Were I Bush, I would replace Cheney on the ticket

[Mitchell]

As most on here know, Iam a staunch Democrat, I will be voting for John Kerry, and I have serious issues with George W Bush, his presidency, and his politics. Looking at it from the other side, were I a political advisor for Bush, I would suggest he replace Cheney on the ticket.
Throughout Bush's presidency, even in the beginning, before the recession, and 9-11, Cheney has never been a popular vice president. There have been allegations about Halliberton, his financial dealings, and so forth. While I believe Cheney is potentially an intelligent and capable guy, his personality leaves a lot to be desired. Yesterday, news reports I heard claimed that he called Democratic Senator Pat Leahy the F word in public on the Senate floor. If these reports are true, that is highly inappropriate to do in that forum, to embarass someone in public. I think that while many have serious issues with Bush, if he had a more popular and affiable running mate, his whole campaign and ticket might well come across differently for middle of the road and undecided voters who perhaps voted for him last time, and may change to Kerry this time. I heard yesterday that former Chrysler chairman Lee Iacocca endorsed Bush in 2000, and this time has endorsed Kerry. To me, it seems that Bush's problem seems to be that he forgets that there are moderate Republican, and independent voters who he needs to appeal to, and he seems to be focused on the far right. As president, whether Republican or Democrat, the president should appeal to a broad variety of voters, to effectively do his job.
If I was Bush, I would replace Cheney with a more moderate running mate who might appeal to a more broad range of voters, perhaps someone who is a more moderate Republican or a uniter, like a Rudy Juliani, or a John Mccain. I believe that doing so would perhaps make Bush appeal to a wider spectrum of voters, who might otherwise now vote for Kerry or Nader. One can argue:" We are voting for Bush, not Cheney" While this is true, Cheney's views are a strong reflection of administration policy. Of course, Iam voting for Kerry, so if Bush loses, that will be fine with me, but Iam trying to examine this in a fair and non partisan way of what might be a wise political choice. I've had people I know who are stunch Republicans tell me the same thing, that Bush should replace Cheney, although I doubt he will.

Mitch

[Shem the Penman]

Giuliani is a lot more socially liberal than what passes for the mainstream in the Republican party these days. Either he'd have to revise his positions -- just like Bush Senior reversed himself on "voodoo economics" to become Reagan's VP -- or Bush's supporters would choke on him.

And besides, if Cheney quits, who's going to operate Dubya?

[drew70]

My feeling is that if it isn't broken, don't fix it. The Bush/Cheney team has performed well for the last four years. I see no reason to change it.

[venray]

Two public statements and one private that happened to be picked up.

LOL You mean Kerry never said things privately that ended up blasted in the media when overheard.

All politicians are people. They have personal feelings that they let out sometimes when it's far from appropriate. Shame on them, but it isnt worth air space to report it. We all say things privately we would not have go out to the general public and if we expect our politicians (republican or democrat) to stop being human, then we have no one worthy of putting into office.

The guy you vote for and the real person that they are are two separate entities.

I think that the media ought to leave them all alone (both sides) and just concentrate on the issues of the day before election time.

:D

Ray

[Mitchell]

I wholeheartedly agree, venray, and I think that the Republican party should have left Bill Clinton alone in 1999, and not persued impeachment. Everyone says, "He committed perjury" What, however, did he commit perjury about? It was about sex, which in no way affected the vow he took for his official oath of office. If Clinton had endangered the lives of the American people, or done something that was in violation of his offcial oath of office, then fine, he should have been impeached. Imagine what would have been 43 years ago, if Jack Kennedy had been investigated for sex. They never would have gone there, because no one would have cared, as it was the president's personal life. Clinton had a human failing, not one that endangered the country, or in any way affected his ability to be an effective president. No politician is perfect, not Clinton, Bush, or Kerry, and the only way someone should be held accountable as Clinton was would have been if he offically breached his office, which Clinton didnt do. I feel consistentcy is needed in this area, and many times it seems that certain individuals are held more accountable than others in this area.

Mitch

[kurchatovium]

The problem was with Mr. Clinton was he comitted perjury in a court of law which last time I looked was against the law. Its not the sex part which got him into trouble it was lying in a court of law which started most of his troubles. This also caused several problems with him being a lawyer. I believe he lost the ability to present cases in front of the Supreme Court and might have even been disbarred for a short time (I am not certian on the latter at the very least he was penalized). I believe had Mr. Clinton had just told the truth (thats the truth not a definition of what the word sex means or what the word is means)and admitted what he had done he and the country would have been a lot better off. Just my opinion though. Hmmmm is the Humor forum......

[t7*]

It should never have gotten to a court of law.

And Guiliani would be a good pick.....1.) Republicans are distancing themselves from this adminstration but not Rudy! He's going to be stumping for Bush all the time, says he. 2.) Who better to endorse you than the Mayor who actually survived the WTC bombing? It's going to up his credibility alot.

To be a politician in New York, you've always had to be a maveric, and a Republican in New York isn't the same as a Republican in Texas! Maybe with him, they'll pick up some of those undecided votes.

[kurchatovium]

The point is it did get to a court of law and he lied, if it was not worthy of a court appearance he shouldn't have needed to lie. Lie in a court and its an act of perjury whether or not it should have gone is of no consequence.

[t7*]

You're absolutely right. Lying under oath is lying under oath, no matter how you dice it.

*The rest removed as unsupported innuendo breaking forum rules*

[kurchatovium]

LOL Thank you for reminding me of why I keep my discussions to teddy bears, hyperplasma and orange marmalade.

[areenactor]

i never cared for him ,and i've been thinking for some time that he should be replaced for the up-comming election.

juliani (sp?) would be a good vote getting choice, but i'd like to hear some other names too. this will suprise most here, but i'd like to see the black congressman from out west who used to be a pro-athelete. sorry but i can never remember his name ,even though i was going to vote for him in the primary back in 2000. saddly his name was pulled when he dropped out of the running. the guy was great!
highly inteligent, and the naacp hated him, lol.

steve

[Neutron]

Always has been.

Tron

[MrMacphisto]

Bush and Dick are well named because it symbolizes how much they've been fucking us over the last 4 years. It's time to shave Bush and neuter Dick.

[Mitchell]

An update on this issue. I heard on CNN today that Al ******, former GOP Senator from New York, has publicly said that Bush should replace Cheney on the ticket. In ******'s view, he felt that Colin Powell would be a logical choice to replace Cheney. I rarely agree with Republicans, and Iam of course a Democrat, but I would have to say that I do agree with ****** here. Bush's campaign said that Mr Bush has no intentions of replacing Cheney. I dont think that Powell would run on the ticket with Bush, because Powell is pro choice, and Bush is pro life. My personal view would be that John Mccain would be a logical choice to replace Cheney. I dont think this will happen, though. Although he is pro life, Mccain has certain serious fundamental differences with Bush, and I've heard that they dont like each other a lot personally, therefore, I doubt that Mccain would be an option. It is interesting though that the idea of Cheney being replaced is now being said publicly, but I highly doubt Bush will do it.

Mitch

[Mitchell]

OMG Macphisto! LMAO! That is a great one! Funny as hell. We cant do that, but replacing em with two men named John come November sounds like a better idea to me.

Mitch

[areenactor]

Originally posted by Mitchell
OMG Macphisto! LMAO! That is a great one! Funny as hell. We cant do that, but replacing em with two men named John come November sounds like a better idea to me.

Mitch


yup, those two johns in the white house and the place will be full of shit in no time!

steve