Although there are no doubt those in the Bush Admin who would like to run Cheney out in time to install a hand-picked GOP presidential wanna-be to serve out his term, it would go against Bush's m.o. of loyalty. But, Rummy and Shooter are connected at the hip, and if Rummy has to be sacrificed to deflect Iraq blame away from Bush's glorious legacy, look for Dirty Dick to follow him out the door.
Posted by T2 at April 14, 2006 02:02 PMi've posted the following comment elsewhere. not surprisingly, it does not generate interest,
but the questions still needs to be answered -
is cheney a constitutional officer?
can the v-p be "fired" by the president?
original comment:
i see a lot these days about "firing" Cheney.
certainly getting rid of Cheney would raise the average iq in the white house
(and getting rid of bush would do even more for that already historically low number).
but v.p. Cheney is an elected official.
he does not serve at bush's pleasure,
but at ours.
he is a constitutional officer, isn't he?
one of the most destructive things about the american right wing is how cavalierly they treat american political custom, political law, and the u.s. constitution.
i don't think we opponents of bush/Cheney should go along with any part of that radical approach just because it suits our prejudice.
if enough people think Cheney is incompetent or dishonest in a major way (high crimes and misdemeanors),
he should be impeached.
that's the constitutional route.
of course bush can push Cheney out.
but how would that help american government in the long run?
the problem for american and the bush presidency is not Cheney.
Cheney just had the knowledge in detail of how washington worked which bush did not have in jan 2001.
the problem for american is that bush has repeatedly gotten away with the excuse that he did not know or did not understand something done in his name.
an american president is expected to know,
expected to find out if he does not know,
expected to understand issues in detail before he makes judgments.
Cheney is not bush's problem.
george bush's problem
and american's problem
is a monumentally incompetent president
george w. bush –
not very bright,
extremely inarticulate for an american president,
lacking in historical and diplomatic knowledge
lacking in any interest in sitting down with other american politic ans and working out a deal that benefits all.
any political system, no matter how solid appearing,
depends entirely on the tolerance and consensus of those governed and those doing the governing.
my personal feeling is that we do not need to introduce any more instability into American national politics right now by encouraging bush to fire Cheney.
impeach Cheney?
fine.
fire him?
bad constitutional idea.
hold bush entirely accountable in the upcoming congressional elections?
best constitutional idea of all.
Comment by orionATL — 4/12/2006 @ 7:39 pm
Are Bush/Rove Ready To Throw Cheney Under The Bus On Plame?
If I say "please" will they?
Posted by Zappatero at April 14, 2006 03:56 PMOrion - I think you misunderstand blogtopia and maybe its misunderstanding you on this issue. Let me try an' translate . .
So for Orion, 'Throwing Cheney under the bus/firing Cheney = demanding Cheney's resignation. I think you're right that the blogtopia hasn't quite articulated or thought it through, but I think they're expecting Cheney to be fired via "demanding a resignation."
Blogtopia - Orion's saying that if Cheney appointed himself Bush's best choice for VP, what makes you think the fucker will resign because President and party want him to? Because Orion's right, the man can't be fired except through an impeachment.
Posted by idiosynchronic at April 14, 2006 06:23 PMThere is peril afoot, friends.
We must keep in mind...we NEED Dick Cheney. If he is sacrificed from the scandals, from his own "frankly" incompetence "if you will," then it is our loss as Dems, not the GOP.
That will give Bush a new beginning. It will hurt him in the short run, but it will change the whole view of his presidency historically, if Dick is out. He gets a new beginning and he removes a Darth-like albatross from his administration's neck that serves our cause by highlighting the admin's arrogance and mean-spiritedness when you peel away all the layers of the onion.
And, on top of that, who do you think he would replace Cheney with? Oh I don't know, maybe Condoleeza Rice...someone who, I have always been shocked to say, people actually hold in esteem...despite her many failings while in office as NSA and now as State. Really, she's done nothing you can point to as successful...she's just a mouthpiece, a puppet. But it will change electoral politics if she's the VP for Bush...not to mention push her perhaps closer to staying in electoral politics, which I don't think she wants to do (forget Dick Morris, she's not running for Pres, unless she is handed VP now).
So, in short, we can't let Bush get away with all the shit he's done by allowing Cheney to get thrown under the bus as yet another scapegoat for Bushie.
The buck MUST stop at the top of the ticket, the guy who's supposed to be in charge of the nation, or elected CEO. Don't let Cheney go...that's too easy.
