President Cheney

We’ve all heard the jokes, some of them funny, about [tag]Dick Cheney[/tag] being the real president, but over the weekend, Robert [tag]Kuttner[/tag] made a compelling case that the jokes actually understate the case — Cheney really is the one “running the country.” (via Stickings)

Recent vice presidents Walter Mondale and Al Gore were given more authority than most, but there was no doubt that the president was in charge.

Cheney is in a class by himself. The administration’s grand strategy and its implementation are the work of Cheney — sometimes [tag]Cheney[/tag] and Defense Secretary Donald [tag]Rumsfeld[/tag], sometimes Cheney and political director Karl [tag]Rove[/tag].

Cheney has planted aides in major Cabinet departments, often over the objection of a Cabinet secretary, to make sure his policies are carried out. He sits in on the Senate Republican caucus, to stamp out any rebellions. Cheney loyalists from the Office of the [tag]Vice President[/tag] dominate interagency planning meetings.

The Iraq war is the work of Cheney and Rumsfeld. The capture of the career civil service is pure Cheney. The disciplining of Congress is the work of Cheney and Rove. The turning over of energy policy to the oil companies is Cheney. The extreme secrecy is Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Kuttner argues, persuasively, that the problem with a Cheney presidency is multifold. It’s not just that Cheney is engineering a far-right agenda, and it’s not just the breakdown in the constitutional structure. The most notable problem is the complete lack of accountability — if Cheney were recognized as the man in charge, his conduct would be subjected to more serious scrutiny, and in turn, may be tempered.

It matters, Kuttner said, “because if the man actually running the government is out of the spotlight, the administration and its policies are far less accountable.”

And at this point, accountability is tough because Cheney prefers total secrecy. When The American Prospect’s Robert Dreyfuss requested the names of people who serve on the vice president’s staff, he was told this was classified information. Seriously — public aides, on the public’s payroll, working for a public official, have to be kept secret. Why? Because Cheney says so.

Kuttner argues that the public has a strong distaste for the VP, which should translate into greater political problems for someone who practically runs the executive branch of government.

If Cheney were the actual president, not just the de facto one, he simply could not govern with the same set of policies and approval ratings of 20 percent. The media focuses relentless attention on the president, on the premise that he is actually the chief executive. But for all intents and purposes, Cheney is chief, and Bush is more in the ceremonial role of the queen of England.

Yet the press buys the pretense of Bush being “the decider,” and relentlessly covers Bush — meeting with world leaders, cutting brush, holding press conferences, while Cheney works in secret, largely undisturbed.

Reading this immediately reminded me of Dreyfuss’ stunning American Prospect story from April on Cheney’s hyper-secretive, strikingly powerful White House operation, which executes power in secret and independently — “Cheney’s spies” help kill major initiatives by the State Department and the NSC whenever they think they should. For that matter, Cheney has assembled a “shadow NSC,” filled with loyalists, ideologues, and think-tank partisans, which is controlled exclusively by the VP.

Not bad for a guy who’s gotten everything wrong since 2001.

This has been my counter to people who argue that Bush shouldn’t be impeached while Cheney is still VP. That sort of logic was valid for Nixon / Agnew, but in this case having Cheney as President would get all the creepy crawlies out from under the rocks and into the open. We have few mechanisms and fewer traditions for shining the spotlight onto the VP because no one ever anticipated that the VP’s office would be of any real signficance, so Cheney gets to do everything ‘under the table’ and in the dark.

  • Reminds me of two things 1) a horrible horrible nightmare and 2) the early episodes fo M*A*S*H* (prior to Col. Potter). Bush is like Col. Blake a regular guy place in a leadership position who was woefully ill-equipped to do his job. Of course the 4077 was a top notch unit because of Radar O’Reilly the loveable company clerk who really ran the show. Cheney would be Radar if it were not for the fact he is a world-class ass and not only knows how to run the show he runs it for his own personal gain as opposed to running it out od a sense of duty.

    Maybe Bush is more like Major Burns. Hmmmm. Tough call. Maybe a good bar debate.

  • I have no idea whether Cheney really is the most powerful man in the world but the fact that anyone can seriously ask that question and not be laughed out of the room is really scary.

    I just hope that another situation like this never happens. I hope that the next President, and every other President after 2008, actually runs his administration. (I realize that if Clinton wins in 2008 then I hope that (s)he runs her administration. However, until English allows for a gender neutral single pronoun then the proper would to use is ‘his’.)

