He would instantly lose by choosing him.  I mean, it's good advice for McCain, if you're, you know, us, but Cheney has a lower approval rating and higher disapproval ratings than Bush.

LOL- Great title, Great Post.  McBush Cheney how appropriate. I have noticed that the entire McCain campaign has been one big Gaff.  Look I think McCain served this country and demands the up most respect.  He is probably even a patriot.  But it is a cold fact of life when you get older you dull intellectually.  I think McCain just isnt as sharp as a president needs to be.  We cant elect presidents on the mere fact that they are a war hero., They need to be able to function as a president functions.  Here is a site that has videos of all of the mccain gaffs.  It also has a video of McCain falling asleep on the Conan Obrien show., I cant believe this video isnt being shown on the news more.  Wow.!  I will leave the link its
 http://www.mccanes.com

  I would like to take the opportunity to say I would not vote for a McCain Romney ticket, I might a McCain / Huckabee ticket.  Here is a link that has all of the Romney attack ad videos, that Romney released against McCain during the primary, along with a video of romney calling McCain dishonest.  How could McCain even consider picking Romney.  I think the McCain camp is trying to sabotage McCain.  The link to the videos is http://www.hotpres.com

You can sign a petition to make Huckabee the VP at www.TheVeep.com

   Obama just told Katie Couric, regarding Afghanistan:

Because ... it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan.

Okay.  Then why did he vote against supplemental funding for Afghanistan, on the $120 billion spending package that was passed May 24, 2007, by the Senate?

And can you explain this, from Rasmussen?

While Obama has been on an overseas tour, 45% of voters say the Democratic hopeful is too inexperienced to be President. That's up four percentage points from a week ago.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/daily_presidential_trackin g_poll

Now go back a week in the Rasmussen poll.  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/general_election_match _up_history  Do you see any uptick for Obama?

No, there is none.

Okay.  Then why did he vote against supplemental funding for Afghanistan, on the $120 billion spending package that was passed May 24, 2007, by the Senate?

That's a real puzzler, isn't it? Based on my limited knowledge of politics, I'd guess he voted against it because he objected to some of the other provisions in the bill. Maybe it authorized a lot of money to be wasted in Iraq?

I'd look up the text of the bill, but I feel like I've done enough work already.

And can you explain this, from Rasmussen?

Yes, that's a pretty odd result. Obviously Sen. Obama is slightly more experienced than he was last week, so we'd expect the number to go down or stay the same. (And the "too old" numbers for Sen. McCain should be gradually trending upwards.)

It might just be statistical noise; I think a 4% shift is within the margin of error.

I'm also not sure that, aside from the punditry, Obama is making the expected impact.  Here's what the Washington Post editorial said today (I've picked out excerpts but I urge you to read it all):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202462_ pf.html

Mr. Obama in Iraq
Did he really find support for his withdrawal plan?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008; A14

THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that "there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn't take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. [snip]
Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.[snip]

Yesterday he denied being "so rigid and stubborn that I ignore anything that happens during the course of the 16 months," though this would be more reassuring if Mr. Obama were not rigidly and stubbornly maintaining his opposition to the successful "surge" of the past 16 months. He also pointed out that he had "deliberately avoided providing a particular number" for the residual force of Americans he says would be left behind.
Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

We need a Democratic Cheney. I would like Obama's VP to stand up for Democratic values and voters just as strongly as Cheney does for big money corporate values and CEOs. I would like our candidate to be a little more interested in telling the truth, though. But, I must say Bush could not have chosen a better VP to enact his policies.

When I started reading this my heart only briefly stopped.  Guess I have become so numbed to political outrage that I actually, for a split second, thought it was real.

Hmm, on the other hand, if this was the ticket and they won, there would be no reason to worry about the impeachment proceedings being incomplete by January 20th.

I can see the GOP embalming Cheney (if they haven't already), putting him in a glass case like Lenin, and running him as their VP until 2108, when he finally falls completely apart at the seams.