Cheney out in '04; Condi vs Hillary in '08

Great Debates
1

O’Reilly was touting this as a real possibility on Tim Russert’s Meet the Press this weekend. He sees the path to this by:

  • Cheney steps down as VP choice for Bush in ’02 as he has no presidential aspirations and Bush needs to give the GOP a natural heir for ’08.

  • Condi* gets tapped-- she’s smart, experienced and might help the GOP’s image with the minority community. Strong on International issues, where Bush has traditionally been seen to be weak. (This also assumes Powell is **not[b/] interested in the job.)

  • Condi becomes the top contender for the GOP nomination in ’08.

  • O’Reilly (and some others) seem to assume that Hillary has the ’08 Dem nomination if she wants it, and she does.

This will then result in a VERY interesting ’08 presidential race. I certainly agree with that, but don’t see this as a realistic scenario.

Firstly, I’m not sure about the whole Cheney thing, but I do believe he **should[/] step down if, in fact, he’s not certain he’ll run in ’08. Whether he will or not, I don’t know. Secondly, there have to be a lot of other Republicans in line in front of Condi. Frist, for one. As for whether or not Hillary is a shoe-in for the Dems, I also don’t see that. I may be biased, as I don’t care for Hillary one bit, and am perhaps unable to see her appeal. Hey, they let her carpet bag her way into a NY Senate seat, afterall.

Any other thoughts on this? I thought it an interesting proposition, even though it’s so far in the future as to make predictions extremely difficult.

I actually find the whole “Cheney should step down in ‘04” thing to be the more intersting part. Aside from the obvious snide remarks from “the left”, he really needs to be pretty darn sure he’ll run in ’08 if he intends to stay on as VP in ’04. The GOP needs to groom their ’08 candidate. Does anyone know where Cheney stands on seeking the ’04 nomination?
Perhaps his primary task was to give Bush credibility in ’02, and now he (Bush) can run on his own polularity. And whether you like him or not, you can’t deny that he’s currently pretty popular.

*Condoleezza Rice, in case anyone was wondering

2

Rice has expressed some interest in running for Governor of California.

I don’t think Bush will select her as VP, although I’d be happy to see him do so.

If she were selected as Bush’s VP (and they won in 2004), she would never have won an elective office on her own. This would be a big limitation to her running for President in 2008 IMHO. She’d be much stronger in 2008 or 2012 if she were elected Governor of California and did a good job.

She does have administrative experience as Provost of Stanford University, but that’s not close to being President.

3

Cheney has said he has no plans for stepping down, and Bush has said he has no plans to replace him.

Condi Rice has said she has no interest in being president - her stated dream is to be commissioner of the NFL. But frankly, I think that’s just her little joke.

That said…

Things change quickly in politics. If Bush is seen as being even remotely vulnerable in '02, they may consider a replacement for Cheney, if Cheney doesn’t want to run. I qualify that because by all accounts Bush is fanatically loyal to his friends and associates. So I doubt he’ll turf Cheney unless the idea comes from Cheney’s camp first.

Would Condi Rice go for it? I say yes. The one thing Rice doesn’t want to do is become a legislator. She has no interest in becoming a Senator or a Congressman. She’s said exactly that in an interview with Tim Russert - her personality suits being in an executive position. So my guess is that if she were asked she would jump at it.

But here’s another factor - if the Bush administration were in serious risk of not being elected, who would they pick as VP, all else being equal? No contest - Colin Powell. He still polls as the most popular politician in the U.S. And it’s not that far-fetched. Bush likes surrounding himself with opposing viewpoints. Powell as VP would blunt any charges of hawkish imperialism towards the White House as well. And, they’d also pick up serious black votes. A Bush/Powell presidential ticket would be almost unbeatable.

Then Condi becomes Secretary of State, and in '08 we have the Powell/Rice campaign. Can you imagine a black president, with a black vice president, and they are Republicans? That’d give the Democrats fits.

