NCAAbbs

Now that it seems like this election is settling down and the resignation of Rumsfeld, some are speculating what will happen to Cheney.

As many know Cheney has said in the past that he has no desire to run for POTUS. This puts the Republicans in a position where they will have a wide open race for the nomination in about a year.

If Bush decides to replace Cheney this could "anoint" an early favorite for the next nomination.

If this does happen it will have to happen within the next 6 months or so in order to have the effect of giving the base an early favorite for the nomination.

So does Bush stick with Cheney, or does he try to point the Republicans in a certain direction for 2008?

I think he'll stick with Cheney and not paint the party into a corner with a candidate. And at this point even if he were to change VPs, I think he doesn't have enough time to become a "shoe-in." He'd have to win the base over just like any other candidate.

Everyone likes to speculate on who the Democrats are going to field in 08, but I think the Republican's nominee is just as interesting.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Now that it seems like this election is settling down and the resignation of Rumsfeld, some are speculating what will happen to Cheney.

As many know Cheney has said in the past that he has no desire to run for POTUS. This puts the Republicans in a position where they will have a wide open race for the nomination in about a year.

If Bush decides to replace Cheney this could "anoint" an early favorite for the next nomination.

If this does happen it will have to happen within the next 6 months or so

I say it should have already been done. But, it could have backfired (allegations of a Bush royal family)

I think that would be a good idea. Not that I think Cheney is a bad guy, hell, I love Cheney, but to install new blood. As I said yesterday, I don't even think liberals know why they hate Cheney. They just know they are supposed to.

I think at this juncture, it would be wise to have Cheney step down, and appoint Steele. Give Steele as much face time as possible for the next 2 years and persuade him to run in '08. I can tell you right now, the South will vote for Steele before they vote for Guiliani or Romney. And Jeb? He doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

I don't know if Repubs want to play that game, and I don't know that they'll want a candidate that's associated with the Bush White House, either.

What if Jeb was installed as VP? His replacement in FL has already been picked, and I heard numerous people say that they wished he wasn't term limited. Also, he could "rekindle" the partnership between the hispanic poplulation and the Republican Party.

At the same time, it could backfire horrifically.

Yeah, Jeb has to wait at least a cycle before he makes his move.

RebelKev Wrote:I think that would be a good idea. Not that I think Cheney is a bad guy, hell, I love Cheney, but to install new blood. As I said yesterday, I don't even think liberals know why they hate Cheney. They just know they are supposed to.

Good point. Cheney has been too quiet for anyone to hate him legitimately.

Quote:I think at this juncture, it would be wise to have Cheney step down, and appoint Steele. Give Steele as much face time as possible for the next 2 years and persuade him to run in '08. I can tell you right now, the South will vote for Steele before they vote for Guiliani or Romney.

I don't know if I believe you there. Ohio's results belie that a qualified candidate can get elected, despite his color.

There were also some quotes in USA Today of blacks who voted for Ehrlich but NOT Steele: "Gotta support my party." No logic at all!

I can only conclude that there is still the sentiment that many blacks still see others as "getting uppity" when they are successful.

The GOP missed golden opportunities to start planting seeds of support among young blacks in 2004. Rice could have been all over schools, encouraging minority girls that the GOP provides opportunity...the press would have hated it, but been forced to cover it.

Now the GOP is still stuck w/ the image that they use minorities as pawns (yeah, I know the irony of it all) and b/c of a flawed strategy, Rice and Steele may become "proof" that there is a ceiling for blacks in the party.

Quote:Ohio's results belie that a qualified candidate can get elected, despite his color.

Are you talking about Blackwell? If so I think a large part of that was because most of the state went Democrat except for Auditor. Taft didn't help the states Republicans out much the last few years.

I don't think it happens for a couple of reasons.

The most important is that whoever Bush nominates would have to get confirmed by a democratic congress. No way they're going to confirm someone that would make a strong candidate in 08 by giving them the podium of the vice presidency.

Second who would they put there? Jeb is the best option but he simply can't get elected in the next cycle. Allen would have been a good one but he's done as a presidential candidate. McCain doesn't need it, neither does Rudy. Frist possibly but I don't think he can win the general election. Condi is Sec of State so she doesn't need it, and she's said over and over she's not going to run. The pool of republicans for 08 is not very good right now.

If they were going to do it they needed to about a year after the 04 election.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

Quote:Ohio's results belie that a qualified candidate can get elected, despite his color.

Are you talking about Blackwell? If so I think a large part of that was because most of the state went Democrat except for Auditor. Taft didn't help the states Republicans out much the last few years.

Taft was bad, but Blackwell spoke out against him. I spent time on Ohio forums, and I perceived an undertone of racism in this election...from both sides!

I don't have good evidence, just my instinct. Take it for what it's worth.

There was a Frontline show on Cheney and his march to war. It was excellent. Can you imagine being asked to vet a v.p. and come back and say "you've looked real hard and I found a "Great One"........... me."

the guy is tactical and brilliant. He is shrewd and I'm glad he'll be out of politics. I don't know if "hate" is the word I would use. Demented and Scary are the two the come to my mind. War profiteering is another. Dangerous and Deadly.... 2 more.......He has made billions for his friends at Halliburton. Energy secret meetings..... The paper shredding company at his house last week. What does this guy have to hide????????

I didn't have to have anyone to tell me to be wary of Cheney. His actions are condemning enough.

"Liberals" don't like Cheney due to the perceptions of him being "in bed" with big oil, and Haliburton. There is no confusion as to why those people don't like him.

Personally, I don't really care either way about him. I don't think he has done anything significant while in office, but then again, no VPs generally do.

Machiavelli Wrote:There was a Frontline show on Cheney and his march to war. It was excellent. Can you imagine being asked to vet a v.p. and come back and say "you've looked real hard and I found a "Great One"........... me."

the guy is tactical and brilliant. He is shrewd and I'm glad he'll be out of politics. I don't know if "hate" is the word I would use. Demented and Scary are the two the come to my mind. War profiteering is another. Dangerous and Deadly.... 2 more.......He has made billions for his friends at Halliburton. Energy secret meetings..... The paper shredding company at his house last week. What does this guy have to hide????????

I didn't have to have anyone to tell me to be wary of Cheney. His actions are condemning enough.

When you say Billions for his friends at Halliburton who are you talking about??? I did not see one Halliburton employee listed in Forbes magazine list of Billionaires. Did they not claim the money they made??

What company would you of slected for the mission Halliburton fulfilled in Iraq and Afghanistan??

Did you care when Halliburton got no bid contracts in Kosovo??

Let me say I know Halliburton and every other govt contract company porked the United States during this war as unfortunately they do every war. With that said the mission that they do is a massive logistical support nightmare that even our military can't accomplish. So if you dont go with Halliburton who do you go with??

ShoreBuc Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:There was a Frontline show on Cheney and his march to war. It was excellent. Can you imagine being asked to vet a v.p. and come back and say "you've looked real hard and I found a "Great One"........... me."

the guy is tactical and brilliant. He is shrewd and I'm glad he'll be out of politics. I don't know if "hate" is the word I would use. Demented and Scary are the two the come to my mind. War profiteering is another. Dangerous and Deadly.... 2 more.......He has made billions for his friends at Halliburton. Energy secret meetings..... The paper shredding company at his house last week. What does this guy have to hide????????

I didn't have to have anyone to tell me to be wary of Cheney. His actions are condemning enough.

When you say Billions for his friends at Halliburton who are you talking about??? I did not see one Halliburton employee listed in Forbes magazine list of Billionaires. Did they not claim the money they made??

What company would you of slected for the mission Halliburton fulfilled in Iraq and Afghanistan??

Did you care when Halliburton got no bid contracts in Kosovo??

Let me say I know Halliburton and every other govt contract company porked the United States during this war as unfortunately they do every war. With that said the mission that they do is a massive logistical support nightmare that even our military can't accomplish. So if you dont go with Halliburton who do you go with??

:shhh: :shhh:

DrTorch Wrote:Taft was bad, but Blackwell spoke out against him. I spent time on Ohio forums, and I perceived an undertone of racism in this election...from both sides!

I don't have good evidence, just my instinct. Take it for what it's worth.

Well living in Ohio, I really didn't see much of what I would think is racism at least in TV ads or talking to people about the election. Of course it is probably still there, who doesn't have prejudices? I just don't think it was the biggest factor. The perception was Republicans in the state were corrupt and people wanted them out.

Machiavelli Wrote:Demented and Scary are the two the come to my mind. War profiteering is another. Dangerous and Deadly.... 2 more.......He has made billions for his friends at Halliburton. Energy secret meetings.....

And the black helicopters are everywhere. Geez Dogger.

First, Cheney has in no way profited from this war. Second the whole "secret energy meetings" were nothing but pure politics from democrats. Our leaders have to be able to get candid advice and suggestions and that's hard enough in today's environment without those that are giving it having to worry about being reported all over the news. And yes, he invited energy execs to enegery discussions. Who else would he have invited?

Quote:The paper shredding company at his house last week.

Huh?

Quote:I didn't have to have anyone to tell me to be wary of Cheney. His actions are condemning enough.

Dogger let's be honest. You really have no idea what his actions have been, or the context in which they occurred. You have speculation and you have what you read on sites like this. But you've never sat in on a meeting, been involved in a discussion or been granted review of what the Vice President of the United States does.

