Cheney: The Fourth Branch?
This film image released by Universal Pictures shows Chris Hemsworth in a scene from "Snow White and the Huntsman". (AP Photo/Universal Pictures)
Lots of people in this country have two jobs to help make ends meet. Last week, Dick Cheney — maybe to demonstrate that he's just an "ordinary American" — claimed that he had two distinct jobs: One was the Vice President of the United States and the other was the President of the Senate. Yeah, I know. It's not really the same as a teacher who sells insurance on the side.
In the past, when he has been asked to comply with various congressional requests and orders, Cheney has claimed executive privilege because he's the Vice President. But last week, he claimed he wasn't a member the executive branch of the government, but was a member of the legislative branch. That was because he's the president of the Senate, and therefore he felt he wasn't subject to the presidential order giving the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office the right to make sure that Cheney and his office have demonstrated proper security safeguards. By the end of the week, he was back claiming that he was actually the vice president, and therefore could claim executive privilege once again as he rejected demands from Congress about information regarding the firing of U.S. attorneys. How does he keep track of which job he's going to claim he has each day? Does he put on a different tie?
As opposed to the millions of Americans who have more than one job, the vice president didn't do this so he could make an extra buck. He went back and forth with these claims just so he could avoid complying with Congress and the law. That doesn't seem like proper behavior no matter which job you want to consider him having, does it?
Maybe he thinks he's a Superhero with two identities. He's Senate Boy and then he changes into Veep Man — both of whom have amazing powers not found in the Constitution. It's as if he's trying to exist in a fourth branch of the government — Cheneyland.
It's gotten a bit silly, as it's become more outrageous. With a straight face, White House press secretary Dana Perino came up with an ingenious defense for Cheney claiming to be a member of the Legislative branch, not the Executive. She said his paycheck came from the Senate. So what? Does anyone think that he lists his occupation on his income tax form as "President of the Senate" rather than "Vice President of the United States?" When his aides make a reservation for him at a fancy restaurant, do you think they make it for the "President of the Senate?" When he ran for office, was the campaign, "Vote for George Bush for President and Dick Cheney for President of the Senate?"
Cheney's dance was an amazingly nimble one. But the fact that he had the audacity to try this Wyoming two-step was not nearly as startling to me as the fact that he got away with it.
Oh sure, his Democratic foes cried "foul." But the American people didn't rise up and say, "Enough already." And why didn't his Republican colleagues say, "Come on, Dick, now you've gone too far?"
That's who really should be upset with this gambit — the Republicans. The foolishness of acting this way and not cooperating with Congress and not making things public makes people suspicious. If you refuse to be open about things over and over again, the public doesn't feel that you're doing this because the office demands that kind of secrecy. After you act this way repeatedly, the public starts thinking that whatever you don't want to tell us must be pretty bad. They suspect that you must have some horrible secrets that you don't want us to know.
And this conclusion by the public might very well be wrong. Generally, cover-ups and refusals to be open end up being much worse than the thing that is being kept secret. But by not being more open, he's just contributing to the erosion of credibility of this administration. So, you'd think that some big Republicans — hey, maybe even the president — would tell Dick Cheney to knock it off.
And I think he should, too. While I'm sure it was fun for him to pretend he had two different jobs, it's time for him to accept that the one he's got is a pretty good one.
Lloyd Garver has written for many television shows, ranging from "Sesame Street" to "Family Ties" to "Frasier." He has also read many books, some of them in hardcover.
By Lloyd Garver
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. In the past, when he has been asked to comply with various congressional requests and orders, Cheney has claimed executive privilege because he's the Vice President. But last week, he claimed he wasn't a member the executive branch of the government, but was a member of the legislative branch. That was because he's the president of the Senate, and therefore he felt he wasn't subject to the presidential order giving the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office the right to make sure that Cheney and his office have demonstrated proper security safeguards. By the end of the week, he was back claiming that he was actually the vice president, and therefore could claim executive privilege once again as he rejected demands from Congress about information regarding the firing of U.S. attorneys. How does he keep track of which job he's going to claim he has each day? Does he put on a different tie?
As opposed to the millions of Americans who have more than one job, the vice president didn't do this so he could make an extra buck. He went back and forth with these claims just so he could avoid complying with Congress and the law. That doesn't seem like proper behavior no matter which job you want to consider him having, does it?
Maybe he thinks he's a Superhero with two identities. He's Senate Boy and then he changes into Veep Man — both of whom have amazing powers not found in the Constitution. It's as if he's trying to exist in a fourth branch of the government — Cheneyland.
