Rumor has it by dreamtrove

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Rumor has it

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Thursday, March 2, 2006 20:10
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2700
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, February 27, 2006 3:40 PM

DREAMTROVE

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185290,00.html

Rumor has it, that this guy

is out, and one of these three

is in after the '06 elections. Anyone have a preference?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 27, 2006 3:54 PM

KHYRON

McCain! McCain! McCain!

But seriously, Cheney is running that administration, I'd be *really* surprised if he resigned/got kicked out. And I'd be even more surprised if they put McCain in his place.

Nice rumor, though.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 27, 2006 4:39 PM

DREAMTROVE

Apparently this rumor has some basis in reality. Unless it was started by John McCain

But seriously, the GOP has gotten itself into a snag. Cheney can't run. Bush's popularity today dropped a whopping 5 points from the last poll to 34 over dissatisfaction over the dubai deal, probably coupled with cheney's hunting accident. Cheney trails Bush typically by 5-10 points which at a guess would put him solidly in the 20s. Running a candidate like that for office would be absurd. The democrats will run Hillary, who, regardless of what people think of her, is a known quantity. The Gop needs to get a known opposition.

From Cheney's PoV, and yes, I agree, he's running the show, thingsa might be much better for him if he were a little less spotlighty. Not only are his policies unpopular, but he has the personal charisma of a dead rat.

This is aside from the Bush wants Hillary to win conspiracy theory, which I subscribe to, but I don't think by any stretch that the GOP as a whole wants Hillary to win. I also think people who think a Hillary victory isn't a threat haven't watched her speeches. The woman has a rhetorical skill. She can get up in the Senate with a piece of mindless pork and make people think that if they don't vote for it they'll be condemning puppies to a tortuous death. I'm sure she'll get out there on the campaign trail in '08 and tell people that if they don't vote for her, Christmas will be cancelled and America will become a part of the UAE. Burkas for everyone. Kittens, also, will be in serious danger. Then the masses will forget about her voting record and personal murder history, and vote for her anyway.

I would agree that McCain has the best voting chance, I'm worried about his recent Iran stance. All this Iran-hawking is smacking of imperialism. America is suffering serious internal decay which needs to be addressed. An Iran with Russian troops in it is going to be no threat to anyone. And, if I know the Russians, they're not just going to send a couple of pencil pushers to watch the reactor. Overall, I'm a long term McCain fan. I don't hate the other choices though. It's possibly a win-win-win. None of them are Cheney, which is a serious plus.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 27, 2006 5:34 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

If it's a rumor, it MUST be true.

Seriously, I don't see Cheney going anywhere. I pesonally think Cheney is the best VP this country has had in several decades.

But if he did, the I'd like to see either Allen or Rice in the VP spot. Allen and Romney are my 2 early favs for running in '08. While I think the world of Condi, I don't see her running. She doesn't have the taste for political campaigns, imo. Politics is too much a circus, and she's simply above that sort of thing.

As for McCain, I won't be voting for him, under any cirucmstance, period.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 27, 2006 5:51 PM

DREAMTROVE

Ah, as long as such rumors fly, we who don't love Dick get to have our fun

Those who do, have the rest of the time

I asked around locally, as my town, like this forum, has a fair number of democrats, though it's more republican on balance. about 3/4 of people I asked said they'd vote for McCain if he were running against an unnamed democrat. If that democrat were named Hillary, it went up to about 90%, if that democrat were Russ Feingold it went down to about 1/2. Curiously, McCain loses the extremes, but gets a larger middle share than most.

Condi didn't spur as much enthusiasm, but also not as much hatred as Hillary. I think on the campaign trail, Hillary would pick up a lot of support. I worry that Condi could lose if she ran.

Sadly, most people say Who's Allen? That is potentially a problem for him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 27, 2006 6:18 PM

KHYRON

The main problem I have with Hillary is not necessarily so much with her herself (although I don't really trust her), but the polarising effect she seems to have on people. People have very strong feelings towards her, either for or against, and I don't think, after a president like Bush, that having yet another partisan split is that good for the public.

I like both Feingold and McCain, and it would be great if they both ran in 2008, in spite of the fact that McCain would run for the Republicans, who I wouldn't necessarily want to see in power again because of the power the neo-cons would have as a result... then again, DT might argue that the neo-cons would still have that power even if the Democrats were in power, and in that case I guess it wouldn't really matter.