The fact is seldom do any of us have enough details to make wide ranging assumptions about the nature of what goes on. I think everyone falls into the trap of carrying things much further than the reality of the situation actually pans out to be. Cheney is evil to most on the left, yet there's really no concrete justification for such an opinion. Same with the right and Clinton.

Who needs a paper shreder??? just hire Sandy Berger to take care of it.

mlb Wrote:"Liberals" don't like Cheney due to the perceptions of him being "in bed" with big oil, and Haliburton. There is no confusion as to why those people don't like him.

Personally, I don't really care either way about him. I don't think he has done anything significant while in office, but then again, no VPs generally do.

So, they hate him because he was an oil exec? Damn, the man can't have a job without people hating him?

RebelKev Wrote:

mlb Wrote:"Liberals" don't like Cheney due to the perceptions of him being "in bed" with big oil, and Haliburton. There is no confusion as to why those people don't like him.

Personally, I don't really care either way about him. I don't think he has done anything significant while in office, but then again, no VPs generally do.

So, they hate him because he was an oil exec? Damn, the man can't have a job without people hating him?

No, they hate him because he had a job. ;-)

RebelKev Wrote:So, they hate him because he was an oil exec? Damn, the man can't have a job without people hating him?

Nice try to twist my words (which really aren't mine).

Let me clarify (although others in this thread have already posted info): People feel like he has handed Haliburton a lot of money with these no-bid contracts. As others have said, is there even another company that can pull of what they are doing? Probably not. People also feel like he is too close to the big oil executives, allowing them to have a little too much power in terms of the policies set by the Bush Administration.

Seems quite obvious to me why they don't like Cheney, not sure how you can't see that.

GrayBeard Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

mlb Wrote:"Liberals" don't like Cheney due to the perceptions of him being "in bed" with big oil, and Haliburton. There is no confusion as to why those people don't like him.

Personally, I don't really care either way about him. I don't think he has done anything significant while in office, but then again, no VPs generally do.

So, they hate him because he was an oil exec? Damn, the man can't have a job without people hating him?

No, they hate him because he had a job. ;-)

lmfao lmfao

You would think some Democrats would cut him some slack for shooting somebody.

mlb Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:So, they hate him because he was an oil exec? Damn, the man can't have a job without people hating him?

Nice try to twist my words (which really aren't mine).

Let me clarify (although others in this thread have already posted info): People feel like he has handed Haliburton a lot of money with these no-bid contracts. As others have said, is there even another company that can pull of what they are doing? Probably not. People also feel like he is too close to the big oil executives, allowing them to have a little too much power in terms of the policies set by the Bush Administration.

Seems quite obvious to me why they don't like Cheney, not sure how you can't see that.

Because people "FEEL" that he did this or he did that. Lot's of time's people's feelings are wrong. Also, I wonder where people get these "feelings"? Could it be the media?

ShoreBuc Wrote:You would think some Democrats would cut him some slack for shooting somebody.

Had he not failed in killing the guy they may have. But now he has no street cred due to his failure to complete the killing.

BTW, isn't anybody concerned with that old, rich white guy on old, rich white guy crime? :)

mlb Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:So, they hate him because he was an oil exec? Damn, the man can't have a job without people hating him?

Nice try to twist my words (which really aren't mine).

Let me clarify (although others in this thread have already posted info): People feel like he has handed Haliburton a lot of money with these no-bid contracts. As others have said, is there even another company that can pull of what they are doing? Probably not. People also feel like he is too close to the big oil executives, allowing them to have a little too much power in terms of the policies set by the Bush Administration.

Seems quite obvious to me why they don't like Cheney, not sure how you can't see that.

You do know that Clinton gave them to Halliburton as well, right?

Good damn thing the troops DIDN'T have to wait for a f'n bid process to get support.

There are only two companies in the world that could have offered all services needed, one is in France, the other, you guess it, Halliburton.

GrayBeard Wrote:Because people "FEEL" that he did this or he did that. Lot's of time's people's feelings are wrong. Also, I wonder where people get these "feelings"? Could it be the media?

Fair point... but that is what those people "feel", like it or not.

If there are subpeonas on that issue maybe the democrats will get an answer once and for all that they will accept. Honestly, I wish the government would just move forward instead of holding everyone back for months while try to investigate all of these allegations.

RebelKev Wrote:You do know that Clinton gave them to Halliburton as well, right?

I never said that those people were right. I just said that is what they "feel". It is painfully obvious, yet you keep saying that most of the democrats don't know why they don't like Cheney. I'm saying that is totally off base.

mlb Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:Because people "FEEL" that he did this or he did that. Lot's of time's people's feelings are wrong. Also, I wonder where people get these "feelings"? Could it be the media?

Fair point... but that is what those people "feel", like it or not.

