• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Giuliani to replace Cheney on ticket?

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
I normally don't hold much confidence in the World Nut Daily but this could be something if *they* are reporting this.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38858

WASHINGTON ? There are whispers among high-level political advisers to President Bush suggesting the possibility of replacing Dick Cheney with former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani as the vice presidential running mate prior to the Republican National Convention in New York beginning Aug. 30.

Cheney, who has no aspirations to run for president in 2008 and has had well-publicized heart problems, has been involved in the discussions and is open to the idea if it strengthens the ticket and helps position a viable Republican candidate to succeed Bush, sources tell WND.

Originally, Cheney was asked by Bush to lead the effort to find the best running mate in 2000. After months of interviews and offering advice, Bush surprised many by picking Cheney.

Giuliani, as well as New York Gov. George Pataki, has been expected to play a starring role at the convention. Both are also considered possible presidential candidates in 2008. Securing the vice presidential nomination, however, would instantly make Giuliani the front-runner among all potential Republican candidates.

"There is some thinking at the very highest political levels that this move could add some late sizzle to the campaign, steal any thunder generated by the Democrats in Boston and even potentially put the state of New York in play for the president," said one source close to both Giuliani and the White House.

No one is talking on the record, and the plan is not yet set in stone.

So far, the only people who have speculated publicly about such a move are Democrats.

"They'll probably play Rudy heavier than any other part of the convention," former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo told the Associated Press last week. "So Rudy will go up and people will start talking about him replacing Cheney or him running for president. It'll be very, very good for Rudy."

Giuliani became a national star in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that brought down the World Trade Center towers, killing almost 3,000 people. He became known as "America's mayor."

"They'll make the most of 9-11, the most of Rudy," Cuomo said. "He is now still iconic, you saw that in 9-11 and that's it," the Democrat added. "He's received a stature which is, for the time being, absolutely unshakable."

Giuliani has said he may return to elective politics as early as 2006 by running either for governor, should Pataki call it quits after three terms, or for U.S. Senate against Democratic incumbent Hillary Rodham Clinton. In the face of prostate cancer, Giuliani withdrew from the 2000 Senate race won by Clinton.

By beating Clinton in 2006, Giuliani would not only position himself as a leading candidate for president in 2008, he would have eliminated the Democrats? No. 1 contender. But it's a risky proposition for Giuliani. If he can't topple the popular Democratic incumbent, his chances of becoming president, or even winning the nomination in 2008, would be slim indeed.

There is little love lost between Pataki and Giuliani. Giuliani angered many Republicans in 1994 when he crossed party lines to endorse Cuomo's bid for a fourth term. Pataki beat Cuomo in that election.

The only potential political danger in replacing Cheney with Giuliani, said a source close to Bush, is that it would create problems with the president's right flank. Giuliani is widely perceived as less conservative than Cheney, and by elevating him to front-runner in 2008, Bush could anger many conservatives.

Giuliani is also being considered as a replacement for George Tenet as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. However, Bush appears to be in no rush to fill that slot. It's possible, one source said, it could be held open for Cheney.

The GOP convention is being held Aug. 30-Sept. 2. Democrats are holding their convention in Boston at the end of July.


Throw that in with the firing of:

Rice/Hadley
Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Feith
Rove/Libby
Ashcroft

and replacing them with some true conservatives who will actually foster debate and thought and we may have the grounds for a tenable administration.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
I don't see this happening. Giuliani is not known for suffering fools gladly, and I imagine he would chafe in the role of Vice President in the present administration. Bush is loyal (in the case of Scty Rumsfeld, loyal to a fault IMO), and so he won't dump Cheney unless Cheney asks to be relieved. I could see Pataki as a running mate, should Cheney leave, but I find it hard to imagine Giuliani being interested.

On the other hand, while I have deep misgivings about the Bush administration, I think Giuliani could be a voice of reason, and might well help stabilize the White House somewhat if Bush were re-elected.

I would certainly like to see Giuliani run for president in 2008. He is one of several Republicans I really admire and respect.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
I'd have to agree with the Don.

Also, what if Bush loses? Although I don't think Bush will lose, why should Rudy take a chance with a very shaky Prez?

He'd be a fool to accept the VP slot in my opinion.

-Robert
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
There may be something to this. The last time I saw Giuliani on Meet the Press, which was several months back I think, he was acting like a Bush fanboy. It really lowered my opinion of the man.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Don_Vito
I don't see this happening. Giuliani is not known for suffering fools gladly, and I imagine he would chafe in the role of Vice President in the present administration. Bush is loyal (in the case of Scty Rumsfeld, loyal to a fault IMO), and so he won't dump Cheney unless Cheney asks to be relieved. I could see Pataki as a running mate, should Cheney leave, but I find it hard to imagine Giuliani being interested.