Of course, all this is wild speculation. As is the idea of Rice becoming VP. But it’s certainly a possibility.

As for Hillary - She’s got a real shot in '08. She is a masterful politician. And like Madonna, she’s capable of re-inventing herself as circumstances require. And I don’t mean that in a negative way. Look at her stance since 9/11. She knew she was vulnerable on the military question, so she became a hawk. She was one of the strongest Democratic supporters of Bush’s Iraq policy - that looks like a damned shrewd move now. And she’s done a good job for New York. She also knew she was vulnerable to charges of being a carpetbagger using New York as a stepping stone to the White House, so she has hunkered down and worked her butt off for her state. She’s stayed out of the major ideological conflicts like Trent Lott’s gaffe.

Never underestimate Hillary. She’s very, very smart. Would she beat Condi Rice? I don’t think so. For all Hillary’s brains, Condi’s smarter. And Rice has better foreign policy credentials, although Hillary has done much to close that gap by getting herself on the Armed Services Committee. Don’t be surprised to see her on the Foreign Relations committee next time around, either. She knows what she needs to do.

Her main problem is going to be her high negative ratings among Republicans. A Hillary candidacy will mobilize her opposition like nothing else could. That’s a big problem in Presidential elections.

4

The Republican Party nominating the first (1) black and (2) female candidate for the presidency would make the heads of the race-card wing of the Democratic Party explode.

I think the interesting questions about a Rice nomination would be (1) would the nomination make heavy inroads into the minority and female vote, not traditionally a Republican stronghold and (2) could Democrats continue to successfully paint the Republican Party as hostile to minorities? What would Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc say in the face of such a nomination?

It probably won’t happen, though. Condi’s dream job is NFL commissioner. :slight_smile:

(Are you sure it was Meet the Press? I don’t see any mention of Rice in today’s transcript).

5

Of course, this all assumes that Dubya wins re-election in 2004 against the Democratic nominee, Al Sharpton.:wink:

6

Dewey: The interview with Rice was at least a month ago.

7

First problem: Rice is going to run for Governor of my home state (California) in 2006, not for President in 2008.

Second problem: The Republican VP nominee in 2004 will be Tom Ridge, and, if the Reps win, Ridge will be the 2008 Rep nominee.

Third problem: Hillary has to run for re-election in 2006. George Pataki, the Governor of NY, will probably run against her, and we must remember that Andrew Cuomo has interests in obtaining high office. There’s a chance she won’t even run for re-election in 2006.

Fourth problem: Even if she is re-elected, that still doesn’t mean that she’s a lock on the Dem nomination. 5 years before an election is too long to make an accurate selection as to who will win the presidential nomination.

8

Sam: I thought that Powell made it very clear that he does not want to run for pres. Maybe that’s changeable, I don’t know. I like the Powell/Rice ticket (I set that up as a hypothetical in a thread about a month ago). I like it a lot. But again, can the GOP risk a VP candidate who isn’t absolutely sure that he or she will run for pres? Note that I said “absolutely sure”. If they’re only half committed, they shoudl be out. Can’t waste the VP spot on someone like that. But if Powell is cool on the presidency, I agree that Condi going to State, then VP for Powell is a real possibility.

Quin: Condi might try to run for gov of CA, but she’ll lose the GOP nomination to Arnold (as in Terminator). Ridge as VP in '04? Could be. Yeah, 5 years is a long time to look into the future, but I find this speculation intriguing. For instance, we have a real possibility of 2 women, one of whom is black, and one man who is black on the ticket (of a major party) at the same time.

Dewey: Not sure if it was MtP, but the interivew I’m talking about was Russert interviewing O’Reilly, not Condi.

9

Powell/Rice.

Now that’s the kind of old-fashioned careful conservativism I can get behind. Too bad the neos would kill it in the cradle.

