Sally Quinn: Is it time to replace Cheney with Fred?
posted at 11:10 am on June 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
Sounds like a plan. Bush gets a dose of credibility, the White House gets a deft, likeable diplomat, and Fred gets a rocket ride with this bombing administration, Slim-Pickens-like, down to whatever explosive denouement awaits.
I expect the Thompson camp will politely decline.
I remember Barry Goldwater sitting in my parents’ living room in 1973, in the last days of Watergate, debating whether to lead a group of senior Republicans to the White House to tell President Nixon he had to go. His hesitation was that he felt loyalty to the president and the party. But in the end he felt a greater loyalty to his country, and he went to the White House.
Today, another group of party elders, led by Sen. John Warner of Virginia, could well do the same. They could act out of concern for our country’s plummeting reputation throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East.
For such a plan to work, however, they would need a ready replacement. Until recently, there hasn’t been an acceptable alternative to Cheney — nor has there been a persuasive argument to convince President Bush to make a change. Now there is…
Everybody loves Fred. He has the healing qualities of Gerald Ford and the movie-star appeal of Ronald Reagan. He is relatively moderate on social issues. He has a reputation as a peacemaker and a compromiser. And he has a good sense of humor.
He could be just the partner to bring out Bush’s better nature — or at least be a sensible voice of reason. I could easily imagine him telling the president, “For God’s sake, do not push that button!” — a command I have a hard time hearing Cheney give.
Yeah, I don’t know. Is that why most of the people here like Fred? My sense is that they like him because he might not say that.
He’s up four now on Rudy in the latest Rasmussen, by the way, and down only six in the RCP average. The crazier the hype gets, the more room for disappointment there’ll be, and it’s going to come back to bite him, I think. Not in the primary necessarily, since Republicans are desperate for someone to believe in and will be willing to overlook a lot to make that happen, but in the general he’s going to look and sound too similar to Bush. And if Americans are given a symbolic choice between revisiting the Bush years or the Clinton years…
Well, let’s hope they don’t have to make that choice. Incidentally, be on the lookout for the left playing up the fact that Sally Quinn seems to think highly of Fred. She’s the consummate Washington insider and tarring him with that by association dovetails with their emphasis on his lobbyist past.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Just what every politician needs for a great Presidential campaign: To be associated with the Bush Administration.
amerpundit on June 26, 2007 at 11:13 AM
I like Dick Cheney. I don’t like Sally Quinn. She’s a raging liberal. Why would anyone take what she says about what is in the best interest of the GOP seriously?
Blake on June 26, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Fred! would SHAME ‘em all into opposing amnesty. Man…! I hope he runs. Although, right now, ANYONE other than Ron Paul would be an improvement over THIS crowd. They must really believe that the Hispanics are going to rule the roost soon. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such pandering.
Rugged Individual on June 26, 2007 at 11:19 AM
What a mistake that would be. An instant way to take Fred! off the map. If Cheney leaves go ahead and let GW put one of his friends in the spot, and I don’t care who. After todays vote (up or down) the only thing left for the administration to do is arrange for the moving vans and lining up publishers.
Limerick on June 26, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Horrible, horrible idea. That would give the press a year and a half to paint Fred as just another evil member of the Sith.
On the other hand…Fred with a lightsaber. Now that gets my vote!
MadisonConservative on June 26, 2007 at 11:23 AM
The Left would get too much satisfaction out of seeing Cheney go. They would see it as another head on a platter that they would somehow try to take credit for (a la Rumsfeld). The Administration needs help, but I don’t think this would be the way to go…and it might actually hurt Fred’s chances in ’08.
CP on June 26, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Is it just me or did that Trog just call Fred! Bizzaro Cheney?
unamused on June 26, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Blake says it all. ‘Nuf said.
countywolf on June 26, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Ditto above.
ophelia on June 26, 2007 at 11:28 AM
How much “salvaging” does she think Bush can do in the next 18 months? He has way overspent his political capital on Shamnesty, and he refuses to force the opposition to embrace its surrender at all costs mentality. I don’t think there is a person on this planet that can fully mend the broken fences with the conservative base in time for 2008. The best tack for the Republican candidates to take is steer clear of Bush during the campaign.
common sensineer on June 26, 2007 at 11:28 AM
I have a hard time telling satire writers from political writers these days. Is this Sally Quinn writing satire?
