I hope you don't think for a moment that Cheney and his esurient pals give a hoot about the blot on our collective escutcheon.

I mean, the guy and his buddies put a light polish on the thugmobile then fired 'er up and let 'er rip.

Maybe conservatives were overcome by the smell of gasoline and burning rubber--I never could figure out why anyone thought there was anything conservative about Cheney's crowd at all.

These have been very enlightening blogs. However, the question of how to reconcile executive power with "conservative" values does not seem so far-fetched: In order to create "free" markets, untie people from the networks of liberal social policies, and give free reign to religious values etc, you need a "strong executive." In unguarded moments, "conservatives" like Michael Ledeen will drop their guards and use the word "dictatorial." Cheney himself was quoted with the word "monarchical" at some point here. It's like Pinochet in Chile, who had to "torture people to free markets," as on Uruguayan writer put it, except in the U.S. you still need to keep it secret.

Without claiming to be able to look into Cheney's soul, it also seems obvious that his craving for unrestrained power does not simply represent a wish to fulfill his job as efficiently as possible (in that sense he is no Thomas Beckett). No, if we look at Cheney's record as a Congressman, it becomes clear that he was one of the most ideological members of Congress, an extremist even among hardcore cultural conservatives, beginning with his opposition to Martin Luther King Day. In his book "Dick," John Nichols chronicles Cheney's extremist votes against any form of gun control, reimbursing states for immunization programs for children, opposing a law to allow federal employees to take time off work to care for sick family members, etc (often Cheney was one of only a handful of Congressmen opposing measures as those above).

Looking at Cheney's career as a whole, it is fair to describe him as a politician who was adept at only one thing: avoiding taking real responsibility for the consequences of his actions. He was the born number two guy, somebody who can afford not to compromise, because he would never put his policies to real tests. That's why he HAD to manipulate, scheme, and outsmart his competitors behind the scenes.

I would even go further (indeed further than any of the contributors here): Cheney is a dilettante, at least as a politician. He dropped out of Yale, he never finished graduate school, his client Gerald Ford lost the 1976 election by following Cheney's advice, the Republican party is in shambles following his policies. Yes, he managed to enrich his cronies. He is a talented criminal I suppose. But otherwise?

Interesting article and great comments ... learned something. I believe that strong leadership requests information, makes decisive decisions and bears the responsibility. The level of knowledge required to be decisive in the office of the President of the United States was much greater than the present administration possessed and its lack of wisdom crippled the financial system of this nation; something the people trusted it was well poised to strengthen. What system can Obama enhance with popular words, high ideals, charismatic speeches, and a plentiful lack of hard earned leadership and experience while Biden and Clinton are calling the shots? This looks like a repeat performance.

I'm not a stock market player, but if I were I would be wondering now about the value of stock for Haliburton.

religious sect may degenerate into a political faction,' wrote James Madison, but the new American nation would nevertheless be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent.
Egitim | Chat