Now, don’t get your hopes up. There’s no indication the veep will quit, meet his Maker or be impeached and removed anytime soon. But the recent reminder that his ticker is about as reliable as a rusty Timex has me wondering who Bush might nominate to replace him.
Would the Prez be dumb enough to propose one of his buddies? I wouldn’t think so, but we’ve seen so much evidence that he just doesn’t get it that I wouldn’t rule it out, even though the Democrat-controlled Senate would likely make mincemeat of such a nominee.
I suspect he’d have to go with some obscure, decent Republican politician with no overt ties to the administration; the equivalent of Nixon’s Gerald Ford.
Alas, I don’t know who lurks in the nooks and crannies of the GOP. Any suggestions? Would it be a sensible replacement or someone on the order of Speedy Gonzales? How will the confirmation hearing go?
If it was a year ago, I’d imagine he’d choose whomever he wanted to succeed him as Prez in 2008 (presumably someone, like McCain, whom he could count on to continue his Iraq adventure).
Now, with a well defined field of 2008 candidates, and Bush’s approval ratings below 30, I kind of think that a nomination for Veep from him would seem too blatant an endorsement by Bush and be a kiss of death for someone hoping to be Prez in 2008 as it would tie them too closely with Bush’s reputation.
So I bet he’d choose some older statesmen with no presidential ambitions who is well liked, at least within the GOP, which is basically what he did in 2000 when he selected Cheney. Someone like James Baker (though probably not actually James Baker due to his difference in opinion with Bush over the Iraq War).
I don’t think that would help him. It could be someone without other ambitions, or it could be someone who largely agrees with Bush and would be helped by the name recognition, like a Tancredo or Huckabee. (I don’t know how much they actually agree with Bush, but someone along those lines.)
I expect that’s what he’d do. And I expect he’d roll right over Congress; either they’d cave and approve whatever idiot he wants, or he’d just appoint the guy VP and dare them to do something about it and they’d cave.
I’ve argued against this every time I’ve noticed the subject arise. There is no way the influential Republican Senators with presidential ambitions would agree to confirm a VP nominee with presidential ambitions of his own. No way.
Bush could very well appoint a buddy, but it will only be a buddy who accepts that he is a place-holder.
Cheney won’t resign or be impeached; at his age with his medical history, he could certainly croak; who knows?
If Bush picks John McCain, that leaves only one Repub Senator(Brownback) running for Prez left to oppose that nomination. And while he may have some influence amongst his fellows, he’d have to fight both McCain’s and Bush’s influence. And in anycase, I doubt that the Republican part of the senate is inclined to fight a republican prez’s choice for VP.
Given the present climate, I’m not sure Congress would whip out the ol’ rubber stamp. If I may pick an extreme example: it’s doubtful Alberto Gonzales would have a snowball’s chance. What is it about the present Congress that makes you think they would play lapdog?
As for Bush simply appointing a vice-president (Twenty-Fifth Amendment, Section 2):
(Glad I looked that up - couldn’t remember if both houses had to pass on the appointment or just the Senate.)
It’d definitely be Condoleezza Rice. Being Bush’s VP would be the kiss of death for any presidential ambitions. Rice would have an easy time getting confirmed. Granted it’ll make the tabloids go wild.
Well, I just don’t see it, though I can’t place it on anything but gut feeling. Despite all evidence, I just cannot believe that Bush, or Bush’s handlers (as the case may be) would be so politically tin-eared as to give anyone a leg up.
McCain might decline anyway; it helps in the nomination process, but the only one that’s won the Presidency in my lifetime is Bush the Elder. (Gore, Humphrey, Nixon all lost.)