    Funny, but I can’t imagine Clinton’s VP running things. I suppose it would be easier to imagine the ‘first man’ running things than the VP

  • “If Cheney were the actual president, not just the de facto one, he simply could not govern with the same set of policies and approval ratings of 20 percent.”

    Of course he could. And he would, too.

  • Nearly all elected Democrats will tell you there’s no way they can impeach the Regal Moron, even if we do take back the House this November. Imagine their assessment regarding the creep who’s really running things, Dick “The Snarl” Cheney. Talk about no accountability!

    Also, many here and elsewhere suggest that the Bush Crime Family is in the Iraq Quagmire for personal gain (Bush family, Carlyle Group). But clearly the wholesale theft on a grand scale has been in unsupervised, unregulated, and non-competitive rebuilding the things our military has been ordered to destroy, i.e., Halliburton, i.e., Cheney Corp.

  • “When George W. Bush narrowly defeated John Kerry in 2004, many commentators observed that Bush was the fellow with whom you would rather have a beer. It’s an accurate and unflattering comment on the American electorate — but then who wants to have a beer with Cheney? The public may not know the details of his operation, but voters intuitively recoil from him”

    Of course they do, no one wants to be shot in the face.

  • The New Yorker recently had an article advancing the theory that the American Government allowed the Israeli-Lebanese war to pan out in order to be a military case study for American-Iranian military action. A “U. S. government consultant with close ties to Israel” told the author that Israel began its quest for American support by starting with Cheney. “After that, ‘persuading Bush was never a problem,'” (August 21st issue, emphasis added).

    Everyone knows the score–for serious matters of state, Dick Cheney is the center of power. Dubya is nothing more than an aging prepschool fratboy dressed up in cowboy boots and Texas swagger.

  • Over the weekend, I asked myself why the Bush family chose George rather than Jeb to be the heir apparent to their hick monarchy. I decided that Jeb has too many skeletons in his family’s closet (druggy daughter) and his Hispanic wife would hinder the “illegal scary brown people” movement. But I think that another and more important factor is probably that George is more malleable and clueless than Jeb; hence, George would be more prone to let Cheney handle the hard work of presidenting, while George basks in the glory of being the figurehead.

    Then again, I could be wrong.

  • Somebody needs to revisit the vice-presidential search process from 2000 headed by Dick Cheney that concluded that Dick Cheney was the best VP candidate for Bush. Was it a charade? How did Bush, along with Rove and Hughes, come to be convinced this was the guy. Or was it the other way around? Cheney knew W from Bush 41. He probably took the measure of the man then.

    I remember news reports quoting Bush as saying that after talking about various candidates with Cheney, he came to realize the right man was sitting across from him. That story is as credible as Bush’s soul identification power with foreign heads of government. It makes sense that Cheney saw the play in front of him and knew he could control the mark.

    But then, what is Cheney’s motivation? He does not spend time with the “people,” at least those that do not serve him refreshments at the shooting ranches or luxury accomodations he utilizes. I definitely do not want to have a beer with the man. I’d like to believe it is something about Wyoming conservatism that created him, but then he is such a creature of the Beltway (Nixon to present). Patriotism? But then he had “other priorities” than Vietnam. Money? Doesn’t feel right. He enjoys the perks, but the Bush family seems more aware of the dollar bills to be sucked up. Maybe it’s just power as derived from party hierarchy. He is a Republican Party functionary that has reached his zenith. Awkward, lacking in charisma, but every ticket punched up the layer cake. He reminds me of Gray Davis, ex-governor of California, cold-blooded, tone deaf, creature of politics and party.

    We, the people, create this type of American human being and allow it to control levers of power. Perhaps we can minimize it by seeing them coming and heading them off before the damage is done. Hence, my original question about the 2000 VP search. Clearly something was fixed then, and not enough people could see it.

  • I still want to know what makes these guys tick.

    What motivates them? We know it’s not altruism or compassion. It’s not kindness or generosity, at least not noticably.

    Power and greed sound glib to me. Someone who is stinking rich and already has vast power by any standand surely can’t still be craving more.

    So what is it? What makes them say to themselves before they go to bed at night “Oh, if only ..” or “I wish we could .. “ or “Tomorrow I must .. “. I mean, don’t normal people think these things? But normal people have normal plans, wishes and intentions. What do these guys like Cheney have as their plans, wishes and intentions?