10

I love how O’reilley is talking about 2008 like 2004 is locked up. I see the dems being completely mobilized this time, and the fact that the least amount of terror funding per capita is going to the two most important states should be a big deal for the dems in 2004. Hillary? I think she has a lot more to proove, plus Hilary hating was a profession once, and can be again.

I think a key aspect that we are forgetting is how the 2000 election played out. Gore and Bush were both extremely clumsy politicians. Bush was probably better than gore, because he had the advantage of being the new guy. But now bush will have to defend his policies in a debate. I can’t wait to see that. Any one of the dems will look better than he will.

But I couldn’t see Cheney taking one for the team. But of course it all depends on how much favor they have with Bush. It is very hard to tell because he is very secretive.

11

Futureman:

Yes, a lot of this assumes that Bush wins again in '04. If the election were held today, he certainly would. You can postulate all kinds of bad things that will happen between now and then, but it’s unclear why bad things, as opposed to good things, will be the order of the day.

Making anti-terror funding a key part of a campaign is going to go right over the heads of the electorate. Unless there were to be a new terror attack, it’ll be meaningless. If there is a terror attack, then all bets are off on both sides of the aisle.

And it won’t be up to Cheney to “take one for the team”. It’s up to Bush and the rest of the GOP. If they don’t want him, he’s out. Period.

12

My predictions:

Cheney will go back to his old job at Haliburton
Rumsfeld take the VP spot in ‘04
Wolfowitz will move up to take Defense Secretary
Rice will run off to be Governor of California in 06
the ‘08 presidental race will feature Rumsfeld (with Jeb Bush - currently Florida’s Governor - as the VP)
in ’16 Jeb Bush will run for President with Barbara Bush (George W’s daughter) as his VP running mate
in ’24 Jeb Bush will hand over the reigns to Jenna and she will be the first female president and will inaugurate the 25th consecutive year of republican control of the Whitehouse
in ’32 the senate will pass legislation ending presidential elections and anointing the Bush family as America’s first royal family

Please don’t take this as a parody of the debate you all are engaged in. I just thought I’d take the opportunity to have a little fun.

13

Lander:

Well, it appears you have assumed “W” (aka, little twit) wins in '04. Perhaps you are beginning to learn something afterall. :slight_smile:

14

I’ve always thought that the Bush dynasty’s best third-generation hopes lie in George P. Bush.

15

Perhaps I have merely assumed that it doesn’t matter which corrupt idiot wins in '04 and thatI was just having a little fun. And perhaps you’ll never learn.:slight_smile:

16

I think that Rice would be a strong candidate for the VP ticket if for some reason Cheney isn’t in the running. From her pov. , assuming she wants a shot at the Presidency, it would be a smart move and would leave her as a leading candidate in 2008 regardless of the 2004 result.

However I don’t think Hillary stands much of a chance of winning the nomination in 2008. The Dems know she would be the kiss of death in the South and without winning at least one or two states in the South it’s difficult to win the Presidency. If Edwards doesn’t win the nomination in 2004 I suspect he will be in a good position in 2008.

“but it’s unclear why bad things, as opposed to good things, will be the order of the day”
Nothing bad has to happen; the artificial war boost to his ratings will inevitably fade and the race will become a lot tighter. Even in 2000 Bush enjoyed a massive lead in the polls initially which faded away…

17

I’ve never heard anything about Hillary not running for the Senate in 2006, and I’d be surprised if she didn’t run for re-election. She’s not really popular anywhere, so I can’t see her trying for President.

Cheney wants to run in '04, and given that he’s the administration’s major strategist (and some might say the man in charge), I think he will. Rumsfeld is much too polarizing, I think: you don’t have to be anti-war to marvel at the way he shoots off his mouth and offends EVERYone.

18

John Mace,

Okay, you do have a point. Assuming that things will go bad isn’t fair. However, from my knowledge of the middle east, we are setting ourselves up for disaster, and that is why I assume bad things. But I supppose we can’t do that.

But we have to consider several things. Where’s the economy going and will that or something else be a big deal. Don’t underestimate the terror funding deal.

