This really took me by surprise:

Link



Frankly, this seems very unlikely to me.

To be debated:

1. How likely is a resignation by the Vice President? Why?

2. If Cheney were to leave office, would Rice be the most probable choice as his replacement? Why or why not?

I doubt it. The Grand Jury would have had to dig up some pretty damning stuff to prompt that kind of action. Now, maybe Cheney's Chief or Deputy Chief of Staff might be encouraged to resign, but I don't see the Vice President resigning over this.

There's no doubt that the Plame scandal is worrying the Bush administration, but until the indictments (if any) are handed down, it's really useless to speculate.

I'd still like to know why it was necessary for Judith Miller to stay in jail if Scooter Libby had actually told her it was okay for her to divulge the particulars of her contact with him.

It seems like investigations drag on an inordinately long time with this administration.

I agree that speculation isn't very useful but we all engage in it. I too doubt that the VP will resign but there is some evidence that two aides inside his office have been turned and are providing evidence to the prosecutor regarding the VP's role in instructing them to leak Plame's name and role in the CIA. And if you believe Justin Raimondo there may be a lot more that Fitzgerald is closing in on. See here.

1. How likely is a resignation by the Vice President? Why?

I don't think it is likely. As the old saying goes "if it's too good to be true, it probably isn't." If, however, someone had told me in 1972 that both Vice President Spiro Agnew, that household word, and President Richard Nixon would resign before completing their terms, I would have had doubts.

The wild cards here are the culmination of Fitzgerald's work and Cheney's health.

If Cheney did resign, I think they'd try to play it as a health issue.

2. If Cheney were to leave office, would Rice be the most probable choice as his replacement? Why or why not?

Rice is as good a guess as any. As Secretary of State she is the ranking cabinet officer.

Except for the fact that Amendment XXV, Sect 2 of the Constitution requires majority approval of both Houses of Congress, Bush might exercise his penchant for appointing cronies. It could be Karen Hughes. Uh, Karen Whoes? Or with questions surfacing about Harriet Miers' nomination, he might switch Miers to Vice President and try to elevate Hughes to the Supreme Court.

That thought occurred to me, too, at least about Miers being tagged for VP.

It's not as though I think Bush's cabinet is blameless in this debacle. It's just that these guys seem a lot better Teflon-coated than Bill Clinton was (oh, that stain on Monica's dress!). For instance, the administration balked at and downright opposed the inception of the 9/11 Commission, then when it was going to be formed in spite of them, they spun it to it being their idea and a darned good one, too.

I remember Spiro Agnew and the Watergate burglars. Except for Agnew and the other dead guys, they've seemed to weather the storm pretty well and they eventually lived it down. Some of them are born-again Christians and like to write books about the right, moral way to do things. Somebody must be reading them, because the books sell.

If Cheney is directly involved and it can be proven, he can always get religion. Judging from his remark to Senator Leahy last year, I'm assuming that he is in the pre- "getting religion" phase at this time. But I do shudder to think who Bush would select in Cheney's place. Loyalty is an admirable quality, but cronyism is not when considering a candidate for a sensitive position.

To be debated:

1. How likely is a resignation by the Vice President? Why?

2. If Cheney were to leave office, would Rice be the most probable choice as his replacement? Why or why not?

Every so often, Paladin Elspeth starts crooning, “Hot August nights…”

Forty years ago, my Hot August days, and occasional afternoon shifts, were spent working for minimum wage in a small factory with a memorable work force. The day shift foreman in my department was driven to work daily by his wife. The rest of the department was very proud of the fact that they had gotten their driver’s licenses. It had been a struggle for all of them. Their elementary schools did not teach driver training. If you wanted driver training, you had to go to High School. All of them had dropped out of elementary school on their respective 16th birthdays. It was while working there, as we would take our coffee breaks in the combination delivery truck / company lunchroom, that I first heard of the “Trilateral Commission.” I was told it was a group of industrial barons who actually run the world from behind the scenes. That was the group, I was told, that had ordered the Kennedy Assassination. They need us to be at war for the profits, I was told, and that is why we are in Vietnam. They didn’t believe in voting, because the results were predetermined.

