Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

President Cheney? The obvious Bush successor in 2008

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
TexasLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-27-05 03:32 AM
Original message
President Cheney? The obvious Bush successor in 2008
God, as if things aren't bad enough!...

President Cheney?
From the March 7, 2005 issue, Weekly Standard: The obvious man for Bush to tap as his successor in 2008.
by Fred Barnes
03/07/2005, Volume 010, Issue 23



<snip>

Cheney said a primary reason he has influence with Bush is that he has pledged not to run. His ability to serve the president, he said, "depends upon my ability not to have any agenda other than his agenda. I made it clear when I took the job that I had no aspirations to run for president myself, that I wanted to be part of the team. And it's worked very effectively." If he were running, he'd have to worry now "about what the precinct committeeman in Ottumwa, Iowa, is going to think about me in January of '08." Since that's not the case, Cheney said, he's free to "offer my advice based on what's best from the standpoint of the president and his program and what we're trying to achieve now."

As professions of lack of interest in the presidency go, Cheney's is unusually strong. Yet there's every reason he should change his mind. He's not too old. President Reagan was 69 when he took office. Despite past heart trouble, Cheney hasn't had a serious health problem for years. Besides, his health has nothing to do with his refusal to consider running in 2008. He's an experienced candidate at the national level and an effective debater with a wry sense of humor.

But there's a larger reason Cheney should seek to succeed Bush. In all likelihood, the 2008 election, like last year's contest, will focus on foreign policy. The war on terror, national security, and the struggle for democracy will probably dominate American politics for a decade or more. Bush's legacy, or at least part of it, will be to have returned these issues to a position of paramount concern for future presidents. And who is best qualified to pursue that agenda as knowledgeably and aggressively as Bush? The answer is the person who helped Bush formulate it, namely Cheney.

There's one other person who has been as important as the vice president in helping the president shape that agenda, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She could be an attractive candidate, but she has shown no interest in running for public office. Rice was once introduced to Arnold Schwarzenegger as "the next governor of California." She declined to run, however, and of course he got the job in 2003. Last year, Rice had the opportunity to run for the U.S. Senate from California. Again, she declined. If she decided to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, she would face the distinct disadvantage of being a first-time candidate.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/0...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-27-05 03:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. that would be a tremendous gift for Democrats
but it's not going to happen. The GOP isn't going to pick a candidate who doesn't have a chance.

Barnes is a not the brightest guy in DC. I doubt many other Republicans will go along with the idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-27-05 03:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. It's possible, but it would take Cheney away from --
Edited on Sun Feb-27-05 03:54 AM by Old Crusoe
-- all those big dollars he has already and can continue to rake in in the private sector.

He isn't electable. I think Iowa GOPers would politely nod his way on the pig farms during the Iowa caucus but then would vote for McCain or Frist.

In New Hampshire, I think McCain would wipe the floor with Dick Cheney. New Hampshire went strongly for McCain against Dubya in 2000. I don't think they're any more enamored of Cheney.

Despite the fact that he's terribly dull and has a record of killing kitty-cats, I think Frist is the GOP nominee.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NEOBuckeye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-27-05 04:02 AM
Response to Original message
3. Not a Chance
Cheney has about as much charisma as a constipated Pug.

The only position he should be running for in 2008 is President of the Cell Block in an international prision, after being tried and convicted for war crimes at The Hague.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveKeynesian Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-27-05 05:57 AM
Response to Original message
4. Republicans are stupid, but not in that way,
GOP may be idiots, but not when it comes to their strategy and elections. Cheney's as charismatic as a pile of dog doo. I think they'll only run rice if hilary runs. other than that, I have no idea. Easy to see whod run in a primary: guiliani, mccain, frist,

But how would any of those guys get thru the right wing nuts who vote in their primaries?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catbird Donating Member (633 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-27-05 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
5. Suppose Cheney were the incumbent?
If for some reason Bush is not able to complete his second term, Cheney would become President. He could then run in 2008 as an incumbent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merusault Donating Member (173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. !
Fred Barnes also predicted a Bush landslide in 1992.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlabamaYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-03-05 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
7. I thought you meant Lynne
That would be the perfect solution. You have the name recognition, a reliable far right ideology, and she's a woman. It would be a seamless transition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-04-05 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Have you heard about her novel "Body Politic"
(No, not the one about Sapphic passions in the Old West.)

In it, the VP has a heart attack whilst engaged in adulterous lechery & his wife succeeds him. I believe it leads to her becoming the first female President.

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312979630/ref=d...

Used copies are available--but I don't think I'm up for it...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarleenMB Donating Member (189 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-04-05 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
8. Nah, it'll be another Bush...
probably Jeb. That'll give 'em 8 years to get Neil ready, then 8 years after that it'll be one of the twins. We can look forward to a Bush dictatorship for, oh say, about the next 32 years and beyond.

:tinfoilhat:

In the meantime they're really pushing the Hilary card. The current crop of repuglycans runs the country on fear and bullying. Oh look out! that scary Hilary wants to be president. bah.

I'm sick to death of all of them and if I could leave the planet I would.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-04-05 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Hi DarleenMB!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-04-05 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
9. The Bushevik Template is to keep the Evil Brains OFF the Imperial Throne
They learned each time they tried since the 1947 National Security Act gave the Bush/Caesers the institutions they required to Destroy America in order to possess the ruins.

Thik about it:

1) Eisenhower, the last smart AND honest Republican President, who even had the temerity to warn the nation of his Bushevik Masters (the Military-Industrial Complex)...even though he didn't dare speak it until his Farewell Address.

2) Nixon, smart but pretty dishonest, though he shines as a beacon of probity next to the current Totalitarian Caba. I'd vote for him today if the choice was between him and Tiberius Bunnypants or Gropenfuhrer.

3) Reagan, the beginning of the end of Old America, might have been honest, but too Alzheimered and befuddled to notice the panoply of crook and Totalitarian Scum who gradually forced out the few people Loyal to Reagan by 1984. I don't even believe he ruled ANYTHING except maybe between 81 and 83.

The REAL First Emperor of Amerika was:

4) Poppy Augustus (who reigned 1983-1992), who apparently was smart, but I would say that as the Father of the Imperial Family, an exception was made because Augustus cannot stand aside for long and rule in secret. So Poppy, being the Augustus figure who apparently wouldn't cross the lines his idiot children are crfossing and whom his idiot Caligulan grandchildren will SHATTER, is the exception to the rule...but only because HE was the architect of the Destruction of the Old American Republic, and damn it, he deserved to have some fun with his new toy.

5) Tiberius Bunnypants, and the exception is over. We won't see an Emperor Cheney because the template is to have an affable idiot who will be protected by Cable TV Pravda while the Cheneys and Roves manipulate behind the scenes, where impeachment cannot touch them.

5)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Nov 18th 2017, 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC