Chafee on Cheney’s ‘So?’: He’s ‘a very very arrogant man.’
By on Mar 20th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Chafee on Cheney’s ‘So?’: He’s ‘a very very arrogant man.’
Asked on MSNBC’s Hardball today about Vice President Dick Cheney’s dismissive lack of concern with American public opinion about Iraq, former Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee responded, “that is Vice President Cheney. He’s one of the most arrogant people I’ve ever come across.” Chafee added that he’s known Cheney as “a very very arrogant man” ever since “the very first time I met him at a breakfast right after the Supreme Court endorsed him” in 2000. Watch it:
Chafee, who officially left the GOP last year, was the only Republican to vote against the Iraq War.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
I’m sorry that the one good Republican had to be defeated, but Sheldon Whitehouse has been a very good Senator so far.
March 20th, 2008 at 6:41 pmAmen to that, ralph.
March 20th, 2008 at 6:48 pmSenator Cheney is right. The most arrogant Dick I’ve ever seen or heard of.
March 20th, 2008 at 6:51 pmEr, Sen Chafee.. jeez, louise…
March 20th, 2008 at 6:51 pmWatch out for that Mrs. Cheney, mind you, don’t go giving her ant ideas…
March 20th, 2008 at 6:55 pmanti-ideas, I mean any ideas…. jeeeezzzz..
March 20th, 2008 at 6:56 pmWhen one literally gets away with treason and war crimes, it tends to make one arrogant.
March 20th, 2008 at 6:58 pmEtymology: Middle English, from Latin arrogant-, arrogans, present participle of arrogare
March 20th, 2008 at 7:01 pmDate: 14th century
1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one’s own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner
2 : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance
You’d be arrogant too if you were King of the World.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:02 pmChafee the one Republican who had it right…which is why he is no longer a Republican.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:05 pmChaffee virtually voted as a Democrat on all the major issues! Stem Cell, Death penalty, abortion etc. One wonders why he chose to become an Independent rather than a Dem. I, for one, would welcome him in the party, and feel confident that he is, and was, a lot better than the Blue Dog Dems we now suffer with.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:05 pmI was playing around with the delegate calculator at slate.com that Keltoi recommended to me, and I found that if Hillary won 100% of delegates from each of the remaining states and the island of Guam, she would zoom past Obama by 400 pledged delegates. A 100% proportion is nearly impossible, of course.
But if Clinton somehow took every state and Guam with 60% of the vote, she’d still fall behind by about 40 delegates, and both would still fall short of the 2025 delegates needed to secure the nomination.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:06 pmArrogant is an understatement; total misanthrope is more apropos.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:07 pmMcWars: I guess that means that the Florida and Michigan numbers become essential? At least Michigan is doing something fair and equitable about it; Florida, once again, will be responsible for botching yet another election?
I still don’t believe that the stolen contest in Sarasota, Fl. between Jennings and Buchanan has been settled fairly. They still have an 18,000 undervote which is totally unconscionable since all the dems who voted there came out BECAUSE this Senate seat was the most critical and highest election of that day.
It all stinks in Florida to me!
March 20th, 2008 at 7:09 pmBTW, the Jennings/Buchanan contest has been all over bradblog.com and the courts. This is THE VERY SAME PRECINCT where Katherine Harris in 2000 did her dirty work (**eyes rolling**).
March 20th, 2008 at 7:11 pmWell, duh, we all have known this about that stubby little prick from day one.
Bush/Cheney
March 20th, 2008 at 7:15 pmHague Trials ‘09
Better watch out, Lincoln, or else you’ll find yourself in that “man sized safe” in Cheney’s office.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:16 pmHe is evil.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:18 pmHe is just waiting until he can jet off to Dubai and have a mojito with Ken Lay.
McWars: I guess that means that the Florida and Michigan numbers become essential? At least Michigan is doing something fair and equitable about it; Florida, once again, will be responsible for botching yet another election?
Surely, Florida is a lost cause. DNC should move ahead and monitor that state very closely in the general.
I did another calculation. If Clinton took every remaining contest by 51% of the vote, including a hypothetical do-over in Michigan, also by 51%, then she’d be behind 144 in pledged delegates at the end of it all.
My question is, since I forgot, how many delegates in Michigan did Clinton take, and would it be easier to have them seated in Michigan? What are the guidelines for that to happen?
March 20th, 2008 at 7:25 pmHeh. He said Cheney doesn’t have to deal with anybody, except the President. I’m sure Cheney would respond with a resounding “yeah right”.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:31 pmJeremiah Wright!
Mc Cain leads over Hill and Hussein by double digits!
Obama’s campaign almost over!
Mc Cain will win in Nov!
March 20th, 2008 at 7:41 pmOT
Wow! Hillary is nailed on her “I opposed NAFTA” remark and her campaign’s blast at Obama, trying to shame him!
Check out the article on the DailyKos called:
Clinton and NAFTA revisited. Again.
http://www.dailykos.com/ story/ 2008/ 3/ 20/ 134712/ 987/ 197/ 480846
March 20th, 2008 at 7:49 pmOT- sorry
March 20th, 2008 at 8:11 pmNews Bulletin:
The State Dept. has fired two employees for breach of security involving unauthorized access of passport information of Barack Obama. It occurred in January of this year.
Who did it and why? Regarding the breach of Obama’s security information.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:12 pmBush? RNC? Rove?
Where are you reading this, Marie?
March 20th, 2008 at 8:14 pmThis passport illegality is all over
countdown with Keith Oberman tonite. One correction…they were NOT State Dept. employees, but Contract Employees. Bush’s Privitization strikes again. Questions for Condi Rice…what did you know and when did you Know it.??? The alleged transgression occured two Months ago in Jan. 08.
Historical note: George HW Bush was busted for illegally getrting access to Bill Clinton’s passport files.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:20 pmTHESE PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS!
March 20th, 2008 at 8:25 pmYes, I first reported the MSNBC bulletin, but Badger is correct – these were two contract employees who were fired.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:26 pmThis occurred in January but no one let Obama know until today. (At least that is what we know now.)
Questions now arise, aside from who did it, what were they looking for, what information is out there now, what took so long to inform Obama, who else at the State Dept. knew — and many more questions.
The passport file is a file maintained for a person’s lifetime, so this would have been someone breaching security involving every where Obama has traveled and lived all his life.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:27 pmWhat is the over under on when dana perina quits? She won’t last to Monday.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:36 pmMerlin Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
OT
Wow! Hillary is nailed on her “I opposed NAFTA” remark and her campaign’s blast at Obama, trying to shame him!
Check out the article on the DailyKos called:
Clinton and NAFTA revisited. Again.
http://www.dailykos.com/ story/ 2008/ 3/ 20/ 134712/ 987/ 197/ 480846
One, this establishes that she was even participating in politics at the time (what the KosNazis have said wasn’t the case), and two it shows she was even caring about national politics when Obama was busy with his minister trashing our nation and getting high…
If we’re gointg to test the sincerity of a politician right now, and use that as our litmus test, how about Obama saying last week that he’d never heard the unpatriotic/racist remarks of his minister, only for him to reverse his lie this week and say that he had? You know these contradictions go both ways, and the Hillary sniping is just getting really old!
March 20th, 2008 at 8:38 pmOh, and Merlin, Hillary trying to make Nafta better, knowing it was going to pass, doesn’t prove she was for Nafta. It only proves she was willing to participate in the process and help with a better bill that she felt was going to pass one way or another. Remember, she didn’t get a chance to vote it down, she only had the opportunity to help make it better!
But don’t let that fact stop your Hillary bashing. And lets not forget that this possibility never occurred to the smearing Hopium addicts at the Kos. A site I used to respect, and now hold in the same space as Drudge…
March 20th, 2008 at 8:41 pmAs is usual of late, Kos is willing to lie, smear and distort in order to hold their hopium addiction.
“In August in 92, we had to make a decision,” Mickey Kantor the former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Clinton adviser, and free trade advocate recalled for the Huffington Post. “President Clinton had to make a decision as governor, whether or not he would support [George H.W. Bush’s] NAFTA, and of course he did… Hillary Clinton was one of the great skeptics in the discussion as to whether he should do. So she was always skeptical beginning in 1992 and onward.”
Would you Hopium addicts do yourself, and your racist candidate a favor and STFU?
March 20th, 2008 at 8:43 pmRHF is a hillarybilly.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:51 pmwhat is Hopium?
March 20th, 2008 at 8:54 pmrhf, I dislike Hillary for a number of reasons least of which, if at all, is NAFTA. As far as I’m concerned her input on NAFTA during Bill’s presidency was minimal at best. I don’t care.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:57 pmWhat I care about now is that neither she or Obama has offered anything of much substance as to the details of just what they will do or strive to do once elected president.
My personal opinion is that all politicians are more or less bottom feeding scum. And you’re certainly not going to keep many friends here, most of whom agree with a lot of your posts and have for some time now, by telling them to “STFU” just they don’t love Hillary as much as you do.
Do the right thing and apologize and then tell us why you prefer Hillary over Obama and then we can discuss the pros and cons. I would prefer a little unity within the democratic party and us. Would you rather have McCain over Obama?
And enough with the “hopium” bullshit. That’s sounds like something right out of FOX News. Btw, I do hope we elect someone, anyone better than what we’ve been saddled with the past 7 years. I’d rather have Ralph Nader!