Anyway, my point is that McCain is a moderate and thus he appeals to people from both camps, which would make for a nice change. It'd be good if there were presidential candidates that are competent and intelligent, and at the same time have mass appeal, and we'd have that if Feingold and McCain both ran 2008 (wouldn't that be a great election?).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 27, 2006 8:02 PM

DREAMTROVE

Khyron,

You are right that I would argue that. My evaluation of presidents is actually a judgement of who I think they would appoint, which will define their team. I figure there are a few possible combinations: great leader, good team, which I think of as the Eisenhower govt. soso leader, good team, which I think of as the reagan govt. Bad leader, good team, which would be Clinton. Good leader, bad team, maybe Carter. bad leader bad team, Bush. Basically, analyzed that way, I think McCain would construct a good team. Allen, maybe, would, Condi, I'm not so sure, it depends whether she calls on her old shcool GOP friends or her new neocon ones. She might call on George Sr. to pick her cabinet.

Hillary I feel very sure would call on the people I call team evil. I would expect a few neocons, and some lieberman/kerry set folks, and no one from the feingold wing, or even realy the dean wing. The main problem with hillary comes if you've ever encountered some of the anti-clinton conspiracy stuff, which I gather Joss has, given the whole Bruckner thing. They paint her out to be really a go getter of evil. Someone who will actually kill to advance her career. I don't know if that's true or not, but that's the picture painted. Certainly the whole Vince Foster thing is very suspcious, and there were some less high profile cases. What she has going for her is she is a terrific speaker, which Bush most decidedly is not.

I'm not sure any of the three choices would result in a neocon purge of the GOP. I would consider McCain vs. Feingold a win/win.

At the moment, all other things being equal, a few issues would probably decide my vote:

1. Iran/Syria. I'd like to see a candidate on at least one side say that serial was a bad thing.

2. Patriot Act. Someone should address the idea of civil liberties.

3. Environment. I think that this is probably the biggest issue for me now. If someone was solidly better on this, they might beat out the others, but I would have to way it.

I mean, within reason. If one candidate said "I will halt greenhouse gasses but revoke the constitution" they probably wouldn't get my vote, but if they said "I'll stop deforestation world wide, but won't alter the patriot act" they probably could get my vote. If I believed them, which is becoming a big if.

I expect at the moment that Hillary will beat Condi in a three way split with Pat Robertson or James Dobson playing the stooge to split off the Xtian right. Then, once in office, she would follow an agenda of light liberal flavoring but no major victories for the left, and on the deepest levels, probably very much like Bush, same position on the agenda issues.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 11:49 AM

DAVEC5

frankly, i think the Dickster should just take em all quail hunting and just see who survives.....

i did see this rumor on the Huffington Post, so there may be something to it....

does it matter who replaces the VP....the administration is still just as corrupt without him...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 12:48 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I pesonally think Cheney is the best VP this country has had in several decades.

I was going to agree and say since Nixon -- but I actually think Cheney may be a better VP than Nixon. Nixon was a better politician/President, but he lived under Ike's shadow as VP.

Then I was going to say that he's the best VP since old TR to McKinley, but like Nixon, TR was in McKinley's shadow while the President was alive (he certainly surprassed him, and then some, after he died, though).

I honestly can't think of a stronger VP who's had such a major role in the administration. Most VP's did very little.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 3:29 PM

DREAMTROVE

Oh, I so disagree. Cheney should have to pay upfront for the chance to be in the same sentence as Nixon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 1:43 PM

DREAMTROVE

I'm updating my presidential preferences for what it's worth, which isn't much, after watching speeches by just about all of them.

1. Cheney vs. Kerry is just shoot me.
2. Hillary vs. Cheney is Hillary.
3. Hillary vs. Condi is Condi.
4. Condi vs. Biden is *hmm*. Depends.
5. Biden vs. McCain is McCain
6. McCain vs. Feingold is Feingold. *
7. Hagel vs. Feingold is still Hagel.

* This was a *Hmm* before, now it's a definite Feingold. Still like McCain, but Feingold's position on constitutional rights is much stronger. Gotta respect that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 2:49 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Oh, I so disagree. Cheney should have to pay upfront for the chance to be in the same sentence as Nixon

I agree, but we're talking about their roles as VP, not as a person, politician in the general sense, or whatever, right?

Whatever one thinks of Cheney's politics, he is practically indespensible to Bush, and Bush highly respects him. Ike couldn't be bothered with Nixon -- who was never let in on what was going on during the Eisenhower administration, much less consulted for his opinion. And let's not forget that Ike didn't even want to endorse his own VP for President in the 1960 election (of which Nixon was robbed).

