Just because Cheyney isn't running doesn't mean that some present or former cabinet official might not run in his stead as GWB's heir. The dynamic that Krauthammer says will not exist doesn't necessarily require a VP. Another possibility: What if Jeb ran? (I don't think that he will, but...wouldn't he be held to the standard of Bush's heir? You bet he would.)
I think that what "The Hammer" was trying to say is that when W's term ends, it will be the end of his agenda. Sure, someone else may came along in '08 and succeed him and "take up the mantle", but it won't be "pure Bush" as it is now because...it won't BE George Bush. There is no lament here that The Cause won't continue beyond '08, because TheHammer knows (as well as all Freepers) that the current poitical climate is trending toward the values of Conservatism. A well-run campaign (Rudy, McCain, Rice, Sanford,et al) by a GOP'er would further the cause of Conservatism, but it just wouldn't be "pure Bush". (please forgive the term, I have no other suitable adjective)
Perhaps what The Hammer is getting at is that Bush is attempting to return our Republic to Reagan's Federalist initiatives. These things were put into action by Reagan by Executive Order, only to be rescinded by Clinton.(curiously just before he signed that massive tax bill...hmmm)
A serious embrace of Modern Federalism is perhaps what Bush has in mind with his "ownership society" policies. If he is really serious about it, he doesn't have to be a "lame duck" at all. He has the authority to hold Congress in session up until Inauguration Day 2009 if that's what it takes to finish his agenda. Wouldn't THAT get the Dem's attention.
(sorry for prattling on, but this issue just hit me the right way......love ya' all!!!)