Who Needs Dick?

At the discreet and sophisticated soiree thrown by Mr. Furious this weekend, at which there was absolutely no alcohol consumption and certainly not any bad behavior from the collection of urbane, dignified professionals who had gathered for a tranquil evening of genteel conversation and cucumber sandwiches, there happened to be a quite a bit of political conversation, much of which (fearfully) focused on who the ’08 GOP nominee might be. As it turns out, no one, regardless of how much Earl Gray had passed his or her lips, believed that it would be Cheney; there was more support for the idea that he would be replaced sometime over the next three years than for the thought he might run himself.

It so happens that back in the blogosphere, the same discussion was taking place, with Jonathan Chait weighing in here, and Yglesias weighing in here, both in support of the possibility that Cheney will run. Ezra, on the other hand, disagrees (with them, and agrees with the party-goers); it won’t be Dick (emphasis mine):

First of all, no party intent on self-preservation is going to hand Cheney the baton. Sure Bush and a few party bigfoots might give it a shot, but there's not a less appealing candidate out there, the operatives dedicated to advancing the movement would never, ever buy it. Hunting trips with Scalia? Closed door meetings with Enron? Connections to Plame? Cussing Leahy out on the Senate floor? And a scowling visage that makes him look hungry for human flesh? This is the party of Reagan and Bush Jr., these folks aren't going to abandon their taste for outdoorsy, handsome balls of reg'lar guy charisma to give the physical manifestation of greed a shot at the crown.

More to the point, even if Bush did decide Dick was the way to go, he'd only split the party more. Cheney was picked for a number of reasons, but one of the most overt was to calm the many potential presidents in the party by publicly refusing to pick an heir apparent.

[…]

McCain, Frist, Giuliani, Graham, Santorum, Hagel, Allen, etc have no interest in letting Bush pull the tube from their presidential chances. If he tries, they'll pull the plug on his agenda.

Two key points there: Cheney’s uniquely unlikable, and though the whole ties-to-Halliburton thing didn’t stick to the VP, it’d be a lot harder to shrug off as candidate for the higher office, particularly as support for the war continues to dwindle. By ’08, if the people are looking for someone to blame for that mess (and they well may be), you don’t want the guy with ties to the biggest war profiteer leading the charge to the White House.

Second, we’d all do well to remember, as Ezra noted, that one of Cheney’s “draws” was that he wouldn’t be seen as a presumed successor—of which he was all too aware, having, let’s recall, chosen himself.

It’s unlikely he’s developed designs on the presidency in the interim. He might be many things, but he’s not a fool. He knows what a mess there will be to clean up when Bush is through, and Cheney strikes me as the kind of man who leaves cleaning messes to the maid. No, Cheney will leave the business of running the country (into the ground) to some other schlub; his Halliburton stock options are worth a lot these days, and he’s ready to enjoy his retirement.

(On a side note: major props to Ezra for slipping in the line even if Bush did decide Dick was the way to go, he'd only split the party more. That’s one of the finest double entendres I’ve seen in a while…even if it was unintentional. Which I doubt.)