Dubya minus Cheney and Rusmfeld

MrHola

Banned
Alright. Support Cheney dies in March, 2000. Bush gets another Running Mate. No Cheney means no Rumsfeld, as it was Cheney who recommended him. Let us assume that both Cheney and Rumsfeld are replaced by ordinary Republicans, what would happen next? Would Dubya's administration be "beter"?
 
Last edited:
Alternately, W just doesn't accept Cheney suggesting himself for Vice-President; in this case, the latter could still end up in the former's administration (likely as Sec of Defense) but still no Rumsfeld.
 

Buzz

Banned
So much so

Iraq might not be invaded, but if they are it will go better. Much more troops, Rumsfeld lied about how many troops were needed
 
George Pataki could be an interesting running mate. In the absence of Cheney and Rummy, you might get the pair of Richard Armitage and Colin Powell as Sec-State and Sec-Def. While I still think Bush would be generally incompetent, his presidency wouldn't be the same kind of disaster.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
The answer to this is a firm yes. Rumsfeld was widely known to be not of this century in his thinking, and Cheney wasn't much better.

While Bush himself was definitely a moral absolutist, which is maybe not ideal for high office, he was a lot more clever than he got credit for and was a lot more sympathetic to the disadvantaged than many in his party, making his ideas of compassionate conservatism that he espoused in his campaign and his tenure as Texas Governor likely a lot more prevalent in his administration.

Bush's Born again Christian outlook is vital to understanding his ideas about both the world and his place in it. While many people were not fans of this, had this outlook shone through during his presidency more, he likely would have been a centrist economic president rather than trying to squeeze the dot com bubble for all it was worth. And foreign policy wise, there is no way to know how he would see things.

There is no way that Bush does not expand our defense commitments in Eastern Europe. That was integral to his world view. If 9/11 goes forth as normal, taking out the Taliban and Al Qaeda also definitely happens. The question is on Iraq. I don't know how that would go, but Saddam radicalizing at the pace that he was might make war more or less inevitable there by 2006 if Bush is still around. Iraq was becoming a terror state, Saddam was no longer the secular asshole dictator of the 90s but rather a Sunni Islamist asshole dictator.
 
Very much so, Cheney and Rumsfeld's thinking and ideas were a big reason as to why the administration failed so hard in many aspects; remove them from the picture and things are alot better.
 
The answer to this is a firm yes. Rumsfeld was widely known to be not of this century in his thinking, and Cheney wasn't much better.

While Bush himself was definitely a moral absolutist, which is maybe not ideal for high office, he was a lot more clever than he got credit for and was a lot more sympathetic to the disadvantaged than many in his party, making his ideas of compassionate conservatism that he espoused in his campaign and his tenure as Texas Governor likely a lot more prevalent in his administration.

Bush's Born again Christian outlook is vital to understanding his ideas about both the world and his place in it. While many people were not fans of this, had this outlook shone through during his presidency more, he likely would have been a centrist economic president rather than trying to squeeze the dot com bubble for all it was worth. And foreign policy wise, there is no way to know how he would see things.

There is no way that Bush does not expand our defense commitments in Eastern Europe. That was integral to his world view. If 9/11 goes forth as normal, taking out the Taliban and Al Qaeda also definitely happens. The question is on Iraq. I don't know how that would go, but Saddam radicalizing at the pace that he was might make war more or less inevitable there by 2006 if Bush is still around. Iraq was becoming a terror state, Saddam was no longer the secular asshole dictator of the 90s but rather a Sunni Islamist asshole dictator.

Ditto to this.
 
George Pataki could be an interesting running mate. In the absence of Cheney and Rummy, you might get the pair of Richard Armitage and Colin Powell as Sec-State and Sec-Def. While I still think Bush would be generally incompetent, his presidency wouldn't be the same kind of disaster.

I am assuming Pataki is pro choice. That would eliminate him as a running mate.
I think that even without Cheney and Rumsfeld, Bush still invades Iraq. Saddam tried to kill his father.
 
