Oh, right. You guys thought Bush was seriously considering Colin Powell or Liddy Dole? A black or a woman on the Republican presidential ticket? Don’t hold your friggin’ breath.
I am astonished, however, that Dubya would go ahead and pick ANOTHER fellow who had millions of dollars handed to him by the oil business essentially because of his political connections (i.e. worked for or was related to Bush Sr.). Cheney pulled down a salary of $1.2 million last year, plus stock options, in a position in an oil-equipment firm that was described by another exec as “he doesn’t have to, uh, actually come into the office all that much…it’s not like he’s out there making deals or anything.”
Unc, I read Myrr’s comment to mean, “I’m opposed to Republicans on the basis of their general worldview, but I’m not really familiar with the current cast of characters.” Makes sense to me - how much does one have to keep track of details to be aware that the GOP stands for pretty much the same stuff they did 20 years ago, only more so?
You can certainly be opposed to what the GOP is pushing without being ignorant, even if you don’t know who Dick Cheney is. Similarly, if you know what the Democrats stand for (and if you can figure that out, clue me in, willya?), and you’re opposed to it, not knowing who, say, Zell Miller is doesn’t invalidate your judgment.
I read Lance Morrow’s spin on Cheney (see SouthernStyle’s link), and, well, it’s spin.
What’s there to say about Cheney? He’s about as white-bread a pick as Dubya could’ve made. The best that can be said is that he won’t win Dubya any votes, and he won’t lose Dubya any votes, either. He won’t show Dubya up by looking like a more impressive candidate, but he won’t drag Dubya down by being Quayle II.
Morrow says:
To me, Cheney points up how callow and inexperienced Dubya seems. The difference in age may be only five years, but Cheney comes across as being a generation older, simply by looking his age. We’re talking about a guy who was Gerald Ford’s White House chief of staff, back when Dubya’s dad was still piecing together his resume.
Morrow also says:
It would have to be a pro-Bush interpretation. Cheney’s the ultimate play-it-safe pick, like Carter picking Mondale in 1976, only more so. Playing it this safe in the early stages of a close contest doesn’t speak of self-confidence; it speaks of being afraid to do anything that might risk his lead.
But as someone who’s been in the anyone-but-Dubya camp since the beginning of the year, I’m very pleased with the choice of Cheney. The Republicans had lots of potential veep nominees who could have made things tougher for Gore in the fall. Cheney isn’t one of them. Works for me!
Thanks ** RTFirefly. **
That was more my point–I know the Republican platforms, and I know who some of the more prominent leaders are–and some of the local ones in my area–but certain individuals escape my radar, and I’d kinda like to know who they are. I think I’ll have to check that site later, though; I didn’t make it past “The Gore Files” before becoming disgusted and closing the window.
I realize Myrr21 has backed up your interpretation of her statement, but just how did you parse, “I realize that I’m sort of out of touch with Republican politics (having made it my lifelong goal to defeat them), but I would kinda like to know what’s going on,” this to come up with that?
It sounds to me, even after re-reading it, that Myrr is uninformed.
And Myrr, that site I linked is the official Republican National Committee site, it’s just as full of misstated and misleading propaganda as the official Democratic National Committee page.
First off, I’m a “he” (this is the second or third time in a week, I think I may need to start advertising my penis more). Either that, or my username is effeminate.
Anyway, to adress the question–first off, I was being somewhat facitious; I have better things to do with my time than defeat one party. I do like to stay informed, though–which can be hard in a college in the middle of nowhere, with reduced access to good news sources (like radio). Not only that, but anything the college papers tell you is ridicuously liberal. I’m very much liberal myself, but I see no reason to be blind about it and only listen to these guys (who are stoned all the time anyway). I was asking a legitimate question–who are these other people (Cheney having been known to me).
As for the site–I don’t claim the Dems site is any better. It would probably disgust me almost as much (a little less since I agree with them more, but still). Besides, I was also curious as to actual people’s opinions on who these people are, not just a party-line bio.
Oh please. I’m gonna guess you have a computer. I’m also gonna guess you’ve heard of something called the “information superhighwyay.” And further, I can predict that your computer is connected to said highway. It follows then, you’ve made a deliberate choice to be uninformed. If you truly wished to educate yourself, you’d just punch those names in a search engine.
