With Bush's popularity in slow but sure decline, how likely is it that he may try to improve his image by choosing a new running mate for 2004?

Face it, Cheney carries a lot of baggage. Many of the criticisms of the Bush administration - ties to big business, war-profiteering, bowing to the oil lobby, exceedingly poor environmental record, dubious fiscal policies - find their personification in a VP who is far too reminiscent of the Monopoly Man (and who isn't exactly Mr. Charisma). One way in which Bush could vastly improve his waning chances of re-election would be to have a running mate who was either more moderate or more popular - or both.

Does anyone else feel that, as the election approaches, Dick Cheney may decide he "needs to spend more time with his family" or might, perhaps, have another "heart episode"? To me, it looks increasingly likely that the RNC (if not the Bush camp itself) may feel it's time for Cheney to go.

Does anyone else see this as at least a possibility? Or do you think the Republican Party feels that Cheney is an asset that their ticket requires? If the former, when might such a decision be made (or announced)? And, if not Dick, who?

(My bets would be on Rudi Giuliani - as close to September 11 2004 as possible.)

Rice or Powell would be a good move.

I agree that Cheney is sort of a personification of peoples' critiques of the Bush administration.

If Bush were to keep Cheney and win who runs in 2008? Not Cheney obviously. You lose the incumbent advantage. I'm pretty sure Cheney is going to not run in 2004 for personal and/or health reasons.
If I were Bush my top five would be
1. Elizabeth Dole, runs in 2008 against Hillary
2. Bill Frist, new face, healthcare issue wrapped up
3. Guiliani, American Hero
4. George Allen, good ole' boy who lives in Mt. Vernon Virginia
5. George Pataki, liberal republican could help win NY

I agree that Cheney is a huge weight on Bush. He needs to cut ties with him and pick someone else to be the VP.

Condi would make a good VP. She is smart. Powell is also good for diplomatic things.

Cheney is one of the few things about the Bush administration that makes sense. Its nice to have a VP that is not as dumb as a box of rocks for a change. While I don't think that this guy is much of a leader he is at least intelligent. His ties with the commercial infrastructure of the military is not uncommon in modern politics. I think he may have a conflict of interest but I doubt that he is using his position to improve his financial net worth. That said I wonder who would be willing and able to replace him. Powell has expressed that he is not going to put his family through a campaign and I don't blame him for that. It would be an act of lunacy for Bush to drop Cheney from the ticket but its pretty obvious to me unless Bush dies or resigns there is no way he will be president since there is no way he will beat Bayh in 2008. I don't believe Bush is that stupid but if Bush wants to sabatoge his campaign he could ask Rush Limbaugh to run with him, he at least knows how to get his name in the paper. Also the conservatives would come out of the woodwork to support him

phaedrus...why would it be an act of lunacy to drop Cheney from the ticket? Cheney is a hot potato in this adminstration with his energy stuff and connections with Haliburton. Condi or Powell, on the other, have no corporate ties for any to worry about and having one of them on his VP spot would be good for diplomacy.

The ties of Cheney with Haliburton are not going to hurt him in the next campaign and I honestly have no idea who Condi is. Like I said it Powell has made it clear that he is not interested and even though I am convinced he would be a terrific president the man is not interested. I hope by Condi we are not refering to the National Security Advisor because she is actually connected to Chevron.

Dick Cheney is a very articulate, well-spoken Vice President. He is a staunch conservative. He is very intelligent.

This, alone, makes him a target of the opposition.

He has, in my opinion, been a great asset to this administration.

Thinking ahead, though, I am fairly sure he will never run for President. His health issues are just too much to overcome.

Democrats will attack the administration on the "Cheney" issues (energy, Halliburton) regardless of whether or not Dick Cheney is a candidate.

Bush might want to think about grooming an "incumbent" to run in 2008. Hey, I will be 36 in 2008! Maybe he should recruit me?

