Sorry for more politics but Drudge is saying this gossip will be announced on NYT front page tomorrow. Is he on the run? I love it.

it is now tomorrow (15 july) and the nyt did, indeed, have a "bush to drop cheney rumor" headline and article on page 1, above the fold, in the boston edition.

i don't know who is behind the rumors, but if it is intentional, it is brilliant. as if w didn't have few enough issues to run on, he's now spending all his time trying to convince people that really, cheney will be on the ticket, no, really. it is a delicious distraction while the kerry-edwards ticket (hopefully) starts gaining some traction, and setting the agenda.

So who would he replace him with, assuming this is true. Let me guess, McCain?????

We already have a thread dealing with should George Bush dump Dick Cheney, but anyway, here is what the man himself said on the subject in an interview with CSPAN:

President Bush has made it "very clear he doesn't want to break up the team. He's made his decision. I've made mine. I suppose right now, because we're in the run-up to the convention, people don't have much to talk about so you get speculation on that. It's normal. When we get to the convention, I think that'll put an end to it." (Perhaps those who have nothing to talk about can join our sports discussions wink )

Asked whether he could envision any scenario in which he would step aside, the Prince of Darkness went on to say:

"Well, no I can't. If I thought that were appropriate, I certainly would. But he's made it very clear that he wants me to run again. The way I got here in the first place was that he persuaded me four years ago that I was the man he wanted in that post, not just as a candidate, but as somebody to be part of the governing team. He's been very clear he doesn't want to break up the team"

There you go--though I am confused about the vetting process four years ago. If GWB wanted Cheney so much, why did Cheney go to all the bother of vetting other (some would say better-qualified) people?

~Adam

[ July 15, 2004, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Adam ]

The Times article is basically: A. He's not going to be replaced. This is a rumor stoked by Democrats to draw attention to what a weak ticket it is overall. It's great for Democrats because it switches the topic from the Republican line that Edwards is inexperienced over to Cheney sucks, he's a drag and even Bush is thinking of dropping him. The more there's a rumor that Cheney is going to be dropped, the more voters see him as a negative, a drag, which pulls Bush down too. It's brilliant.

B. While Bush isn't one to make big changes, fire people, etc., if Cheney really is a decisive factor in the polls, who knows. A convenient heart attack. You can't underestimate what Bush will do to win. There's no way he'll leave to chance and risk being the second Bush incumbant to lose.

How can it possibly be McCaine? He doesn't agree with Bush on a number of issues (most recently the gay marriage amendment). Bush's base absolutely hates, HATES McCaine.

Kinda like John Edwards, who disagrees with Kerry on a number of issues (see the primaries, where Edwards blasted Kerry on several things).

I always thought the issue would be whether or not Cheney would dump Bush.

MIB, the primaries are adversarial, they were bound to lash out at each other then. It wouldn't have been a primary without it. Now that they're on the same team, they'll be united (with the usual insubstantial exceptions).

The difference between McCain and Bush continued after the primaries. (And you can hardly say that Kerry did to Edwards in the primaries what Bush did to McCain). Heck, yesterday's amendment vote, and McCain's 'this goes against everything the Republican party stands for' just goes to show how different they are. And, again, Bush's base loathes McCain. Go over to freerepublic and see how much they revile him.

"We already have a thread dealing with should George Bush dump Dick Cheney, but anyway,"

Sorry Adam, I did know that. I wasn't able to find it and I thought someone who knew how could combine the threads. Didn't mean to step on your toes. I don't think McCain would do it but maybe Colin Powell? McCain would stand up for himself and his beliefs which I think really differ from W but Powell is apparantly like putty.

The way to tell what people are actually thinking, and how good a team they'll make is not to watch what they do when running against each other in a primary, but to whatch what they do when they're on the same side, such as looking at Kerry/Edwards votes in the Senate before the primaries or Bush/McCain stances post 2000 (since Bush doesn't vote in the Senate, we can only look at what he's supported and what he has not; less of a sampling because there are any number of bills the White House doesn't really take a stand on)

Except that the NYT is supposed to be a journalisitic entity and not the shill for the Democratic Party. To have a newspaper intentionally start this rumor in an attempt to damage a political ticket and get another elected is digusting and improper. Then again, the Times has become a worthless rag, good enough probably to line the bottom of most folks' bird cages.

The Times didn't start the rumor. The Times reported that the rumor existed and explicitly stated that it was likely a Democrat started rumor to highlight the weaknesses of the ticket. Is highlighting the weakness of the ticket shilling? There's a fine line between shilling and reporting. I'm don't think the Times stepped over it here, any more than they stepped over it when they reported that the Republicans were questioning Edwards' experience to highlight the weakness of that ticket, though the fact that no one ever mentioned that Edwards would have exactly the same amount of experience in public office as Bush did when he took office, could be construed as ignoring the proverbial elephant in the living room in favor of the elephants in the White House.