Cheney in Numbers.

July 16, 2002 12:45 PM

Cheney in Numbers. It's hard to spin hard cold numbers. Here's a few: *Cheney's 2000 income from Halliburton: $36,086,635 Increase in government contracts while Cheney led Halliburton: 91% *Minimum size of "accounting irregularity" that occurred while Cheney was CEO: $100,000,000 (One hundred MILLION dollars) *Number of the seven official US "State Sponsors of Terror" that Halliburton contracted with: 2 out of 7 *Pages of Energy Plan documents Cheney refused to give congressional investigators: 13,500 *Amount energy companies gave the Bush/Cheney presidential campaign: $1,800,000 I also loved this quote: "Cheney and Bush want privacy for their conversations, but not for anyone else's." --Tony Mauro in USA Today, Feb. 27, 2002
posted by nofundy (25 comments total)

two more years.

then we can go ahead and elect a whole different bunch of crooks.
posted by UncleFes at 12:56 PM on July 16, 2002

Remember when the people used to choose the president?
posted by websavvy at 12:58 PM on July 16, 2002

We don't have to elect crooks the next time. We can vote for Ralph Nader.
posted by MaddCutty at 1:00 PM on July 16, 2002

No, we need crooks.
posted by mathowie at 1:01 PM on July 16, 2002

Did somebody say we need "cooks?"
posted by ColdChef at 1:03 PM on July 16, 2002

Amount energy companies gave the Bush/Cheney presidential campaign: $1,800,000

Getting elected, running rampant over the Bill of Rights with sky-high approval ratings in the name of fighting terror, only to crash and burn when the 'MBA-CEO ticket' faces its first serious test in an era of corporate accountability: Priceless.
posted by krewson at 1:04 PM on July 16, 2002

'Cause I can cook a mean book. With a side of shredded documents. Delish!
posted by ColdChef at 1:04 PM on July 16, 2002

Actually, nofundy, it's easy to spin numbers; remember, it's accounting tricks that got enron and arthur andersen in trouble. The culture of Wall Street -- revenue must grow, debt must shrink -- encouraged it.
posted by krewson at 1:06 PM on July 16, 2002

We don't have to elect crooks the next time. We can vote for Ralph Nader.

Yes, if you can get excited about voting for humorless, bloviating scolds.
posted by Skot at 1:10 PM on July 16, 2002

Voting for Nader = pointless idealism = electing crooks.
posted by luriete at 1:13 PM on July 16, 2002

Why elect humorless, bloviating scolds when you can elect moronic, cheating, frat-boy, party animal hypocrites?
posted by websavvy at 1:14 PM on July 16, 2002

Minimum size of "accounting irregularity" that occurred while Cheney was CEO: $100,000,000 (One hundred MILLION dollars)

Was that supposed to be pronounced in a Dr. Evil voice?
posted by adampsyche at 1:16 PM on July 16, 2002

I don't think Dr. Evil ever said One hundred million dollars...

But yeah, sounds cool like that.
posted by ODiV at 1:25 PM on July 16, 2002

...humorless, bloviating scolds

offtopic:
This is one thing I love about Metafilter: evey day a new vocabulary word! I must work the word bloviating into casual conversation today.
posted by gazingus at 1:29 PM on July 16, 2002

Why elect humorless, bloviating scolds when you can elect moronic, cheating, frat-boy, party animal hypocrites?

Yikes! I don't think Al Gore fits into that latter category. Nader would have been an awful president. He's a reformer and perhaps a revolutionary, but not a politician. Nader wouldn't know the first thing about swing deals and doing the insider things that need to be done to get one's agenda passed. You know, the stuff we wished didn't go on, but needs to happen. If he had any experience in political office he'd be a lot more creditable.

Remember when the people used to choose the president?

The people (and I have no idea who these "people" are, but for the sake of argument I'm assuming it's the general public) never really elected the president. It's the Electoral College that has the final say; you can look it up in the Constitution. The 2000 election was very weird, but nothing unconstitutional really happen. As much as I hate Bush, he won fair and square. No matter how much you disagree with Gore v. Bush (and I do), the Supreme did have the authority to make the decision that they did and the electoral college cast their votes as they have done in every other election in the history of the US.

