Slate’s Tim Noah, whom I usually enjoy a great deal, is doing his best to revive talk about Bush dropping Cheney from the GOP ticket. I’ve already explained why I don’t think this will happen, but Noah’s arguments, which really don’t work, warrant a quick refutation. (Maybe “quick” is the wrong word…)
At the outset, let me reiterate that this is, in no way, a defense of Cheney. He was a poor choice for running mate to begin with, and once in office, has been an embarrassing disaster. Virtually every shocking failure of this White House has gone, quite directly, through Cheney’s office (energy task force, illegal Plame leak, the Iraq invasion, Halliburton, the anti-terrorism task force that never bothered to even meet, etc.).
I can think of at least three good reasons, though, that Cheney isn’t going anywhere.
1. Bush can’t admit a mistake. If Bush dropped his VP, it’d reek of desperation and show a White House in full “panic mode.”
2. Bush wants a loyal VP who lacks presidential aspirations. Cheney isn’t running in ’08, which makes Bush, who values loyalty above all else, happy. If Cheney’s gone, Bush would create a feeding frenzy among Republicans, each trying to position themselves as the next GOP nominee.
3. Cheney doesn’t mind pretending Bush is the president. Bush relies heavily on Cheney to run the executive branch of government. Bush won’t even appear before the 9/11 Commission unless Cheney’s there to hold his hand. If Cheney were dropped, his replacement may not be so tolerant of Bush’s, shall we say, shortcomings.
Noah, however, is convinced that Bush can and should get rid of the man he has nicknamed “Vice.” I didn’t find any of the arguments persuasive.
[I]n the five previous instances where vice presidents failed to make it onto the re-election ticket, the incumbent president won the election on three occasions.
True, but not altogether relevant to today’s political climate. The three victories Noah referred to all happened generations ago, before the TV era, and occurred with otherwise popular presidents. Abraham Lincoln did it in 1864 and FDR did it twice. Bush isn’t in their positions this year. (And as a matter of fact, isn’t in their league in any year. But I digress…)
The most obvious reason for Bush to dump Cheney is that it would help him with swing voters. Cheney is a polarizing figure.
Noah rests most of his analysis on this point alone, but I think it’s misplaced. Cheney should be a “polarizing figure,” but I don’t think he is to most Americans.
In fact, I know this may sound ridiculous, but I’m not sure most Americans even know who Cheney is.
A CBS News/New York Times poll last month asked 1,200 Americans for their opinions on key political figures. While 32% said they had a favorable impression of Cheney and 24% said unfavorable, a combined 43% said they were either undecided or hadn’t heard enough about him to draw a conclusion. Considering Cheney’s several fiascos, this suggests to me poll respondents really didn’t know much of anything about the man.
In January, the same poll results were even worse. 20% said favorable, 24% said unfavorable, while a whopping 56% said they were undecided or couldn’t draw a conclusion. Among self-identified independents, the number was 62%.
If there was an open-ended poll in which Americans were asked to simply name the Vice President, I suspect at least a third of the country would have no idea what his name was. Cheney’s not a polarizing figure; he’s a behind-the-scenes player who pulls the strings of government without a lot of attention.
Noah’s best point actually collapses on itself.
For four years, the public has speculated about the extent to which Bush is Charlie MacArthur to Cheney’s Edgar Bergen. In his most recent press conference, Bush was twice subjected to the humiliation of being asked why, in his appearance before the 9/11 commission, Bush insisted that he bring Cheney along. He couldn’t come up with an answer that even remotely addressed the question. Dumping Cheney would help dispel this extremely harmful perception.
True, but therein lies the reason Bush really can’t get rid of Cheney. Indeed, it points to why Cheney was chosen in the first place. Bush has grown entirely dependent on Cheney to, for lack of a better word, lead his White House. Bush could dump Cheney, but then he’d really be lost if he won a second term. The perception, in this case, appears to be true.