Should Bush Drop Cheney?

[Dr. Tom 0]

OMG BILL GATES PWNZ TEH NEWZ~!!!1!!1!!!!

 

Drop Cheney? Democrats hope not

Speculation abounds in Washington after

GOP ex-senator urges new Bush running mate

 

By Tom Curry

National affairs writer

MSNBC

 

Updated: 12:11 p.m. ET July 09, 2004

 

WASHINGTON - When former New York Sen. Al D’Amato suggested this week the time had come for President Bush to replace Vice President Deck Cheney with either Secretary of State Colin Powell or Arizona Sen. John McCain as his running mate, was D’Amato voicing Republican hopes and Democratic fears? Or was he simply being provocative?

 

"On through September, the Democratic ticket of Kerry-Edwards could very well build an insurmountable lead among a public that is hungry for change,” said one Washington-based political consultant, speaking on condition of anonymity.

 

“If Cheney is dropped it would be the highest example of desperation in the history of presidential elections,” he said. “Without a doubt, it would happen in response to the fear Republicans have at Edwards being selected as Kerry’s VP."

 

While some Democrats acknowledge they’d love Cheney to stay on the ticket because they consider him a drag on Bush, most want to talk instead about their exuberance over Edwards.

 

Bush will play his hand

 

“I take the president at face value when he says that he is going to stand by Cheney,” said Washington-based Democratic campaign consultant Jim Duffy. Dumping Cheney? “I just don’t see it,” Duffy said. “It flies in the face of how Bush plays his hands. I see the president playing the hand he has right to the bitter end.”

 

Democrats, Duffy said, “are talking about how elated they are about the Kerry-Edwards ticket. This (Cheney speculation) is not something I see Democrats engaging in.”

 

“We’re praying Cheney stays on the ticket,” California Democratic Party spokesman Bob Mulholland said. “Cheney is an albatross around the neck of the president, so Democrats are supporting Cheney.”

 

Mulholland noted that on Tuesday the Bush-Cheney campaign unveiled a new television ad featuring McCain.

 

“It wasn’t featuring Cheney,” Mulholland noted. “If Cheney were a plus for the ticket, they’d have him out there in that ad.”

 

“I’m hoping it doesn’t happen,” Mulholland said of a Cheney exit. “We want Cheney so we can beat up on him for the next four months.”

 

Mulholland said that one potentially troublesome story for Cheney that may get wider exposure in the next four months is the Securities and Exchange Commission’s investigation of alleged payments of $180 million in bribes by several firms, including a subsidiary of Halliburton, to officials in Nigeria, in order to smooth construction of a liquefied natural gas complex off the Nigerian coast.

 

Some of the payments were allegedly made at the time Cheney was chief executive of Halliburton.

 

Halliburton spokesman Wendy Hall said, "We are working with officials in Europe and the United States as well as conducting our own investigation to determine the truth of these unproven assertions. We do not believe that the company has violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act," a U.S. law that prohibits payments of bribes by American firms to foreign officials.

 

The Bush-Cheney campaign did not immediately return a call seeking comment on the Nigeria allegation.

 

D'Amato urges 'bold stroke'

 

For his part, D’Amato portrayed his dump-Cheney proposal as a move not dictated by the urgent need to avoid Republican defeat, but rather as way to bulk up Bush’s victory margin.

 

"While I believe George Bush will win re-election even without this bold stroke, he will insure a broader, deeper, more resonant reaffirmation of his leadership if he places his duty to continue as president above any one individual," D'Amato said.

 

But tradition and logic suggest that such a “bold stroke” would be necessitated only if the vice president’s heart ailment really did require him to step down or if Bush and his strategists thought his re-election hopes were slipping away.

 

Polling data released Thursday suggested that while Edwards’ selection as vice presidential candidate may have given Kerry a positive bump, Bush-Cheney is still quite competitive.

 

A John Zogby poll released Thursday showed the Kerry-Edwards ticket only two percentage points ahead of Bush and Cheney, a lead within the poll’s margin of error.

 

An Associated Press poll released Thursday found that 50 percent supported the Bush-Cheney ticket while 46 percent chose the Kerry-Edwards ticket, within that question's margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.