March 20th, 2008 at 9:00 pmWell, it’s clear that the Obamaniacs are in full swing ONCE AGAIN. A thread about Chafee’s comment on Cheney turns into another appeal for Obama. As I post this (seeing and reading only 29 of the listed “comments: 33″), 11 of the comments deal with Obama, directly or indirectly.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:03 pmSince you Obamaniacs desperately want a do-over in FL and MI, how about we make it a legitimate do-over? Only the people whose names were ON THE BALLOT in those states when they held their original elections can appear on the new ones. Obama WILLINGLY removed his name from Michigan (all other Dems except Hillary did likewise but she was only able to win 55% of the voters; no one forced any candidate to remove his/her name–that was a deliberate CHOICE on the candidate’s part), and, while he didn’t ACTIVELY campaign in Florida–although he did authorize commercials to be aired (strange that people don’t have problems with that since Florida’s contest didn’t fall on the same date as any other Democratic contest)–he still LOST the state when the people voted. I can seriously attest that, had Obama won that state in the first place, he’d be eager to have his delegates seated AS IS.
Getting back to Chafee, it could be that he didn’t switch to the Democratic Party (as Merlin wonders) is because he was clearly unhappy that the Dems were so eager for Senate control that the Party didn’t care what “good” Republicans (that is, those most likely to side with progressive/liberal views) were cast aside. I know I read plenty of comments from the “progressive” community in 2006 that seemed to read “Well, Chafee’s been with us on a lot of significant issues but we want a Democratic majority so we’ll support the Democrat”. Just think: Chafee, had he won re-election, could have switched parties or simply become an independent to hold a Republican Senate accountable or, for a more sinister term, “hostage” (just as Lieberman’s done to the Democrats since winning re-election–there’s not a serious campaign for progressive issues, especially on Homeland Security issues, that can be won as long as Lieberman holds a Senate Committee Chairmanship).
The last few posts are just what the republicans have ordered. Division within the Democratic Party. Obamaniacs, Hopium, Hillary Rove Clinton (admittedly, I’m guilty of that one because I don’t like her recent lower standards of campaigning), Billary, whatever.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:17 pmLet’s be simple, really simple. If Obama wins the nomination will you vote for McCain? If Hillary wins the nomination will you vote for McCain? If none of you will vote for McCain then we all need to get together on this issue and come to some sort of compromise and/or conclusion on this matter. What’s at stake is just slightly above disliking Hillary or Obama. It’s about saving our country from toppling over into the neocon hell that John McCain is the new posterboy for!
Arrogant? As Glenn Beck would say, Is he the Anti-Christ???
March 20th, 2008 at 9:17 pmgood_golly Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
You see what I mean?
March 20th, 2008 at 9:28 pmgood_golly Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Gosh, can’t Democrats just get along? It appears they don’t like either candidate enough to put him/her over the top.
That’s why we’re democratic. It is consensus, and along the road to consensus are unpleasant sights.
Your path, goop gully, of fawning obescience to the propped up (literally) puppet of the robber barons and the goon squads is not the democracy this nation was founded upon. It is the tyranny we rebelled against.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:48 pmMr. Evil Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
rhf, I dislike Hillary for a number of reasons least of which, if at all, is NAFTA. As far as I’m concerned her input on NAFTA during Bill’s presidency was minimal at best. I don’t care.
What I care about now is that neither she or Obama has offered anything of much substance as to the details of just what they will do or strive to do once elected president.
My personal opinion is that all politicians are more or less bottom feeding scum. And you’re certainly not going to keep many friends here, most of whom agree with a lot of your posts and have for some time now, by telling them to “STFU” just they don’t love Hillary as much as you do.
Do the right thing and apologize and then tell us why you prefer Hillary over Obama and then we can discuss the pros and cons. I would prefer a little unity within the democratic party and us. Would you rather have McCain over Obama?
Well, Mr Evil, your comments could easily be directed to the pro-Obama camp. People have been criticizing Hillary since the day Bill announced his run for the White House. The very FIRST President who actually sought the support of the LGBT community ended up, along with his wife, being targeted by a very slick right-wing hate campaign. Hillary sought to emulate Eleanor Roosevelt as First Lady–a woman who was very intelligent and strong in her own right and was by FDR’s side to push for social changes, and, by many accounts, pressed FDR into making many of the decisions he did as President; in other words, Hillary wanted to be Bill’s partner in the same way that Eleanor was FDR’s. (Not coincidentally, Eleanor’s opinions often made her unpopular with many of FDR’s political allies and enemies.) The more practical difference, however, was the generational one: Hillary and Bill’s marriage was a modern one, in which they viewed their relationship more as equals rather than the traditionally viewed “dominant husband, submissive wife” that had been a hallmark of all previous Presidents and First Ladies. (Incidentally, I believe that Michelle Obama, if she becomes First Lady, will attempt to be just as active in Barack’s White House as Hillary was, and will be just as soundly thwacked for “not knowing her place”.)