I am assuming Pataki is pro choice. That would eliminate him as a running mate.
I think that even without Cheney and Rumsfeld, Bush still invades Iraq. Saddam tried to kill his father.

I think that depends on whether or not 9/11 or its equivalent happens. Bush admitted that he had always been planning on doing something about Iraq, but a full blown invasion will be a lot harder to achieve without 9/11 to stoke the patriotic fervor.
 
The answer to this is a firm yes. Rumsfeld was widely known to be not of this century in his thinking, and Cheney wasn't much better.

While Bush himself was definitely a moral absolutist, which is maybe not ideal for high office, he was a lot more clever than he got credit for and was a lot more sympathetic to the disadvantaged than many in his party, making his ideas of compassionate conservatism that he espoused in his campaign and his tenure as Texas Governor likely a lot more prevalent in his administration.

Bush's Born again Christian outlook is vital to understanding his ideas about both the world and his place in it. While many people were not fans of this, had this outlook shone through during his presidency more, he likely would have been a centrist economic president rather than trying to squeeze the dot com bubble for all it was worth. And foreign policy wise, there is no way to know how he would see things.

There is no way that Bush does not expand our defense commitments in Eastern Europe. That was integral to his world view. If 9/11 goes forth as normal, taking out the Taliban and Al Qaeda also definitely happens. The question is on Iraq. I don't know how that would go, but Saddam radicalizing at the pace that he was might make war more or less inevitable there by 2006 if Bush is still around. Iraq was becoming a terror state, Saddam was no longer the secular asshole dictator of the 90s but rather a Sunni Islamist asshole dictator.

Agreed. Iraq would probably on the table, but with Cheney and Rumsfeld (who's war boner for the Middle East is well known) out of the picture it would probably be limited to a Desert Fox 2: Electric Boogaloo, rather than a full blown regime change.
 

jahenders

Banned
Assuming we have 9/11, we still invade Afghanistan, but we either don't do Iraq or we do more of a Desert Storm II type of thing. In general, things go much better.

Without Iraq and the antipathy it spawned, you might get a different GOP candidate in 2008, perhaps Romney or Huckabee. Obama might not be the nominee without the Bush antipathy either, but it's possible the GOP could win in any case.

The answer to this is a firm yes. Rumsfeld was widely known to be not of this century in his thinking, and Cheney wasn't much better.

While Bush himself was definitely a moral absolutist, which is maybe not ideal for high office, he was a lot more clever than he got credit for and was a lot more sympathetic to the disadvantaged than many in his party, making his ideas of compassionate conservatism that he espoused in his campaign and his tenure as Texas Governor likely a lot more prevalent in his administration.

Bush's Born again Christian outlook is vital to understanding his ideas about both the world and his place in it. While many people were not fans of this, had this outlook shone through during his presidency more, he likely would have been a centrist economic president rather than trying to squeeze the dot com bubble for all it was worth. And foreign policy wise, there is no way to know how he would see things.

There is no way that Bush does not expand our defense commitments in Eastern Europe. That was integral to his world view. If 9/11 goes forth as normal, taking out the Taliban and Al Qaeda also definitely happens. The question is on Iraq. I don't know how that would go, but Saddam radicalizing at the pace that he was might make war more or less inevitable there by 2006 if Bush is still around. Iraq was becoming a terror state, Saddam was no longer the secular asshole dictator of the 90s but rather a Sunni Islamist asshole dictator.
 
I'm pretty sure Sen. John Danforth was Bush's second choice. That would mean dobuling down on the "Compassionate Conservatism" mentioned earlier.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Cheney is able to conjure up a Vice President for Dubya, avoiding being asked by Dubya to run with him; this also means that Rumsfeld isn't recommended by VP-Candidate Cheney (Though it doesn't mean Rumsfeld won't be considered). The question is, who does Cheney suggest that Dubya is happy with?

Edit: I agree with kichinichini, John Danforth is most likely.
 
Top