The Dick Cheney Countdown

[hgc]

OK, I went ahead and voted for this month. I just cruised the news shows, and they're all talking about it. On Scarborough, Andrea Mitchell just said that it won't happen. So I'm fairly sure it will.

I realized that my question has an equivocation built in. Does it refer to Cheney's resignation, or announcement of same? How much time may lapse in between, a la Cheney will leave when new VP is confirmed by the Senate.

There's some chess!

 

[davefoc]

I realized that my question has an equivocation built in. Does it refer to Cheney's resignation, or announcement of same? How much time may lapse in between, a la Cheney will leave when new VP is confirmed by the Senate.

If Cheney announces his resignation this month, regardless of when he actually leaves office I am prepared to give you credit for a successful prediction.

My raquetball buddies were speculating about this topic this evening. One guy's theory was that Lieberman would get picked as VP to replace Cheney. I thought it was unlikely, I doubt a Democratically controlled house would go along with that, but Lieberman as secretary of state, as suggested above, seems a tad more plausible.

Are there any signs that Bush is actually trying to Bush Cheney out? I thought that recent round the world Cheney diplomatic trip was a sign that Bush still supported Cheney. But maybe, it was just a sign Cheney wanted to be out of town when the Libby verdict was announced. But then the jury screwed him up by taking longer to reach a verdict than he predicted.

 

[Upchurch]

Are there any signs that Bush is actually trying to Bush Cheney out?

Would it matter? Rumsfield was out days after Bush said he was in for the long haul (or something to that effect). Michael Brown was out not too long after Bush said he was "doing a heck of a job" and gave him a pat on the back.

 

[hgc]

What I'm wondering is if Cheney doesn't take himself out of the game, who's voice will penetrate Bush's thick skull to finallly get him to pull the trigger? It won't be Daddy -- Bush has already shown a disinclination to taking guff from that quarter. Will it be Rove? Will it be Laura? Jenna? Someone? Anyone?

 

[Upchurch]

What I'm wondering is if Cheney doesn't take himself out of the game, who's voice will penetrate Bush's thick skull to finallly get him to pull the trigger? It won't be Daddy -- Bush has already shown a disinclination to taking guff from that quarter. Will it be Rove? Will it be Laura? Jenna? Someone? Anyone?

The American people.

 

[Azure]

The American people.

I thought so.

 

[Upchurch]

I thought so.

Thought what?

 

[Azure]

Thought what?

Your arrogance towards the power the American people hold over politicians.

Well perhaps not arrogant, but you clearly do not trust that the VP, or the POTUS still answer to the American people.

Why not move to a country where they do?

Like, ah, ummmm...

 

[Upchurch]

Your arrogance towards the power the American people hold over politicians.

Well perhaps not arrogant,

No, not arrogant. When you think of what it is you are trying to say, let me know

but you clearly do not trust that the VP, or the POTUS still answer to the American people.

No, I don't. The arrogance* of the Executive Branch of our government has been out of control for years now. They dictate to Congress the terms under which they will allow Congress to question them.

Personal accountability is almost entirely unheard of in this administration. Why on Earth would they listen to the American people when the American people's representatives won't stand up to them?

Why not move to a country where they do?

Because I love this country and what it stands for.


* and I do mean arrogance.

 

[Crossbow]

I'm sure thats the way you prefer, right?

Why would he resign? A year and a half left until his term is over...might as well ride the train out.

If you are trying to say that I want Cheney to die, then what you are saying is quite wrong.

I do not want anyone (Cheney, Bush, my mother, you, or anyone) to die.

 

[Azure]

No, I don't. The arrogance* of the Executive Branch of our government has been out of control for years now. They dictate to Congress the terms under which they will allow Congress to question them.

And you expect them to change that? The American people hire and fire the politicians. Maybe its time to fire all of them, and start over new.

Personal accountability is almost entirely unheard of in this administration. Why on Earth would they listen to the American people when the American people's representatives won't stand up to them?

Personal accountability is unheard of by ALL politicians.

You seriously think Hillary will be more accountable to the American people?

You're a bit bias in your theory here.

Because I love this country and what it stands for.


* and I do mean arrogance.

If you say so.

 

[hgc]

And you expect them to change that? The American people hire and fire the politicians. Maybe its time to fire all of them, and start over new.

Maybe it's time to retire the silly fire them all and start over cliche, and talk about real ideas for improving things.

Personal accountability is unheard of by ALL politicians.

You seriously think Hillary will be more accountable to the American people?

This is another cliche that ought to go the way of the dodo, as it serves to elide real issues. No, not ALL politicians are the same in regards to their relation to accountability or any other measure of job performance. Making distinctions between them in this regard is useful in choosing who to vote for.

I think that just about anyone running, with the exception of Giuliani, would be more accountable than the current presnit.

 

[Upchurch]

And you expect them to change that? The American people hire and fire the politicians. Maybe its time to fire all of them, and start over new.

From time to time, maybe.

Personal accountability is unheard of by ALL politicians.

You seriously think Hillary will be more accountable to the American people?

You're a bit bias in your theory here.

Pot, Kettle.

First, Bill Clinton answered his Congressional subpoena and testified under oath. (Badly, but he heeded to Congressional balance of power)

Second, Duke Cunningham, for example, eventually owned up to what he had done and took responsibility.

Third, I have no idea what Hillary Clinton might do in the future. If you do, I know where you can grab an easy million bucks. (How does Hillary Clinton fit into this conversation?)

Fourth, your selective memory of recent history and bizarre non-sequitor in the post I quoted shows plenty of bias on your part. More, I would humbly suggest, than I have shown so far in this thread.

If you say so.

I do.

 

[Azure]

Maybe it's time to retire the silly fire them all and start over cliche, and talk about real ideas for improving things.

And who is the best candidate for that? Obama? Has he ever answered a serious question? Hillary? Has she not shown her true colors by trying to attack Obama's personal life, rather than his ideals?

Rudy? McCain? In fact I bet the Presidential campaign, once again will be about attacking each other personally, rather than attacking the viewpoint, the idea, and the vision. Its been like that a long time, and the American people HAVE NOT done anything to change it.

And voting for John Kerry wouldn't have changed anything.

This is another cliche that ought to go the way of the dodo, as it serves to elide real issues. No, not ALL politicians are the same in regards to their relation to accountability or any other measure of job performance. Making distinctions between them in this regard is useful in choosing who to vote for.

And those politicians running for office don't fit into that category. The only one who has shown so far any sort of vision for the country is Obama. But he is also destined to make a mistake soon, and I wonder how everyone will react to it.

I think that just about anyone running, with the exception of Giuliani, would be more accountable than the current presnit.

Presnit?

How do you know Giuliani wouldn't be accountable to the American people?

 

[Azure]

First, Bill Clinton answered his Congressional subpoena and testified under oath. (Badly, but he heeded to Congressional balance of power)

Lied under oath.

Great accountability.

 

[Upchurch]

Lied under oath.

Great accountability.

That's all?

 

[shecky]

How do you know Giuliani wouldn't be accountable to the American people?

Some of his harshest criticism, even on the right, has to do with his lack of tolerance for disloyalty, dissent, and his cronyism. Do these characteristics sound familiar?

 

[hgc]

And who is the best candidate for that? Obama? Has he ever answered a serious question? Hillary? Has she not shown her true colors by trying to attack Obama's personal life, rather than his ideals?

Rudy? McCain? In fact I bet the Presidential campaign, once again will be about attacking each other personally, rather than attacking the viewpoint, the idea, and the vision. Its been like that a long time, and the American people HAVE NOT done anything to change it.

And voting for John Kerry wouldn't have changed anything.

And those politicians running for office don't fit into that category. The only one who has shown so far any sort of vision for the country is Obama. But he is also destined to make a mistake soon, and I wonder how everyone will react to it.

All this is interesting opinion, but it doesn't change what I said before. "Fire them all and start over" and "they're all the same" are useless cliches. Worse than useless actually. Their intent is to stifle discussion of comparative preferability of one or the other candidate. They're usually employed by someone when his own particular preference is being criticized.

Presnit?

It's a colloquialism.

How do you know Giuliani wouldn't be accountable to the American people?

I lived in New York City while he was mayor for eight years. He is every bit as secretive and hostile to executive accountability as Dick Cheney. It was bad enough for New York, and would be truly awful if he were to continue that legacy at the federal level.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Lied under oath.

Great accountability.

A choice that was not a black and white issue, difficult as it is for some people to admit.

In any event, please don't derail into a discussion of Mr. Clinton.

 

[Upchurch]

"Fire them all and start over" and "they're all the same" are useless cliches.

Which isn't to say it probably isn't true. Honestly, I doubt politicians have changed much over the ages.

However, that doesn't make them any less responsible for their actions. Those cliches are truisms (or at least the second one is), not an excuse.