Brad,

i don't think they can get the stink of Big Time Dick off of them no matter how hard they try. But even if they did a "moderate" would shatter their base.

they couldn't pick McCain because of the really nasty things these two each said about the other in the last election and because of yesterday's vote on the missionary position Amendment.

They couldn't take Rudy because conservatives see him as little more than a cross dresser who lives with and kisses gay men. Hell Concerned Women for America even insinuated he was a pedophile.

The nomination of anyone other than a neandercon would result in bloodshed that would make Tarantino squeamish.

ahhhh, but just think of the media feeding frenzy that will erupt around the republican national convention! "who could possibly replace CHENEY as bush's VEEP?????" it will give the repubs the focus during a convention season that has already been written off by the media as pre-determined.

speaking of the general media, they'll be beside themselves with speculation --- look what they did as they anticipated (and then deconstructed) kerry's run-up to and annoucement of his running mate Edwards! they're *still* talking about it.

announcing a new Rep.Veep Candidate for Bush would kill several birds with one huge PR Scud missile --- such an unexpected stunner would blitzkrieg any attention given to those other, more messy, less 'sexy' issues that are causing the Bushies so much trouble right now.

forget the Dems covention --- foregone conclusion. forget Bush having a "Cheney problem". it's a bombshell that just might save 'em in the public eye.

johnhp's assessment above notwithstanding, i don't think the short list for a replacement VP would be so difficult --- nor very short. there are many conservative lapdogs that would kill (probably literally) to get on the ticket. DC politicos have really, really, *REALLY* conveniently selective memories, just like the general American electorate. i'm sure that with McCain, all would be forgiven, oh ... instantaneoulsy, if it would mean keeping the Repubs in power.

say, maybe Dan Quayle is still available....

Except that Cheney claims, for now, he's staying in Bush's thicket --- er, on Bush's ticket...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/.../15/cheney.ap/index.html

Cheney can claim what he wants. But if it looks like Bush is in trouble, I think anything could happen this year.

JohnHP's arguments are sound, but for that I think if Rove, I mean Bush looks to be running at an unrecoverable defecit, I think they'll play the Dump Cheney card. Anything to win.

In other words, if they were gonna lose anyway, what can it hurt to dump the Conservative Base (which they don't care about ideologically anyway for the most part) and try to suck out the middle with a choice like McCain or Powell or Guilliani? Or even someone nobody knows much about, and won't have time to figure out, but who seems less Brutally Darth Vader-like than Dick?

I think Desi had some good points there. Johnhp (as usual) does as well, but he may not be given enough credit to to the Will Do and Say Anything to Win GOP.

i agree with most of the comments here with one caveat.

i think if he were dumped, and i think the dems who leaked the doctor story yesterday did a great job, it would exacerbate the problems that plague the Bush Administration rather than distract from them. By forcing them to comment after the issue of dumping VP Crashcart over the issue of health they put that off the table. Masterful.

You guys sure spend a lot of wasted energy in rumors and speculations. I personally like Cheney and believe he stays on the ticket. The Dems are the "will do and say anything to win" since they are out of power in all three branches and in most governorships. They are like rabid dogs - Gore, Kennedy, NAACP, Hollywood liberals, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Barbara Boxer, at all. They are fun to watch and listen to. Some of them look and sound like they might just combust.

"They are fun to watch and listen to. Some of them look and sound like they might just combust."

Cool! Keep enjoying them! And get used to it! Gonna be a tough morning coming up for you this November, Paulie.

I seriously doubt it. You were wrong in 2000, 2002, and you will be wrong in 2004.

Really? When/where was I wrong? (If you're gonna tell me I was wrong about Gore winning in 2000 - if in fact I did, you can save that one. Since he did win.) But anyway...looking forward to you demonstrating my "wrongess" about 2000 and 2002.