• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Cheney Resigning after Elections? Maybe Yes.

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Blue Collar Joe said:
I don't think George will go Dickless. :lol:
However, it would also be a good opportunity for the reps to place the person they have in office that they want to run for Pres next in second seat. That may have something to do with the story.
Good observation. Bush's job rating is only 34%, according to the latest poll, but Cheney sits at 18%, which is absolutely horrible. I believe that the GOP is going to want to try a fresh start, but in order to do that, they are going to need to create a candidate who will have excellent name recognition in 2008. Replacing Cheney, then integrating his replacement into the everyday affairs of the executive branch, would be an excellent strategy. Could a strategy like this result in both, the first black president, and the first woman president. Now that would be something to speculate over, but it is a distinct possibility. While the Democrats accuse Republicans of trying to take away the rights of blacks, they themselves have a history of using race to manipulate. Rice as a viable candidate, as well as a replacement for Cheney, might be a very good strategy.

EDIT: Looks like Pacridge beat me to playing the Rice card - Pardon the pun.
 
Last edited:

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Kandahar said:
Rice isn't electable. The only likely electable candidates (John McCain, Rudy Giuliani) are ones that have been critical of George W Bush. So I don't think he'll replace Cheney for the purpose of priming a successor.

I doubt Cheney will leave before his term is up unless his health deteriorates.

I think Rice could be electable, given the right steps.

Cheney's health could get worse really quickly. Especially if his poll numbers continue to be below 20%. Heck if his poll numbers hit >10% his doctors may order him to start "taking it easy, limit all stress etc..."
 

Blue Collar Joe

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
350
Reaction score
0
Location
USA Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Condi is fully electable, but the dem's want to keep saying she isn't. (Not targeting Kandahar or his post with this comment, either.) The reason they don't want to see her run, is it would be a very strong blow to their voting base, one that could cripple their party.
Hell, I live in the South, and every person I know, of either party, states flat that they would vote for Condi without a second thought, no matter who the Dem's would run.
She's already changed position once, to a more visible one. One more step, and it could get really interesting.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Blue Collar Joe said:
Condi is fully electable, but the dem's want to keep saying she isn't. (Not targeting Kandahar or his post with this comment, either.) The reason they don't want to see her run, is it would be a very strong blow to their voting base, one that could cripple their party.
Hell, I live in the South, and every person I know, of either party, states flat that they would vote for Condi without a second thought, no matter who the Dem's would run.
She's already changed position once, to a more visible one. One more step, and it could get really interesting.
She has also shown that she is more than capable by effectively neutering Donald Rumsfeld on foreign policy.

Also, the fact that Rice is a pragmatist and not a Neocon is a huge plus.
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Blue Collar Joe said:
Condi is fully electable, but the dem's want to keep saying she isn't. (Not targeting Kandahar or his post with this comment, either.) The reason they don't want to see her run, is it would be a very strong blow to their voting base, one that could cripple their party.
Hell, I live in the South, and every person I know, of either party, states flat that they would vote for Condi without a second thought, no matter who the Dem's would run.
She's already changed position once, to a more visible one. One more step, and it could get really interesting.

Well of course she'll be electable in the South; she's a conservative Republican. But in the rest of the country? I doubt it. I think that any illusion that more blacks and women will vote for her simply because she's a black woman, is wishful thinking on the part of Republicans. My guess is she'd do no better among blacks and women than George Bush did.

Also, voters get tired of the same crowd after two terms. Her political views make her closer to Bush than any other possible GOP candidate, and I highly doubt that voters will want a third term of that.

It has nothing to do with "not wanting to see her run" (although I *don't* want to see her run, for other reasons). I simply don't think she's electable.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kandahar said:
Well of course she'll be electable in the South; she's a conservative Republican. But in the rest of the country? I doubt it. I think that any illusion that more blacks and women will vote for her simply because she's a black woman, is wishful thinking on the part of Republicans. My guess is she'd do no better among blacks and women than George Bush did.