March 20th, 2008 at 10:03 pmBut, more simply, I am disturbed by the sheer lack of media pressing of Obama that Hillary faces all the time. If some white talking head had dared use the “pimping” comment about Obama (that was used against Hillary), that man would not only have lost his job, but he’d never be involved with any form of journalism again. But, some people seemed to feel that Hillary went too far in her reaction against the man and the network (there were some who were incensed that she had the audacity to feel the network hadn’t gone far enough with its punishment). If some white pastor of a church that Hillary had attended for 20 years, and had been a “close personal family friend and mentor” for that long, had made remarks better suited coming from the head of the KKK or the Aryan Brotherhood and SHE made the “well, of course I don’t agree with his comments, but he’s like an uncle to me, and we all have those crazy uncles” comment, EVERY SINGLE MINUTE of news coverage would be spent denouncing her for the matter. (Heck, she did, in fact, repudiate Geraldine Ferraro’s words but that wasn’t enough, either for the media or some members of the Black community. They wanted Hillary to hand them Ferraro’s head on a platter and were furious that Ferraro dared leave the campaign before they could get that.)
Obama made a heinous error with the Donnie McClurkin matter and he had the audacity to claim that he only wanted McClurkin because he wanted someone popular with Evangelical Blacks. But, Obama’s the one claiming that he’s the one who’ll get it right the first time. I wonder how the press would’ve handled the matter if Hillary had gone schmoozing with some popular White Evangelical “former gay” minister because she wanted to “reach out to Evangelicals”. I’ll tell you exactly what would’ve happened. There wouldn’t be a single LGBT organization that would have a thing to do with her or her campaign, even WITH a public apology. Obama makes one half-hearted attempt to explain his error and there are large of numbers of LGBT people who accepted it as sufficient; amazingly, African-American LGBTs were even more willing to accept it almost to a person simply because of Obama’s skin color. Also, how many people have been less defensive of Hillary following stupid pundit comments based solely on her hairstyle or choice of clothing without asking why no one’s commenting on Barack’s appearance?
As I’ve stated before, I’ll go into the metaphorical voting booth (most precincts here in Montgomery use the optical scanner system where you get handed a ballot and a pencil, go sit at a table that has some “privacy screens” set up, and mark your ballot there before taking it to the little machine) and vote for whichever Democrat’s name is listed under “President of the United States” header. If Obama’s name is there, I’ll still vote for him but, at this point, I am really not going to be enthusiastic about doing so. I removed my name from MoveOn.org’s e-mail list because the group endorsed Obama and the first several e-mails I’d received following the endorsement were so blatantly anti-Hillary (contribution requests were so much more “we need your help to stop Hillary” than “help us make Barack Obama the next President” or even “help us win the White House and increase our voice in Congress”); I’m still on the group’s mailing list, just NOT for any primary/caucus-related matters.
I’d still like to see a Clinton/Obama teaming for November (and, yes, in that order) because I truly think that team could win (don’t forget that George H W Bush openly denounced Reagan’s economic plan as “voodoo economics” but still accepted the VP slot, so bring that up whenever some pundit claims that Clinton and Obama’s sniping at each other couldn’t be put aside). Obama, in 2016 (after two terms as VP), would still be younger than Hillary is now, and MUCH younger than McCain was in his 2000 bid for the White House.
an ON-TOPIC comment for once:
on dick cheney — mr. “so?”. . .
the raw footage is everywhere,
but, for whatever reason, tonight, i
feel an abiding need to speak truth
into the face of his arrogance. this
man is paid by me — he works for
me — he is supposed to listen to me.
so i’ve put some facts in between his footage.
dick — are you listening? two-thirds
of us, your bosses — we are speaking to
you — and we have been, for nearly three
and one half years, now. this is not a
fleeting “fluctuation” of fickle opinion.
this is almost all of your second term.
do take a look — only 53 seconds
long. you know you want to!
n a m a s t e
March 21st, 2008 at 12:10 amChnney is not an arrogant man, he is an arrogant War Criminal!
March 21st, 2008 at 2:49 amMost people don’t know this but: Richard Cheney had his emotions and his soul surgically removed during his first heart bypass operation. It was difficult finding them at first but doctors managed to remove any shred decency that would inhibit any future amoral sociopathic behaviour.
March 21st, 2008 at 7:37 amIf Dick Cheney has another heart attack my response will be: “So”
March 21st, 2008 at 6:43 pm