What the hell good would replacing Cheney do? What would replacing any vice president, ever, accomplish?
Cheney has served the country faithfully in more ways than 1,000 Sally Quinns.
I guess she really should know better then.
reaganaut on June 26, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Right. Who cares what some leftard slut has to say about Cheney?
But since she’s gone there, what about Bush quits, Cheney becomes the Pres, and picks up Fred for VP? I could go for that…
Jaibones on June 26, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I prefer Martha Quinn.
Asher on June 26, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Blake on June 26, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Sally Quinn is just brainstorming ways to eliminate what she clearly sees as the single greatest threat to a democrat being elected president in 08.
doriangrey on June 26, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Stay off the Bushtanic, Fred.
(It’s deck chairs are not even rearrangeable.)
profitsbeard on June 26, 2007 at 11:41 AM
What MadisonConservative said. This idea is like that old SNL commercial: Bad Idea Jeans. Fred should stay clear of the current administration if he wants success in the general.
Spirit of 1776 on June 26, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Sally Quinn is obviously retarded. fred? isn’t even qualified to be press secretary much less the VP. I don’t know where she’s getting these crazy ideas, but the cheese is off the reality cracker with this dope.
The only rap she has on Mitt! is the fact that he’s a Mormon? That’s pathetic! I noticed how she tries to give herself credibility by referencing several right-wing evangelists. And who are these “several” right-wing evangelists? Name em off retard and well see if those are main stream evangelists or a bunch of fringe kooks. A long as Mitt! has the support of the right evangelists, her friends don’t mean a thing.
csdeven on June 26, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Not just no, but F*** NO!!!
Fred is going to have to deal with a lot of crap once he gets into the campaign for real as his past record gets scrutinized. The last thing he needs to do is taint himself by association with a president who’s retarded political instincts would have him squander what little political capital he has left on a bill that is terrible for the country and is hated by an overwhelming majority.
If Fred were dumb enough to take over as VP in a scenario where Uncle Dick stepped down, it would be telling – in a very bad way – about his own political instincts. I don’t think it’s going to happen though.
thirteen28 on June 26, 2007 at 11:54 AM
I have to agree it would be a bad idea, at least at this point.
Ideally, we leave Cheney in place so that the left has someone to focus on, maybe leaving the President a little room to manuver on Iraq.
While I like Cheney, this latest bit with the records deal, it seems like he’s trying to have it both ways and be unaccountable. Granted, the Dems will throw everything they’ve got on the wall hoping it sticks, but this one looks bad.
IF it is decided that Cheney MUST go, I say let’s move Condeleeza Rice up. Earlier this term would have been better, for I would love to see her in the oval office. However, as much as we might like her, I doubt at this point she could win.
The bonus there would be how much that would stick the craw of all the leftist “Republicans-are-just-a-bunch-of-racist/sexist/bigot/homophobes” types. They would be faced with forever acknowledging that the first woman, and first minority, ever to be VicePresident, was a Conservative Republican.
JamesLee on June 26, 2007 at 11:55 AM
For the record, I suggested this way back in March after I first researched Fred Thompson. I also added that, after Fred Thompson is appointed VP, Bush should resign.
frankj on June 26, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Republicans should do this. I mean they’ve done almost every dumb thing imaginable in the last year or two so why not add “follow the advice of a raging liberal from the Washington Post and kill the party’s best chance to win in 08″ to the list?
Why leave even one stupid stone unturned?
Drew on June 26, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Wow. I thought, “Goldwater was in her living room? Who the hell are her parents?!” So I looked it up, and I have to say, I’m a little disappointed. Her dad sounds awesome.
I think Fred would be the type to stop Dubya if he was pushing the button for the wrong reason. Which, right now, I kinda think is the most likely scenario.
Heh.
Tanya on June 26, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Replace Cheney? WTF?
