Obama and the Cheney Option

MORE
Wise Guys
Many of the candidates most frequently linked to Barack Obama’s running-mate search are presumably interested in the vice presidency for the leg up it provides for a future White House campaign. But some of the other names making the rounds suggest something quite different: the Dick Cheney model.
Mr. Cheney is only the second elected vice president since the end of World War II to pass on waging a campaign of his own for the top spot. And he’s the first to do so voluntarily: Spiro T. Agnew fully intended to run in 1976, but a no-contest plea in late 1973 to tax evasion and money laundering charges – related to bribes he took while serving as Maryland’s governor in the late '60s – took him out of the picture.
Traditionally, running-mate decisions have amounted to marriages of expediency and ambition. The presidential nominee has needed to appeal to a particular state or region or to make peace with a particular wing of his party, and the vice presidential nominee has played along for the sake of his own political dreams. So it was, for instance, that Ronald Reagan reached a truce with the Republican Party’s Eastern establishment in the summer of 1980 by tapping George H. W. Bush. When the Reagan-Bush ticket was elected that fall, Mr. Bush’s own 1988 campaign began on the spot.
But the definition of the vice presidency has been evolving. Mr. Bush, when it came his turn to pick a running mate in 1988, went the traditional route and picked Dan Quayle, who was promptly relegated to a powerless perch within the administration. But Mr. Quayle was the last of his kind, at least for the time. Under Bill Clinton, Al Gore radically enhanced the visibility of his office, taking an active role in shaping policy behind the scenes and in selling it publicly – most famously with his nationally televised NAFTA debate with Ross Perot in 1993.
But Mr. Gore, like nearly all of his predecessors, was still primarily interested in his own political future, something that created obvious tension within the White House – and between the president and vice president personally – when Mr. Gore formally launched his 2000 campaign against the backdrop of the Lewinsky scandal.
Mr. Cheney has gone Mr. Gore one step further, combining an even more intense involvement in policymaking with staunch avowals from very early on that he had no interest in ever running for president himself. When he joined up with George W. Bush back in 2000, Mr. Cheney’s end of the deal were assurances of an expansive, hands-on role in a Bush administration (and, presumably, a hunch that Mr. Bush would be that rare leader willing to delegate so much real authority).
Say what you will about the policy implications, but it is an arrangement that has produced a remarkably cohesive White House, one in which Mr. Cheney has never flinched at the idea of paying a horrific political price for pursuing the administration’s agenda – in large part because it’s an agenda that Mr. Cheney has played a mighty, often decisive role in crafting.
When Mr. Obama makes his VP decision this year, he may simply opt for a more traditional choice. But it’s striking how many people have been linked to this process who, if elected to the vice presidency this year, would almost certainly be excluded from future presidential consideration.
Sam Nunn, for instance, will turn 70 years old in September. From a political standpoint, he may be exactly what Mr. Obama needs in a running mate: a seasoned, impeccably qualified and wholly reassuring figure – “gravitas” was the word most frequently used to describe the Cheney pick back in 2000 – with deep foreign-policy experience. That Mr. Nunn is from a Southern state doesn’t hurt, and that some on the left have begun carping about his conservative record on social issues like gay rights is actually a political plus, too – a chance for Mr. Obama to reach out to center-right swing voters who roll their eyes at the liberal interest-group establishment.
But Mr. Nunn, were he to be elected vice president, would never – barring some tragedy – become president. Like Mr. Cheney, he would need to be satisfied that his role in an Obama administration would be meaty, expansive and real.
The same goes for some other possible Obama picks. Joe Biden will turn 66 later this year. Bob Graham is already 71. George Mitchell and Lee Hamilton have both been mentioned, too: They’re well into their 70s. Even retired General James Jones, last week’s trendiest choice, would be 65 on Inauguration Day, and Tony McPeak, another military option, would be 73. Tom Daschle, who’s often talked up as a potential chief of staff, is also supposedly in the mix. He’s only 60 – or one year older than Mr. Cheney was in 2000.
History will judge the Bush-Cheney partnership a failure in part because Mr. Bush, who walked into office without so much as a clearly defined worldview, gave Mr. Cheney too much latitude. But the model itself is hardly irredeemable. Mr. Obama might like the idea of a vice president who’s focused only on the Obama administration – and not on the 2016 election.
skornacki@observer.com




















Bush-Cheney partnership has hardly been a failure. Quite the contrary, it's been a smashing success. Mentioned earlier in the article was the fact the White House was and has been very cohesive in getting their message and their goals across to the congress, media and populace.
You can quibble about Lord Vader and all that other bilge, but Cheney is an insider's insider. If you read inside accounts, he actually helped to temper Rumsfeld. Obamer would do well to pick someone along those lines to help him in his neophyte quest at stardom, I mean governance. I can't help but be reminded of Boy Clinton in his first two years, which were considered two learning years (ie: failures.)
