Reading the Globe's Nov 18th piece about vice President Cheney, one can palpably feel their fingers being crossed, their wishes being cast into the wishing well, that Cheney is on the outs with this supposed "big demotion" the paper sees for his immediate future.
In short, will Rumsfeld's abrupt dismissal finally diminish Cheney's unprecedented dominance of Bush? Or did the always cunning vice president read the writing on the wall and decide that it was time for his good friend Rumsfeld to go?
And typically, as with every story about the VP, one quotient missing in the analysis is the president himself, prosaically fitting into the the Cheney-as-puppetmaster story line the MSM has created for him. (Though, now they want to cast James Baker in Cheney's puppeteering shoes)
They even want us to believe that Cheney somehow strong-armed Bush into the Iraq policy and the War on Terror as if 9/11 never occurred.
With Rumsfeld, Cheney was responsible for the 180-degree reversal in Bush's professed foreign policy
Obviously, 9/11 had nothing to do with it according to the Globe. It was all just Cheney and Rumsfeld.
The Globe has even reached for the macabre, saying that the VP, "America's de facto prime minister" has been "eerily missing from public view".
IN THE 10 days since President Bush fired Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, one figure is eerily missing from public view and public accounts of what occurred: Vice President Dick Cheney. As usual, America's de facto prime minister is either literally or metaphorically in an undisclosed location.
Shades of Edgar Allan Poe, there, Globe.
But, then, they always have made Cheney out to be the Uncle Creepy of the Administration, eh?
They then go on to rehash the MSM's conventional "wisdom" that Cheney is out of favor because Rumsfeld has been terminated, assuming that Cheney's ideas on the Iraq war are finished.
Of course, this assumes that Bush has gone to his new nominee for the Secretary of Defense because of the defeat at the polls and as sudden a turn against his past policies -- even as Bush has repeatedly said since the elections that he has no intention of pulling out of Iraq.
What this story assumes is that Bush is so wishy washy that any wind will blow him from his course. It also assumes that Gates will be bringing a pull-out mentality and that he will bring a contrary opinion to the President's.
See, Bush is too stupid to have his OWN policy and be able to control his OWN administration. Right, Globe? He needs a Cheney, gates, or now a Baker to run it all for him, eh?
But, the MSM has decided to ignore the story that Bush was meeting with Gates on november 5th, BEFORE the elections, to sound him out for Rummy's job. It just isn't very sensible to expect that the president is bringing in a guy who will cause an abrupt about face on a policy that the President has made his cornerstone for most of his presidency.
But, that would deny the Bush-is-stupid story line that the MSM propagates, so they certainly won't walk down this road of analysis, you can be sure!




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Fiction
November 18, 2006 - 13:02 ET by BlondeWTH,
This Globe piece has me shaking my head. It's nothing more than speculation, and some wildly absurd speculation at that. Without one supporting fact, as far as I could discern.
Further, it tries to paint George Bush in Clintonian terms...as you put it, beings so wishy washy that any wind will blow him from his course. Which couldn't be further from the truth.
Once again, the MSM "reports" situations as it wishes them to be, rather than the the reality of how they are. This piece shouldn't even be on the editorial page. Too bad there isn't a political reporting section entitled "Fiction".
no word mixing here
November 18, 2006 - 13:19 ET by foolnomoreMao would be so proud of this media out-house, it could almost become a land mark for rethink and reinventing of truth, so keep the reader-ship closed from fact and keep the ficton flowing, the very late baghdad bob would be so proud!!
MSM modus operandi. First, d
November 18, 2006 - 13:36 ET by Chris NormanMSM modus operandi. First, devise the story, then find "evidence" to back it up...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Evidence
November 18, 2006 - 13:43 ET by BlondeChris,
The MSM modus operandi is devolving. They devised the story, but didn't even bother to try to find any "evidence" to back it up. Just throw out the statement and move on to the next absurd statement.
Cheney is out (and hiding out), Baker is in, rift between 41 & 43.
