Cheney: The Other White Knight
It wasn’t published on April 1st, and Friday the 13th isn’t until the end of this week, so I can only assume The New York Sun is being serious in its editorial calling for a Cheney candidacy as the remedy for the Tepid Trio of Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. We here at ITA have written a lot about the need for a conservative alternative in the race (Thompson and Sanford in particular), but I don’t think any of us had the embattled vice president in mind. I’m not inclined to support him, because as I said in some comments below, I think the GOP’s 2008 candidate needs to distance himself from the way the administration is handling the war in order to have a chance to win. Cheney would definitely light the fire of the more aggressively pro-war conservatives, but I see his negatives far outweighing any potential positives.
Speaking of toeing the administration’s line on the war, John McCain has been endorsed by four former secretaries of state, his campaign announced Monday. Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Lawrence Eagleburger, and George Shultz all support McCain, with Kissinger running his fundraising operation in New York.
Related ITA entries:
Gov. Mark Sanford: The GOP’s Savior? by J. Claybourn
Saddle the White Horse by J. Claybourn
Holier Than Thou, by Z. Wendling
Famous for Being Fred, by D. Darlington
Right Said, “Fred?” by D. Darlington
6 Responses to “Cheney: The Other White Knight”
Isn’t it “toeing” the line? Towing implies pulling, whereas you really mean following.
Good call.
Is the Sun a very liberal newspaper that is engaged in wishful thinking or is the writer of this article that dumb? Though I agree that I don’t see a conservative running at the moment, a Cheney nomination would pretty much guarantee a Democratic president.
Actually, I believe the Sun is NYC’s token conservative paper.
The Sun does have a conservative orientation, but don’t forget the Murdoch-owned Post in any list of conservative media outlets in the area.
I don’t see how a Cheney candidacy would be any more contentious, polarizing, or harmful to the candidate’s party than a Clinton nomination would be in the Democatic Party.
Well, maybe a LITTLE more harmful to the candidate’s party. But certainly no more polarizing.