The Wall Street Journal's Alan Murray misses the point completely:
WSJ.com - Political Capital: ...talk of dumping Dick Cheney as vice president is so misguided. A Republican ticket without Mr. Cheney might have more appeal to undecided voters and true independents. But why pander to that paltry crowd, when removing the vice president would cause raging dissent among the Republican base? What is often missed in reports about the president's declining approval ratings is that his approval among Republicans remains sky-high. Those voters don't want him to change course, and they would view any dump-Cheney move as a sign of weakness...
But back last winter, when there were live discussions about dumping Cheney among serious Republicans, the real reason for Bush to dump Cheney was to get a better Bush administration in the second term. Consider that the most bitter critics of the Bush administration have been its insiders: Paul O'Neill--the man whom George W. Bush thought in 2001 was the best man in the world for the job of Treasury Secretary--with his characterization of Bush as "a blind man in a room full of deaf people"; John Di Iulio--the man whom George W. Bush thought the best man in the world to run his signature White House-based faith initiative--recoils in horror when he recalls his days among the "Mayberry Machiavellis"; and what Richard Clarke--the man whom George W. Bush thought the best man in the world to coordinate counterterrorism efforts--thinks of George W. Bush cannot be said in polite company. One theory of what has gone wrong in the substantive policies of the Bush administration is that Cheney has encouraged Bush's worst tendencies, and that much better policies would emerge if somebody else were in Cheney's place.
Whether or not it would be good for Cheney to stay on the Republican ticket hinges on whether this theory is false. Any argument that Cheney should stay needs to be backed by an argument that Cheney has not been a bad influence on George W. Bush's policies.
But that's not an argument Murray makes: in his eyes, the only thing good about dumping Cheney would be that it would be "pandering to [a] paltry crowd"; what it would mean for the country under a second Bush administration is just not on his radar screen at all.
Too much inside Washington journalistic baseball.
Posted by DeLong at July 26, 2004 12:18 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postI was one of the first, if not the first, person to publicly suggest that Bush replace Cheney, which I did in the LA Times on June 6. The main argument I made is that Cheney is not a viable candate for the Republican nomination in 2008. Given the propensity for former VP's to get their party's nomination, I feel that Bush has virtually ensured a Democratic victory in 2008 if he wins this year.
Posted by: Bruce Bartlett on July 26, 2004 12:34 PMI was one of the first, if not the first, person to publicly suggest that Bush replace Cheney, which I did in the LA Times on June 6. The main argument I made is that Cheney is not a viable candate for the Republican nomination in 2008. Given the propensity for former VP's to get their party's nomination, I feel that Bush has virtually ensured a Democratic victory in 2008 if he wins this year.
Posted by: Bruce Bartlett on July 26, 2004 12:34 PMThe two of you are editorializing right past each other. Murray is talking about votes. You are talking about policy. Another view of the Bush White House is that Rove, not Cheney, is the problem, because Rove has told Bush that votes are what matters. If Cheney gets everything wrong, but is critical to Bush being reelected, then Cheney stays.
To the extent there is/was any serious thought of dumping Cheney, it requires that Bush be disatisfied with the advice Cheney has given him and be convinced that Murray is wrong about the overall impact on votes. The "paltry" undecided and independent vote (the vote which is apparently going to decide the outcome of the presidential election) would have to matter more than disaffected core votes.
Posted by: kharris on July 26, 2004 12:38 PMMurray doesn't miss the point, he simply delineates the Rove strategy: Fuck those flip-flopping swing voters if we can get re-elected by a bedrock of arch conservatives who wouldn't dream of voting for Kerry even if Bush came out to admit he raped his daughters at age 13.
Posted by: ogmb on July 26, 2004 12:47 PMHello:
You ever notice when Dick Cheney gives a speech or interview that his mouth and lips goes through these venal contortions of such magnitude that even a animation/cartoon could not even have replicated such mannerisms for a ficticious character like Mr. Magoo. It seems when he talks that his mind is so upset and evil-minded that he cannot hide his emotion which is juxtaposed by his mouth as he lips his words, seems as if he is about to become rabid like a sick dog; his jaws become crooked and misaligned, and words seem to spew a "curse word" or a he just lost a big hand of poker and there is no reason to keep the straight poker face...Or he is on some medication that makes him literally slack-jawed, or that he suffered a stroke 3 years ago, and the result is facial muscles out-of-control.
I mean, for real, if I was a Repuplican- I would want him dropped from the ticket just for the way his mouth and expressions look so banal. Yet, since when does how you come across matter when the actual track record is sitting along side his verbal performance, almost make sense if you think about it.? (dress with class/ perform as same) I've never witnessed anyone in my life talk and have their mouth go through such nasty contortions as if stomach acid shot right up into his sinus cavities???
to augment a little what kharris said, it's not that those independent votes are "paltry;" it's that the bush campaign has concluded that those votes aren't going to come bush's way, so better to keep the base energized.
note to bruce bartlett, one of my favorite honest conservatives: the prof's site is very slow posting comments, but post it does. Never succumb to the temptation to hit "post" twice....