On the other hand, while I have deep misgivings about the Bush administration, I think Giuliani could be a voice of reason, and might well help stabilize the White House somewhat if Bush were re-elected.

I would certainly like to see Giuliani run for president in 2008. He is one of several Republicans I really admire and respect.

Still on active duty, Don? I hope not.


As far as Rudy is concerned this woould be a great move for Bush and a no lose proposition for Rudy. If Bush wins, and his chances go up with Rudy on the ticket, then he is in a great position for the 2008 elections. If Bush loses he's not really hurt by it and he crushes Kerry in '08. Nothing but upside for Bush, no real downside for Rudy.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: Don_Vito
I don't see this happening. Giuliani is not known for suffering fools gladly, and I imagine he would chafe in the role of Vice President in the present administration. Bush is loyal (in the case of Scty Rumsfeld, loyal to a fault IMO), and so he won't dump Cheney unless Cheney asks to be relieved. I could see Pataki as a running mate, should Cheney leave, but I find it hard to imagine Giuliani being interested.

On the other hand, while I have deep misgivings about the Bush administration, I think Giuliani could be a voice of reason, and might well help stabilize the White House somewhat if Bush were re-elected.

I would certainly like to see Giuliani run for president in 2008. He is one of several Republicans I really admire and respect.
Unfortunately some of us believed Colin Powell was going to be a voice of reason in this administration.
 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
Originally posted by: Don_Vito
I don't see this happening...
I would certainly like to see Giuliani run for president in 2008. He is one of several Republicans I really admire and respect.
best way to do that would be to run as vp this year.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Don_Vito
I don't see this happening. Giuliani is not known for suffering fools gladly, and I imagine he would chafe in the role of Vice President in the present administration. Bush is loyal (in the case of Scty Rumsfeld, loyal to a fault IMO), and so he won't dump Cheney unless Cheney asks to be relieved. I could see Pataki as a running mate, should Cheney leave, but I find it hard to imagine Giuliani being interested.

On the other hand, while I have deep misgivings about the Bush administration, I think Giuliani could be a voice of reason, and might well help stabilize the White House somewhat if Bush were re-elected.

I would certainly like to see Giuliani run for president in 2008. He is one of several Republicans I really admire and respect.
Unfortunately some of us believed Colin Powell was going to be a voice of reason in this administration.

Colin Powell *was* the voice of reason in this administration. He just got squelched by the noise from the neocons.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

best way to do that would be to run as vp this year.

Perhaps. I don't think most folks would say that Colin Powell's star has risen by virtue of his service as Secretary of State.

Nevertheless, I don't see President Bush replacing VP Cheney unless he specifically asks to be released.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Bush replacing Cheney is like Charlie McCarthy replacing Edgar Bergen...
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Originally posted by: conjur
I normally don't hold much confidence in the World Nut Daily but this could be something if *they* are reporting this.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38858

WASHINGTON ? There are whispers among high-level political advisers to President Bush suggesting the possibility of replacing Dick Cheney with former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani as the vice presidential running mate prior to the Republican National Convention in New York beginning Aug. 30.

Cheney, who has no aspirations to run for president in 2008 and has had well-publicized heart problems, has been involved in the discussions and is open to the idea if it strengthens the ticket and helps position a viable Republican candidate to succeed Bush, sources tell WND.

Originally, Cheney was asked by Bush to lead the effort to find the best running mate in 2000. After months of interviews and offering advice, Bush surprised many by picking Cheney.

Giuliani, as well as New York Gov. George Pataki, has been expected to play a starring role at the convention. Both are also considered possible presidential candidates in 2008. Securing the vice presidential nomination, however, would instantly make Giuliani the front-runner among all potential Republican candidates.

"There is some thinking at the very highest political levels that this move could add some late sizzle to the campaign, steal any thunder generated by the Democrats in Boston and even potentially put the state of New York in play for the president," said one source close to both Giuliani and the White House.

No one is talking on the record, and the plan is not yet set in stone.

So far, the only people who have speculated publicly about such a move are Democrats.

"They'll probably play Rudy heavier than any other part of the convention," former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo told the Associated Press last week. "So Rudy will go up and people will start talking about him replacing Cheney or him running for president. It'll be very, very good for Rudy."

Giuliani became a national star in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that brought down the World Trade Center towers, killing almost 3,000 people. He became known as "America's mayor."

"They'll make the most of 9-11, the most of Rudy," Cuomo said. "He is now still iconic, you saw that in 9-11 and that's it," the Democrat added. "He's received a stature which is, for the time being, absolutely unshakable."

Giuliani has said he may return to elective politics as early as 2006 by running either for governor, should Pataki call it quits after three terms, or for U.S. Senate against Democratic incumbent Hillary Rodham Clinton. In the face of prostate cancer, Giuliani withdrew from the 2000 Senate race won by Clinton.

