Bush replaces Cheney

  • Thread starter Deleted member 109224
  • Start date

Deleted member 109224

In Decision Points, George W Bush mentions that Cheney was willing to step down as running-mate for W's second term due to the perception that the Vice President was secretly running things/had a tremendous amount of influence. W ultimately opted against.

What if W had accepted the idea and replaced Cheney? Who might he replace him with? Giuliani perhaps? DHS Secretary Ridge? John McCain?

What would be the effect come 2008 when the GOP has an heir apparent?
 

Amadeus

Replacing Cheney could cut both ways. On the one hand, it could improve Bush's support among independents turned off by Cheney. On the other hand, it could create suspicions about Cheney's role in the administration and Bush's leadership. The last time a VP was actually replaced in a re-election year was Henry Wallace in 1944, and this didn't seem to inlact Roosevelt's chances in the election.

As for who exactly would replace him, Bill Frist or John Danforth wouldn't be bad candidates. Either man could certainly help Bush strike a more moderate image that would help him with independents.
 
Simon

Simon

darklordoftech said:
Would Bush promise that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz won't be in his second term cabinet?
Click to expand...
Granted I'm not American so I might have missed their level of importance, but did Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have enough of an impression on the general public that including accepting their pro forma end of term resignation letters as part of the campaign make much in the way of a difference?
 

darklordoftech

Simon said:
Granted I'm not American so I might have missed their level of importance, but did Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have enough of an impression on the general public that including accepting their pro forma end of term resignation letters as part of the campaign make much in the way of a difference?
Click to expand...
Not sure about Wolfowitz, but Rumsfeld certainly did.
 

Carl Schwamberger

darklordoftech said:
Not sure about Wolfowitz, but Rumsfeld certainly did.
Click to expand...

Rumsfeld was a key player is the decisions that caused the Iraqi occupation to go wrong so quickly. While I'm unsure the general public understood the details a lot of us former military were banging our heads on the table as his directives in the DoD became known. While Rummy was not the central figure in all this he was a major contributor to the damage.
 

darklordoftech

Carl Schwamberger said:
Rumsfeld was a key player is the decisions that caused the Iraqi occupation to go wrong so quickly. While I'm unsure the general public understood the details a lot of us former military were banging our heads on the table as his directives in the DoD became known. While Rummy was not the central figure in all this he was a major contributor to the damage.
Click to expand...
Rumsfeld was also often on tv trying to convince voters and Congress that Hussein has WMDs and therefore Iraq must be invaded ASAP.
 

Carl Schwamberger

darklordoftech said:
Rumsfeld was also often on tv trying to convince voters and Congress that Hussein has WMDs and therefore Iraq must be invaded ASAP.
Click to expand...

True, he was the face of the neocons military & geopolitical/strategy philosophy. One had to dig through the back pages and between the lines to understand Chenys role in all this.

Pesterfield said:
Would Bush try to downplay how much influence they had, or go the 'blame everything on my evil advisors' route?
Click to expand...

My impression is that was not his style. I may be wrong, but I do not recall him turning on former staff and blaming them for the failures, at least not publicly. He tended to turn the narrative to the future and looking forward, some similarities to Regan there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top