Should Dick Cheney Run in 2012?
Dec 2nd, 2009 | 46 responses
In his most recent editorial, Newsweek’s Editor Jon Meacham poses “Why Dick Cheney should run in 2012.”
After dismissing the expected “rolling of their eyes dismissively” and warning Liberals not to spit out their lattes, Meacham explains that he is serious about a Dick Cheney bid for the presidential nomination in 2012, as such a run would be “good for Republicans and good for the country”.
Some of the reasons:
** “Cheney is a man of conviction, has a record on which he can be judged, and whatever the result, there could be no ambiguity about the will of the people. The best way to settle arguments is by having what we used to call full and frank exchanges about the issues, and then voting.”
** “In an era of ideological purity within the party, Cheney is among the purest; no one can question his conservative credentials on national security, and his record in the House and as vice president places him beyond reproach from the base.”
** “A campaign would also give us an occasion that history denied us in 2008: an opportunity to adjudicate the George W. Bush years in a direct way.”
Meacham also posits that Cheney might pull Obama to the right more than Obama would pull Cheney to the left, something that neither a Huckabee nor a Palin would be able to do.
Actually, while somewhat surprised, I do want to take Meacham seriously, and I do hope that he can persuade Cheney to run in 2012.
I believe Americans, in particular Democrats, would indeed look forward to the chance to have a frank and full exchange on Cheney’s convictions and record and to the opportunity to “adjudicate the George W. Bush years in a direct way.”
I also believe that Americans who are paying dearly for the the political, economic, moral, and military disasters and failures of the Bush-Cheney years, would more than welcome the opportunity to once and for all, openly and frankly adjudicate the Bush-Cheney years–an occasion that, as Meacham says, “history denied us in 2008.”
Bring him on!
46 Responses to “Should Dick Cheney Run in 2012?”
That he runs should be on every Dems Xmas wish list.
A man of conviction? Really? How's this for conviction?
Yes Cheney should be convicted for his crimes…
I'm sorry, but the things you want to adjudicate GWB for are still taking place. The only time Dems will want to talk about accountability for what happened is when they aren't in power.
Has anyone thought that maybe Cheney is doing what he is doing not to torpedo Obama but instead to rally the left and right for him by being the bad guy to both sides? I truly believe Cheney cares about our security it is whether or not he is trying to play the foil that I am beginning to question, if he runs in 2012 though I will be convinced.
Cheney should run now and he should have run last year. He should start running and never come back. Anyone in his right mind would do so after perpetrating his list of high crimes. But he's not in his right mind either.
Cheney should run now, and he should have run last year. He should start running and never come back as anyone in his right mind would do after perpetrating his list of crimes. But he's not in his right mind either. He's hopeless.
Great ghost! I hope he does not run for President!
Dick Cheney was the biggest problem I had with the Bush Administration. As stated above, I'm sure he loves America; but the guy has been in government service since before the Ford Administration. He's part of the problem. Most of them are.
Can't we all just get along. I suggest an outdoor recreational activity. Fresh air, quiet, pretty flowers.
Yes, a hunting trip with Cheney inviting Nancy and Harry to share the great outdoors.
Yes, we hope if he isn't behind bars by then..we'd sure like a landslide in 2012.
Should Cheney run…..
No.
“look forward to the chance to have a frank and full exchange on Cheney’s convictions and record “
You are making the assumption that Cheney is capable of telling the truth.
I believe that we have already had that conversation, as a result of which we now have a Black man in the White House, 60 spineless Democratic Senators and a house dominated by spineless Democrats…
I would like him to run. Maybe then people would starting taking third parties seriously and the Constitution and Libertarian parties could pick up the leftovers.
Sure, let's find someone with the blood of countless thousands of innocent people on his hands, who is consumed with as much hypocrisy as any one man can sustain, and with as much contempt for the American people as possible, then we'll support him as a candidate for president of the greatest democracy in the world. Yeah… great plan.
The only time Dems will want to talk about accountability for what happened is when they aren't in power.
This would ring a lot truer if you had ever called for accountability for the crimes committed by Cheney and others in the Bush administration.
