Nothing's worse than a dry, pretentious college kid. Well, okay, there's the college kid who finds that his summer job consists of writing articles about small town politics, choosing from such impressive issues as "should we open the '7-11' 24 hours a day?" or "can we put stools at the bar in the Chinese restaurant?" Not to say that this is my job. Well, actually, it is. I sit around and play Minesweeper and occasionally write a news piece about how old people complain a lot.
After dealing with the contentions of small town politics, I've gotten more interested in things that really shape the nation. So as I was reading The D the other day, I came across Nick Morinigo's opinion about the choice of Dick Cheney as Bush's Vice President. Since I have read about three hundred articles on the same topic, I wasn't surprised that I had a slightly different opinion on why Cheney was chosen. Here comes the dry, pretentious college kid stuff.
Since this coming election will be the first time that I am ever going to vote, I have decided to actually analyze what each candidate stands for, so I decide what party I agree with more. I don't want only to vote based on the influence of my parents, so I've been reading different perspectives on politics -- from ultra left wing Salon.com to the right wing National Review to the leftist (and British) Economist. From these different publications and websites, I have synthesized my opinion of Dick Cheney.
Dick Cheney is a rock-solid choice for Bush, though he has all the charisma of that same inorganic substance. He is admittedly a dull speaker, definitely not a wizard with words on the podium. However, he was not chosen for any oratorical skill. Nor was he chosen to be an attack dog to lie at Bush's feet. He will not shore up any glaring weakness in the Bush camp, which was something that vice presidents had often been chosen for in the past. Rather, he is a seeing eye dog to guide Bush through the world of the oval office. And, like a dog, his appeal stems from his loyalty to the Bush family and his direct approach to politics. He fulfills the basic requirements of Vice-President ("above all else, do no harm") and is someone who is extremely capable of taking over as President, if the need might arise.
The choice is at once logical and brash. On the one hand, Bush seems to be choosing Cheney more in terms of his qualifications in office than for any potential boost that he will get in the polls. Cheney comes from Wyoming, a tiny state already in the Republican's back pocket. He is known for his ultra-conservative voting record on guns and abortion, as well as his time as Secretary of Defense during the Gulf War. Some of his voting habits (voting against freeing Nelson Mandela?) will certainly be called into question by the liberal media. This choice indicates that Bush already looks at the election as over, displaying an arrogance that is common to the Bush family (just remember the 1992 campaign against Clinton).
On the other hand, Cheney emphasizes Bush's brand of "compassionate conservatism," for Cheney is not a slash-and-burn Republican; he is not a Newt Gingrich. In fact, when Cheney left to join President Bush's cabinet, it was Gingrich who stepped in as House minority whip. Dick Cheney ends the Gingrich revolution, if by ending the "revolution" you think that by going back to an older Republican generation you create a new politician. Cheney will be loyal unlike McCain, who is not known as a team player.
Indeed, McCain did everything he could to not get the nomination. And loyalty is the most important thing in the Bush campaign. Cheney is the cautious choice -- someone who can advise Bush on foreign policy, a ground where Bush is noticeably lacking. Also, since Cheney did not serve in the military, Bush's "time" spent in the national guard will not be drawn too much into the public eye. In some ways, the choice of Cheney will neither help nor hurt Bush.
I've arrived at this opinion not from the standpoint of a liberal or a conservative, but as someone who is still deciding on my political future. This way, I think I can remove some of the political spin that the media has put on this man. I can accurately depict why Bush chose Cheney. It seems that the far left media, such as Salon, wants to portray Cheney as an oil tycoon who reinforces the Daddy's boy image of Bush, while the far right wants to make him out to be the most capable man of the presidency since Dwight D. Eisenhower. We can only see for now how much of a bounce Bush gets in the polls relative to Gore's choice (John Kerry, maybe?). Now that I've given all my pretentious viewpoints, I think I will go sip my scotch and soda at the Country Club and discuss business.
