That's all well and good but what does it have to do with the reasons Cheney was named to the ticket in 2000? It was "gravitas"...anything that happened (or didn't) afterwards isn't germane to the thread.

As to a "dangerous" tilt of power to the Executive branch, how much of a student of history are you, anyway? FDR ran roughshod over the Constitution and the balance of power as did Abraham Lincoln. Eisenhower called in the Guard to enforce busing. In fact, Mike, anytime the nation has been in crisis the Executive has always made questionable moves, Supporters say he did what he had to do while detractors moan about an overreach of power. That's the way it has always been and Bush is no exception. When you say Bush is the worst at it anyone with high school history knowledge knows that's a very, very questionable assessment.

>Cheap shot? Look at the man's record. Cheney and his lapdog David Addington have been at the forefront of this administration's consistent efforts to roll back individual rights in the name of antiterrorism. In the process they have tilted the balance of powers dangerously toward the executive branch. Not good for any of us. I am saying this straight, not partisan in any way -- this will be remembered as a bleak chapter in American history. It flies in the face of all our claimed ideals.
>
>>Non-sensical and cheap shot, Mike. I always expect better from you.
>>
>>>Gravitas -- Latin for "I wipe my butt with the Constitution."
>>>
>>>>Tamar, I think you're over generalizing.
>>>>
>>>>Bush chose Cheney in 2000 to add "gravitas" to his campaign. Don't you remember that word being thrown around? Even though, technically, there was a much higher chance of Cheney keeling over from heart issues than Bush.
>>>>
>>>>Clinton chose Gore in 1992 because Gore was a rising star in the Democratic establishment and recognized as someone who could launch a credible bid on the Presidency himself soon enough.
>>>>
>>>>Bush chose Quayle in 1988 because voodoo shamen did a mojo on him...oh, wait...ummm....actually, Bush knew that riding on the coattails of Reagan he couldn't lose so it really didn't matter. Maybe he was trying to get the maverick vote. I've never figured out that selection.
>>>>
>>>>Reagan chose Bush because of his government experience and his strong running in the primaries.
>>>>
>>>>I could go on and on but the point hasn't ever been chosing a possible successor. At least not in modern times. That was kind of a dumb point you made versus realpolitik.
>>>>
>>>>>>But the point of choosing a VP candidate is to make him/her help you get more votes.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, the point of choosing a VP candidate is to have someone who can fill the office of President if you die.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tamar
>>>>>
>>>>>P.S. When I typed "VP," it came out my fingers as "VFP." <g>