Blonde,Ah. That's why I put &
November 18, 2006 - 13:46 ET by Chris NormanBlonde,
Ah. That's why I put "evidence" in " ".:)
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Oooh, oooh, let me be the msm
November 18, 2006 - 20:43 ET by FastEdOooh, oooh, let me be the msm (Lsm) - - It's Bush's fault, Rummy did it, Chaney has links to haliburton, oh, and Murtha is a war hero, and did you know Kerry served in VIet Nam?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
... and don't forget that R
November 19, 2006 - 00:28 ET by Warner Todd Huston... and don't forget that Rush Limbaugh brainwashed his "robots" into agreeing with it all!!!
..will Rumsfeld's abrupt dism
November 18, 2006 - 14:07 ET by Dave R..will Rumsfeld's abrupt dismissal finally diminish Cheney's unprecedented dominance of Bush?
This Bush is Cheney's puppet garbage being ceaselessly propagated by the MSM is getting beyond stale.
Half of me almost wishes Bush would resign and let Cheney finish out his term, if for no other reason than to cram the MSM's worst nightmare squarely down their throats-President Cheney.
I hate to be cynical, but Bus
November 18, 2006 - 14:20 ET by SvenI hate to be cynical, but Bush's "New Tone" crap is getting old. If he did dismiss Cheney, it wouldn't surprise me.
I swear, Bush seems more concerned about appeasing the Dems, than about standing on the principles of those conservative Republicans who elected him!
Oh well, as long as he gets his comprehensive (Democrat) Immigration legislation passed, "F*** the GOP base!"
I've had it with these supposed Republicans!
I've actually thought since 2
November 18, 2006 - 15:37 ET by aeroI've actually thought since 2004 when Bush chose to run with Cheney again (despite people urging him to choose a new VP who could run in 2008) that Cheney might step down before the end of their second term. It would be easy for him to do--just blame it on his heart. If he did step down, Bush and co. could essentially hand-pick the next Republican presidential candidate since voters tend to support an incumbent VP.
This would be a great Evil Plan (TM) except that I don't trust Bush and co. anymore to pick the right replacement. He'd probably choose a Harriet Myers or some crony from his father's administration who lacks true conservative credentials. If I thought he might choose a Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich, I'd be the first in line to call for Cheney to step down (even though I really like Cheney). But sine I don't think that would happen, I hope Cheney stays put.
I want him to run
November 18, 2006 - 16:37 ET by tumblerCheney really ought to run for President in 08; especially if Hillary becomes the Leftist candidate. I'd work for him, vote for him and pray for his election to the American Presidency.
I realize he's unpopular with Dems and with some of the Beltway pundits. Also his heart condition. But having polio didn't bar us from electing Rooseveldt. Cheney would make us the best new President in 100 years. His heart's important, but spine is more important, IMHO.
He'd make Hillary whimper for help in a televised debate. And, with a real conservative running-mate, our position would be stronger in fact than if he Dick Cheney were !-A healthy. I nominate Rick Santorum for Vice-Pres. SURE!!!!
Response
November 19, 2006 - 23:07 ET by CRDSantorum couldn't get reelected in PA. How in the hell can he help the GOP nominee in 2008.
I actually hope it is Cheney, even Kerry could beat him.
The GOP lost to due its base
November 19, 2006 - 23:13 ET by ChemicalOperatorThe GOP lost to due its base being upset, not because the democrats had better options. 2008 the power will swing again, especially with the left now calling for the draft.
DNC presidential candidate for 2008, "Brave Sir Robin"
Indeed
November 19, 2006 - 23:39 ET by Mr. BishopI tend to agree. The election results, in most of the "battleground" races, were by fairly thin margins, as they go. For the most part, areas that vote traditionally Republican, went Democrat for the reason CO mentioned, and that only. The Democrats won because their liberal base had a better turnout then the Republican's conservative base. That's the bottom line.
You see, unlike Democrats who want to lay blame to stolen elections, and stupid crap like that, I accept the loss based upon the facts -- the Republicans just didn't have as good a showing as the Democrats did. OMG... are you serious? An election result that doesn't involve accusations of lying, cheating, stealing, racism, etc.?! Well, almost...
