Sunday Discussion Group

February 19, 2006

During the 2004 campaign, there were occasional rumors about Bush replacing Cheney on the GOP ticket. The gossip was usually hard to take seriously and was generally ignored.

But this week, the speculation came roaring back, due in large part to Cheney’s inexplicable handling of last weekend’s hunting accident. Unlike the 2004 rumors, this week’s speculation was driven to a surprising extent by conservatives and conservative news outlets.

* Peggy Noonan: “I suspect what they’re thinking and not saying [at the Bush White House] 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?'”

* National Review’s John J. Miller: “If Cheney were to leave the vice presidency, for health reasons or something else, who should President Bush choose as his replacement?”

* The Wall Street Journal’s Jackie Calmes and Greg Hitt: “Republicans face a perplexing question: Is Dick Cheney a political asset or liability?”

* Slate’s Mickey Kaus: “You might say that if Bush hasn’t at least considered the possibility of having Cheney resign — and if Cheney hasn’t considered it too — then they should probably both quit immediately on the grounds that they lack the imagination necessary to govern.”

* National Review’s Jim Geraghty actually described a fairly detailed criteria Bush might consider when picking Cheney’s replacement.

If I were a betting man, I’d say the odds of Cheney resigning are infinitesimally small. But, just for sake of conversation, if Bush did throw Cheney overboard, who would he pick?

* Someone who, like Cheney, had no ambitions of his or her own?

* An heir apparent to help advance the Bush agenda in 2009 and beyond?

* Would he dare pick someone the far right would hate (Giuliani, Harriet Miers)?

* Would Zell Miller make the short list? How about Joe Lieberman?

* How big a factor would diversity play (Rice, Powell, Gonzales)?

Who do you think he’d pick?

Mickey Kaus misses the point, we already know they don’t do governance, they only do power.

  • Mickey Kaus always misses the point. It’s what Mickey Kaus does.

    FWIW, I think he’d pick Condi Rice, who wouldn’t run in 08, but who Karl Rove would pick as someone to pick up black support for the GOP.

  • I see a few problems with this. Cheney cannot be fired. He can resign, or be impeached. I think we can safely rule out impeachment. The first question is, would he resign? Does he have the humility to step down for the betterment of his party – let alone country? I’ve seen nothing indicate this. But for the sake of conversation, we can pretend the sun rises in the west, and Cheney steps down.

    Now things get really sticky for the repubs, because under their carefully groomed facade, there is no concensus pick. Guilliani or McCain would infuriate the taliban wing of the party. Rice wouldn’t get high praise there, and would also earn the contempt of the party’s KKK wing. Jeb? I think even they know the country already has a bad case of Bush fatigue. Frist? Terminally damaged. Santorum? After he loses a re-election? Brownback? The taliban wing would be elated, but the remaining moderates might throw up their hands in disgust.

    Without the drawn out process of the primaries, where repubs would eventually rally around whichever candidate gains momentum, this could be an out and out bloodbath. The ‘cultural civil war’ could easily become a repubican only blood feud.

  • Cheney isn’t going anywhere.
    He runs the place with a lash…

    “B” lacks the strength of character to purge him.
    And wouldn’t do so anyway… as it would increases his workload.

    The Andy Card cabal is composed chiefly of patsies and pimps. Any other opposition is similarly timid and tame.

    In other words:
    Cheney with a whip in the White House…

    He’s the man.

  • This discussion lacks a serious subject.

    However, I will join in and contribute, for I am a sensitive new-age guy.

    I would consider the job myself, if only to enjoy insulting certain Senators during the confirmation hearings. Mocking the bombast and fustian that passes for debate and oratory in the Senate’s LEFT Precincts would be worthwhile, I suppose. But, on second thought, I will decline the nomination.

  • * Someone who, like Cheney, had no ambitions of his or her own?

    Cheney has “no ambitions of his own”?!

    Kinda like how Rasputin was just an advisor to the czar.

  • When Cheney’s hunting weekend adventures are at now disclosed locations and he is dogged by photographers with telephoto cameras, and shooting little birds has bad associations and he is actually limited to only one beer and no girl friends.. ..it will dawn on him that his cover of darkness is blown and may tip the scales to a retirement for reasons of “health”. But if he leaves, he will want a successor who will keep the dark and hidden actions of his office secure from prying eyes. He’s got to find somebody to be trusted with the secret handshake.

  • I’ve always though that Cheney would leave in order for an “heir apparent” to gain incumbent cred prior to the ’08 election. The problem with Cheney leaving is who will run the White House/country? Andy Card? Anyway, that problem aside, I think George Allen appeals to all of the GOP’s most important constituencies and will, therefore, be the next VP.

