If Cheney resigns .........Could this be bad or good for Democrats in 08?

We all can read the Tarot Cards on this "customer" and a resignation appears emanate. When this occurs, *bush will then appoint a new Vice President.

When you look at the time frame between say November 07 and November 08 for this to occur; Would it not be anticipated that the repug that was leading in the repug primaries be the VP select? It would indeed give momentum to the repug Whitehouse bid. Then again, it could be a kiss of death for the poor slob.

Anyways, lets discuss how such a scenario would play out. How will it then affect the Democratic Candidate?

was a viable candidate.

in the first scenario, it wouldn't matter to the Dems

in the 2nd, congress would have the opportunity to air any dirty laundry as part of the approval process so it's a win for the Dems IMO

I think that (and am sorry to say) that things will be much worse in '08 than they are now. I think the '08 elections will go to the Dems in a big way no matter who runs.

One of the things ALL candidates complain about is "Name Recognition". Certainly, if someone were nominated VP, they would gain instant name recognition, plus having the opportunity to begin to implement some ideas from their campaign strategy while still campaigning.

I think it would be bad for the Dems, unless of course theperson chosen as VPis instantly disliked and distrusted by the majority of American people.

and the botched job chimpie's done, I'm thinking no candidate in his right mind would accept the VP seat so close to the election

chimpie's awful record would be hung around his/her neck no matter what they said

and congress would confirm him

You probably are right about that! He probably is smelling Cheney's chair/seat as I type.:puke:

I'm sure Joe would love that.

without the 'we can do what we want' posturing they have nothing.

when big daddy is revealed to be a big hoax there is no going back.

when Luke Skywalker did in Darth Vader?

Let history be our guide.

leading into 76 election? I do expect a pardon or two, or three etc....by *bush as a reward for their silence. Who ever he appoints as VP then would suffer the curse of association. Ford's pardon of Nixon nudged the voters to Carter.

in 08 elections. It would be GREAT for the country if he were gone. The more I read (and I posted about a discussion on TPM this morning) the more I fear the damage that he is doing to our constitutional system - by the day. On this count I just want Cheney out of office - forget the political calculus - it could be great poltiically - but either way - just get him out of office.

Get him out now!

ASAP would be the most positive thing to happen to the country since, well, since the Nov. '06 midterms. Let the healing begin by throwing the bums out.

They are hired corporate hit men, cynical liars with no regard for the constitution of the United States. The sooner they are gone the better off we will all be - and that includes the head in the sand 30%.

It won't be Bush. He's incapable of that-he's just a stooge set up to look pretty before the cameras. I would think the choice would be up to the PNAC folks, and they'll be looking around for someone ideogically pure or willing to go along with their agenda for money and power.

The hitch is getting the nominee confirmed by both houses of Congress. I could see Liebermann voting with repukes in the Senate so that the nominee gets the ok there, but I think House members would balk if the candidate is nausea-inspiring, which any PNAC person would be.

This means whoever is chosen has to be someone that the Dems do not see as a real threat in '08, and also as one who isn't intent on continuing the disasterous policies of this Administration.

For all other pres appointments it is just the senate that has the confirmation vote power. Is it different when the appointment is to the Vice Presidency?

Section 2

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

this question came up (to me) around Ford's death - and recaps of his ascension to the Presidency. I didn't know the answer then - but now I do. :D :hi:

We've got a long way to go and lots more stench of this regime that will be exposed. The term "booosh fatigue" covers some of it as short of hand delivering $1 million cash to every man, woman and child, I doubt boooshie will ever see a 40% approval rating. Even an Iran attack won't wag the dog enough...this regime's gone to the well one time too many.

There's also a Repugnican fatigue that's just beginning to kick in. While the corporate media claims the Democrats are "divided"...that's bullshit. I've never seen this party more together and together ever...including the 60's. It's the Repugnicans that have major troubles. Look at how each of their non-descript candidates has some major negative with one major GOOP voting bloc or another. They're conflicted with so many issues and demoralized by booosh's dragging the party into the shitter. I keep predicting we'll see a third party arise out of their camp next year and the vote will be divided in several directions.

Democrats can only lose by beating themselves...by allowing the corporate media and the GOOP spin machine to frame the issues and who we are. But I don't see that happening...instead, I'm seeing a more energized party and a netroots that keeps growing in size and influence. It's gonna suck to be a GOOP candidate next year considering they'll be running as a member of the party that has totally blown an illegal war for profit, destroy the middle class and is either too much of a Mormon or Divorced or Not Conservative enough. We just keep on keeping on...eagles need not fly with turkeys.

The Libby trial goes on, and
....Cheney suffers a 'health concern' which keeps him from testifying under oath due to recommendation of his treating physicians.
....Cheney suffers 'health crisis' and immediately resigns office, unable to testify under oath at Libby trial for same reason.
....Bush issues a pardon for Libby which absolutely ends trial immediately, Cheney is not called to testify.
....Bush starts conflict with Iran, issues pardons for 'everyone involved' in Valerie Plame matter, including Libby and Cheney and others.

....Cheney appears to testify and refuses to testify about matters he deems 'national security/classified information' setting up constitutional challenge that goes to the SCOTUS.
....Cheney appears to testify and lies under oath setting up a perjury charge, then Bush issues a pardon to Cheney and Libby which covers everything.
....Cheney appears to testify under oath, suffers 'health crisis' while on the witness stand and is unable to complete testifying until after the Libby trial ends.

Pardon may be issued to Libby at any time since Libby is no longer holding office.
Pardon cannot be issued to Cheney until he either resigns office or is removed from office for health reasons.

IF Cheney resigns or is removed for health reasons, Bush names a VP to replace him --top choices McCain/Rice/or shocker like Guiliani.

Just a few of the possiblities that could emerge.

Things are certainly moving quickly to one or more of these scenarios, given that Tony Blair could be ousted any day --and Bush cannot take on Iran and maintain present efforts in Iraq without Blair's support. At most Blair will survive until April 1, then he is definitely gone.

Don't over-calculate.

intimately associated with this failed administration by being part of it.

People are unhappy now.

Soon people will be shocked, and repulsed at what is learned through Congressional investigations and public statements of people who have been involved.

The power to put people under oath who are unwilling to protect this Administration by lying will reveal greed and corruption at a level that has never been seen before.

John Dean may be right --this could be much, much worse than Watergate.

The kicker is going to be when Dems reveal what has been wasted, looted, and just out and out stolen from the public treasury and what will be required to right the ship. The economic pain about to come down on the American public is going to be huge, and people are finally going to sit up and take notice of all the corporate pillaging that has gone on with Bush's help.

Wouldn't the dem governor get to appoint a replacement? That could neutralize Leiberman and McCain would have to do more than just talk he would be responsible, not good for him.

in the Senate to have a majority where they need not worry about Leiberman bolting and the chairs changing. It would take away his ball and his siding with the GOP wouldn't make a huge difference in them holding onto the majority or not.

They may be more likely to cheat if they have someone in VP office who has run eligibility. We're not rid of electronic vote cheating yet.

That's really playng the chess board!

Isn't this fun!

:kick: :yourock: :woohoo:

In Arizona (the only state that does this), a special election is called to fill the Senate seat.

It's worse than that. The governor has to appoint a member of the same political party as the incumbent. If there were a special election we would at least have a chance of winning the seat.

The governor’s direct authority to make interim appointments is specified in the
various state laws. Oregon and Wisconsin do not allow the governor to make interim
appointments, requiring, instead, a special election to fill any Senate vacancy. The State
of Oklahoma also requires that Senate vacancies be filled by special elections, with an
exception. If the vacancy occurs after March 1 of any even-numbered year and the term
expires the following year, no special election is held; rather, the governor is required to
appoint the candidate elected in the regular general election to fill the unexpired term.
At least five states restrict the governor’s power to appoint interim Senators. Alaska,
Arizona, and Hawaii require the governor to fill Senate vacancies with a person affiliated
with the same political party as the previous incumbent. Utah and Wyoming require the
governor to select an interim senator from a list of three candidates proposed by the state
central committee of the political party with which the previous incumbent was affiliated.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Vacancies.pdf

Bush & Co. will put forward Condi as VP ... any opposition will be met by the "liberal media" as:

"Look at the hypocrites the Dems are. They are racist ... don't want a real black person to achieve."

Any attack on Condi's truthfulness or record will be spun as racism ...

And Bush will "go down in history" as having the first "African-American"/woman Vice President ...

about politics. Time for statesmanship, not politics.

He'd handily lose to any of the Dem candidates.

us that one Senator advantage. Taking him out of the Senate would really hurt us. If McCain was tapped it would be to give him the trappings of the office for his campaign. Having Air Force 2 at his disposal would save him a lot of money. He needs all the help he can get at this point. But loyalty is job number one to bush, so he would be a perfect fit for King George.

50 to 49 rethug majority in senate. I don't think it will be Loserman.

And Condi too? A thorough cleaning of the White House.

President Pelosi wouldn't need a national security adviser like Dr. Rice. :)

You're dealing with a mob who committed great crimes in the past, openly declared their hatred of the American system and intention to wage aggressive war - all in the name of America - came to power in a coup d'etat (2000), exploited a terrorist incident to impose a new form of executive dictatorship (9/11), justified their rule by fear, launched and waged a global and perpetual war, invaded Iraq, stole the next election, and passed laws to eliminate habeas corpus and legalize torture.

Now that this much is accomplished and they are at their least popular, it is child play's to carry out the following scenario:

1) Cheney resigns before the posse comes after him, citing health reasons. He had a great run as chief executive (in the sense of capo di capi) but has outlived his personal usefulness, and anyway there are less than two years left in the term. If any legal matters come up, he can get a pocket pardon in Dec. 2008.

2) Bush appoints whoever his mob wants to be the next president. My guess remains with Giuliani. Most likely someone whom they can pretend was never involved in the administration and would have done everything much better than Dubya did. This is how it will be played by the corporate media, and they will pimp it and call it a conciliatory choice even if it's Ghengis Khan.

3) At any rate, whoever it is, the Democratic participation in giving Petraeus an 81-0 approval vote should tell you how things will go.

4) Iran! Attack! Crisis! Fear! O Shit! We must suspend all criticism and unite in common cause!

5) No matter how they contort to conform, the Democrats are called obstructionists, largely by "liberals" and people ostensibly in their own party.

6) The new guy is featured prominently as a great leader for dealing with the crisis.

7) Ack! More Crisis! Hard times! How dare those foreigners drop our dollar?! Boom! Blam! Shut up! (Expletive.) (Expletive.) Plot Twist. "FBI! FBI!" Blam! Blam! (Expletive.) Plot twist. Head explodes. Guy sits on a chain saw. Roll credits.

Option: Baby Bush himself goes, by whatever means, putting the new guy in as prez in advance. He too has outlived his usefulness.

The order might vary. Even without the last option this plan doesn't guarantee a 2008 coronation but puts the new beast in the best possible position for 2008, already running the administration but not an incumbent. They'll even play it as though the Democrats (liberals!) are in charge and tying the poor guy's hands.

However, victory is already guaranteed if the Democratic candidate is the person currently appointed front-runner by the corporate media - you know, the one whom the money loves?

Think the mobsters in power wouldn't do this? Think they haven't already done worse?

Did you notice that no less an establishment top man than Zbigniew Brzezinski just declared to the Congress in writing and in testimony that he believes the planners of the Iran war are capable of engineering a terrorist pretext "in the United States" to justify a war of aggression against Iran?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x107654

What limits do you think these people acknowledge, especially when they're in trouble?

Not so much to the OP but to the board in general -- what happened to all the posts back in Nov. slobbering about how we are going to force out Cheney and Bush both and install Pelosi - then all of the world's problems will vanish overnight?

Now we are debating if dumping cheney is a good thing? huh?