Cheney Presidency

[Henia 11]

Published on Saturday, August 26, 2006 by the Boston Globe

The Cheney Presidency

by Robert Kuttner

George W. Bush has been faulted in some quarters for taking an extended vacation while the Middle East festers. It doesn't much matter; the man running the country is Vice President ####### Cheney.

When historians look back on the multiple assaults on our constitutional system of government in this era, Cheney's unprecedented role will come in for overdue notice. Cheney's shotgun mishap, when he accidentally sprayed his host with birdshot, has gotten more media attention than has his control of the government.

Historically, the vice president's job was to ceremonially preside over the Senate, attend second-tier foreign funerals, and be prepared for the president to die. Students are taught that John Nance Garner, Franklin Roosevelt's first vice president, compared the job to a bucket of warm spit (and historians say spit was not the word the pungent Texan actually used).

Recent vice presidents Walter Mondale and Al Gore were given more authority than most, but there was no doubt that the president was in charge.

Cheney is in a class by himself. The administration's grand strategy and its implementation are the work of Cheney-- sometimes Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, sometimes Cheney and political director Karl Rove.

Cheney has planted aides in major Cabinet departments, often over the objection of a Cabinet secretary, to make sure his policies are carried out. He sits in on the Senate Republican caucus, to stamp out any rebellions. Cheney loyalists from the Office of the Vice President dominate interagency planning meetings.

The Iraq war is the work of Cheney and Rumsfeld. The capture of the career civil service is pure Cheney. The disciplining of Congress is the work of Cheney and Rove. The turning over of energy policy to the oil companies is Cheney. The extreme secrecy is Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

If Cheney were the president, more of this would be smoked out because the press would be paying attention. The New York Times' acerbic columnist Maureen Dowd regularly makes sport of Cheney's dominance, and there are plenty of jokes (Bush is a heartbeat away from the presidency). But you can count serious newspaper or magazine articles on Cheney's operation on the fingers of one hand. One exceptional example is Jane Mayer's piece in the July 3 New Yorker on Cheney operative David Addington .

Cheney's power is matched only by his penchant for secrecy. When my colleague at the American Prospect, Robert Dreyfuss, requested the names of people who serve on the vice president's staff, he was told this was classified information. Former staffers for other departments provided Dreyfuss with names.

So secretive is Cheney (and so incurious the media) that when his chief of staff, Irving Lewis Libby, was implicated in the leaked identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, reporters who rushed to look Libby up on Nexis and Google found that Libby had barely rated previous press attention.

Why does this matter? Because if the man actually running the government is out of the spotlight, the administration and its policies are far less accountable.

When George W. Bush narrowly defeated John Kerry in 2004, many commentators observed that Bush was the fellow with whom you would rather have a beer. It's an accurate and unflattering comment on the American electorate -- but then who wants to have a beer with Cheney? The public may not know the details of his operation, but voters intuitively recoil from him.

Bush's popularity ratings are now under 40 percent, beer or no, reflecting dwindling confidence in where he is taking the country. But Cheney's ratings are stuck around 20 percent, far below that of any president.

If Cheney were the actual president, not just the de facto one, he simply could not govern with the same set of policies and approval ratings of 20 percent. The media focuses relentless attention on the president, on the premise that he is actually the chief executive. But for all intents and purposes, Cheney is chief, and Bush is more in the ceremonial role of the queen of England.

Yet the press buys the pretense of Bush being ``the decider," and relentlessly covers Bush -- meeting with world leaders, cutting brush, holding press conferences, while Cheney works in secret, largely undisturbed. So let's take half the members of the overblown White House press corps, which has almost nothing to do anyway, and send them over to Cheney Boot Camp for Reporters. They might learn how to be journalists again, and we might learn who is running the government.

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. His column appears regularly in the Globe.

[iceyspots 0]

Oprah for president 2008! haahaha

[Ban Hammer 14,293]

clear! bzzzzzzzzzz!

[sbgwolf1 0]

i would vote for homer simpson to keep hillary out of office.

wolf

[Saddle Bronc 124]

i would vote for homer simpson to keep hillary out of office.

wolf

If you think HillaryRotten has any chance at actual election, consider:

• first time a woman president was even conceptualised (1982), it was by a BRIT author Jeffrey Archer (in "Prodigal Daughter"--at the end, Florentyna becomes president by being VP when sitting president kicks bucket)
  
• first time anyone put a woman VP candidate or presidential candidate, it was due to their already being in losing position (in 1984, Mondale was marginally popular in MN--everywhere else, Reagan was trouncing him from the get-go).
  
• I don't think most people want even one more second (wasn't eight years enough?) of that termagant Hilary in the White House
  

[Henia 11]

Oprah for president 2008! haahaha

[dalegg 143]

If you think HillaryRotten has any chance at actual election, consider:

• first time a woman president was even conceptualised (1982), it was by a BRIT author Jeffrey Archer (in "Prodigal Daughter"--at the end, Florentyna becomes president by being VP when sitting president kicks bucket)
  
• first time anyone put a woman VP candidate or presidential candidate, it was due to their already being in losing position (in 1984, Mondale was marginally popular in MN--everywhere else, Reagan was trouncing him from the get-go).
  
• I don't think most people want even one more second (wasn't eight years enough?) of that termagant Hilary in the White House
  

I think this is quite a delimna for the Democratic Party.

