Dick Cheney VS Michael Vick

Hey Vice-Precedence Readers!

On Monday the newspaper cartoon strip "Tank McNamara" which is about a former football player turned sportscaster started a storyline about how National Football League commissioner Roger Goodell is dealing with suspended players and indicted criminals Donte Stallworth, Plaxico Burress, and recently released convicted dog-fighter Michael Vick. In Mondays storyline-former VP Cheney made a guest appearance over the phone giving advice to "Commissioner Goodell".

Cheney's advice as written by strip creators Jeff Millar and Bill Hinds resulted in the "Washington Post" deciding not to run the strip this week. What was Cheney's advice to Commissioner Goodell that got the strip cancelled this week? Well, its pretty simple.

"Kill him" is the straightforward guidance given to the Commissioner from Mr. Cheney. Supplemented by the qualification "Well, not you personally."

So far the Post has not commented further on this controversy. The NFL made a middle-of-the-road safe statement. Joe Browne, the league’s executive vice president of communications and public affairs, said: “By nature, cartoonists, like newspaper columnists, present — and are entitled to — their opinion even if it is not a balanced one."

There has also been no comment from VP Cheney on it, although, considering all the shots the creative community take at Cheney, this one is minor. As soon as I hear any more about Mr. Cheneys book, or if Congress will call him to testify on the CIA assasin squad, or about the Valerie Plame scandal, or anything important, I will let you know. I will be out of town on Friday, so I may not be able to post anything. Its kind of a slow week, but when news breaks on anything VP related, Jason and I will be reporting on it. Thanks for reading and supporting us.

Bye-Bye Biden?

No. But in a quick Google News search this morning I stumbled upon another blog commenting on this piece in Politico. The other blog, Daily Kos, made its assessment of an article that suggests Obama will likely search for a new Veep in 2012 thus:

"You would be hard pressed to find a more ham-handed example of concern trolling. Anywhere... And kudos to Politico for offering Hugh Hewitt the platform to spread this nonsense. It's very fair and balanced of them."

So I gave the article a shot. After all, this is my first real examination of any office in real-time, so someone suggesting the sitting VP might be replaced - and suggesting so only six months into a new administration - is quite interesting.

What's even more interesting, here - and believe me, I'm not defending Biden, neither am I against the man - is Hugh Hewitt's (the author of the Politico article) lack of understanding of how the VP works. Maybe he decided to go back to the good old days of FDR, where he changed Veeps twice. Or perhaps to Lincoln, who decided Hannibal Hamlin, who, as historian Steve Tally put it in our interview with him, "went home" instead of fighting, wasn't the best face forward for the Lincoln Administration. Or maybe - and this is more likely - he didn't research at all. Just assumed.

The problem with going back to a Lincoln or an FDR is that in their camps - and in FDR's case, among the majority of Americans - these guys were indestructible. FDR was elected four times, and Lincoln was reelected during a war. They were their day's equivalent of the teflon politician, and Obama, as slick and popular as he might be, isn't there, just yet.

Additionally, the Vice President, at least since Mondale, and definitely since Cheney, has become a man of power, at least in the right hands. Biden has experience and his own strengths, and, though he might not have much power at the moment, the office has that potential much more than in the days of FDR's three VPs.

Then there's consideration number three - Obama's image. He knows that much of the reason why he was elected was his passion, enthusiasm and intelligence. Who in their right minds, who is elected on the basis of their ability to judge the state of things, would put those integral qualities into question? He would essentially be saying "I made a mistake in choosing the man who could potentially replace me as the most powerful man in the country. As the country's first black president who anyone could predict would echo the Camelot years, I didn't at all think about the likelihood that someone might want to hurt me, so I chose some names out of a hat. Please excuse me while I wipe the drool off of my chin."

This is one case where Obama would be best suited - and it hurts me to say this - to take a cue from George W. Bush, should Biden prove the mistake this one radio host believes him to be. He shouldn't admit he was wrong. And the likelihood that he would - in this case, anyway - is low. What would we hear? We'd hear a lot of what we heard in the debates, just slightly reworded. Here's a little test - whenever you listen to Obama or Biden talk about one another right now, replace "The President" or "Joe" with "The Senator."

"Sure, Joe and I differed on some things, but our message was the same."
"The President and I have not always seen eye to eye, but that's the magic of the system. We can disagree and work together in perfect harmony."