As I look at this question, I recall the phrase “Come to Jesus Meeting.” Occasionally, it would be argued, someone is put into power who isn’t willing to play along. He actually thinks that he is in charge of things, and they have to remove him. He will always be warned first, the legend goes, and then they’ll start greasing the skids.

Somehow, in my imagination, the scenario of a Condoleezza Rice appointment to Vice President suddenly makes sense…

In a hunting lodge in New England, a group of industrialists sits down to discuss politics and the economy. “What are we going to do? The economy is so bad that beer sales are slipping.” (Overheard as the beer vendor was complaining to the 7 – 11 clerk a few days ago.) Options are put on the table, and something is said about the President’s slipping popularity. He’s a lame duck, but with a slipping popularity, he can’t raise money effectively anymore. With his appointment of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court, one cartoon strip, Candorville, is discussing the problems resulting when “PRESIDENT BUSH NOMINATES A LOG TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.”

George W. Bush, the legend goes, never wanted to be President until he was shown that he was ahead in the polls. Suddenly, despite the fact that neither woman has expressed an interest in running for President in 2008, the question is being raised as to who is the stronger candidate, Hillary Clinton or Condoleezza Rice. A typical blog excerpt:


The waters are being tested…

“If she polls are strong enough, can we convince her? Can we control her?”

Howard Dean stated on The Daily Show the other day that the Democrats plan to field about 9 candidates in the 2008 primaries…

If the powers behind the throne can get Condoleezza Rice promoted to Vice President, and remove George W. Bush from the President’s office in early 2007; the Republicans will once more be able to field an incumbent President against a splintered infighting Democratic field. She could be President for up to ten years!

Yes, if I go back to those Hot August nights, accept the fact that we peons can change nothing, that this is all being scripted by the “Merchants of War” and “The Skull and Bones Society,” if I concede 100 IQ points while I am reasoning, it makes perfect sense that The Republican Party has decided the best candidate they can hope to field in 2008 is an incumbent Black Woman President who served in the George W. Bush administration.

1. How likely is a resignation by the Vice President? Why?

Not very likely, in my opinion. This is an administration that never admits error; I can’t see them starting now. In the off chance that it does happen, I agree with BoF that it will be spun as a health issue having nothing to do with the investigation.

I’d like to see the whole stinking lot of them investigated, impeached, tarred and feathered, and rode out of town on a rail, but that’s even less likely than resignation. But, hey, a girl can dream, eh?

2. If Cheney were to leave office, would Rice be the most probable choice as his replacement? Why or why not?

I can’t think of a worst choice. Rice is the penultimate sycophant in the Bush administration. Of course, I guess that would be the primary reason for Bush to choose her, barring any of that inconvenient Constitutional rigamarole.

An interesting aside:

Thanks DaffyGrl, I saw the Lawrence Wilkerson article and had intended to post with my response to the second question under this topic. Why or why didn't people like this resign and speak out when it could have done some good? Wilkerson states once again the Powell will be upset with his statement because he is a "good soldier." In my mind good soldiers are loyal to the constitution and the democratic process over and above the President.


2. If Cheney were to leave office, would Rice be the most probable choice as his replacement? Why or why not?

I don't believe this would happen. If Cheney did resign it would be because he was totalled compromised by his role in attacking critics of the cooked WMD intelligence. This effort was handled by a group called the White House Iraq Group or WHIG. Members included Rove, Libby, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, James Wilkinson, Nicholas Calio, Stephen Hadley, and Condoleezza Rice. If Cheney is exposed enough to find it necessary to resign others that were part of WHIG would be damaged political goods and unlikely to be appointed to any positions requiring congressional approval.

Just throwing this out there, but do either of you really believe that an impeachment or the veep resigning would actually be good for our country? Doesn't anyone remember Watergate? The Clinton thing was bad, but not nearly as divisive as both a VP and President stepping down...it took years to recover from the "malaise" as Jimmy Carter put it.