All in all, I think Hillary is one of the more moderate Democrats. There's got to be more like her- even without Lieberman. But it is beginning to look like the Democrat party is leaning farther left than usual. The DNC chairman is none other than Howard Dean, right? The Democratic candidate for President could end up being a Gore, or a Dean, or a Lamont, or something. It is of course up to you Democrats to decide that, but is a guy like that really electable for President on a national scale? Is the country really so pissed off at Iraq that they go for that?

On the otherhand, what if they chicken out and go for a Hillary or Lieberman type? This maybe more of what swing voters in the country would go for- even some moderate Republicans- but it seems its not enough for the left wing of the Democratic Party. And guess who will be there to apease those voters again- Good ole election spoiling Darth Nader, just waiting to split up the left even worse than before. In this situation I could almost imagine even a Cheney President- unless a large quantity of Republicans finally realize that they are actually Libertarians and vote for their candidate and enough Border angry conservatives vote for Buchanon.

I think this time will be a little more interesting than the last time.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

As the article points out, Cheney already is the secret president, so there's no reason to speculate on his chances in 2008 by which time he will be ancient and without any chance to recover in the polls. And yeah, the editorial is right on; Cheney has much more power than most people are aware of. He has tried to be in the shadows since 9/11 if not earlier, citing national security reasons for his generally stealthy demeanor. He only pops up when necessary, but always has his hands in everything. And since the press is unsuspecting and courting the interests of those who prefer to think of the government as some sacred entity - not to be touched by criticism - he will not suffer the same fate as previous vice presidents who were either censored or impeached due to their anti-democratic behavior.

About Hillary: The Democratic party has tried to court centrist voters for the last 30 years, and look how many presidents they sent into the White House since then. During the same time span, the Republicans have moved from a centrist to an increasingly right-wing position, and they have won election after election. That indicates that courting some imaginary center is not the way to win, and that the Democrats need to remember their more liberal leanings (note: left-wing politics have never been really forged by the Democratic party; the New Deal was a kind of appeasement for the increasingly radicalized population in the Depression years). So, Hillary, as a centrist, will have a difficult time in the next election, but that is not bad because other centrists (like Gore or Dean or Lamont, all of whom are not very radical or left-wing even by American standards) will take over and continue the tradition of courting to the center.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Problem with US elections was summed up in a Canadian's letter to either Time or Newsweek in 1988 (about Free Trade Pact)--"eh, ya gots two parties represented by a donkey and an elephant to choose from". :lol:

[dalegg 143]

About Hillary: The Democratic party has tried to court centrist voters for the last 30 years, and look how many presidents they sent into the White House since then. During the same time span, the Republicans have moved from a centrist to an increasingly right-wing position, and they have won election after election. That indicates that courting some imaginary center is not the way to win, and that the Democrats need to remember their more liberal leanings (note: left-wing politics have never been really forged by the Democratic party; the New Deal was a kind of appeasement for the increasingly radicalized population in the Depression years). So, Hillary, as a centrist, will have a difficult time in the next election, but that is not bad because other centrists (like Gore or Dean or Lamont, all of whom are not very radical or left-wing even by American standards) will take over and continue the tradition of courting to the center.

I think the most successful Democrat in the last 30 years was the most centrist yet during that time. You can argue that Gore not being left enough contributed to his demise- but it's a very fine line he was walking. If he had catered to Nader's group, he would have lost a lot more of the centrists.

[*Robert* 2]

:lol:

Cheney.... President?!!!

:lol:

Is it April 1st?!

Edited August 30, 2006 by roi_aggie

[Saddle Bronc 124]

About Hillary: The Democratic party has tried to court centrist voters for the last 30 years, and look how many presidents they sent into the White House since then. During the same time span, the Republicans have moved from a centrist to an increasingly right-wing position, and they have won election after election. That indicates that courting some imaginary center is not the way to win, and that the Democrats need to remember their more liberal leanings (note: left-wing politics have never been really forged by the Democratic party; the New Deal was a kind of appeasement for the increasingly radicalized population in the Depression years). So, Hillary, as a centrist, will have a difficult time in the next election, but that is not bad because other centrists (like Gore or Dean or Lamont, all of whom are not very radical or left-wing even by American standards) will take over and continue the tradition of courting to the center.

I think the most successful Democrat in the last 30 years was the most centrist yet during that time. You can argue that Gore not being left enough contributed to his demise- but it's a very fine line he was walking. If he had catered to Nader's group, he would have lost a lot more of the centrists.

Surprised that Nader even had the gall to run--when he'd long-ago alienated all the corpos that could fund his campaign. :lol:

[dalegg 143]

:lol:

Cheney.... President?!!!

:lol:

Is it April 1st?!

Democrats should prey that Cheney would run. He might be the one candidate out there that could actually unite the Democratic party.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Democrats should prey that Cheney would run. He might be the one candidate out there that could actually unite the Democratic party.

Or, they can make a "friendly" suggestion to hire Myron Baloney (aka Brian Mulroney, former Canuck PM) as a campaign strategist--since he's now got a record for doing best to make sure of loss!

[*Robert* 2]

:lol:

Cheney.... President?!!!

:lol:

Is it April 1st?!

Democrats should prey that Cheney would run. He might be the one candidate out there that could actually unite the Democratic party.

That's exactly what I don't want to happen!!! If Cheney ran, Hilary might actually have a chance to win!!!