Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

"Republicans -- engrossed largely in speculative chatter as opposed to serious advocacy -- privately had begun to try out new names.... Rudolph Giuliani... Bill Frist... Colin Powell... Tom Ridge... Condoleezza Rice...."

Rice, Powell, Giuliani...those would certainly make for a much stronger ticket for voters on the fence.

For several years now, my working model has been that the Washington press corps is very committed to maintaining the "Bush Era" (which starts on 9/11/01) for as long as possible. This is a matter of self-interest rather than ideology, so you see signs of it in journalists that you'd expect to be committed to removing Bush from office--provided that these journalists are based in DC.

Just prior to the Bush Era, the big story was the economy, particularly high-tech start-ups (fading obviously before 9/11 but not replaced by any other story). The Cold War was long over, and it appeared that the private sector rather than government was now the main factor influencing the lives of average Americans (in theory that description sounds like GOP utopia, but in practice, apparently not). Of course, government is always a big factor in people's lives, but it's safe to say that this perception had a life of its own and was dictating what became news. About the only stories coming out of DC were scandals such as the Clinton impeachment.

So in my (probably oversimplistic) model, the DC press corps *hated* the peace and prosperity story, because it meant the main action was happening in the provinces (faraway places like Menlo Park, or conceptually faraway like Dulles, VA, where AOL was hiring engineers to support something other than the military industrial complex--heck some of the action was even happening in "fly over country").

When 9/11 occurred and the War on Terror was initiated, DC breathed a huge sigh of relief. Once again, the big story revolved around officious pronouncements on the Mall. There was no longer any need to leave the bubble. The news would now come in daily briefings. The game was to suck up enough to be privy to these briefings. This is a game the DC press corps understands a lot better than, say, the implications of alternative minimum tax on your incentive stock options.

Anyway, given my model, it's clear why there are rumors of Dick Cheney's departure. He has become a lead balloon, an albatross, a millstone--choose your metaphor. The true believers in the Bush administration (such as Bush himself) haven't figure this out, but the reporters have. And they are desperate to help in any way they can to preserve the status quo.

How many times do finance ministers have to deny that a devaluation is being considered before a currency collapses?

Bush's whole campaign -- hell, his whole administration -- is based on the idea that every decision he's made was the right one, and he's sticking to it. Replacing Cheney would undermine the GOP's entire rationale.

Paul Callahan - I agree with you in that the big media types (Russert, Judy Woodruff, Andrea Mitchell, etc) have a vested interest in keeping Bush era going, because they have access, networking, cushy relationships, big paychecks.
In DC, access is everything. There is another half to the story. Some in press corps have realized that Bush may lose and started to make connections to Kerry to start Kerry era, with access and so on.
It is not fully there yet, but after convention, if Kerry gets a bounce and if the conventional wisdom takes hold that Bush might lose, then this Kerry bandwagon starts. So you may be seeing some early signs of that in the Cheney rumor, which no doubt is fueled by Dems but is being stoked by future-Kerry-friendly reporters.
Besides, if there is no real news, substitute with rumors.

So perhaps the most interesting question is: why are d'Amato and the mass press picking up on this now, when the internal Republican "dump Cheney" movement's time has passed?

That's like asking why the press didn't pick-up on the bad intelligence on WMDs sooner. I know you're throwing the question out there for your readers to ponder. The answer is pretty easy to figure out.

Oh, but isn't it lovely that the press finally has gotten wind of the story? Once it becomes part of the national political discussion that Cheney might have to go, the next obvious question is why. The entire point of the story is that Cheney has been ultra-Bush, championing every bad decision, spearheading many of the ethically questionable domestic efforts, saying anything, no matter how dishonest, to keep the nutso base happy. Highlight the Cheney story, and you highlight the terrible decisions the Bush administration has made, time after time.

Paul Callahan and ecoast-- I agree that most of the big-time press is intellectually lazy, addicted to the illusion of nearness to power, and probably quite happy to be treated with utter contempt by this admin. Many won't care who's in power; it's the structure they love. That's why Simpson told Clinton that reporters think like Republicans no matter how they vote.

But there's still a real dump-Dick strategy here. Don't discount Rove's hand in this. It goes: invade Cuba in a couple of weeks or in mid-September. Give Cheney lots of publicity for his part in it and an ambulance ride from the undisclosed location. He gets accolades, says he's done his part now, he has a legacy, he has other priorities, he's on doctor's orders, maybe his pacemaker even fries.

