A Noonan trial balloon?

The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan — who, it’s worth noting, went on a leave of absence in 2004 to help the Bush/Cheney campaign — wrote a provocative column today that may have been a bit of trial balloon for White House insiders. The headline read: “Hit Refresh? Why Bush may be thinking about replacing Cheney.”

Noonan makes the case that the shooting controversy will never really go away. “He’s been painted as the dark force of the administration,” Noonan said, “and now there’s a mental picture to go with the reputation.”

What’s more, Noonan wrote, presidential aides may soon start seriously wondering if they’d be better off with someone else. (Noonan prefaced this by saying this isn’t based on insider knowledge, but is based on what she knows about those who practice politics “within the Bush White House.”)

I suspect what they’re thinking and not saying is, If Dick Cheney weren’t vice president, who’d be a good vice president? They’re thinking, At some time down the road we may wind up thinking about a new plan. And one night over drinks at a barbecue in McLean one top guy will turn to another top guy and say, “Under the never permeable and never porous Dome of Silence, tell me . . . wouldn’t you like to replace Cheney?”

Why would they be thinking about this? It’s not the shooting incident itself, it’s that Dick Cheney has been the administration’s hate magnet for five years now. Halliburton, energy meetings, Libby, Plamegate. This was not all bad for the White House: Mr. Cheney took the heat that would otherwise have been turned solely on George Bush. So he had utility, and he’s experienced and talented and organized, and Mr. Bush admires and respects him. But, at a certain point a hate magnet can draw so much hate you don’t want to hold it in your hand anymore, you want to drop it, and pick up something else. Is this fair? Nah. But fair has nothing to do with it.

This is a White House that likes to hit refresh when the screen freezes. Right now the screen is stuck, with poll numbers in the low 40s, or high 30s.

What’s more, Noonan argues, Bush is so intent on seeing his Iraq policy through, he may want to replace Cheney (who won’t run in 2008) with a successor who’ll stay the course in 2009 and beyond.

Noonan takes this thought experiment pretty far, even suggesting that Bush could talk Cheney into stepping aside.

If he were pressed — Dick, we gotta put the next guy in here or we’re going to lose in ’08 and see all our efforts undone — he might make the decision himself. He’d have to step down on his own. He’s just been through a trauma, and he can’t be liking his job as much now as he did three years ago. No one on the downside of a second term does, hate magnet or not.

Noonan concludes that White House aides are already “asking themselves…silently” who could best take Cheney’s place.

This seems largely far-fetched to me, but the fact that this column was published on the conservative Wall Street Journal op-ed page, by a key Republican insider who’s worked for the last three Republican presidents, is pretty interesting, isn’t it?

No, NO.. He’s getting away!

We have to impeach his @$$! Not let him resign!

Really, get back to me when Rove and Addison are talking about Cheney resigning.

  • Maybe his decision to resign will coincide with the value of his unexercised stock options with Halliburton. Worth over $15 million a few weeks ago, he is down just below $12 million now. Here are the specifics:

    Halliburton Stock Options for Dick Cheney:

    Number of Shares 433,333
    Average Excercise Price $42.09 @
    Cost to Exercise Options $18,237,491

    Current Market Price $69.76 @
    Total Market Price $30,229,310
    Profit to Dick Cheney $11,991,819

  • Gack!

    I was looking at Brit Hume’s interview some more. Right after he asks the VP about declassification, he goes on to ask about the damage of recent leaks. He calls the NSA domestic spying and the CIA secret prisions as LEAKS, but he ignores the VP’s leaking Valeria Plame and portions of the NIE?

    What a chump!

  • We need to impeach Cheney so we can fine him every dollar of stock option profit he has ‘made’ as VP.

  • You know, with all the talk about dark overlord Cheney, the thing that’s struck me this week – once again – is the astounding passivity of his “boss”.

    I know he loves the fringe benefits of his exalted position (playing dressup, lots of vacation time), but has there ever been a president who hated his job anywhere near as much as this one does???

  • I don’t think it’s impossible that Cheney could jump or get pushed, but his departure would open up an enormous power vacuum within the administration. As Diane correctly notes, Bush doesn’t like the “hard work” of his job. “Vice” picks up a lot of the slack, whether it’s in lobbying Congress, making policy, all of it. If he goes, I suppose the replacement VP could fill that–but s/he won’t have Cheney’s familiarity with the levers of power, and if s/he really does want to go in 2008, won’t want to devote more than full time to governing.

