Peggy Noonan talks about replacing Dick Cheney:Mr. Cheney took the heat that would otherwise have been turned solely on George Bush. So he had utility, and he's experienced and talented and organized, and Mr. Bush admires and respects him. But, at a certain point a hate magnet can draw so much hate you don't want to hold it in your hand anymore, you want to drop it, and pick up something else. Is this fair? Nah. But fair has nothing to do with it.
But it's not a good move unless you've got a good replacement. The President's choice has to be confirmed by Congress, which contains some folks who want to run for President and will not like to see any of the competition getting a head start. And maybe the press and the people will balk:
A lot of people would find such a move too cute by half. The contenders already in line--and their supporters, donors, fans, staff and friends in the press--would resent it. Big time.
People wouldn't like it . . . unless they liked it. How could they be persuaded to like it?
It would have to be a man wildly popular in the party and the press.
A
man?
पोस्ट्स
३५ टिप्पण्या:
I think my dear, sweet Peggy doesn't want Condi as a replacement. For purely political reasons, I'm sure, perhaps saving her for the actual election. I don't think anyone who's named to replace Cheney would stand a chance at winning. So that likely narrows the field to a man, some dutiful party member who has no eye on the prize, like Ford probably, before Nixon resigned and changed everything.
Had Cheney rushed to a podium blubbering and weeping and falling all over himself announcing he had just shot a man by accident, he would be deemed cold and calculating, putting his image above the suffering on his victim. He would still have been under the microscope on suspicion of trying to cover something up. Few working, tax paying Americans connect this accident to national policy in any way and realize it has no impact on their lives in any way, except as a source of humor. End of story, all the rest is pundits with boring, meaningless lives trying to sound important.
The usual suspects will hate anything and anyone from theis administration, period.
It would be hysterically funny if Condi stepped in. Blood vessels all over the left would be exploding.......
Hello-ooooo, Peggy, get with the program!
Somebody needs to send her the memo that *Condi* is going to be our next prez.
Wonder who she means? McCain is wildly popular in the press, but not in the party.
Cheney handled this accident with the instincts of a powerful and private man. He must feel terrible about it, and he is not the type to sell those sentiments to the public. The trouble is, that's being turned into a symbol of the secretive and autocratic tendencies of this administration in matters that are the public's business, although the public is not well qualified to decide on them. Congress is supposed to be a double filter, coarse and fine, for the impulses of the democratic mob. But the press amplifies the howling directly.
Brylin: have you seen this bumper sticker?
For the record -- yet again -- I think Condi Rice would make a fine president.
Great point! Here's my take on the whole affair:
"The biggest weapons issue of our time
And why did Hillary wait 30 hours to announce Vincent Foster's death?
The people who hate Bush with such a passion will never stop. It would be ludicrous to replace Cheney now at the end of the term over an ACCIDENT when the opposition has accused him of being Satan for so long as to the war, etc.
I don't think that they just dump Cheney. Bush doesn't operate that way, esp. with someone who has shown a lot of loyalty and is willing to fall on grenades for him. But I do think that both of them would probably prefer Dr. Rice as Bush's replacement. She is loyal, smart, and intimately involved in much of what is done in the Administration.
I do see a couple of problems right now with Cheney resigning and Condi slipping in there. One thing is that this would look like Bush dumping Cheney through embarassment. That is a sign of weakness, and, besides, is out of character. Secondly, she has a job to do trying to clean up Foggy Bottom.
On the other hand, there is the question of what sliding her into the VP slot would do for those elections. It might just be an advantage to the Republicans getting her in before the elections. Calling someone an Uncle Tom is hard when she would be one heart beat away from the most powerful office on Earth. And, ditto for any claims that Republicans are racists.
I think that the way it is going to work out is that Cheney resigns about a year from now for health reasons, in particular, his heart. Everyone will be exhausted by the election, and Dr. Rice is slid in. She then goes on to run for President in 2008, with a leg up over her opponent (still most likely Hillary), of being addressed as Ms. Vice President.
As for her getting confirmed by the Senate, no Republican, except maybe McCain, would dare vote against her - because doing so would brand them as racists and sexists. And McCain won't hang out there by himself, since that would make (more) obvious his political maneuvering and spite.
Peggy is just being realistic. A woman will not be President, or VP. At least not any time soon. It will be very entertaining watching 'em try, though.
Peggy understands what many don't: less than 100 years ago women weren't even allowed to vote. It's going to take at least that long, or longer, to get 'em into Office.
Peggy gets it: With or without Hillary/Condi, change happens slowly.
There were very talented, enigmatic, and pioneering women in the 1800s, far more than Hillary/Condi....yet they still had to wait 100 years to even vote. Sorry about that. We, as a nation, are slow to change...with or without dynamic leaders of whatever gender.