I don't suppose we'd we complain if Gore or Nader had won in the same way. I don't like Bush, I didn't vote for him, I'd never vote for him and I'd love to see another administration running things, but all I can do is vote in the 2004 election to change all that.
posted by Bag Man at 1:38 PM on July 16, 2002

The numbers are somewhat convincing. But will they resonate with the people? Will people care? So far outside of this forum I haven't heard many people around me talk about these 'dirty dealings.' The first comment in this thread is the most common sentiment I have heard regarding this issue.
posted by cell divide at 2:01 PM on July 16, 2002

ColdChef for president dong_resin can be his vp.
Fourteen thousand user can't be wrong.
Who is with me!
posted by goneill at 2:24 PM on July 16, 2002

Oh drats, I wanted to run for president...ok, well...I'll support the ColdChef/Dong Resin ticket...but can I have the State Department as a consolation prize?

Come on, y'all know I'd be fun to watch at international meetings. ;-)
posted by dejah420 at 2:46 PM on July 16, 2002

martha stewart's corporate living
posted by quonsar at 3:09 PM on July 16, 2002

Funny how at this level every bum becomes a millionaire and every millionaire becomes a bum.
posted by Mack Twain at 4:23 PM on July 16, 2002

I'll vote for ColdChef and Dong Resin...but only if I can be Secretary of the Interior.
posted by 40 Watt at 9:32 PM on July 16, 2002

This is why I love America.
Sex Scandal = bad
Money Scandal = boring.

It saddens me greatly that this won't turn into another Whitewater, Watergate, or even Teapot Dome. I wish someone could explain to me exactly why the Bush/Cheney "Enron Management Style" is regarded by conservatives and quote-Patriotic Americans-unquote as some kind of harmless, non-attention-worthy activity. I had a conversation with a man at work today who actually said to me "Well, you know, its just about money. The president's finances are none of our business." This is the same guy who told me endlessly, for months, how Clinton's sexual life was "America's Business - because the morality of a country is judged by the morality of its leader."

Its not the outpouring of hatred against liberals that makes me so angry - quite frankly its the hypocrisy of the right. By all rights, shouldn't they be more angry about such a gross abuse of trust by their leaders - not less?
posted by anastasiav at 10:23 PM on July 16, 2002

The 2000 election was very weird, but nothing unconstitutional really happen. As much as I hate Bush, he won fair and square. No matter how much you disagree with Gore v. Bush (and I do), the Supreme did have the authority to make the decision that they did

Hardly. Know how right wingers are always ragging about "state's rights?" Re-read the law and you'll see that the Extremes interfered in a "state's rights" issue and twisted the 14th Amendment (that is supposed to protect VOTERS, not candidates) to suit Poppy's boy. Talk about judicial activism! If you still don't understand then allow me to recommend you read "None Dare Call It Treason" by Vincent Bugliosi.
posted by nofundy at 5:05 AM on July 17, 2002

Hardly. Know how right wingers are always ragging about "state's rights?" Re-read the law and you'll see that the Extremes interfered in a "state's rights" issue and twisted the 14th Amendment (that is supposed to protect VOTERS, not candidates) to suit Poppy's boy.

The Supreme Court has express power to grant writ to hear cases from the state supreme courts and make decisions these matters. In the history of US jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has decided thousands of state issues (If not more). They have even evaluated local and city ordnances. The High Court is not just reserved for Federal matters. Sorry nofundy, there is no "states rights" issues here.

P.S. What if Gore won? Nofundy, you're just mad the guy you don't like won. Hey, I'm pissed Bush won, but I know the powers of Supreme Court.
posted by Bag Man at 7:06 AM on July 17, 2002

Newsflash: If you're rich enough to buy yourself public office in the US, the chances are good that some of those funds were acquired unethically, if not illegally. You don't get x-million dollars for acting like a choirboy. (Unless you get it as a settlement from the Catholic Church....)

There is no such thing as an ethical businessman, once you reach the rarefied echelons that Cheney and Dubya move in. Maybe Warren Buffett. And that hippie from Ben & Jerry's. But that's about it.

I wish that I didn't believe that. I wish that I thought there were just a few bad apples. But I don't. I'm convinced that individual success in corporate America correlates directly with a willingness to blink at malfeasance, encourage chicanery, reward greed, and promote backstabbing.

And then the Republicrats (Demoplicans?) invite them to "serve their country" with a job in Washington, so they can get their snouts in the public trough, too.

(Now I'll sit back and wait for MidasMulligan to come along and tell me why corporate greed is a really good thing that I would be thankful for if I weren't so deluded by liberal bias and secretly wishing that I could be the one abusing the system for personal gain.)
posted by BitterOldPunk at 2:08 PM on July 17, 2002