Posted on 02/26/2005 6:55:39 AM PST by Pokey78
VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY IS adamant about not running for president in 2008. Asked by host Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday if he might change his mind, Cheney answered with a firm no. "I've got my plans laid out," he said. "I'm going to serve this president for the next four years, and then I'm out of here. . . . In 2009, I'll be 68 years old. And I've still got a lot of rivers I'd like to fish and time I'd like to spend with my grandkids, and so this is my last tour. I don't plan to run for anything."
And that wasn't all. Cheney said a primary reason he has influence with Bush is that he has pledged not to run. His ability to serve the president, he said, "depends upon my ability not to have any agenda other than his agenda. I made it clear when I took the job that I had no aspirations to run for president myself, that I wanted to be part of the team. And it's worked very effectively." If he were running, he'd have to worry now "about what the precinct committeeman in Ottumwa, Iowa, is going to think about me in January of '08." Since that's not the case, Cheney said, he's free to "offer my advice based on what's best from the standpoint of the president and his program and what we're trying to achieve now."
As professions of lack of interest in the presidency go, Cheney's is unusually
But there's a larger reason Cheney should seek to succeed Bush. In all likelihood, the 2008 election, like last year's contest, will focus on foreign policy. The war on terror, national security, and the struggle for democracy will probably dominate American politics for a decade or more. Bush's legacy, or at least part of it, will be to have returned these issues to a position of paramount concern for future presidents. And who is best qualified to pursue that agenda as knowledgeably and aggressively as Bush? The answer is the person who helped Bush formulate it, namely Cheney.
There's one other person who has been as important as the vice president in helping the president shape that agenda, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She could be an attractive candidate, but she has shown no interest in running for public office. Rice was once introduced to Arnold Schwarzenegger as "the next governor of California." She declined to run, however, and of course he got the job in 2003. Last year, Rice had the opportunity to run for the U.S. Senate from California. Again, she declined. If she decided to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, she would face the distinct disadvantage of being a first-time candidate.
What about John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Bill Frist, and other Republicans who are thinking about running? They don't come close to Cheney in foreign policy know-how or decision-making experience. That's not to denigrate them. McCain has emphasized foreign and military affairs in his Senate career and is an able spokesman for a Bush-style foreign policy. Giuliani is no slouch on the subject of the terrorist threat. But who would generate the most public confidence as commander in chief? Cheney, for sure. On domestic issues as well--particularly taxes and energy--he can match any of the likely Republican candidates.
The main rap I've heard on Cheney is that he lacks the charisma to get elected. This is nonsense. So what if he can be characterized as Bush without the pizzazz? Cheney has what's far more important--gravitas. He's a man who's taken seriously as a national leader by everyone here and abroad. Voters aren't stupid. They know that gravitas trumps charisma in choosing a president in a foreign policy era.
The other question about Cheney as a presidential candidate is how he gets out of his vow not to run. That's easy. In the final two years of Bush's second term, the president will be a lame duck whose agenda has been exhausted. There will still be foreign policy issues on the table, true. But that will entail the playing out of policies that Bush, with Cheney's help, developed in his first term. So Bush will be in a position to anoint a successor. If
I don't know if Bush, two years from now, will actually want to choose a successor, someone to carry on his policies. It's possible his presidency and his signature issues may have soured by then. But I doubt it. So imagine Bush as a successful president looking to the future after he leaves office and wondering whether his accomplishments will be protected and expanded or reversed. It would be out of character for Bush to leave the selection of his successor to chance or to the whims of presidential primaries. If he says he'd like Cheney to run, my guess is Cheney would be hard-pressed to say no.
You presume more testosterone in the NYS GOP than I have ever seen.
Hmmmmm.....well, in that case, How 'bout Bobby Knight??? :)
There'd be some very interesting press conf.'s with Bobby in charge.
2012 Rice-Rumsfeld... no?
Not really accurate. HST had it within his capacity to reveal to the nation the extent to which there was leftist influence within the FDR administration and if he did that, the politial climate would have changed.
He probably chose not to do that because of intra-party loyalty or fear of intra party revenge attacks that would respond to such a leveling with the american public.
That was a direction that would have been open to him, and would have been traumatic, but also would have created the will to take steps that would have prevented the development of the Red Nuclear program.
I think the Korean point is the best. The invasion of the South was based on a calculation of what Truman would do, and they clearly detremined that he would not respond effectively.
This alternative history stuff is just speculation, of course, so I dont want to fault HST too much. The point is that his reasons for not being more effective in countering the Reds when we were the only nuclear power, are not as compelling as some want to claim. The larceny of our nuclear secrets by the Rosenbergs and others, would be the template for the public revelations.
I see.
I see.
"Arnold: Same as Rudy, too damn liberal."
Also not eligible, born abroad. And, no matter what, the Constitution isn't going to be amended in the next 3 3/4 years. And any move to do so to personally benefit Arnold should be rejected as far too scary.
And I love Arnie. I love Rudi too, but I think you are right, Rudi is just too far left on the serious social issues. I mean, the man is a serial marrier!
Btw, I heard the ex-wife, Donna Hanover, on the radio the other day, she's now married to some old school (hs? college? don't remember) flame and has written a book about such romances called "My Boyfriend's Back". Even though it was on NYC radio the word "Rudi" was not mentioned even once. Sounds like a cute book actually.
The times were not aligned with the needs, Korea and Vietnam are what happens when your leaders decide to get your people into wars without the backing of the electorate.
The only reason.
Where is your evidence for this because he does not want to run for President. He still have the appetite for his job he just does not want the Presidency and no one could have had more vigor than Lynne Cheney on the campaign trail last year.
The most recent photo I have seen of him taken on 17th February hardly seems that of a tired ill old man.
If Cheney is considered too old or ill then why is not McCain, he is older than Cheney and has also had health issues.
Just a slow day for news last week he is going to resign due to ill health next year this week he will run for President in 2008.
Met with him in Orlando during campaign. He was VERY tired. Plus, he has nothing to prove.
Seriously, he will be glad to go home.
What evidence do you have for that a recent photo of him taken on the 17th of this month would indicate otherwise.
Here here
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.