link
Time for him to go?
A YEAR ago, with the invasion of Iraq imminent, George Bush delighted guests at the American Enterprise Institute's annual dinner by unveiling his plans to democratise the Middle East. A year later, conservative Washington once again massed in the Washington Hilton ballroom to enjoy the AEI's hospitality and hear from the administration?this time from Dick Cheney.
You might have thought that the faithful would be feeling a little chastened by recent events. Not a bit of it. Mr Cheney looked as cocksure as ever. Charles Krauthammer treated the guests to an interminable celebration of American power. The chatter after dinner was surprisingly upbeat. Those missing weapons of mass destruction? Much ado about nothing. Of course, these conservatives were prepared to admit the odd setback?Mr Bush's flaccid state-of-the-union speech, for instance, or the fact that Howard Dean was no longer the likely Democratic nominee?but nobody seemed to be taking seriously the idea that John Kerry might actually be elected president in November. ?This country won't elect a Massachusetts liberal,? declared one senior journalist flatly.
This sounds strangely like the pride that goes before a fall. Mr Bush certainly stands a good chance of hanging on to the White House?but not if he underestimates Mr Kerry as his father did his philandering southern rival. The Republicans had expected the first quarter of the year to be dominated by Democratic squabbling; instead, the pounding coming from American television screens has been that of relentless Bush-bashing. For all his liberal traits, Mr Kerry looks a formidable presidential candidate, and even if he slips up in the run-in he will be replaced by John Edwards?the southerner whom Mr Bush's people feared most at the beginning of the contest. If nothing else, the Democratic Party has shown that it is obsessed by the idea of getting Mr Bush out of the White House.
The Bush campaign needs a jolt, not just to wake up the ideologues at the AEI but also to improve the president's standing among independent voters. And what bigger jolt could he give it than to start at the top?or rather second from the top?with the vice-president? In 1992, Mr Bush tried to persuade his father to ditch Dan Quayle. The idea that Mr Cheney might also be a ?drag on the ticket? was unthinkable a year ago. Now it has begun to seep into the more hard-headed, vote-scrounging parts of the Republican Party, and become common chatter among political operatives from both parties. It is, indeed, the current cover story of the National Journal, the inside-the-Beltway bible.
This is partly Mr Cheney's own doing. Four years ago, he looked the perfect complement to young George, possessing everything the callow Texan lacked?gravitas, eloquence and experience. Nowadays, he is seen less as the sober pragmatist and more as the dangerously revolutionary zealot. Look at economic management, where he supposedly told Paul O'Neill, his former friend and the former treasury secretary, that ?Reagan proved deficits don't matter.? Or look at Iraq, where the vice-president went further than anybody else in exaggerating Saddam's ?reconstituted? nuclear-weapons programme and the idea that he provided a ?geographic base? for terrorism against America.
Another reason to ditch Mr Cheney is that he has come to epitomise the administration's darker side. Take corporate cronyism. The vice-president made $44m during his time as head of Halliburton, a company that has snaffled up a large number of lucrative contracts in Iraq and has been accused of overcharging the Pentagon into the bargain (see article). He also stuffed his energy task-force with friends from the energy industry. Or take bureaucratic secrecy: he has created a semi-official parallel administration within the White House and has fought like a tiger to keep his doings private. His recent decision (just after the Supreme Court had said it would review whether he could continue to keep secret the deliberations of his energy task-force) to use a government jet to take Justice Antonin Scalia and a bunch of Mr Cheney's oil-business buddies duck-shooting only reinforces the impression that he has a tin ear for politics.
There are also positive reasons for dumping Mr Cheney. Bringing in a fresh face as vice-president would suggest that the second Bush term will be more than just a re-run of the first. It would also allow Mr Bush to add someone to the ticket who has a better chance of attracting swing voters than a retired CEO from a solid Republican state.
The case for Bill Owens
Who might that be? Rudy Giuliani might burnish Mr Bush's reputation for fighting terrorism, though he is not known for his ability to play second fiddle. Condoleezza Rice might do something to neutralise the Democrats' traditional advantage among blacks and women. But some Republicans would rather turn to Bill Owens, the governor of Colorado. There are signs that Mr Kerry is planning to write off the South in order to concentrate on loosening the Republicans' hold on the south-west. What better way to check this threat than to add the Republican Party's brightest western star to the ticket?
It hardly needs saying that replacing Mr Cheney would have to be done with the utmost finesse. Otherwise, it might seem that the Bush White House was falling apart. Mr Cheney would have to retire gracefully, blaming his dodgy heart (he has already had four heart attacks) and no doubt accepting a post as senior counsellor from a grief-stricken president. Persuading such a powerful vice-president to step aside will be no easy thing, of course. But the Bushes don't have a reputation as the Corleone family of the Republican Party for nothing. The next time Mr Cheney takes that jet to go duck-shooting, he may well find James Baker slipping into the seat behind him, with ?a litl' proposal to discuss for the good of the party?.
Time for him to go?
A YEAR ago, with the invasion of Iraq imminent, George Bush delighted guests at the American Enterprise Institute's annual dinner by unveiling his plans to democratise the Middle East. A year later, conservative Washington once again massed in the Washington Hilton ballroom to enjoy the AEI's hospitality and hear from the administration?this time from Dick Cheney.
You might have thought that the faithful would be feeling a little chastened by recent events. Not a bit of it. Mr Cheney looked as cocksure as ever. Charles Krauthammer treated the guests to an interminable celebration of American power. The chatter after dinner was surprisingly upbeat. Those missing weapons of mass destruction? Much ado about nothing. Of course, these conservatives were prepared to admit the odd setback?Mr Bush's flaccid state-of-the-union speech, for instance, or the fact that Howard Dean was no longer the likely Democratic nominee?but nobody seemed to be taking seriously the idea that John Kerry might actually be elected president in November. ?This country won't elect a Massachusetts liberal,? declared one senior journalist flatly.
This sounds strangely like the pride that goes before a fall. Mr Bush certainly stands a good chance of hanging on to the White House?but not if he underestimates Mr Kerry as his father did his philandering southern rival. The Republicans had expected the first quarter of the year to be dominated by Democratic squabbling; instead, the pounding coming from American television screens has been that of relentless Bush-bashing. For all his liberal traits, Mr Kerry looks a formidable presidential candidate, and even if he slips up in the run-in he will be replaced by John Edwards?the southerner whom Mr Bush's people feared most at the beginning of the contest. If nothing else, the Democratic Party has shown that it is obsessed by the idea of getting Mr Bush out of the White House.
The Bush campaign needs a jolt, not just to wake up the ideologues at the AEI but also to improve the president's standing among independent voters. And what bigger jolt could he give it than to start at the top?or rather second from the top?with the vice-president? In 1992, Mr Bush tried to persuade his father to ditch Dan Quayle. The idea that Mr Cheney might also be a ?drag on the ticket? was unthinkable a year ago. Now it has begun to seep into the more hard-headed, vote-scrounging parts of the Republican Party, and become common chatter among political operatives from both parties. It is, indeed, the current cover story of the National Journal, the inside-the-Beltway bible.
This is partly Mr Cheney's own doing. Four years ago, he looked the perfect complement to young George, possessing everything the callow Texan lacked?gravitas, eloquence and experience. Nowadays, he is seen less as the sober pragmatist and more as the dangerously revolutionary zealot. Look at economic management, where he supposedly told Paul O'Neill, his former friend and the former treasury secretary, that ?Reagan proved deficits don't matter.? Or look at Iraq, where the vice-president went further than anybody else in exaggerating Saddam's ?reconstituted? nuclear-weapons programme and the idea that he provided a ?geographic base? for terrorism against America.
Another reason to ditch Mr Cheney is that he has come to epitomise the administration's darker side. Take corporate cronyism. The vice-president made $44m during his time as head of Halliburton, a company that has snaffled up a large number of lucrative contracts in Iraq and has been accused of overcharging the Pentagon into the bargain (see article). He also stuffed his energy task-force with friends from the energy industry. Or take bureaucratic secrecy: he has created a semi-official parallel administration within the White House and has fought like a tiger to keep his doings private. His recent decision (just after the Supreme Court had said it would review whether he could continue to keep secret the deliberations of his energy task-force) to use a government jet to take Justice Antonin Scalia and a bunch of Mr Cheney's oil-business buddies duck-shooting only reinforces the impression that he has a tin ear for politics.
There are also positive reasons for dumping Mr Cheney. Bringing in a fresh face as vice-president would suggest that the second Bush term will be more than just a re-run of the first. It would also allow Mr Bush to add someone to the ticket who has a better chance of attracting swing voters than a retired CEO from a solid Republican state.
The case for Bill Owens
Who might that be? Rudy Giuliani might burnish Mr Bush's reputation for fighting terrorism, though he is not known for his ability to play second fiddle. Condoleezza Rice might do something to neutralise the Democrats' traditional advantage among blacks and women. But some Republicans would rather turn to Bill Owens, the governor of Colorado. There are signs that Mr Kerry is planning to write off the South in order to concentrate on loosening the Republicans' hold on the south-west. What better way to check this threat than to add the Republican Party's brightest western star to the ticket?
It hardly needs saying that replacing Mr Cheney would have to be done with the utmost finesse. Otherwise, it might seem that the Bush White House was falling apart. Mr Cheney would have to retire gracefully, blaming his dodgy heart (he has already had four heart attacks) and no doubt accepting a post as senior counsellor from a grief-stricken president. Persuading such a powerful vice-president to step aside will be no easy thing, of course. But the Bushes don't have a reputation as the Corleone family of the Republican Party for nothing. The next time Mr Cheney takes that jet to go duck-shooting, he may well find James Baker slipping into the seat behind him, with ?a litl' proposal to discuss for the good of the party?.
Facebook
Twitter