Funny, on another thread I was lamenting the 'Twilight Zone' nature of the political game partisans play, and here you come with this zinger. So basically what you are saying is that it doesn't matter what our government continues doing now, because Bush and others did it before. Let me guess…I cannot comment on the amount of government spending now because you'll say I've never condemned it in the past. Or I cannot be opposed to the war now because I wasn't all over the blogosphere complaining about Bush's adventures in the past.
I've got 563 comments on the Disqus board; feel free to thumb through them on any of the torture posts here. Never once have I said anything to the effect of supporting Bush on any of it. It was wrong when he did it, and it's just as wrong now.
Your comment would ring a lot truer if you start holding a Dem president to the same standards you hold the Repubs to. Perhaps for your next post you can give us a broad rundown about how hard it must be for you to support a president who does stuff that you once raised holy hell about. I think Glenn Greenwald summed it up rather well:
Some idiot wrote that Cheney should run, to build on the republicans past? I think they should try Cheney, and Bush for treason first. Perhaps they can explain spending billions, and getting thousands killed in Iraq. Why would we attack a nation that was no threat to us, and that was surrounded for ten years? They are both guilty of treason. If you sell out your country for money, or another country; that's treason.
Step back and think about Kattenburg et als commentary with a logical view as opposed to an emotional one.
The left has a paucity of results to show for themselves on the domestic front and are serving up leftover Bush recipes on the significant foreign policy fronts.
They have no accomplishments to crow about so they need to constantly fill the vacuum with rehashing the past…..and hope no one notices that they are basically irrelevant..
The word I've used before, which applies to looking at Kathy's view here is: “clinically.”
As for Cheney, he might make the Left prefer Gingrich as President, and more importantly,
Will Cheney even be alive in 2012?
“The left has a paucity of results to show for themselves on the domestic front”
That, too, can be blamed on Afghanistan (and Iraq), and by diseased extension, to … Bush and Cheney.
And Afghanistan is the excuse currently for the paucity of results, all right, if you believe the President:
(and a threat of a greater paucity, at a greater price, that otherwise would befall us)
“But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended – because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.”
[gulp]
ooh ooh! I know..
Cheney/Palin in 2012 so that after four [or five?] heart attacks our nation can be 1/5th of a heartbeat away from Caribou Barbie running the shop. Now that should make the stock market niiiiccccce and stable and give great confidence to our solvency as a nation!
You betcha!
So if Cheney were to run and win would he even be allowed into certain countries due to his “war crime” past?
I think it would be hysterical if Americans choose as their president Cheney and he was not able to visit our allies because they would throw him in jail for war crimes.
Cheney/Palin 2012!
The adjudication of the invasion of Iraq and other Bush actions and policies already occurred in 2004, and Bush was resoundingly vindicated. History has moved forward and Bush and Cheney have assumed the role of senior statesmen for their honored eight years of service.
While Dick Cheney is well respected and appreciated by many in the nation, he is not a candidate and has already denied any interest in the role. He can best serve as a reference point of conscience and reason for the current Administration and hopefully will continue to do so.
How wonderful it would for our country if both parties could offer strong, qualified, broadly supported, thoughtful, and dignified leaders that could honestly and effectively offer the best policies and ideals of their respective party. Americans lose when either party offers narrow, restrictive, and ineffectual nominees for high office. I suggest we think of reforms that will help the best and the brightest rise to the top of our political spectrum… We need them badly.
Come on, Sil, you can do better than that. I'm actually disappointed in you. Here:
“Dick Cheney dead of heart attack. Was on travel with Carrie Prejean. Prejean, who made an emergency phone call but refused to talk to authorities afterward, is unavailable for comment, though unconfirmed reports are that Prejean was attacked by a livid Lynne Cheney, who along with Prejean refuses to talk to the media.”
Are you serious? Bush won with a mere 51% of the vote, and that's supposed to make us believe that his decision to invade Iraq has been vindicated? Perhaps you stopped paying any attention to polls after 2004, because polls since then have consistently shown that the American public does not believe that the United States should have gone to war in Iraq.