Also, voters get tired of the same crowd after two terms. Her political views make her closer to Bush than any other possible GOP candidate, and I highly doubt that voters will want a third term of that.

It has nothing to do with "not wanting to see her run" (although I *don't* want to see her run, for other reasons). I simply don't think she's electable.
I disagree with you in a major way on that. Last night, I watched the Black Forum program on C-SPAN, which was hosted by Tavis Smiley. One of their major concerns was that Democrats just took them for granted, and manipulated blacks for their votes. Some speakers were advocating that blacks should not support the Democrats any more than they support Republicans, unless their issues are addressed. I believe that a Rice candidacy would cause quite a lot of hurt for any Democratic presidential candidate.
 

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
danarhea said:
I disagree with you in a major way on that. Last night, I watched the Black Forum program on C-SPAN, which was hosted by Tavis Smiley. One of their major concerns was that Democrats just took them for granted, and manipulated blacks for their votes. Some speakers were advocating that blacks should not support the Democrats any more than they support Republicans, unless their issues are addressed. I believe that a Rice candidacy would cause quite a lot of hurt among any Democratic presidential candidate.


How many times must this woman tell you people she will not run, she is much too smart to run for president!:doh
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
danarhea said:
I disagree with you in a major way on that. Last night, I watched the Black Forum program on C-SPAN, which was hosted by Tavis Smiley. One of their major concerns was that Democrats just took them for granted, and manipulated blacks for their votes. Some speakers were advocating that blacks should not support the Democrats any more than they support Republicans, unless their issues are addressed. I believe that a Rice candidacy would cause quite a lot of hurt for any Democratic presidential candidate.

A few speakers say that they shouldn't be beholden to the Democrats, yet they continue to vote that way because they perceive the Republicans as being even worse for their interests. If they were willing to vote in a nearly united bloc against George Bush, I don't see why it would be any different with Condoleezza Rice.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
lmfao, um, Plame was never outted because she was never covert to begin with.
What's your Source?
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
danarhea said:
1) First of all, you dont even provide a link to back up what you are saying.

2) If you had provided a link, my bet is that it would be out of date. Out of date information is no good, if there is more recent information which contradicts it. You just cant use something that has been later proven wrong.

3) In your own words, Fitzgerald did not know at the time. He did not say she was not covert, according to what you showed. He said he could not speak as to whether or not she was. This is quite different from what you are trying to :spin:

4) What Fitzgerald is now saying is that she is covert, which trumps tbe out of date information you are still attempting :spin: here.

5) Do you know what a judge's opinion is? There is one on each and every ruling, and the prevailing judicial opinion is the final arbiter of law. Are you saying that you do not respect the law? What is your spin on that?

6) You did not provide any links to back up what you are trying to Spin. Oops, already said that one.

:shock: Goodness, it seems you have effectively shut up tot's rucuss. :bravo:
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
danarhea said:
1) First of all, you dont even provide a link to back up what you are saying.

2) If you had provided a link, my bet is that it would be out of date. Out of date information is no good, if there is more recent information which contradicts it. You just cant use something that has been later proven wrong.

3) In your own words, Fitzgerald did not know at the time. He did not say she was not covert, according to what you showed. He said he could not speak as to whether or not she was. This is quite different from what you are trying to :spin:

4) What Fitzgerald is now saying is that she is covert, which trumps tbe out of date information you are still attempting :spin: here.

5) Do you know what a judge's opinion is? There is one on each and every ruling, and the prevailing judicial opinion is the final arbiter of law. Are you saying that you do not respect the law? What is your :spin:eek:n that?

6) You did not provide any links to back up what you are trying to :spin:. Oops, already said that one. :)

If Plame was covert then why wasn't Libby charged with that crime? No one has been charged with that crime no one will ever be charged with that crime because Plame was never covert. How does a Judge become the final arbiter on a ruling for which there has never been a charge?
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
If Plame was covert then why wasn't Libby charged with that crime? No one has been charged with that crime no one will ever be charged with that crime because Plame was never covert. How does a Judge become the final arbiter on a ruling for which there has never been a charge?