 

Threshold for drama

 

In an era of spectacular political events, from Bill Clinton’s impeachment to the 2000 election recount to the airplane crash deaths of Democratic Senate candidates Mel Carnahan in 2000 and Sen. Paul Wellstone in 2002, the electorate’s threshold for drama has been raised.

 

But by any standard, a Cheney adieu would qualify as truly dramatic.

 

A memo written by a Washington-based political consultant and currently making the rounds in the capital sketches a Cheney exit scenario.

 

The memo notes Bush’s low job approval ratings in national polls.

 

“Only dramatic events create dramatic opportunities to change these perceptions. Why? During dramatic events the public’s attention is fixated on nothing else but the event in question,” the memo says.

 

A Cheney resignation would, it says, push Kerry and Edwards to the side. The news media coverage of who’d replace Cheney would be “pervasive and overwhelming. With less than a week to the Democratic Convention, little attention is given to Senator Kerry’s policy and political agenda. The Democratic nominee is relegated to the second-tier of the news cycle.”

 

A Cheney resignation would give Bush the opportunity to nominate his successor who, under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, would have to be confirmed by a majority vote of the House and the Senate.

 

The memo assumes McCain would be the nominee.

 

“Can Sen. Kerry vote against the Vice-President select? Of course not,” the memo says. “Can he vote for him? Of course not. Can he abstain? Of course not. There is no right answer…. Can anyone imagine a more dramatic moment in recent political history?”

 

And perhaps it is a moment that will play out only in the summer nightmares of some Democrats.

 

A poll run with the article asked if Bush should replace Cheney as his running mate. It was 51-41% in favor of "No."

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Well i think it would *help* him if he did (and replaced with a more popular guy). NOt really by a huge amount or anything, but it would only be significant because of how dead-heat close the race is so far.

[NoCalMike 0]

Michael Savage claims daily that D'Amato stole this idea from him.....lol. Cheney isn't the most likeable guy, but it all depends on how much emphasis the american people put into a VP. I mean there is also going to be the intial hoopla and joy over the announcement, but fast foward a month or two down the road, and few VP's actually make people care.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Wouldn't this be showing a "Lack of Resolve" from Bush?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I think Bush should seriously consider it. I think he could easily lock up the election if he ran with Powell, Rice or Rudy. I'd have no problem flip flopping Cheney and Powell as far as cabinet positions.

 

Though I would keep Cheney around in some capacity no matter what.

[Justice 0]

Wouldn't this be showing a "Lack of Resolve" from Bush?

Eh, Cheney has the valuable "Get out of VP Free" card with his health, remember?

[Guest Choken One]

exactly, They just have him "check into the hospital" and with fears of his health, He personaly steps down for the good of the country and in comes Powell or McCain or whomever.

 

I don't see it happening though it should

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I was thinking Kerry should call on Cheney to leave the GOP ticket. 

 

This might ensure that Cheney stays ON the ticket. 

 

I mean, how can they possibly remove him after Kerry publicly says he should go?

 

Hmm..

 

They just have him "check into the hospital" and with fears of his health, He personaly steps down for the good of the country and in comes Powell or McCain or whomever.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/11/cheney.health/

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/cheney.health/

 

and i'm sure that would contradict Cheney, and various other reports.

 

And bringing on Powell, Rudy or McCain probably isn't too likely. McCain turned Bush down in 2000. Rudy might be likely. But either one of those 3 moves the ticket to the left, when there's already some angry conservatives out there.

[Styles 0]

There would be one candidate I would push for to be Bush's VP candidate if I was in charge of the campaign, and that's Rudy because it would make New York a winnable state for Bush. Right now, there's no way Bush wins New York, but New Yorkers LOVE Rudy Guliani and he could push New Yorkers to vote for Bush which would be a huge boon.

 

Bush winning New York > Kerry possibly winning North Carolina...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Rudy doesn't need garbage like Bush. He could have an entire 8 year term of his own without dealing with damage being caused by that overspending, habitually lying, religious zealot.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Dick Cheney has to go. The whole Halliburton thing raises so many question marks that you could paint him green and he'd pass for one of the Riddler's costumes.

