The Dick Cheney Countdown

[hgc]

When will Cheney resign?

[Darth Rotor]

When will Cheney resign?
Why would Dick Cheney resign? He is in the most powerful position he's ever been in, politically, and can ever be. Power is like an addictive drug. What is his motivation to go Cold Turkey?

What possilbe reason would he have for quitting if he did not absolutely have to, unless his health completely fails him and he feels he can't do anything due to that limitation?

DR

[Upchurch]

Why would Dick Cheney resign? He is in the most powerful position he's ever been in, politically, and can ever be. Power is like an addictive drug. What is his motivation to go Cold Turkey?
It's not like he's going to run for anything again. Might as well ride the train all the way to the end of the line.

[Beerina]

Which will happen first, resignation or death from heart disease? Two days ago he had his weekly circulatory system "event".

[Beerina]

Why would Dick Cheney resign? He is in the most powerful position he's ever been in, politically, and can ever be.

Granted he's not likely to win the presidency, or to even run, but is it forbidden? If he can't be president, he can't be VP.

[hgc]

Why would Dick Cheney resign? He is in the most powerful position he's ever been in, politically, and can ever be. Power is like an addictive drug. What is his motivation to go Cold Turkey?

What possilbe reason would he have for quitting if he did not absolutely have to, unless his health completely fails him and he feels he can't do anything due to that limitation?

DR
I was thinking of the possibility of his resigning due to the fallout from the Libby verdict (although the publicly stated reason would be health related). Myself, I haven't voted yet. I need to give it some thought and evaluate others' opinions.

[hgc]

Granted he's not likely to win the presidency, or to even run, but is it forbidden? If he can't be president, he can't be VP.
Not forbidden. Of course he could run, but the probability that he will is the same probability that I'll get to the moon on a pogo stick (arrived at after careful calculation :) ).

[Upchurch]

I was thinking of the possibility of his resigning due to the fallout from the Libby verdict (although the publicly stated reason would be health related). That would require him having some sort of respect for the position he holds and for the American people.

[Mephisto]

He'll NEVER resign! He's going to stay the course and will likely be rushed to the hospital with a full-blown heart attack before his term is up.

I saw the news about his deep vein thrombosis and they mentioned he had his first heart attack at age 37 (he's already had a total of four)! I guess all that pork will eventually get to you.

[Darth Rotor]

hgc:

Dich Cheney declined to run in the 1996 campaign, citing his health as a significant limitation. It's over 10 years later, and he is no healthier. I don't see him running, for health reasons if for no other.

A number of profiles done on VP Cheney showed that he prefers not to be the front man. His style is far more "power in the back room." He tends to be surly with the media, which doesn't bode well for electability. The more recent track record he has amassed in negative Q factor for other reasons tells me that the GOP is not going to nom him. Hence, no nom, he is not going to run, he won't be Pres, he has peaked.

His Peter Principle moment is at hand.

DR

[hgc]

That would require him having some sort of respect for the position he holds and for the American people.
Yeah, and also him being accountable in any real sense. We have a very strange situation in this presidency. The President is a half-wit, and the VP acts as Regent, holding the real power and making the real decisions. He can hold himself aloof from accountability because the press and the Congress don't press too hard. The first step to dethroning Cheney is Congressional subpoenas. Let's not hold our breath.

Also, the exit of Cheney would leave a power vacuum in the executive branch. Bush will be no more capable of wielding power in Cheney's absense than in his presense.

[Tricky]

Cheney will never voluntarily resign, but as we all know, most resignations are not really voluntary. I think it is quite possible (though not particularly likely) that he will be forced out, sort of like Spiro Agnew.

But he probably wouldn't mind too much. After all, the sooner he is out, the sooner he can cash in on all the Halliburton profits that are off-limits as long as he is in office.

[Crossbow]

Cheney will not resign until they pry the VP nameplate from his cold, dead hands, or January 20, 2009.

Which ever comes first!.

[Ryan O'Dine]

It's not like he's going to run for anything again. Might as well ride the train wreck all the way to the end of the line last stop in hell.


I fixed it for you. You're welcome.

Also, the exit of Cheney would leave a power vacuum in the executive branch. Bush will be no more capable of wielding power in Cheney's absense than in his presense.


Especially after the loss of Rummey. You can hobble on one crutch, but lose both and you're toast.

