Beyond that, do we want anyone like George W. Bush who is dependant on Dick Cheney, just as Hillary is dependant on Bill? I think not! On Aug. 29, 2007, I wrote:
"Lastly, a point I have not seen elsewhere... I believe Hillary's run is against the spirit of the 22nd Amendment. That's the one about a two term limit. Sure, Hillary was not president, but she was part of the team. When they ran, Bill claimed that we'd be getting "two for the price of one". I suggest that Hillary has already served two term in the White House, and her attempt to regain control runs counter to the spirit of the 22nd Amendment. She's flaunting our Constitution, folks! "
Today, Gary Wills backs me up and runs with it:
Gary Wills at The New York Times writes:
"One problem with the George W. Bush administration is that it has brought a kind of plural presidency in through the back door. Vice President Dick Cheney has run his own executive department, with its own intelligence and military operations, not open to scrutiny, as he hides behind the putative president.
No other vice president in our history has taken on so many presidential prerogatives, with so few checks. He is an example of the very thing James Wilson was trying to prevent by having one locus of authority in the executive. The attempt to escape single responsibility was perfectly exemplified when his counsel argued that Mr. Cheney was not subject to executive rules because he was also part of the legislature.
We have seen in this campaign how former President Clinton rushes to the defense of presidential candidate Clinton. Will that pattern of protection be continued into the new presidency, with not only his defending her but also her defending whatever he might do in his energetic way while she’s in office? It seems likely. And at a time when we should be trying to return to the single-executive system the Constitution prescribes, it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House."