All the things that Bush & Cheney claimed Iraq had before the war–the WMDs, the aerial drones, the mobile bioweapons labs, the yellow cake, the aluminum tubes–none of them were never found. But, go ahead and keep telling yourself that Bush & Cheney have been “vindicated.”
So basically what you are saying is that it doesn't matter what our government continues doing now, because Bush and others did it before.
Clearly, that is not what I'm saying, since I have written here critically about certain things our government continues doing now, which Bush and others did before.
Your comment would ring a lot truer if you start holding a Dem president to the same standards you hold the Repubs to. Perhaps for your next post you can give us a broad rundown about how hard it must be for you to support a president who does stuff that you once raised holy hell about.
I have, as I said above. And as for Glenn Greenwald's summary, I could not agree with him more — or you if you are agreeing with him. I don't know where you've been, but apparently it hasn't been near my posts.
And of course, Glenn has a lot more credibility writing that paragraph, since he *did* criticize Bush for all these things that he is now also criticizing Obama for. You have not done that.
The only poll that counts is the election and Bush was handily re-elected. The faulty intelligence was well known by that point and incorporated into the judgement of the electorate. The Bush/Cheney team remains undefeated and has now retired. Better put some ice on it.
Cheney/Palin would be the gift that keeps on giving for the Democrats. It would be a “put up or shut up” moment. The increased scrutiny might answer a lot of ethical/legal/moral questions that were never fully answered during the last administration.
Of course if they actually won by some travesty of justice, the brightest dream could quickly turn into a nightmare of Nixonian proportions. Hmmmm maybe Howard Baker, Fred Thompson and Daniel Inouye are still available for “Watergate– The Sequel”.
Ok, I have done so, being a huge critic of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld in the past, so I'll say it with a slight modification:
“The only time most Dems will want to talk about accountability for what happened is when they aren't in power.”
and I'll add
The only time most Republican will want to talk about accountability for what happened is when they aren't in power.
Hypocrisy is not limited to one party by any stretch of the imagination. I call out my own party and I call out the other one. Now lets see who will do so as well, and who will only look to Think Progress or Rush Limbaugh for talking points to spread, and will find times to agree with valid claims of the other side, not just with a further out on the wing element of your own party.
Right on.
First of all, Bush was not “handily re-elected.” Bush defeated Kerry by an electoral vote of 286 to 251 and a popular vote of 50.7% to 48.3%. Historically speaking, those are some of the smallest winning margins ever in a presidential election.
Secondly, the idea that faulty intelligence was “incorporated into the judgement of the electorate” is something I find extremely dubious, given the fact that in April 2004, 57% of Americans polled said they believed that Iraq was “directly involved” in carrying out 9/11. If 57% of Americans erroneously believed in an Iraq-9/11 connection seven months before the election, it makes me seriously doubt that Americans (in general) were well informed regarding Iraq at the time of the election.
It seems to me, DaMav, that you are deliberately cherry-picking the numbers you want in a rather poor attempt to substantiate your point. The 50.7% that Bush won in the 2004 general election represents the apex of his polling numbers during the last 4 1/2 years of his presidency. Following the 2004 election, Bush's poll numbers steadily dwindled down to 30%–a fact that seems at odds with your “Bush was resoundingly vindicated” claim.
I guess I will be accused of being extremely naive if I say we all got faked out of our jock straps, during the period leading to the Iraq war. This included most in our government, Reps and Dems. I know there were some. including O and others. who can shine their “I told you so buttons”. And, I'm sure, many of those would have opposed any war, including WWII (yes there were some opposed). And once we committed our selves, we were stuck like the monkey (no jokes, please) that puts his hand into a jar of cookies and can't get it out unless he lets go of the cookie. Whether Rep or Dem, once you've made that initial investment/commitment, it is almost impossible to extricate oneself. This is human (and simian) nature not some grand military complex conspiracy. And, yes Cheney has over committed and can't let go of the cookie.
What better means of adjudicating these disputes than an election? That's the premise put forth and relished in the original article. Apparently however you and the original author don't like the results of the re-election in 2004 and want to go for a best of three. Except, oh gee, Bush wins that one too. Maybe you'd like a best of five?
And the election was invalid because certain Americans held the wrong opinion? That's a stretch now isn't it. Elections 'don't count if the American people are not well informed'. Is that a new rule somewhere that I missed. How about all those people who thought Obama would close Gitmo during his first year? Does that make the last election invalid too?
OK, you don't like the election results but you are happy to cherry pick the poll numbers you like. You want to talk about the poll numbers of Bush at the end of his term but to ignore those in his first years as President in which he united the nation with a 91% approval on Gallup, a remarkable achievement indeed. In fact the best of any President ever in the history of Gallup, and at least 40 points higher than Obama has now. But you don't like those polls so you instead cherry pick those from his second term which are more comfortably consistent with your world view. Hey, that's ok, I won't attack you for cherry picking. A lot of people do it.
What is inarguable is that he was re-elected and served eight years, and was never impeached despite having opposition party majorities in Congress during his last two years. And he is now retired. And — I'm guessing — the facts on that just drive you crazy. So you join the original author in fantasizing about a future election in which you can 'get' Dick Cheney in your make believe world. Pretty harmless, I'd say, but don't expect anyone to take it seriously.
I mean you no harm. I didn't like a lot of things about Bush myself. But facts are facts no matter which ones you choose to focus on.
” [Bush] united the nation with a 91% approval on Gallup…”
Gee, I wonder if our nation being attacked on 9/11 had anything to do with it?
I wonder if whoever was president on 9/11 might not have received such poll numbers..
I wonder what happened to Bush's approval ratings every year thereafter…
I think my issue with the “we were all wrong” idea is first those watching the international press instead of the US press did not believe that they had WMD's, I being one of those people. Also from what is coming out of the investigation in Britain Tony Blair apparently knew as well, and at least claims to have informed the US. Joe Wilson also spoke up and was swiftly smacked down by Cheney. Which begs a few questions: why did they have to spend months prepping the public only to slide into war as the poll numbers began to back invasion if Iraq really had them, why did he feel it necessary to lash out at Joe Wilson if WIlson was wrong or lying, if they made an error why not admit it instead of the continuation of lies like linking Iraq to 911 and WMDs(which he still does) that did not exist(at least not the types and kind we were threatened with)? Decades later we found out that the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag to pull us deeper into Nam, I find it incredibly hard to believe that this is on the up and up when that story takes a more conspiratorial mindset then saying we were duped…by the administration that then blamed it on the CIA. The Dems may be willing to lie cheat and steal to pass HCR right now but the same could be said of the GOP and especially the Admin in the run up to Iraq, I do understand that the implications are a great deal more grave but I find it hard to be nice in the interest of the GOP brand and that is the only reason I can see to ignore what seems to be pretty straight forward.
Its also especially hard considering a few of the people in the Admin had also been involved in pumping up Russia's military might on paper in the 70's(when they were actually falling apart) to either excuse the ballooning of our defense budget or because they believed their fevered nightmares more than intelligence from the CIA. From my point of view the blame lays with either the CIA or the Admin and I fail to see an advantage for the CIA and would also note that they have and continue to rail against the charge that it was their fault. Personally I do not think they did it out of malice but instead they believed their fevered nightmares more than reality, something the Islamists suffer from as well, and after 911 they over reacted in such a huge way that they tarnished our nations honor. Not because they wanted to but because they were afraid but acting out of fear still makes you a coward and reacting instead of calmly and rationally looking at the evidence still makes you and your actions reactionary. Then again I still think if Bush had not stopped listening to Cheney we would also be in Iran right now on top of our two other occupations and due to oil prices we would have been in an even worse situation economically. I have often questioned though if Cheney did this because it had Bush's name on it so who cares or if he was really that paranoid, I think it was actually a little bit of both.
