Cheney has heart attack/quits as VP after 2004 election

[clintonforever]

Suppose Cheney has a massive heart attack right after being re-elected and decided not to serve another term.

Powell was out as Sec State...don't think he would be interested as Bush's VP...

Condi Rice...maybe but she would rather be Sec State...

This opens the door for Joe Lieberman who was learning ever so slowly towards Bush but don't think he would want to turn he back on his party just yet.....

 

[dilbert719]

At the time, the Senate was split 55-44-Jim Jeffords, and the House was 232-201-Bernie Sanders, so in effect 55-45 and 232-202 (one vacancy). This means it'd be less complicated than it would get later, but Bush still couldn't cram through anyone he pleased. He'd have to get someone who was unlikely to face a filibuster in the Senate, but be conservative enough for the House majority, and the best way for him to do that is to pick someone out of the Senate, or a well respected Governor.

If he were to go the latter route, Haley Barbour would be a very strong choice, as he had great approval, was well liked in political circles, and his credentials were unquestioned. If picking out of the Senate, working under the assumptions that he wouldn't take from a state with a Democratic Governor or a strong D majority, anyone with very little Senate experience, or someone incredibly controversial, his options would likely com from the following group: Jeff Sessions, Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Orrin Hatch, Bob Bennett, Thad Cochran, Kit Bond, Chuck Hagel, Conrad Burns, Mike DeWine, George Voinovich, James Inhofe, Tom Coburn... probably a couple others, but they'd be negligible.

To craft a short list, we're probably looking at Haley Barbour, Pat Roberts, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Bob Bennett, Thad Cochran, George Voinovich, and Orrin Hatch. If Bush was in the mood for a knock-down, drag-out fight, possibly Donald Rumsfeld out of the Cabinet. I'd put the short odds on Barbour, with Bennett the numbuh 2.

 

[Magniac]

Hatch, Lugar, or Warner.
All were revered members of the senate club, their Democratic colleagues wouldn't dare attack them.

but be conservative enough for the House majority

The Bush administration suffered some bad defeats in 2005/6 because of internal rightwing opposition to the Dubai ports sale, the nomination of Miers for the SCOTUS, and the proposals for border reform.

That last one is a doozy for the GOP. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Bush is forced to withdraw a VP nomination because he or she is too pro-amnesty.

The leading candidate for that would be McCain--but his nomination would open up a whole other shitstorm to begin with.

 

[dilbert719]

Hatch, Lugar, or Warner.
All were revered members of the senate club, their Democratic colleagues wouldn't dare attack them.



The Bush administration suffered some bad defeats in 2005/6 because of internal rightwing opposition to the Dubai ports sale, the nomination of Miers for the SCOTUS, and the proposals for border reform.

That last one is a doozy for the GOP. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Bush is forced to withdraw a VP nomination because he or she is too pro-amnesty.

The leading candidate for that would be McCain--but his nomination would open up a whole other shitstorm to begin with.

True, but look at the timeline. The POD here is a retirement by Cheney in January, maybe February, 2005. Dubai Ports broke in Feb. 2006, Harriet Miers was nominated on October 3, 2005, and the border protection act passed in December 05. The nation, especially with the heightened tension of the "Post-9/11" mindset, would not stand for having no VP for months and months, so this would have to happen before the Republicans had time to get ticked off at Bush for those things.

I do want to reiterate that it is very important, when you don't have a filibuster-proof supermajority, not to take out a member on your side when they can be replaced with someone who opposes you. John Warner would never be selected by Bush, as Mark Warner was still Governor, and would be able to replace J. Warner with a Democrat. Hatch and Lugar are reasonable selections, and I'm blanking on why I didn't have Lugar on my list, given that Mitch Daniels became Governor of Indiana at the appropriate time to be making the decision, and he was a Bush supporter through and through. He's another excellent choice, and I'd say it was between Barbour and Lugar, now, rather than Bennett.

 

[Magniac]

True, but look at the timeline. The POD here is a retirement by Cheney in January, maybe February, 2005. Dubai Ports broke in Feb. 2006, Harriet Miers was nominated on October 3, 2005, and the border protection act passed in December 05. The nation, especially with the heightened tension of the "Post-9/11" mindset, would not stand for having no VP for months and months, so this would have to happen before the Republicans had time to get ticked off at Bush for those things.

Yes, quite. I didn't notice that.

So there wouldn't be a Rightwing backlash--not unless the SCOTUS vacancy comes up in late 2004, leading to a Miers nomination just before Cheney dies/quits in early 2005. But that's a totally different WI.

Or McCain is chosen to replace Cheney (unlikely).

I do want to reiterate that it is very important, when you don't have a filibuster-proof supermajority, not to take out a member on your side when they can be replaced with someone who opposes you. John Warner would never be selected by Bush, as Mark Warner was still Governor, and would be able to replace J. Warner with a Democrat. Hatch and Lugar are reasonable selections, and I'm blanking on why I didn't have Lugar on my list, given that Mitch Daniels became Governor of Indiana at the appropriate time to be making the decision, and he was a Bush supporter through and through. He's another excellent choice, and I'd say it was between Barbour and Lugar, now, rather than Bennett.

I can't imagine a Democratic filibuster of a VP choice, not unless it were John Ashcroft or Rumsfeld.

I don't see Haley Barbour as being a better choice than one of the collegial senators like Lugar, Hatch, Bennett. (Those last two choices are interesting, as they're both Mormans, and Mitt Romney was getting ready to run for president in 2008. Does having a LDS vice president assuage the Religious Right about Romney?)

 

[dilbert719]

Yes, quite. I didn't notice that.

So there wouldn't be a Rightwing backlash--not unless the SCOTUS vacancy comes up in late 2004, leading to a Miers nomination just before Cheney dies/quits in early 2005. But that's a totally different WI.

Or McCain is chosen to replace Cheney (unlikely).



I can't imagine a Democratic filibuster of a VP choice, not unless it were John Ashcroft or Rumsfeld.

I don't see Haley Barbour as being a better choice than one of the collegial senators like Lugar, Hatch, Bennett. (Those last two choices are interesting, as they're both Mormans, and Mitt Romney was getting ready to run for president in 2008. Does having a LDS vice president assuage the Religious Right about Romney?)

I'd say that depends entirely on whether or not the new VP decided he wanted to take a shot at the big chair. If Bush selects either Hatch or Bennett, and they go for a Presidential run, I suspect they take the wind out of Romney's sails entirely (along with several other candidates), and there'll be no room for him in the race after the first couple primaries.

On the flip side, if VP Bennett (to pick one at random) decides not to run, and does an admirable job as VP, that might help Romney, but not by too much. Mitt still has a lot to answer for from his term as Governor of Massachusetts. I expect we'd hear less "Oh noes, a MORMON!" and a lot more "Universal Health Care? Um, no."

The 2008 Republican nomination fight would be interesting, if the sitting VP decided to run. No matter who it is, I think we can safely expect them to be at worst second-favorite to McCain, and highly likely to win the nomination. If they don't, the nomination fight would probably look almost exactly like OTL.

As to a Democratic filibuster, I can imagine it for several candidates, but Rumsfeld and Ashcroft were the primary ones I was thinking of. Brownback and Santorum might draw filibusters as well, presuming they got the nod, but in those cases, the filibuster would break eventually. Rumsfeld and Ashcroft would probably have to be withdrawn.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Short of GW Bush nominating someone way out the mainstream he would get his wish. Remember Nixon and Ford had very little problems with their nomination.

Does he think of McCain?

If so does McCain do worse than in otl in 08?