Woodward Continues To Pitch Cheney '08

Horrifying or hilarious? I'm not exactly sure. But I do know that Bob Woodward loves the idea that Dick Cheney will be the GOP nominee in 2008. Back in May, on NBC's The Chris Matthews Show, Woodward said that Cheney is "a serious dark horse candidate" for the 2008 GOP nomination.

Speaking in Aspen on Tuesday night, Woodward kept up his campaign for Cheney.

"He would be 67 if he ran and was elected. Reagan was 69. Republicans always like the old warhorse. ... Nixon was 68," said Woodward, best known for exposing the Watergate scandal that led to Richard Nixon's resignation in 1974. "Both parties like to nominate vice presidents. ... Cheney would do it, and I think it's highly likely, so stay tuned."
Woodward either is ignoring Cheney's insistence that he won't run in 2008, knows something that we don't know, or assumes that Cheney's lying about not wanting to run. Whatever the answer, this is what Cheney said early this year:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday categorically ruled out a run for the White House in 2008, even if asked by the Republican president who recruited him back into government. "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say ... 'If nominated, I will not run,' 'If elected, I will not serve,' or not only no, but 'Hell no,"' Cheney told "Fox News Sunday," making clear he intends to retire from politics at the end of his current term. "... I've got my plans laid out. I'm going to serve this president for the next four years, and then I'm out of here."

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing Cheney as the GOP nominee, but I seriously question Woodward's thinking on this one. The 2008 GOP bench may be a bit weak, but even I don't think it's that weak to the point that they'll nominate Cheney. Normally, I'd say something here like "stranger things have happened," but in this case, I'm not sure they really have.

Tags: General 2008 (all tags)

Comments

37 Comments

Woodward Must Have Another Book
...coming because I don't think Cheney really wants to run. He wouldn't mind it so much I think if something happened to Bush and he assumed the Presidency...but I really don't think he's enough of a social animal to enjoy a sixteen month campaign where he has to pretend he has a sense of humanity and concern for his fellow man.
by risenmessiah 2005-08-10 09:40PM | 0 recs
I'd be Happy
Running against the real president and the source of the evil.  But I don't know if he could hide the heart attacks as he's been doing.  Like a few months ago he was secretly in the hospital for some bizarre reason.  But him picking himself for VP was strange too. oh well the evil empire knows what it wants.  As if halloberton hasn't enough money or contracts?
by panchoblogs 2005-08-10 09:51PM | 0 recs
The dream opponent!
Mr. warm and cuddly himself!  

Can't wait to ask him about those arms deals with Iran, vote against Mandela's release from prison, Halliburton's no-bid contracts, there'd be no end to it all!

My money says Jeb, nobody else has the religious fanatics in his pocket but still mainstream appeal.

by verasoie 2005-08-10 11:29PM | 0 recs
I'm torn . . .
I really can't imagine how Cheney would hold up as a candidate for PotUS, but I can't discount Woodward's knowledge and contacts. I think he's happy where he is, running the show from behind the scenes.

A devious thought: nothing would preclude Cheney running for VP again, and it would probably give the Bush cult the warm fuzzies to think that the new guy would be keeping on Gee-Dub's right hand.

He could stay VP indefinitely as long as he kept picking popular figureheads to lead the ticket. The corporatists love him, so the money would always be there.

My God, if JEB won the 2008 nomination, it'd be Bush/Cheney all over again . . .

<retch!>

by catastrophile 2005-08-11 12:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm torn . . .
I don't even want to think about a Jeb Bush/Cheney ticket!  Still, it would be a nice bit of quid pro quo: Jeb deserves something for giving his bro the presidency in 2000, doesn't he?
by tive 2005-08-11 02:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm torn . . .
Actually, I think Cheney can't be V.P. again.  As I understand it, the 12th Amendment says that if you're not qualified to be President, you can't be Vice President, either.

It says

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

So, if you're not eligible to be President because you've served two terms, you can't be V.P. for more than two terms, either.

