followed by arrogance.
Cheney has NO POWER in the Senate except to break ties. His duties as President of the Senate give him no power over anyone else or power over what legislation is deliberated when.
Nor can he punish a Senator from another party in any meaningful way.
posted
His powers are to recognize senators and give them the ability to speak. He has powers of protocol, security, acknowledgement, scheduling, etc. For all practical purposes he is the "supervisor" of the Senate. For you to try and deny this is shows remarkable ignorance on your part for how the Congress works. The Vice President can have Senators thrown out for rudeness, obscneity, etc., but Senators canNOT have the VP thrown out. How would you feel and what would you do if you were trying to work and your supervisor told you to "**** off?" Even if you deserved it, how would that help you two work together?
He's not his supervisor. Who's cut loose from reality now? Most of the work happens in Committee. His position is largely ceremonial, with the only real power being associated with the counting of electoral votes. The Vice-President seldom presides, and has no say in the selection of the President pro tempore. He has no say in committee assignments. The rules of procedure give great discretion to individuals in the senate give him little power to influence anything.
The Senate Majority leader has far more power than the Vice-President.
Before you call someone ignorant, learn your facts.
posted
If the President Pro Tem of the Senate is telling a leading Democrat to F*** Themselves, it sure proves that the Administration has no respect for the cares and views of the Democrats in Congress, their constituents, the 40%+ of US Citizens who voted Democratic in the last Congressional elections, and the 50%+ that voted Democratic in the last Presidential election.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Be fair. He's telling one Senator who publicly accused him of corruption to f*%^ off, not "Democrats" in general. And he's the President of the Senate, not the President Pro Tem.
Dagonee P.S., the deomcrats did not get 50% of the vote in the 2000 presidential election. In fact, Bush's total was closer to Gore's than Gore's was to 50%.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, the 2000 election were a statistical tie, both in florida and in the nation as a whole. The result was realistically speaking determined by the weather in different areas of florida (weather always affects voter turnout).
Bush was probably elected by a thunderstorm (Gore would probably have been elected by some sunshine in the same place, so it flows both ways).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. Plus the fact that they announced for Gore in Florida before the panhandle polls closed may have spurred late turnout there. I've heard this conjectured but haven't seen an analysis of it.
quote:I'm just asking for a bit of a step back to the world of reality, where we judge actions based on the actual merits of those actions, rather than get knee-jerk defensive of "our guy," while getting Crazy-Go-Nuts in our attempts to find ways to prove the other guy is the devil.
So after 8 years of doing this to Clinton, the Repubilcans are going to ask the Democrats (or any other critics) to not follow suit? I am sorry, the Republicans set the standard for harrassing the people in power by spending millions of dollars on a) scandals that MAY have happened prior to the president's time in office and b) private affairs that have nothing to do with the President's ability to perform his duties. The bar has been set (very low). Trying to reset it to a time when microscrutiny wasn't the case is pretty silly. Reap what was so well sown.
At least the biggest investigation into the actions of this administration has to do with things actually important to the running of the country. The first being the VP's Energy Task force (which so far they have successfully blocked access to) and the mishandling of the country's security before, during and after 9/11/01. Personally, I wish the worst thing the president ever had done worth investigating was oral sex with an intern. Ah, innocent times.
quote: Telling someone to go f*ck themselves is just a shorter way of saying, "I don't like you, you don't like me.
It's more than just that. It's also saying "I do not feel that you nor the people that can hear me are deserving of the courtesy of not hearing words that many people still consider vulgar and uncouth."
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Cheney said yesterday he was in no mood to exchange pleasantries with Leahy because Leahy had "challenged my integrity" by making charges of cronyism between Cheney and his former firm, Halliburton Co. Leahy on Monday had a conference call to kick off the Democratic National Committee's "Halliburton Week" focusing on Cheney, the company, "and the millions of dollars they've cost taxpayers," the party said.
I believe if someone dedicated an entire week to ripping on me, then tried to come up and be nice I would have said something similar.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I believe if someone dedicated an entire week to ripping on me, then tried to come up and be nice I would have said something similar.