Now Bush is the strong lone Ranger riding tall in the saddle, bowed by the weight he carries, mourning his faithful sidekick. It's made for the movies. They'll even grey his hair more as the election approaches (they did this in the run-up to the convention in 2000-- I was watching for it).

If they go in July, they upstage the Dem convention and have great theater at their own with Cheney's withdrawal and replacement. If they wait until September they get the air of national crisis and lone soldiering. Either way, Cheney goes and some sympathetic, attractive candidate replaces him on the ticket. The melodrama made in heaven.

It's impossible to be cynical enough about them.

This morning Johan Goldberg said only Democrats were pushing this story - and that was AFTER Donna Brazille informed him that many Democrats want Cheney to stay on the ticket. Goldberg has a harder time telling the truth than even the Vice President (BTW - he ended his stay on CNN this morning with another slab on Joseph Wilson's integrity - hohum).

DELONG: And now it's too late: dump Cheney
now and the story becomes "Bushies panic"
rather than "Cheney's doctors say he'll die
unless he steps down."

I think the story is far more likely to be "Bush-McCain: Dream Ticket" In other words: a nightmare for us.

"We have every confidence in the manager of the team."

Zizka: What are "famous last words," Alex?

David Moles wrote: Bush's whole campaign -- hell, his whole administration -- is based on the idea that every decision he's made was the right one, and he's sticking to it. Replacing Cheney would undermine the GOP's entire rationale.

If you're familiar with it -- kind of like the role of God in the movie 'Dogma'?

On the main subject, back when they announced that they'd be throwing their party in New York as close to the third anniversary as they could, this was one of the first thinks I was thinking after I got over the fury at their usurpation of that occasion, that maybe it was also so they could replace Cheney on the ticket as late as possible. Don't know what's with all these johnny-come-lately reporters finally starting to put two and two together, and being shocked, shocked I say! at the result. (I'm not saying I'm leaning towards the idea that it will happen, just that the possibility crossed my mind early on.)

jayarbee: Bush-McCain may actually be the only ticket less likely to happen than Kerry-McCain. Nevermind the alleged animosity between the two men from the 2000 campaign -- the Christian right would shit bricks, cornerstones and entire skyscrapers if McCain, who just made a very public show of putting a knife in the chest of the Federal Marraige Amendement, were put on the ticket.

Bush would NEVER let McCain see the inside of the WH. Big John is prone to righteous indignation and might need to be Trumanized.

There is too much potential damage from a dump Cheney. They may dump Mary but not Dick.

C'mon, we all now who the Boss is. And for Cheney to try to maintain the same level of access ---as a non VP --- would look really suspicious, wouldn't it? I mean, people would talk. McCain might even get irked.

No it isn't going to happen. It's Cheney VP.

First, if Cheney wants to stay, he's on the ticket. But, what was that about "circular firing squads"? If Cheney is replaced there are two logical replacements; Giuliani, meaning New York is in play. And Colin Powell, meaning Kerry loses his lock on 90% of the black vote.

Either scenario is a nightmare for Democrats.

Patrick R. Sullivan: after this analysis now we can surely say that any comment of yours on any topic related to the political liklihood of a given event should not be taken seriously. The "nightmare" you cite is roughly on par with Godzilla's emergence from the Pacific.

More unfair media bashing. If the media grabbed on the anti-Cheney talk as a movement as soon as one person spoke -- as do bloggers -- they'd be accused of anti-Bush exaggeration. In a story like this there needs to be some real meat before someone can go ahead with it and present it to a national audience. And, in fact, there have been suggestions of this issue in the media since March. If you didn't notice -- or it wasn't in headlines big enough to excite you -- blame yourself. And indeed, there hasn't really been a story until the Democrat team got settled and Bush' polls worsened. If Bush' polls stayed ahead of the Democrats, there was no Dump Cheney story.

"Have you ever heard so many people talking about a non-story?"

Actually, I have--Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations. :)

A curious symnetry . . .

Frankly, I think Dems are intentionally pushing this issue right now to make sure Bush is locked in with Cheney. Cheney is good for Kerry, so why not force the President's hand and make him declare that Cheney is the VP choice for all time. I particularly like the new rumor that Cheney will drop off for medical reasons--it's really the best excuse that BC04 would have been able to come up with, and now it's inherently suspect.

Bravo.