I think.

by rayspace 2005-08-11 03:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm torn . . .
Doesn't apply.  Cheney is eligible to be President, so the 12th Amendment doesn't apply in this case.
by Fran for Dean 2005-08-11 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm torn . . .
I'm sorry to belabor this, but this doesn't make sense.  Your reply indicates that one can serve indefinitely as V.P. (no two term limit), but the clock starts ticking on your 8 years only when you actually become President.  

Is that your contention?  If so, is this a surmise or can you cite something?

by rayspace 2005-08-11 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm torn . . .
No... that makes sense.  We're all talking about whether or not Cheney will run for Prez, right?

G. H. W. Bush was VP for two terms and ran for Prez, and won.  Al Gore was VP for two terms, and no one thought he wouldn't be able to be Prez.

Obviously being VP for two terms doesn't disqualify you to be Prez.  And the only qualification needed to be VP is to be eligible to be Prez.

Therefore, you CAN be VP indefinitely.  Just like Senator, Congressman, etc.  The top spot is the only one w/ limits.

It's just that normally, after 8 years as VP... you'd run for Prez.

by teknofyl 2005-08-11 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm torn . . .
No, my comment wasn't about whether Cheney is constitutionally eligible to run for President.  Of course he is.

My comment was a response to catastrophile, who posited whether Cheney could run for V.P. again.  I say no, you and Fran say yes.

Your contention is that one can serve as V.P. indefinitely, and I was simply arguing that the V.P. is subject to the same restrictions FOR THAT OFFICE as the President faces for the Presidency. (Sorry for the caps, but my sorry version of Outlook doesn't appear to have a bold option).

And, of course, should Bush resign any time before January 21, 2007, Cheney could only serve one additional term (2009-13), should he choose to run.  But enough for my fantasy of Bush doing the Nixon wave at the helicopter door, leaving in disgrace, his whole political life a recognized blotch on American history...

by rayspace 2005-08-11 08:08AM | 0 recs
But it's not
There is no limit on the length of time somebody can be VP:

Amendment XXII
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

The words "Vice President" aren't anywhere in this amendment.  You can be VP forever.

by Geotpf 2005-08-11 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: But it's not
It's always been my understanding that this is correct -- that someone can only be President for two terms, but that a person could serve as Vice-President indefinitely. I'd have to assume that no one's ever thought to change this as... honestly... who the hell would want to be VP forever?
by Scott Shields 2005-08-11 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: But it's not
I concede.  You guys are right.  

I guess I got it confused with the question last year over whether Bill Clinton could be the Democrats' V.P. nominee.  (He can't, because he's constitutionally ineligible to be President again).

While I seriously doubt Cheney would run for V.P. again, I am beginning to think he will run for President.  The Republicans promote from within, despite the primary system.  All it would take to freeze the Republican field would be one statement from Cheney more ambiguous than the flat-out denial he gave Fox News.

by rayspace 2005-08-11 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: But it's not
Not to belabor the point, but Bill Clinton could be the Democrat's VP nominee.  Read the 22nd amendment carefully--it states that Bill Clinton can never again be elected President.   That does not prohibit him from becoming President in the same way that Gerald Ford did (who was never elected).   He is eligible to be President (natural-born, over 35), just not to be ELECTED President.
by feynman 2005-08-11 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: But it's not
But belabor we will...

It's not the 22nd Amendment that is relevant in the case of Clinton, but the 12th, which states

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Clinton, having served two terms, is constitutionally ineligible to be President.  By the above language, he therefore can't be V.P. either.

by rayspace 2005-08-11 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: But it's not
But why is Clinton constitutionally ineligible to be President?  The 22nd amendment only says that he is constitutionally ineligble to be ELECTED President.  Those are different.   If he'd wanted, in 1944, instead of a fourth term, FDR could certainly have been a VP candidate.  So the 22nd Amendment is relevant.
by feynman 2005-08-11 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: But it's not
The 22nd Amendment wasn't in force when FDR was in office.  It was passed during Truman's term, and specifically exempts him from its provisions.