However, the possible names posited above don't really generate enthusiasm, but then again, neither did Cheney in the Summer of 2000 when he was chosen.
,
OBAMA NEEDS SOMEONE WHO KNOWS OIL, GAS, NUCLEAR, COAL, & RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES --- TO GET THIS COUNTRY OUT THE CRISIS OUR DEPENDENCE ON "FOREIGHN OIL" IS COSTING US.
IT IS FOREIGN OIL THAT IS THE PROBLEM --- NOT DOMESTIC SOURCES.
"AN ENERGY GURU IS NEEDED ... (not verified) says:
,
OBAMA NEEDS SOMEONE WHO KNOWS OIL, GAS, NUCLEAR, COAL, & RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES --- TO GET THIS COUNTRY OUT THE CRISIS OUR DEPENDENCE ON "FOREIGHN OIL" IS COSTING US.
IT IS FOREIGN OIL THAT IS THE PROBLEM --- NOT DOMESTIC SOURCES"
Just look at how well things have gone with two experienced oil industry executives running the country. If we follow the advice quoted above, we may end up doing every bit as well in the next eight years.
"we may end up doing every bit as well in the next eight years."
Only if we elect McCain. Oblabla will be a nightmare beyond all conception.
Amen to that. Down with Obama and his precious "change" message.
Go back to Springfield, Illinois you poser.
If the disaster Osama is elected, I am sure that our next few years will be similar to the Carter 4...high interest rates, hostage situations, more hate from the world...oh boy Osama!
The reason Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama is because they are embarrassed of him, his life, his unfair tactics and his beliefs. And they still don't know all about him.
They don't want a candidate that has been in a twenty year relationship with Reverend Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ.
They don’t’ want a candidate that has a twenty year relationship with Father Pflaeger as his compass in life
They don’t want a candidate that went to a church that supports Louis Farrakhan, an anti Semitic racist.
They don't want to defend Black Liberation theology.
They don’t want a candidate that lies about his relationship with Tony Rezko, the Syrian Criminal that sold his property to Obama and supported his campaign.
They don't want a candidate that could work with a domestic terrorist, William Ayers.
They don’t want a candidate that Hamas supports.
They don’t want a candidate that Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam support
They don’t want a candidate that has a wife that has just now realized she was proud of our country.
They don’t want a candidate that denies Florida and Michigan their voices
They don’t want a candidate that mentions 57 states in his speeches. 50 states in the USA and 57 states in the Nation of Islam (IOC website)
They don’t want a candidate that fights unfair and steals Michigan delegate votes from his opponent.
They don’t want a candidate that feels sorry to leave a church that is anti American and that preaches hatred and racial views that are cruel and nasty.
They don't want a candidate that is inexperienced.
They don’t want a candidate that considers it a loss to not to be able to attend his anti American, racist Church.
They don’t want a candidate that has a “non practicing” Muslim father, but avoids the entire discussion of his father.
They don’t’ want a candidate that won’t debate
They don’t’ want a candidate that misleads the youth with an ‘Obama girl and her behind in their face”
They don’t want a candidate that says he’s an African American and missed the MLK Remembrance Day and the Louisiana Black Caucus meeting
They don’t want a candidate that has done nothing for humanity except talk about it.
They don’t’ want a candidate that has poor judgment.
They don’t' want a candidate named; Barack Hussein Obama
He scares them to death.
He is embarrassing.
He is unelectable.
I'm getting annoyed with disgruntled Clinton supporters who post anti-Obama rants because they latch onto any rumor, half-truth, misrepresentation, or willful misunderstanding of Obama and his positions.
I am annoyed because they say they support Clinton (and presumably) her judgment on important issues, but ignore her endorsement of Obama over McCain.
I am annoyed because they talk about Obama's '57 states' flub and their interpretation of that slip, even though there were exactly 57 states, territories, commonwealths and a district that had either a primary or caucus (Texas had both, bringing the grand total of contests to 58).
I am annoyed because they support a woman who has much less experience than Biden, McCain, and many other candidates, and then consider Obama's lack of experience as a serious shortcoming.
I am annoyed because they say that Obama refuses to debate, even though he participated in no less than 27 debates between April '07 and April '08.
I am annoyed because they think that Obama girl has an actual effect on a significant portion of Obama's supporters.
I am annoyed because they make really, really flimsy points, just to make their post longer and the list of Obama's faults more impressive. And then, by the way, they complain that Obama uses "unfair tactics."
I am annoyed because they cut and paste the first few words of their arguments for extra rhetorical effect.
I am annoyed because they write essentially the same interminable posts on many Obama-related articles, even if their comments have little/nothing to do with the content of the article.
I am annoyed because they mention Barack's name (his NAME, for God's sake!) as a reason why they don't like him.
I am annoyed because they have poor grammar. (Seriously, you should say "...a candidate who," not "a candidate that...")
I am annoyed because they write lists of complaints that are so long that everyone else gets tired of reading it and skip to the next comment.
I am annoyed because I've spent too much time responding to this crap.