Cheney will shoot!

Democrats beware. On election day Dick Cheney will be armed. He will be armed and angry if you vote for Democrats. So beware. If he’s willing to shoot his friends, what will he do to his enemies?

WASHINGTON —  U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney will spend Election Day Tuesday on his first hunting trip since he accidentally shot a companion last February…

Shooting friends and influencing people

Surely, this is just the beginning of election stealth, er, stealing. Within this FoxNews story is the truth, if you are willing to find it. (I can help you decode the message.) If Diebold fails to steal the election from Democrats, then the backup plan is obviously an armed insurrection against the traitor libs. You heard it here first!

He will be accompanied by his daughter, Mary, and his political director, Mel Raines, who will help him keep track of the election returns, McBride said.
See! They'll be, "keeping track of election returns," as they reload, no doubt. Ready to shoot!

On a Feb. 11 hunting trip in Texas, Cheney shot attorney Harry Whittington in the torso, neck and face when he pulled the trigger on his 28-gauge shotgun. The vice president later called it "one of the worst days of my life" and said, "The image of him falling is something I'll never ever be able to get out of my mind."

Please help make Cheney's day on Tuesday by voting GOP. The alternative is too gruesome to contemplate. Don't make Cheney 'pull the trigger' on election day.

Do the right thing: Vote for the right wing.

Victory stolen or "The end of Democracy?"

Democrats and their Main Stream Media (MSM) accomplices have already declared victory in this midterm election. Counting their votes before they are hatched I'd say.
"We're right on the edge on taking back the Senate," Schumer added. "We are feeling very good. ... This election has evolved into a national referendum on change."
The truth is that if Democrats win back the house it will be because they ran conservative candidates in Republican districts. So exactly what will they have won?

What's even more interesting is reading the unhinged nutroots fantasizing about their premature victory.
Why is Karl Rove smiling? How much better is the Republican turnout machine? How many votes will they hide, deter, or steal?

...First, unless there are levels of theft and fraud that would truly mean the end of American democracy, a Democratic House seems as close to a sure thing as we ever get in American politics three days before an election.

...November 2006 will be remembered either as the time American democracy was stolen again, maybe forever, or began a brighter day.
We'll see on Tuesday. The only poll that matters is the one on election day. With Diebold's help the GOP will be victorious once again!

Posted by Eric Simonson at November 5, 2006 7:04 PM
Comment #193498

Eric, maybe it’s just me, but I find your attempt at satire a little confusing. Are you belittling worries about election fraud, or making fun of the way we make fun of Deadeye Dick?

For the record: as a PhD in computer science, I find the “help america vote act” and all of its spin-offs worrisome. To paraphrase what George Will said - the phrase “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you [vote]” is not comforting. If the GOP does hold on to the house and senate in defiance of exit polls, there will be a cloud over the results, and that’s not good for America.

And also for the record: it’s very, very, very difficult to NOT make fun of an unpopular politician that accidentally shoots a lawyer in the face. I mean, really, really, hard.

Posted by: William Cohen at November 5, 2006 8:35 PM
Comment #193502

There probably is not a person alive who did not at least emit a small chuckle upon hearing about Cheney going hunting Tuesday. John Stewart should have a great time with that one.

Posted by: Ric at November 5, 2006 8:50 PM
Comment #193509


Yes. Yes. No. And yes.

I hope that clears things up for you.

Posted by: eric simonson at November 5, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #193511

Well, maybe I can elaborate. I believe that truth is stranger than fiction. Hence the fact that Dick Cheney is portrayed as Darth Sideous by the left and their media lapdogs (to use a cliche) is funny to me. I can’t help but agree with you in saying that it is hard NOT to make fun of this fact.

Admittedly, my humor is odd, but should we praise or condemn a politician who literally shoots lawyers? C’mon, throw me bone here.

But on your middle point that if the GOP wins, “in defiance of the rigged/slanted/biased polls” I see no problem.

‘The polls’ also predicted that Democrats would retain the congress in 1994. ‘The polls’ are often wrong. Especially when the fudge factor of the media’s bias is factored in… the media often report polls without reporting what kind of polls they are.

For instance, generic polls of people who are not even registered to vote can easily mislead the public about who might win a specific election.

Posted by: eric simonson at November 5, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #193512

The polls, they are a’changing: Late polls show the Dem “wave” shrinking….

Posted by: eric simonson at November 5, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #193519

Eric Simonson-
This is effectively saying “Thank God the person who’s coming to kick my butt isn’t going to be using steel-toed boots.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 5, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #193522
The polls, they are a’changing: Late polls show the Dem “wave” shrinking….

But you said the said polls were often wrong, misleading, and don’t say who is actually going to vote. So who cares, right?