  • I think Cheney would fire Bush before Bush would fire Cheney. Cheney could persuade Bush to resign before Bush could persuade Cheney. I used to think Bush was at least nominally in charge, but when Cheney’s refusal to follow White House protocol on his shoot-out was added to all the other times Cheney has appeared to be in charge while Bush was on his bike, or flying around on Air Force One, I now believe Cheney is in reality, the president. It’s Cheney we need to impeach.

  • As much of a “hate magnet” as Cheney has become, and notwithstanding certain potential negative consequences of that on W’s legacy and ability to move any agenda for the remainder of his term, I suspect that the thugocracy will ultimately decide he does less damage than would choosing a new Veep from among an unsettled field of possible 2008 candidates. I think he stays no matter what – in part because that stubborness is just a key part of this administration, and also because of the very real risk of setting off internecine warfare by appearing to pick sides in the nomination process.

  • Another serious idea for a Sunday conversation…

    Suppose Cheney were to run for President in 2008…

    What percent of America would vote for him?
    And how does your answer make you feel about your birth country?

  • But all the issues aside, who would Bush actually pick?

    If Bush listened to the D.C. pundits, he’d go with McCain.

    If he listened to the Christian base, he’d go with someone like Brownback.

    If he had his ear to the ground regarding the cultural Zeitgeist, he’d pick Oprah Winfrey (as that business with James Frey shows, she has almost unlimited media power).

    But ultimately, he wouldn’t listen to any of these people. Rove would pick Cheney’s successor for him (Rove himself would not want the job). Who Rove would pick is another matter entirely. Pat Roberts, perhaps?

    If Bush were allowed to pick a successor on his own, in his heart of hearts, he’d pick Alberto Gonzales, who is, after all, so much like him: a boyish figure who never stops giving the finger to the Constitution and the American people.

  • If Cheney resigns, then both presidents who left office through resignation will have been Republicans.

  • Cheney will not resign because he intends to run in 2008 (all talk to the contrary being a head fake).
    If he did resign, they would pick the most divisive born-again possible. Probably someone so awful that we will never guess if we try for a million Sundays….

  • I’m not the cultural Zeitgeist 🙂 so if I have to pick, I’d guess that Rove would pick Allen. Early polling shows him to be a strong 2008 candidate and particularly strong on the right. Like Dumbya himself, Allen is more smarm than smarts, and panders shamelessly. He is both someone who Rove could pick with some sense he is picking the likely winner anyway, which makes him look prescient before most of the country is paying attention, and he is cut from teh same bad policy cloth as the current administration, so he could be counted on to carry forth the agenda in 2009 and beyond. He isn’t as strong or independent as McCain or Giuliani, so with the added indebtedness of Rove tapping him for incumbancy, Allen would likely be compliant to Rove and the handlers. I gotta go with Allen.

  • I have to believe Cheney won’t go, for all the reasons given. He’ll quickly resume his “undisclosed locations” and boozing and girlfirends because “the press” simply can’t be bothered anymore, dontcha know. If there should be another shooting, or his health should really incapacitate him? Allen, again, for the reasons given.

  • ” Someone who, like Cheney, had no ambitions of his or her own?”

    After an exhaustive search for a vice presidential candidate to run with Bush, Cheney came up with – himself. He’s created his own intelligence unit. He releases classified information to hit his political enemies. He’s set up the most powerful and secretive Vice Presidency in history.

    Cheney is plenty ambitious.

  • White’s Creek muses on just what Cheney has gotten out of being VP. Enough for all of us commenters to retire on and leave plenty for the Carpetbagger to buy a Rolls. As long as Cheney gets those kinds of returns on capital, I wonder if he’s going to leave office. Conversely, with all that gelt, why bother to stay?

  • Cheney isn’t going anywhere.

    If he left, whoever Bush picked would be deemed the heir apparent. This would pretty much alienate every other Republican who’s daydreaming about Jan. 20, 2009. Bush/Rove need to preserve the successor vacuum; otherwise, considering Bush’s low popularity and the general dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, his entire agenda is DOA. As it is, he’ll have trouble getting cooperation from Republicans who want to project a certain independence, like Hagel and Brownback (albeit from very different directions).

    Add in how important Cheney is to actually running the country–on the whole, isn’t it clear that Bush would rather be in Crawford?–and the internal power vacuum his departure would create while Bush can still semi-plausibly claim political relevance, and I don’t think there’s any chance of this happening.

    Not now, at any rate; in mid-2007, if the Democrats have control of one or both houses of Congress and Rove decides he can’t afford a contested nomination, then maybe Bush taps someone and Dick hobbles off into what I suspect would be a very short retirement. A guy like that survives on his power like a vampire on blood.