Cheney hasn't been all that vocal as a VP. He is a glaring target by the opposition because of Haliburton. It would be disingenuous of GW to dump and replace him, just because. Would Powell or Rice make a good VP as alternatives, sure but this type of dumping for vote purposes is just too wrong.

I would vote for the Bush/Amlord ticket, just get rid of Cheney and you have my vote.

I'd like to see Rice as VP. Then I'd like to see her run against HIllary in 2008. I can hope.

You're right SoCaliente, Cheney has not really done anything worth being dumped over. The Haliburton thing is disturbing, but there is no proof of anything illegal.
And barring any kind of scandal, I think it would be problematic for Bush to select another running mate, unless Cheney himself, because of health reasons or whatever, decided to step down. And then it would have to be clear that health clearly was the reason, otherwise people would speculate as to the "real" reason, and that would likely hurt the campaign.

The RNC would never go with Rice or Powell. Sadly, the main reason they'd have for considering either would be more related to race than record - and a black VP would alienate huge swaths of the Republican constituency. Figures like Rice and Powell are not part of this administration to impress black voters (who the Republicans are not going to lure in any significant numbers in our lifetimes), they are there to make moderate suburban whites feel a bit better about supporting the preferred party of the large vestiges of white supremacy this country harbors.

If they dump Cheney and are thinking of an electable candidate in 2008, I still think Giuliani would be their most cynical likely choice. His behavior following the September 11 attack transformed him in the eyes of America at large (and even among a few New Yorkers) and practically obliterated the worst of his immensely erratic record as mayor up until that day. He seems like a moderate by comparison to Bush (and a saint compared to Cheney) and could actually lure some urban votes. Pataki could do the same thing, but if they're going to go with someone who has an ethnic-sounding name, they're going to go with someone they can at least advertise as some kind of "hero".

They could do far worse than Amlord as VP or president. Oh, right - they already have...

This entire paragraph is quite disturbing - untrue and disturbing. Conservative/Republican = racist, intolerance, etc., right? I guess it's OK for you - a liberal - to say things like this. It's a prime example of the conversation we've been having on a Race Debate thread.

Beladonna: I was mentioning this only in the context of (what I see as) the impossibility of the RNC even considering a black candidate as a running mate for Bush or anyone else. Several people here were suggesting Rice and Powell - and it looked like one or two were serious. While I admit that choosing either would be an interesting move, it ain't gonna happen. I had hoped this thread would discuss the possibility of Cheney being ousted ("voluntarily" or not) seriously and, if people felt he might be, who they thought might be serious choices that the Republican Party would make as a replacement. In this context, I feel it is fair enough to dismisss both Rice and Powell as, at the very best, wishful thinking.

And you are misreading me somewhat: I said "the preferred party of the large vestiges of white supremacy this country harbors", not the party which is, itself, (as you put it) racist or intolerant. The equal sign is yours, not mine (and I would say the equation works in precisely the opposite direction). If you are arguing that there is a single white supremacist in the country who would vote for a liberal Democrat over a conservative Republican, I would suggest that that argument has very little foundation indeed. This may be disturbing - especially to moderate Republicans (which was my point) - but not because it is untrue.

If you wish to pursue this issue, please direct me to the thread in Race Debate where it is being discussed (indeed, feel free to quote the same paragraph there) and I will happily defend my opinion.

For this thread, though, I'd like to stick to If not Dick, who? I would argue that it would not be Rice or Powell - for the reasons stated above. If you feel that the RNC is overwhelmingly likely to opt for either of these potential candidates, the support for that belief is an argument I'd like to see here.

Wertz, I couldn't disagree with you more that the RNC and the GOP wouldn't get behind a Colin or Condy for vice-president.

Why pick on the Republicans? Or do you think Howard Dean would pick Al Sharpton or Carol Mosely-Braun as his running mate? Get real!

Powell and Rice are two of the genuine stars of the party. They do have significant support and appeal to both black and white voters. If you could name one black liberal Democrat that could pull a similar crossover vote, please name that person. I've got a feeling you'll be searching for someone to measure up to the standard.

You are making the assumption that a black VP would "alienate huge swaths of the Republican constituency" due to....what? I won't put words in your mouth (rhetorically speaking), but one might presume that would be because the GOP has a appeal to racially biased voters. I don't believe that is the case. I don't believe Rice and Powell would be Republicans if they thought the party was racist.

While I'm fairly certain you give Powell and Rice credit for their intelligence, integrity and character on one hand, on the other you seem to hint they are willingly be used as "tokens" for the Republicans. Where's the respect in that?

Finally, what do you mean by "electable?" That word was thrown around about Jesse Jackson when he ran for president and I didn't get it then. Rudy Giuliani has huge problems with some black and Latino voters for his chilly relations with those groups in his time in New York City and several acts of police brutality that occurred on his watch.

I think the larger question you should be asking Wertz is if two imminently qualified and respected individuals such as Powell and Rice aren't "electable," then who is?

If America isn't ready yet for a black Vice-President candidate on the ticket of either major party then when will America be ready?

Again, nighttimer, I think you're suggesting that I'm saying two very different things: "the GOP has a appeal to racially biased voters" (which I am saying) and "the party [is] racist" (which I am not saying).

I'm also not saying that I wouldn't want to see Colin Powell on the ticket - and, personally, feel that he could be "electable". I was suggesting that "they" (the RNC) would not see him as a likely presidential candidate in 2008. Rice would be an entirely different story - and, to an extent, this brings in another issue. Apart from race, I would never dream of putting Rice and Powell into the same sentence: politically, they are very different. That they are consistently being mentioned in the same breath here suggests, to me, that they are being viewed foremost as black, with "intelligence, integrity, and character" further down the line.

I think, though, that we need a separate thread to discuss things like the "electability" of black candidates in general, the likelihood of the DNC putting a candidate of color forward (and possible contenders), the appeal of the Republican Party to the more racist elements of our society, and what might motivate some African-Americans to participate in a party which I see as including the racist constituency, if not openly courting it.

For the record, though, while I credit both Rice and Powell with being intelligent, articulate, and extremely able (more so than many members of this administration), I would question their integrity and character (though not simply on racial issues) - and, no, I don't have much respect for either, especially the vastly compromised Powell. In his favor, though, it has at least been rumored for some time that he's thinking of leaving the Bush administration following the next election.

I would, btw, agree with your reservations about Giuliani (and would have even more myself), but I really don't see tham as concerns for the RNC. The Republicans are not going to get much of the urban black or Latino vote anyway (apart from the Cuban vote in Florida) and Giuliani would appeal to a lot of working class whites (and could, possibly, swing New York state). On the whole, I think his pros would outweigh his cons.

I would say the GOP would be more appealing to white racists. I would say the Democratic Party is more appealing to racists of color. Much of the hispanic vote is in play. In neither party are racists a significant factor. The perfect choice for VP...Miguel Estrada.

Cheney isn't going anywhere, so this discussion is totally hypothetical.

That said, anyone who knows Powell's history knows he won't run. I don't think we know enough about Rice's leadership skills to tout her, unless she has no desire for the top job. In that case she'd make a great VP. Rudy would be a horrible choice because he wants the top job. Rudy is going to run against Clinton for the Senate if she doesn't run for Pres this time.

As for the race issue, there is and has been no more racist party than the Dems. We've moved past the race issue here, except for the few who keep trying to inject it. Kinda like Limbaugh and the black QB dust-up. Trying to portray themselves as above all that I guess. A black candidate on the ticket will be viewed as bringing along some of the black vote, just like a southerner would bring along some of the southern vote.

For the record, I never trust the motives of liberals who are always interjecting race. Constantly labeling a group and offering your 'protection' is racist in itself.