If your skin was that thin, then maybe you wouldn't be in politics, either. Clinton found this out the hard way, too. Had he just said, "okay, I had an affair with an intern and I screwed up" Starr's name wouldn't be a household one. Cheney is hiding Haliburton (and Enron and others) involvement in planning US energy policy (a policy many believe is at the root of our invasion of Iraq, not terrorism or middle east stability or whatever). If he can't take the heat, step down and let someone else get in the kitchen. Telling someone to f@#$ off when there are plenty of people around to write down that you did so shows a lack of civility we KNOW exists but would rather not see in public. Not very smart. What I might do or you might do is moot...we aren't in politics. If we did this on the job, we might get written up or other such discipline. Sure, I swear all the time at work among my peers but not at collegues I don't like. But let the apologists continue...since no apology will come from this White House.
quote:Oh, please, it wasn't an abuse of power. It was rudeness, followed by arrogance.
Dag,
I have another take on it. Like you - it's Cheney's "explanation" and non-apology that I find more objectionable than the lapse itself. (and I don't mean an apology to Leahy necessarily, more an admission that the way he expressed anger and frustration was inappropriate)
There is a power differential at work here, but its more subtle. Cheney is VP. As Americans, we're told repeatedly that when you talk about the President or the VP, you are addressing not only the individual but "the office."
That means, among other things, that Leahy can address Cheney only as "Mr. Cheney" or "Mr. Vice-President."
Turn it around - it would have been seen as an even more serious breech if it had been Leahy telling Cheney to "f___ off". And if Leahy had followed up by saying it made him feel better to say it, he'd get harshly criticized by a larger group than is criticizing Cheney - and not because Cheney is the more loved of the two. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Possibly. The case can be made that it's worse if Cheney does it because he's the Vice-President, or worse if it's done to Cheney because he's the Vice-President.
Since either case can be credibly made, and since it's predictable as to who would make which case, I still fall back on my assessment. It's rude if it's done by a plumber to an electrician - the titles don't matter. But rudeness happens, and a real man apologizes for it afterwards.
posted
It makes me proud to be a Vermonter, both for having a senator worthy of being cussed at, and having a senator who took the insult mostly in stride. The local news basically showed him having a good laugh about it.
I find this more humerous than grave. But, then, I'm known to be a constant stream of obscenities when I'm at college, so the language that other people use doesn't really bother me.
This hasn't really changed my impression of Dick Cheney, I still think he's a absurdly rich white guy running on borrowed time. Now I can laugh at him, though.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ceremonial?! *laugh* The VP decides who gets to talk on the Senate floor, if that isn't power then I don't know what is. I noticed you also ignored the fact that the VP can eject a Senator but not vica versa. Funny Cheney can eject people for doing the very things he is doing. "but who will guard the guardians?" apparently noone. Also, the pro tem truly *is* a ceremonial position. The VP is the one who runs the Senate, and he is also the one who allows the committees to report their findings. Controlling floor time IS control over the Senate. You might want to go and see how Congress works for yourself if you seriously doubt this or if you doubt how much Cheney presides over the Senate, which is more than most VP's have in the past.
posted
I always thought resorting to vulgarity was a way of saying "I'm wrong, I have nothing to say to defend myself, so I'm just gonna attack you verbally because the fact that you're right pisses me off."
That's always been the case. If the VP was right in the argument, he would have defended himself with evidence of his innocence.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
A. A member shall not speak until recognized by the President. When any member wishes the floor to speak in debate or otherwise address the Senate in any manner, he shall seek recognition by respectfully addressing himself to "Mr. President." The President may refuse to recognize any member who is not at his desk when he seeks the floor.
B. When presenting a paper, a senator first shall state its import.
Rule 6.6. Order of recognition by President
When two or more members rise to be recognized at the same time, the President shall name the one who shall be first to speak.
Also, the President Pro Tem presides over the Senate much more often than the President. Cheney's extra involvement was being present for a lot more votes due to the close nature of the partisan split.
posted
Basically what I'm getting out of a lot of this is that "Liberals don't like conservatives, and conservatives don't like liberals, and they'll always try and find reasons to discredit each other, no matter how insignificant or mundane."
Like Jon Stewart said, Yankee fans and Red Sox fans. Yankee fans and Red Sox fans, that's all it is.
EDIT: Also, Dagonee is right. I think you might be thinking of the House, where the Speaker of the House has much control over the order of bills and committe placement. The Senate is far more fragmented.
[ June 27, 2004, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
