Cheney: Party man or Self serving?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by atszyman, Sep 15, 2004.

  1. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #1
    I'm not a Republican but I can't help but notice that the Republican ticket this year is kind of a dead end. In most recent elections, after a president's second term the VP will run for president in the next election. Given Cheney's age and health I don't think this would be the case should Bush happen to win a second term. If Cheney is a true Republican I see that within the first two years of Bush's next term he will step down from the VP position (due to health reasons) and Bush will appoint another VP in order to field a viable candidate for the 2008 election (Giuliani?). Cheney could very easily maintain a position as a high level advisor, but will he do it?

    We already know Cheney is a bit self serving. When asked to research and find a good running mate in Bush's first run he managed to find himself.

    We also know he is a liar. While portraying Kerry as soft on the millitary by talking about the systems that he voted against he fails to point out that at the time he was the Secretary of Defense and was calling for even larger cuts than what Congress was allowing him. See here http://slate.msn.com/id/2106119 and here http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/.

    I know Slate happens to be a bit more to the left than a lot of news sites however I trust them since they do their research and admit when they are wrong which is more than a lot of media outlets will do these days. See here http://slate.msn.com/id/2106630 and here http://slate.msn.com/id/109707

    So now back to my topic. Will Cheney step down for the benefit of the Republican party? Or will he selfishly hold on to his office and leave the 2008 election up for grabs?

    Just some thoughts.
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    one of your thoughts had occurred to me as well: that cheney will likely not be the heir apparent to the presidency.

    and that's got me a bit scared. i think a 2nd bush term would be an all out War on Giving Up Power. be on the watch for solidifying judicial power for years to come, more erosion of the non-administrative branches, and some reason to suspend elections.
     
  3. sorryiwasdreami macrumors 6502a

    sorryiwasdreami

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Location:
    way out in the sticks
    #3
    I think he will never step down, given his more-than-vice-president leadership role of the Bush administration. On topics other than religion, I believe Cheney calls the shots; Bush appears just a spokesman.

    Cheney is way to crucial to the republican dictatorship we live today in America to resign, even if he is on an operating table.
     
  4. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #4
    If he does step down, I would think Gov P or G as you said.

    But kerry is the liar, and edwards too, nah,nah,nah,nah,nah,,,,,,,

    PS you contradict yourself, you say cheney is a liar cause he portray kerry as soft on defense due to votes, yet cheney was not lying....kerry did those votes. Was it deceptive? Mostly! Lying? NOT!

    Show me a politician running for Prez, someone hasn't called a liar.

    I agree CBS should recant!
     
  5. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #5
    Stu,
    please don't take this the wrong way, but...

    a) how old are you exactly?
    b) what medication are you on and have you been taking it?
    c) do you have ADD or some kind of hyperactivity?

    I ask because your posts are a little wierd sometimes...not so much in what you say but in how you say it...
     
  6. atszyman thread starter macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #6
    No it is a lie. Read the article.

    "It is the claim that John Kerry, during his 20 years in the Senate, voted to kill the M-1 tank, the Apache helicopter; the F-14, F-16, and F-18 jet fighters; and just about every other weapon system that has kept our nation free and strong.

    Here, one more time, is the truth of the matter: Kerry did not vote to kill these weapons, in part because none of these weapons ever came up for a vote, either on the Senate floor or in any of Kerry's committees.

    This myth took hold last February in a press release put out by the RNC. Those who bothered to look up the fine-print footnotes discovered that they referred to votes on two defense appropriations bills, one in 1990, the other in 1995. Kerry voted against both bills, as did 15 other senators, including five Republicans. The RNC took those bills, cherry-picked some of the weapons systems contained therein, and implied that Kerry voted against those weapons. By the same logic, they could have claimed that Kerry voted to disband the entire U.S. armed forces; but that would have raised suspicions and thus compelled more reporters to read the document more closely.

    What makes this dishonesty not merely a lie, but a damned lie, is that back when Kerry cast these votes, Dick Cheney—who was the secretary of defense for George W. Bush's father—was truly slashing the military budget. Here was Secretary Cheney, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 31, 1992:

    Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.

    Cheney then lit into the Democratic-controlled Congress for not cutting weapons systems enough:

    Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M1s, F14s, and F16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them." -Fred Kaplan

    They are making the claim that Kerry is softer on defense than they are based on these votes.

    Cheney wanted more cuts at the time of these votes. So who are we supposed to believe is softer on defense? It's a lie of omission.

    Another lie is that he voted specifically against the systems named. The systems were part of a larger bill. That's like saying a politician voted against fixing potholes on main street when it was attached to an $200 million stadium deal for a local sports franchise.

    They are lies. I'm surprised that they haven't turned these right around on Cheney.

    I don't much like the choices in this election. But be honest with yourself. If Clinton had piloted us into record deficits, a war without adequate planning for the aftermath, and a loss of jobs you'd be calling for his head on a platter.