 

Secondly, he's an absolute ghoul. Unless you're either a Washington insider, a Rush/Hannity RNC lover, or have lost the use of your eyes, then Cheney comes off as a horrific unlikeable monster of a man. I can't imagine he appeals to anyone. Just looking at him should send a cold chill down the spine of any normal human being. Picture Kerry, Bush or Edwards nude. Then picture Cheney naked. After the vomiting and or fainting, I think you'll see my point.

[Guest MikeSC]

Rudy doesn't need garbage like Bush. He could have an entire 8 year term of his own without dealing with damage being caused by that overspending, habitually lying, religious zealot.

Wow, did Bush rape your mom or something? Bush doesn't need Giuliani because Powell would be a better option.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I'm pretty sure Powell won't be picked for this spot, and he's probably not that enthusiastic about being the Vice President.

 

And Powell as VP won't factor in too much when it comes to African-American voters, who'll still vote for Kerry by a huge margin. And nevermind that Bush will be the first sitting President since Herbert Hoover to not attend an NAACP convention.

 

But, ya know.. they called him 'names'.. so he's snubbed their convention for four straight years. It's justified.

 

(Apparently Bush wasn't fooled like his daddy or Ronald Reagan, he knows that it's a trap. Ha )

 

Then again, the people who hate having Powell as Secretary of State probably won't be able to do anything if he's the VP candidate

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I'm glad Bush gave the NAACP the middle finger. After what the president and chairman said about Bush he has every right to tell them to fuck off.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

''I would describe my relationship with the current leadership as basically nonexistent,'' Bush told reporters. ``You've heard the rhetoric and the names they've called me.''

 

(...)

 

It's the fourth straight year that Bush has declined an invitation to attend the NAACP convention, which opens today in Philadelphia. He's the first sitting president since Herbert Hoover not to address the group.

 

Apparently the stuff about forgiving people and blessing those who curse you doesn't apply to anything about conventions.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Screw them. Why should he waste his time with such an organization. There are other African American organizations that he can appear before that aren't saying he wants to bring back slavery.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And nevermind that Bush will be the first sitting President since Herbert Hoover to not attend an NAACP convention.

Now now now, let's be fair here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hoover didn't go because he was dead.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

I have to think back to Richard Nixon's famous quote about how as long as Spiro Agnew was his VP no one would ever try to assassinate him. I'd say the same thing goes for Bush and Cheney.

[Justice 0]

OMG! Bush didn't go to the convention of elitists that hasn't done shit for their race other than benefiting from its suffering and voting base! What a monster!

 

Maybe if the NAACP actually helped the black community, I'd support them. As is, though, they are too concerned with a white guy possibly making an insult that might or might not be a reference to race.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm pretty sure Powell won't be picked for this spot, and he's probably not that enthusiastic about being the Vice President.

 

And Powell as VP won't factor in too much when it comes to African-American voters, who'll still vote for Kerry by a huge margin. And nevermind that Bush will be the first sitting President since Herbert Hoover to not attend an NAACP convention.

He will speak to the Urban League and the like. He's treating the NAACP like the jokes they are. Why in the heck should he speak to thoe fucktards?

But, ya know.. they called him 'names'.. so he's snubbed their convention for four straight years. It's justified.

"They called him 'names'". Shall we go over WHAT they said?

 

You know, "Republican idea of equality is flying the US flag and the Confederate flag next to each other".

 

Any group that is so out of whack shouldn't be given the LEGITIMACY of the President addressing them.

 

Stick to the black groups that HAVEN'T lost their collective minds.

Apparently the stuff about forgiving people and blessing those who curse you doesn't apply to anything about conventions.

Again, why the hell should he? It'd be like blasting a President in the 1920's for not speaking to the KKK.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

why the hell should he? It'd be like blasting a President in the 1920's for not speaking to the KKK.

 

NAACP = KKK

 

Ooooook.

 

I must have missed the murders with links to the NAACP. Or the NAACP barbecue.

 

I'm sure there's other ways to state how absurd that comparison is.