By beating Clinton in 2006, Giuliani would not only position himself as a leading candidate for president in 2008, he would have eliminated the Democrats? No. 1 contender. But it's a risky proposition for Giuliani. If he can't topple the popular Democratic incumbent, his chances of becoming president, or even winning the nomination in 2008, would be slim indeed.

There is little love lost between Pataki and Giuliani. Giuliani angered many Republicans in 1994 when he crossed party lines to endorse Cuomo's bid for a fourth term. Pataki beat Cuomo in that election.

The only potential political danger in replacing Cheney with Giuliani, said a source close to Bush, is that it would create problems with the president's right flank. Giuliani is widely perceived as less conservative than Cheney, and by elevating him to front-runner in 2008, Bush could anger many conservatives.

Giuliani is also being considered as a replacement for George Tenet as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. However, Bush appears to be in no rush to fill that slot. It's possible, one source said, it could be held open for Cheney.

The GOP convention is being held Aug. 30-Sept. 2. Democrats are holding their convention in Boston at the end of July.


Throw that in with the firing of:

Rice/Hadley
Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Feith
Rove/Libby
Ashcroft

and replacing them with some true conservatives who will actually foster debate and thought and we may have the grounds for a tenable administration.

Everything about the Bush admistration reflects GWB's policies and personality. Firing all his advisors will not change anything. If GWB is re-elected who do you think the US will invade next? Will something sane will be done about the deficit?
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Jhnnn:

Bwuahahahahaha! Great line, great, great line. And, so true....

:)

-Robert
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,873
10,668
147
Originally posted by: chess9
Jhnnn:

Bwuahahahahaha! Great line, great, great line. And, so true....

:)

-Robert
Everyone knows you don't change ventriloquists in mid gargle.

:D
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Isn't Guliani more moderate than Bush? He's not a religious fanatic right?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

I'm glad you've made an attempt to learn about fallacies. However, in order to have fallacious reasoning, you have to make a statement. In other words, you have to offer reasons. I have no statement. I wasn't offering reasons for any statements. I was asking questions.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Isn't Guliani more moderate than Bush? He's not a religious fanatic right?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

I'm glad you've made an attempt to learn about fallacies. However, in order to have fallacious reasoning, you have to make a statement. In other words, you have to offer reasons. I have no statement. I wasn't offering reasons for any statements. I was asking questions.

I'm quite well versed when it comes to fallacies. It is very possible for an interrogative sentence to be fallacious.

Complex question (loaded question, trick question, leading question, fallacy of interrogation, fallacy of presupposition): Interrogative form of begging the question (above). Ask a question that leads others to believe that a previous question has been answered in a certain way.

"Answer yes or no: Did you ever give up your evil ways?" If you say yes, that tells us you had evil ways; if you say no, that tells us you still have them. What if you never had them?

?Have you stopped beating your wife yet??

"So, are you gay, or just in denial?"

"And when will you come out of the closet?"

A variation on the complex question is the fallacy of many questions (plurium interrogationum) : This fallacy occurs when someone demands a simple (or simplistic) answer to a complex question.

"Yes or no: Is democracy ultimately the best system of government?"

Another form of this fallacy is to ask for an explanation of something which is untrue or not yet established.

Text


Fairly obvious that you are saying that Bush is a religious fanatic, and if Guliani is a moderate, then he is not a religious fanatic. Perhaps I didn't chose the best fallacy -- but at least I know interrogative sentences can be fallacious!(I put a nice fallacy in there for you). You presupposed that a moderate wouldn't be a religious fanatic. Have any proof that Bush is a religious fanatic, or that moderates can't be religious fanatics? Fallacies are simply logical flaws, and you displayed one. I'll call a spade a spade.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Mill
It is very possible for an interrogative sentence to be fallacious.
I didn't say that wasn't true. I said I had no assertions in my questions. In the fallacies that follow, there are hidden assertions. There are none in my two questions.

Complex question (loaded question, trick question, leading question, fallacy of interrogation, fallacy of presupposition):
My two sentences don't fall into this category. One can answer both questions with yes or no. Yes Guliani is more moderate or no Guliani is not more moderate. Yes, Guliani is a religious fanatic. No, Guliani is not a religious fanatic. Hence there is no complex question fallacy.

A variation on the complex question is the fallacy of many questions (plurium interrogationum) : This fallacy occurs when someone demands a simple (or simplistic) answer to a complex question.
I didn't ask for a simple answer. Someone could have expanded. I didn't say anything like, "yes or no."

"Another form of this fallacy is to ask for an explanation of something which is untrue or not yet established. "
I didn't do this either. Did I say, "explain to me how Bush is a fanatic?" I didn't do anything like that.


