Bob Woodward: Cheney to run in '08 By Troy Hooper Special to The Denver Post DenverPost.com Aspen - Renowned journalist Bob Woodward predicts Dick Cheney will be the Republican Party's presidential nominee in 2008 and that the vice president could face Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton in a dramatic partisan showdown. Speaking in the Paepcke Auditorium as part of the Aspen Institute's McCloskey Speaker Series, Woodward on Tuesday listed a number of reasons it is "highly likely" President Bush might implore Cheney to seek the Oval Office. "He would be 67 if he ran and was elected. Reagan was 69. Republicans always like the old warhorse. ... Nixon was 68," said Woodward, best known for exposing the Watergate scandal that led to Richard Nixon's resignation in 1974. "Both parties like to nominate vice presidents. ... Cheney would do it, and I think it's highly likely, so stay tuned." But while the Pulitzer Prize- winning journalist, whose talk was titled "From Nixon to Bush," drew the loudest audience reaction with his Cheney prediction, the Nixon tapes and the war in Iraq were his main focus. Woodward described Nixon, who resigned 31 years ago this week, as intelligent and engaging but also unmistakably drunk on the power of the presidency. The Nixon tapes, which he called "the gift that just keeps giving," reveal that Nixon used his power to settle political scores. "He spent too much time to not only settle these scores and screw people, but to assert he was in power, he was on top," said Woodward, author of "The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat," which gives a behind-the-scenes account of one of the best-kept secrets in American history. Nixon remarked during his farewell speech: "Always remember that others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them." Woodward said Nixon had to walk away from the presidency because "he understood the hating is what did him in. ... When you look back on it, you have to give him credit. It was probably one of his bravest and most noble acts. ... As he said, he impeached himself." Although he has co-authored or authored more No. 1 best-selling nonfiction books than any contemporary writer, Woodward, 62, still works at The Washington Post as the assistant managing editor. He said the paper gave him an entire year to talk to mostly lower-level and midlevel officials for what turned into his 2002 hardback, "Bush at War." But he was also given the chance to interview President Bush for 3½ hours over two days in what he said felt more like a legal deposition than a traditional media interview. "Bush gives very direct answers," he said. "If you'd interviewed President Clinton for 3½ hours, you might have time to ask 12 questions. Bush is on the total other end." Woodward portrayed Bush as a man rooted in his convictions who feels he has a duty to spread democracy. But he also depicted the president as a fatalist who once told him, "We won't know" how history will judge the Iraq war because "we'll all be dead." http://www.denverpost.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=2927547
I'm not so sure. The repubs really don't have anyone else to cater to the base. McCain? Giuliani? Frist?
Only if the GOP is interested in throwing away the 2008 elections alltogether. I think the GOP has some really attractive candidates, they just need to focus on them and they will win the upcoming election; Lindsey Graham, McCain, Hagel, Guliani, Santouram, and a few others. The Dems it's pretty much going to come down to Hillary.
If 2008 turns out to be Clinton v. Cheney it could be a historic race, historic because it would contain the two most personally unlikeable candidates since the modern media era. I mean, come on. The only way they could make it any worse is if Rumsfeld came on as the VP. In the debates Hillary would come off as a frigid b**** and Cheney would look like an inhuman *******. But, as Bill Simmons might say, there's comedy, there's high comedy, and then there's a Clinton-Cheney faceoff on women's rights. Hey, I'm kind of warming up to this idea now. Wouldn't it be funny to see Cheney field seven-trillion questions about why he's supported the president on a ban on gay marriage when his own daughter is gay? He'd be more uncomfortable than Rumsfeld at a meeting with the troops.
It would be brutal, and bad for political discourse in the country no matter who won. Personally I hope neither runs. No more Bushes, no more Clintons. New blood please.
Cheney is 64 now. By the end of this term, he will be nearing Regan-presidency age (70). The deal with the pacemaker, combined that he doesn't use Regan's hair coloring, or have Regan's charisma lead me to believe that he couldn't possibly get away with it. Regan was older but he was an almost unique case. Cheney doesn't have anywhere near the charisma of Regan.
Two of those I think are non-starters. McCain caries the "crazy man" taint from dirty tricks vs. Bush, and Guliani is far too liberal for the mainstream Republican party to accept. If the nominee were Santorum, I think he'd loose in the national elections for being too far right (hard to imagine these days). Lindsey Graham I think I could vote for though I think he might suffer "John Edwards-like lack of experience" issues, and Chuck Hagel I knew little about but His collection of quotes at Wikiquote as well as general biographical info are almost enough to make me say I'd vote for him already.
