Cheney on the way out?

[hgc]

There's increasing buzz that VP Cheney is on the way out of his job. Here's an example from Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly on MSNBC... http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/crawford-on-cheney/

First of all, despite the technical truth, he can be fired. Let me explain. Yes, he's elected directly, and can only be removed as VP by impeachment and conviction. But he's only elected for 2 things: to take over as president should Bush not be able to finish his term and to break ties in the Senate. All the rest of his role and responsibility in government is at Bush's discretion. So he could be totally stripped of all responsibility, and relegated to his constitutional defined role of doing next to nothing.

Next, who on Earth thinks that if Bush told Cheney to resign, he wouldn't actually do it? He can be fired.

Clues:

The week before the election, Bush was asked at a press conference if Rumsfeld was going to be let go. Bush answered that both Rummy and Cheney were there to stay. But he hadn't been asked about Cheney! The rest (in the case of Rummy) is history. Bush says you stay -- that means you're a goner. Heck of a job, Brownie.

Robert Novak, Cheney's CIA agent exposure tool, wrote a bazarre column a few days ago talking about how dejected and despondent Cheney is about how Rummy was unceremoniously dumped. Is he getting the word out to the faithful that his brother vampire longs to seek solace in his coffin with dirt from the neo-con homeland?

Iraq Study Group will urge engagement with Syria and Iran to attempt to pull our fat out of the Iraq fire. As a matter of fact, they've already started talking to Syria. This is a severe repudiation to Cheney's preferred stick-in-the-eye approach to dealing with those two countries. It seems like yesterday that Cheney was sabre rattling over Iran.

Cheney is the architect of the imperial presidency, wherein the Bush doesn't have to observe the law if he gets a notion (also called a "signing statment") that his interpretation is different from what the written law he just signed says -- not to mention other ways of breaking the law, i.e. NSA warrantless spying on American citizens. Now that Dems control Congress, Bush is going to have to reel it in a little or face the wrath of the revival of a previously moribund Congress.

Thoughts?

 

[Darth Rotor]

There's increasing buzz that VP Cheney is on the way out of his job. Here's an example from Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly on MSNBC... http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/27/crawford-on-cheney/

First of all, despite the technical truth, he can be fired. Let me explain. Yes, he's elected directly, and can only be removed as VP by impeachment and conviction. But he's only elected for 2 things: to take over as president should Bush not be able to finish his term and to break ties in the Senate. All the rest of his role and responsibility in government is at Bush's discretion. So he could be totally stripped of all responsibility, and relegated to his constitutional defined role of doing next to nothing.

Next, who on Earth thinks that if Bush told Cheney to resign, he wouldn't actually do it? He can be fired.

Clues:

The week before the election, Bush was asked at a press conference if Rumsfeld was going to be let go. Bush answered that both Rummy and Cheney were there to stay. But he hadn't been asked about Cheney! The rest (in the case of Rummy) is history. Bush says you stay -- that means you're a goner. Heck of a job, Brownie.

Robert Novak, Cheney's CIA agent exposure tool, wrote a bazarre column a few days ago talking about how dejected and despondent Cheney is about how Rummy was unceremoniously dumped. Is he getting the word out to the faithful that his brother vampire longs to seek solace in his coffin with dirt from the neo-con homeland?

Iraq Study Group will urge engagement with Syria and Iran to attempt to pull our fat out of the Iraq fire. As a matter of fact, they've already started talking to Syria. This is a severe repudiation to Cheney's preferred stick-in-the-eye approach to dealing with those two countries. It seems like yesterday that Cheney was sabre rattling over Iran.

Cheney is the architect of the imperial presidency, wherein the Bush doesn't have to observe the law if he gets a notion (also called a "signing statment") that his interpretation is different from what the written law he just signed says -- not to mention other ways of breaking the law, i.e. NSA warrantless spying on American citizens. Now that Dems control Congress, Bush is going to have to reel it in a little or face the wrath of the revival of a previously moribund Congress.

Thoughts?

Cheney stays, and reverts to his old manner of being hard as hell to coax into making public utterances.

Baker and Hamilton's Iraq Study Group will release their report next month. I am willing to wait on the contents of that. The firing of Rummy was the necessary sacrificial lamb, gutted and blooded on the altar of the Iraq war.

DR

 

[Beerina]

First of all, despite the technical truth, he can be fired. Let me explain. Yes, he's elected directly, and can only be removed as VP by impeachment and conviction. But he's only elected for 2 things: to take over as president should Bush not be able to finish his term and to break ties in the Senate. All the rest of his role and responsibility in government is at Bush's discretion. So he could be totally stripped of all responsibility, and relegated to his constitutional defined role of doing next to nothing.