Posted by: howard on July 26, 2004 01:49 PMSure, Murray, sure. If Bush dumped Cheney a massive number of enraged archconservatives would stay home to let Kerry win. It seems like the Republicans inability to win swing voters has suddendly become a
"choice".
"the bush campaign has concluded that those votes aren't going to come bush's way"
I think the causality goes the other way: The GWB campaign has concluded that an electoral majority is possible even without the centrist swing vote, so any effort to court it is wasted.
Posted by: ogmb on July 26, 2004 02:22 PMFor one if Cheney would have been dumped it would have been in 03. If W has made anything clear (whether you consider it a virtue or a vice) is that he does not 1) change direction underfire or 2)do anything that that NY Times thinks is a good idea. Sure Cheney has downsides, but he has known downsides. Bring in someone else and their is always the potential for a poliical disaster. Image if he had picked someone like Ryan for Illinois.
As for the succesion, given that Bush is a creature of the Party unlike McCain (or say Kerry unlike Dean) I doubt the men in the back rooms really wants to pick a replacement yet until they know if they are going to be facing Hillary in 2008.
Posted by: Dex on July 26, 2004 02:48 PMBush is waiting for Cheney to indicted in the Valerie Plame investigation, then he is going to dump him.
Posted by: KevinNYC on July 26, 2004 05:06 PMI thought that Jeb was next in line for 2008 no matter who's VP in the interim.
Posted by: Brian Boru on July 26, 2004 08:00 PMI thought that Jeb was in line for 2008 no matter what happens in the interim.
Posted by: Brian Boru on July 26, 2004 08:01 PMBrian Boru gets it right. For all the loud talk about the maneuvering to nominate the unelectable Hillary by the Dems in 2008, precious little is said about the determination to give us 16 years of Bush--sounds like a porn novel--on the Republican side.
Otherwise, Cheney would have been out when Republicans first floated that trial balloon in pubs such as The Economist, with all respects to Bruce Bartlett, in February.
That said, Bush explicitly "firing" Cheney WOULD help the ticket--but that would require a real CEO President.
Posted by: Ken Houghton on July 27, 2004 05:46 AMWasn't Jeb the assumed rationale (among us cynics) for picking a guy with a heart problem from the first? Having Jeb on the ticket looked too much like a dynasty, too much like a narrow set of ideas, too much like lots of things. Having a guy who gets by-pass surgery as often as I get a haircut as VP leaves the way clear for Jeb, without all those nasty image problems.
Posted by: kharris on July 27, 2004 08:22 AMOn the point of how much Bush could gain, vs what he has to lose, the latest Annenberg survey is a good starting point --
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_religion-release_07-26_pr.pdf
Little change in black affiliation with the Democratic and Republican parties since 2000, but among Hispanics, "Democrats now outnumber Republicans 45 to 24 percent, compared to a 39 to 21 percent margin in 2000." Meanwhile, 51% of white self-described born-again Protestants now say they are Republican, vs 43% in 2000. Among that same group, 22% call themselves Democrats, vs 24% four years ago. The Annenberg report says the white, born-again Protestant population outnumbers blacks and Hispanics put together (huh?).
This is not, of course, the same divide being discussed here, but the WASP subset in question here is also a big subset of the Bush base, as is evident from the Annenberg results.
Posted by: kharris on July 27, 2004 10:11 AMAhhh Jeb vs. Hillary, I can already hear the rationalizations starting on both sides of the fence as to why they are both supremely qualified non-politically incestous candidates...of course there must be atleast one Kennedy descendant over 35 that has not been touched by scandal.
Thank god we have a better choice this time around. I am going to vote for the rich white politically connected washington insider who went to Yale and became a member of an elitist secret society. Viva le diferance!!!!
Nice site Ever wonder how cigarettes are made? These are then cut to proper length for cigarettes. Filter-tipped brands have a double-length filter inserted between every two cigarettes; filters are sealed to the rods and then cut in half to produce two cigarettes, each one having a filter on one end.
Posted by: cigarettes on August 3, 2004 06:11 AMMost of them smoked cigarettes Save money on cheap cigarettes Cigarette smoking has been buy cigarettes. order cigarettes the most popular method of taking offer discount Camel cigarettes nicotine the year a report offer discount marlboro cigarettes that concluded that buy cigarettes. order cigarettes cigarettes and other Save money on cheap cigarettes forms of tobacco smoking cigs for all the Buy cigarettes and pack of smokes for you rolling tobacco would you like cigarettes with Free delivery of cigarettes years of smoking can cause cigarettes Chesterfield cigarettes bar talking with people Lucky Strike cigarettes Marlboro
Posted by: cigarettes on August 4, 2004 07:21 AMnice site i really like it http://www.a1-cheap-cigarettes.com
Posted by: cheap cigarettes on August 5, 2004 08:13 AMnice site i really like it http://www.my-discount-cigarettes.com
Posted by: discount cigarettes on August 6, 2004 06:21 AM5036 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
Posted by: Viagra on August 7, 2004 03:51 PM8917 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?
http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com
2607 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
Posted by: poker on August 15, 2004 05:32 PM3387 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com
Posted by: play blackjack on August 17, 2004 02:21 AM