One tough VP
Dick Cheney's reminds us all that he is plainly made of something very tough. Physically and mentally he is hard. He can overcome adversity.
But he does not win every battle: I was talking the other day to a former senior adviser of his about - a process the adviser thinks is barmy and merely encourages radicalisation and posturing, delaying peace. The adviser preferred secret deals, tacit understandings, unpublicised channels. He could almost have been Dick himself (he was not, I hasten to add) - but the Annapolis push proves that the VP is not running the Bush show at the moment.
Should he be there at all though?
I am writing this at Dulles airport on my way for a brief trip to London to help arrange the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s coverage of the 2008 election and take part in some broadcast discussions about the way the land lies. I remember telling one of those panels a year ago that Dick Cheney might well resign in 2007 and be replaced by an anointed candidate around whom the Republicans could unite as their man for 2008. The Foreign Editor, Jon Williams, rang me afterwards to see if I was feeling all right...
So I was wrong. But the Republican strategist who suggested the idea to me (none of my predictions are my own, though I will pretend they are if they ever come true) had in mind the elevation of one to the post of VP.
And now, frankly, the idea really does look to have been rather inspired. Giuliani's status could have been enhanced by the job and the set aside by a period at the helm or close to it. And yet it was not to be; partly because the Bushies do not like Giuliani, partly because Giuliani himself might have fancied his chances untethered to a sinking ship (wrongly I think), and mostly - I guess - because of that Cheney toughness, that would have taken hold of the idea and throttled it.
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
I think DC is a total nutter and im shocked a stonage relic can be elected in the US, ahh..there is the problem...was he actually "elected" by the whole US nation?...so much for democracy!
As much as i hate to agree with DC i think he is right. Secret deals would prove to be more productive. This is how the UK Govt dealt with the IRA for many years which eventually brought about peace.
With so many different cultures and religions talking at once, in the public eye, will only allow a "politically correct" way forward.
Open honest arguements need to be thrashed out behind closed doors, not in the public eye...especially with the terrible "let's have a sound bite" US press.
The secret meetings should be conducted as the open ones, but with a handfull of nations at a time.
All at once, in open view.....madness!!
If a deal was struck behind closed doors, it could then be implimented quickly and decisively...any uproar could be quickly quelled and a fait accompli always works better!
This is generally what happens with the victors after a war...save for Iraq!
Secret deals might have worked in UK/IRA's case, but in the middle east with so many parties who have vested interests, it is very unlikely.
Yep - Dick Cheney is an ame I can admire. He is tough because he has strong convictions and a lot of determination. He is not there to be liked and to get things done. In fact rather like Mrs T. in the U.K. He was elected to help President Bush to push the Reblican agenda and this he has done with no small measure of success. And this is first and foremost a domestic agenda.
The fact that I am a liberal European and do not like the agenda of the Republican party is not the point. Frankly, I prefer him to the:'Lets please everybody and never risk being wrong.? Which characterized Tony Bair and his administration.
Sadly, the Annapolis talks will not achieve much and certainly not in open forum. Neither the Palistinian or the Isreali leaders can even look as if they have compomised or they will simply be crusified by their own supporters if they do.
John Kecsmar #1
"...so much for democracy."
So typical of the European outlook on life and the world. Europe is basically a tyrannical civilization which only pays lip service to real democracy. I don't know why Americans even bother to pretend otherwise. What would you call a nation where not only is a national referendum affecting the most basic laws of its governance not allowed because its likely outcome is too frightening for the government to contemplate but it is entirely possible that a treaty which would make drastic changes to it might not even be put to a vote of an elected legislature but instead decided by a single individual? See Mark Mardell's Euroblog for a discussion of the Lisbon treaty and how it will be decided by Britain.
For all his toughness and influence, Dick Cheney is just one man, one voice in the way the United States of America is run. And for all those who think that President Bush has the power to go off half cocked on his own and invade Iraq or sign Kyoto on behalf of the US, go back to the vote in both houses of Congress which agreed that he could invade and the Sense of the Senate's 95-0 vote rejecting Kyoto during the Clinton Administration. Hillary Clinton can dance around her vote on Iraq now as much as she likes but it is a matter of public record and so are the polls that the overwhelming majority of Americans agreed with it at the time too. It is also a matter of fact that Congress had access to every last bit of intelligence information the executive branch had had it wanted to see it and review it for itself.
Dick Cheney was the chairman of the committee to select a vice presidential running mate for George Bush when he ran against Al Gore in 2000. The reason Cheney was the nominee was that they could not find an acceptable alternative, he was selected by default. Judging from the current crop of Republican candidates, there is still a dearth of really well qualified people and their Democratic counterparts are hardly in better shape. How fortunate that in a real democracy, it isn't necessarily important who the President is, the most important decisions are made largely by concensus. Still it's true, Cheney is one tough dude.
A problem withe the "appoint Giuliani after Cheney resigns" scenario: Such an appointment requires a majority vote of both houses of Congress. The Dems control the House and the Senate is split down the middle. No Dem would "cross the aisle" to support their next-year-candidate's most likely rival.
BTW, in the unlikely event Mr. Cheney ever invites you to go hunting with him, I'd find a polite and plausible excuse to decline. He's not only tough, he's wild. Ready! Fire! Aim! :-)
I would not mess with Dick Cheney, I don't care HOW many heart attacks he has had.
He still needs to get his eyesight checked because he cannot tell the difference between a quail and a man.
Tough?
Cheney has millions in his pocketm he is protected by a security detail, supported by considerable finaclial and political interests and has a medical team on call 24-hours a day! He isn't "tough!"
Tough as in finagling a record five deferments to avoid serving in Vietnam even though he supported the war?
Tough as in avoiding responsibility for shooting a hunting partner in the face?
Tough as in being accompanied by a crack medical team 24/7 when 47 million people go without health insurance, and even though as VP he isn't supposed to be terribly important?
Tough as in overwhelmingly appearing on demonstrably friendly media outlets like FOX or Rush Limbaugh, but refuses to answer even vaguely critical questions from somehwat more independent organizations?
Tough as in protesting his lesbian daughter from even being mentioned by Democrats, but saying not one word when the GOP legislates against his daughter's human and civic rights and Republican mouthpieces and supporters describe momosexuality as a sin, a sickness, a perverted choice and a social threat?
Apparently you think his politcal toughness translates to personal toughness, that it is a reflection of an admirable personal quality rather than the consequence of his his self-serving ambition.