And no one can accuse me of not liking Nixon. As I've stated previously, I actually worked the polls for him in his 1972 re-election bid (passing out cards all day long at 5 different polling stations in my neighborhood). I was also priviledged to attend Nixon's send-off from Stewart AFB in New York after he died in April 1994. (I couldn't travel to CA, but Stewart AFB was only a 2 hour drive east of me, and I fortunately knew someone who worked for one of our U.S. Senators, who got me a pass to attend.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 3:04 PM

KAYNA

I love my captain

Of the three pictured, I've got to go with McCain. He seems more honest than most pliticians.
Notice that I say more honest, not totally honest. We'll see what happens.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost.
Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 3:32 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Just remember- "cluster" is only half 'a word.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 6:29 PM

DREAMTROVE

It was my impression that Nixon was a power player VP, maybe even Eisenhowers better half. Um, not in a gay way. But Nixon spent a lot of time making US foreign policy much the way Bush Sr. did as VP to Reagan.

The problem with Cheney is not that he doesn't do the job, I'll give him that. And it's not that he doesn't care, or work hard, he's 3 for 3 on all that. But he just has the 'minus' touch. Not a single g0d d4mn3d thing turns out like he plans. He cooks up this grand scheme of a master plan for everything and then pfft! we fly smack into the surface of Mars. The thing is, I think Cheney is still thinking like a socialist, Plan first, then put into action. There's no flexibility there, no evolving self-repairing plan. The world just doesn't work like that. Unexpected things happen.

But back to past VPs. I think in just potent VP power:

Truman was mega-hawk, and powerful
Nixon was diplomat and powerful
Johnson was mega-hawk and powerul, and probably had Kennedy killed *
Humphrey was weak
Agnew was weak
Rockafeller and Mondale were really not there long enough.
Bush Sr. was diplomat and powerful
Quayle was weak and dumb
Gore was weak, not dumb, but real weak
Cheney is mega-hawk and powerful

I don't know if there's a pattern there, except that powerful VPs become president whereas weak ones lose elections. I guess I'd say there are a few VP models that I think they fall into:

1. Hawk behind the throne, controls things, plays war games. Jafaar.
2. Mr. Fixit goes around and makes deals, prevents the president from fumbling. The Djini.
3. The total lack of power behind the throne. Iago the Parrot.

If your VP is Iago the Parrot, you shoudn't run him as a candidate.

Anyway, I hadn't heard that about Nixon, sounds like you know more than me, but if that's so, then maybe he took matters into his own hands. I remember reading about him having a fair amount of involvement in foreign affairs.

I agree Bush would be lost without Cheney, but he could have someone else to guide him. McCain maybe. Cheney is too gung ho for my tastes, not at all cautious or reserved, and it doesn't help that he seems to fail perpetually. I also am familiar with the whole agenda thing, and it's really not pretty. And then there's the whole Clinton thing.

Basically I think Bush is a trained monkey, which is neither good nor bad, and I beat up on him too much, when I really should be beating up on Cheney :) or someone. There's about 10,000 things I don't care for in this administration, not the least of which is the USA Patriot Act, not to mention the deficit spending, the war, er, wars. The Dubai port deal is just like item number 27 on reasons I think this admin has to go.

Up until to the Dubai deal, I think my position was 'has to go as long as it can be replaced with another admin.' Now I'm willing to accept libertarian leaning democrats as a replacement. Not up to 'we would be better off with Kerry,' I feel quite certain we wouldn't, and ditto for Hillary. Probably 1/2 the democratic party. Okay, I should stop now, don't want to step on any toes. But I think Cheney should take some time off, go fishing. Let someone else take on the pressure. We have a civil war in Iraq to deal with, Al Qaeda in afghanistan seizing prisons, debt so large it is equal to the entire wealth of the world. That's the new stunner. The long term liability of the US govt. is about to exceed the GDP of the Earth. And finally, and this is really about where I'm getting to, I don't think we're going to make it.

Not in Iraq, I mean the USA, a country. Clinton screwed things up, but Bush has really done a number on us, and I don't think it's coming back. It used to be USA!USA! But now the local feeling here is increasing, USA, who needs it. And I agree. If a candidate runs locally on the platform of the independent nation state of New York, it wouldn't matter which ticket they were on, they'd just win.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 7:07 PM

MATTEBLACK

I am a pretty consistent democrat/liberal voter who has recently registered Republican just to vote for McCain in the primaries.

