My first thought is that whoever replaces Cheney will not be well-positioned for 2008. Sure, a potential next Vice President could be seen as the natural successor to President Bush. But is that really going to help a 2008 GOP candidate? Right now, every candidate expected to run for the GOP nomination is busy running away from Bush. Brownback on Miers, Frist on stem cells, Hagel on Iraq, McCain on torture, etc.

Rather than naming a Vice President as a way of anointing a 2008 pick, Bush is far more likely to name someone whom he either knows doesn't want the nomination or whom he doesn't want to have the nomination. The obvious pick is Condoleezza Rice. After Cheney, she's the next administration official in the line of succession. While the mainstream speculation is that she could very well run in 2008, she's indicated repeatedly that she's not interested. At least on this topic, I tend to believe her.

But if Cheney steps down, could there be another, more unorthodox pick? I can't help but think that if Cheney goes, his replacement would likely be someone who's brought in for much the same reason as Cheney himself. In 2000, the naming of Cheney as Bush's running mate was widely seen as bringing heft to the ticket. The meme was that 'grownups' would ultimately be in charge of an administration headed by someone much of the country viewed as an unserious fratboy.

The recently retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Richard Myers, might make sense. Though his 'leadership' in Iraq clearly indicates otherwise, I'd think most average Americans see him as a relatively non-political military man. I can imagine Bush and his handlers seeing Myers as a good choice "to restore honor and integrity" to the Vice Presidency.

Mind you, this is all just an exercise in speculation. Like I said up front, I can't seriously imagine Cheney being indicted. But with so much attention on the VP right now, it's worth considering. Besides, it's Fitzmas Eve. If a guy can't dream on Fitzmas Eve, when can he?