One other trick that was discussed in the media after 04 election but not before and is usually not discussed now is that they would have the CIA plant stories in the foreign press(technically illegal to do it in the US press) and then when questioned about the assertions of WMD's and the other reports the Admin would smile and agree that this was likely true. in other words they used CIA propaganda on US citizens legally by getting the media to ask about it instead of doing it themselves which would have been against the law but the result was the same. It was a lawyers trick but a telling one. Speaking of propaganda some investigative reports are saying(they are from left wing sources so take it with a grain of salt) that the DOD used its propaganda arm in the run up to Iraq by “suggesting” what “analysts” would be best for the MSM(which of course would explain the lack of balance on the discussion). If that is true I find it hard to believe that the Iraq invasion was anything but an illegal war(this is the only thing I would like trials about, it is against international law to go to war on trumped up intelligence, I would not try anyone for torture nor the rest but the illegal war thing if guilty is a travesty).
What it tells me is that when attacked Dems put partisanship aside and united behind a GOP president, in other words they acted like grown ups until it was proven to them that their approval was being abused by preparing to invade Iraq. Wish the same could be said today but honestly I can't see a way that the current GOP would ever rally behind Obama even with such an attack. Instead they would point fingers and claim he was in league with the terrorists, of course that is because the GOP is a tiny percentage of the electorate and has gotten extreme but I think you get my point. Many center right voters that left the GOP I believe would rally behind him though but he would be lucky to get 75% or so.
Thank you for a diplomatic way of saying my viewpoint was a little naive. It still is, color me paranoid, but I say some agency, probably CIA and British and other intelligence services did believe there were WMDs. The fact that even Saddam thought so, and my candidate for a superb job of Three-Card Monty (disinformation) is the Iranians. Unless, some new information comes out, I have to think we were frustrated with playing wack-a mole with the Tal/AQ in Afg. and bought the WMD idea. We needed a country, a big plan, big tanks, all the usual toys of war, not chasing guys in turbans in the mountains. in other words we were pissed at what happened on 9/11: I am still, very. I just can't by the military/industrial complex theory for all wars.
To be honest I cant see the military industrial complexes finger prints anywhere on any of this, for the reason you stated. They will not be able to build the big weapons since they are not needed. Dont get me wrong they still game us but more in the brand new old technology jets kind of way. In my view their power is actually diminishing due to the end of the cold war and a lack of an enemy like that. If the DOD and the CIA were duped or used(which is my opinion) I think it came from the WH, but I also think the person doing it may have believed it and to hear the man talk still does. Saddam dug his own grave though in trying to look to the Iranians like he had them to keep from being invaded by them and trying to look like he did not have them to keep us from invading, it was a convergence of lies paranoia propaganda saber rattling and cold war mentality idiocy and I think that holds no matter what the true cause was. I do find comfort in the convergence though since I think it unlikely that it will be repeated. A really good documentary about AQ is called The Power Of Nightmares, some of it I would take with a grain of salt but I think it is instructive of how Cheney may have truly believed it and that true belief may have been the prime component. Paranoia does not make you innocent but it also doesnt make you Hitler. It would be nice for our honor to fully investigate but as long as he is forever barred from commanding troops again or getting to much power over our intelligence agencies I think is good enough, Bush put him out to pasture for a reason. I also do not really support going after Bush(investigate I could go with but never prosecute) the man seems to have been duped or naive at worst and he did take the actions necessary when he realized his error. I can be pissed at him that it took so long but to be honest I think W. became president specifically to prove himself to his father and I also think it likely that it was used against him to invade Iraq. Its just my opinion but I fail to see the malice of Bush, just incompetence. I may want Cheney and Rummy's heads but I pity Bush because he has many years to feel shame over this and I really think he does now. I am partisan though because I was very fond of his father(still, no more Bush's, Prescott's hand picked guy Nixon to Reagan with his son as VP to his son as POTUS to his grand son as POTUS is too much for a single dynasty especially one built the way Prescott built it). Your right on Iran as well though, they gamed us hard and we did their dirty work for them and in the long run they will be the winners in Iraq and the region because of it.
The reason Bush was never impeached was that the Democrats had too little confidence in their newly won majority and didn't want to risk a backlash, and also that many voted to invade Iraq along with the GOP. It certainly had nothing to do with Bush's popularity or with his competence.
