Now that Bush is safely ensconced in the White House (by election rather than appointment this time) and with the lavish inaugural galas behind him I have a prediction to make. At some point sooner or later in his second term, V.P. Dick Cheney (a loyal Bush family operative) will tender his resignation due to “health concerns” over his heart problems (did you notice how quickly Cheney checked into the hospital in January for reoccurring heart problems as soon as Bush was elected?). This will clear the way for W. to nominate anyone he pleases to replace him. Who will that nominee be? None other than Florida governor brother Jeb. W will be able to take cover from the ensuing criticism by using the precedent of the (Democrat) John Kennedy appointment of brother Robert as Attorney General. This will be done in time for the nation to get over it and get used to another Bush as V.P. just in time for the next presidential race in which J.B. will run to replace G.W. B.
Mark my words and remember you heard it here first. Any thoughts?
Gee…this Bush guy certainly causes a lot of pants wetting amongst the opposition camp.
Now they’re into pyschic predictions.
Would this be another manefestation of PEST?
(Post Election Stress Trauma)
Poor babies…nappy time. Let the adults run things now.
It’s interesting how right wingers like to avoid substance in their discussions and favor attacking the messenger so. Just as in the moment you criticize the Iraq war you are labeled unpatriotic and unsupportive of the troops. Obfuscation always works so much better for them than straightforward debate.
However, in this case, the ad hominum attack was warranted. How can you criticize someone for attacking you when the comment you made is truly lacking in substance in itself? If you have something constructive to say, say it. Don’t just make whimsical predictions based on your dislike of GWB. At least make a comment that promotes something that can be discussed. Otherwise, you invite attacks on your own credibility as a poster.
I am not being whimsical at all. I am entirely serious and this is a perfectly plausible scenario. The Bush family and the G.O.P are entirely about power and total domination, not just of the U.S. but global domination as well, hence the expansion of the U.S. empire, which is exactly what it is, their denials not withstanding. Aside from John McCain, who will run in 2008 that is electable? Ashcroft? Gingritch? They and the industrial military complex would like nothing better than to have a Bush succeed a Bush.
Your comments are the kinds of things that were said at the beginning of Watergate, “How can you suggest President Nixon would be involved in a cover-up?”. Of course that lead to the appointment of Gerald Ford as vice-president, who went on to succeed Nixon. Implausible? I think not. But immediate dismissal of anyone else’s ideas is another useful tool of the Republicans. Make it sound ridiculous so the sheep public will bleat in agreement.
[quote=“Interlocutor”]Now that Bush is safely ensconced in the White House (by election rather than appointment this time) and with the lavish inaugural galas behind him I have a prediction to make. At some point sooner or later in his second term, V.P. Dick Cheney (a loyal Bush family operative) will tender his resignation due to “health concerns” over his heart problems (did you notice how quickly Cheney checked into the hospital in January for reoccurring heart problems as soon as Bush was elected?). This will clear the way for W. to nominate anyone he pleases to replace him. Who will that nominee be? None other than Florida governor brother Jeb. W will be able to take cover from the ensuing criticism by using the precedent of the (Democrat) John Kennedy appointment of brother Robert as Attorney General. This will be done in time for the nation to get over it and get used to another Bush as V.P. just in time for the next presidential race in which J.B. will run to replace G.W. B.
Mark my words and remember you heard it here first. Any thoughts?[/quote]
Interesting prediction. However, liberal Democrats are also prone to dynastic plans when it comes to politics
For those who mock this scenario, here are other compelling arguments for this theory:
a) Cheney is not really interested in being V.P. He only craves power (the money was taken care of long ago). His power comes from his influence with the Bush family and the G.O.P. He is also not interested in running for president. He hates campaigning and probably knows he is unelectable (the American public really doesn
At this writing, Jeb says he won’t run in '08. In any case there are a fair number of equally formidable candidates out there. I don’t see Republicann voters as likely to favor Jeb out of a desire to continue a dynasty.
Republican politics favors candidates who almost won the nomination last time, but didn’t. That means John McCain.
If George W. has to nominate a replacement for Cheney, I doubt that it would be Jeb. It’s one think for him to win election on his own, but if it looks like George is trying to give it to him, that will backfire on them both.
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]At this writing, Jeb says he won’t run in '08. In any case there are a fair number of equally formidable candidates out there. I don’t see Republicann voters as likely to favor Jeb out of a desire to continue a dynasty.
Republican politics favors candidates who almost won the nomination last time, but didn’t. That means John McCain.
[/quote]
John McCain is a moderate Republican, perhaps the last one left. His creed have all been run out of the party. Nowadays, you have to be a bible-thumping extremist to get the nomination. Someone like Ashcroft would fit the bill.
How would you classify Pataki, Giuliani, Rice, and Schwarzenegger? – all possible candidates for 2008 (the latter if they change the amendment that prohibits foreigners from becoming president.) They are all pretty moderate IMHO.
According to the sources I’ve read, the leading Republican presidential candidate in 2008 is Rudy Giuliani – by a wide margin.
Then again, the pundits and websites who speculate on such things are generally only slightly more accurate than throwing darts at a board (if that). (Here’s an example of one of these websites with too much time on their hands – they have the rankings for Democrat condenters too.) The polls that are taken may count for a bit more (Giuliani leads most of those I’ve seen too), but even these should be looked at skeptically since (a) it is so early in the game, and (b) the party bigshots and funders have not really started picking their horses yet. Personally, I agree with Dog’s Breakfast and others who feel that Giuliani and McCain, have an uphill battle to persuade the social conservatives. I think Colin Powell faces a tough test for the same reason.
Of the more conservative candidates, Governor Bill Owens seems to be the most likely bet from GOP writers who seem to know what they are talking about. Pataki, Bill Frist, Condoleezza Rice, and Rick Santorum are all also often mentioned.
You know what Texans think when they hear the name Rudy Giuliani? “Some New Yorker.” Or if he’s lucky, “Some Italian.” I’m sorry, but just because people like him up there where the media live, doesn’t mean it’ll play in the flyover zone.
Schwarzenegger’s constitutional amendment will never get passed in time for him to run. In fact, the best thing he could do, I think, is to announce that he will never run for president, in order to persuade democrats to support the amendment.
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]You know what Texans think when they hear the name Rudy Giuliani? “Some New Yorker.” Or if he’s lucky, “Some Italian.” I’m sorry, but just because people like him up there where the media live, doesn’t mean it’ll play in the flyover zone.
Schwarzenegger’s constitutional amendment will never get passed in time for him to run. In fact, the best thing he could do, I think, is to announce that he will never run for president, in order to persuade democrats to support the amendment.[/quote]
The Dems could support the amendment because they also have potential talent that is also not eligible to run
You’ve got that right, Chewy. Jennifer Granholm is THE #1 reason why most Republicans I’ve talked to do not support the amendment. Most feel that Granholm is far more dangerous to the Republicans than Arnold is to the Democrats.
Realpolitik aside, I think it is an outdated amendment that should be removed. But I can certainly see why Republicans would be afraid of giving Jennifer Granholm a chance to become president.
You’ve got that right, Chewy. Jennifer Granholm is THE #1 reason why most Republicans I’ve talked to do not support the amendment. Most feel that Granholm is far more dangerous to the Republicans than Arnold is to the Democrats.
Realpolitik aside, I think it is an outdated amendment that should be removed. But I can certainly see why Republicans would be afraid of giving Jennifer Granholm a chance to become president.[/quote]
Sarcasm aside, she could be. 2008 will be the year of the vagina in American politics. I expect a female candidate could be leading or on the VP ticket in both parties. While Arnie is potentially a very dangerous candidate, I think people in both parties realize that, in the future, the existing law could penalize them both equally. Furthermore, I think many social conservatives in the GOP are still wary of Arnold, making it difficult for him to win the nomination.
This is the price I pay for my affection for irony. Sometimes my sincere comments are taken the wrong way. Oh well, it’s worth it.
Actually, I wasn’t being sarcastic. I haven’t seen too much of Jennifer Granholm myself, but everything I have read about her suggests that she would be a frighteningly strong candidate for the Democrats: sharp, articulate, good looking, governor of a key state, good political instincts… As I say – I don’t know how much of that is true – but that’s what I’ve read about her. Fortunately (for the Republicans anyway) it is all probably a moot issue.
I agree with you about Arnold as well – his chances would be slim even without the constitutional barrier.
Just to add my 2 sheckles worth, I do believe the time is almost right for a substantive female US Presidential contender.
Might I suggest a triple threat who rising to the top and proving her worth:
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Just to add my 2 sheckles worth, I do believe the time is almost right for a substantive female US Presidential contender.
Might I suggest a triple threat who rising to the top and proving her worth…[/quote]
nod Rice was being mentioned as a strong presidential candidate even back when she was National Security Advisor. Now, as one of the highest ranking leaders in the country, her credentials are just that much more solid.
She is bitterly disliked by many Democrats (witness the string of hateful racist cartoons about her in liberal publications that have been discussed on these boards in the past) but obviously that is likely to be true of any Republican candidate.
This is the price I pay for my affection for irony. Sometimes my sincere comments are taken the wrong way. Oh well, it’s worth it. 