    As a progressive, the idea of a Bush administration that effectively does nothing sounds okay to me, but there are downsides as well. So my guess is that Cheney stays; he’s simply too important to the part-time preznit.

  • If Cheney resigned, who WOULD Bush replace him with?

    Out of the frying pan, into the fire?

    CB, sounds like a topic for a Sunday Discussion Group. (You already have some speculation about this in the Comments following your earlier article on Bob Herbert.)

  • Wouldn’t that amount to a coup by Bush? Storm the OVP, comrades! I don’t think Ticky is going to go silently.

  • If Cheney resigned, who WOULD Bush replace him with?

    The good news is that the current GOP darling for the 2008 presidential race, Senator Allen from Virginia wouldn’t likely replace him as a Dem governor would get to pick his replacement. True it wouldn’t upset the balance of power in the Senate, but it would be one more win in our column that we wouldn’t have to fight for. Especially if Governor Kaine appointed Webb. Webb may not be able to beat Allen straight up, but if he were an incumbant he’d stay a Senator for as long as he wanted.

    Sooo…does the GOP permanently lose a senate seat to help Allen’s presidential prospects in 2008? Tough call as its not clear that they’d even win in 2008.

  • I have wondered if some of the strangeness around Cheney’s choices last weekend could be because: Rove talks to Armstrong after the shooting, finds out what really happened, and basically tells Cheney, “you’re on your own, big guy; I can’t get you out of this one.” The President’s men do seem to be distancing themselves from Cheney.

  • To ask Cheney to quit, they’d have to admit doing something wrong. The more time with family/health concerns excuses would sound pretty hollow after shooting a guy in the face.
    I’m sure there are people in the regime honest enough to realize Cheney must go. But, I’d bet the vast majority of them are more concerned about similarities to Agnew.

  • The whole idea of the 12th amendment, which I think has worked pretty well for 202 years (OK, with some exceptions, cf Andrew Johnson) was that the people choose both the president and the VP. The whole idea of the 25th amendment was that we would only have an appointed VP in the most extraordinary circumstances, such as when the VP turns out to be a corrupt, lying bastard (cf Spiro Agnew).

    So while Noonan’s right that dumping Cheney and appointing a successor (as used to be done in Mexico under the PRI) makes eminent political sense, it would also be yet another case in which the administration crapped all over the spirit of the Constitution.

    No right to privacy – no right against search & seizure – no guarantees of due process – no free speech – no presumption of innocence – state-sponsored religion – no judicial review – nullification of laws passed by Congress – de facto legislation by the executive – It’s really become touch and go whether the Constitution will survive another three years of this.

  • Yes, I agree that it’s far-fetched as far as the conclusion (that replacement is an option that they may be thinking about). But I think that the rest of the analysis is a great insight into how these people are thinking. And the fact that replacement could probably only make things worse for them goes to show why they were apparently so disturbed about the story’s coming out at all– they really thought it marred the image they were trying to project (and notice how important that is to them) so they were hoping against hope to find a way to keep it from coming out without at least some spin or something.

  • Dems don’t seem able to bring a scandal home. This is usually the way it peaters out. They need to keep pushing and finding different angles to discuss.

  • “…at a certain point a hate magnet can draw so much hate you don’t want to hold it in your hand anymore, you want to drop it, and pick up something else.

    Cheney may be responsible in part for Bush’s waning popularity, but I think Noonan is exaggerating just a tad bit. Sure, Cheney’s a despicable sociopath and a completely unsympathetic character. But W’s biggest problem is W. Bush is “ultimately” responsible for Abu Ghraib, illegal wiretaps, illegal detentions, the New Orleans debacle, soaring national debt, looting the national treasury to benefit his buddies, the botched military adventure in Afghanistan, the failed “cakewalk” in Iraq, and scores of other major and minor scandals. The history books will correctly assign all of the miserable failures from 2001 to 2008 to George W. Bush.

  • What I mean to say is, I think they’d like to be able to turn to an option that would make this sort of go away completely, like replacement, if that really would do the trick. That’s why Noonan even bothers to talk about it. It seems like a big oversight on her part to think that replacement doesn’t end up looking worse. I’d like to hear her explanation about that.

  • “Under the never permeable and never porous Dome of Silence, tell me . . . wouldn’t you like to replace Cheney?”