It'll be nice to vote for someone other than "not Bush" next time around.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 1, 2006 7:21 PM

DREAMTROVE

Good move. I think that they primaries are the only real election we have. the 80% or so of people who give them a miss are subjecting all of us to bad or worse. Which is which is really subjective, (I see Kerry as Bush plus a draft) but in the end, does it matter which one you get? It's much better to have decent, okay and good, and maybe the rare excellent to vote for, without having to end up in 3rd party looney land with 0/9% of the vote.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2006 5:04 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Truman was mega-hawk, and powerful

Not to be argumentative, but Truman was only VP for about 9 or 10 weeks, and so out-out-of-the-loop that the first time he found out about the bomb was after FDR died. As a matter-of-fact, from the way I heard it, on the day FDR died, Truman was told #1) that FDR was dead, then #2) there was a bomb (in that order). He had no clue prior to that.

After he became President, yes, he was tough as nails (and my Dad's favorite President), but as VP he was left in the dark about most things (as seemingly most VPs were prior to Cheney).

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nixon was diplomat and powerful

Again, Nixon was a great diplomat, but Ike never confided in him. As I said, Ike held off on endorsing Nixon in his run for the Presidency in 1960 -- much to everyone in the Republican party's embarrassment. How much could Ike have liked or trusted Nixon if he didn't want to even endorse him (his own VP from his own party, against that playboy upstart Kennedy)?

(I remember hearing how this had hurt Nixon deeply, who looked up to Ike like a father.)

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Anyway, I hadn't heard that about Nixon... (snip) I remember reading about him having a fair amount of involvement in foreign affairs.

Nixon was heavily involved in foreign affairs, but more as an ambassador than a policy-maker. He was Ike's frontman on trips abroad -- much like the Secy of State does these days (Ike traveled abroad infrequently compared to his VP).

I can't say, but I would guess that Ike sent Nixon abroad to keep him out of his hair (Nixon had an unfortunate habit of drawing bad press. In my opinion, Nixon was the poster-boy for the liberal press's hatred of the Republican party, and had been since his debut election to congress in the late 40's.)

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Johnson was mega-hawk and powerul, and probably had Kennedy killed *

I loathed LBJ, but I have admit he was the consumate politician. No one wheeled and dealed in the 20th century like he did. I mean, he would physically grab you and make you come around to his way of thinking. But, again, he didn't get to exercise many of these traits under Kennedy's heel. RFK was more of a confidant to JFK than LBJ was (and LBJ always resented that).

(I still think my Dad should've arrested Senator Johnson in 1959 when he had the chance, but that's another story.)

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Rockafeller and Mondale were really not there long enough.

Well, Mondale had four years -- which was more than Truman and LBJ had in that office combined. Still, Carter was so bad on his own, he didn't need ole' Fritz to help him gum up the works.

Rockefeller was a disaster. Don't know what possessed Gerry to pick that lunatic. (I still remember the photo of Nelson on the front of page of the newspaper throwing the finger at someone. I don't remember the context, but I sort of recall that he was letting someone in Congress know what he thought of them in no uncertain terms.)

I still maintain that throughout history, most U.S. VPs did practically nothing (while in that capacity). That has also historically been a reason a lot of people have given as to why they refused to go on the ticket as VP -- because they felt they could be far more effective in the job they already had than they could've been as VP.

In that capacity, Cheney has broken the mold. Bush probably confides more in him than any President has in their VP prior to this.

Will this redefine the role of all future VP's? I don't know. I imagine that would depend on the President, and the confidence/rapport they have with their running mate.

Most Presidents are power-hungry and egotistical. That type of person doesn't like to share power (or the limelight).

And that's one thing you can't say about Bush Jr. -- he isn't there for the power trip, and he's willing to bow to the advice of people he trusts. Even his enemies have said that about him.

I don't know if anyone here saw it, but a few years ago, the daughter of Nancy Pelosi was on TV, talking about Bush. Apparently, she had filmed some documentary about the 2000 election (or about Bush's role in it, I don't remember the specifics).