Prior to Clinton, VPs did next to nothing, and that was pretty standard -- the VP was frequently a runner up in the primaries, and had himself attacked the winner (and been attacked) viciously, with no love lost. But he's picked to get that guy's supporters + whatever region of the country he was in.

Then Clinton comes along and brags about how involved Gore is in the administration.

Then Bush and Cheney come along and smash that "record" all to Hell and back again.

Next, who on Earth thinks that if Bush told Cheney to resign, he wouldn't actually do it? He can be fired.

He can't be fired as VP nor as President of the Senate. And if Bush pisses him off too much, he can make the Democrats' 1 person majority a little easier to deal with.

Cheney is the architect of the imperial presidency, wherein the Bush doesn't have to observe the law if he gets a notion (also called a "signing statment") that his interpretation is different from what the written law he just signed says

Other presidents do this too. And if you read the signing statements, they're very dry and say things like "We will take Congress's specification of x dollars to hire a person for foreign affairs position of Zoo Panda Negotiator as advisory only since it encroaches on the president's constitutional authority to set foreign policy." These are legitimate concerns. Now perhaps you should argue he shouldn't sign it, or the whole law should be thrown out, but that's a separate issue. Rhetoriticians portray it as if he's writing "We will take Congress' outlawing of murder as purely advisory."

 

[hgc]

Prior to Clinton, VPs did next to nothing, and that was pretty standard -- the VP was frequently a runner up in the primaries, and had himself attacked the winner (and been attacked) viciously, with no love lost. But he's picked to get that guy's supporters + whatever region of the country he was in.

Then Clinton comes along and brags about how involved Gore is in the administration.

Then Bush and Cheney come along and smash that "record" all to Hell and back again.

Actually I think this goes back to Carter/Mondale, and has increased through Reagan/Bush, Clinton/Gore, and reaches its apotheosis with Cheney.

He can't be fired as VP nor as President of the Senate. And if Bush pisses him off too much, he can make the Democrats' 1 person majority a little easier to deal with.

But can you imagine a situation that Bush tells Cheney he's out, and Cheney doesn't resign? I find it very far-fetched.

By the way, I can guarantee any Cheney resignation will be publicly promoted as due to his declining health. As a matter of fact, Cheney really resigning for health reasons isn't at all far-fetched. If it comes to pass that he resigns, we may never know if he was fired or not.

 

[davefoc]

I view the failed presidency of Bush largely as the result of two people Cheney and Rove. The power of Rove was dissipated significantly by the Democratic victories in the last election.

The power of Cheney appeared to be on the decline with the firing of Rumsfeld. But now Cheney shows up in Saudi Arabia and Bush is making noise like there will be no significant change in American Iraq policy.

Of course there will be a change in American Iraq policy, the question is will Bush lead that change or will it be forced on him as Cheney and he desperately attempt to prove that they aren't two clueless screwups by clinging to their old policies.

Given that Bush seems to be a fairly dishonest individual it is difficult to see which way he is leaning right now on the above question based on anything he says. Is the trip to Saudi Arabia for Cheney Bush's way of saying that he and Cheney will go down together fighting the good fight to keep from making any substantive Iraq policy changes or was it Bush giving Cheney one last adventure before he cuts Cheney's influence off. I don't know but I'm leaning to the idea that Cheney's influence is there to stay.

 

[joe1347]

No way Bush will force Cheney out - since he (Cheney) is his best protection against impeachment. Sorry, but this is second hand. But I seem to remember someone quoting Harry Reid implying that the number one reason that the Democrats will not seek the impeachment of Bush is that it will put Cheney on the 'throne'.

 

[davefoc]

I think there are two questions here joe1347.

1. Will Bush force Cheney out?
2. Will Bush eliminate most of Cheney's influence on his presidency?

Your response only went to the first question and I agree with you that it is very unlikely that Bush would attempt to force Cheney out.

I think the second question is more interesting. Cheney seems to have been the most significant individual in the Bush administration with regard to foreign policy and from Bush's point of view might reasonably be thought of as the individual most responsible for the Iraq mess.

One might think that would be reason enough for Bush to end Cheney's strange role in this administration. But, right now, except for the firing of Rumsfeld and a little anti Cheney leaking that went along with it, it seems that Bush has no intention of curtailing Cheney's influence in the Bush administration.