Have them lead their group to the White House to replace BUSH and we have a winner!
Gregor on June 26, 2007 at 12:02 PM
NO! There, that was easy….
soulsirkus on June 26, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Bwahahaha. Yes, the front runner in the Republican primary should effectively quit.
Now here is my advice for the Dem frontrunner. Hillary Clinton should eat a baby. Dems are known to be wimpy and women are known to have an excessive love of babies. There would be no better way to prove that Hillary is the tough as nails candidate. Be sure to use BBQ sauce to appeal to the southern voters.
Bill C on June 26, 2007 at 12:10 PM
If you were talking about March of 2001 or 2005, I might agree with you. But it’s a little late now.
Seriously though, the liberals have invested a massive amount of propaganda into demonizing George Bush. I’d go so far as to say it’s their only coherent campaign issue – as if they forget he’s not elligible to run in ’08.
Liberals are DESPERATE to transfer that ginned-up hatred onto our next candidate. It’s all they’ve got; without that, they are dead.
…and this is by far the craziest attempt to link any Republican Presidential hopeful to George Bush that any moonbat has come up with yet. They’re taking desperation to a completely new level here.
GO FRED!
logis on June 26, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Although I agree with you that Fred! (and anyone who wants to win) should avoid Bush at all costs, there is something that makes this a worse idea is the 25th Amendment.
Any VP successor has to be confirmed by both chambers of Congress. Could you imagine the blood bath anyone would have to endure to get confirmed? Fred would be wrongly accused, tried and eviscerated a la Clarence Thomas. To liberals, it would be the biggest present in their political lives: offering up their most dangerous opponent for a 3-month long human sacrifice.
cmay on June 26, 2007 at 12:18 PM
She already does that – it’s just a matter of allowing the act to be caught on camera.
Tom Doniphon on June 26, 2007 at 12:19 PM
True. Also, by demonizing Bush so much they make any candidate, be s/he Republican or Dhemocrat, the candidate of refreshing change. Fred of course would be the most refreshing.
Fred and ‘anybody cool’ for the ticket in ’08.
Mojave Mark on June 26, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Last I checked, Fred? didn’t strike me as insane. Sally Quinn, on the other hand…
Aunt B on June 26, 2007 at 12:25 PM
I agree w/ Drew at 12:01. Quinn is just trying to gin up some momentum to get this going. If there is ever a serious suggestion of dumping Cheney, the left will jump on it with a furor that’ll make a Pali Car Swarm look as intense as English High Tea.
By doing so, they will try to make Republicans looked so fractured and weak that they will be able to knock loose a percent or two of independents/undecideds and point them towards the Dems in ’08.
eeyore on June 26, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Wouldn’t it make more sense to have Bush step down and then replace him with Cheney?
Watcher on June 26, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Huh? I’m not suggesting you jumped the shark, but you’re definitely approaching the ramp with this one.
In what way could Fred possibly be compared to Bush? Fred’s a federalist, Bush a “compassionate conservative” who ran largely on social issues and his faith. I don’t see Fred sounding that way at all.
Hollowpoint on June 26, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Not gonna happen…so wgasa?
tickleddragon on June 26, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Don’t care.
Really don’t care.
So what’s this Quinn bimbo’s problem with Cheney? And why would any President replace his VP a year-and-a-half from the next election?
I’d call this drivel, but that would be a compliment.
rightwingprof on June 26, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Seriously, this will be EXTREMELY important in 2008. “Bush is Bad” is only campaign issue the Democrats campaigned on from 2000 through today, and they can’t afford to throw all their work – and hundreds of millions worth of dollars worth of liberal media airtime – away.
Fred Thompson and Ron Paul would be by far the two candidates hardest to paint as “another Bush”. And I’m afraid the Democrats have the lunatic vote pretty much cornered. So – gosh darn it – I guess that just leaves us with FRED!, huh?
logis on June 26, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Well, for starters, you can’t dump an elected vice president. He can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, but he can’t be fired. So that’s whack to begin with.
Second, just because he doesn’t go along with the lefty agenda doesn’t make Dick Cheney a bad VP. He’s there to do the job, and I like what he’s doing.