    I don’t know, because it’s not my field of expertise — but I really would like to know. I also think it would help us greatly to have some expert, insightful opinion on the matter.

    I mean, we know what they do, and we know the effect of what they do; but do we know why they do it?

  • Cheney has “gotten it wrong” for a lot longer than merely back to 2001.

    A few nights ago I was going through old articles at the online archive of a magazine for which I am a Contributing Editor. There I ran across an article I hadn’t read since it was published in 1999, written by a couple of very knowledgeable guys in Naval Aviation (one a top Admiral) about how the Navy’s offensive capability was going to be wrecked by the then-coming retirement of the F-14 Tomcat (the airplane you saw in Top Gun for all you non-airplane nuts) without a fully-capable replacement, noting that the jet that would be the only thing on carriers, the F-18, has never (even in it’s new “super” form as the F-18E) lived up to the original specifications issued in 1973. The article pointed out also the premature retirement of the A-6 Intruder, leaving the Navy with no heavy attack capacity.

    Interestingly enough, the decision to abandon the A-6 in 1990, even after the multi-billion dollar upgrade with carbon-fibre wings to give the airplane life till around 2020, and the 1991 decision to stop upgrading the F-14, with a further decision to destroy the tools and jigs for the airplane, and to stop ordering spare parts, were both made by one guy. As a result, the A-6 was gone by 1993, and around 2004, the Navy had to start decommissioning F-14 squadrons, with the last gone four months ago.

    In 1994, Grumman – the premiere provider of airplanes to the US Navy since 1935 (and maker of both the F-14 and A-6) – was swallowed up by a corporate takeover from Northrop, a company which has never been a “major player” in American military aviation (though they have made some interesting airplanes),and Grumman is no more.

    Who was the one guy who made both decisions?? “The Best Secretary of Defense Ever,” Dick Cheney.

    And guess who, according to his latest financial disclosure, has had a major holding of what is now Northrop-Grumman stock, since back when it was Northrop stock?????

    If there is an Antichrist, Dick Cheney is He.

  • This is just like Poppy and President Bobo, Hastert and Delay, too.

    Ignore the really mean looking man behind the curtain. Watch the one with the clueless grin.

    I wonder what percentage of Americans don’t even know who the VP is. I’ll bet it’s pretty large.

  • It’s been obvious from the beginning. Which is why I submitted an ad to MoveOn during that competition which was about how Bush had been auditioned for president like a member of a boy band.

    I don’t want to say this person doesn’t have a point, because he does, but if the policies that Cheney initiates are being claimed by Bush, a rational public will impeach Bush first, then Cheney. Accountability can still be had.

    The difference in approval ratings, I have to think, is based on personality or p.r., and not on anything to do with the actual policies.

    Do we only hold people accountable if we don’t like their personalities?

    That’s the crux of the real problem here and fixing that is one of the things we should be focused on.

  • I see Todd is asking the same question, and getting a good hint at an answer. Probably not the only one, but credible. Yes: “.. a Republican Party functionary that has reached his zenith. Awkward, lacking in charisma, but every ticket punched up the layer cake. ..”

    So he’s there despite himself, the inevitable culmination of a life in political hackdom? Sort of figures. Doesn’t make such a good story though.

    Still, I can imagine job satisfaction, pride in a task well done, praise and support of colleagues, crediting oneself with serving the public good (..well, maybe not) — and, heebers jeebers, before you know it, top of the pile, and no way out but down. You know, I really believe it could just be that, with a sly streak of chortling malevolent sadistic glee laced in.

    Thanks, Todd.

  • “I still want to know what makes these guys tick.” – Goldilocks

    He misses the glories of the Nixon Imperial Presidency. That’s what he is recreating. And he started a war so that he can claim to be unaccountable to the American people.

    “This has been my counter to people who argue that Bush shouldn’t be impeached while Cheney is still VP.” – N.Wells

    Cheney has committed actual high crimes and misdemenors. He is totally impeachable. Get him. Get him starting January 2007. Put his butt in a sling and when we are done with him, send him to the Hague to stand for war crimes.

    Cheney First!

  • There is legal provision for removing a Vice President; however, the danger is that Cheney—in league with his “shadow government”—would never be impeached. Granted, gaining control of the House may well lead to articles being drawn up and ratified by a simple majority; possibly by the spring of ’07, maybe a bit sooner. However, it seems pretty solid—at least to me—that there will never be 67 Senators who will vote to impeach Cheney, because it seems safe to say that at least 33 will be somehow connected with Cheney’s “sanctum sanctorum” methodology.

    From the perspective of my POV, it might even be possible that Cheney could, if backed into a corner hard enough, produce some form of “event” that would trigger his final rise to power.

    There is an historical precedent for this event, by the way. When considering that Herr Bush has never really solidified his authority, and that there has been an organized “anti-Bush” effort in the US since even before his first inaugural, one might compare him to the French monarch Louis XIII and, in turn, one could also envision Cheney as bing synonymous to Armand Jean du Plessis. He’s more popularly known as Cardinal Richelieu.

    Among other things, Richelieu’s views were that the nobility’s place was “with arms under the control of the king,” and the common people’s primary function was unquestionable obedience to the throne. Richelieu believed in the king’s divine right to complete rule.

    Richelieu was instrumental in the establishment of “indentants,” who were selected from the “noblesse de robe” or the upper-bourgeoisie (the administrative noblity). These indentants bear a haunting similarity to the current group of “political appointees” who are botching up various governmental departments and impeding the general governmental bureaucracy from doing its job. As with Richelieu’s intendants, many of today’s “appointees” are unquestionably loyal to, it would appear, just one person—Cheney.

    In his goal to centralize all power in the adminstrative portion of France’s government, Richelieu also encouraged strict adherence to a variety of laws beneficial to the throne, advocated any-and-all actions necessary to impede dissent and objection to the Crown’s rule, and established the severe punishment of even minor offenses to further enforce the total rule of the Throne over the people. As another example of the parallel, Richelieu practiced the mantra that “the Church is merely a tool to be used to further the policies of the State—which is exactly what the GOP has done with the Religious reich these past 5 years.

    The “event” that led to Richelieu’s total power was the brutal throwing-down of the Protestant Huguenots—the philosophical/ideological nemesis of the Catholic Church. The Catholic/Huguenot disparity is eerily similar to the current sociopolitical divide between Republicans and Democrats….

  • I think impeach Cheney first too. His war profiteering should be enough to get him if there ever is a fair hearing. The anti-christ? Maybe, but he lacks the charisma. I think he is just a nakedly greedy asshole, and a traitor as well.

  • I think game theory offers an interesting analysis of this situation. One would expect that the behavior of first term presidents is constrained by the need to get re-elected. The interesting question is what happens in the second term. Traditionally, the vie president is the de facto presidential nominee for his party, but here we have a situation where that is not the case. The upshot is that as long as the president needs to worry about 1) his legacy and 2) his vice president’s prospects his behavior is constrained by the need to appeal to the voters. Now, Bush doesn’t have to do that. So regardless of who is pulling the strings, the compact that has constrained the behavior of second-term presidents for more than 200 years has fallen apart.

  • “The New York Times sounded a very common theme when they wrote that Cheney has “few obvious political advantages” for the campaign. What that means is that Cheney won’t win Bush a single vote among the people. But, at the same time, this choice remains a highly political choice, because it helps consolidate Bush’s support within the ruling class which means much more in the real-life presidential selection process than votes.

    The choice of Cheney was also designed to calm lingering ruling class fears that George W. might still be too untested and immature to be trusted with the life-and-death decisions of its empire. Cheney’s role is similar to the role that the George Bush Sr. played, in 1980, for an earlier presidential candidate — the internationally untested Governor Ronald Reagan.”
    from: George the Shrub:
    A Ruling Class Act
    Revolutionary Worker #1065, August 6, 2000
    http://www.rwor.org/a/v22/1060-69/1065/gwbush.htm

    Now, you conservative bloggers who visit this site will just love this citation from a real lefty website. But I believe there is some real truth about Cheney and Bush represented in these words. Many people have an illusion about there being real democracy in America. The election of Cheney and Bush reveal where the real political power of America resides — among the wealthy few who determine who will run for president. They are truly the ruling class that this writing refers to.

  • “From the perspective of my POV, it might even be possible that Cheney could, if backed into a corner hard enough, produce some form of “event” that would trigger his final rise to power.” – Steve

    That would be the discovery that Boy George II was mentally incompetent from abuse of Alcohol and other recreational drugs and at age sixty, the symptoms are now becoming unquestionable?

    Don’t we already know that?

  • I’m not we should do headines likes this even if they are true. My coworkers and I used to not say a former coworkers name because every time we did she would show up.

