John Parisella

John Parisella

John Parisella writes about U.S. politics from his vantage point as the former Delegate-General in New York City for Quebec. Follow John on Twitter:  @JohnParisella

The Cheney-Limbaugh Ticket

by John Parisella on Thursday, May 14, 2009 3:00pm - 12 Comments

The impression that is emerging in the minds of voters is that Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh are running the Republican party—not in terms of electoral politics, but in leadership terms. Nothing could please the Obama people more than being attacked in the media by a former vice president adamantly defending “enhanced interrogation methods” or being castigated daily on the radio by Rush Limbaugh. Such a hypothetical Republican ticket represents at best 25% of the electorate. If you are Democratic National Committee president Tim Kaine, with less than two years to go before the mid-term elections, you cannot ask for a better portrait of the current Republican leadership than Cheney-Limbaugh.

Cheney’s media tour, undertaken under the guise of talking about the lives that were saved by the Bush administration’s policies, has overshadowed legitimate policy differences between the GOP and the Democrats. This comes at a crucial moment, too: the budget’s details are emerging and Obama will soon be proposing a nominee for the Supreme Court. The ongoing sideshow over what Nancy Pelosi knew about torture has only brought greater spotlight on the issue itself. We now know that the torture began six months before the memos that authorized it were written. There is increasing evidence that laws were broken, that the constitution was violated and, possibly, that war crimes were committed. Moreover, FBI interrogators and infiltrators have testified before a congressional subcommittee to argue that torture does not work. And yet, Cheney and his daughter are claiming that America is less safe under the Obama presidency—a serious charge that cannot go unchallenged. The defense secretary under both Bush and Obama, Robert Gates, strongly disputes this claim, as does defense hawk and McCain supporter, Democratic senator Joe Lieberman. If Cheney wants a debate on torture, to borrow a favourite phrase of George W. Bush’s, “bring it on.”

Limbaugh started the fireworks by wishing that Obama fails and has since silenced any Republican who dares agree with an Obama-Biden policy decision. And he has made a list of the GOP personalities he wishes would leave the party—McCain, Specter, Powell, and there are surely more to come. However, radio ratings are one thing, electoral appeal is another. And ol’ Rush has very little of the former. Except, of course, that he can now boast of having the support of Dick Cheney, who left office with a 20% approval rating.

Meanwhile, the Republicans trudge on. However, how can they overcome the media-friendly combination of Cheney and Limbaugh? To make matters worse, Sarah Palin, a celebrity in her own right, will now pen a book. Outside of the evangelical right, who cares? Where is Mitt Romney, the only credible economic spokesperson among the GOP, while the economy is still struggling? What about legitimate conservative republicans like Mark Sanford, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, and Paul Ryan? And what about moderates like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Ridge, and Charles Crist of Florida, all of whom are suddenly marginal figures in any Republican revival. Even Newt Gringrich, who is always great for a news clip, is unable to get any traction in policy areas where he can legitimately make a contribution. RNC chairman Michael Steele, a promising choice at first, has since become an embarrassing one in no small part due to his clash with Rush Limbaugh.

A few days ago, I wrote about what I would do “if I were a Republican.” American democracy, I wrote, is better off with a healthy two party system. But with a media-generated ticket like Cheney-Limbaugh, it is close to impossible for the Republican party to get its bearings straight. The Republican party will not disappear, nor will it be marginal for very long. But, at the moment, it is failing to play its role of loyal opposition at a crucial time in history. Respected Republican pundits like David Brooks and George Will must speak up—and do it loudly. A Cheney-Limbaugh Republican ticket? Right now, they’re acting like Obama’s best allies, however unwittingly they’re going about it.

Bookmark and Share
  • Lord Kitchener’s Own

    I know it’s not meant to be serious, but wouldn’t it be a Limbaugh/Cheney ticket? I mean, sure Limbaugh has no political experience, but as sad as it is, he does have an audience. Cheney’s approval ratings meanwhile are around 19%. If I were Limbaugh, I wouldn’t let Cheney drag me down.

    • http://macleans.ca joetheelectrician

      It may be sarcastic ,John . But it would be more reassuring for our national security .

      • Lord Kitchener’s Own

        I presume that is actually a reply to Parisella’s post, not my comment, but could you clarify? Do you mean that, in relation to my comment, you think a Limbaugh-Cheney administration would be better for our security than a Cheney-Limbaugh administration (or vice versa?) or are you saying, in response to John’s original post, that you think any Limbaugh-Cheney combination would be better for our national security than the current ACTUAL administration (and who’s the “our” in your comment?).

        As for the latter contention, if that’s the one you were putting forward, I disagree.

