This has to be my favorite commentary on the subject, it sums it all up in a nutshell.
I’m actually a little confused that Liddy Dole wouldn’t be asked, the more I think about it. I personally know a number of die-hard liberal women who have said to me that they would vote for Bush with her as a running-mate. This may not be representative of the population as a whole, but my guess is that it isn’t unique either.
How can he not be drooling over that? That’s two of the three demographics that Republicans have the hardest time winning. The only thing that could make that more appealing is to say liberal minority women…
As I’ve said many times in this forum, the Republican Party is helpless without the Bigot Vote. While I’m sure the Dubya and his corporate masters would enjoy picking up some soccer mom votes, they’re not going to do anything drastic enough (like put a penis-free person on the national ticket) to make the Hillary-haters stay home.
That’s the thing, though. All the Hillary-bashers really like Elizabeth Dole–despite the fact that she exemplifies all the things they bash Clinton for more than Clinton does herself. Weird.
I was disappointed to hear that GWB is considering Cheney as a running mate based on information passed on to me several years ago during his daddy’s term as president. I’ve tried to find something to substantiate what my very liberal professor said during class but have come up empty handed.
Perhaps there are some posters who know for sure.
Basically my professor had a huge problem with Cheney serving as Secretary of Defense during the Gulf War because – and this is where I can’t find documentation-- Cheney had a cushy desk job in Washington during Viet Nam. He somehow procured several deferments from active duty for his fighting-aged son. However, he also felt the U.S. should have a military presence in the Gulf in the 1990’s. I found that quite hypocritical, but can find no documentation to substantiate.
Has anyone else ever heard of this?
Unc, the key phrase in Myrr’s post was “Republican politics.”
While there is the occasional rare exception (i.e. primaries) intraparty politics tends to be the political equivalent of inside-baseball, all full of crap such as who was edged out for what Cabinet position and why.
While interparty politics either is about issues, or at least pretends fairly hard that that’s what it’s about. His post registered with me right away as saying, “I’m concerned with one, but not the other.”
Anyhow, that’s how I got there. And welcome, Myrr, to our rough-and-tumble. Hope you stick around, even if you pick up a few bruises. We all do, here in GD. 
I heard he had an internship with the Governor of Wyoming at one point.
Anyone know if Lynne Cheney is his daughter or wife or some other relation?
Hey, I’m here for good; I’m hooked. I keep having to pry myself away so that I can sleep.
Anyway, perhaps I should have put a smilie with the “mission to destroy” thing, but I am a recovering emoticon abuser and am trying to wean my way off. Sometimes things get ugly…
Ahhh! I did it again.
Lynne_is_his_wife.
Dammit,my_spacebar_isn’t_working.
Must_get_new_keyboard.
Dr._J
I’d like not to, but I have to admit that I traversed right past “Bush I” to Taft as well. Sigh. I thought I was being clever with that Ford thing too. Let me try again:
Who was the first four-letter last-named president to be elected? I’m fairly sure I know the right answer to that one.
Oh, and dropzone, the current secretary of defense is William Cohen. Before that was William Perry. In any case, my point was Cheney was secretary of defense during a war. He was in the news almost every day for a while there. I definitely know more about him than about Bush II. I’m a member of the general public and way, way outside the Republican party. So there!
First = James K Polk, right?
The comment was made that it looks as if there was no attempt to pick up any swing votes with the choice of Cheney. That’s actually why I like and admire Dubya’s choice.
Think about it. Al Gore has done nothing but try to reinvent himself (or even just invent himself, since he’s never really had a persona to speak of). There was speculation about Bush choosing a pro-choice running mate, for balance (which makes me wonder if Gore is going to choose a pro-life running mate. “For balance.”).
Bush has chosen Cheney, who is perceived to be, in some areas, more conservative than Bush. Smart move. It tells voters, “Like it or not, this is who we are. You know where we stand, unlike the Democrat choice, who doesn’t even know who he is himself.”
It’s a message to Republicans and Conservatives – we know who you are, and we’ve put our ticket together for you.
It’s a message to undecideds and Independents – you don’t have to guess about us. We’re not going to be one ticket before the election and another ticket after the election.
After more than seven years of waffling and duplicity, I find that refreshing. Whether you like the politics of Bush/Cheney or not, at least you know who they are.
Hmm. Cheney was 34 in 1974 when he became Ford’s Chief of Staff (IIRC; even if not, I’m only off by a year or two). That means that he was 24 when the Vietnam War started in '64 and beyond drafting age for the course of the war. If your professor feels that Cheney was a hypocrite for not actively signing up and volunteering for Vietnam, then, well, I can’t argue other than to say that your professor has higher standards of expectations than most.
As for ‘fighting-aged son’- Cheney was 33 when the draft ended; if he had an 18 year-old son, then Cheney had a much wilder adolescence than most, and you’d think we’d hear about that sort of stuff.
At first glance it seems a strange choice indeed:
It resembles Dukakis’ tapping Bentsen only to have Bentsen’s experience, ability, and political skill overshadow Dukakis.
In this case both W and Cheney are long time insiders - I’m hard pressed to think of what “profession” or non-political job W has had.
When W promised that his choice would “excite” voters, most observers felt that Cheney and Dad would swing Colin Powell. But that didn’t happen based mostly on Mrs. Powell’s adamant refusal to open up their family to the wringer of national publicity.
I would appear that Cheney, is thus a second choice. Still one has to wonder why Bush didn’t tap prominent GOP politicians in key states like PA, MI, NJ, or OH. Unless the economy tanks, its going to be a tough race, made closer only due to Bubba’s tight pants. So far, the oil price rise (gasoline, heating oil, and natural gas) won’t help Bush and Cheney, men who “made” their money in that business.
IMHO had Ford kept Rocky instead of Bob Dole in 1976 and had Rocky pulled out all his chips in NY and the mid-Atlantic, Carter would have been another Dukakis.
If the old Atwater script holds, expect slashing attacks from Cheney while W makes his brand of conservatism more tender, more pious, more focused on those soccer moms.
As for Gore, he seems to (like W) have a mean streak. Look for Gore to push W’s shirking of National Guard duty while on a political assignment from Dad in Mississippi. That ad might run back to back with W’s on Gore’s “visit” to the Buddhist temple.
Nixon said:
Well, in 1992 Bill Clinton picked Al Gore as his running mate, and was lauded by the press for choosing a veep for ‘governance’ rather than ‘election’ (after all, Tennessee was virtually a lock for Clinton at that point- it’s one of the more Democratic-leaning Southern states, and Bill Clinton was then-governor of adjacent Arkansas). IMHO, Bush is going for that same model: not a veep who can bring in votes for the election and then twiddles his thumbs for the next four years, but rather someone with knowledge and experience who can truly help Bush govern.
Given that most polls (before the selection) showed Bush with a six to eight point lead over Gore in a two-person race, and that Nader and Buchanan will likely siphon off as many votes from Gore as Buchanan does from Bush, I think Bush is going for the more forward-looking choice rather than hobble himself in order to win an election people are practically conceding to him already.
The day Cheney makes slashing attacks is the day pigs fly, IMO. Cheney has a sterling reputation as “Mr. Nice Guy”, and I doubt he’s going to turn attack dog overnight. It’s like asking Mr. Rogers to join the WWF.
You’re kidding, right? The thing I remember most about Cheney is his acid tongue. It’s the same sort of thing that made Bob Dole a lousy VP candidate in '76. Like Dole, I think Cheney will have a hard time resisting the cutting remark, which will only serve to reinforce the mean-spirited image of the Republican party.
As always, Ms. Maureen Dowd has the last word on W’s selection in today’s New York Times:
(Look mom - flying pigs!)
Cheney and Vietnam, from today’s Washington Post:
Well, I’m sure a lot of young men had other priorities in the ‘60s than military service, but they had to go anyway. Conservatives have long made hay over liberals’ avoidance of military service in Vietnam; in recent years, a whole bunch of prominent conservatives, it’s been noted, managed to weasel their way out of Vietnam too. Now the Republicans apparently have a whole ticket of 'Nam-dodgers, and it’s time for the chickens to come home to roost. Especially given that Al Gore served in Vietnam, despite his father’s opposition to the war.
Which is more immoral:
a) filing for CO status because you believe a war is immoral, or
b) being all for the war, but believing that you have better things to do with your life than fight in it, while some working-class kid doesn’t?
At least we liberals believed nobody should go. Well-off conservatives apparently believed that somebody should go, but it should be the hired help, rather than them personally.
I don’t like his anti-environment views. His good qualities (pro-life, for school prayer) make up for it.
Well since Cheney hasn’t been in the spotlight for the last 8 or so years I don’t really expect many college aged people to know much about him. I’m sure in the next several months we’ll find out much more than we ever wanted to know including boxers or briefs. I think Cheney makes up for some of Dubya’s weaknesses in foreign policy and other areas. I don’t think that it is very well balanced for getting them elected. It almost seems that the Republican Party, or the older Bush, thinks that they can handily beat Gore without picking a more balanced ticket. I think they may be making a huge error in judgement and I’m a registered republican.