Anyway, here is the weird thing that I think will be in play. For some reason, Bush hasn’t had to be held accountable for anything since 911. Nobody is asking the questions right now. And the ones that do get asked aren’t being answered. For some reason, we don’t know yet why we failed at 911. The administration hasn’t been very forthcoming and was opposed to the independent investigation IIRC. In many ways, Bush doesn’t like discourse. Remember when he didn’t want to debate Gore? He knows that his strong point is having other speak for him and through media campaigns, etc. That is smart of him.
But this election will be different from all those before it, I believe. The democrats will be especially encouraged to get bush out, and the reps. will be as encouraged to keep him in.

I just wonder if he can actually dodge the important questions rather than address them. I don’t know, honestly. I’ve read a lot of things about 911, but the administration has never actually really addressed what exactly went wrong (as a result of a study) and how they can fix it. Also there is the WMD thing and how it will go down. Plus the tax cut situation where most americans favor increased spending in health-care rather than tax cuts. Americans don’t agree with the cut. And they think that the rich pay too little tax. So why would they want a tax-cut for the rich?

This isn’t the place to debate the validity of these points that I am making. I am just putting them up there to say, “Will these questions get asked? How would Bush react to them? Answer them? Sluff them off? And if he did just sluff them off, what would the dems do?”

Why assume that the bad things will happen? Well, if the economy picks up and Iraq turns out okay, then Bush will cruise through 2004. No questions here. But if nothing happens or bad things happen, then that is where it gets interesting.

I would like to know more about the Bush campaign plans. There are things he did last time that I don’t expect him to get away with last time. Bush was pretty much record free. Sure he was governor of TX, but that didn’t give the opponents much room to pick at him. Now having been one of the most active and secretive presidents ever, I’ll admit that it gives the Dems many “Actions” to criticize or question. Bush had the advantage last time in that department.

Anyway, my main point is that the political skills of the last election were pretty weak on both sides. Clinton would have cleaned house, obviously. Al gore was just repugnant, and W seemed more honest. How will he face against a more skilled political opponent like Kerry or anyone else other than Gephart or another boring Dem.

19

I think people here are drastically underestimating the domestic side of things, from Ashcroft to the economy. I’m in New York, and I’ve been listening, and I’ve been hearing things coming, not from the Democrats, but from the moderate Republicans, that sound like the furor against Clinton by the conservative Republicans.

(As far as the Pubs cosying up to the Jewish community… not a chance in hell as long as Bush keeps mentioning his God every thirty seconds.)

Condi’s got talent, she’s got a good, projective personality, and an apparent actual grip on the issues. The lady is going to be president one day. Almost no question about it. But this election is going to be a bit more brutal than a lot of people think… this and the next are going to be the last gasp of the WWII generation in power, I think. No, not running, I mean in the political parties. McCain is going to be a really harsh challenge to Bush, Rummy or Ashcroft is sure to step on someone’s neck…

And the Dems may have one or two good challenges when he survives that.

Yes, I like McCain, but I don’t think he has a great chance of winning. I do think he may cripple Bush, though. The last election was an abberation, two non-entities winding up fighting each other. Especially in the debates.

20

Futureman: Very good points. In one sense, I guess I’m jsut assuming in the OP that Bush wins in '04, and I’m really talking about the grooming of the next GOP VP candidate, assuming that Cheney is out. So even though you’ve made some really good points, I’m not too keen on debating them here. Sorry. Don’t want another “will Bush win in '04 thread”… Wouldn’t be prudent… Of course if Bush loses in '04, all the other things we’re debating here can come into play as well, it’s just that Condi (or whoever) doesn’t have the VP momentum to run with.

Is anyone knowledgeable about the Powell situation? I always hear that his wife will leave him if he runs for PoTUS, but that has a certain “urban legend” sound to it, and I don’t know how serious to take it. Assuming the issue is being a potential assassination target, I guess that is a real issue.