    And the other guy would be going “What? I can’t hear a damn thing!”

    Someone else mentioned (past) constitutional amendments. Can someone clarify for me if the President does, constitutionally, have the authority to replace his Vice President?

  • I agree I’d like to see cheney go, but then he may disappear into the dark bowels of this administration without even the slightest bit of oversight. (Not that he has much oversight now.) I shudder to think about what noxious things he could come up with in his lab in the basement.

    At least now he can be forced our into the sunlight every once in a while…

  • This current administration, if it were to jettison Cheney, would be something like launching a shuttle into orbit, and having the crew rip off all the heat-shield tiles before coming back home. Cheney’s the administration’s heat-shield right now—Plamegate, Whittingtongate, Halliburtongate…you-name-it-gate, it sticks to Cheney like spray-paint to the side of an abandoned housing project.

    Now—who’s all that “gate” stuff going to stick to, if ol’ Gunner Cheney’s not playing his critical role as heat-shield?

    I sense a “burning Bush” in that scenario. Anyone want to play the role of Moses?

  • “Someone else mentioned (past) constitutional amendments. Can someone clarify for me if the President does, constitutionally, have the authority to replace his Vice President?” — Mueller

    Isn’t that the argument from ‘Commander in Chief’?

    If Bush can’t get Cheney to resign, who does not ‘serve at the pleasure of the President’ as you say, Bush can certainly remove Cheney from all his duties and clearances except for his constitutional duty as President of the Senate.

    Could you imagine going into the Senate building every day and having Pat Leahy smirking at you?

    No, I think if Card and Rove convince Bush to tell Dick to go home to Wyoming or Texas or wherever, Dick would go. Could you imagine Bush asking Dennis Hassert to impeach Dick?

    My, lots of four letter names there 😉

  • Steve,

    All the ‘gates you mention are Cheny-gates. If he is causing all the trouble the administration is having, why not get rid of him?

    Now, Katrina-gate, NSA spying-gate, Torture-memo-gate, science-distortion-gate, those are not Cheney caused problems.

    But on Cheney’s plate there are Leaking-NIE(Iraq)-Gate, Confluting-9/11-and-Iraq-gate, exagerating-WMD-gate, and so on.

    Of course, if they lose Alberto Gonzoles at the same time, that takes out Torture-memo-gate (with Addison, of course) and NSA spying-gate (if Mike Hayden goes).

    And since Mike Brown is gone, all we would have left is the distortion of science for political purposes.

  • I think I may have been too hasty in coming to a conclusion on this one. I’ve got think it over some more.

    I’m not sure the problem really has a definite “best” answer for them.

  • Well some are thinking to 2008 and how to get around McCain. Get a new veep and get him to be the candidate in 2008. AHHH the “power” of incumbancy.

    Related to the Hebert article/argument for getting rid of Cheney and the arguments as to why that is not a good thing for Democrats.

  • If Cheney resigned, who WOULD Bush replace him with?

    Condi — he’s promoted her every chance he’s had.

  • “Vice President Rice”……it could happen. Then he could appoint Bolton as Secretary of State to complete the outrage. And Condi would have the perfect platform to run in 2008 in spite of all her denials so far.

    Have you ever tried hot chocolate with butterscotch schnapps? It’s really soothing and yummy. I think I’m going to need one pretty soon.

  • I think there is a faction pushing Dick out. If Rove is on board, they may have a chance. *ucker Carlson changed his tune overnight, so maybe Rove is running it.

    Bush would not nominate anybody heavy weight enough to upstage him. So, no McCain, Jeb, or Condi. Andy Card? Harriet Miers?

    Bush is going to be all about polishing his legacy from here until 2008. Make him seem bigger an’ better than Poppy or Ronnie. He does not want to be remembered as the Worst. President. Ever.

    It’s not going to work, of course.

  • I’m inclined to think that Cheney works well as a bad cop to Bush’s good. However if they do pick a VP/successor it would be someone whose first priorty would be loyalty to Junior, e.g., Jeb, Condi, Frist,… Definitley not McCain. He has his own power base and clearly has contempt for Bush.

  • If I were Bush I’d make brother Jeb my VP, just for kicks.

    Then when Jeb runs for office he can find a VP named Reagan…or I think Dan Quayle might be free.