RTFirefly I thought Dubya was Quayle II (or maybe I mean too)
Another anybody but Dubya poster checking in. I like the choice for a moment I thought he might actually go with McCain or somebody else capable of defeating a Bore/? ticket. Now we can expect Bore to pick up a rich white guy too. :rolleyes:
The statement I made, I meant that in general (heck, I’m not even there now, though I’m at a different college). When I’m there, I spend most of my time away from my computer. Far away from my computer. Which is not to say that I don’t read online newspapers–specifically, I read the Baltimore Sun at http://www.sunspot.net
It’s not the best newspaper in the world, but it’s decent, and also adresses issues in my hometown.
However, I generally use multiple medias for news. Particularly, I like radio–which we only recieve one classic rock station of, and some christian sermon station. Television news usually sucks, but we don’t get that anyway (the reception sucks, and I don’t own a TV anyway). You’re right, I * could * increase my time in front of the computer reading three different online papers, but I do have other things to do as well–schoolwork, a job, etc.
So instead, I read one newspaper (plus http://www.obscurestore.com for my news of the weird), and when the subject isn’t covered there, or I miss an article, I sometimes ask a question. A relevant question. And one that was intended to possibly draw an opinion on the individuals as well. I don’t like being told I’m uninformed and whining because I’m not able to follow all the world’s news.
Although I did like the GOP being equated with broccoli–does that make the Dems cabbage?
I think Bush did, just not in the way that people think.
A lot of people touted McCain or Ridge or Liddy Dole or J.C. Watts as a way to reach out to traditional Democratic voters (and I was one, hoping that Watts would be the first African-American nominated for veep); in essence, using the veep selection as a (or another) broadside upon the ‘traditional’ Democratic voters that Gore seems to be having trouble garnering support from.
What Bush has done by selecting Cheney is completely the opposite tack- rather than selecting a running mate to highlight Gore’s weaknesses, Bush selected a running mate that absolves his own. Cheney has a long history of being a mover and a shaker in national political affairs, both legislative and executive (former CoS for Ford; Defense Secretary for GHWB; likely to have been Speaker of the House instead of Gingrich had he not taken the position of SoD)- but he isn’t tainted by the ‘corrupt insider’ image. Cheney’s positions are moderately conservative- certainly no great grab to the middle, but no ‘lunatic right-wing’ candidate either.
Good God no. Bush was the last 4 lettered pres elected.
C’mon folks.
And how is Cheney not a corrupt insider? 21 bad checks? Even without that, nowadays just having a resume with more than 3 mentions of D.C. will get you labeled an insider - not a good thing for Dubya.
Bush was the last 4 lettered president before Bush? A little premature, aren’t you?
All right, I re-checked the question. I suppose I assumed that since the poser of the question spoke about President Bush one sentence before the trivia question, I assumed that the question referred to the president before Bush. How naive of me to assume that a trivia question would involve some actual trivia, and not just being awake in 1988 (or 1989-1993.)
Well dear, if it will make you feel better:
George Hebert Walker Bush - elected 1988, served 1989-1993.
Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr. (born Leslie Lynch King, Jr.) - served 1974-1977, never elected to either VP or Pres.
William Howard Taft - elected 1908, served 1909-1913. Only president to serve on the Supreme Court after his term in office.
Oh, I forgot. The general public keeps a running tally of former secretaries of defence. Just like they can name the current one.
Outside of politically active Republican circles, who were going to vote for Bush anyway, Dick Cheney is a nobody. He will have no effect on the ticket at all.
Now hold on. Are you trying to tell me that Gerald Ford, in rechristening himself, could have had any middle name he wanted–and he chose Rudolph??? There’s something fishy going on here; I don’t buy it for a second.
In a (quick) response to dear Iolanthe, I believe that Greg Charles was commenting on the perception he saw in that people had a very short memory - “During the war, remember? Is everyone here so young?” - so he set up this “trivia” question. Its sort of like when people ask who won the 1999 NBA title. No one ever seems to remember things that just recently happened.