You've GOT to be kiddin' me! McCain's "dirty tricks vs. Bush"? You have that around, don't you think? As for Guliani, I guarantee you he would be by far the best candidate. Why? Simple: he combines what most people in this country believe. First, he is a strong "national security/war on terror" guy, his credentials are by far better than anyone else on this front. Also, he is more liberal on social issues, which would attract a significant amount of Democratic voters. Moreover, the "mainstream" Republicans are NOT right-wingers, but rather small businesses and those who believe in 'smaller' government. Besides, the GOP loyalists are much more dedicated to their 'logo' (The GOP itself) than the Democrats are to their donkey. If presented with a choice between Hillary or Guiliani, whom do you think they will end up voting for? A Clinton ? I think Guiliani or a 'good Southern boy' like Graham would be the most marketable for the GOP. Both would also probably garner a good percentage of Independent voters. We need more 'mainstream' candidates and less radicals.
I agree with you. What I'm saying is that he'd never get the chance because durring the Republican Primaries, every vaguely liberal thing he has ever said, and the fact that he is openly pro-choice would prevent the Republicans from picking him as their candidate.
I think Woodward should lay off the sauce, or quit having these fantasies about an easy win for the Democrats in '08. If Cheney is the nominee in 2008, I'll be doing cartwheels around my living room, and that ain't easy for a 50+ year old guy with back surgery. Gore would beat Cheney. Edwards would beat Cheney. Hell, even Kerry would have a good chance, although I'd be puking all the way to the ballot box to vote for the idiot. Hillary? If she lets Bill make most of the speeches, campaign like a son of a b**** for her, bring in his team and give them freedom to do what they do so well... hell, she would beat him. I'm sorry... I just don't think the current leadership of the Republican Party, as lying, corrupt, and criminally inept as they are, would be that stupid. If they were, then all I can say is, BRING THE b*stard ON!!! Keep D&D Civil!!
Although Cheney would be 67, he would not be a healthy 67. He has numerous health issues. Reagan was a relatively healthy 69 year old when he became our Commander-in-Chief. One other thing...Nixon was NOT 68 years old when he became President. Nixon won in 1968. Maybe Woodward got confused (he is the LAST person I would expect to get something wrong about Nixon ) If I recall correctly, Nixon was 55 when he became President.
Cheney would tell everyone to go f themselves, a foreign policy tactic that is not going to be too popular with the nuance crowd.
I think the best candidate to survive the primaries and actually win on the Repulican side is the most McCain-like that isn't McCain. In other words, a republican conservative, but one with a maverick streak, and an ability to think in less of a linear way. Let me just print some of those Chuck Hagel quotes: Look at the deficits that have been run up. . . . And Republicans have been in charge. . . . We've been adrift in a sea of incompetence, with no fiscal responsibility." -- fall 2004 At some point somebody's going to ask you in a debate: 'Well, senator, will you pledge if you're elected president never to raise taxes?' I couldn't take that pledge. It would be irresponsible. That may cost me the nomination." -- 2004 I happen to believe that by 2008, this country is going to be ready for some people to talk very clearly, plainly -- not frighten them, not demagogue them, but say it straight, say it honest." - 2004 "I don't think the federal government has any business in dictating what constitutes a marriage." -- 2005 May 03 in New Hampshire We really do not have a good handle on the insurgency in Iraq." -- 2005 February 20 It is very, very important that we reconnect with our allies." -- 2005 February 20 "I like [John Kerry]. He's smart, he's tough, he's capable. I don't agree with him on a lot of things [though] I am closer to him on foreign policy questions. . . . He's certainly qualified to be president." -- 2004 His record is conservative enough to pass muster in the primaries, but the above sorts of stuff strike at the heart of the most aggressive criticisms of the Bush administration. The way in which non-Republican centrists speak of a world in which McCain was elected instead of Bush leads me to believe that he would truly strike a chord in the general election.
If the Democrats run Hillary then the Republicans would be foolish to run Cheney purely from a stategic standpoint. Hillary, I think, is seen as a person pretty far to the left (as much as we think Cheney leans to the right). She's trying to change that image with all her talk about supporting the Iraq war and boosting the size of the millitary but we all know it's just posturing for her upcoming Presidential run. If the Democrats nominate someone perceived to be very far left then the Republicans should nominate someone just right of center. That way you get all the concervatives that would rather die than vote for Hillary plus the moderates (majority of Americans) who want a more centerest point of view represented. This is contrary to the last election where the strategy was to get as much of the base to vote as possible and the middle be damned. I don't think that will work so well this time as my guess is that more Americans will vote because they are sick of the extremes winning out. Of course, I could be on crack... If the Republicans nominate Cheney then the Democrats should nominate someone more like Bill Clinton. Bill was much more to the center than Hillary is (at least that's how its perceived). Unless, of course, the Democrats see Hillary as someone just left of center. Then they're the ones smoking crack.