Be strong people, help on a campaign this summer/fall, and get people to vote...we will need it.
-Loyal Dem Strategist
Posted by Loyal Dem Strategist at April 14, 2006 08:21 PMAgnew resigned, and so will Cheney.
Rice will be the VP. Then she will also be VP on McCain's ticket, with Lieberman in the wings as Sec of State. Add Zell Miller in there somewhere, for example as Sec of Defense, along with Giuliani for Director of Homeland Security, and you have a pretty strong cadre of "America Firsters".
Don't underestimate the Republicans to come firing back after being wounded, with new kinds of weapons (like the ticket above). Military hero maverick who is hard to categorize, black female brainiac foreign policy junkie, Jewish DINO, and an-up-by-the-bootstraps conservative Red-State Democrat, and the NY 9/11 hero figure. It would be a brilliant flanking maneuver and the Democrats would wonder what hit them.
Posted by Terry Ott at April 14, 2006 10:35 PMMr. Soto, did you toss your brain under the bus?
Posted by Seixon at April 15, 2006 04:45 AMNothing more disgusting than a skanky blogwhore! You keep trying, sexshop, but no one's buying. I believe eriposte showed you what for already, didn't he? Yes, yes, he did.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 15, 2006 06:57 AMSpiro Agnew resigned only because he realized that he would have been impeached and found guilty. There is no reason to believe that Dick (the devil) Cheney would be impeached by this Republican controlled Congress. Therefore, there is no reason that he would choose to resign as V.P.
Posted by Don Quixote at April 15, 2006 08:39 AMiamcoyote,
No one's buying, eh?
Certainly not anyone around here, you'd rather live in your own comfortable bubble where no one challenges anything you believe.
As for eriposte, he left with his tail in between his legs when I showed him that Wilson lied. He had no comment, since he couldn't argue with Wilson's own words.
Nor could he provide evidence that the Zahawi letter is a forgery, although he believes his assumption is the same thing as a fact.
Don Quixote,
Yeah, but the Democrats are going to sweep the elections in November, so then they'll be able to at least get revenge on Bush by doing exactly what the Republicans did to Clinton. Eh?
Posted by Seixon at April 15, 2006 08:51 AMPantload Media? That's still around? Wasn't that just another arm of the RNC-sponsored propoganda machine? Full of enraged rightwing pseudo-intellectuals trying to relive, and capitalize on, the heady days when kerning was important? Not really credible credentials to be waving around here, but thanks for letting us know you're on the payroll. And thanks for the laugh.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 15, 2006 09:54 AMYeah, but the Democrats are going to sweep the elections in November, so then they'll be able to at least get revenge on Bush by doing exactly what the Republicans did to Clinton. Eh?
I think you won't find an argument from either side of the aisle when I say it's difficult to say that the Democrats are THE cause of any uprising that may give them back the House and Senate. By most accounts, for better or for worse, the Democrats have seemingly done very little at all. I suppose that could cut both ways by saying exactly what are the Democrats' plans on various issues (though they have separately come out with plans, their collective voices are not heard in chiming mode the way you hear from the Right Wing Noise Machine), but then again why allow any Democratic involvement when you see Republicans stumbling over themselves and shooting each other in the foot?
It appears that no involvement is better than interaction right now for the Democrats. Everything you see here transpiring is the modern day GOP splintering into many pieces as they attempt to hold themselves together down the election stretch. Much can change, however, and the Dems. may likely come out publicly with a strategic plan on various issues (which are the whispers from a number of insiders), but at least for right now the incompetence and lack of direction on message lies squarely on the shoulders of Frist, Hastert, and this Administration. The polls going south are indicative of this, and we have yet to see any true interaction by the Dems.
It seems they are taking the similar steps of Gingrich back in '94 when he unveiled his plan a mere coupla months prior to the November midterms. Can't fault them for the successful strategy on that, though. But why should they interfere right now when all they need to do is sit back and watch the GOP eat their own?
Posted by MisterOpus1 at April 15, 2006 01:55 PMDon Quixote:
It is only a short jump from the Agnew to the Cheney situations. You don't have to be "firable" in the sense of "Dick, pack up your things because we no longer need your services" in order to be asked, or set up, to step down. One has only to be found in an untenable position, which means "could not be elected president".
From there, it is just a matter of tactics and details in terms of how it's accomplished, and would have a lot to do with the nature and extent of the personal relationship between the VP and POTUS.
Posted by Terry Ott at April 16, 2006 04:22 AM