Now, like her avidly liberal mother, Miss Pelosi admitted to being against everything Bush stands for. But she reluctantly admitted that she couldn't help but "like" him as a person, because he's not a typical "center of attention" politician. He was self demeaning, and showed a genuine concern for the opinions of people around him. She said that when she spoke with him, he looked at her like he really cared about what she said, and that talking with him was just like talking with "another of the guys". I doubt you could say that about any other President -- with the possible exception of TR and Lincoln (neither of whom seemed to put on airs, and were both "straight-shooters".)

If even Bush's political opposite can say that about him, it says a lot about his character as a person -- regardless of what one may think about his politics and the decisions he's made (right or wrong). Praise from one's admitted enemy is indeed a high thing.

(And the funny thing about it all was the way the Miss Pelosi was writhing in her seat, saying these "good" things about Bush. She was clearly uncomfortable heaping praise on her political enemy, but she was honest enough to admit to "liking" him for these particular character traits.)

edit: I looked it up, and her name is Alexandra Pelosi. The film she made was titled "Journey's With George", and it was released on DVD in 2003, after initially airing on HBO in Nov. 2002 (two years after it was filmed).

see here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000YTOXU/103-7172940-2288632?v=glan
ce&n=130

I never saw her film, but I saw Miss Pelosi talking about it on (I think it was) The Tonight Show. My reference to her above was from her appearance on that show, discussing her film.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2006 8:18 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Ike never confided in him.

Not arguing. I think Nixon was a powerful VP, a go-getter, regardless of what Ike thought of him.

Quote:
my Dad should've arrested Senator Johnson in 1959 when he had the chance

No he shouldn't have. People who sought legal action against LBJ wound up dead. That includes JFK who actually passed a constitutional amendment to allow him to sack LBJ. No Kennedy death, LBJ gets sacked, Death of JFK, LBJ is president. JFK dies. Just circumstantial evidence, like an excess of motive.

Quote:
Don't know what possessed Gerry to pick that lunatic.

I do. He was a party favorite like McCain is now, or Biden is to the democrats. It was a nod.

Quote:
And that's one thing you can't say about Bush Jr.

Sure I can, it's a free country. I think Bush is the underachiever who always disappointed his dad and never came close to matching his brother's success. To his this go ride is pure egotrip. But he's just a trained monkey, so it doesn't matter. Today I say Fox propping him up in a voice clip from the Katrina video. I haven't seen the vidoe yet, but I hear he was barely responsive. He's still Theoden under Wormtongue Cheney.

Quote:
he's willing to bow to the advice of people he trusts.

Willing? The man is Forrest Gump. He has no choice. They tell him which way the Earth rotates and he can't rub two braincells together nor does he care to.

Quote:
she couldn't help but "like" him as a person

I know people who know him personally. He's perfectly nice if you don't get into his weird death obsession. What he isn't is a leader. Or a genius.

Quote:
Praise from one's admitted enemy is indeed a high thing.

Hey, I've said a positive thing or two about Osama Bin Laden, awfully big of me. I have even said some positive things about Bush. But I really don't have any use for either one. I can't put one above the other anymore. If you were to ask me, give me a choice, to get rid of one of them, I would probably say Bush. It took me a long time to get to this point, but honestly, I think Bush is more of a threat to America. Without Bush, we coudl easily handly Osama Bin Laden. Without Osama Bin Laden, Bush would still be a menace.

Given a choice between Bush and Cheney, I would get rid of Cheney. I guess for me that makes Osama Bin Laden Public enemy #3. I agree with the ideology's co-founder Francis Fukuyama: "Neoconservatism is a failure."

Bring me an old time republican. Every republican seantor over 70 should be elevated automatically to the executive, and the current executive should go to jail. If Condi wants to bargain her way out she can. But I've had it with these guys. I'm not interested it working it out with them, coming to terms with their agenda. Now I just want them gone. They're almost as bad as the democrats, but in a way they're worse, because they're our problem, they're on my side fo the fence, and I'm not just going to jump the fence and let them have the right. Old style get the rhetorrical shotgun. I aim to kick them out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2006 11:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

To comment on the original topic- probably Condi:

Quote:
Rice shows off her fitness regimen
Condoleezza Rice, the nation's top diplomat, is appearing in a three-part TV interview in which she rides a bike, works on her abs, pumps iron and talks about her weight.

Public figures usually do not go public when they work on their figures, though when they do, it can help humanize their images. President Bush is sometimes photographed trying to stay fit on his bike, and President Clinton took some high-profile jogs.

www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/rice.workout.ap/index.html

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2006 11:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Seriously, I don't see Cheney going anywhere. I pesonally think Cheney is the best VP this country has had in several decades.