However the administration actually feels about Biden and his role (likely very good, as he's thus far been a strategic first or second strike in PR, saying rather overtly what Obama only suggests might be true), they're keeping him. They need him, and, as W proved, they need consistency. They can admit all the mistakes they want, but you never admit your running mate was one of them - it shows you don't get people, and that you're short-sighted. Short of a sex scandal, they won't replace Biden. In this day and age, as they used to say "it just isn't done."

- Jason C. Klamm

Cheneys Legacy Question

Hey Vice-Precedence readers! Well, as you regular readers know I cover former VP Cheney on the blog here. Recently a friend of mine asked me what I personally thought of Mr. Cheney, and how I think history will see him. I thought it would make an interesting blog.

This is an interesting question as it is being asked by many and is something historians are arguing about now. I think most of us can agree that its relatively too soon to say what posterity and history will say about the Bush/Cheney administration. As former President Bush is fond of pointing out, when Harry Truman left office he had the lowest popularity ratings of practically any President. As time passed, especially in the wake of Trumans death and the scandal of Watergate, both the American people and historians began to look back at Trumans legacy and found much to admire in the tough decisions he had to make, his honesty and integrity, his "The Buck Stops Here" sense of responsibility, and how accurate he had been in his description of the disgraced Richard Nixon as a "no good lying bastard". His legacy was further enhanced by the publication of the best-selling and Pulitzer-Prize winning biography "TRUMAN" by David McCullough in 1992. Now when the polls are done of "The Best Presidents", Truman is consistently in the top ten.

Could something similar happen to President Bush and VP Cheney in 25 or 30 years? Hard to say right now. For now, President Bush is keeping to himself and not expressing his opinions on the current administrations policies. Cheney however-(as this blog has pointed out numerous times) has been one of the most vocal critics of the Obama Administration. Is this one of the strategies Mr. Cheney is employing to enhance his legacy? I think that both Bush and Cheney are distressed that the majority of Americans have, by electing Obama, rejected the policies of his time. So perhaps Cheney is using his criticisms of the Obama Administration as a way to defend his legacy.

It seems that right now he and Bush are relying on the fact that since the tragic events of 9/11 there have been no further attacks on American soil by the terrorists. Its strong evidence to many Americans that the decisions they made (and I admit-they were tough decisions) were correct. It is my belief that Mr. Cheney is going to use his (still untitled) book to try to defend the decisions he and President Bush made regarding Americas safety, as well as their other policies.

How will history judge Mr. Cheney? Hard to say. My friend asked me what I personally think of Mr. Cheney, and I have thought about it and have tried to come at it as a historian (which in a way, I am-at least of the Vice-Presidency) and separate my personal politics from his record. Its my opinion that its too early to truly come to a judgment of his record. Personally, I didn't agree with many of the decisions he and President Bush made, and I admit I'm not a great admirer of his record, but that's just my personal opinion. I do think that Mr. Cheney is an incredibly intelligent man, and that he was doing what he honestly thought was best for the country. At the same time, I do think he made some incorrect political and military decisions, and that he had some personal ambitions that he wasn't afraid to try to accomplish while in office and that these goals sometimes weren't in the best interests of the country. Overall though, I honestly think that for the most part,he did what he thought was right, and didn't worry too much about his popularity-good thing too, because there is no denying, he is one of the least popular VP's in American history.

There is one thing I am absolutely sure of that also can't be denied-Richard Cheney was the most powerful and influential VP in American history. Period. How history judges the Bush Administration will be a direct judgment on Cheney as well. Will his book help his legacy or will it not? Will history share my opinions? We will see. As soon as any new news on Mr. Cheney comes out I'll be reporting it here. Thanks for reading.

Hopemoir: Veeps (Part 2)

And now, for part 2 of the Veep-related excerpt of my book, "Looking Forward: A Hopemoir."

A Future President's Vice (Part 2)

I will need to find a person who not only shares my values, but has values just slightly askew of mine. If they read my positions on a certain issue like the environment, the reaction I want to see is one of curiosity. I want to know they are taking in everything I believe and then to feel free to disagree with me. The ideal candidate would, of course, disagree just enough to have a mind of his own, but not so much as to cause me to doubt myself. The Vice President, after all, is not a member of the Cabinet.

He can serve in a capacity similar to that of a Cabinet member, however, doling out advice and providing me with strategy that comes not from a sycophantic point of view, but from a bright, educated person who was more than qualified enough to be personally chosen by me to help represent my positions, character and capacity to lead to the entire nation. Ideally, my Vice President would also champion those issues I will not have the time to take on in my daily presidential duties. He or she should have the capability to take on foreign policy issues, diplomacy, national crises, massive financial disasters or keynote speeches at college graduations at a moment’s notice. When the Vice President is as capable to run as I am, then he has proven himself as a Qualified Potential Successor.