  • This discussion is indeed a serious subject.

    Given Cheney’s ongoing cardiac related health problems, I would hope the Democrats are having exactly these same types of discussions in private. If our opponents are using political game theory, then we would be derelict for not using the same strategy.

    One thing that I like about all the choices that CB listed is that they would all be very divisive within the Republican party.

  • There are three sets of circumstances under which I see the office of vice-president left vacant:
    1. Cheney dies or resigns due to health problems;
    2. Additional revelations about the hunting accident cause Cheney to resign;
    3. Revelations about his abuse of power or misconduct in his capacity as vice-president results in his resignation or impeachment.

    Bush’s freedom in selecting successor to Cheney would depend on which set of circumstances lead to the vacancy. It decreases as you go down the list. Further, only the first set of circumstances is likely in my opinion. Hence let consider the most likely situation which is also the one in which Bush has the most freedom to select his new number two.

    I think it is simple. Bush will want a sycophant and Rove will want someone that will help the party. Rice, Gonzales and Miers all fit the sycophant criteria. Rice and Gonzales of the three are most likely to help the party. I go with Rice and Gonzales.

    …which by the way, is also what I’m having for dinner this evening

  • Cheney isn’t going anywhere, but what this incident did was poke a hole in his own self-confidence. It’s hard to play Darth Vader when everyone, including those of your own party, are making jokes about how you can’t shoot straight.
    There’s an old say; Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, first they make lucky.
    The way this year is starting out for the administration, they might be looking back on ’05 as the good old days.
    What I’d like to see is a prominent Democrat saying that; For the good of the Republic and their own party, the Republicans should start considering impeaching this administration themselves, rather then waiting for the Democrats to do it.’
    A monkey wrench into the Republican spin machine..

  • Hmmm… who to replace the VP. Someone with no presidential ambitions… who is arguably qualified to be President… who has no serious enemies in Congress.

    It’s obvious – GWB has to nominate his dad to replace Cheney.

  • He’s already in league with the devil, who, I understand, wears a 32 portly short and looks good in red.

  • If Democrats could figure out what this administration or the GOP was going to do—about anything—they wouldn’t keep getting their respective arses handed to them every election. I decline to speculate at the extent of this administration’s indecency, but I would have to say that Gonzales is too perfect an opportunity to pass up. He caters to catholic Hispanics, dances to whatever tune BushCo plays, and would never have to be rewarded with an actual elected position.

    Fact is, after the Solid South went Repub in white flight, the Grand Ole Party has had too many regular voters who still think Jim Crow was good public policy. Hence, no Condi, not yet. She’s the H-Bomb they drop when Dems manage to pull their heads out of wherever they stuck ‘em this round and win an election or even—gasp!—a house in Congress.

  • ok, first off, my caveat here is that I don’t think they’d figure out to do this. I think if they really decided that replacing the veep was a good idea, though, there a couple things they could decide to do w/ the opportunity that could be beneficial.

    Since the field doesn’t include a clear player for ’08, that effects things. They really wouldn’t tap a guy as an heir-apparent, because whoever they picked would be too divisive at this point. Instead, what they could choose to do with it is use it to build up the resume of someone who doesn’t have so much public experience as a statesman, but, who isn’t really going to be on the table for ’08. It’s really just a way to build someone up and to kind of put him out there for the public, to say, “This isn’t going to be the guy for ’08, but he might be someone you want for president, someday.”

    My idea for this is someone like Chertoff or Bolton. Now, that might not really work out– Bush may really want either of those guys where they are right now. And they might not feel like Chertoff, especially, is close enough in the fold yet to be a guy who they want to designate as a possible president, in any respect. But someone along those lines.

    The other idea is that they could use the spot as bait to get someone in the White House who’s been reluctant to become the heir-apparent. If they feel like they don’t have someone who’s willing to run in ’08 and who would also be a very powerful candidate, and who they also trust, then they could offer this veep position to someone who has already turned them down, like Jeb. They could offer it to him, and say to him, “C’mon, Jeb, it’s just the VP,” in hopes that he’ll take it up for the fun of it, and then being around the WH day in and day out will change his mind.

    One more thing they could do with it is to induce someone off of the Supreme Court in order to make sure that they get another nomination while a republican president is in office. They could offer it to Scalia, Cheney’s friend, and thereby get his old ass of the bench + replace him with a much younger conservative. I’m not so confident that there would ever be a presidential run by Scalia, however. Again, this is something that they could do, but I don’t really think the motivation is there. Reforming the Supreme Court isn’t, I think, a centerpiece of these people’s agenda. They’re more intereseted in making the courts a lot less relevant to national politics and power.

  • Actually, the Scalia idea is diabolically clever, except that until Roberts is a little more seasoned, the Right needs Scalia’s leadership on the Court. They could replace his vote, but not his actual influence.

  • Dear Swan,

    DON’T YOU KNOW THAT KARL ROVE READS “THE CARPETBAGGER REPORT”???

    Please refrain from providing evil ideas for more evil deeds.

    Yours,

    smiley

  • Ted Nugent. He’s a hard-core conservative, hunter/”sportsman,” a gun rights nut with valuable ties to the NRA, and a better shot than Dick Cheney. He could have no ambitions of his own, or continue Bush’s agenda in “09 and beyond. Who knows? It’s really hard to tell with the Nuge.

  • I have to agree with many of the other posts, Dick isn’t going anywhere. The only two possibilities are frog marched or a body bag. If you can take a little R&R slaughtering domesticated birds bred in captivity (the ‘hunting’ equivelent of shooting caged puppies at an animal shelter), with a female companion other than your wife, knock back a brew (or two), blast a friend in the face, then hid from the authorities for 14 hours and not see the inside of a cell – it is hard to imagine crimes ever going punished.

    The bad heart is a thought, but frankly I’m convinced that he is already an evil dead guy hooked to a car battery. Sort of the evil freak from the “Eiger Sanction” with jumper cables hooked to his scrotum.

    Impeachment would require losing both houses – virtually impossible.

    However, what will be interesting is just how low the repugs will go in the mid terms. Remember, BushCo really can’t afford to lose either chamber. Once the dems have real discovery powers in either the house of the Senate, nasty maggots start seeing the light of day.

    On the other hand, if the ‘suppress and alter the vote’ effort gets any stronger even some of the Kool Aid drinkers might start fearing for democracy.

    It’s going to be interesting. Ugly, but interesting…

    -jjf

  • If Cheney resigns, then both presidents who left office through resignation will have been Republicans.

    assuming you meant Vice Presidents, that isn’t entirely accurate. John C. Calhoun was Jackson’s first VP and he resigned in 1832 before the end of his term to resume his place in the US Senate.

    But if he leaves, he will want a successor who will keep the dark and hidden actions of his office secure from prying eyes. He’s got to find somebody to be trusted with the secret handshake.

    The most obvious choices, already proven for the their loyalty, both “tanned, rested and ready” are John Ashcroft and Tom Ridge.

  • It seems to me that Cheney can shoot anyone he wants, go anywhere he wants and do anything he wants. He is also the guy who holds Bush’s hand when we has to to talk to the adults. Aside from the fact that he knows where all the bodies are buried (he buried most of them), what makes anyone think the Bush will dump him? And, frankly, their isn’t a Republican anywhere in the party with the balls to take Cheney on.

  • worriedaboutthis sez…
    “Cheney will not resign because he intends to run in 2008 (all talk to the contrary being a head fake).
    If he did resign, they would pick the most divisive born-again possible. Probably someone so awful that we will never guess if we try for a million Sundays…. ”

    Absolutely right. Cheney is impeachment insurance for Bush. Even if the Dems sweep the House and Senate this fall, why bothering trying to remove Bush from office if that just leaves Cheney to (continue to) run the show? So, whoever they pick as Cheney’s replacement has to be manifestly worse than Bush himself. So I’d guess either Ashcroft or Bolton.

  • of proven loyalty: “John Ashcroft ” — Andy

    Actually, as the NSA spying program proved, John was not of proven loyalty to the President, but to the constitution (though it gags me to write it). He would certainly not get the nod.

    If Bush gets rid of Cheney, which I think he could if he wanted, before the ’06 elections, he has a wider range of possibilities. Much as I would dislike the idea of ‘No Imagination’ Rice, I think she would be the best choice if Laura conviced her to run in ’08. Allen would be a good choice for the Republicans because then he would not be running from inside the Senate, which is always difficult.

    If after the ’06 elections and the Democrats gain control of one house, then Cheney would have to be replaced with a more consensus candidate. If people are still delusional about McCain’s politics by then, I would say he might get the nod.

    If the Republicans keep control of both houses and Bush still wants to dump Cheney in ’07, which he might just because he is tired of self-superior intellectual snobs smirking at his presidency, I believe he’d have to go harder to the right to satisfy congress. Brownback might look like the appropriate choice then.

    And I agree in his heart he’d love to put up Gonzoles. I just think the guy is tainted by the Torture and NSA Spying programs too much.

    • Comments are closed.