If a suitable replacement were waiting in the wings, this option would probably be a lot more likely. But who is going to replace Cheney? Think of all the qualifications this man - or, a lot less likely, woman - would have to have: he would need to be competent in foreign affairs and domestic affairs, he would have to satisfy the base but also not scare away moderates and independents, and he would have to be a good campaigner and fundraiser. So I ask the question again: who is going to replace Cheney?

> [A Cheney replacement] would have to satisfy the base
You think the Bush/Cheney base is going to vote for Kerry/Edwards? Or stay home and let Kerry win?

> but also not scare away moderates and independents
At least no more than Cheney is already scaring them away.

The only real negative I see in replacing Cheney is that it looks like a reversal, particularly at this late stage. Somehow I have this feeling that Bush's core supporters would be more likely to forgive (or more likely just deny) the inconsistency than turn around and vote for Kerry.

The Bush clan will not allow a VP who can run against Jeb in 2008. Cheney’s bad ticker is
considered a job requirement.

> The Bush clan will not allow a VP who can run against Jeb in 2008. Cheney’s bad ticker is
considered a job requirement.

Sorry, but I'm suddenly reminded of David Lynch's film adaptation of Dune. Those heart plugs, you know. Not in the novel as far as I remember. Maybe the "Bush clan" could make them a condition of employment.

It was a big-time rumor smackdown on the NBC Nightly News, when Tim Russert told Brian Williams last night: "Brian, I have talked to five -- count 'em, five -- senior Bush campaign advisers, and every one of them, starting with Karl Rove on down, said Dick Cheney is on the ticket to stay."

Remember, this is BushCo™ you're talking about. When they say one thing, just the opposite happens. Like I need to bring up all the obvious examples?

Look, the fact that 5 senior campaign advisers said Cheney is on the ticket to stay, I'd lay odds that he will reluctantly report that his health is not what it use to be, kind of like the old grey mare, and with great sadness and regret, step down from the ticket.

I didn't hear it first here, having already read this at any number of tinfoil hat stands.

As the saying goes, when you turn on the TV and the president's spokesman is claiming that the president fully supports you, then you'd better call the movers.

"...why are d'Amato and the mass press picking up on this now, when the internal Republican 'dump Cheney' movement's time has passed? Why didn't they pick up on this last February, when it was a serious issue within the private circles of the Republican Party?"

'cause things still looked okay for Bush in February and they don't now? Isn't "Dump Cheney" code for "Blame Cheney"?

While I think that Cheney will stay on the ticket (his ticker only has to hold out until after the election), it's interesting to speculate on replacements.

* Powell? No. He wants out now. Also, if he really got into the campaign, his role in the My Lai and Iran-Contra coverups would be a real liability.

* Rice? No. Waspish and shallow. She'd be a terrible campaigner.

* Giuliani? No. 'Way too liberal (pro- choice Catholic, yet.). Also, any VP has to be Second Bananna, and I don't see Rudy willingly accepting that role.

* McCain? No. Bush is generally incompetent, but he is really good at vindictiveness, and has a very long memory. McCain ran against him in 2000; that's enough.

* Rumsfeld? A possibility. I think he's really valuable where he is, but a possibility.

* Frist? A possibility. But are the Rs confident enough to open up another Senate seat? Who would be the new Senate leader?

* Wolfowitz, Pearle, or others from the Neocon cabal? Hmm ...

Note -- anybody who thinks that putting Powell or Rice on the ticket would somehow hurt Kerry or help Bush with black voters, doesn't know many black voters.

While I don't doubt that the Bushistas have one or more July or October surprises set up, I doubt invading Cuba is one of them. More likely than invading Iran or even Syria, I grant, but Cuba isn't likely to be a complete walkover, and we don't exactly have a lot of spare troops.

Uhm. They did. Talk of Dump Cheney has had a semi-regular bubbling up for the past 8 months or so (proviso: too lazy in the office to do the research to back this up). Back then, it never picked up enough oxygen to ignite sustained coverage as it has recently. Reasons: Democratic primary made it easy to change the subject for any quotable, the Decision Day was far enough off. But this last month is certainly not the first that the bigs have written up Dump Cheney.

"the new rumor that Cheney will drop off for medical reasons -- it's really the best excuse ... and now it's inherently suspect."

never underestimate the bush cheney crowd -- in spite of the fact that the request by bush and co that pakistan come up with a high profile arrest during the dem convention was outed weeks ago, they ran with that plan anyway -- the pakistanis made the high profile arrest on sunday, holding the announcement till yesterday.

you got to give it to them, if nothing else bush-cheney are audacious!

3156 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

6397 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

8980 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

4175 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

2806 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com