    The best result from this election would be for Kerry to lose the popular vote but win the Electoral College so we can get some bi-partison support to eliminate the Electoral College. Unfortunately I live in Texas so my vote is worthless. I can vote for Kerry to try to get Bush out of office but Bush will win TX anyway and get the Electoral votes.
     
  7. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #7
    Senator Inouye, Very Liberal (D) from Hawaii had the following comments:* Amendment 1452, 1994, Senate Floor


    *
    Will you argue the Honorable Sen Inouye's view? Was he a hawk?

    Cuts proposed after deep cuts for the peace dividend

    Can you find republicans that voted the same on some yes, how many democrats voted the same please, mr jfk is on the record, read the 57 bills and resolutions thread too.

    Is there spin and manuevering? Absolutely! The liar decry reminds me of the ole hag (played billy crystal's wife) in the princess bride, LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!
    Pants on fire. :rolleyes:
     
  8. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #8
    How embarassing to have a worthless vote, maybe you can get with the Nader supporters in Florida and have a pow-wow.

    I am not from Tx, but I imagine there is more on the ballot on election day than the Prez election.

    The electoral college is wise beyond its years. I live in a state that has about the population of New York City & metro area, and if you think I want them to have a bigger say in a Presidental Election than my entire state you're nutz.

    Why not say there shouldn't be 2 senators from RI. :rolleyes:

    from atszyman
     
  9. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #9
    I had heard one of the talking heads during the RNC, that said not to rule out Cheney in 2004. Age doesn't play that much in to it as does his health over the next fours years if Bush wins.
     
  10. atszyman thread starter macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #10
    I'm not saying that we should take away representation, but election of the president by popular vote would make more sense than the system we have now. Read this http://slate.msn.com/id/2105055.

    "In their book Electoral College Primer 2000 (which, alas, was not updated for 2004), Lawrence D. Longley and Neal Peirce calculated that the states enjoying higher-than-average voting power under the Electoral College were the following (in declining order):

    California
    Texas
    New York
    Florida
    Pennsylvania
    Illinois

    The states with the least voting power under the Electoral College were the following (in ascending order):

    Montana
    Kansas
    West Virginia
    Maine
    Arkansas
    Utah
    Nevada"

    Popular vote or even awarding electors based on proportonal voting schemes, i.e. A state has 3 Electors and has a 66/33% vote divide. One elector goes to the winner of the 33% vote while the other 2 go to the 66% winner. It would improve voter turnout in areas like TX where left leaning people don't feel like we have a say since we are so outnumbered by the right.

    Your telling me you'd still support the system if Bush were to win the popular vote but not the college? I find that hard to believe.


    As for the voting record post.

    "B-2 Stealth Bomber:* Repeatedly Votes to Cut or Eliminate B-2 Stealth Bomber



    (H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #203, 9/26/89)
    (H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #310, 11/18/89)
    (S. 2884, CQ Vote #208, 8/2/90)
    (S. 2884, CQ Vote #209, 8/2/90)
    (S. 1507, CQ Vote #174, 8/1/91)
    (H.R. 2521, CQ Vote #206, 9/25/91)
    (S. 2403, CQ Vote #85, 5/6/92)
    (S. 3114, CQ Vote #216,9/18/92)


    (S. 2182, CQ Vote #179, 7/1/94)
    *"

    I did some research and these are all just general Defense budget bills. Saying that Kerry voted against the Stealth Bomber based on these bills is like my previous example of fixing potholes on main street as a part of a bill to get the community to fund a new stadium for the local NFL team.

    Don't even get me started on Missile defense. Given the poor performance in prior tests, I cannot believe that we pulled out of a treaty (another of Bush's dismal foreign policy mistakes) to try to build the system. It's a losing game. Even if we had a perfect system our enemy only has to build one more Nuke than we have interceptors in order to hit us. Given the past performance of the system the only need a few nukes and a lot of balloons and they could manage to hit us. Missile defense could very well lead to another arms race.

    BTW, I don't consider it an embarrassment to be a victim of a flaw in the system.
     
  11. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #11
    The problem we have with the electoral college system today is, the candidates are now pandering to just 10 "battleground" states. I guess the other 40 can just go suck eggs.
     
  12. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #12
    I am for the electoral college after clinton won, and will be if kerry wins. BELIEVE IT, EVEN THOUGH KENNEDY WON IN A NARROW VICTORY AND NIXON IN ONE IN 68. There is an argument for distribution of electoral votes, which is not the same as some want- the elimination, I am not for the distribution although I understand the argument.

    I included the votes on the bills that you mentioned along with the ones that didn't apply to the liar claim.

    I missed your response to Sen Iouyne's comment though.

    Each state has each own personallity, if you don't like texas try another. As my state sen. said in a letter he sent me concerning my request he vote in favor of a Federal Marrage amendment, he prefered each state to take their own action in this, that out of respect for the US Constitution, he did not like amending it (Sen Edwards). I am glad he is not up for re-election, (he knew he was toast anyway-why not run for president? After all he is a rich personal injury lawyer)
    Each state is unique in taxes, education, property rights, etc....... Part of what gives each state its power is the electoral system. So we disagree.

    you'll be happy though-i have to end today's macrumors banter-actually have to work till late tonight. I do get to fly a Republican Candidate tomorrow!! YEA!
     
