Only "former Reagan and Bush I speechwriter" would think that being a part of the Bush administration will be a selling point for a candidate in the next election. And only "former Reagan and Bush I speechwriter" would fail to realize that Cheney's the one who is running the country.

Just to clarify:

The 25th amendment calls for a new vice president to be nominated by the president, but confirmed by a majority vote of both houses of Congress.

Since Cheney is really in charge, not Bush, he would like it the other around. Bush leaves, he becomes the prez and Condi becomes the VP. Cheney sees little use for little-boy-Bush at this point. After all it's getting serious.

....but Cheney is not about enjoying. Any word containing "joy" is ludicrous connected with a man who is actively pro-war and pro-torture. War and torture are activities to be entered into with the greatest sorrow and relutance after all other avenues of management and negotiation have been tried and tried again. Cheney not only lacks reluctance as he pursues these activities; he displays relish.

The upside of having power is being liked, respected, or admired, but Cheney has clearly jettisoned those dreams. You can tell that from his behavior on the job. He's soley about getting the things he wants done, done and about getting them done his way. Anyone who saw him in New Orleans with his wierd little finger raised --all that was missing was the French aristocrat's nosegay and lace hanky-- hating the pretense of having to walk around for an hour or two and look like he cared, could see that Cheny is furiously impatient with any part of his job that takes hom out of the backroom. In other words, Cheney is today a dangerous and twisted character like Robespierre who has funneled his essence into the exercise of power, and decently or indecently doesn't matter to him. He will never step down and never quit plotting, spinning, and twisting events and people until we stop him.

Whoever it is, would pass the Senate vote 100-0, for 2 obvious reasons: the Repugs will play ball, the Dems will momentarily rejoice, thinking they had something to do with his downfall.

As for Condi, no way... or put it this way: Bush can appoint her to the office, but there's no way short of his death she'll become President. Only incompetent white guys can pull that off...

I've been saying this since 11/04. My guess...and you heard it here first...is that Bush will pick Rick Santorum. He is destined to lose his re-election bid. It would save face, set up a successor, and satisfy the (not-so-)religious right.

I think it's pretty unlikely that Cheney would ever step down voluntarily - given all the immoral and illegal stuff he did to get into power, why would he simply walk away now that he's there? But if for some reason he did, Condi's their perfect candidate. She has no governing experience; she's beholden to the oil companies; she's easily influenced by Cheney or other figures around her; she somehow managed to fuck up royally and come out with a promotion at the end of it. In other words, she's Bush in a dress. Plus, the right wing media will be able to smear anyone who says a word against her as racist, just like they did at the Gonzalez hearings. They can pat themselves on the back for putting a black woman in the White House, while continuing policies that hurt blacks and women (and pretty much everyone else).

You have to give these creeps credit. They're political animals to their core.

I've been telling friends since the 2nd Bush inauguration that Cheney would step down after the 2006 elections. Reason? The last thing they want is an open convention or open primary season in '08. The next veep? Condi Rice.

That they would use Noonan to set the stage with her op-ed in the WSJ blindsided me momentarily; but on further examination, it is a brilliant set-up.

But make no mistake; this has been planned for a long time.

Jim Somers

San Carlos, Ca.

While I agree with Stephen that there are far more egregious wrongs committed by Cheney that make him worthy of resgining the vice-presidency, we already have had ample opportunity to decry the shallow and vindictive state of American politics. One need only consider the witch hunt that was the Clinton impeachment.

Can't get your opponent for anything of real substance? Then bring him down for lying about an unrelated sexual indiscretion that is accidentally discovered in the course of the investigation.

Granted, Clinton's impeachment was not driven by the ire of the American public, but then neither is Noonan's reasoning concerning a Cheney resignation.

It will destroy all of my faith in the American public if Dick Cheney is brought down by a fake scandal. If a hunting accident is more damaging than distorting intelligence, giving no-bid contracts to cronies, endangering a CIA agent and the long list of legitimate scandals, then we are truly a pathetic society. A hunting accident is as politically relevent as a stain on a navy blue dress. It's sad that the electorate only grasps the most sensational, lowest common denominator issues.

It demands that they both stay or they both go. In my opinion, we're seeing the beginnings of the latter.

Missing from the Noonan piece, and the comments on it, is an estimation of Cheney's power in the administration.

If he has been the real executive in the 'unitary executive', as many have argued, it will [1] be no cakewalk to pry him loose, and [2] entail a gigantic transformation of the power landscape, not a mere re-shuffling of political faces.

Peggy Noonan may be filling the same role previously occupied by Charles Krauthammer during the recent Harriet Miers debacle. Remember how he predicted the exact exit strategy employed by Ms. Miers and the White House when she withdrew her Supreme Court nomination?

This Noonan column sure smells like a similar trial balloon -- no one should be surprised to see things play out almost as she laid them out. One prediction a bit different from her scenario -- look for Bush to nominate a sitting Senator as the new Vice President. I strongly doubt the Senate would savage a fellow Senator in such a situation of "national trauma," unless he picked someone like Sen. Santorum. Then again, there IS no one "like" Sen. Santorum! He's one-of-a-kind, which is an entirely different thread to consider...