Posted on 11/27/2003 7:37:26 AM PST by ChiefKujo
President Bush secretly landed an hour ago and is currently eating Thanksgiving dinner at my undisclosed location. Anticipate a press release after he takes off.
ChiefKujo
Give you a hint; the very first legislation introduced by Ms. Dole was a government special interest spending bill.
As Secretary of the DOT she:
Forced the states to push through mandatory seat belt laws
Forced the automobile industry to institute air bags and third brake lights
Forced the states to raise the drinking age
Forced the states against the advice of the Reagan administration to maintain a 55 speed limit
This woman has nothing better to do than to make sure we're all tied into our cars the way she sees fit. She's a control freak. Other than that, she's ambivalent on abortion, 2nd Amendment rights, etc. Should fit right in to the 'new' Republican party
If there's one issue Elizabeth Dole is expert at ducking, it's abortion. So when CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked her what her position was, during a January interview to hype her presidential hopes a day after her resignation as Red Cross chief, she had an evasive sound bite ready. "It's an important issue. There are many other important issues. But I do feel that's for another day, Wolf," she said.
The seat belt laws have been nothing more than tax gathering opportunities. As for the air bags and third brake light issue, do you really believe it is the right of the national government to tell private industry how to run its business? Especially when such 'essentials' push up the price of vehicles. That's our Giddy, passing the savings right onto you....
1. I didn't know about Cheney's prognosis, but the thing about those life-expectancy tables is that they roll forward. The green-eyeshade guys will give a 77-year-old smoker about two years, maybe three. If they come back and check him in three years and he's still ambulatory and still smoking, they'll give him 18 months to two and a half years, something like that. They've always got a line on everything, like stockbrokers, but they roll with the punches and give you a second story every time -- like stockbrokers.
But I take your point. Looking to Beastproof the succession in 2008, Bush might put someone else on the ticket in 2004. But there are still a couple of problems with that.
a. Do you just dismiss Cheney? He has his own power base and his own constituency among what conservative political scientist James Q. Wilson once called the "audience", in order to distinguish the people that a politician really performs for, from the mooks who merely elect him. Cheney has a following in the upper reaches of the Wall Street Wing, and those guys, who made Bush, would have a lot to say about replacing Cheney. So would Cheney -- and his wife Lynne, who's a major player in her own right. The Cheneys are one of the heaviest-hitting couples in the country, along with the Doles, the Clintons, the Greenspans, the Schwarzeneggers, and (formerly) the Gramms and the Guilianis (when he was married to Donna Hanover) -- and I'm sure you could think of others.
b. I've seen evidences that Cheney has more real power than any VP in history, and that he may be a de facto prime minister, an unacknowledged head of government who shares Bush's responsibilities -- and authority. E.g., when the Niger-and-uranium story was under consideration for inclusion in the 2003 State of the Union address, it was Cheney's office that was vetting the story, and his office that called in the CIA. Why Cheney's people? Were they staffing the President? It was Bush's speech. Or did Bush just give it, like the Queen opening Parliament? Does enough power and functionality flow through Cheney's office, that it would be impracticable to replace him? b. Where do you go for Cheney's replacement? You have to keep Wall Street and the senior gray eminences happy. But at the same time, you have to have someone electable, someone (preferably) with a track record in campaigning. You wouldn't want another Dan Quayle. (Notwithstanding his good qualities, he was easy meat for the Left journopolemicists -- too easy.)
I think what Bush would do instead would be to campaign for reelection with Cheney again, and then let Cheney retire and Colin Powell be sworn in as VP. Putting Colin Powell in the Naval Observatory digs would be a direct attack on the shuck-and-jive crowd's stranglehold on the black vote.
And I wonder if they will spring it on us during the convention without any hints before hand.
I hope not. That would inculcate the idea that GOP conventions are just coronations and PR events -- and the networks would continue to drop coverage. That would be bad for a number of reasons: scandalization of the electorate, demoralization of the Party base (who might get to thinking that it might have been nice if they had at least been consulted), and so on.
Did the 747 also land?
He doesn't state whether the door was also closed when the flight was about to leave Andrews for Baghdad, but if it was closed, perhaps the Prez boarded in view of the press, and then got back off and boarded a Gulfstream? Otherwise we'd have to believe the entire pool of reporters agreed to not report the fact that they switched planes somewhere along the journey.
Also in the account, the pool reporter describes a question of the Communications Director regarding what designator the plane was flying under (Air Force 1 or something else). The Comm. Dir. responded to the effect that this plane was not flying as AF1. Perhaps the conspiracy theorist in me is reading to much into his use of this...or am I missing something else?
Whatever. If that fight takes the power out of the hands of the states and puts it in the hands of the national government, then she's the person you want at the front of the battle. However, if you love freedom and respect the rights of the states to maintain their internal affairs as they see fit then she's probably not the best person to pick as a leader
personaly hate to be told when I can or can not take a calculated risk. But there are more important battles to fight
Not many there aren't. Because if you allow Washington DC to tell you what is and what isn't a risk, it's not so far down the road for them to tell you what you can and cannot say or do, for fear of 'risk'
Re: abortion. I think I have a pretty good idea which way she leans
I do as well, which is another mark against her ever being a conservative
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.