Jon Meacham's Why Dick Cheney Should Run in 2012...ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Forgive my ignorance, but even to someone like me who at best casually keeps up with politics and prospective campaigners, Jon Meacham's proposition is 100% insane ridiculous.

His story is here,

http://www.newsweek.com/id/224670

which I was directed to thankfully from the Political Wire. Check out some of the amazing comments.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/11/28/why_cheney_should_run.html#disqus_thread


According to posters like mcearlgrey, it seems that the suggestion of Cheney running in 2012 is an old idea that has been beaten to death since the inauguration.

Now I've never heard this proposal until now, (but then again I'm 21 and am more interested in south park, underwear models and ESPN) which still to me sounds so far out there because I feel no one in their right mind would allow Cheney to become President, especially after his track record during the Bush years, but also because I do know that Cheney himself has stated before since 2000 that he will not serve as President. Plus, the man is in extremely bad health. I can't think of many individuals who would have a harder strain on the campaign trial than John McCain but Dick Cheney would certainly be one of them. Will Dick Cheney even be alive by 2012?

But what surprises me even more is that a journalist with actual decent, realized, writing credentials could churn out a story so unfocused, unimportant, and absurd. It was honestly like reading something I would expect to find posted in a Republican undergraduate support forum. This came from NEWSWEEK. People pay for subscriptions to read this! Are you serious?

"Float the hypothetical in political conversation, and people roll their eyes dismissively," begins Jon with his argument. Why yes, they would, because talking Dick Cheney for President in 2012 is literally retarded. I'll continue.

"But I think we should be taking the possibility of a Dick Cheney bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 more seriously, for a run would be good for the Republicans and good for the country. (The sound you just heard in the background was liberal readers spitting out their lattes.)"

What? A run would be good for Republicans and good for the country you say? The GOP HAS to run for office. They WILL run for office, with or without Cheney. Now if he's referring to a Cheney run, that's just as bad. But what's worse is that there are hardly any worthy candidates on the Right that should run without scrutiny. Certainly Cheney is a no go, but is there honestly anyone to suggest that's any better? I feel embarrassed to answer that. Sure Huckabee and Romney are worthy contenders, but they'll lack the driving force to compete with incumbent Obama. The Republicans are in dire need of an overhaul.

But back to Meacham's article, he proclaims Cheney as a man of conviction, and has a record which can be judged.

What?

If we were to go by those standards Cheney would most certainly be persecuted. He could easily be tried for war crimes, torture, treason, and even in his recreational activities he gets off shooting people. Cheney also enjoys criticizing our current President's methods, while his administration made an amendment to the Constitution making it illegal to question theirs.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/11/17/353742.aspx#ksu

Sure, there's no reason for our President to bow to anyone, but does it really show a sign of weakness? If anything I would imagine it conducts respect.

"In an era of ideological purity within the party, Cheney is among the purest; no one can question his conservative credentials on national security, and his record in the House and as vice president places him beyond reproach from the base."

......

I'll let you read the rest of Meacham's article if you're so inclined, it's basically more of the same quotes I've included. I still can't believe his editors let him publish something so immature and unworthy.