Xenodamus
02-24-2004, 08:10 PM
So long Dick. :p
http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2447095
Lexington
Time for him to go?
Feb 19th 2004
From The Economist print edition
Why Dick Cheney should watch whom he travels with
A YEAR ago, with the invasion of Iraq imminent, George Bush delighted guests at the American Enterprise Institute's annual dinner by unveiling his plans to democratise the Middle East. A year later, conservative Washington once again massed in the Washington Hilton ballroom to enjoy the AEI's hospitality and hear from the administration—this time from Dick Cheney.
You might have thought that the faithful would be feeling a little chastened by recent events. Not a bit of it. Mr Cheney looked as cocksure as ever. Charles Krauthammer treated the guests to an interminable celebration of American power. The chatter after dinner was surprisingly upbeat. Those missing weapons of mass destruction? Much ado about nothing. Of course, these conservatives were prepared to admit the odd setback—Mr Bush's flaccid state-of-the-union speech, for instance, or the fact that Howard Dean was no longer the likely Democratic nominee—but nobody seemed to be taking seriously the idea that John Kerry might actually be elected president in November. “This country won't elect a Massachusetts liberal,” declared one senior journalist flatly.
This sounds strangely like the pride that goes before a fall. Mr Bush certainly stands a good chance of hanging on to the White House—but not if he underestimates Mr Kerry as his father did his philandering southern rival. The Republicans had expected the first quarter of the year to be dominated by Democratic squabbling; instead, the pounding coming from American television screens has been that of relentless Bush-bashing. For all his liberal traits, Mr Kerry looks a formidable presidential candidate, and even if he slips up in the run-in he will be replaced by John Edwards—the southerner whom Mr Bush's people feared most at the beginning of the contest. If nothing else, the Democratic Party has shown that it is obsessed by the idea of getting Mr Bush out of the White House.
The Bush campaign needs a jolt, not just to wake up the ideologues at the AEI but also to improve the president's standing among independent voters. And what bigger jolt could he give it than to start at the top—or rather second from the top—with the vice-president? In 1992, Mr Bush tried to persuade his father to ditch Dan Quayle. The idea that Mr Cheney might also be a “drag on the ticket” was unthinkable a year ago. Now it has begun to seep into the more hard-headed, vote-scrounging parts of the Republican Party, and become common chatter among political operatives from both parties. It is, indeed, the current cover story of the National Journal, the inside-the-Beltway bible.
This is partly Mr Cheney's own doing. Four years ago, he looked the perfect complement to young George, possessing everything the callow Texan lacked—gravitas, eloquence and experience. Nowadays, he is seen less as the sober pragmatist and more as the dangerously revolutionary zealot. Look at economic management, where he supposedly told Paul O'Neill, his former friend and the former treasury secretary, that “Reagan proved deficits don't matter.” Or look at Iraq, where the vice-president went further than anybody else in exaggerating Saddam's “reconstituted” nuclear-weapons programme and the idea that he provided a “geographic base” for terrorism against America.
[Continues here... (http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2447095)]
http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2447095
Lexington
Time for him to go?
Feb 19th 2004
From The Economist print edition
Why Dick Cheney should watch whom he travels with
A YEAR ago, with the invasion of Iraq imminent, George Bush delighted guests at the American Enterprise Institute's annual dinner by unveiling his plans to democratise the Middle East. A year later, conservative Washington once again massed in the Washington Hilton ballroom to enjoy the AEI's hospitality and hear from the administration—this time from Dick Cheney.
You might have thought that the faithful would be feeling a little chastened by recent events. Not a bit of it. Mr Cheney looked as cocksure as ever. Charles Krauthammer treated the guests to an interminable celebration of American power. The chatter after dinner was surprisingly upbeat. Those missing weapons of mass destruction? Much ado about nothing. Of course, these conservatives were prepared to admit the odd setback—Mr Bush's flaccid state-of-the-union speech, for instance, or the fact that Howard Dean was no longer the likely Democratic nominee—but nobody seemed to be taking seriously the idea that John Kerry might actually be elected president in November. “This country won't elect a Massachusetts liberal,” declared one senior journalist flatly.
This sounds strangely like the pride that goes before a fall. Mr Bush certainly stands a good chance of hanging on to the White House—but not if he underestimates Mr Kerry as his father did his philandering southern rival. The Republicans had expected the first quarter of the year to be dominated by Democratic squabbling; instead, the pounding coming from American television screens has been that of relentless Bush-bashing. For all his liberal traits, Mr Kerry looks a formidable presidential candidate, and even if he slips up in the run-in he will be replaced by John Edwards—the southerner whom Mr Bush's people feared most at the beginning of the contest. If nothing else, the Democratic Party has shown that it is obsessed by the idea of getting Mr Bush out of the White House.
The Bush campaign needs a jolt, not just to wake up the ideologues at the AEI but also to improve the president's standing among independent voters. And what bigger jolt could he give it than to start at the top—or rather second from the top—with the vice-president? In 1992, Mr Bush tried to persuade his father to ditch Dan Quayle. The idea that Mr Cheney might also be a “drag on the ticket” was unthinkable a year ago. Now it has begun to seep into the more hard-headed, vote-scrounging parts of the Republican Party, and become common chatter among political operatives from both parties. It is, indeed, the current cover story of the National Journal, the inside-the-Beltway bible.
This is partly Mr Cheney's own doing. Four years ago, he looked the perfect complement to young George, possessing everything the callow Texan lacked—gravitas, eloquence and experience. Nowadays, he is seen less as the sober pragmatist and more as the dangerously revolutionary zealot. Look at economic management, where he supposedly told Paul O'Neill, his former friend and the former treasury secretary, that “Reagan proved deficits don't matter.” Or look at Iraq, where the vice-president went further than anybody else in exaggerating Saddam's “reconstituted” nuclear-weapons programme and the idea that he provided a “geographic base” for terrorism against America.
[Continues here... (http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2447095)]