Posted on 11/12/2006 9:48:47 PM PST by jmc1969
WHEN US Vice-President Dick Cheney fired a shotgun into the face of his buddy Harry Whittington on a hunting trip earlier this year, The New York Post carried a banner headline that read: "Cheney's got a gun". The headline explained how the quail shoot had gone wrong, and captured the sense of foreboding Cheney has always brought to US politics.
Even the revelatory tone seemed to speak to the excessive secrecy that is a Cheney hallmark - and which was evident in the attempted cover-up of Whittington's near-death experience.
The shooting was back in February, when Cheney's immense influence over the White House was at its peak.
It was a time when the Iraq policy he had conceived with defence secretary and lifelong pal Donald Rumsfeld - the policy that has come to define the careers of both men - was holding up well enough for the Bush administration to be contemplating troop reductions.
If Cheney quits, Bush could appoint in his place one of the contenders for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.
Previously, Mitt Romney and George Pataki, the retiring governors of Massachusetts and New York respectively, have been mentioned as possible replacements in the event of a Cheney resignation. So has George Allen, the ambitious but now defeated senator from Virginia, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
But what if Bush were to ask one of the Republican frontrunners, either John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, to take the job? Would they accept on the basis that the vice-presidency is the best place from which to launch a presidential run, or would they decline for fear of being tainted by the Bush legacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
"Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."
No point about arguing about the content of the 25th amendment when it is so easy just to post and read it in a thread.
There was never any hearings for Ford that I can remember.
Maybe, the Senate and House did vote for him, but I remember that time quite well and there was no hearings that I recall.
Are you sure about that?
I checked information of Gerald Ford, the last VP appointed by a President mid-term, and he had to be confirmed. Here's the relevant information:
"Following Spiro Agnew's resignation, Nixon nominated Gerald R. Ford as his new vice president. Confronting the scenario that he had described in his earlier testimony, Nixon could not choose the candidate he preferred, John Connally. Because the Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress opposed Connally, the president was forced to settle for someone more likely to win confirmation. For the Democrats, there was also some irony involved. Less than a year later, when Nixon himself resigned, it was the former Republican leader of the House who succeeded him. Had the Twenty-fifth amendment not been adopted, the resignations—or impeachments—of Nixon and Agnew would have handed the presidency to the Speaker of the House, a Democrat."
Source: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Gerald_Ford.htm
That is correct.
I don't recall hearings for Ford, but I certainly recall hearings for Rockefeller.
Do you remember Alito like hearings for Ford for VP? They may have voted on him, but I don't recall hearings.
Actually, the last VP appointed by a President mid-term was Nelson Rockefeller, after Richard Nixon resigned.
After Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned during Richard Nixon's presidency October 10, 1973, Nixon nominated Ford to take Agnew's position on October 12.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford
I was much too young then to be paying attention to politics. (Smile. How old do I look?)
They may have voted on him, but I don't recall hearings.
Why would (today's) Dems call for a simple vote when they could drag out the process indefinitely for their own political advantage?
If the Democrats go forward with the impeachment nonsense I think Bush should call their bluff. Have Cheney resign and nominate George Allan to replace him. He would have to get through the Senate, but I think he would... He cant be touched by an impeachment probe (he hasn't been part of the Administration), and he would END the proceedings before they began, because Hilary's entire strategy depends on running against an open seat.
I dont think there will be any close votes. The Rinos (gang of 13) will now do whats in their nature and prostrate and appease to the left to stay safe in their small nut like minds.
Thanks. I stand corrected.
And she's never held any elected office. The only political novices that start out at the presidency are victorious generals.
She recently lost re-election but she is a bright shining star who would make the feminazis boil over and self-combust.
Exactly why the Dems want him out. Cheney is more qualified to be president than anyone I can think of.
After Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned during Richard Nixon's presidency October 10, 1973, Nixon nominated Ford to take Agnew's position on October 12.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford
Grandpa: ".....and they lived happily ever after, The End."
3 year old: "Thank you grandpa, would you please read another make believe story to me"?
Grandpa: "Of course little one".
Grandpa: Cheney may go, opening field for 2008
"WHEN US Vice-President Dick Cheney fired a shotgun into the face of his buddy......blah, blah, blah......or would they decline for fear of being tainted by the Bush legacy?"
3 year old: "Thank you grandpa. Please read the one about the 3 bears now, it's much more believable".
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.