100 years, in the life of our Nation, is actually not a long time.
Peace, Maxine
Why did Hillary wait 30 hours to announce Foster's death? Must be to wash the gunshot residue from her hands. Isn't that the only answer the Lucienne Goldberg rightwing lunatics will accept?
I'm intrigued by Condi running, but it's not a given that she'd be a good president. She's not talked about her stances on any domestic issues, and where's the evidence that she's been an effective Secretary of State? It's premature to annoint her. She's certainly a viable candidate, but alot of her appeal is surface gloss. Finding out what's underneath is what the primaries are for.
100 years wouldn't be long in the life of our much older cousins in Europe, but to a 230 year-old nation? How many of those much older nations have had a woman in their top elected offices? England and Ireland, Iceland, Malta, Finland...that's just a short list, and doesn't include Israel, Southeast Asia, South and Central America. You'll find women presidents and prime ministers in all those areas. And not many of those nations gave women the vote much sooner than the U.S. did. I'm not persuaded, Maxine.
Nothing Cheney would have done would have been acceptable to the White House Press Corps.
Yes . . . but he shot a man in the face. I'm a Cheney fan, and I support the administration, but this is like that one scene in Arrested Development -- where the mother goes: "But he won't see the good part; he'll just see the drugging and the beating." I think it's difficult for the situation not to reflect badly on Cheney. The fact that the White House Press Pool loath the Bush administration is only incidental to the underlying fact here. Which is that Cheney shot a man in the face.
Balfegor said:
Yes . . . but he shot a man in the face.
I reply:
Well, if you believed the media you'd think Cheney went on a drunked murderous rampage with an Uzi, and (like William Shatner in Boston Legal) his only response is to chant "Dick... Cheney" - like some senile old Repuglican thug.
And I personally have found it remarkably distasteful to see the media conducting a murder trial by media, while Whittington is still in an ICU. That's not partisan, just ghoulish and would have bewn if we were talking about Vice-President Edwards.
Sorry, Belfegor, but as this story grinds on it seem to be more about wounded media egoes than anything else.
A man?
posted by Ann Althouse at 5:53 AM
C'mon, Ann you of all people know she meant man/[wo]man.
It may be that Cheney functions as a hate magnet (though there certainly seems more than enough to go around, a well without a bottom) but I disagree with the idea that there would come a time when Bush would want to drop him because he'd aquired too much heat. It would be out of character for him. (This is, incidentally, one of the reasons that military people tend to like Bush... the demonstrated top-down loyalty.)
Anyhow, I've been boggling at the fact that anyone is even talking about Cheney resigning at all. It's weird.
As for the chances of a woman winning the presidential election. For 20 years I've been saying that the first woman president will be a Republican. Very recently I changed my mind about that because Hillary seemed so possible this time around, mostly because the next pres *has* to be a Democrat. Even more recently (like yesterday, after watching the video clip of that SF supervisor talking about the Iowa) I've decided that the Democrats can't win next time (even though, by rights, it should be a shoo-in for them) and we will have another Republican president.
Could it be Condi? Possibly, though I think my gut likes Guilianni. Yet, if it *is* Condi, it won't be *because* she's a woman. No one will think that. This is the "problem" that the Democrats have, if you will. Did Ferraro (is that right?) get the VP slot on the Dem ticket because she was the best for the job or *because* she was a woman?
No one is going to think that a minority or a woman got on the Republican ticket because the party is trying to promote women or minorities, therefore they *must* have got there, not only on merit, but on excessive merit.
The country is more than ready to vote in a woman for president but they aren't going to vote for her *because* she's a woman. That would be just stupid.
"Why did Hillary wait 30 hours to announce Foster's death? Must be to wash the gunshot residue from her hands. Isn't that the only answer the Lucienne Goldberg rightwing lunatics will accept?"
Jeez, Elizabeth, can't you recognize a freaking joke when you see one? Guess I need to use emoticons for cultural warriors like you or risk getting my head chopped off.
And I would try to think of a personal insult to equal your "Lucienne Goldberg rightwing lunatics" but I have better things to do.
Dr. Rice is like the Jeanne Kirpatrick of today. They were both extremely brilliant women; but, nobody ever talked about Jean Kirkpatrick ever running for president, or Vice President. And, it's just as preposterous to even think of Condi being president, much less wasting her time running.
There are lots of brilliant women in society. The best thing to do for a Hillary/Condi....what they should do....is put their efforts towards someone who has a chance of being elected.
Peace, Maxine
Pat, I'll apologize and call a truce. But consider how hard it is to recognize that as a joke when that very accusation is STILL hurled around by bloggers and commenters on the right.