Fairly obvious that you are saying that Bush is a religious fanatic, and if Guliani is a moderate, then he is not a religious fanatic.
No, that's not obvious. There were periods between my two sentences. I didn't link them. They're next to each other because they're two questions on the same topic: Guliani.

Perhaps I didn't chose the best fallacy
No, you didn't. And now you are fishing around for other fallacies to apply to my non-assertion.

-- but at least I know interrogative sentences can be fallacious!
Are you suggesting I didn't know that? I never talked about interrogative sentences. You did. Hence, you've employed a straw-man.

It also sounds like you're interested in a game of one-upsmanship. If you want to think you know about fallacies, go for it. It doesn't do anything to answer my question or refute some non-existant statement you think exists in my post.

You presupposed that a moderate wouldn't be a religious fanatic.
No. Again you are assuming a link between the two sentences that are not there. I used a period, not a semi-colon or some other form of punctuation.

Have any proof that Bush is a religious fanatic, or that moderates can't be religious fanatics?
That's an interesting question. If you want to start another thread on that I would answer. However, in this thread, I haven't stated Bush is a fanatic. Therefore I'm not going to answer it in this thread.

Fallacies are simply logical flaws, and you displayed one. I'll call a spade a spade.
I did not display any logical flaws in that first post. I asked questions in which there were no hidden statements.

Are you desperate to see me employ fallacious reasoning? If so, just look at other posts in other threads. I've made mistakes before. If that makes you feel good, so be it. Humans make mistakes. That said, that first post in this thread I made contained no logical fallacies.

(P.S. Anyone care to answer my questions? I don't know that much about Guliani).
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
I don't think that Bush would pick Giuliani to replace Cheney... but I keep expecting him to pick someone to replace Cheney.

A Bush/Cheney ticket just makes no sense to me. Cheney won't run for Pres. in '08, and he's not helping Bush to carry any states...
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Infohawk-Your defense is quite loud and showy, but hardly anything substantive is there. Anyone that knows you or your posts knows exactly what you meant, and what you implied. You can swear that I'm reading into it too much, or continue to play dumb, but that's totally your own issue.
 

geecee

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2003
2,383
43
91
As much as I respect Giuliani for the way he handled 9/11 and post 9/11 New York, I don't see him ready for the office of President. You simply don't go from mayor (even if it is New York) to President. Also, his economic policies as mayor were nothing to write home about. I'd like to see how he handles being a senator though, and if that works out, a run on the Presidency then would not be out of the question.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Mill
Infohawk-Your defense is quite loud and showy, but hardly anything substantive is there.
Loud and showy? Did I use caps or bold? If you can't find the substance, try reading it again.

Anyone that knows you or your posts knows exactly what you meant, and what you implied.
What if I want to know if Guliani is more moderate than Bush? How would you ask that question? What if I want to know if Guliani is a religious fanatic? How would you ask that question?

You can swear that I'm reading into it too much, or continue to play dumb, but that's totally your own issue.
I'm not swearing that you read to much into it. Nor am I playing dumb. I'm not sure what gave you that idea.

I'm trying to show you there was no statement in my first post and that therefore no logical fallacy applies.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Mill
Infohawk-Your defense is quite loud and showy, but hardly anything substantive is there.
Loud and showy? Did I use caps or bold? If you can't find the substance, try reading it again.

Anyone that knows you or your posts knows exactly what you meant, and what you implied.
What if I want to know if Guliani is more moderate than Bush? How would you ask that question? What if I want to know if Guliani is a religious fanatic? How would you ask that question?

You can swear that I'm reading into it too much, or continue to play dumb, but that's totally your own issue.
I'm not swearing that you read to much into it. Nor am I playing dumb. I'm not sure what gave you that idea.

I'm trying to show you there was no statement in my first post and that therefore no logical fallacy applies.

Yet you're wrong, because the question's intent was stated in a loaded manner. You know it, I know it, Bod Dole knows it, so just don't reply if you won't admit it. I use fallacious logic at times as well, but I'll admit it when called on it. Fallacies can be interrogative or implied.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Mill

Yet you're wrong, because the question's intent was stated in a loaded manner. You know it, I know it, Bod Dole knows it, so just don't reply if you won't admit it. I use fallacious logic at times as well, but I'll admit it when called on it. Fallacies can be interrogative or implied.

What was the loaded manner? Please show it to me. I've shown you how they were separated by a period. I'm not going to admit to something I didn't do.

Again, I'm really curious to see how you would have stated my questions? I guess I added, "on another note" but a period is usually used to separate two ideas and it wasn't a different subject.

I use fallacious logic at times as well, but I'll admit it when called on it.
Are you suggesting I don't admit it when I'm called on it?