i come not to bury cheney but to engage those who praise him. 

the evil that men do lives after them. 

the good is oft interred with their bones. 

why let it be so with cheney?

hath scooter said he was ambitious?

(scooter is an honorable man--for a convict--

so are they all; all honorable men.)

First, Cheney doesn't represent the all of conservatives.  Just like Al Gore doesn't represent all Democrates or Greenies.  Second, I did give a response.  I don't know, is it a fetish?

kingbee, Cheney is looking for a new hunting partner. You should call him, it would be a real blast.

"believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see", I think you should go hunting with him to be sure. Wouldn't want anyone to think you can't back up your comments you know.

it's extremely rare for one person to represent all of anything except, perhaps, an organization he or she founded and controls completely.  

ask me, cheney is just one more faux conservative opportunist exploiting a huge group of people who've been bamboozled--whether by others or themselves--into something identical to conservatives from the notorious bizarro planet of superman comic fame.

ask me, Obama is just one more faux ultra progressive liberal opportunist exploiting a huge group of people who've been bamboozled--whether by others or themselves--into something identical to liberals from the notorious bizarro planet of superman comic fame.

Interesting, how this can work both ways, you lepton!

Obama fits way better into your sentence than does Cheney.  Considering that all the change that he is bringing and promised is bringing a greater feeling of hopelessness.  You could look at the up and coming elections to show that people strongely feel that they were taken advantage of and are now turning the tables.  Which shows that some people but not all as we can see here are welling to stop being neonates. 

Finally, being Conservative does not just mean Republican there are some Democrates who are conservative.   Dick Morris being one.  This is also in line and meets with your dick fetish.

Do liberals still fear him that much? I've not seen Cheney speak on behalf of anyone but himself. He's been out of office for two years, and isn't exactly in the news each week. Cheney was probably on of the most behind the scenes VP's in recent history. Liberals are now feeding his perceived power and influence. Hate will do that. Seems your a mighty contributer KB.

But let's look at the flip side. You have Bill Clinton, very much involved in active politics (Sestak scandal, the Romanoff and Lincoln support, against the white house's candidates to name a few). It may be for future Hillary support, who knows (or cares). Then you have agenda driven Jimmy Carter. He might as well be a Hamas official. He couldn't stop flapping his gums enough during the Bush years, probably in hopes of him taking away his title as "a complete failure as a president" (I believe his record is still safe). At any rate he has become a parody of himself and not too many pay him much mind. Gore? What cred does the "sex poodle" have now? Enough said.

Could it be you just don't know Dick?

while i'm sure evading or ignoring my questions by wandering off-topic to pose your own is way more fun than the alternative, it serves neither of us well while more intensely piquing my curiosity. 

perhaps i'm at fault here.  i'll readily admit to overestimating my readership (something i do innately much to the chagrin of clients who've convinced  themselves that  their target markets consist almost entirely of disconnected morons who are either illiterate or burdened by an attention span inferior to that of an igneous rock so any text presented to them must consist of simple 6-word max statements).  while i couldn't disagree more, i'm sufficiently flexible to make this easier on you by combining my original three questions into a single, much simpler query (with apologies to current tv's weekly 'infomania' feature, specifically the 'we got you covered" magazine review segment which concludes with a presentation of the most bizarre viewer submitted publication as their official 'how the *@%#' is this a magazine?' selection).  

so...just how the *@%# is cheney a conservative? 

(also, while i truly do appreciate your concern for what you assume to be fear that cheney might once more be elected or appointed to  government, you're mistaken; fact is i'd happily welcome that news.  in a conversation sometime in 2006 or 2007 here with diawa i let hope get the best of me and gleefully speculated dick was absolutely certain to take a run at the presidency, if for no other reason than he kept denying he'd do so; i was really bummed when it didn't happen.)  

based on the non-responses received so far, yall seem somewhat reluctant to offer an opinion. i'm wondering now if that's because the bush campaign jammed dick down your throat for 8 years and you either really miss it badly or??

We should look at what true conservative beliefs/values are. This is my definition of what conservative believe: believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense.  Conservatives feel that the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals and when necessary protect those goals from outside interferences, hazards, or obstacles. 
 
Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual in such a manner that the individual is able to solve problems.

Some people feel that conservatives don't want a federal government.  I have recently seen this with the oil catastrophe and the border situation.  Some people will say that conservatives say limit government then with the oil situation they want the government to help and with the border situation they want the government.  What these people are saying is not logical.  They're saying is you can't have the one or the other.

Now, to the question about if Dick was a great conservative or not.  I will say that Cheney can not be clearly classified as a conservative for he did do somethings that helped enforce conservatives beliefs while doing other things that didn't.  While he didn't limit government that much (there are a few exceptions).  He did protect individuals liberties and traditional American values through the response of 9-11 which were interfering with people's freedom.

Since Cheney can not be clearly classified into a conservative frame it wouldn't be fair to judge him within it because he wouldn't be great within that said context.  It would be like me asking if Bruce Lee could be a great boxer?  Bruce Lee, was a very talented fighter and probably could box.  He didn't box per say as in he did throw punches (jabs, uppercuts, and roundhouse punches) yet he did things that were outside of the boxing context.

This is the reason why I guess you felt that I wasn't giving you a clear answer.  I hope my analogy makes sense.

Also, I am sure that people will disagree with my definition of conservatism. I guess since its your article: what is your definition of conservative and Republican? (note I am not a Republican)  My definition of who is an outstanding individual probably varies from what other people would say and that the question is way too broad and general.  If you compared two like people (Cheney vs. X ), people may be able to respond to your question better.

What conservatives want here is for the government to stop doing things that are not its job and to start doing the things that are.

perhaps the mean temperature in hell has dropped to 0?

whatever the reason, serious replies are appreciated.

an excellent suggestion!

duly noted. 

my first question would be (and your response truly deserves its own topic because there's so much there to discuss) whether freedom is something government has power to grant (if that's the case, it then also has power to un-grant).  as far as protection goes, who prevails when protecting one person inhibits another? 

my larger questions is this: what are "traditional american values"--and how well does your personal interpretation of that phrase coincide with our us constitution in which nothing of the sort appears. 

focusing specifically on dick cheney, it seems to me there's a huge disconnect between those concepts you've listed and a person who not only went to considerable effort to protect himself from serving during the vietnam war (five deferments??), but also claimed he "had other priorities in the '60s than military service".  most of his adult life was spent working in government; as vp, he did as much as possible to expand the executive over the other two branches.  while conservatives of british or french traditions might applaud a return to aristocracy, it's really not an american thing.  or so i thought.

building interstate highways qualifies as which of those two things?

Things that are.

Do I get a gold star now?