Subscribe by RSS
After much speculation, it now appears Dick Cheney will be invited to speak at the Republican convention which puts to rest rumors about the McCain campaign wanting to distance themselves from the Bush administration with regard to Cheney. Meanwhile, back at the Democratic ranch, John Edwards’ role at the Democratic convention has been eliminated due to the recent acknowledgment that he had an affair in 2006.
First, the story on Cheney from Yahoo News:
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney, a conservative favorite but a divisive national figure, will join President Bush in addressing delegates on the opening night of the Republican National Convention, the White House said Friday.
There had been doubts about a speech by Cheney, who remains unpopular with most Americans. When asked earlier this week about the vice president’s plans to attend the convention, spokeswoman Megan Mitchell left the question open by saying his schedule for September had not been set.
Cheney plans to speak the same Monday night that Bush will address delegates in St. Paul, Minn., Mitchell said Friday. The convention is scheduled for Sept. 1-4, ending with John McCain’s nomination.
In a statement, the White House said, “The vice president looks forward to participating in the Republican National Convention and continuing to work for the election of Sen. McCain and other Republican candidates in the coming months.”
In my opinion, McCain needs Chaney to gain a little conservative street cred amongst weary voters sickened by McCain’s, at times, liberal record.
Story on Edwards from Reuters:
HONOLULU - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says his former rival John Edwards, who disclosed on Friday that he had an extramarital affair in 2006, would likely not be attending the party’s convention later this month.
Edwards, a former vice presidential candidate who bowed out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination earlier this year, was said to be in the running for a high-level position in a potential Obama administration, including attorney general.
Probably not anymore.
The Illinois senator, when asked about Edwards, told reporters in Hawaii he thought the former North Carolina senator and his wife, Elizabeth, had already decided not to attend the Democratic convention in Denver in late August.
“If I’m not mistaken I think that … the Edwards family indicated that they probably wouldn’t be attending the convention,†Obama told reporters.
Healing, yes. But Obama no doubt also wants to avoid another distraction at an event that he hopes will emphasize his campaign message of change and party unity.
Edwards endorsed Obama in May while the primary contest against Hillary Clinton was still running. He told television network ABC on Friday that he didn’t think he had a political career in his future.
No surprise here since every time Edwards appeared at the convention, a story about his infidelity would soon follow the reading of his name on every news broadcast.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
Loading ...
Here’s where the Republican’s could take a cue from the Democrats. Seems the Dems are smart enough to uninvite the guys who draw negative attention.
McCain’s playing a dangerous game if this is a ploy for conservative street cred. Obama keeps on pushing his “same old politics” line of attack, and as seemingly weak an attack that is, it’s risky for McCain to give people reasons to associate himself with the Bush administration.
On a different note, I think Obama is just about sick of these non issue matters. His response to the Edwards topic was a little cold- he really doesn’t seem to want to get tied up in it. I suppose it makes sense- he does get hassled a lot over non issues.
The Republicans are trying to smear Obama in any way possible by any non-story possible, it’s ridiculous and extremely childish and shows that they’re scared of him.
I think it’s a very bad move for Cheney to speak, I think Cheney’s approval rating is less than Bush’s. I could be wrong on that but it aint great.
Pudding your right about the approval rating—this is just a stupid move on Rep. part
But what is this your saying about Rep. smearing Obama ? Are you talking about Edwards or something else ?
Todd you need to realize pudding(LOL) will try to smear republicans as much as he can, his saying of how republicans are scared is only because he is truly scared that republicans might win. All he is doin is playing on the fear of the voters.
I think all people are naturally good.
People like Dick Cheney make me question my conviction. He’s pure evil.
Unfotunately, many pundits see this as a double blow for McCain. Cheney obviously is, because he is the member of the administration with the lowest approval rates. But Edwards however would be seen as trouble for the Democrats. BUt, apparently, is new “poor husband” story rings more bells with the republican, according to some sites. This is from Slate.
Speaking of Infidelity …
Posted Friday, August 08, 2008 5:39 PM By Christopher Beam
Democrats can’t be pleased with John Edwards’ confession that he had an affair with Rielle Hunter. It tarnishes the Democratic brand just as they’re gearing up for their quadrennial coming-out party, and the only thing more conspicuous than Edwards’ presence will be his absence. And Edwards could have a Mark Foley-like trickle-down effect in down-ballot races, where negative/positive party associations matter most.
But the news is not all bad for Democrats. First, Obama is pretty much soaked in Teflon when it comes to family matters. Second, it could be a lot worse: What if Edwards had actually won the nomination? And third, it introduces marital infidelity back into the conversation.
Recall: John McCain returned to the United States from Vietnam in March 1973. His wife, Carol, had been in a near-fatal car accident while he was gone. She was overweight, on crutches, and 4 inches shorter than when McCain had left. McCain ended up divorcing Carol for Cindy Hensley, his current wife. Carol has remained mostly silent on her marriage to John, except for one notable comment to a McCain biographer: “John was turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again.â€
There were legal complications, too. The Los Angeles Times reported in June that McCain obtained a marriage license while still legally married to his first wife. McCain suggested in his autobiography that he divorced Carol months before marrying Cindy. In fact, that period was about five weeks. He also said that for the first nine months of his relationship with Cindy, he still “cohabited†with Carol. Social conservatives were never McCain’s base, but yes, it could get worse.