I can totally understand disagreeing with this administration and even hating Dick Cheney, but would rather that we resolved these things through elections. I have trouble believing this particular rumor, but we'll see eventually. As I've said before, the good thing is that we have Fitzgerald, who is a true professional prosecutor (unlike certain other prosecutors in the news) who will get the truth out and punish the guilty parties.

Let me put it this way; I balance the bad that this administration has committed against this country and the further damage they will cause if left to their own devices for the next three years against getting rid of them and changing leadership. I’d be willing to risk the “malaise” that may (or may not) result from their impeachment. Quite frankly, I don't believe we could do much worse.

carlitoswhey


There were real reasons for the Nixon impeachment and resignation. The consequences of overlooking the gross unconstitutional behavior would have been infinitely worse than letting the constitutional process be carried out to a logical conclusion.

The "malaise" Carter referred to didn't stem from the impeachment but from the aftermath of a costly unjust war that failed and two oil shocks that created systemic inflation. We risk a far worse "malaise" as a consequence of being manipulated into another unjust war that is failing while ignoring the renewed energy crisis and global warming and spending resources we don't have like there is no tomorrow.

Impeachment and resignation are constitutional processes designed to rectify "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed by high public officials. When such offenses have been committed, it is far more healthy to exercise the process than ignore the behavior and let it become president for the next holder of high office who wants to step over the bounds of legal and constitutional behavior.

Be that as it may, I think it's going to take years to recover from the "malaise" created by the Bush Administration.

I am with DaffyGrl. Any problem created by Cheney's departure, and/or Bush's for that matter, would be less than the potential damage this now rudderless administration could cause in the next three years.

For the record, Nixon was never impeached. He resigned after his party, the Republican Party, sent Senator Goldwater to the White House to inform Nixon that he had lost so much support, even among Republicans, that he would be impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate.

http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/e...on/photos/nara/

Any pressure for Cheney's resignation, regardless of how remote, would have to come from the GOP.

1. How likely is a resignation by the Vice President? Why?

Probably not likely. A lot of dominos have to fall in just the right way for this to happen. As it stands, this story sounds more like wishful thinking from the Washington Post than fact.

2. If Cheney were to leave office, would Rice be the most probable choice as his replacement? Why or why not?

Considering her relationship with President Bush it would be a probable choice. Of the current crop of potential republican presidential candidates, Rice is probably my favorite. But currently she is saying that she wont run.

I agree with most everyone else who's posted saying that Cheney's resigning is probably not going to happen, and really it's sort of a shame since he would have an opportunity to pay homage to a predecessor Republican, and give a speech informing Americans that they "won't have Dick Cheney to kick around any more."

LOL

Is the cat finally out of the bag? Developments in the Fitzgerald leak investigation have finally started to be discussed by major media sources. Hardball with Chris Mathews has been giving it top billing for several days. Recently MSNBC also ran ran a story linking the forgery of the Niger uranium documents to the leak investigation. See the video clip link located here. (That makes it real for Americans, it was on TV). Here is a Sunday Times account of events. Even the New York Times now seems free of Judith Miller's influence. See
NYT Summary. For a more hard hitting, but perhaps speculative, account see this Article by an antiwar Libertarian.

The cynic may ask, how far will Bush allow this to go before he orders Attorney General Gonzales to fire Fitzgerald in another "Saturday Night Massacre?" Or perhaps GWB will wait for indictments and then pardon everyone before the facts come out? Does the divided country have the will to respond overwhelmingly to such a short-circuiting of the judicial processs as they did in Watergate?

I think Bush would have to be a total fool to do either of those things, but I certainly don't want to misunderestimate him.

For a White House that has consistently refused to comment on an "ongoing investigation," it would be rather difficult to give inoculative type pardons.

While the President's pardoning powers are broad, I think one could take before fact pardons to court.

Article II, Section 2 of The Constitution of the United States simply says:



Sure, Gerald Ford set the precedent with Richard Nixon, but I thought that should have faced court challenge. Then again Nixon was a former President and trying him would have been more divisive than trying say, Karl Rove or Scooter Libby. This might be something John Roberts hasn't even considered.

I don't know what will the country has, but I don't think it would help Bush's already low poll numbers or the Republicans in 2006.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/President...04/bush_ja.html

1.) It is not. Besides, who in the heck would run the country?

2.) She is the ranking Cabinet member and I think it would be more than likely, I would go so far as to call it a certainty that Rice would replace Cheney. I think that Bush wants to keep Republicans in power, and if Cheney were to take a swan dive off of the roof of politics, then it would be the perfect segway for Rice to take the nomination in 2,008. Granted, this is only a possible scenario and since Cheney probably won't leave office I have full faith that the we won't be getting a new Vice President for some time.

This would be a political strategy move, which no one seems to have accounted for yet.

Republicans are deathly afraid of Hillary in 2008, making Rice the VP would make her the most able candidate to cut into 2 of Hillary's core demographics, minorities and women.

Should the political advisers press the issue hard enough that the country isn't yet ready to accept a female president the next choice would probably be Guiliani. It's unlikely that he would be able to get the nomination in a primary, what with being an adulterer, a catholic, Italian, the scandal with Kerick, and a trying to stiff his wife on child support payments (many of which are liabilities in "middle America"). BUT, if he's already in place as an incumbent the party will not run anyone against him in the primaries, and red voters will fall in lock-step with supporting him. Plus the right gets to continue to milk the fear of Sept. 11th, since that is what most people out side of the northeast associate Guiliani with.

And lastly this would allow the administration to make sure they got the person they wanted in office once Bush is out, a person they can count on to continue their beliefs, policies and is deeply seated in the network of cronies. They don't want to take a chance on who might emerge as victor in a primary run-off, too much money is at stake for them and those in their circle.

The only thing questionable about it in my mind is if it's going to happen now. This would be a good opportunity because of the Plame leak scandal, but it might be too soon. They might have been planning on waiting until after the 2006 elections, or until they see who emerges as the candidates for the primaries.

1. How likely is a resignation by the Vice President? Why?

It's looking very likely that at least Libby will be indicted and increasingly likely that Cheney will be implicated. It's clear at this stage that he was involved and it's only a matter of time until that is indisputable. I think he may actually resign (though far from willingly), largely at the prompting of the Bush family. They would dearly love to make Cheney the scapegoat for all the problems of the administration and preserve the reputation of their golden boy. It might just happen.

2. If Cheney were to leave office, would Rice be the most probable choice as his replacement? Why or why not?

I doubt it. I don't think the Bush family wants to see anyone else in office other than Jeb Bush. Rice may have presidential aspirations of her own (and the Buish family would no doubt support her), but I think even she would have to admit that a woman of color doesn't stand a chance of winning on a Republican ticket in 2008, especially if Hillary Clinton were the democratic choice (which I hope to God she isn't). The RNC would love to see a presidential candidate take over, but it's not their decision, is it? As the Bushes couldn't very well elevate Jebbie at this point, I'm thinking that they'd go with someone "safe" and leave the presidential aspirants to their own devices. My guess: Tom Ridge.

1. How likely is a resignation by the Vice President? Why?
Not bloody likely.

So, Pat Fitzgerald is going to indict Scooter Libby for mis-leading the Grand Jury about who told him Plame's identity. He said it was "reporters" but it was really Cheney. Fitzgerald knows this because he read it in the notebook that Libby game him! If stupidity is a crime, then they should indict. But I doubt this is going to have the huge impications on "the administration" that some here believe. Cheney and Libby both had clearance to discuss this, so that means there was no crime in the conversation between them. Cheney resigning seems very unlikely to me.

Any of you Clinton fansthink that, if Clinton would have resigned rather than be impeached, Al Gore running as an incumbent probably would have beat George Bush in 2000?

2. If Cheney were to leave office, would Rice be the most probable choice as his replacement? Why or why not?

I'd agree with Wertz - someone like Tom Ridge. Safe, non-controversial pick.