The reason the conservative base did not show as well as the liberal base, is the MSM spent months preparing this election for the results they predetermined -- a total Democrat takeover of Congress. That is the only reason the Foley crap was front-page news for a month, when they were ignoring things like Harry Reid, Murtha, etc. Only through their (the MSM's) repeated pounding of a story, making an election about a Congressman, who has as of yet -- been uncharged with any crime and has not done anything illegal, yet resigned the day the story broke. Note, if you will, that when the Republicans have the mere appearance of something wrong, they resign: Trent Lott (2002 - resigned because his comments were taken out of context and then manufactured to appear racist), Tom DeLay (2005 - resigned from charges of a crime, that did NOT exist at the time the alleged crime was to have been committed!), Mark Foley (2006 - resigned because of private emails and IMs being shared with the press, concerning pages, although no crimes have been alleged to have been committed, even sex with a 16-year old in DC is legal, regardless of how old the older partner is). However, Democrats refuse to resign when something like that occurs: Harry Reid (2006 - land deal involving over a million dollars in which he received), John Murtha (2006 - we are seeing what is happening with him now on the news), William Jefferson (2005-6 - Bribery investigations and fraud), Cynthia McKinney (2006 - Attacked a capital policeman), Gerry Studds (1983 - admitted to having sex with a 17-year old male page in 1973, censured by the House, but did not resign, instead was re-elected 6 more times).
This constant right and wrong sense that the Republicans seem to exhibit when they are accused of something, seems to be doing them in... oh the shame.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
cheney and any warm body
November 19, 2006 - 23:30 ET by tumblerIf our GOP presidential nominee is Cheney, we risk losing a President before his term is ended, so my Veep nominee is somebody I truly wish would've become our new president; as Truman was, once Rooseveldt passed away. Cheney is actually damaged goods with his heart condition. That's a real shame.
But I know I was being facetious. When we consider having seen Dan Quail and Fritz Mondale just a heartbeat away, somebody as superlative for our party as Rick Santorum would have been a godsend by comparison. It's tragic he didn't win in Pennsylvania.
It's actually perfectly possi
November 20, 2006 - 01:40 ET by aeroIt's actually perfectly possible to win a national nomination or election without winning one's own state. If I recall correctly, Gore didn't carry his home state of Tennessee in 2000, but he almost won the presidency anyway. (Anyone have a better example?)
Santorum was bucking the odds being a conservative Republican representing a blue state as long as he did. But many of us outside Pennsylvania still think he's fantastic and believe Pennsylvania made a huge mistake by failing to reelect him. Texas would have voted for him in a heartbeat, in VERY large numbers. It's just unfortunate geography that kept Santorum from office.
Not really...
November 20, 2006 - 01:44 ET by Mr. BishopI might add, however, that being able to carry your own state doesn't even equate to being elected. For examples, let's point to Kerry (or my favorites), Walter Mondale, Carter (1980) and McGovern.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Choosing a new Veep
November 18, 2006 - 18:27 ET by nkviking75Keep in mind, any VP Bush might nominate would have to be approved by the Senate. Unless they could get it done in the lame duck session, which would require the Dems to forego a filibuster, it's now very unlikely that Bush would be able to get a conservative nominee past the donkey party. I also think canning Cheney (which he can only do if Cheney is willing to resign) makes Bush look even weaker, which is the last thing he needs. (Of course, if Cheney has a genuine health scare, that's a different matter.)
Well, then, Cheney had better
November 18, 2006 - 19:37 ET by aeroWell, then, Cheney had better stay healthy for the next two years. Because the only person I think the new Senate would approve would be the zombiefied corpse of Stalin himself. ;-)
Counterpoint
November 18, 2006 - 16:51 ET by acumenGod bless Bush for focusing on the one issue that if not resolved, all other issues in the long-run become irrelevant - Islamic terrorism. Sure conservatives want a fix for social security, tighter control on illegals, less big-government with accompanying big-spending. Fine goals all. But what is hampering those goals? Is it Cheney, Rummy or Bush? Not quite.
