Rangel equates Obama with Cheney.

Guess he’s not counting on the President to campaign for him, then.

Rep. Charles Rangel compared President Obama to former Vice President Dick Cheney Saturday for their shared commitment to the Iraq War, one the Harlem Democrat argues is based on the country’s hunger for oil.

“I challenge anyone to tell me we aren’t there because of the oil,” said Rangel, who kicks off his re-election campaign for a 21st congressional term in Washington Heights Sunday.

“The lack of an honest explanation [for the war] is consistent with Bush and Cheney,” he told the Daily News during an hour-long interview that touched on his ongoing ethics probe, relationship with the President and ability to get work done in Washington.

Via AoSHQ.  Personally, I’m hoping for a nice, nasty, expensive primary here that Charlie Rangel will barely survive.  Michel Faulkner would certainly prefer to face him than somebody with plausible deniability…

Moe Lane

PS: By the way… Barack Obama and Dick Cheney identical?   Not on Obama’s best day, and Cheney’s worst.

WH ready to go up against Cheney… says anonymous source. Wait, what? #rsrh

[UPDATE] Welcome, Instapundit readers.

Do these people actually understand how this looks?

But debating Dick Cheney on terrorism? The Obama White House says it’s happy to do that anytime, as it did with Sunday’s split-screen standoff between Cheney and Vice President Joe Biden.

The dueling appearances, along with what is a clear administration strategy to play up its newly aggressive approach in Afghanistan, show a White House determined to project a posture of strength on national security and trying to gain the upper hand with Republicans who wish to portray Obama as weak.

“We have never engaged in chest-beating on what we’re doing on terrorism,” said a White House official, who was pleased by how the interviews had played out. “But this dynamic where we’re responding to criticism from the former vice president gave us the opportunity to explain what we’re doing, without just going out and talking tough.”

Except that what they didn’t do was debate Cheney. They whined about him. And then they bragged about whining about him. Anonymously. Joe Biden wouldn’t actually dare go face-to-face with Dick Cheney on this issue. Heck, he won’t dare go face-to-face with Scott Brown.  And don’t get me wrong: that might even be smart strategy on Biden’s, or the White House’s, part.  But this isn’t September 2008: the Democrats aren’t able to have it both ways quite this comprehensively anymore…

Moe Lane

Just to add to Kevin Jennings’ bad day.

So, by Jennings’ formula Mary Cheney is a conscientious objector and he’s collaborating with the occupying government.  Wait, what?

I was emailed a link to this 2007 article by getting-to-be-beleaguered ‘safe schools czar’ Kevin Jennings:

This isn’t a fight where neutrality is an option, Mary. As Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel has said, “Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” Whether you like it or not, politics does play a role here. So get with the program.

I wish Mary’s fantasy, that we could ignore politics, were true. But her baby will find out that her Mom is just deluded soon enough. Children of the “Greatest Generation” routinely asked their Dads “What did you do during the war?” As Antonin Scalia and Pat Buchanan are so fond of pointing out, we’re in a cultural war right now over whether or not LGBT people are entitled to the same level of dignity and respect as other Americans. Some day little Cheney is going to ask, “What did you do during the war, Mom?” Mary (to date) has sat on the sidelines – helping the oppressor. Too bad some day little Cheney will realize her Mom could have been part of the solution, but instead obstinately stuck her head in the sand over and over and thus was just part of the problem. I hope little Cheney can some day forgive her.

Smug fellow, isn’t he?  Since then, of course, Mary Cheney’s father former Vice President Dick Cheney has forthrightly and openly repeated* his support for same-sex marriage; while Kevin Jennings went on to serve a man who’s too much of a coward to follow suit.  The term ‘irony’ is often misused in this culture, but I believe that we have a legitimate opportunity here to use it.’

Also ‘hypocrisy,’ but that’s common with the Democrats on this issue.  Right down the line.

Moe Lane Continue reading Just to add to Kevin Jennings’ bad day.

So, the DNC declares that Cheney’s a proponent of torture.

(Via Hot Air Headlines) Explicitly, and as part of the pushback to the Cheney interview where the former Vice President weighed the current President in the balance, and found him wanting.

Democrats hit back just minutes after Cheney’s interview aired. The Democratic National Committee fired off an e-mail to reporters disputing Cheney’s argument that the CIA records released last week showed the enhanced interrogation techniques under the Bush administration were effective in gathering intelligence about Al Qaeda. The e-mail, which cited various news reports, also accused the former vice president of being a “strong and vocal proponent of torture,” and pointed to polls that show “American’s don’t agree with Cheney on national security.”

Leaving aside for the moment the wanton cruelty done to the English language with that rogue apostrophe – grammar-boarding, perhaps? – I have to ask: will this official accusation by the Democratic National Committee be acted upon, or even officially noticed, by the President of the United States?  And if not: well, why not?  After all, I assume that he agrees with the accusation – no competent party leader would let his organization go so off-message like this – so you’d think that he’d want to do something about it.

You’d think.

Moe Lane.

Crossposted to RedState.

Gay rights apologetics, versus reality.

Susan Estrich used six hundred and six words to convey the argument that gay rights activists really can still get meaningful action from this administration.

I can rebut that argument in four: Proposition 8 exit poll.

Moe Lane

PS: No, not happy about it.  I support same-sex marriage.  You know, like Dick Cheney.

Crossposted to RedState.

President Obama finally has a chance to show his mettle.

Because while Dick Cheney may have won the battle of public opinion, it’s the President who makes the final call.

Now that it’s come out that the President’s stance on Gitmo is deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people (via @BrianFaughnan):

WASHINGTON — Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to closing the detention center for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and moving some of the detainees to prisons on U.S. soil, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.

By more than 2-1, those surveyed say Guantanamo shouldn’t be closed. By more than 3-1, they oppose moving some of the accused terrorists housed there to prisons in their own states.

…he has an unparalleled change to show his leadership. Now is the time for the President to come out with his detailed, specific, and comprehensive plan for closing down the prison at Gitmo and incarcerating its prisoners on American soil.  No matter how unpopular it might be.

We’ll get a response from the White House any moment now.  I’m certain of it.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

VP Cheney’s federalist approach to same-sex marriage.

It’s a crying shame that we have a President who isn’t as willing to be progressive on this issue as either Dick Cheney, or myself:

Essentially, he favors it, but he wants to let the states decide how to best approach the marriage issue. This is a perfectly acceptable strategy to me, as you all know: I just wish that it was acceptable to the White House. Or anything definitive on the issue, really.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

Liz Cheney: no middle ground.

Another good bit from Liz Cheney:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Allahpundit is a little surprised that Liz’s popularity with the base has risen so quickly; I’m not. For whatever reason, a full-throat defense of Bush’s decisions on how to fight the GWOT were few and far between during the Bush administration itself, and that grated with Republicans. It grated on me, in fact, and I take the position that Bush actually didn’t have much choice in the matter. So, when Liz showed up last month and casually obliterated Norah O’Donnell… water to thirsty soil, my droogies. Like water to thirsty soil.

I will note one thing, however: while it would have been nice to have this conversation during the last campaign, it wouldn’t have happened even if Cheney had somehow been running for President. Based on the actual campaign and extrapolating, the Democrats would have instead run on a platform that equally highlighted Cheney’s age, his aim, and his lesbian daughter.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

I’m linking to this MoDo piece on a Cheney/Rumsfeld “conversation”…

…(care of the much more interesting Jen Rubin) for two reasons.  One, people like Dowd really do think that we think and talk like this:

“I hear Poppy Bush is furious at you,” he says. “He’s telling folks he put Junior in your care and you stole his presidency and destroyed the Bush name and derailed Jeb’s chances to ever be president, and P.S., you wrecked the country and the Atlantic alliance to boot. He has it in for Lynne, too. Thinks she spun you up, like she did in high school with her flaming batons. He thinks you got loopy from all the heart procedures. And Colin’s mad at you.”

“He can go to yoga with Pelosi for all I care,” Dick growls.

Bizarre to contemplate, but true. There are people out there who apparently just can’t function in life unless they’ve convinced themselves first that the opposition has a Deep, Dark Conspiracy in place. I suppose that it’s a motivation exercise, or something.

Moe Lane

PS: The second reason? I thought that I’d give whoever she might have ripped off to write this piece a better chance of seeing it.

Crossposted to RedState.