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 5, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #193524


That’s just a typical neoPub; it’s whatever suits them at the moment. Polls suck/lie when they prove the gopers will choke, they rule/truthiness when it goes their way.

the only truthiness in this article is that Dick shot his FRIEND in the face. Imagine what he does to his enemies. “Dunk” anyone?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 5, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #193525

This is what the Republican national party is resorting to.

Kind of makes you proud, doesn’t it, Eric?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 5, 2006 11:41 PM
Comment #193527


That one is so benign that it makes me chuckle. Go back to the Democratic machines in Boston, Chicago, and K.C. in the 40’s and 50’s if you want to see what kind of misinformation really works.

Posted by: Rob at November 6, 2006 12:06 AM
Comment #193529

We aren’t living in those previous decades, and I can hardly see what’s benign about using repetitive auto-dialed phone-calls to manipulate voter’s sympathies. We’re better than that, and many of the Republicans are better than that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #193532


But on your middle point that if the GOP wins, “in defiance of the rigged/slanted/biased polls” I see no problem. ‘The polls’ also predicted that Democrats would retain the congress in 1994. ‘The polls’ are often wrong. Especially when the fudge factor of the media’s bias is factored in… the media often report polls without reporting what kind of polls they are.
William said “in defiance of exit polls.”

The popular chatter on the right which is smugly dismissive of the significance of exit polls substantially differing from tabulated results conveniently blurs the distinction between exit polls and predictive pre-election polls.

Exit polls interview an exact subset of people voting at a particular location - predictive polls attempt (sometimes) to sample “likely” voters.

Exit polls ask for information about an event that has just happened - predictive polls ask people what they plan to do.

Exit polls happen face to face with voters - predictive polls happen on the anonymity of the phone.

I suppose some people might lie and others refuse to talk, but properly sampled exit polling has been shown to be VERY accurate - except in a few states in 2004. Funny thing that.

I’m crossing my fingers for a wave that would require cheating beyond what any Repub officials would dare do to turn back.

Vote Dems, Vote.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at November 6, 2006 2:04 AM
Comment #193535

Cheney already shot his party in the foot this week when he said on TV - Full steam ahead, stay the course as we always have - or similar words to that effect. Cheney just pulled a Kerry!~

But, what is truly amazing is all the Republican incumbent born agains. Not born again Christian, but, born again Republican, from not even acknowledging they are Republican to quoting the 2 to 5% of the time they differed with Bush, to co-opting Democratic themes on how if reelected they will take care of you.

And the polls indicate a percentage of voters are falling this miraculous born again Republican revival. Truly amazing. But, it is too little too late to save the House. The GOP hoodwink may likely keep the Senate in their control, however. Which is great. A divided party Congress can’t harm our nation’s future quite as much as the one party controlled Congress did.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2006 3:07 AM
Comment #193553

The sad truth here is the GOP faithful believe confidence is equal to competence.

This is what got us stuck in Iraq.

A poignant expression of what is wrong with their vision.

Posted by: gergle at November 6, 2006 8:43 AM
Comment #193558


Hopefully the easily manipulated repub voters will see thru the miraculous transformation veil and give a good common sense vote tommorow.

The only congress I could imagine would be worse than this do nothing congress would be an all hollywood congress. The country would collapse from benefit overload. (an attempt at a little humor)

Posted by: Ric at November 6, 2006 8:57 AM
Comment #193563

Perhaps this time Cheney will shoot himself. If the self inflicted wound is fatal, it would be sad but it would be good for the nation. It would also be good for the republicans. Can you say V.P. Condi. She would be a true V.P. rather than the power behind the throne.

Posted by: jlw at November 6, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #193565


Reality vs. GOP reality.

Disasterous civil war with no end. vs Mission Accomplished
Waterboarding vs. “A dunk in the water is a dunk in the water.
Reduced civil liberties, circumventing the constitution vs. War on terror”Patriot Act”
Failed response to natural disaster vs. Good job Brownie
Insurgency killing hundreds of soldiers and civilians vs. Last throes.
Ass whoopin in 06 vs. We’ll keep control of house and senate

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 6, 2006 10:01 AM
Comment #193574

Rightwing Conservative writer, Andrew Sullivan:
“This is not an election anymore, it’s an intervention.”

Sullivan said the president was “so in denial,” comparing the Rumsfeld endorsement to applauding the job FEMA’s Michael Brown did on Katrina: “It’s unhinged. It suggests this man has lost his mind. No one objectively could look at the way this war has been conducted, whether you were for it, as I was, or against it, and say that it has been done well. It’s a disaster.

“For him to say it’s a fantastic job suggests the president has lost it, I’m sorry, there’s no other way to say it……These people must be held accountable.”

Posted by: Adrienne at November 6, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #193602


I like this comparison to an intervention, but I’m not sure I’d call Andrew Sullivan either right wing or conservative. I know he promotes that as his politics, but what I’ve read and seen of him doesn’t reflect that.

Posted by: gergle at November 6, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #193611


Surely you jest. You don’t really believe that voters can be swayed by phone calls if they had their mind truly made up.

This is just above saran wrap on the toliet seat. It is not showing a naked blond saying call me. It is not calling someone morally indecent because they were friends with a man whom unbenknowst to them was chasing teenagers.

Those are real taudry acts. This is just the equivilant of messing with a competitor’s display at a convention.

If your sensibilities are so easily offended, then perhaps you need to stay out of the kitchen while the sausage is being made.

Posted by: Rob at November 6, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #193639


What kind of anlaogies are those?
Anyway, the effort is obviously aimed at those with their minds NOT made up. Neither party gives a rats behind about the voters they already have.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 6, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #193653

National Review and George Will have excoriated this administration for its behavior; both of them are truly conservative voices.

Posted by: mental wimp at November 6, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #193678

This is harrassment for the purpose of scaring off voters. It’s no different than tossing a rock through a window with an opponent’s flyer wrapped around it. It’s an act meant to portray the victims character in a poorer light than the facts would support.

This isn’t Saran-wrapping a toilet. This is a tireless, amoral computer that will not mind people’s responses or get second thoughts about the morality of the action calling people until they are infuriated with the apparent culprit, and doing so across the map. It’s illegal, it’s immoral, and it should not be allowed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #193704

What I can not understand if you are a died in the wool conservative (fiscal) is how you can possibly support what this Republican Congress has become. Hell you would be better served by voting for a Dem over a Rep. I just don’t see how you can not see past your party affiliation on this and many other issues.
These idiots have done a great job growing government, not just growing it but making more red tape and layers of incopetance.
Lets see what else, oh yeah that little shin dig, you know Vietnam II, you might call it Gulf war II or the Iraqie war. This has nothing to do with the war on terror. The guy responsible for 9-11 is still free. This one you guys own 100% so I do not see how you can say the R’s will make you more safe then the D’s. You R’s have done more to create 1984 then the D’s would have dreamed to do, Yet you blindly follow those leading us to decreased civil liberties based solely on fear.
I am not saying that we should not work to stop terrorism. But lets put things in a little perspective, 9-11 killed what 3500 people. Drunk drivers kill 100,000+ a year. So maybe we should spend $10,000,000 a state on more state troupers. that would put us at $500,000,000. This would put the most likely person to stop a criminal, terrorist or not. More lives would be saved, we may get hit by another terrorist attack but we would have the people on the ground to respond. $10 mill a state will buy you lots of state troupers. Or even half that number for the states and the other half to the FBI for more agents to be their to respond. Lets spend the money where it will do the most good.

Posted by: timesend at November 6, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #193795


Isn’t that a little too rational for this side of the aisle?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 7, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #193812


It is quite different than throwing a rock through a window, and you know it. While I think it is juvenile, it is not criminal in any way that I can imagine. I challenge you to provide me the law that is being broken.

I’ll agree with you that it is at a minimum amoral, possibly immoral; however, if it is immoral it is certainly not as bad as other things that have been done this campaign season by either side.

For example, the two anologies I cited above (to answer your question Dave), are examples of immoral ads run by both sides.

In Tennessee, Repubilcan’s went after Harold Ford with race baiting ads that showed naked white women saying, “Call Me.” That’s immoral.

In Ohio, Democrats went after Deb Price because she was friends with Mark Foley. The ads did condemn her for knowing about what he was doing and doing nothing. It didn’t condemn her for allowing what he did to continue. It condemned her because she was friends with the man before she knew what he was up to. That’s immoral.

Prank calls by PC, juvenile yes, amoral, certainly, immoral maybe. But if it is truly immoral it pales in comparison to the other things done in the pursuit of politics this year or in any election year in the past.

Posted by: Rob at November 7, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #193817
The ads did condemn her for knowing about what he was doing and doing nothing. It didn’t condemn her for allowing what he did to continue…Posted by: Rob at November 7, 2006 11:57 AM
How is “knowing … and doing nothing” and “allowing what he did to continue” different? Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 7, 2006 12:15 PM
Comment #193893


Although I probably don’t agree with you on most political issues, I like your sense of humor. Something for both sides to laugh at, even if some of that laughter was not your intent. Someday we should all get together for a “virtual beer” and poke fun at our own parties.

Posted by: Cole at November 7, 2006 10:18 PM
Post a comment