NYTimes: Dick Cheney Is The Sensible Center

The NYTimes Magazine tells us that Both Sides must move to the Sensible Center, and you’ll never guess how:

I think what’s needed in the short term to preserve democracy, to get through the worst of this storm, is a much broader coalition than we’ve put together to date. Something on the lines of true fusion tickets that really brings in Republicans …

That would mean bringing in a good chunk of that Bush-Cheney network that’s out there — that in private says the same things that I’ve said, but that has thus far been largely unwilling to speak out publicly — and having them in many cases on the same ticket.

[snip]

It means that lifelong Republicans have to work to elect Democrats. And it means the progressives have to set aside a slew of policy issues that they care deeply about so that the ticket is comfortable to right-wing politicians.

Silly liberals, you need to make concessions to notable war criminal Dick Cheney and work to make Republicans feel comfortable…

Yes, Dick Cheney: the Sensible Center of American Politics. And that’s when I closed the tab.

This entry was posted in Blam Blam, Both Sides, NeoCons, The NYTimes, war criminals. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to NYTimes: Dick Cheney Is The Sensible Center

  1. schmice3 says:

    Hahahahahahahaha. Fuck them.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. MDavis says:

    I was agreeing with “progressives have to set aside…” [a slew] and then they went “… comfortable to right-wing politicians.”
    Nope.
    First, right-wing (arguably “far-right”) politicians are getting way too much of what they want already. Second – set aside a whole SLEW of issues? That isn’t going to happen. We’ve already had so many people melting down because Bernie (I – Vermont) didn’t win the 2016 primary on the Democratic ticket that I found myself asking how many of those people are serious and how many are just being divisive to give another talking point to anti-Hillary or pro-TFG forces. If progressives are so aggressive that they take their vote and go home if they don’t get their way instead of negotiating with the only viable national political party in the U.S. to move the needle in the progressive direction they won’t give up a SLEW to let the right wing have a win.
    Although, if they do, that would confirm the “this is a plant” idea for those individuals.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. annieasksyou says:

    I am often infuriated by the “good gray Times,” but I’m not sure this charge is totally valid. I looked to see who the author is and found this is a discussion among six experts, who include some people I think are worth listening to, such as Sherilynn Ifill. The guy who said what you quoted is Steven Levitsky, coauthor of “How Democracies Die.” So it’s clearly not TNYT talking.

    I have to read the whole piece later to see if it has merit.

    Liked by 2 people

    • tengrain says:

      Please let us know Annie if they have an avowed Leftist who demands that the Right capitulates to the Elizabeth Warren wing of the party, you know, to make Democrats more comfortable.

      Rgds,

      TG

      Liked by 2 people

  4. “Comparatively” is a key word that’s missing. I’m all for going back to dealing with Repukes as we used to know them. I want the so-called “centric” Repubs to help defeat the far right’s extremists -it’s the kind of divisiveness we need, let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth here. Let’s take advantage of it, nobody can annihilate scumbags quicker & better than other scumbags. Let Dick, et al, shine and do what they do best.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. And it means the progressives have to set aside a slew of all of their policy issues that they care deeply about so that the ticket is comfortable to right-wing politicians.

    This means more Joe Manchins and zero more Elizabeth Warrens. More Clintonesque triangulation, and chasing an ever-illusory center that only gallops rightward.

    This means that civil rights, the right to choose and gay people all go under the bus. Anything dealing with the environment, inequality, or the ongoing sanctioned murder of minorities by the police will go by the wayside.

    The radical US courts will continue to entrench armed white supremacist theocracy into the law.

    The right to vote will continue to be eroded, and thanks to the deeply undemocratic nature of the US Senate the country will continue to be controlled by an ever smaller, rural, aging and reactionary part of the population.

    NONE of those anti-trump GOP politicians have EVER supported anything the Democratic wing of the Democratic party have ever supported. These ‘right-wing’ politicians we’re supposed to surrender to will happily burn down the world for a few dollars more. Jesus fucking christ it was those ‘bush-cheney’ republicans who took us to war based on lies no different than the ones Putin is using to justify his invasion of Ukraine.

    It’s fucking amazing that these people, who are allegedly experts on “how democracies die”, STILL only embrace the one-way Overton ratchet….compromise with the right only ever goes one-way.

    WE must surrender our goals so THEY will deign to let us stay and have a voice sit down and shut up.

    How that state of affairs is all that different from authoritarian fascist rule is very hard to discern.

    Liked by 6 people

  6. roket says:

    The author of that piece should ask himself why the Bush-Cheney network that’s out there has thus far been largely unwilling to speak out publicly. Unless he has forgotten, the Bush-Cheney network used to be considered far-right back in its day. Take note of then and now buster. Be woke.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. pagan in repose says:

    What BruceDesertRat said!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Jimmy T says:

    Ok, I’m gonna keep this short. There’s a reason they call him Dick…

    Liked by 1 person

  9. The NY Times gets more stupid every day.

    Like

Comments are closed.