  13. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    Why do states need electoral power? What is the problem with one person, one vote?
     
  14. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #14
    The original thought was that it'd leave small states out in the cold. Though with all the changes in infrastructure and culture I think it comes down to one-man-one-vote being a little too fair and difficult to manipulate.
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    Heh heh heh. Cynical as always -- I knew I could count on you. :)

    Seriously though, it's a serious question. By what reasoning do "states," large or small, need a voice in selecting a president? By what rationale does someone living in Montana deserve a substantially larger say in a presidential election than someone living in California?
     
  16. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #16
    If I recall correctly this is one of the remaining anachronisms from a period in American history when hamstringing the Fed was a major priority for a people united mostly by the desire to stop paying taxes to Britain.

    The other legislation in the same veign included seperate state millitias with NO standing millitary, state-by-state currencies, limitations on the Fed that essentially made it impossible for it to act as much more than a localized UN and Native-American-Genocide Enforement agency until reality and powermongering eroded away all but the most manipulable of the original controls.
     
  17. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #17
    I think it has to do with the DNC and RNC wanting to be able to play games when it comes to money. Far easier to confuse or win the votes in 10 states, than it is to do it in 50 states.

    If it relied on, one person-one vote, then they would have to have real policies for the future. This way they can just play the game of words to win the hearts of voters.
     
  18. katchow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #18
    i really couldn't give a rats behind what everyone else thinks in my state. Its a dumb assumption to say we are all like-minded because we live in proximity of each other (granfallons)...i'm voting for a president of the united states, you know, the u.s.a, as the name implies, as a whole.

    i've actually been told that maybe i should move if i don't like the way my state votes...what kind of democracy is that?
     
  19. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #19
    dude, you gotta provide links for this stuff. it's the way. and who was inouye talking to when he addressed "madam president?"

    if i had a link, i could have a look for myself. as it is, it's suspect.

    and you can drop the "very liberal" ****. doesn't make me want to read many more of your posts.
     
  20. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    An incomplete one.

    I understand the historical rationale behind the Electoral College system, which principally was that the founders were concerned about the election of plurality presidents from the more powerful and populous states (especially, Virginia). So they created a system that required a majority vote (from the College), and gave every state a minimum say in the election. This was also in the days before political parties, so it was presumed that states would vote like parties members do today -- in virtual lockstep for their favorite sons.

    What I don't understand is why anything thinks this system is a reasonable and useful one, let alone fair and democratic, in the 21st century.
     
  21. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #21
    agreed. the state is too broad a boundary. the needs of chicagoans, for example, differs greatly from the needs of the rest of illinois.

    so one on hand we've got the granularity of the state, on the other, as suggested, we've got the granularity of the voter.

    in between is the county. would that be a viable granularity? each county already has an election commission. it would certainly change the way campaign's are run.
     
  22. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #22
    Only if you made the House districts and Senatorial districts fall via county lines. For the Senatorial Districts you'd have to group regionally to avoid "adjusting for (affilliated) population density".
     
  23. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #23
    ah yes, gerrymandering has no limits, save the state line.

    i'm fine w/ doing away w/ the electoral college and just doing the popular vote. information is free flowing these days, i don't need an electorate to represent my vote for me. and i certainly don't need my vote to be rendered irrelevent by where i choose to live.
     
  24. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #24
    election system: popular vote all the way.. the current one of the US is ridiculous....1 person 1 vote...no 'battleground states'

    cheney: not acceptable.period.
     
  25. atszyman thread starter macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #25
    First off I didn't respond to Sen Iouyne's comment. You provided no reference for the comment for one. I also never said that Kerry was perfect. He has made some mistakes, he's only human.

    As for moving. I like my job, I generally like living in TX, my wife won't move. Trying another state is not an option. Why should I have to move to make my vote count?

    I'm tired of typing so for the remainder of this post EC = Electoral College

    Let's do some math. Hypothetical situation. 10 states each with equal populations and 20 electoral votes. Candidate A wins the election with 120 electoral votes by winning 51% of the vote in 6 states. Candidate B wins 100% of the vote in the remaining 4 states. Each state has 10% of the overall population. So the popular vote comes down to
    5.1%*6 = 30.6% of the people voted for A
    4.9*6+40 = 69.4 % of the people voted for B

    70% of the people wanted B for the office yet only 30% of the people wanted the winner. Oversimplified sure but all it takes to carry the US election is to win 51% in the 11 highest electoral states. 100% of the people in the remaining 39 states could vote for the opponent who would still lose. The system is flawed. If Bush were to win the popular vote but lose the college Republicans will really start to push to remove or reform the EC.
     

Share This Page