Removing Cheney From Office Good For GOP

Published on February 28, 2007 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Republican

Vice President Dick Cheney might be the most polarizing individual ever to hold office in the modern era of our politics. And in the past couple of years, his popularity has sunk to levels below 20%. Meaning more than 4 out of 5 people don't approve of his handling of his job. OF course, Mr Cheney's cavalierness towards the rest of our government is only fueled by the fact that elections simply don't matter to him anymore. He isn't running for President in 2008 and will probably just sit back and enjoy his Halliburton millions after Jan 20, 2009.

Many have called for Cheney's "impeachment" or removal from office. Something even republicans who dissaprove of Cheney tend to sour on, as they see it as a black eye on their party. And they are right, to a point.

But if the Republicans in the Congress begin to think ahead t o 08, they might see it a little differently. The race for the nomination is already on, much earlier than in previous cycles. One major reason for that is the suggestion that people just want this administration to be over. A recent poll found 58% of americans just want that. It is easy to summize that the early attention on the race is a direct result of people's discontent with the Bush administration. And Dick Cheney is at the heart of much of that criticizm. Recent revalations in his Chief Of Staff's trial have only furthered those negative sentiments.

Have his actions been "criminal" in the sense that he could be impeached? While many have no problem saying yes to that question, it is also important to note the words of Gerald Ford while still serving in the House of Representatives, "the only real definition of an “impeachable offense” is “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."”

Recently, GQ magazine writer Wil Hylton put together an article with specific articles of impeachment for Cheney. Instead of fillibustering this article with the complete text, you can read it here...Link

But impeaching Cheney wouldn't necessarily remove him from office, as we learned in the1990's. But removing Cheney from office in 2007 would have several inherent benefits for republicans in the 2008 election.

1) Bush could appoint an "heir apparent" as vice president. this would give republicans an exposure edge over the democratic party in 2008. they will be able to once again use the "bully pulpit" of the white house.

2) even if he doesn't appoint a contender for 2008, it will make running easier for the field of candidates. they simply won't have to run as hard or far from the bush record. i'm sure many of them will point to themselves as visionaries in the move to remove cheney.

3) whomever replaces cheney is bound to be more popular than cheney. and right now, the GOP can use every popularity point it can get.

4) it's not too late. even if cheney is replaced in the summer or fall, a new vp would have well over a year to work.

Whom could replace Cheney? There are more than enough "competent" people in the GOP. I'm sure Rudy Guiliani would be a popular choice, and may win back some independents. If he wants someone who doesn't only support his Iraq policy, but other views as well, Newt Gingrich, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore and Duncan Hunter could fill the role and boost either of theri respective presidential runs.

Going outside the contenders, Tom Keane and James Baker are perrenial popular statesmen who are more than qualified. And of course, there are others. One could wish for a prominent conservative or moderate democrat to fill the office in the spirit of unity, like a Sam Nunn or Lee Hamilton. But I doubt that would ever happen under Bush's tenure.

But every day, Vice President Cheney becomes more of an albatross to the GOP. By 2008, i can pretty much guarantee that his popularity won't increase much, if at all. The time has come to consider whether not the administration, and their beloved party would be better off in the long run without him.

Comments

adnauseam

on Feb 28, 2007

I'm not an insider, but as an outsider,I grasp two things about Cheney: They don't call him "Halliburton Cheney" for nothing--he has a legacy in Africa. Secondly, he is a "yes man" to George Bush and though he may have some clout he actually has less than Nixon had as VP to Eisenhower.

Sugar High Elf

on Feb 28, 2007

Here's the thing though... Bush might not be able to pick the "heir apparent" that he would want. According to the constitution:

Amendment XXV - Presidential Disability and Succession. Ratified 2/10/1967. Note History

2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Now, I'm not saying they would do this, but Congress could (especially since it is majority Democrat now) keep Bush from picking the VP he wants. They could railroad him into a lesser choice.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Feb 28, 2007

ad...i can go with #1, but disagree with your second assertion about the dickster.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on Feb 28, 2007

good point elf, but i think guiliani or a "main stream conservative' would get thru. plus, it wouldn't be in their interest to hold up the confirmation unless the nominee was extreme, like pat robertson or somethin,,,

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!