WILL CHENEY RESIGN?

[Bogart]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041129-785386,00.html


There is an unusual feature to the second Bush Administration that is extraordinarily important but has been almost entirely overlooked. For the first time in a half-century, a two-term presidency will end without sending out its Vice President to seek a mandate for succession at the next election. Vice President Cheney will not run for the presidency, and everyone knows it. When these eight years are over, the Bush-Cheney Administration will simply close up shop.

With this in mind, Bill Scheider was talking on CNN this weekend about the possibility that Cheney may resign before the end of his term so that Bush can install a potential successor. It's an interesting thought given that this is the first time since the 50's that there is no clear candidate to succeed an incumbent.

Cheney could easily cite health concerns to this end. My thought is that it would have to be early enough to give the successor enough time to become established. What do you think?

[NHPolitico]

That article points out all the pros to not having a third term election. They all sound right up Bush's alley. He loves doing whatever the hell he wants and this just gives him even more freedom to do that.

[Nym90]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041129-785386,00.html


There is an unusual feature to the second Bush Administration that is extraordinarily important but has been almost entirely overlooked. For the first time in a half-century, a two-term presidency will end without sending out its Vice President to seek a mandate for succession at the next election. Vice President Cheney will not run for the presidency, and everyone knows it. When these eight years are over, the Bush-Cheney Administration will simply close up shop.

With this in mind, Bill Scheider was talking on CNN this weekend about the possibility that Cheney may resign before the end of his term so that Bush can install a potential successor. It's an interesting thought given that this is the first time since the 50's that there is no clear candidate to succeed an incumbent.

Cheney could easily cite health concerns to this end. My thought is that it would have to be early enough to give the successor enough time to become established. What do you think?

It depends on who is nominated, but it might backfire. Rank-and-file Republicans would not like the idea of being "told" who to nominate essentially, and there would be significant opposition in the primaries to the new VP.

It might work, it would give someone a leg up for the nomination, but being an incumbent VP running for President is no advantage in the general election, historically speaking. Any attempt to play politics like this might well backfire, Cheney would clearly need to have legitimate new health concerns, not just the fact that he's had heart attacks in the past.

[J. J.]

It depends on who is nominated, but it might backfire. Rank-and-file Republicans would not like the idea of being "told" who to nominate essentially, and there would be significant opposition in the primaries to the new VP.

Congress basically "chose" Ford in 1973.  I doubt if they will roll for Jeb Bush, but someone might surface.  It will be the candidate of Congress, not an extention of Bush 43.

I would also note that you would have to go back to 1928 to really find an analogy.  Turman entered the race in 1952, but withdrew.

[Nym90]

It depends on who is nominated, but it might backfire. Rank-and-file Republicans would not like the idea of being "told" who to nominate essentially, and there would be significant opposition in the primaries to the new VP.

Congress basically "chose" Ford in 1973.  I doubt if they will roll for Jeb Bush, but someone might surface.  It will be the candidate of Congress, not an extention of Bush 43.

I would also note that you would have to go back to 1928 to really find an analogy.  Turman entered the race in 1952, but withdrew.

True, and even as an incumbent President, Ford had significant opposition in 1976.

You are correct that the Senate would have to confirm the new VP, but I doubt Bush would have much trouble unless he chose someone radically conservative (which is highly unlikely).

[Bogart]

It depends on who is nominated, but it might backfire. Rank-and-file Republicans would not like the idea of being "told" who to nominate essentially, and there would be significant opposition in the primaries to the new VP.

Congress basically "chose" Ford in 1973.  I doubt if they will roll for Jeb Bush, but someone might surface.  It will be the candidate of Congress, not an extention of Bush 43.

I would also note that you would have to go back to 1928 to really find an analogy.  Turman entered the race in 1952, but withdrew.

True, and even as an incumbent President, Ford had significant opposition in 1976.

You are correct that the Senate would have to confirm the new VP, but I doubt Bush would have much trouble unless he chose someone radically conservative (which is highly unlikely).

I believe he or she would have to be approved by both houses of Congress....yep, Section 2 of the XXV Amendment.

[dca5347]

I do not think he will resign,although he could die of a heart attack,which would amount to the same thing(Bush needing a replacement VP).