Blogger Rick Moore speculates that the prospect of that happening are at 50%.
My comments (with editorial corrections in brackets), for what they're worth:
I think the chances of a Cheney resignation are less than 5%, although it is interesting that it's being discussed.
Cheney stepping down would probably create more problems than the President would deem worthwhile. Whoever would be chosen, unless thought to be too old [to run in 2008] or [seen as] nothing more than a caretaker, would automatically be the frontrunner for the 2008 GOP nomination. This would turn the President into a kingmaker and probably so offend [Republican] presidential wannabes in Congress that it would scuttle whatever marginal chance Mr. Bush has of getting some portion of his program passed before January 20, 2009, when he's scheduled to step down.
If the President were to nominate some grey eminence or some clearly apolitical leader with no interest in running for President, unless the choice was a particularly creative one, [it] would probably not enhance GOP prospects in either 2006 [should the choice be made before this fall] or [in] 2008, although it might gain the President some points for statesmanship.
The President's best bet at this point is probably to keep the Veep ensconced deep in the bowels of the Eisenhower EOB [with instructions to] Scott McClellan to answer all inquiries with a standard answer, "Cheney? Cheney who?"
The interesting thing about all of this is that it comes in the wake of Move-On's attempt to paint Mr. Bush as Nixon-Resurrected. It was in the first year of Richard Nixon's second term that his Veep, Spiro Agnew, was forced to resign after pleading no contest to charges of accepting bribes while [he was] governor of Maryland. That was in October, 1973, putting that event [on the Nixon timeline] just five months ahead of where Mr. Bush finds his second administration today. Less than one year after Agnew's departure, RN became the first--and so far, only--President forced to resign. I'm sure that Move-On will continue to play up the analogy, aiming at similar results.
One thing about the Nixon analogy: In late-1973, his approval ratings in freefall and facing a Democratic-controlled Senate, where a new vice president would be confirmed, Nixon sought the counsel of Dem leaders as to who...could win quick approval for Vice President. Senate Democratic leader Mike Mansfield especially pushed then-House minority leader Gerald Ford. Nixon was more than willing to choose Ford, believing that Ford was so inept that the Michigan congressman would, in effect, be an insurance policy; Nixon was certan that no Dem would oust him if it meant that Ford would be elevated to the presidency. Nixon betted wrong and Ford was more effective than Nixon probably thought that he would be.
Today, of course, the Senate is controlled by Republicans. Yet, I think that, should the unlikely eventuality of a Cheney resignation happen, the President would be under some pressure to nominate a Republican of at least, a more moderate disposition, if not more moderate politics. Cheney, like Agnew, is seen as a partisan pit bull, although Agnew's reputation was born of attack speeches ("nattering nabobs of negativism," "an effete corps of impudent snobs") and Cheney's of behind-the-scenes infighting for his agenda.
I think that all of this is academic speculation, though. Barring some unknown circumstance, it's impossible for me to imagine Mr. Bush, every bit as stubborn and loyal as his father was, seeking or accepting a Cheney resignation.
3 comments:
I have no guess whether or not Vice President Cheney will resign. It should be remembered that his health is poor, and that alone is an important factor on any resignation.
From what I hear, Republicans much more than Democrats are pushing for a Cheney resignation. This incident is a politically embarrassing gaffe, and it sounds like more damning details may yet emerge.
There has been a very strong rumor for over two years that Cheney would step down two years into the President's second term, and the President would nominate Condoleezza Rice as a replacement. In fact, after PlameGate broke, US News & World Report openly speculated on this in print in October 2005.
This incident may be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
President would nominate Condoleezza Rice as a replacement
Objectively, that would put the kettle amongst the fish, so to speak. It would seem that she would be easily confirmed: it would be hard for R's to oppose, and probably harder for D's, and as she seems by far the most popular member of the administration, it might give a strong leg up in 2008. Of course, it also has the effect of 'doubling-down' on foreign policy outcomes over the next two years.
Deborah and Seth:
Thanks for your comments.
I think that Rice would be an extremely polarizing nominee, particularly as the war in Iraq, with which she is associated closely, has become deeply unpopular.
She would also likely be a disastrous candidate for President, as I have argued before.
Finally, I really believe that she has no interest in being a candidate for elective political office, something for which she--like most recent Secretaries of State--is tempermentally ill-suited. My reading of some of her statements is that Rice, as a Christian, operates also from a notion of personal call, and she has no sense of such a call on her life.
Mark
Post a Comment