Rummy had no option but to resign. Which one of you would stay on only to be weekly dragged before a post election venomous Congress driven by misguided vengence for the sole purpose of being their pinata? But I don't think taking a weekly beating was the cause of Rummy to resign. Weekly if not daily beatings has been SOP of the beast, at least by the impossible-to-please Democrats and their estab media mouthpieces since Rummy joined the Cabinet. Rather the Congressional distraction away from the real enemy of terrorism is the motivation for Rummy's decision. Rummy is just continuing on his long noble journey of sacrificing his personal goals for the sole vision of doing what is best for not only America but the entire world - defeating terrorism. If Rummy has become no more than an irrelevant political target marked by a persistant estab media, emboldened by recent victory, smelling the scent of conservative blood, best to step out of the way and let the new American-desired leaders refocus on the real target - terrorism. IMHO, this is a virtue that is becoming increasingly absent in political America driven by fashionable hair and unfashionable sexcapades, all rooted in self-absorption otherwise known as "real issues."
Absent the witch-hunt Rummy was sure to experience on a much larger scale, I don't expect or desire Cheney to leave. Politics is the nastiest of games and with the slimmest of like-minded character available in both current parties I can't fault Cheney or Bush for much of the questionable domestic policy that has been thrust upon America driven by self-interest. The only battle most of today's batch of political lifers are interested in is the next election, not the battle to defeat terrorism. Constantly hammered by an increasingly deceptive press emboldened by paint-pro savvy photo jounalists, it is amazing Bush was able to even persuade a majority of Americans to push their representatives to give themselves a tax break. Much less risk (god-forbid) offending power seeking, heritage-absorbed latinos by implementing something worthwhile about illegal migration.
What America needs to survive are more Rumsfelds, Cheneys and Bushs', not less. How can we expect these great Americans to achieve success over big-government Dems when they are preoccupied with the knife in their backs politically placed there by supposed fellow Republicans? No, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld haven't given us all we want but they have given us a heck of a lot more than we are about to lose.
This just in- President Bush
November 19, 2006 - 15:13 ET by NazarethThis just in- President Bush jails every far left democrat- sends them to gitmo- waterboarding said to be the interrogation of choice- several suspects said to have chokced to death- but not from the water- rather from telling so many lies that they couldn't breath- but some think President Bush coerced the lies from them. V.P Dick Cheney said to be 'pleased' and has bought more shares of Halliburton to celebrate. Some beleive President Bush's next move is to rape the tundra in search of big oil.
Sorry- just trying to predict the next rediculous headlines from the MSM
http://sacredscoop.com
Response
November 19, 2006 - 23:00 ET by CRDYou only wish ! A silly and childish response.
Your right, must be predictin
November 19, 2006 - 23:08 ET by ChemicalOperatorYour right, must be predicting the next segment of Olbermanns program.
DNC presidential candidate for 2008, "Brave Sir Robin"
Hey here's a prediction Chem Op
November 20, 2006 - 02:00 ET by SportPoliticsHey here's a prediction Chem Op:
CRD will say Response: "A silly and childish response."
(another liberal idiot - maybe it can mate with bal)
Troll.Yet another one shows i
November 19, 2006 - 23:09 ET by BlondeTroll.
Yet another one shows its ugly head.
Sheesh.
"I would also say that despair is not a method." ~Gen. John P. Abizaid, CENTCOM, in response to an idiotic, grand-standing statement by Hillary Clinton.
CRD
November 19, 2006 - 23:14 ET by CRDActually " another one " is redundant.
CRD
November 20, 2006 - 00:28 ET by BlondeNo, girlfriend.
In your case, it's not.
;-D
Blonde
November 20, 2006 - 02:03 ET by SportPoliticsYou only wish ! A silly and childish response.
(you can be bal's girlfriend CRD - no worry he's as dumb as you are- almost)
That response from one who ca
November 20, 2006 - 00:25 ET by UnsaneThat response from one who can only construct simple sentences no longer than five words (mostly) and resorts to whiny insults against various targets.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
I think bal has
November 20, 2006 - 00:28 ET by SportPoliticsI think bal has met his match. I'm not sure yet, but it seems CRD is actually dumber.