Very easy on that one. Simply put, Fitzgerald doesnt think he has enough info to prove that Libby is the one who outed her. That is because Libby obstructed the investigation and committed perjury. However, The reason he could not charge Libby with outing a covert agent is the very reason he was able to charge him with the obstruction of justice and perjury. I have a thread in Political Scandal Du Jour which details part of the evidence against Libby. It looks very bad for him. Expect him to be convicted.

One more thing.....
jfuh said:
:shock: Goodness, it seems you have effectively shut up tot's rucuss. :bravo:

jfuh - Thanks for the post, but it is counterproductive to this discussion. I know you probably meant well, but I would appreciate it if you would stay on topic. Statements such as this tend to start fights, and I would rather debate than engage in a flame war. Fair enough? Please, no more comments which could cause a flame war to break out. I have cussed at others for doing this. Now I am cussing you for it. LOL. Thank you.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
danarhea said:
Very easy on that one. Simply put, Fitzgerald doesnt think he has enough info to prove that Libby is the one who outed her. That is because Libby obstructed the investigation and committed perjury. However, The reason he could not charge Libby with outing a covert agent is the very reason he was able to charge him with the obstruction of justice and perjury. I have a thread in Political Scandal Du Jour which details part of the evidence against Libby. It looks very bad for him. Expect him to be convicted.

No even more simple, because she was never freaking covert, no one has ever said she was covert, no one has proven she was covert, and how can a judge right an opinion for a charge that has never been brought up in front of him, unless it was just an actual opinion rather than a legal one?

Judges right opinions all the time with absolutely no legal bearing, haven't you ever heard of Bork? He was denied the Supreme Court because all of the personal opinions he had written, judges right peronnel opinions on cases all of the time, not to mention that the actual libby trial won't even start until 2007.
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Kandahar said:
Well of course she'll be electable in the South; she's a conservative Republican. But in the rest of the country? I doubt it. I think that any illusion that more blacks and women will vote for her simply because she's a black woman, is wishful thinking on the part of Republicans. My guess is she'd do no better among blacks and women than George Bush did.

Also, voters get tired of the same crowd after two terms. Her political views make her closer to Bush than any other possible GOP candidate, and I highly doubt that voters will want a third term of that.

It has nothing to do with "not wanting to see her run" (although I *don't* want to see her run, for other reasons). I simply don't think she's electable.

LOL Kandahar, you'd be surprised. I know the topic is Condi, however, here in PA, in the race for Governor, the PA GOP endorsed Lynn Swann as governor, before anyone could vote in the primary, but that's another show topic. However, the PA GOP is putting all their eggs into the basket of Lynn Swann, being black and a famous football player, would be able to steal the black vote in Philadelphia from Ed Rendell. Now, having said that... anyone, and I mean ANYONE with half a brain can see that number 1, Ed Rendell was mayor of Philadelphia, and catered to alot of said people. Number 2, Ed Rendell, as governor, has catered to alot of said people. and Number 3, Football player or not, I know some in Philadelphia who won't vote for Lynn Swann.. A) because he's Republican, and B) because he played for the Steelers.

It really bothers me that parties run candidates to get the black vote, or the religious vote, or the latino vote... look at what they did with Sharpton? He had zero chance of winning, mostly because of his views. But he allowed himself to be used in order to attempt to swing the vote, based on race. How pathetic is that.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Deegan said:
How many times must this woman tell you people she will not run, she is much too smart to run for president!:doh

I've seen her say that on at least two separate occasion.

Unless something changes...drastically, I don't see it happening. But if Cheney did resign due to "health concerns" and she was appointed ( not even sure that's what would happen??) as VP. She might change her position. I could see her saying "I've decided there's just too much work to do and we need to continue on the path we're on. Now is not the time to walk away from public life, now is the time to roll up my sleeves, our sleeves and finish the work that been started."
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Not running in 2008 makes Condi the perfect person to pick as VP, IMHO.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No even more simple, because she was never freaking covert, no one has ever said she was covert, no one has proven she was covert, and how can a judge right an opinion for a charge that has never been brought up in front of him, unless it was just an actual opinion rather than a legal one?

Judges right opinions all the time with absolutely no legal bearing, haven't you ever heard of Bork? He was denied the Supreme Court because all of the personal opinions he had written, judges right peronnel opinions on cases all of the time, not to mention that the actual libby trial won't even start until 2007.
there you go again.

Red - You come in here claiming Plame was never covert without displaying a single link. In addition, you claim Fitzgerald said Plame was not covert when what he really said was that he didnt know at the time. Since that time, he has come out and said that yes, Plame WAS not only covert, but that the FBI was making purposeful moves to keep her identity concealed.

Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.
Green - As for what the meaning of opinion is, you appear to be confused as to the difference between an ordinary opinion and a legal opinion. A legal opinion from a judge in a case where there is a single judge is fact. A legal opinion from a panel of judges can consist of a majority opinion and a minority opinion. In this case the majority opinion becomes fact, while the minority opinion shows how much dissent there is and the legal reasons for that dissent. An ordinary opinion, whether from someone on this board, or from your strawman, Judge Bork, which is not even remotely germane to this discussin, is irrelevant to the case that is being ruled on. Since Bork is not the sitting judge in this case, and is not a witness for either side in the case, his ordinary opinion does not count, so to speak.

When you reply to this, I want you to present a link to back up your argument, and not some out of date link.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
danarhea said:
there you go again.

Red - You come in here claiming Plame was never covert without displaying a single link. In addition, you claim Fitzgerald said Plame was not covert when what he really said was that he didnt know at the time. Since that time, he has come out and said that yes, Plame WAS not only covert, but that the FBI was making purposeful moves to keep her identity concealed.


Green - As for what the meaning of opinion is, you appear to be confused as to the difference between an ordinary opinion and a legal opinion. A legal opinion from a judge in a case where there is a single judge is fact. A legal opinion from a panel of judges can consist of a majority opinion and a minority opinion. In this case the majority opinion becomes fact, while the minority opinion shows how much dissent there is and the legal reasons for that dissent. An ordinary opinion, whether from someone on this board, or from your strawman, Judge Bork, which is not even remotely germane to this discussin, is irrelevant to the case that is being ruled on. Since Bork is not the sitting judge in this case, and is not a witness for either side in the case, his ordinary opinion does not count, so to speak.

When you reply to this, I want you to present a link to back up your argument, and not some out of date link.

Umm, the case hasn't even been brought to trial so how can any judge have made a legally binding ruling on Plames covert status, in this case the judges opinion is just that an opinion.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Umm, the case hasn't even been brought to trial so how can any judge have made a legally binding ruling on Plames covert status, in this case the judges opinion is just that an opinion.

Looks like you dont know what a pretrial ruling is either.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
danarhea said:
Looks like you dont know what a pretrial ruling is either.

Then I guess you know that the pretrial isn't even over yet so how could the judge have formulated an opinion already?

Scooter Libby was indicted for Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and Making False Statements on October 28th, 2005.

Libby will make his pretrial motions February 24th, the Government will counter with their Opposition March 16th, and the Defense will reply March 31st.

He is set to go on trial January 8th, 2007 - that's when jury selection will begin. The first day of trial will be January 15th, 2007.

Libby faces a possible sentence of between two and five years imprisonment.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/grandolddocket.php
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Then I guess you know that the pretrial isn't even over yet so how could the judge have formulated an opinion already?



http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/grandolddocket.php

Sorry, but the judge's decision that Plame was covert had nothing to do with the Libby trial, but was part of the ruling forcing reporters Cooper and Miller to testify before the grand jury. But dont let the facts confuse you.

Here is the article.

Here is a PDF of the actual court ruling, made in 2005.
 
Top Bottom