The 22nd Amendment and the 12th Amendment work together, not separately.  If Clinton can't be President (because he already served two terms), then this keeps him from meeting the constitutional qualifications for V.P., too, since one of the qualifications for V.P. is that you have to be eligible to be President, and he isn't eligible to be President because he's already served two terms.

Got it?

The 22nd Amendment throws in another curve, which says you can't serve more than 2 years of another President's term.  So Ford, had he won in 1976, would have been ineligible to run in 1980.

Any other bright ideas, catastrophile?

by rayspace 2005-08-11 02:37PM | 0 recs
Leave me out of this.
I slept through the fun part, and worked through the rest. I was just sayin' . . .
by catastrophile 2005-08-11 05:56PM | 0 recs
RotF, LMAO!
Okay, I'm officially sorry I brought this up . . .
by catastrophile 2005-08-11 10:06AM | 0 recs
A third election crisis?
Jeepers!  That would be fun!
by jcjcjc 2005-08-11 05:43AM | 0 recs
Nixon was 68?
What did Woodward mean by that?  Nixon certainly was 68...in 1981!  He was a youthful(was Nixon ever really youthful?)55 when he won the presidency in 1968.

What's he talking about?

Anyway, I'd love to see a Cheney candidacy but I'd dread even the remotest possibility of a Cheney presidency.

by howie14 2005-08-11 03:42AM | 0 recs
Um,
Nixon was 55 in 1968.

Has Bob Woodward lost all of his desk reference material?

by niq 2005-08-11 04:01AM | 0 recs
I Dont Think Cheney is Constitutionally Eligible
The Consitution prohibits anyone from being President for more then two terms.  So, Cheney is prohibited from running again.

On a more serious note, he would be my pick for the Republican nominee in '08. . . tied directly to Bush, too ill to serve, personality like a viper, ultra conservative, ya, my kind of Republican nominee.

by Andy Katz 2005-08-11 05:12AM | 0 recs
A horrible thought...
if they truly did flip votes in the voting machines, Cheney could win.  They'll just keep saying we're paranoid, but if Cheney became POTUS - it couldn't be a fair election.  He is less electable than Ralph Nader!
by lezlie 2005-08-11 05:12AM | 0 recs
Cheney gives up three points off the top
because he looks like Mr. burns from the Simpsons.  

Likewise, Cheney couldn't even properly down Lieberman or Edwards in the debates, which is bad given Lieberman is dreadful to listen to and Edwards is once of the least substantive people to ever enter politics.

Dick Cheney is a stereotype of the GOP: old, rich, mean, white, oil man who's one bad hiccup away from massive heart trauma.

I'd love -- I'd pay -- to see Dick Cheney run.  If he shows up for the primaries, we should start an astroturf group to funnel money into Cheney's campaign.

by jcjcjc 2005-08-11 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Cheney gives up three points off the top
I would point out:
Edwards was a lawyer most of his life.  Substantive or no, he's an excellent debater.
by Kalil 2005-08-11 07:59AM | 0 recs
Be careful what you wish for...

You may get it...

How many of us were thinking "I hope they give us Reagan" in  1980 and "Gore can take out Bush" in 2000???

I have said before, I would MUCH rather have a good campaign between two highly qualified candidates (Clinton vs. Dole, McCain as GOP Nominee, etc.) Because shit happens.

by jgkojak 2005-08-11 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Be careful what you wish for...
To each his/her own.  Id rather the Repugs run a weak candidate rather then a strong one.  If nothing else Cheney's nomination will keep someone like me, who would seriously consider not voting for a Democrat if she/he is in the Clinton-Bayh Republican lite category under many circumstances, from abstaining on the presidential vote.

As for your examples, I dont think anything would be much different if the Republicans had nominated somewhat like GHWB in 1980 instead of Reagan.  That person still would have won, probably by even a larger margin, and still would have won reelection.

Granted, GWB's election in 2000 turned out to be the worst possible result imaginable, but I never thought Bush was a weak candidate.  He ran as a "moderate" conservative, not as the neanderthal that he has become.  

I am not saying you are "wrong."  This is one of those questions that are purely subjective.  I just disagree.

by Andy Katz 2005-08-11 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Be careful what you wish for...