    It would make the past few decades look something like this:

    Reagan/Bush
    Bush/Quayle
    Bush/Cheney
    Bush/Bush
    Bush/Reagan or Bush/Quayle

  • Cheney doesn’t seem like the type to resign (although I’d be happy to be proven wrong), and Bush does usually reward loyalty with loyalty (Harriet, Deutsch, & Brownie notwithstanding).

    Cheney does seem like the type to have a debilitating heart attack prior to the end of his term, which may force a resignation. (It’s also possible that Rove and some of the others may start jumping out at him from doorways, yelling “Boo!”, or sending him off to strenuous parades and tours of inspection.)

    Nixon got Ford after Agnew because a) everyone in Congress agreed that Ford was politically clean and qualified, and b) no one (neither Dems NOR Republicans) thought that Ford could get elected president in 1976. Condi might be attractive to Bush, and might not be too threatening to Dems & Republicans with their own presidential aspirations.

  • I hope someone calls to the attention of the righteous Ms. Noonan that her little scenario gives consideration only to the fortunes of the administration and the “vision” of GWB or whomever. It conveniently ignores the interests of the people who supposedly are to determine their elected leaders. She proposes a maneuver over the precipice of a very slippery slope. She should be sharply rapped for so cavalierly proposing electoral bait and switch. Bush needs to dance with the one what brung him – to the bitter end – unless they are willing to cop to the illegality of ALL of Cheney’s reprehensible shenanigans to date. Ahh, but to do so would be to trash any plan for the success of Noonan’s little coup d’etat. If anyone had any doubt that “acquiring and keeping power at any cost ” is the guidestar for Noonan and her ilk, her little proposal should put an end to that. It is not that Cheney is bad for the country; he has simply become too much of a liability to continued Republican power. I’ve never liked Noonan. Whenever I see her speak, she gives the impression that something that smells particularly bad is just under her nose. She poses as a person of such probity, but she exposes her “morality” to us with her little idea. I think history will prove Cheney to be among the worst of all leaders that Americans have chosen to head their government. But, if he is to go, it has to be under legal indictment or impeachment (and failure to speak to the press about a hunting accident is not the offense I have in mind) – not as a matter of convenience to keep the Republican party in power.

  • TuiMel,

    There is a difference from asking Cheney to resign to firing him.

    No reason that Cheney should not resign. You can hardly argue that he is not in poor health.

  • So, you believe his health is that much worse now than it was in Nov 2004 when Bush / Cheney stood for election? I do not know whether Cheney’s health is so poor that his resignation is in order. I did not and do not deny that it offers a fine smoke screen and a way out. Cheney deserves to be fired – by the people. My assessment is that what Noonan proposes is a dangerous precedent. Of course, this gang specializes in that kind of thing, and perhaps I’m being naive.

  • “Cheney deserves to be fired – by the people. My assessment is that what Noonan proposes is a dangerous precedent.” – TuiMel

    Well, the first comment in this thread is ME saying we should impeach him, so I suppose I agree.

    But he could resign without terrible damage to the constitutional order of the country. Read George Will today if you want to get a sense of what is really endangering the country.

  • Thanks for the tip, but I’m not convinced I need George Will to give me “a sense of what is really endangering” my country.

  • Condi will never be accepted by the racist Repubs as a legitmate candidate for the presidency. White folks fear of a Black person, particularily a Black Women, in the presidency is the unspoken truth of the white community in American. Please stop the fake chatter about Condi even though she has kissed Bushit ring (ass) during his failed administration.

  • Would a message from Peggy Noonan be a Nooner? (I mean, she is telling Dickie C to go. . . well, to go do what he told Leahy to do.)

  • Re: George Will by TuiMel

    George is a real libertarian conservative with due regard to the checks and balances in the Constitution. I love it when he criticizes Republicans and especially Bushies. He’s kind of worthless when he comments on liberals because he can’t get it out of his head that a liberal is a sort of anti-conservative, but he is well worth reading when he is trying to instruct his own party how to behave.

    Re: Condi by K-Man

    I don’t buy this notion that Racists will prevent Condi Rice from being chosen and approved as Vice President. She might have a hard time winning the nomination in 2008, but if she does she should be able to compete for the election. George Bush is not inherently a racist (incompetent, true) and he does not like to be told by such people he can’t have his choice of appointees. You can bet he is seething about Harriet Myers and about Alberto Gonzoles. I’m sure Laura can convince George to stand by his girl and push her through the Congress.

  • Comments are closed.