It's gotten a bit silly, as it's become more outrageous. With a straight face, White House press secretary Dana Perino came up with an ingenious defense for Cheney claiming to be a member of the Legislative branch, not the Executive. She said his paycheck came from the Senate. So what? Does anyone think that he lists his occupation on his income tax form as "President of the Senate" rather than "Vice President of the United States?" When his aides make a reservation for him at a fancy restaurant, do you think they make it for the "President of the Senate?" When he ran for office, was the campaign, "Vote for George Bush for President and Dick Cheney for President of the Senate?"
Cheney's dance was an amazingly nimble one. But the fact that he had the audacity to try this Wyoming two-step was not nearly as startling to me as the fact that he got away with it.
Oh sure, his Democratic foes cried "foul." But the American people didn't rise up and say, "Enough already." And why didn't his Republican colleagues say, "Come on, Dick, now you've gone too far?"
That's who really should be upset with this gambit — the Republicans. The foolishness of acting this way and not cooperating with Congress and not making things public makes people suspicious. If you refuse to be open about things over and over again, the public doesn't feel that you're doing this because the office demands that kind of secrecy. After you act this way repeatedly, the public starts thinking that whatever you don't want to tell us must be pretty bad. They suspect that you must have some horrible secrets that you don't want us to know.
And this conclusion by the public might very well be wrong. Generally, cover-ups and refusals to be open end up being much worse than the thing that is being kept secret. But by not being more open, he's just contributing to the erosion of credibility of this administration. So, you'd think that some big Republicans — hey, maybe even the president — would tell Dick Cheney to knock it off.
And I think he should, too. While I'm sure it was fun for him to pretend he had two different jobs, it's time for him to accept that the one he's got is a pretty good one.
Lloyd Garver has written for many television shows, ranging from "Sesame Street" to "Family Ties" to "Frasier." He has also read many books, some of them in hardcover.
By Lloyd Garver
7-Trillion on a war......if you can't see the difference, maybe there's a reason you're a "struggling" writer.
I'm a struggling writer. When I make a lot of money maybe I'll be able to afford those tax and spend liberals the likes of John Edwards.
Anyone who spends that much money on something as dumb as a haircut does not know the value of money because he has too much of it. He has nothing in common with me.
Sick, Sick, really sick of all the lies coming from the LEFT. This president has his problems, for sure but he's still more trustworthy than the last one and his wife, by a yard and a half.
Posted by festes81
What garbage-I went to school, took it seriously, and got into something that is in demand. I watch financial shows on tv, read the financial section of the newspaper, and save and invest my money wisely. This does not make me dishonest. Study, find something that pays well, work hard, and make wise financial decisions and people can accumulate wealth.
Blame Clinton either on of the Bushes,Reagan,Carter, or Ford, it does not make a difference. Some Americans are better off financially, but the system is in thier court. They subscibe to immorality. Most are far much worse but that is our fault-for not being greedy dishonset and non trustworthy. IF you really do not beleive that governments are "influenced" by private/inclandetine organizations, you most likely do not believe that earth is not the center of our solar system. WHAT A WORLD WHAT A WORLD WHAT A WORLD.
Why run for president when 1) you have accomplished all the energy/contract/oil deals you needed to and 2) have held the most powerful and least accountable seat in the world; namely President of the Senate!
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC- WHAT THEY DON'T KNOW...
THAT'S WHAT MAKES THEM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC...
Posted by rhs648 at 09:32 PM : Jul 04, 2007
umm.. So Bill Clinton tried (as so many republicans deny) to catch Osama and failed. At least he hadn't allowed over 3000 American civilians to die in 9/11. He didn't get over 3000 American troops killed. He didn't put our country into the horrible debt that it is. You can sit there and say how well everything is going for you.. I guess you work for Exxon or Halliburton, or know enough to invest in oil when republicans take control. Don't dismiss Bush's failure in catching Osama. I bet I know your job.. You're Ann Coulter and you get paid by the republican party for each article. That woman's accumulated huge wealth, keeping nascar dads (honestly, something going in circles amuses you?) and stay at home soccer moms in the dark as much as possible.
Those of us who were in the military during Reagan's term know that he was "most unkind" to the military as far as pay raises go.
Posted by torocaca
I'm not blaming Jimmy Cater for anything. I simply stated that from Reagan to the present, my finacial situation has been good. It is difficult to hold presidents accountable for things beyond their control. For example, look how many presidents inherited Vietnam. Do you blame a president when Arab oil producers hold us hostage by increasing oil prices? A president can influence policy but he can not control everything.