Maybe because the media is playing to people's "Feelings" instead of playing to the truth, or what is actually known. It is not the media's job to add to speculation and hearsay, but they are doing a very good job of it.

Quote:If there are subpeonas on that issue maybe the democrats will get an answer once and for all that they will accept. Honestly, I wish the government would just move forward instead of holding everyone back for months while try to investigate all of these allegations.

Repent now for the end is near! (ie I agree with you)

mlb Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:You do know that Clinton gave them to Halliburton as well, right?

I never said that those people were right. I just said that is what they "feel". It is painfully obvious, yet you keep saying that most of the democrats don't know why they don't like Cheney. I'm saying that is totally off base.

Yeah, no. I don't believe it. I believe that's just a f'n excuse to hate Cheney. Libs think Bush is an idiot and controlled by Cheney and "Teh ROVE". They are pissed because the Republicans have been so successful at winning elections and knocking down everyone they put up.

Of course, I'm only going on what I read from moonbats-r-us, otherwise known as DU.

Some of the "libs" are mad at the way Rove has knocked those people down. The way he treated the veteran status' of McCain in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 were wrong, IMHO. Rove/RNC basically trashed the guys saying that they didn't do anything while in the military. Honestly, it was disgusting in my mind.

mlb Wrote:Some of the "libs" are mad at the way Rove has knocked those people down. The way he treated the veteran status' of McCain in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 were wrong, IMHO. Rove/RNC basically trashed the guys saying that they didn't do anything while in the military. Honestly, it was disgusting in my mind.

Don't remember the attacks on McCain, but John F'n Kerry can jump up my a$$.


As for political attacks, I seriously doubt it's time for those fools over there to start taking the high road. I know you're not telling me that nasty ads are a Republican trick. If so, show me some black churches that were burned, or some more black people that were dragged to death, or old people that had their SS cut off, ....shall I go on?

RebelKev Wrote:Don't remember the attacks on McCain, but John F'n Kerry can jump up my a$$.

Everyone....The poetic stylings of Kevin, the Ole Miss fan.

mlb Wrote:If there are subpeonas on that issue maybe the democrats will get an answer once and for all that they will accept.

Like they accepted the 2000 and 2004 election results? ;-)

I never said that both sides don't do dirty tactics for their ads. However, I still think going after someone's military record and accomplishments is wrong. Questioning anybody who went to war for this country should be off limits in politics, in my opinion. I wish everyone would just stick to the issues instead of trying to find personal dirt on each candidate.

With the way politics are today, the people who could do some good for this country won't even think about running for office. Who wants to put up with the crap that each party pulls up about the other party's candidate? Not me...

mlb Wrote:I never said that both sides don't do dirty tactics for their ads. However, I still think going after someone's military record and accomplishments is wrong. Questioning anybody who went to war for this country should be off limits in politics, in my opinion. I wish everyone would just stick to the issues instead of trying to find personal dirt on each candidate.

I agree, with the exception of John F'n Kerry. As soon as he returned from Vietnam he started bashing the troops. He has 30+ years of showing his disdain for the U.S. Military. People talk about Bush's National Guard status as if it's an attack, and tell us we can't talk about Kerry calling us stupid? That the military committed war crimes in Vietnam? Nope. Why do you think that the military overwhelmingly supports Bush over Kerry? It's not an accident, mlb. Kerry doesn't deserve to be the CinC. He used his 4-month stint in Vietnam to elevate his liberal, anti-war, anti-military status, so yes, his short military career is going to be utilized in any way it takes to keep that motherf'er away from being the CinC of the U.S. Armed Forces.

RebelKev Wrote:

mlb Wrote:Some of the "libs" are mad at the way Rove has knocked those people down. The way he treated the veteran status' of McCain in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 were wrong, IMHO. Rove/RNC basically trashed the guys saying that they didn't do anything while in the military. Honestly, it was disgusting in my mind.

Don't remember the attacks on McCain, but John F'n Kerry can jump up my a$$.


As for political attacks, I seriously doubt it's time for those fools over there to start taking the high road. I know you're not telling me that nasty ads are a Republican trick. If so, show me some black churches that were burned, or some more black people that were dragged to death, or old people that had their SS cut off, ....shall I go on?

Look up push polling in the south carolina primary and you'll see why McCain fans were upset with the bush campaign.

mlb Wrote:Some of the "libs" are mad at the way Rove has knocked those people down. The way he treated the veteran status' of McCain in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 were wrong, IMHO. Rove/RNC basically trashed the guys saying that they didn't do anything while in the military. Honestly, it was disgusting in my mind.

I also don't remember anyone being critical of McCain's service. If someone uses their military record to help obtain political office then that person should make sure that their record can stand up to scrutiny. In McCains case it can.

I was a McCain supporter in 2000 (would have voted for him in the POTUS election, but Bush won). Trust me, it happened.