[hgc]

Cheney will never voluntarily resign, but as we all know, most resignations are not really voluntary. I think it is quite possible (though not particularly likely) that he will be forced out, sort of like Spiro Agnew.
There's the rub. The only person that can force him out is Bush. Cheney makes all of Bush's important decisions. Catch-22.

[fishbob]

No Planet X option?
No 'toes up on a slab' option?
No mention of shooting someone in the face?

What kind of cheap$+!+ poll is this anyway?

[Upchurch]

No Planet X option?
No 'toes up on a slab' option?
No mention of shooting someone in the face?

What kind of cheap$+!+ poll is this anyway?

What? but they were there earlier....... :boxedin:

[hgc]

No Planet X option?
No 'toes up on a slab' option?
No mention of shooting someone in the face?

What kind of cheap$+!+ poll is this anyway?
Life is over when one has nothing left to learn. Next time I'll include Planet X. As for the 'toes up on the slab' option, that's beside the point. I'm interested in resignation, not any old reason for vacating the post. We've already seen that shooting someone in the face will not make Cheney quit.

[fuelair]

What a Dick! Still in there after four failed cardiacs - you'd think he'd get the message (oh, wait, he's too busy doing Shrubs' thinking for him to catch up on his own!!).

[steverino]

When I read the headline I thought it would be a "countdown to his death" thread. I predict he dies of a heart attack this coming September, and resigns by Christmas.

[hgc]

When I read the headline I thought it would be a "countdown to his death" thread. I predict he dies of a heart attack this coming September, and resigns by Christmas.
Congratulations, Steverino! You get the prize for the most creative prediction for the demise of the Cheney regency.

[steverino]

Congratulations, Steverino! You get the prize for the most creative prediction for the demise of the Cheney regency.

:D Thanks!

[Lurker]

Congratulations, Steverino! You get the prize for the most creative prediction for the demise of the Cheney regency.

Seconded. I had to read it twice to make sure I understood it.

Lurker

[a_unique_person]

I think he's just a Democrat who's yearning to return to his roots.

[Ladewig]

The first step to dethroning Cheney is Congressional subpoenas. Let's not hold our breath.


What are you talking about? The first step?! The last time Congress sent him a subpoena, he replied that he would meet with them but would not be under oath and he insisted that there be no electronic recording devices in the room. It will take a helluva lot more than Congressional subpoenas.

[Schneibster]

Good luck to him. They don't have to even respond- he doesn't show up, he's in contempt of Congress- and that goes to trial. Of course, it requires a majority vote, and a US Attorney. Hey, didja notice they went and fired all the competent US Attorneys? Now, gee, I wonder why they did that? Any guesses?

[hgc]

What are you talking about? The first step?! The last time Congress sent him a subpoena, he replied that he would meet with them but would not be under oath and he insisted that there be no electronic recording devices in the room. It will take a helluva lot more than Congressional subpoenas.


Yeah, I said that as a first step so that they can include his refusal in the bill of impeachment.

[hgc]

Good luck to him. They don't have to even respond- he doesn't show up, he's in contempt of Congress- and that goes to trial. Of course, it requires a majority vote, and a US Attorney. Hey, didja notice they went and fired all the competent US Attorneys? Now, gee, I wonder why they did that? Any guesses?


The Justice Department nor any prosecutor has nothing to do with impeachment proceedings. It's a political process, not a criminal adjudication process. True the Republicans in the House in 1998 used Ken Starr as their principal accuser against Clinton, but it wasn't necessary.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Burn him! He's a witch!

Charlie (watching too much Middle Ages specials on History Channel) Monoxide

[Darth Rotor]

Burn him! He's a witch!

Charlie (watching too much Middle Ages specials on History Channel) Monoxide
He weighs more than a duck, not as much as a duck.

Ni.

DR

[davefoc]

I have a theory that happiness in one's job relates to the authority to responsibility ratio. People are unhappy when they have responsibility for events without authority to control events. Conversely lots of authority without responsibility is guaranteed happiness. No matter how you screw up somebody else gets the blame and when stuff goes right you can use your authority to step in and grab a share of the credit.

Cheney, has maneuvered himself into a job with an off the chart authority to responsibility ratio. His ideas have dominated American foreign policy for six years and Bush gets the blame. Why in the world would anybody leave a situation like this. You get to experiment to your hearts content with every foreign policy idea you've ever had. You can get people fired that you don't like and reports buried. You can get no-bid contracts for your crony companies and make a reasonable chunk of change in the process and in the end no mater how you screw up somebody else gets the blame. And somebody thinks that Cheney is going to quit this job?

I suppose Cheney might actually die and leave office that way, but resign, I'm a doubting it.

[steverino]

...lots of authority without responsibility is guaranteed happiness.

It's good to be the king.

[Azure]

Cheney will not resign until they pry the VP nameplate from his cold, dead hands, or January 20, 2009.

Which ever comes first!.

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.

[casebro]

The best reason to resign would be so his replacement has time to establish a reputation before he runs for Pres.

So, Who would be his replacement, and how would he/she be chosen? With the dems holding the reins, Cheney has to stay put, doesn't he ?

[Upchurch]

So, Who would be his replacement, and how would he/she be chosen?
This way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States#Succession_and _the_25th_Amendment)

With the dems holding the reins, Cheney has to stay put, doesn't he ?
Doesn't have to. It would probably be tied up in the back and forth between Bush and congress until the point was moot.

[hgc]

The best reason to resign would be so his replacement has time to establish a reputation before he runs for Pres.

So, Who would be his replacement, and how would he/she be chosen? With the dems holding the reins, Cheney has to stay put, doesn't he ?


I was going to bring up this very point.

First, I don't think that Cheney gives a hairy hoot about what happens to Republicans in 2008 election. If he did, he wouldn't be so furiously digging their mass grave with his continued lunacy.

As for the replacement, I've mused elsewhere that Rice is the obvious choice, but that wouldn't be for the purpose of setting up the successor, but rather to move Lieberman to State so that Jodi Rell (Gov of CT) can appoint a Republican Senator to that seat.

In any case, I would hope that the Democratic Congress, most likely the House, as Lieberman would be a reliable Republican vote, would hold the line until they get someone they want -- namely NOBODY. If Bush goes down to impeachment, he should not be replaced by a VP of his choosing. He should be replaced by Pelosi.

[Upchurch]

As for the replacement, I've mused elsewhere that Rice is the obvious choice, but that wouldn't be for the purpose of setting up the successor, but rather to move Lieberman to State so that Jodi Rell (Gov of CT) can appoint a Republican Senator to that seat.

In any case, I would hope that the Democratic Congress, most likely the House, as Lieberman would be a reliable Republican vote, would hold the line until they get someone they want -- namely NOBODY. If Bush goes down to impeachment, he should not be replaced by a VP of his choosing. He should be replaced by Pelosi.

What we have here is political chess at its finest.

[Lurker]

Hgc:

Do you honestly think there is a snowball's chance in hell that Bush will be impeached? Sorry, I don't see it. If you think he will, I think you are being influenced by reading far too many leftist websites. And I say that as a leftist myself.

Matter of fact, I am willing to put my $ where my mouth is and will give 10:1 on Bush NOT being impeached.

Lurker

[Upchurch]

Matter of fact, I am willing to put my $ where my mouth is and will give 10:1 on Bush NOT being impeached.
A safe bet. Not because Bush and Co. aren't deserving, but because Congress doesn't have the cojones to do it.

[hgc]

Hgc:

Do you honestly think there is a snowball's chance in hell that Bush will be impeached? Sorry, I don't see it. If you think he will, I think you are being influenced by reading far too many leftist websites. And I say that as a leftist myself.

Matter of fact, I am willing to put my $ where my mouth is and will give 10:1 on Bush NOT being impeached.

Lurker


No, I don't think he will be impeached, and if so, then certainly not convicted in the Senate. But I do think it's worth talking about day-in and day-out to as many people as I can. I want it to become imaginable, at least. That's the first step.

If I had asked you in January, 1998 if there was a snowball's chance in Hell that Clinton would be impeached, what would you have said?

ETA: It would be worth it just to push Lieberman all the way out of the nest.

[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.









:newlol

[Azure]

The American people.









:newlol

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham#Resignation), 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.

[hgc]

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.


One could certainly make a case that it's true, but that doesn't make it any more useful, i.e., it's a truism, as you said. People are going into voting booths to choose actual candidates, and discussions are raging all over about this, that or the other option. "Fire them all" just isn't an option. "They're all the same" does nothing to evaluate the choices. Sure politics hasn't changed much throughout the history of civilization - in certain ways. So what? It is what it is. Do the best within that framework.

(Not to sound like I thought you were disagreeing, Upchurch. I'm just on a roll about something that pisses me off.)

[Azure]

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?

Merely an opinion.

Your belief that he won't be accountable to the American people is simply an assumption.

People also thought Obama was educated in Muslim...oh wait, that was Hillary.

[Azure]

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.

I never started it.

Upchurch did.

[Azure]

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.


Lets throw another cliches around here.

Power corrupts people. Now I know there are some politicians out there who do their best to serve the American people, Democrat or Republican. But I find it that such candidates are not always in the front running to be CIC.

Now, I like Obama, I think he is a respectable candidate....but he will face a lot of opposition, especially from that bitch Hillary, so the jury is still out on him.

I hope he succeeds though.


It's a colloquialism.


Whatever.


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.

Ah, a valid reason.

Interesting,

[Upchurch]

I never started it.

Upchurch did.
I beg your pardon?

Mr. Clinton was but one of two examples I used in the four points I made in my post. You were the one who focused only on an off-topic aspect of 1/4th of my post and ignored all pertinent points. That's what is commonly referred to as "derailing".

[President Bush]

Will it be Laura?
Oh, no (http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=178073&highlight=#178073)!

[geni]

The best reason to resign would be so his replacement has time to establish a reputation before he runs for Pres.

I think that saying well away from bush is quite high on the priorities of most likely candidates.

[Azure]

I beg your pardon?

Mr. Clinton was but one of two examples I used in the four points I made in my post. You were the one who focused only on an off-topic aspect of 1/4th of my post and ignored all pertinent points. That's what is commonly referred to as "derailing".

You said Clinton was accountable....blah, blah, blah...I mentioned that he also lied under oath, which is something I don't find as being accountable towards the American people.

Go back and read your freakin' post.

[TragicMonkey]

He weighs more than a duck, not as much as a duck.

Ni.

DR

The last time someone tried to get Cheney and a duck together to compare their weights, he got shot in the face for his efforts. I don't think anyone's too eager to attempt the experiment again.

[Darth Rotor]

That was a quail, not a duck. From an interview shortly after the event: (http://www.caller.com/ccct/news/article/0,1641,CCCT_801_4470186,00.html)
QUESTION: Tell me what happened?
ANSWER: Well, basically, we were hunting quail late in the day ...
QUESTION: Describe the setting.
ANSWER: It's in south Texas, wide open spaces, a lot of brush cover, fairly shallow. But it's wild quail. It's some of the best quail hunting anyplace in the country. I've gone there, to the Armstrong ranch, for years. The Armstrongs have been friends for over 30 years. And a group of us had hunted all day on Saturday ...

DR

[hgc]

That was a quail, not a duck. From an interview shortly after the event: (http://www.caller.com/ccct/news/article/0,1641,CCCT_801_4470186,00.html)


DR


What do you mean? An African or European quail?

[Upchurch]

You said Clinton was accountable....blah, blah, blah...I mentioned that he also lied under oath, which is something I don't find as being accountable towards the American people.And ignored everything else.

Go back and read your freakin' post.
Read it yourself. You obviously didn't the first time.

[Azure]

I don't get it.

You started talking about Clinton, I merely replied, now I'm derailing this thread by talking about Clinton?

[Tricky]

I don't get it.

You started talking about Clinton, I merely replied, now I'm derailing this thread by talking about Clinton?
No. In the exchange with Upchurch, you brought up the Clintons first in post 51. True, you didn't go into much detail, but the implications were obvious.

[Azure]

No. In the exchange with Upchurch, you brought up the Clintons first in post 51. True, you didn't go into much detail, but the implications were obvious.

I said nothing about Bill Clinton.

Upchurch first mentioned Bill Clinton.

I know he has 11,000 plus posts and all, but this is pathetic.

[Tricky]

I said nothing about Bill Clinton.

Upchurch first mentioned Bill Clinton.
Nevertheless, in post 51, you first brought in Hillary Clinton for no apparent reason other than what appeared to be an attempt at a tu quoque. It was at that point that the derailing began. (Just for accounting purposes.)

[Azure]

Nevertheless, in post 51, you first brought in Hillary Clinton for no apparent reason other than what appeared to be an attempt at a tu quoque. It was at that point that the derailing began. (Just for accounting purposes.)

Or not. I brought up Hillary because we were talking about possible future Presidential candidates, which she is, and how accountable they will be to the American people.

I never said a word about Bill, was never talking about him, and never even thought about mentioning him until Upchurch did. Frankly, I have no idea why he even brought his name up. Last time I checked, Bill had served his 8 years.

I guess you must have missed that too.

[Azure]

Since you guys have such a short memory span, and go anal blaming me for derailing the thread, and simply can't read for yourself, I'll give you a hint.

I said this...


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


Now where exactly did I mention Bill? And why the hell did Upchurch post this?


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


Thanks.

I would ask for an apology, but I imagine the pride of having 10,000 plus posts goes straight to the head.

[Tricky]

Or not. I brought up Hillary because we were talking about possible future Presidential candidates, which she is, and how accountable they will be to the American people.
I don't believe anyone else was discussing that topic before that point.

I never said a word about Bill, was never talking about him, and never even thought about mentioning him until Upchurch did. Frankly, I have no idea why he even brought his name up. Last time I checked, Bill had served his 8 years.
Nevertheless, this thread wasn't about the Clintons. Perhaps he derailed it in a different direction than your derail, but if it is really that important to you to know who derailed first, I'm just pointing that out.

My own personal feeling is that there is no sense in worrying about not derailing threads. It happens. Unless it starts to get ugly, people can happily meander all over the place.

I guess you must have missed that too.I don't have a dog in this race.

I would ask for an apology, but I imagine the pride of having 10,000 plus posts goes straight to the head.
You see, I think this sort of personal attack is what causes threads to get ugly. Some of my favorite posters here are newbies. Some of my least favorite are members of the "10,000 plus club", neither is my respect for them based on whether they are "left" or "right".

But you needn't apologize. These are politics forums. If I were thin-skinned, I wouldn't come here.

[Upchurch]

Anyway, getting back to my original point.

Duke Cunningham owned up to his many indiscretions.
Bill Clinton owned up to his misleading the American public.

The point is that personal accountability is not unheard of in politics, nor is the executive branch heeding the power of the legislative branch.

[Tricky]

Anyway, getting back to my original point.

Duke Cunningham owned up to his many indiscretions.
Bill Clinton owned up to his misleading the American public.

The point is that personal accountability is not unheard of in politics, nor is the executive branch heeding the power of the legislative branch.
True, but only rarely do they actually recieve punishment for their indescretions or sometimes illegal acts. Occasionally one will resign even before presure to do so is overwhelming.

Sure, you could say that being publicly pilloried is enough punishment and that once that happens, they are effectively ruined. History, though, tells us that isn't always true. Exhibit A is Richard ("They won't have me to kick around") Nixon. Newt Gingrich, whose scandals were not limited to sexual indescretions (http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm), looks to be trying very hard to be exhibit B.

Still, it is something of a rarity to even have a politician say, "I screwed up," rather than the more Bushian, "mistakes were made." That such a novelty still does occur is, in itself, enough for me to have hope in our system.

[Upchurch]

Still, it is something of a rarity to even have a politician say, "I screwed up," rather than the more Bushian, "mistakes were made." That such a novelty still does occur is, in itself, enough for me to have hope in our system.
We are a long time removed from the days of "The Buck Stops Here".

[hgc]

We are a long time removed from the days of "The Buck Stops Here".


Welcome to the age of, "You go to war with the army you have," and "If you leave food in your room, you'll get rats," and "Heck of a job, Brownie."

[Tricky]

We are a long time removed from the days of "The Buck Stops Here".
I don't know if that is true, and it may be even less true than it was in the days of Truman. Sure, he said "The buck stops here," but so has Bush. Truman actually had some scandals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman#Scandals)too, though in those simpler times, a suitable bribe was a hard-to-get deep freezer.

Today, though, you do see people who own up to their mistakes. Presidential candidate John Edwards has said that he made a bad mistake in voting for sending troops to Iraq. Politically driven? No doubt, but still unusual enough. At least he didn't call it a "youthful indescretion" like Henry Hyde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hyde)did when he described an affair he had at age 41.

[Upchurch]

I don't know if that is true, and it may be even less true than it was in the days of Truman. Sure, he said "The buck stops here," but so has Bush. Truman actually had some scandals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman#Scandals)too, though in those simpler times, a suitable bribe was a hard-to-get deep freezer.
Well, I will plead ignorance due to only reading about that period and not living through it. And not even close to exhaustive reading, at that.

[fishbob]

Halliburton Moving C.E.O. From Houston to Dubai

The Dubai announcement, which Halliburton made at a regional energy conference in Bahrain, comes at a time when the company is being investigated by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations of improper dealings in Iraq, Kuwait and Nigeria. Halliburton has also agreed to pay billions of dollars in settlements in asbestos litigation.
News Flash (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/business/12haliburton.html?hp)

So, what kind of extradition agreement do we have with Dubai?

[Tricky]

Well, I will plead ignorance due to only reading about that period and not living through it. And not even close to exhaustive reading, at that.I didn't either, I just have the stories my mother told me, and of course, Google.

But I think it's fair to say that that US politicians (probably all politicians) have always been prone to a level of honesty and accountability less than that of the average citizen. Even so, the level of honesty is certainly not equal in all politicians.

I'm not even positive that honesty is the only issue when it comes to judging politicians. An effective weasel (assuming he is effective for the things you consider to be right) may be more desirable as a representative than an ineffective boy scout.

[davefoc]

This is an article about the diminishing authority of Cheney.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1597226,00.html

From the article:
But the personal setbacks have merely been the counterpoint to the larger policy reversals Cheney has suffered in internal debates in the past year. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is executing an unmistakable course correction in U.S. foreign policy, quietly stepping away from the strident and unilateral positions of the neoconservatives and cutting deals with — or opening lines to — the remaining members of the axis of evil. Backed by a strong new team of career diplomats, Rice prevailed on Iraq to invite Iran to a regional conference on security and then swiftly agreed to attend, unwinding Washington's vow just a few weeks ago that it would have no direct contact with Tehran until it stopped enriching uranium.

Besides the course reversal with Iran, the US made a major course reversal with regards to North Korea and basically accepted the deal that Bushco had rejected at the beginning of their administration that Clinton had worked out.

And a little more from the article on Cheney's declining power in the domestic policy area:
While Rice rewires foreign policy, White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten is showing signs that he can match Cheney on domestic matters. The Bush Administration has said it will retreat on the issue of domestic surveillance and abide by laws regulating wiretaps passed years ago by Congress. And the Democrats in Congress are finding Administration officials far more forthcoming with facts and figures about the conduct of the war in Iraq, in part because the White House knows that the next step — subpoenas — won't help their dwindling poll ratings. "There has been an ebb and flow," said Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, "and the President has come to realize that the broader assertions of executive power had to be tempered."

But the reversals of the Cheney influence in the administration could be seen as something that might drive him to stay. Is he going to accept the changes in Bushco or will he stay to fight for what he sees as his legacy?

[davefoc]

http://cartoonbox.slate.com/static/62.html

[Upchurch]

Is he going to accept the changes in Bushco or will he stay to fight for what he sees as his legacy?
I find it difficult to believe that history will see the events of the Bush administration as Chaney's legacy. In fact, Chaney has worked so much in the background, it would not surprise me if 50 years from now most historians gloss over Chaney and just attribute the events of the Bush administration solely to Bush.

[davefoc]

I find it difficult to believe that history will see the events of the Bush administration as Chaney's legacy. In fact, Chaney has worked so much in the background, it would not surprise me if 50 years from now most historians gloss over Chaney and just attribute the events of the Bush administration solely to Bush.

I am not so sure about that. First, is the influence of PNAC on this administration and Cheney seems to have been the point man for that. Was there anything prior to this administration that suggested the nature of the foreign policy that Bush would implement? For at least the first four years of this administration, Cheney seems to have been behind every decision. The little mini-government that he set up will, I suspect, be the subject of historical review for generations to come.

Secondly is the nature of Bush himself. When Cheney talks it is clear that he is a man that is thinking about ideas. You many not agree with his view, but be that as it may it is obvious that he has evaluated evidence to formulate an opinion. I don't think this is at all obvious when Bush speaks. I am left with the impression that Bush is driven by a shallow ego and a weak command of the underlying issues. Bush impresses me as exactly the kind of personality that can be manipulated by others to promote their strategies.

And at its simplest level that is exactly the nature of the Bush presidency. Cheney has dominated on foreign policy and internal security issues. Rove has dominated on domestic policy. Bush seems never to have understood that the motivation of both men may have clouded their judgments to the point that good governance was not possible if their influence was too great.

[hgc]

I am not so sure about that. First, is the influence of PNAC on this administration and Cheney seems to have been the point man for that. Was there anything prior to this administration that suggested the nature of the foreign policy that Bush would implement? For at least the first four years of this administration, Cheney seems to have been behind every decision. The little mini-government that he set up will, I suspect, be the subject of historical review for generations to come.

...



I agree with you. I think that history will not only put a greater emphasis on Cheney's role as Regent than is given over in the contemporary media, but I think that history will examine very intently the question as to why the contemporary media chose to ignore this particular aspect of reality.

For instance, in 50 years, will historians be asking why Tim Russert is able to admit publicly that he defaults to off-the-record, rather than on-the-record, when in conversation with government officials -- standard journalistic practice stood on its head -- and still retain his credibility? You bet. They'll also want to know how the "unnamed source," once the tool to give voice to whistleblowers, is now used by those in power to get out a controlled message without attaching a name of someone to be held accountable.

[Azure]

News Flash (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/business/12haliburton.html?hp)

So, what kind of extradition agreement do we have with Dubai?

Its seems like a good business decision to move your headquarters to where your customers are.

[davefoc]

For instance, in 50 years, will historians be asking why Tim Russert is able to admit publicly that he defaults to off-the-record, rather than on-the-record, when in conversation with government officials -- standard journalistic practice stood on its head -- and still retain his credibility? You bet. They'll also want to know how the "unnamed source," once the tool to give voice to whistleblowers, is now used by those in power to get out a controlled message without attaching a name of someone to be held accountable.

It seems like you have touched on a tangential issue here. Obviously, Bushco, used leaks as a means of developing a media narrative to influence public opinion.

The question to me, is to what degree were Bushco's activities along these lines are unique to Bushco. I believe that all administrations in my life have used leaks to float trial balloons. But have other administrations used leaks as a method of rewarding compliant journalists? That seems likely but I just don't know whether Bushco has used this strategy more than prior administrations. And to tie this back into Cheney, was Cheney responsible for instituting this strategy or was it just a general consensus strategy that grew out of the overall Bush administration?

[Regnad Kcin]

...Today, though, you do see people who own up to their mistakes. Presidential candidate John Edwards has said that he made a bad mistake in voting for sending troops to Iraq. Politically driven? No doubt, but still unusual enough. At least he didn't call it a "youthful indescretion" like Henry Hyde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hyde)did when he described an affair he had at age 41.To be fair, Mr. Hyde was 128 years old at the time.

[hgc]

It seems like you have touched on a tangential issue here. Obviously, Bushco, used leaks as a means of developing a media narrative to influence public opinion.

The question to me, is to what degree were Bushco's activities along these lines are unique to Bushco. I believe that all administrations in my life have used leaks to float trial balloons. But have other administrations used leaks as a method of rewarding compliant journalists? That seems likely but I just don't know whether Bushco has used this strategy more than prior administrations. And to tie this back into Cheney, was Cheney responsible for instituting this strategy or was it just a general consensus strategy that grew out of the overall Bush administration?


Yes, I do digress somewhat, but only because I think this is a crucial element of what's happening here. The role of the Russert and the gang stands to be examined here closely, as they very much abetted these goings-on. I'm not so quick to play the equivalency game, but then it shouldn't matter. The national media quote unnamed sources from within this administration on a daily basis, and on really important issues. This tool should never be used when disseminating views and information that the administration wants to disseminate. Unless someone is telling tales out of school, there is no legitimate use of the unnamed source. On the plane returning from his recent travels, VP Cheney talked to reporters only on background. I would bet that's nearly unprecedented for a sitting VP.

Why does Russert and his gang go along? Because they value access more than reportage. Because GE hands him a really fat paycheck, and he knows how to keep it coming. Because he has social relationships with his subjects, which clouds his judgement. The result is that this government goes unchecked by the media.