Finding something to grouse about

This Reuters story has plenty of good news in it. It shows a healthy Edwards bounce for the Democratic ticket- a 6 percent lead of Kerry over Bush in a one-on-one. It also shows that Cheney is weighing down the Republican ticket- which cheers as well. Not only is Cheney very, very unlikely to be replaced (after all, it's hard to imagine Bush flushing the most powerful man in the White House), if he were replaced it would be seen as show of weakness for Bush. And the White House That Is Never Wrong would never do that. However the poll referred to shows one result I can't get my head around.

It says a Bush/Powell ticket would kick the living snot out of a Kerry/Edwards ticket. Why? To any one who's been following the presidency, Powell has been out of power in his position as Secretary of State from the very beginning. Why would VP be any different? Cheney has been a very atypical VP, holding more power than any previous VP. I think that's fairly indisputable. Now, of course, that may mean Bush would reign unencumbered by Cheney's ultraconservative warhawk influence, but my understanding of the president puts his personal beliefs closer to Cheney's than Powell's. Or, at least, to the way Powell's are portrayed. Despite three years as CesState to establish an identity, Powell is still something of a cipher. There remains a general impression of a decent, sober ex-general who's moderate on social issues. It's not an impression I believe in, though.

If Powell was the straight arrow moderate he's invariably portrayed as (By the way, I don't know if you've noticed, but Powell is a media favorite, much like fellow "moderate" McCain) he wouldn't have gone along with the WMD charade at the UN, nor would he have just stood there while the Bush administration committed other acts of foreign policy foolishness. I figure, then, that Powell is either no moderate or no straight arrow. I vote the latter.