I tend to think that he wouldn't have made it to the governorship of Texas without his father's backing or his father's money. He was relatively successful as governor because he was a genial, hands-off delegater. That style didn't suit his years in the WH particularly well, and many, correctly felt that he handed off our foreign policy decisions in the first term to Cheney.
The 2004 reelection campaign was filled with fear-mongering and warnings about new terrorist tactics, so I believe Bush won because folks were too scared to change leadership in the middle of a war.
Thanks for all your comments in this thread, TMSF. They are very reasoned and insightful, and sadly, I especially have to agree with your comments comparing Bush's and Obama's approval ratings and the environment under which Obama has to attempt to run our country.
Please, oh please Mr. Cheney, don't throw me in that briar patch.
To be honest I am trying to turn over a new leaf on a good many issues. Not changing my stances but much more how I communicate those stances especially to those that disagree.
Right after the 2004 election when I looked to someone to blame I seized on myself first. It was my fault that I did not more effectively communicate. It was my fault that what was actually anger at being ignored and called partisan when I pointed out the wrong doings of the Admin in power came off too emotionally and played directly into the hands of people like Rush and Beck that do not want their listeners engaged, they want them screamed at since that is the only way you can look like the cartoon they paint.
I do not think we will ever see justice nor a real investigation over these issues but the history books will support many(note not all I am sure I am wrong as well) of my arguments which gives me comfort for our nations future which is really all I care about on the matter in the first place. In other words I am trying to learn the lesson that the socially liberal voters failed to after the 1960's, they won and won big but failed to realize it and came off like bullies shutting down all social discourse on the issue and forcing us into opposing camps.
I had a mini-melt down the other day around Obama's speech when I realized that it seemed many conservatives were not going to support him in this endeavor which I think our security is reliant upon. After a good deal of soul searching I came to the conclusion that it was my fault(I do not think anyone listens to me over themselves but every revolution starts with yourself and then how you engage others therefore when you lose and your ideas lose it is at least partially your own fault). I think if those on the right understood the real and rational reasons behind our opinions of the Bush years instead of what they hear from their chosen media and the cartoon we look like when we engage them emotionally not only would they understand though disagree they also will begin to see what they perceive as an encroaching army of ideological warriors opposed to their every idea is actually just Americans with a few differing views of how to build the best nation for all of us. After all Americans as a rule agree on almost everything and then we debate to the death on really small issues in most cases. If they stop seeing me as scary then they may also begin to see the rest on my side as a good deal less scary then the screaming heads paint us(I know for a fact that the right is not the cartoon that Olberman and Maddow paint) and in the long run may get us back to a more rational national debate and discussion. It is also just possible that if that is successful they may begin to see Obama more as a president that on some issues they may agree with and on some issues they may disagree with instead of some monolithic socialist firebrand marching his army of leftists against all that is good and holy.
I will still fight for my side(whatever that is since I am a libertarian that votes Dem) and I am sure I will stumble but I am trying to make a concerted effort to go back to rational discussion and leave my blasting away ideologically and screaming for the people I feel really deserve it, the talking heads and those with a national voice(like for instance Mr. Reagan that I recently blasted on another thread). Otherwise if I want my nation to heal its wounds and come together again I consider it my job to start and my responsibility when it fails.
TMSF:
I am again going to have to express my admiration for your thoughtful, “self-examining” words.
While most of us strive to be “moderate” on this site, very few–including myself–ever reach that goal.
I honestly think you have done just such and deserve our kudos.
After reading some of the most recent light-weight, shallow guest voices, it would be such a pleasure to see you more fully develop your thoughts as a guest voice.
Mr Joe G., are you reading/listening?
Thank you,
Dorian de Wind
Thinking too much can give you a headache. Right headeness can give you relief. Unfortunately we are on a giant dung heap, as a friend of mine used to describe the world. And, we Reps deserve to be painted as clowns, it used to be the other guys (the gang that couldn't shoot straight). The pendulum will swing again.
Anyway, I keep my sanity by remembering having to dive under a desk to protect myself from the atomic bomb. What a laugh, I believed it.
Smile.