For the most part, the media have politely skirted around this episode of McCain’s life. (Not to mention other unflattering moments.) For one thing, it’s long past. McCain has since developed a reputation for credibility and transparency. (Post-Keating Five, that is.) And, unlike Edwards, he told the truth about his deviance. “My marriage’s collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity,†McCain wrote in his autobiography. “The blame was entirely mine.”
But with Edwards’ infidelity front and center, that could change. In recent weeks, McCain’s ads have taken a turn for the personal, comparing Obama to vapid celebrities like Paris and Britney. Now Obama is coming under increasing pressure to retaliate. The Obama camp has never publicly raised McCain’s marital issues, nor would it. But insinuation, coupled with euphemisms about “trust†and “commitment,†can go a long way. In an environment filled with personal attacks on both sides, you can bet McCain’s past will become fair game. The Edwards news even gives McCain’s detractors a convenient pretext to raise the subject. So you heard about Edwards ditching his sick wife? Wait till you get a load of McCain …
Todd,
I had a different thought for another post and unfortunately that thought jumped into this thread…LOL
O_S YES! I am scared Republicans might win. It’s a scary thought that Bush’s policies (domestic and foreign) will live on. I hope they don’t and McCain truly is a maverick and does things how things should be done, but at the moment he’s not showing any ounce of being a maverick.
BTW: It’s kinda pot calling the kettle black with you.
LA times february 4th:
“When President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.7 trillion,†said Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.). chairman of the House Budget Committee. “Today it is $9.2 trillion and rising, projected to increase to $9.7 trillion by the time President Bush leaves office – up by $4 trillion in eight years. This is the legacy our children and grandchildren will inherit from the fiscal policy of this administration.â€
Lets all thank mister Cheney for this.
No problem pudding I just didn’t make the connection.
Frank while I am a strong fiscal conservative I think to compare the debt before 911 to the debt after 911 is a bit unfair. Even if we just involved ourselves in Afghanistan it would have been an unexpected expense and therefore a additin to the debt.
By the way to by your argument fully you have to be of the opinion that the Iraq war was all about oil. We are surely to disagree about that.
Oh yeah If I were of your mindset I would hold Bush responsible, he was the one in charge when Cheney pushed the war.
I read an article a few months back that the war in Iraq has cost at least 5-10 times more than what the war in Afghanistan has. Kinda interesting though that we don’t usually get to hear how much the war on terror in general costs each month but we do about the war in Iraq.
Whoever the next President is they need to put a stop on spending money like it’s going out of fashion. It still boggles my mind that they can find $50Billion plus or whatever it was for a stimulus package that gets the go ahead, but as soon as talk about free healthcare gets mentioned with a similar price tag people start going nucking futs and calling the Democrats socialists….WTF?
nzpudding
The argument the democrats are raising is if we can spend billions on the war we can spend the billions on people here.
But that is still spending. Meaning you aren’t saving any money you are just spending it somewhere else.
Like when Ron Paul said that Obama’s Foreign Policy was slightly better than the rest he also said that he cut the war and bring back the spending but he would end up just spending it somewhere else. That is something to consider.
If all you are proposing is a redistribution of the same spending then how is this going to cut the deficit?
Economist have said that under Obama and McCain the deficit will actually raise. The problem I have is which I think is where you are getting at is that no one complains about all the different proposals to spend money here or there but as soon as you propose spending some money to help people then it is painted as being a Liberal spending spree.
Hey guys,
The reason you get the response you do is because it is two different issues. Democrats like to use the “it’s the same money” argument to confuse it but the fact is one is constitutional one the other isn’t. The constitution allows for taxes to raised by the government (which I have a problem with, given it’s structure)in order to fund the government needs. The constitution does not include creating a welfare state with that money. It dose state the President (government) will be responsible for the protection of it’s citizens from foreign enemies.
Collecting money from one set of people to give to another group is socialist, pure and simple. As a conservative all I want is the constitution followed nothing more nothing less. I do realize times have changed and in that, areas of the constitution could never have imagined modern times. Still issues that the constitution covered can be debated (like wire tapping and the responsibility for the government to protect us) but as of now the constitution doesn’t allow the take from one and give to another vote buying schemes that we operate under now.
With that said if it were a national referendum and a welfare amendment were passed I would be in favor of it then, as long as budget restraints were in place and the threshold for qualifying were high.
If you want to talk about a truly different approach lets talk about doing away with the monetary system that causes poverty and health care issues.
Todd
Why haven’t they just abolished all Welfare all together? I mean do away with food stamps, no housing assistance, nada just dump it all? All of that is socialism. Social Security is too. People should just save their own money then. And those program itself isn’t the sole cause for poverty. Taking them away will not eliminate poverty either. But there have been Republican President and a Republican controlled congress for many years at a time but yet they don’t get rid of those systems.
Also i think if we are going to defend the use of violating the constitution for one we should apply that for all. bottom line. You violate it you are wrong. I don’t care what reason you try to justify it. Because once you start breaking the law in one area you are ONLY giving someone the motive to break it in other areas. Can’t be hypocrites with the constitution.