I say be careful because:

  1. I'm not convinced this voting machine problem is fixed.

  2. One terror attack and Americans aren't voting for Hillary or whoever our nominee is.

  3. A Cheney-Guiliani ticket would be pretty formidable from a nat. security perspective.

  4. Given those choices, I'd risk McCain or Hagel as the GOP nominee.
by jgkojak 2005-08-11 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Be careful what you wish for...
In reply to yours. . .

  1.  I agree.

  2.  To me, this is one of the great questions in the 2008 cycle.  Will a terrorist attack help Bush?  Isnt the only thing the Repugs have going for them regarding the WOT (or w/e they are calling it today) is that there has not been any attack on US soil since 9/11?  And if there is an attack here, doesnt that bolster the Dems argument that the whole "flypaper" rational for Iraq is wrong?  Again, I am not sure.

  3.  I dont think the Repugs would take Guiliani even as a VP, unless he completely renounced his relatively liberal views on choice and gays.  Even then, I think Cheney would be weak because Bush is going to be so unpopular by 08 that the only way for them to be competitive is if they nominate someone who is clearly not part of the Bush crowd.

  4.  I agree that there is a very real difference between a principled conservative like McCain and an unprincipled one like Cheney.  Still, a MCCain presidency, particularly with a Republican Congress, would still be a disaster.
by Andy Katz 2005-08-11 12:07PM | 0 recs
Dark horse?
Not a dark horse candidate...

... more like the "dark prince" candidate

by elemgee 2005-08-11 06:55AM | 0 recs
Woodward is right
I'm betting on Undisclosed Dick in '08.  I'm hoping the roof of the bunker falls in on him so we won't have what passes for a Dilbert Accounting Troll in our political debate, but he is the absolute embodiment of the wingnut world and they won't be able to resist him "Finishing the work I've started".
by Kris 2005-08-11 07:00AM | 0 recs
A Couple of Thoughts
  1. I agree strongly with Kojak that I would rather see two strong candidates. Although politically it would be nice to see a weak candidate go up against the best the democrats can offer it would be best for the country if there were two people of presidential quality to choose from.

  2. Cheney would have no chance of winning the presidency short of election fraud or truly massive terrorists attacks here at home. And to be completely honest I am not sure that more attacks would automatically give him the win.

  3. His age, his health, and all of the negatives he brings to the table should keep him out of the race. And if they don't keep him out of the race it should keep him from winning the primaries. Put him next to any of the other potential Republican candidates and any one who thinks about health and ability to serve is going to pick the other guy.

Just my thoughts on the subject.
by JDF 2005-08-11 08:42AM | 0 recs
PLEASE make it so!
Hillary will slaughter Cheney like nobody's business. Oh please please please run for president Dick!
by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-08-11 10:03AM | 0 recs
Don't the Bushes prefer Hill for '08?
Back to back Bushes just a little too much to expect the voters to stomach. (Jeb will only allow himself one shot at it, surely?)

Seeing Hillary stomp on McCain in 08 has entertainment value for them - plus it establishes the Bush-Clinton monarchy as a thoroughly bipartisan creation.

(Jeb would only be 63 in January 2017.)

There must be some reason for that Bill/Daddy Bush shmoozing...

by johnsmith0903 2005-08-11 11:53AM | 0 recs
&quot;the Bush-Clinton monarchy,&quot; huh?
Does that mean Chelsea's gonna marry one of the twins?
by catastrophile 2005-08-11 12:55PM | 0 recs
My great fear
is that they'll run Cheney, they'll get him in office, and he'll later retire for health reasons and the VP will become prez.

The GOP has no good candidates to run, or at least they would really not like a primary fight that's going to spread all manner of dirt around as they fight one another.

So they're forced to use incumbency.  They can pick whomever the RNC wants as as the VP (tons less scrutiny, tons less influence at the ballot box), and then when the time's right, that person becomes prez, appoints a new VP, and they continue the reign of terror.

by Marc in KS 2005-08-12 07:06AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads