(cross-posted at campusprogress.org)
With the possible indictment of his Chief of Staff and one of the President's top advisers, it is possible, however unlikely, that we could see Dick Cheney indicted. The NY Daily News story (so grain of salt, but it jibes with recent WaPo reporting) http://nydailynews.com/front/story/356858p-304125c.html seems to suggest, judging from the headline, that Cheney is under investigation.
So let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that Dick Cheney is indicted.
For Constitutional reasons it is imperative that an indicted veep resign immediately. You simply cannot have the #2 man in the Line of Succession be under indictment--think back in history, because a lot more Vice-Presidents become Presidents than we might think.
And if Rove, Libby, Cheney and Fleischer are investigated, I can't conceive of a plausible scenario where something about their efforts does not cross the President's desk.
The arrogance of the Administration (anyone want to argue
that point?!!) would lead me to believe that "plausible deniability" is not going to fly: when the White House Iraq Group was started, it was certainly with a Presidential go-ahead, so if that group then commits a crime, the President should have had active oversight. And if Cheney, Libby and Rove are indicted, I can't imagine Bush will have a friendly Congress for too long.
So there's a chance (a VERY outside possibility, but one that becomes exponentially more likely if Cheney is indicted) that Bush, like Nixon, will face the choice of resignation or impeachment. And then, like the never-elected Gerald Ford, someone unknown at the last election will ascend to be the unelected (déjà vu!) President of the United States.
But who the hell could Bush pick to replace Cheney? I mean, assuming he doesn't pick his tailor, barber, accountant or other longtime sycophantic crony.
Well, the obvious choices seem to be from the State Department. First is Condoleeza Rice, who follows the line and has never spoken ill of the President or his decisions, to the point of sacrificing her credibility. Condi has the loyalty thing, and may even have the vision thing. But with her apparent lack of wanting to run for office herself, the Administration and the RNC might want someone that could conceivably hold the White House in a reelection campaign (so first rule--no pardons!). I'd call Condi a front-runner for Cheney's job.
Which makes me think James Baker III, former Secretary of State and Bush/Cheney 2000 lawyer, might be a potential pick. He's known around DC, he's got a fairly decent reputation, and much of what has happened between him and Dubya in the past is likely somewhat privileged information (what the Senate forces out in hearings is an X factor for any nominee, though). Plus, he's one of the few grown-ups left in the Party: he's run the White House before, under Bush I and Reagan, as Chief of Staff. Baker does have the Cheney Problem from 2000, though, in that he's a Texan. But Cheney found a way around that pesky Constitutional requirement, and I don't see what would stop Baker from the same (except for living his entire life in the state). If there is a major shakeup in the White House, though, expect to see Andy Card out on his ass, and don't be surprised if Baker ends up in his job instead.
Of course, we have to consider the Senate. But the big guns are all tied up there: Frist has an SEC investigation, McCain was too critical of detention practices (it would be the first question from the first reporter on the first day it was announced), and I don't know that any of the Senate's candidates for President could get confirmed, since their rivals all have some say in the matter along with the Democrats. I don't think anyone in the Republican caucus has enough support within the party to get the keys to the castle without a bloody war.
In the House? Yeah, right. Hastert can't even get his choice for temporary Majority Leader through, so he's not it. DeLay is a punchline, not a Congressman. Blunt? Ha!
Perhaps Giuliani or Pataki, but I doubt it on both counts. Neither one particularly strikes me as someone America would like to have control of the military. Pataki might work as a place-holder, but would likely signify that the RNC was surrendering the '08 election.
Maybe, maybe Tom Ridge would do it, and he'd be a tolerable choice to most. The color-coding was pretty dumb, but he was the first head of a new agency, so he'll be forgiven.
These are just a few I'm considering right now. But take a minute and ask: who would be able to replace Cheney? Think like a Republican (i.e. what will it take to hold power just a little longer, [smirk or evil grimace]?) and take a guess.
If nothing else, it will keep us entertained until Fitzgerald makes an announcement.