No Secdef Cheney?

[Hyperbolus]

Former senator John Tower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tower , (of Tower commission fame) was George H. W. Bush' original nominee for secretary of defense, but was voted down 47-53 amid ethical difficulties. House minority whip Dick Cheney was mooted as a replacement and handily approved.
We all know how that ended.
I'm guessing Cheney leaves Congress for the oil industry earlier, and perhaps spends the rest of his career there. Would the H W Bush administration or Gulf War have differed notably; would any butterflies alter Bush' re-election prospects?'

[Paul V McNutt]

I don't see how this changes much of anything. it certainly does not help The first president Bush's chances in 1992. I can't stimulate the economy.

[Matt Wiser]

A SECDEF Tower would've done things largely the same in regards to Panama and DESERT SHIELD/STORM. Where he might have gone differently may have been in procurement. Tower would likely have killed the A-12 as Cheney did,given its problems, but may very well have revived the A-6F program to fill the void left by the A-12's cancellation. He may very well have also continued with the F-14D (another Cheney casualty), but also gone ahead with the F/A-18E/F, as the A/C Hornets were still short-legged-something that the E/F has remedied-as well as being able to carry more ordnance and new radar, EW system, etc.

[truth is life]

Originally Posted by Paul V McNutt

I don't see how this changes much of anything. it certainly does not help The first president Bush's chances in 1992. I can't stimulate the economy.

It certainly does change rather a lot of things in regards to procurement, or might at least. Cheney killed a number of military procurement items in perhaps short-sighted moves--things which the military would dearly have loved to have a decade or two later--as Matt Wiser says. That might have some knock-on economic effects; if Grumman is producing F-14Ds and A-6Fs, for instance, that means probably more jobs in California and New York. Maybe not anything big enough to do anything, though.

[TNF]

Cheney is going to be Speaker of the House in 1995, provided the rest of Bush's presidency and Clinton's early ones go as they did IOTL

[kevvy2010]

Originally Posted by TNF

Cheney is going to be Speaker of the House in 1995, provided the rest of Bush's presidency and Clinton's early ones go as they did IOTL

Good god that's a scary thought. But very much plausible. Although I doubt that he'd want to give up the speakership to become Vice President. Cheney would probably follow the same course as Gingrich, with a little more backbone and less willingness to compromise.

[Hyperbolus]

Well there would be no "Contract with America" or impeachment proceedings under a Speaker Cheney, but a government shutdown remains possible.
That said, Cheney would first have to convince Robert H. Micheal to step aside, but considering Michael's age (71 in 1995), that seems plausible.
On further reflection, the 1992 presidential contest is as OTL but 1996 results in President Kemp, or perhaps Pete Wilson?

[Matt Wiser]

One other thing in regards to procurement: Tower was a V-22 supporter, mainly because the aircraft has a production facility in Texas. A SECDEF Tower would not have tried to cancel the V-22 program. Speaking of which, I do wonder if Cheney, as VP OTL, ever flew in the aircraft he so much wanted to cancel back in 1991-92?

Not necessarily in '96. Voters would like the peace and prosperity that the Clinton Administration was in the middle of, and a serious GOP candidate wouldn't have much of a chance-especially if tied to any government shutdown. You'd need an outsider-like Colin Powell, or Gov. Pete Wilson, to have a shot at beating Clinton.

[MacCaulay]

As much as Cheney did a shit job as VP, he did a great job as Secretary of Defense. When you put his announcements and thoughts from 1991 and compare them to 2003 you realize he must've fucking went off the rails.

[Archibald]

Bringing this thread from the dead. I just stumbled on Tower rejection as secdef in 1989 - womanizing and heavy drinking, blah blah.

So far the results would be
- no big change to Panama & GW1
- changes to procurement (A-6F and Tomcat... I like it !)
- Clinton still get elected in 1992 (because it's the economy...)
- Cheney is going to be Speaker of the House in 1995
- Clinton gets reelected in 96 (because, again, it's the economy...)

now the big butterfly I suppose is the 2000 election, and all the ensuing...

How does the lack of Cheney (or a different Cheney) influence Bush election ? and what follows ?

I'm interested in SecDef Tower through NASA - because Tower rejection early 1989 cascaded into Henry Cooper refusing the chairmanship of the National Space Council.
Instead was newbie Mark Albrecht, and we had Bush "Mars in 2019" speech on July 20, 1989, and then NASA catastrophic 90 day study. And the Space Exploration Initiative was dead on arrival.