I cannot discount the possibility that my Vice President might be a woman or a minority. With that in mind, I don’t. As the political landscape changes, a new variety of politicians will show up to graze on that landscape’s fertile and abundant grasses. I am more than open to balancing my ticket with any person willing to take my ideas and run with them, especially if they represent a portion of the population I can’t possibly understand. Though I, myself, have lived not only in Los Angeles but in New York, Chicago, Oklahoma and England, I could easily find room in the executive branch for someone from a state neighboring any one of those I could at one point have claimed residency in.

As a partial minority with one-sixteenth Native American blood, I would be honored to run with a candidate who is at least fifteen-sixteenths of any minority, including Native American. Should my Vice President be a woman, I will make any and all accommodations needed to provide her with the comfort necessitated by her sex. She may also help assay the office with a refreshing perspective that any of her male peers might not be privy to.

Regardless of whom I choose to take over when I pass on, one thing remains consistent about that choice – I must consider many things when making it. Most important of those things is you, the reader. There is a likelihood that you are just the person I need at my side in 2020 and 2016. I mean this quite literally. Should you be in agreement with at least 94 percent of what you read in this book, and currently qualified to eventually be of age to run alongside me, I ask that you consider how you can best make the changes you want to see. Do you want to make these changes on your own, with no one to assist you in realizing your dreams? Or do you want the assistance of someone with the potential to make 94 percent of those dreams a reality?

Whether or not you are the specific potential candidate to be my Vice Presidential candidate, one thing is certain – you will be there when I choose my VP. I will make my choice known, on jasonklamm.com and to all the other readily available and interested media. Before that happens, however, you can have a say in who or whom I choose. You can send suggestions of qualified candidates my way, as they become so qualified. Your recommendations mean more to me than those of people who have spent their entire lives insulated from the world by Washington, DC. You, the people, who remain insulated from the realities of Washington and the political process by having lives to live, have the power to take precious time out of those same lives to participate in a decision normally reserved strictly to a candidate and his paid advisors.

- Jason C. Klamm
Visit JasonKlamm.com for more fake campaign info.

Obama and Cheney in "The Advocate"

Hey Vice-Precedence Readers!

Still no news about Cheney's book, or if he will be called to testify before Congress on the CIA assassination squad. Its sort of a slow week in Cheney news after the huge amount of press last week with the TIME Magazine article and Cheney on the cover.

The most interesting thing I found today that touches on Cheney was the cover story of the LGBT Magazine THE ADVOCATE where they claim that President Obama is not living up to the expectations and promises he made to the gay community. The LGBT community strongly supported President Obama during the 2008 campaign, but to many in the movement so far, that support hasn't been rewarded.

The article cites several prominent gay leaders such as ACT UP founder, playwright and author Larry Kramer, Dan Choi-founder of the West Point gay alumni group Knights Out, and Facebook co-founder and President Obama's online campaign supervisor Chris Hughes and their disappointments on whats happening with the Obama Administration. In one of my first blogs I touched on how Cheney has come out in favor of gay marriage and his support of lesbian daughter Mary (who I wrote about in my last blog) and the fact that he has a grandson being raised by his daughter and her longtime partner Heather Poe. At this moment in the gay rights movement, when the gay community is so eager to repeal the ban against gays in the military and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and especially to get rid of the Defense of Marriage Act, is former VP Cheney the bigger champion for gay rights then the President?

What do you think Vice-Precedence Readers? Let me know and Thanks for reading.

Hopemoir: Veeps

A man who is second-in-command is always first in line with regards to those beneath the commander.
- Jason Klamm

Okay, so that's not an ACTUAL quote of mine. Well, not of the real me. It's a quote of the me to the right. With the Biden beat ever slower, I thought I'd do my best to give our loyal readers a taste of previously-published material. Namely, my book. Namely, "Looking Forward: A Hopemoir," my alter-ego's campaign "mani-festive," based off of our award-winning pilot presentation that got us national exposure through Comedy Central & FX.

As I finished the book up last October, just in time for the elections, I realized that, with my new knowledge on the country's least-appreciated office, I would be remiss not to have my character examine the office in his... way. What I later realized is that his "way" is not unlike that of an historian. He goes against the grain for impact, rather than being able to back everything he says up. Unlike historians, however, he has no idea why he's doing that. As far as he understands it (from watching a lot of TV news as a kid), politics is saying things with conviction. He is passionate about having passion.

