We knew all along that Cheney had no desire to be President. But what if he did? Would he have a shot in hell after the last eight years?
Maybe it’s my lefty bias showing, but I think if he ran the election would end in an Obama landslide of historic proportions.
One would hope not. Even those I knew who voted for Bush in '04 were touch and go on Cheney. There’s something viscerally creepy about him that translates on a human level (my opinion, obviously) that would outweigh even his policy tragedies and shadowy aura. Of course, there are probably a handful of people out there who don’t know the name of the VP, so he might get those votes.
Oh hell, no.
His approval rating would be in the 40s now.
Not a chance in hell. If Chaney was running he’d be lucky to get the entire 'Pub BASE…forget about independents and undecideds, forget about the entire US center.
Besides, the lefty types would go absolutely ape shit. Hell, they could probably elect Kucinich if Chaney ran!
-XT
Nah. Republicans don’t like him either.
The CEOs of certain segments of industry sure do…he’s increased their profits by the billions. Of course, he had to destroy a whole country, kill 10s of thousands of their people, and displace a couple of million citizens, but Halliburton et. al. sure did come out of the whole thing with great-looking balance sheets…
Have you ever heard the term ‘hyperbole’ before…?
-XT
Can you show which part of what I posted is hyperbole? The actual profits may be inaccurate, but you can’t argue that Halliburton and its host of subsidiary service providers are doing a hell of a lot better right now than they would be had we not invaded Iraq.
Which part isn’t? He (implied single handedly) ‘increased their profits by the billions’ is probably the only thing even in the ball park…and even there (if I were talking your post seriously) I’d have to say…cite?
‘Destroy a whole country’? Even if we lay this entirely on Chaney (which would be stupid), Iraq (which is the country I assume you meant) isn’t destroyed by any stretch. It is, after all, still there.
‘Kill 10s of thousands of their people’…again, HE didn’t kill any of them, nor is he solely responsible for the invasion of Iraq.
Nor did he shunt ‘profits’ to ‘Halliburton et. al.’…that is a left wing meme that bears little resemblance to the reality of how procurement works in the US.
So…which part ISN’T hyperbole? Or, if not hyperbole, then wildly inaccurate? Not that I want to hijack the thread, but it looks to be a lot of folks going ‘no way!’ with a couple of nutballs saying that evil Republican’s would figure a way to get him elected somehow (or something along those lines).
-XT
Well it isn’t the same Iraq. I mean the chain of government was disrupted and a new constitution put up. So it is pretty much Iraq 2. Not to mention you know what he meant.
He, Rumsfield and the Shrub are more responsible than any other people on Earth. And it’s likely in the hundred thousand range.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
They didn’t bid on the project and got it. Very convenient that. Remember, under Sadam’s Iraq the country pumped, refined and sold it’s own oil. That meant jobs and profit stayed in the country. Now Haliburton is involved and some of those profits dribble away…
And no. Cheney wouldn’t make it to president. He’s been playing the angry little man to deflect things away from the Shrub. People don’t like him. Not that he cares mind you. He’ll still die wealthier than the entire SDMB combined.
I had no intention of suggesting that the “evil Republicans would figure out a way”…I was merely noting that there is at least one segment of the Republican faithful that probably likes Dick Cheney very much.
If anything, I lowballed the Iraqi dead number. And he has as much responsibility for killing them as Bush does. It was an unnecessary invasion. We were the agressors in an unnecessary war. ANY Iraqi death due to the invasion and occupation can be laid at the feet of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and with less but still some responsibility, Rice and Powell.