    Sort of like saying Beetlejuice 3 times…….

  • Yep… its pretty clear that Cheney calls the shots in Dubya’s administration. It was very telling when Cheney shot his friend in the face with bird shot after downing a couple of beers. Dubya had to convince a recalcitrant Cheney to submit to the White House press corps–how strange is that? Dubya is but a mere marionette to Cheney, the puppet master.

  • Why does Cheney do what he does? Power. Why do people doubt that? Do you know what it is like to have a hand in millions of peoples lives? Do you know what it feels like to shoot a man in the face while drunk and then brush off authorities and press and not be severely questioned about it? How nice is it that you ignore your parties positions against homsexuals, then have your opponent attack for mentioning that you have a homosexual daughter? Cheney probably enjoys doing some things just because he can and it pisses people off.

  • The problem with Cheney becoming the actual president – as could only happen if Bush were removed in some way – is that I have no doubt in my mind that he would immediately declare martial law, and the expression ‘world of hurt’ would acquire a whole new ballpark’s worth of meaning.

  • I have often expressed my belief that it was Cheney that chose Bush as his genial front man. This doesn’t follow logically from the fact that Cheney runs the show. After all, it is possible that Cheney hijacked the show. However, given W.’s light resume, it would be very unlikely that he would have garnered the corporate backing he did in the 2000 campaign, unless these backers thought there would be someone around who was competent to actually run things. Remember the support came before Cheney selected himself as the number two. This why I suspect that Cheney was the corporate candidate all along and W. was picked to be the barker at the carnival.

    My question is this, how would one go about proving this thesis? Where would one likely find a paper trail?

  • “My question is this, how would one go about proving this thesis? Where would one likely find a paper trail?” – rege

    Now, here’s a case justifying torture 😉

  • While Steve (#17) is reminded of Richelieu/Louis XIII, I’m reminded of Beria/Stalin. Really eerie, down to the details like responsibility for “security” (and the worst excesses of NKVD), particular raise to power in the time of war and general low visibility. People who actually met Stalin, swore up and down he was a “regular guy”, very nice (someone to have a beer with) and said it was lizard-cold Beria who gave them the willies. But Stalin is the name everyone in the West knows and despises, while few have ever heard of Beria. Same as with Bush/Cheney; everyone dumps on Bush and Bush will be the one remembered, but Cheney stays below the radar most of the time.

    Beria, BTW, didn’t get his comeuppance until way after Stalin’s death. Not very encouraging, if one were to follow this analogy.

  • Finding evidence: There was an article back before W. got elected that talked about how he flew in to be interviewed by a powerful group of backers. I had a hell of a time finding it again and have once again lost track of it. Cheney wasn’t named in the article, though I think Rove or Rumsfeld was, but I’d still guess that these backers knew the score. If you can find that article, you’d have a start.

  • “I mean, we know what they do, and we know the effect of what they do; but do we know why they do it?”

    Why do they do it, Goldilocks?

    Raw. F*****G. Power.

    It’s frightening to think how scary Dead Eye Dick is.

  • #10/Goldilocks and others…..

    If you want to know what makes Cheney and the others tick, read John Dean’s “Conservatives Without Conscience”, which puts forth a very compelling argument about the right-wing authoritarian mindset. It really seems to explain a lot of things in an amazingly consistent manner that we progressives find totally baffling about the dark side. To get a good feel for what this is all about, narrated in a much better way than I can do so, go to yesterday’s Firedoglake.com book club discussion of the Dean book. (BTW, Dean will participate in part 2 of the book discussion next Sunday.) Link here.

  • I think there was little doubt that Cheney’s overall repulsiveness as a human being and utter self-interested clusterfuckery as a leader were known to the public when (6 or so months ago) the Washington Post released the results of a survey, which indicated more people in Russia had a favourable opinion of Stalin than Americans had of Cheney.

  • I think also George Schultz played a role in annointing Dubya and bringing him to the national stage / connecting him with Condi.

  • As a retired Navy man, I’ve been saying much the same as Tom (Comment # 11) for many years. The man was a walking, talking clusterfuck then and hasn’t change his M.O. yet. Dubya is stupid and incompetent but by himself, harmless. Cheney on the other hand is a dangerous criminal puppetier, pulling many of the strings behind the scenes. This administration cannot be gone soon enough for the good of our once great nation.

  • Comments are closed.