Bush's approval rating is somewhere around 30-35%. That percentage about matches with the percentage that thinks creationism should be taught in schools and abortion should be banned under ANY circumstances. The loony Xtian right-wing fringe.

Cheney's approval rating is somewhere around 15-20%. For the life of me, I can't imagine who those 15-20% are and what they're thinking. All I can guess is that in any population you have those three standard deviations from the norm.... I've tried to follow Auraptor's (and AJ's, and Hero's) logic on this and it's a cold trail. The opinion seems so far away from reality that I get boggled, truly boggled.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2006 3:17 PM

DC4BS

Wow! I'm aparently WAY out of the loop lately...

Since when did Cheney take over? Last time I bothered to looked at the conspiracy, kook stuff, Rove was the evil mastermind behind the throne.

Anyway, it seems prety obvious to me what's up.

I remember reading somewhere that Cheney said he had no plans to run for president in 08. I'd love to post a link, but I don't remember where I read/saw it.

If that is in fact the case, the GOP needs to put someone who will run in 08 in the VP position to get them some "leadership facetime". If they can get a reasonably popular republican in the VP seat for the next two years and avoid any more major screwups during that time then that person gets a big leg-up in a bid for president in 08.

They can say, "Look how things improved since I became VP."

The down side is if they do this and there ARE any more major screwups then whover takes the VP slot is prety much scewed as their oponent can say "Look, they put in a new VP and things stayed the same" or "Look, they put in a new VP and it just got WORSE!"

I dunno. I do know I said "Condi for prez" about 3-4 years ago and everyone laughed at me...

I still havn't heard anything to indicate she would be interested in running, but I still can hope...

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2006 8:10 PM

DREAMTROVE

dc4bs,

The fact that I agree with everything you just posted makes this disturb me more.

"kook conspriacies...Rove"

Um. I agree. What planet we're you on. We've all been on planet Cheney is in control since 1995, when Cheney took control. Cheney's retirement is entirely related to his popularity, and the fact that he feels there are people he can trust, which means the rest of can't. Rove has never been anything but a Republican strategist, and frankly, charisma issues aside, I don't mind having him on the team. I think he's quite talented.

Since Bush is a trained monkey, Cheney is president. Clinton wasn't a trained monkey, but he was still Cheney's lap dog. This is where Bush-is-Clinton starts. But I think this is all old hat. Which is to say, I think most everyone's already on this page. Joss is on this page. How's it like where you are?

Anyway, that aside, yes, it's clear the GOP needs to get a decent runnable candidate in '08, and Cheney isn't it. Condi has serious republican ties and could be a good republican if she could separate herself from her husband.

Allen is still learning how to be a republican, and on that, I would axe him from the list. I think that freshman senators should never run for higher office. Hagel will have completed a second term in '08, and I feel he's a little green for the big chair, but I like him, so I'll lower the bar, but Allen is presently still a freshman, ie. in his first term. He shouldn't be thinking of the whitehouse. Hillary is another one.

McCain is undoubtedly the logical choice. Esp. from a point of a GOP that actually wants to win a 2008 presidential election. I like Condi, even when she's badgirl NeoCondi, mostly I guess I still credit her with ending the cold war, as Bush Sr.'s Soviet policy person. She's also occassionally had the faux pas of telling things like it is in this administration where you apparently just don't do that. I think if she were under McCain he could pull her back into republican normalcy.

But honestly, Condi running in '08 now is probably capable of losing to Hillary, all voter bigotry aside. Hillary has a way with words. She could sell iceboxes to eskimoes. Condi is abrasive as all get out. If she thinks people are idiotic, she'll say they're idiotic, and that won't win the hearts and simple minds of the voting public.

My personal conspiracy theory is I think that Bush intends the Republicans to lose in '08, not out of a master plan for future Republican glory, but because he's done with the party, it's outlived its usefulness, for him, and he'll just chuck it out. By Bush, of course, I mean Cheney. Bush is a trained monkey who is overpaid to play president. But when I think about the real attitude of Cheney and Co towards the party, and these party loyalists who stand by them on every misstep, I just have to chuckle. But it's sad. Anyway, Bush/Cheney the social democrat it/thing interfered in my local Senate election to ensure that there was no opposition to evil pet Hillary, which was all sometime after I posted that I thought Bush was planning to throw the election to Hillary in '08. By Bush again I mean Cheney. And if I'm right, he will select Condi as VP.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE