Time looks at Dubya's Veep choice.
August 2, 2000 11:36 AM Subscribe
posted by wiremommy at 12:18 PM on August 2, 2000
Perhaps that's what Cheney was really doing all that time: screening candidates for the Bush's cabinet and not the vice-presidency.
posted by ratbastard at 12:35 PM on August 2, 2000
And you don't get to even an interview for VP without being foolishly ambitious. Bush & Dick (hee) aren't the only ones who'd sell their family out for a spot on a ticket.
That ambition makes these pretenders (Danforth, etc) vulnerable later on. It sucks to be them.
Excuse me, I have to go delouse myself now and move to a country with a fairer electoral system. Like Mexico.
posted by chicobangs at 12:52 PM on August 2, 2000
posted by frykitty at 1:15 PM on August 2, 2000
It's so mushy gooey warmy feeling that I got a toothache and a tummyache. But y'know what's scary? It just might work. =(
posted by ZachsMind at 1:49 PM on August 2, 2000
Dick: You'll find no evidence of government wrongdoing at Waco...
John: I'll find no evidence of government wrongdoing at Waco...
Dick: These aren't the droids you're looking for...
John: These aren't the droids we're looking for...
posted by dcehr at 2:05 PM on August 2, 2000
Now, think about what happens if, say, George Pataki, the Governor of NY, decides to criticise a Bush Administration in a few years... And he's told, "Hey, George, remember {insert scandal of your choice}?"
As to why it's digging if you're asking for answers to be given voluntarily... Going from a state level of exposure to the federal level really is a big jump. One is much more likely to have the whole Beltway press corps sniffing for anything. That means the pitch to a potential Veep is, "Tell us everything, so we can draw up damage control plans now, should anything get out."
There are many folks in politics who are clean, I firmly believe that. But out of ten interviews, my guess would be 2 or 3 turned up real dirt... for no reason that can be justified by the search itself, given that Bush and Cheney had already made up their minds.
It's the ex post facto nature of the whole thing that only reinforces my gut feeling that Dubya is an arrogant, vindictive twerp. I haven't gotten the creepy-crawlies like this since Nixon, and I'm someone who thinks Clinton is the most venal president since Harding. But both I and the republic can live with venality and an open sex drive. Paranoia, arrogance, and a "how do we destroy our enemies" attitude is much more worrisome, to me.
As always, Your Mileage May Vary.
ratbastard: If that's true, it sounds good to me, and I'll glad eat whatever amounts of crow people like. I've always thought that waiting 'til after the election to choose a cabinet was a silly waste of time in our age, and if the plan is to have all the legislation and nominations ready to go once the new Congress is sworn in, power to them.
Note that I'm approving that as a contingency plan, and I shouldn't be read as thinking Bush has this locked up. If anything, I think he's deeply in a hole on a state-by-state basis, which is how the Electoral College gets decided... but that's probably something for a different thread.
posted by aurelian at 4:01 PM on August 2, 2000
posted by lileks at 9:28 PM on August 2, 2000
This is an area I think the Brits outdo us, with the whole "shadow minister" thing. But then, heck, if I wuz prez, I'd probably swipe Question Time from them, too. Much better that the President should be at least occasionally questioned by the people's representatives, rather than solely by the unelected flappers of the Press.
posted by aurelian at 10:03 PM on August 2, 2000
People don't like Bush and Cheney's connections with oil while they say nothing about Al "the actual Junior" Gore's holdings of oil stock, or while on one hand talk tearfully about his sister's battle with lung cancer and on the other hand profit handsomely from tobacco money.
posted by gyc at 10:58 PM on August 2, 2000
So much BS here, I'll just have to respond one by one.
wiremommy: Amusing that you have to attack a former Secretary of Defense as being merely "daddy's business pal." Only the Democrats, terrified by the thought of losing all political control for the first time in many decades (no White House, no House, no Senate), would think they would be able to get away with knocking a former Congressman and Secretary of Defense as "daddy's business pal." Or that they could make the public forget that Dubya's father happened to be, you know, President of the United States. Or that they could make the public think that seeking advice from someone who's been there is somehow a sign of weakness. Of course, nobody's buying it.
frykitty and ratbastard pretty much got the truth of this: You vet everybody, or at least make the media think so, in order to keep the media from telling the world you've picked someone you haven't totally decided on yet. And as most media outlets besides Time managed to report, Dubya hadn't decided on Cheney 100% until the same day he offered Cheney the spot.
Zach: >>They actually believe they can reach out to the swing voter by pulling on the reins of their most conservative and extreme party members...
1) They have reached out. As of Wednesday, Bush leads Gore by 13 points. That's up 5 points in 48 hours. 2) The extremists are already marginalized. Even the internal polls of convention delegates show them to be much more moderate than the delegates of 1996. 3) Your statement carries with it the implication that there's no such thing as an extremist Democrat. Sure. So far in Philadelphia we've seen an openly gay GOP Congressman speak, as well as a speech by Colin Powell where he openly advocated affirmative action (aka reverse discrimination). I'll be happy to bet folding money that the DNC will not be offering up any openly homophobic or anti-affirmative action speakers, if for no other reason than they wouldn't want a riot to break out on the convention floor.
aurelian: You have every right to think of Dubya as you wish, even though I don't personally see where you're coming from. But how can you not think similarly of Clinton-Gore, whose entire modus operendi has always been attack, attack, attack, attack, destroy anyone who dares cross them? Geez, look at Clinton's personal attack on Bush the other day, which constituted the first violation in history of the old gentleman's rule that during the other side's convention, you keep your mouth shut and let them have their day? It's just mean.
Now this friend of mine volunteers for the Bush campaign... and suddenly Bush has the same idea?? Amazing!
posted by daveadams at 7:01 AM on August 3, 2000
"As Secretary of Defense, Cheney worked to privatize the system, awarding a particularly large contract worth millions to Brown and Root, a division of Halliburton. Then, when Cheney became a private citizen, he was hired as CEO of Halliburton and paid millions to continue to contribute to the growth of that oil company."
You can read more about it in the LA Times.
So yeah, I called him one of Bush I's business cronies. To me, his allegiance to the oil business is more of a factor, both in the reason he was chosen by Bush II, and in showing where his real loyalties lie... certainly more of a factor than his stints as chief of staff to Gerald Ford (there's an administration to be proud you were a part of), legislator, and Bush cabinet member.
I haven't forgotten that Bush Jr.'s dad was President-- I remember the travesty of his reign, especially the Gulf War, all too clearly, which is among the many reasons I oppose putting Bush's loser son in office in monarchy-like succession to his dad. I also remember that Bush I headed up the CIA, which helps explain his fascistic invasive foreign policy decisions and his general creepiness as a public figure.
Oh, but don't get me wrong, Aaron, I hate Clinton and Gore too; in fact, I consider them to be honorary Republicans for their slavish catering to business interests. I'm for Nader.
posted by wiremommy at 8:27 AM on August 3, 2000
wiremommy: Speaking of my party... :) I think being part of the Ford Administration is something to be proud of. Nixon's departure was so ugly, any successor was going to get trashed. Ford did what needed to be done -- get the government back to governing -- and did it with minimal fuss. Policy mistakes along the way? Sure, just like any other president. But Ford was just the right kind of reluctant president that was needed at the time. Jerry never wanted to be president... He'd always wanted to be Speaker of the House, and he was much more comfortable in Congress. I really suspect that most of his troubles in office were because he didn't want to be there in the first place. {shrug}
Part of this opinion, admittedly, is shaped by being a fan of David Hume Kennerly, who was White House photographer for Ford (his book Photo Op is still available, and it's great). Kennerly saw Ford more often while in office than probably anybody, it was the nature of his job to be a fly on the wall at everything... and he came out of it with enormous respect for Ford. Again, {shrug}, and it's probably just the latent photojournalist in me that's willing to give great credence to Kennerly's opinions.
posted by aurelian at 4:33 PM on August 3, 2000
« Older Submethod | Monster.com Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
(b) How effect is it to dig up dirt on someone by asking them?
posted by rcade at 12:13 PM on August 2, 2000