I can equate Lucienne Goldberg with lunatic, but just a week ago we were debating whether her progeny is a worthless windbag or a reliable pundit (there's no question, he's a windbag). Scroll through a few Hillary threads on this very blog and you'll find comments accusing her of criminal activity, and more. Poor Vince Foster is still offered up as evidence of the Clintons as murderous, adulterous MacBeths.
I actually thought my GSR comment was kind of funny, too, by the way. Sorry about the "lunatic" part. That apology is for you, personally, not for the actual lunatics out there. (fill in appropriate emoticon here.)
"Pat, I'll apologize and call a truce. But..."
TEXT
Meade, what's your point? And what's your interest in my communication with PatCA?
Hank said it well.
Thanks, Elizabeth. Hank really was the greatest.
That's generous of you, but misguided. Move over, little dog.
You gonna just keep naggin' all night long, woman?
Or am I gonna hafta come down there and make you do what's right?
ChrisO wrote:
Well, sarcasm has to be based in truth. Please tell me who in the media has made even a suggestion of what you are saying?
I reply:
Chris O, I've assembled links of media reports and blog posts that most certain did heavily imply that Cheney was drunk, and appear to have problems distinguishing between bird short and and getting ripped by a machine gun, but my wrist started getting very sore around the fiftieth link.
Just as a taster, try the New York Times, Daily Kos (the post headlined CHENEY WAS DRUNK gives it away somewhat), The Huffington Post (where the standard for insobriety in Lawrence O'Donnell's world is what he and his buddies "assume"), the New York Times, Washington Post etc.
Again, Chris, it would actually be nice if you didn't appear to work from the baseline that everything I say is a lying lie that is coming straight from Karl Rove via my teeth.
And stop putting words and attitudes into my mouth. Strange as it may sound, I used to be a journalist and guess what - I worked with some very big egos who would go toxic at the suggestion they were not in the loop at all times. So, in my experience, it's quite fair comment to ask if there isn't a touch of pricked egotism in play here. And I'd like to be able to offer a POV without being called a Cheney/Bush cultist (does that make Condi the Holy Ghost?) - that's not only stupid and lazy smear, it's factually inaccurate.
Hey, nobody forced Dick Cheney to accept the VP nomination with a gun of any description held to his head so he's wide open to scrutiny and criticism. But I keep being reminded of an acidic comment Christopher Hitchens made about the more hysterical right-wing conspiracy mongering around the Clintons - They weren't objectionable because the Clintons were good people, because he didn't think so. They were objectionable because they provided a vicious and corrupt man with public sympathy and cover he didn't deserve, while more rational (and damning) criticism was ignored.
YOu might care to meditate on that for a moment. As a REAL fiscal conservative, I wish the pork-addled, state-expanding fiscal irresponsibility of this administration had attracted one percent of the media coverage that attached itself to this story like flies on bulls**t. Or the blowout in corporate and mildde-class welfare disguised as Medicare reform? I could rattle the real, unreported questions troubling this conservative for a month of Sundays.
And as a closer, I'd love to get in a room with David Gregory and the rest of the White House Press Corps and tell them they're PERSONALLY a disgrace to their profession, and deserve to be exiled to some rural bureau covering A&P shows until they learn how to gather news instead of transcribing talking points.
Good one! Now, do I toss it back to you, or throw in the towel? Oh, let's spend the rest of the night in peace.
anonlawstudent said...
I resent you telling me that my political views are a function of some neurosis I have. And the gall of diagnosing the hundreds of millions of Americans who agree with me.
I reply:
Anon, but you're quite happy to do exactly the same thing when you're hanging out with your liberal friends? Gee, sounds a lot like the bigots in my family who are sweet as pie to my face (I happen to be gay and the child of an inter-racial marriage) but think it's OK to make homophobic and racist "jokes" in less mixed company.
Perverse as it may sound, I always prefer an upfront bigot to the "sensitive" hypocrite who will say one thing to my face and do the opposite behind my back. And while I don't always succeed, I try to live by the Golden Rule no matter where I am, or who else is in the room.
(And I didn't even trot out the old stereotypes about lawyers or law students...)
Whoever would be picked would be the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, unless he/she were obviously a placeholder.
It would be a good way to groom someone who might otherwise be insufficiently conservative (eg, Rudy Giuliani) or insufficiently prepared or connected (Condi Rice).
James Lindgren
ChrisO:
Ever considered the notion that the proverb "you catch more birds with honey than with vinegar" has something to it? And do you think perhaps you look a little silly going off on an obviously sarcastic comment in a lengthy post, or being quite so defensive when I don't roll over when you call me a liar?
I actually have marginally better things to do with my time and energy than provide lists of links for pompous, irony-deficient people who display little interest in anything that falls outside their socio-political filter.
"[Lizzie], I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
"You Win Again" has to be one of the best songs EVAH!
I hope you slept well... little darlin'.
Thanks, Elizabeth.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा