A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
April 30, 2004Cheney Should GoWhen I watched Cheney and Lieberman debate in 2000, I remember being comforted and thought either of those two men were ready and able to be president, if necessary. I have lost a substantial amount of faith in Cheney since the 2000 election, and I wish he would go voluntarily. The other day I started reading Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack. Although I don't believe everything I read, I think that Woodward attempts to be objective and he had about as good of sources as would be possible. In general, the book portrays Bush in a much better light than one would expect based on everyday press reports. However, in my view, Cheney fairs much worse, and the book confirms my misgivings about him. The portrait is of a man who made up his mind soon after 9/11 that war with Iraq was necessary, and all information he received thereafter was interpreted in a way to support that conclusion. He also bitterly opposed consulting with the United Nations at all, and he made repeated efforts to undermine Powell's diplomatic efforts by giving speeches or making statements that were not cleared and were not consistent with the policies that Bush had dictated. For a long excerpt about Cheney's role, see here. Why does Bush want Cheney to stay? I know, Cheney is a "trusted advisor" with broad executive and legislative experience and, because he has no intention of running for president himself, he somehow is supposed to be able to contribute more than vice presidents have traditionally done. Although those might have been plausible reasons to put him on the ticket four years ago, I don't think those are very good reasons to keep him on the ticket in 2004. Bush is not a new president anymore, and there are many others who can give him advice based on their Washington experience. Moreover, the fact that Cheney is not going to ever run for president means that he would not be sacrificing his future by dropping out. Cheney is to Bush II what Dan Quayle was to Bush I in 1992 - dead weight. Bush isn't going to ask him to leave, so Cheney should go see his doctor and instruct his doctor to tell him that he can't continue. Bush could then look to someone like Sen. John Warner or Rudolph Guiliani. Kerry is going to spark at least some interest with his vice presidential choice. Cheney should do Bush a favor and give him the opportunity to do the same. Posted by Todd Pearson at April 30, 2004 01:37 AMComments
Why exactly has your view of Cheney changed. I think there is a big difference between the Cheney the administration wants us to know and the one that actually exists, and I think there is a political purpose for it. I am not a huge fan of the Vice President myself, but I am not sure that the country would be served any better by anyone else and I don't know if dumping Cheney will do anything but maybe help the President's re-election chances. That being said I would be happier than just about anyone to see Bush put Tom Ridge or Rudy Giuliani on the ticket. Posted by: Mathew Pruitt at April 30, 2004 02:01 AMI'd love to see Cheney replaced by someone more moderate such as a Guilliani. From a Republican tactical point of view, it would put New York in play for them, something the Democrats need to get into the Whitehouse. Playing devil's advocate, I think reasons Bush may want him on the ticket are: * More than Democrats, the VP choice makes that person the annoited one for 2008. By changing now, there could be a splintering of his base. * Bush can leverage his endorsement for 2008 within his own party to get more of his second term agenda accomplished. * Bush sees us "in a war footing" and if Powell and Rumsfeld are not in his next cabinet, he might believe Cheney offers additional continuity (note to self- this is a pretty big stretch) Posted by: Will at April 30, 2004 10:59 AMI gotta admit that my negative response to Cheney is very visceral. It comes from my gut-reading of his body language: he transmits condescension, secrecy, untrustworthiness, and sometimes even malevolence. I think he probably he believes he's doing right things, but I think he at best tolerates democracy, and thinks he could fix all our countries ills if only we'd appoint him emperor. Don't jump all over me, I'm admitting that this is a visceral response on my part. Some people just give you bad vibes, and he's one of them. I might be wrong. This response may be more about me than him, who knows? Posted by: bk at April 30, 2004 11:15 AMFrom a purely political standpoint, the GOP should replace Cheney as veep simply for preparation for the 2008 election. Assuming Bush is re-elected, Hillary Clinton will most likely run next. Cheney won't be able to run, and the Republicans don't have much else in a way of national star power to match her. If someone replaced Cheney, that might even things out. Posted by: Staunch Moderate at April 30, 2004 12:14 PMUp until his term of VP, Dick Cheney had an excellent record and was well respected. He is terribly bright as the VP debates showed. Has he really become such a negative person in the last 3-1/2 years as many believe? Having said that, I too acknowledge that Cheney has become a political liability to Bush and should be replaced. I also prefer Rudi to Condi as he has so much more experience and I feel would make a strong candidate in 08. As much as I respect Condi, does she really have the broad base of experience to campaign for president or to be president? Posted by: tallan at April 30, 2004 02:04 PMReplacing Cheney on the 2004 ticket would have undermined the BC'04 campaign theme: "Steady Leadership for Changing Times". To the extent the Bush theme is a replay of the old "Don't Change Horses in Midstream" routine, they couldn't very well change horses themselves. If Bush/Cheney win reelection, expect a 2008 candidate to be groomed from very early on. I agree with Will that the Bushies will leverage support for a prospective candidate on a number of key initiatives. Most importantly, unwavering support for the neoconservative "Bush Doctrine" and unfailing support for the permanance and logical continuation of the President's restructuring of the tax code. As another benefit, Republicans may be able to cast their 2008 nominee as an outsider -- an added bonus if that "outsider" runs against Senator Clinton. The GOP is more comfortable running against power and against the beltway and would relish the opportunities that Rudy/Clinton, Frist/Clinton, Ridge/Clinton races would provide. Finally, it is important to remember that this decision was not completely political. President Bush relies on the advice and counsel of his Vice President -- for better or worse it is about time a President tapped this resource to help govern the nation. Centrists may rightly cringe at the influence VP Cheney has in this administration, but it is obvious that the President trusts his Veep, follows his seasoned advice, and hopes to keep their Presidency-by-Partnership around for four more years. Posted by: Centrist America at May 1, 2004 10:49 AMThere really is no doubt left in my mind that Cheney is the power behind the throne. I think he is calling far more of the shots than people realize. Why else would Bush insist that Cheney testify alongside him before the 9/11 Commission and that there be no form of recording the proceedings which could be later used to conclusively hold either man accountable for what they said? "... I think it was important for them (the commission) to see our body language..." - President Bush, speaking to reporters right after he and Cheney met with the commission. Body language??? What the f*** does body language have to do with it??? Can anyone still seriously doubt that this man is but a figurehead? Posted by: Kevin at May 1, 2004 12:39 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