Following is the first of a two-part blog series of excerpts from the chapter on his choice of VP, entitled "A Future President's Vice." If you like it, please purchase the book on "Amazon.com and tell your friends.

A Candidate’s Potentia Pro Tempore (Part 1)

It is no exaggeration to say the average candidate overlooks the Vice President. Prior to any major election, the choice of VP is left until the last second as a surprise to increase interest in a candidate’s campaign, at least temporarily boosting their numbers in the polls. The choice of Vice President is always a cold one. If you are from the North, pick a Southerner. If you’re white, choose an older white candidate. The basic and contrived opposition that comes with the Vice Presidential choice grows tiring to the average American, who inevitably votes for the primary candidate, without much thought, if any, put towards the qualifications of their VP as a potential president.

What presidential candidates fail to realize is that the Vice President is not simply the most unappreciated officer in the executive branch. He might also be the most important.

Though I haven’t made a choice – I have a rather lengthy list to cull from, and a list of those whom I feel might grow to be good potential VPs – I am always pondering on how to best make my choice. I have to choose a man or woman with such extreme duality in their personality that both sides almost cancel one another out. I have to find not a blank slate, but a slate so completely covered in chalk as to be illegible. This person must not simply be prepared to take over all of the duties of Commander-in-Chief at a moment’s notice, and have the skill and capability to serve the office as well as his predecessor, but he must function exceptionally in the constitutionally-mandated duties of the Vice President.

The law of the land lays out a very specific path for the VP to take. He must preside over tied votes in the Senate. This single duty allows the VP to be perhaps the most useful person in Washington simply because he isn’t weighed down by a constitutionally-required function, other than the rare tie-breaking Senatorial vote. With a substantial expense account and the free time to serve at his own pleasure, unlike the inundated Cabinet, the Vice President can bring about social and political change unlike any other office-holder in the entire government.

With this in mind, I must find a person who can capably hold down such an office while still finding time for themselves, as they may be called, any time, to serve in my stead. At the same time, I would like my future Vice President to leave the office in a professional state should I, in the case of Vice Presidential illness or incapacitation, need to take on the duties of both President and Veep.

-Jason C. Klamm

Secret Service VS Mary Cheney

Hey Vice-Precedence Readers.

Well, as soon as I know more about former VP Cheney's book, or if he will be called to testify before Congress about the CIA assassin squad, or if there is any breaking news about him, I will let you know ASAP.


I've posted here on Liz Cheney-the former Vice-Presidents daughter and how she his helping her father with his book, and along with him has been very critical of the Obama Administration, and has even voiced her own political ambitions-could she be planning a run for the House or even the Senate in Virginia?

I've also written about Cheneys' support for gay marriage and gay rights-since his daughter Mary Cheney is a lesbian. Mary Cheney has been with her partner Heather Poe for seventeen years, and Ms. Cheney gave birth to a son Samuel David Cheney on May 23 2007. Now, some people have pointed out that during campaigns Mr. Cheney never really voiced his opinions on gay rights, and Mary, too stayed out of the spotlight and wouldn't speak about gay issues. It especially became an issue during the 2004 Presidential campaign where Marys sexuality was brought up in the Vice-Presidential and Presidential debates.

Gay rights advocates criticized her for waiting until after the 2004 election to voice her disapproval of George W. Bush's positions on gay rights. During Mary Cheney's May 19, 2006 appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman, Letterman addressed some of the issues raised by the gay community and Mary's lack of action on behalf of her community. He questioned Cheney on why she waited two years after the 2004 election to speak publicly about gay marriage and rights. Cheney told Letterman that she really had no influence over the administration’s position on gay rights and that even if she did, it wasn't her job to influence political policy. Even though Mary has been a gay and lesbian outreach coordinator for the Coors Brewing Co., and has been criticized by right-wing organizations like James Dobson's Focus on the Family and The Concerned Women for America, she has a rocky relationship with the majority of the gay community.

Now it has been revealed that she may also have had a rocky relationship with the Secret Service during her fathers term as VP. In this past weekends New York Post in an article about the new book In the President’s Secret Service by Ronald Kessler, he writes that Mary Cheney was not exactly an easy person to deal with-that she was jealous of the new car used to drive around her sister Liz, that she demanded that the Secret Service drive her and her friends to restaurants and when agents refused, she had them reassigned.

Mary Cheney has denied these rumors in a statement: "These stories are simply not true, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for the men and women of the Secret Service,” she told Kessler.

So who's telling the truth here? Mary or former agent Kessler? Will her father address these controversies in his upcoming book? Stay tuned here for more and thanks for reading.