 

As for reasons. Hm.. i'm sure there's reasoning for turning them down four times and being irritated. Bush isn't fooled like Reagan and others. Ya know.

[Guest MikeSC]

why the hell should he? It'd be like blasting a President in the 1920's for not speaking to the KKK.

 

NAACP = KKK

 

Ooooook.

 

I must have missed the murders with links to the NAACP. Or the NAACP barbecue.

 

I'm sure there's other ways to state how absurd that comparison is.

 

As for reasons. Hm.. i'm sure there's reasoning for turning them down four times and being irritated. Bush isn't fooled like Reagan and others. Ya know.

The NAACP is every inch as racist and bigoted today as the KKK was. Not as violent, but every inch as racist. Bush is going to black groups that actually represent blacks, not exploit them.

-=Mike

[Crimson G 0]

I think Bush should drop himself (and half of his cabinet) in favor of John McCain and whoever the hell he wants to appoint. That man rules!

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Random point: If I felt like spending 30 bucks right now, I could join the NAACP.

 

The NAACP is every inch as racist and bigoted today as the KKK was.

 

Anything else you want to mention to back that up? I'm sure that if they were that bigoted, there'd be something else. Maybe racial slurs. Or something of that sort.

 

Bush is going to black groups that actually represent blacks, not exploit them.

 

He is invited to speak at the National Urban League conference in under two weeks. And i'm sure that he might have some links to other black groups too. Even if he's turned down the largest of these groups for four straight years. I'm sure there's other links.

 

As for adding Powell.. what do you expect the effects will be of a Bush/Powell ticket?

[Guest MikeSC]

Random point: If I felt like spending 30 bucks right now, I could join the NAACP.

The NAACP is every inch as racist and bigoted today as the KKK was.

Anything else you want to mention to back that up? I'm sure that if they were that bigoted, there'd be something else. Maybe racial slurs. Or something of that sort.

I guess you missed the whole ads in TX implying that Bush's opposition to hate crime legislation caused Byrd's death. Or the comment that a vote for Republicans is a vote for church burnings in St. Louis. This gem from Julian Bond: "[bush] has selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing, and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection." How about Kweisi Mfume's "Mr. Bush has now distinguished himself as the first president since Warren Harding who has not met with the NAACP. So, we've got a 95-year history and a president that's prepared to take us back to the days of Jim Crow segregation and dominance, an era where dialogue is required, not distance."

 

Yup, NO extremely racist comments THERE. No sir.

Bush is going to black groups that actually represent blacks, not exploit them.

He is invited to speak at the National Urban League conference in under two weeks. And i'm sure that he might have some links to other black groups too. Even if he's turned down the largest of these groups for four straight years. I'm sure there's other links.

The largest also exploits its members the most to line their own pockets. Hell, I would not lose a moment of sleep if the IRS was asked to check them out.

As for adding Powell.. what do you expect the effects will be of a Bush/Powell ticket?

It'd make no difference.

 

People don't vote for VP.

 

But it'd make the press more likely to blow Bush with almost half of the frequency that they blow Kerry.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I guess you missed the whole ads in TX implying that Bush's opposition to hate crime legislation caused Byrd's death. Or the comment that a vote for Republicans is a vote for church burnings in St. Louis. This gem from Julian Bond: "[bush] has selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing, and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection." How about Kweisi Mfume's "Mr. Bush has now distinguished himself as the first president since Warren Harding who has not met with the NAACP. So, we've got a 95-year history and a president that's prepared to take us back to the days of Jim Crow segregation and dominance, an era where dialogue is required, not distance."

 

Yup, NO extremely racist comments THERE. No sir.

 

Exaggerated and with Hyperbole? Yes

 

In bad taste? Yes

 

Racist? hmm.. i'm sure there's grounds.

 

Then again, I'd bet the NAACP has made other bad statements in things unrelated to President Bush.

 

I'd imagine this meets and beats the definition of "Racist" too.. "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race".

 

Maybe i'm not on the same wave length as you. Although, since the NAACP is racist for saying those things about Bush. Does that also apply when someone who is white says the same sort of thing about Bush?

 

(I'm probably overlooking the "extremely" part.. which makes things worse too)