        I think any combination of Limbaugh/Cheney in the White house would have us reach the End of Days before they got their first 100 days in. I suppose one could call us “secure” in such a scenario. Once we’ve all been destroyed, the planet will be pretty peaceful, I guess.

  • Critical Reasoning

    The notion of a Limbaugh-Cheney ticket is ludicrous. Cheney’s public approval in the final weeks was below 20%. Both men have significant health issues. Limbaugh has a loyal fan base, but it’s not nearly enough to get him elected.

    • Lord Kitchener’s Own

      Well, I think he knows it’s ridiculous, but still, even if it’s not real (and it could be) one can get the impression from the American media that Limbaugh and Cheney are “leading” the party right now. It’s a passing thing due to their prominence in the media right now (memo to Dick Cheney: the best thing you can do for the Republican Party is NEVER BE SEEN) but it could still be a problem for the Republicans.

      There does seem to be a wing of the Republican Party that seems to believe that the reason they’ve lost the White House is that their ticket in 2008 was McCain/Palin, and not Palin/McCain. This faction does tend to ignore the fact that Obama won by almost 10 million votes, received more votes than any other Presidential candidate in the history of the Republic, and beat McCain more convincingly than Bush beat Kerry, or Clinton beat Dole. [In terms of total votes, (not percentage or EC mind you, but just total votes) the gap between Obama and McCain was wider than the gap between REGAN AND CARTER!!!]. I do think this is a problem for the Republicans. It could be short-lived, and it’s not at all unsolvable, but if the faction of the party that thinks what they need is more Palin ends up swaying things, it could be a long night for the GOP.

      • avr

        There does seem to be a wing of the Republican Party that seems to believe that the reason they’ve lost the White House is that their ticket in 2008 was McCain/Palin, and not Palin/McCain.
        This can be arguably true while at the same time recognizing that Obama was sui generis, and gave a lot of people in the middle a credible reason to vote for him notwithstanding policy, ideology, or opinions on specific issues. His problem in 2012 is that no one can ever again get a thrill from voting in the First African-American President; if that proves to be the case, then the Palin-supporting wing of the party is in nowhere near as bad a position as their giggling media detractors would hope.

      • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

        The base liked Palin because she was normal and they could see themselves in her and her life. Many, but not all, cons/repubs are suspicious of elites and their hoity-toity behaviour and would like to see average people rise up on their own merits/hard work to become Pres or Senator. People who have normal background like Palin are the future of the party and the pretentious millionaires who don’t really care about con movement should move to Dems or do something else.

        I also think Palin/McCain would have come closer to winning than McCain/Palin did. McCain was the worst candidate the Repubs have nominated in decades and he wasn’t that far off from winning.

        • Critical Reasoning

          I disagree, jwl. Putting someone like Palin first on the ticket would have been a disaster of epic proportions. She simply wasn’t qualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. I thought she was pretty clueless whenever she wasn’t tightly scripted. If McCain had picked someone like Romney, he still would have lost, but at least his campaign would have retained a smidgen of dignity.

        • Lord Kitchener’s Own

          McCain “wasn’t that far off from winning“????

          Well, yeah, I guess. In the same sense that Bob Dole and John Kerry “weren’t that far off from winning” (Obama’s defeat of McCain was, imho, greater than Clinton’s defeat of Dole, or Bush’s of Kerry). As I said above, Obama defeated McCain by over 9.5 million votes (Clinton beat Dole by 8.2 million votes, Regan beat Carter by 8.4 million votes). Meanwhile, McCain managed to get just 920,000 or so more votes than John Kerry did (Kerry got 48.3% of the vote, McCain got 45.7%).

          Admittedly, Obama’s MARGIN of victory was “only” 7.2% (better than Bush vs. Kerry, and only slightly less than Bush vs Dukakis) but still. The man beat the record for most votes ever cast for a Presidential candidate in the history of the Republic by over 7.4 million votes. He won 67.8% of the electoral college votes. He turned Virginia blue for the first time since 1976.

          I wouldn’t by any stretch of the imagination count the Republicans out for 2012. However, I think a lot of conservatives are deluding themselves wrt how well Obama did in 2008. McCain wasn’t that far off from winning? I guess neither was Michael Dukakis then.

  • BDJ

    It’s called being delusional. Sarah Palin was the most unpopular Vice Presidential candidate since Dan Quayle and all polls showed high unfavorability ratings. If McCain had gone with Romney, Hutcheson, Pawlenty, Ridge, or Lieberman, he would have been far more competitive.

  • Sisyphus
  • http://macleans.ca lmn

    i feel sorry for the Republicans with Cheney and Limbaugh talking as they do . But Palin or Gingrich are not any better. The Republicans are just in a dire streak . it will take time .

From Macleans