Reply
Wed 1 Sep, 2004 04:17 pm
Who do you believe is the actual president of the US. Cheney or the cardboard cutout? Specifically who is running the nation and calling the shots. My money is on Cheney.Where is yours?
Cheney, the Virtual President
Unlike in 2000, Dick Cheney was not selected as President Bush's 2004 running mate with any great flourish. After four years of working closely with the president in ways unprecedented for any VP in American history, he was naturally accepted at the Republican Convention Wednesday night as integral to the party's ticket.
Sure, some in the GOP wanted a fresh face to boost Mr. Bush's chances of victory or to set up a presidential candidate for 2008 (Mr. Cheney probably wouldn't run). And despite their lack of proof, some critics continue to mar Cheney's image with accusations that this former chief of Halliburton somehow influenced the firm being selected by the Pentagon for work in Iraq.
Cheney himself didn't help his image by recently using an expletive in anger on the Senate floor. Nor was it smart to design an energy policy in 2000 so secretively and with little input from alternative-energy experts.
But keeping him as the president's top war adviser and go-to guy was essential to the campaign's prime message of continuing stable and forceful leadership in the campaign against Islamic terrorists.
In Washington, where he works both the Hill and the bureaucracy, it's generally accepted that his word is that of the president. He serves as an articulate spokesman for the administration's most controversial policies, although his confidence sometimes comes off as arrogance.
Whether he and Bush win or not, Cheney wins points for his long public-service record, especially in times of war. Few doubt he has the basics to fill in as president, if needed.
Despite all that, voters shouldn't assume too much. In the Oct. 5 debate between vice-presidential nominees, they should size up this Washington insider one more time.
No question that Bush is the President.
And no question in my mind that Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al are the power behind the throne.
And Rove is pulling the strings on all of them.
Larry
Oh! you think Rove is president. Could be, damn sure Bushrod ain't
I suspect it's a Rove-Cheney combo. Rove pulls the political strings (get Bush re-elected) and Cheney pulls the policy strings, along with Rumsfeld and the rest of his posse (war in Iraq).
D'artagnan
And Bush walks around with his chest puffed out playing at president.
Yeah, everyone gets what he wants out of the arrangement...
au1929 wrote:Larry
Oh! you think Rove is president. Could be, damn sure Bushrod ain't
Nope. Whatever led you to imagine that?
Larry
Have you heard of dumb and dumber. That is what makes me believe that.
If you remember after 9/11 it was Cheney who went underground not Bush. I guess they determined that if anything happened Cheney would be the greater loss.
"Have you heard of dumb and dumber. That is what makes me believe that."
Oh.
Actually, I think there is some evidence to support that Cheney is at least 'co-president'. Bush wouldn't talk to the 911 commission without him. In that book about Paul O'neil it's mentioned that most major decisions seemed to be made while Bush met with Cheney.
No doubt in my mind that Cheney is the strongest VP in our history. He is indeed the power behind the throne.
But ever really good CEO has a good COO.
Like Kerry's in charge of anything, who's running his campaign?
What? You mean Kerry does not call the shots? Another person, behind the curtains, is making the decisions? You mean to tell me that they are doing what they accuse the president of doing?
Shocked! Shocked I say....
Kerry isn't president right now so it doesn't make any sense to include him in this discussion.
FreeDuck
When all else fails attack the opponent, appropriate or not. That is in the republican playbook.
au1929 wrote:FreeDuck
When all else fails attack the opponent, appropriate or not. That is in the republican playbook.
And the Dems, of course, have not attacked Bush's record.
Larry.
Bush's record in office is indeed pertinent and should be discussed and attacked if need be.
I posted this on one of the other threads this AM.
The Republican plank as introduced at the convention. Attack the opponent truth and honesty need not apply. It was pointed out that during the democratic convention Bush was named 18 times and there was very little if any character assassination. However, to date during the republican convention Kerry has been named 87 times and there has been little else but character assassination and of course the deifying of Bush. What I want to know is that all the republicans have? Is that what they are all about? How about explaining their actions and policies for the last almost four years and above all the state of the union. They play government and the electorate like a football game where the best offense is a good defense. One thing is true they are indeed offensive
"Bush's record in office is indeed pertinent and should be discussed and attacked if need be."
As is Kerry's.
FreeDuck wrote:Kerry isn't president right now so it doesn't make any sense to include him in this discussion.
Sure it does to make my point. Nobody makes every decision in such endeavors.
Brand X
Have you heard "The Buck Stops Here" With this presidency it more likely to be stopping at Cheney's office than Bush's. There probably is no room at Bush's anyhow with all the children's books cluttering it up. After all he must get ready for his next meeting with the grade school children. Those words are hard to pronounce.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace