Burnt Orange Report

This all supposes that the evil genius goes along with the plan. We all know he really runs the show. Will he voluntarily take a demotion? If not, I do not see him off the ticket. The question is whether his ego gets in the way, because it does make political sense for him to go.

How the best way to handle this? Whoever Bush's VEEP (if not Cheney) is, emphasize that he had to dump Cheney for all his baggage and then stress that why didn't Bush do it sooner.

McCain as VEEP? Just drag out all the stuff Bush, Inc. said about him in South Carolina, and say that is what Bush really thinks about him. (Plus, McCain was REALLY pissed at Bush after that - it will take a lot of "kiss and make up" to make that happen) Coleman? This guy has been in the Senate for 2 years. I have all along felt that he would pick Tom Ridge as a running mate - especially after he named him to head Homeland. (way before the recent conjecture about dumping Cheney). He adds a military record, apart from Bush's unflattering one: snorting coke while going AWOL. For what it's worth that's my bet.

I have heard Mitt Romney in 04. And I would not worry about Coleman getting the Jewish vote.

1. Mitt Romney is WAAAAYYY too moderate for these guys' tastes, he'll never get the VP nod

2. After recrunching the numbers Ridge would probably be better (for Bush)- he's got the Nat. Sec. thing going on and his home state (that he was twice elected governor of) has 21 electors as opposed to 10 for MN (Coleman) or WI (Thompson).

3. WhoMe? makes a very good point- remember that Cheney got the VP nod b/c he was in charge of the VP search and chose himself. His ego seems to get in the way just a little too much and if Bush loses his reelection some might look back and pin it on Cheney in the end.

Cheney will not leave the ticket unless his health problems are more serious than we're led to believe. He's a Bush family retainer. I wouldn't doubt if his place on the 2000 ticket was a result of heavy lobbying by Papi Bush himself. It might be a lot of fun to have him replaced by Bill "Catkiller" Frist, but it probably ain't gonna happen.

The administration hardly cares about Haliburton. If anything, Haliburton reminds people about our eternal involvement in Iraq. That is something Bush/Rove see as a plus.

Cheney's lesbian daughter and his position on civil unions hasn't driven the radical fundamentalists away from support for the administration. Even the fundies who post here don't seem too bothered by it.

Dumping Cheney would make Bush look as though he were really worried about re-election. Such a public show of weakness would further dim the Flightsuit-in-Chief's "aura of inevitability" which has slowly faded since the start of this year.

Tim Z, I agree with you. I think that what we sometimes forget is that Sr. is really running the show--it's the Reagan/Bush, Bush/Quayle admins. all over again. Cheney is a "retainer", and it would look weak for Bush if he were dumped due to anything other than health problems. If necessary, think that the admin would resort to hiding him in a top-secret location before letting him join the private sector.

"It might be a lot of fun to have him replaced by Bill "Catkiller" Frist, but it probably ain't gonna happen."

I would LOVE to be in for the political commercial planning against the Kitty Fiend! Meow!

Sorry to blow a hole in all your prognosticating, but many independent polls in state's like New Mexico, Washington, Wisconsin and Minnesota have the race either very tight or neck and neck - with Bush leading in some of these states.

A poll I recently saw showed Bush winning North Carolina even with Edwards on the ticket.

The Keystone Poll (PA) had Bush ahead and even California was tight in the last Field Poll out there; although I'd still be very surpised if Bush carried the Golden State - if he does it's over.

Bottom line, Kerry is on a roll right now, but this thing is going to bounce around all year; don't make assumptions about who will win what based on four years ago.

As fun as this is, let's remember that people just don't vote for Vice President. There's loads of poli sci research that shows that.

Still, if we're playing the game (and why not, it's fun) I think Ridge is probably too moderate too. I don't see Bush taking a "swing state" approach. I don't think he's that scared. I think he'll either go with someone he already trusts (didn't Jack Danforth turn the job down in '00? he could ask him again) or go for a solid strong capable conservative with some foreign policy cred who'll come across well in ads and debates, but doesn't have a history of overwhelming presidential ambition (and hence won't annoy other Republicans who are planning to run in '08). My vote in that category -- Chris Cox. Way right, but he doesn't appear at all scary. Plus he's Catholic and I remember that there was a time when Rove was very concerned about the Catholic vote.

You are right, ppl don't vote for the VP. But candidates that have good statewide organizations- i.e. devoted local organizers, dedicated fundraisers and lots of personal connections and candidates that are popular enough in their homestates to have the devotion of even members of the opposite party can mean that they will win that state. Additionally, non-traditional candidates (women, minorities, etc.) will get those communities to their side simply because they might one day be president. Also, a good VP candidate might not add a whole lot but a bad one will sink a campaign (McGovern '72, Ferarro in '84). Finally, if you pick someone that looks too much like the Pres candidate you end up getting tagged as a one trick pony- you need regional, ideological and experience diversity. That's why only statewide electeds should be considered (nix Gephardt), bad candidates ought to be avoided (nix Cheney, IMHO), avoid having two Washingtoners (nix Edwards for Kerry and vice versa), avoid having two people from the same general area of the country (nix HRC for Kerry, notable exception was Clinton/Gore) and avoid two liberals for Democrats. That's why I think that Warner, Bredesen or Richardson would be good for Kerry and Coleman or Ridge would be good for Bush. Some of these people bend or break a few of these rules but they all end out on top in the end.

If you read back over some comments I made on here about five months ago, I warned of the potential Coleman problem then: the thing you left out was that Coleman, in addition to everything else, has built a HUGE youth following based on his harsh stance against the RIAA, which could effectively negate any Rock the Vote and related efforts in swing states.

I also noticed the mention above of Bush possibly picking McCain as a running mate; I just read an interesting magazine piece (it's linked on Kerry's site, oddly enough) from 2002 that discusses the possibility of McCain as KERRY'S running-mate, with or without the Senator from Arizona changing parties. Stranger things have happened, and I know that while McCain would be a hard-sell ideologically to much of our Party, I would have a hard time railing against having him on the bottom half of our ticket if it meant significantly increasing the likelihood of Republican voter defections in November.

I think Frist is unlikely, given that Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) would get to make the appointment to fill Frist's seat if elected to the Vice Presidency.

I also think Cheney is in it for the long haul.