Third, Fred would be nuts to accept any position like this. Let the man announce his candidacy and run on HIS OWN TERMS. It’s up to us to decide if we think the man fits the times, and not some libnut.
Tennman on June 26, 2007 at 12:54 PM
So, what was that with Fred? having an Obama problem? You know, just being an empty slate upon which people place their hopes?
When did Fred?, our conservative-stronghold Rambo-style lion become “moderate on social issues.” “A reputation as a peacemaker and a compromiser?”
That’s just we need folks. A moderate peacemaking compromiser. You know, like Dubya.
Will the real Fred? Thompson please stand up?
Or declare.
Or do something other than play home-run derby with Hannity.
Or offer us something other than (well-written) prepared speeches and statements.
BKennedy on June 26, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Mr. Cheney may be replaced for real or perceived medical or other reasons, but not becaue Sally Quinn ‘just realized that brilliantly’. This I talked about during dinners with friends and political adversaries years ago, at least since the election of 2004.
She is the Grand Madam of Washington political gossip, a grand schemer for liberal causes, with the front of ‘news madam’. Totally transparent to the politically savvy.
Entelechy on June 26, 2007 at 12:58 PM
yeah. great. taint fred! with the ineptitude of the bush administration. we should only replace cheney with fred if cheney replaces bush.
its vintage duh on June 26, 2007 at 1:00 PM
You know that election is still a year and a half away, right?
What should he be doing? What are any of the declared candidates doing? the dog and pony show on CNN? Oh boy.
Pablo on June 26, 2007 at 1:19 PM
You know you’re putting exclamation points after a non-candidates name and excessively hyping him, right? If you think it’s too early to be talking about it, then stop hyping a man who hasn’t even entered the race.
Also Fox. And what, it’s a dog-and-pony show now, but, say, six months from now, it actually has meaning? Will it be a dog-and-pony show then? Is the only reason you think its a dog-and-pony show because Fred? wasn’t in it?
I’ll broker a deal with everyone. Fredheads stop with this Fred! nonsense, and I will cease using Fred?. Deal?
BKennedy on June 26, 2007 at 1:30 PM
NO!! Keep Fred! as far away from Senor Bushie as possible. Look what has happened to Tony Snow!
(Thinking…..) On the other hand, might not be a bad idea. Fred, as VP, could have Bush deported to his beloved Me-hi-co and kept in exile.
Oh never mind! He’d be back here before long, sneaking across the border, working as an orange picker in Cal-e-fornia.
SouthernPride on June 26, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Dear lord, no. Keep Fred away from the Bush White House. Everything they touch turns to crap lately, and when Fred does get in the race, I’d like him to have a chance.
marc@hubsandspokes on June 26, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Yeah! Like that’s gonna happen!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on June 26, 2007 at 1:43 PM
stacman on June 26, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Rudy/Fred 2008!
Its Tommy on June 26, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Rudy? I thought we were talking about Republican nominees.
Wait… you mean Rudy is a Republican??? I guess they’re letting anyone in the party these days.
Hollowpoint on June 26, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Heh, took me a moment, and I’m a retired Sailor.
Of course someone like Sally Quinn would suggest this. Remove the real conservative voice from the Executive branch, and effectively dismiss a major presidential threat by being able to harp on him along with the rest of this administration for the next 16 months.
Freelancer on June 26, 2007 at 2:53 PM
There’s a big assumption in here.
Entelechy on June 26, 2007 at 3:09 PM
They wont do it.
Groupie mentality ya know.
csdeven on June 26, 2007 at 3:41 PM
No deal. Keep your fellow east coast RINOs in MA and NYC where they belong and let the actual conservatives pick this one.
FlipFlop MittRINO RudyMaverick McCainFred!
Fred!!!!
FRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hollowpoint on June 26, 2007 at 3:50 PM
It would be a better idea to have Bush go and let Cheney serve the rest of this term as POTUS. I have a lot of respect for his good sense even though the Dems and the press have painted him in an undeserved bad light. Telling the same lies about someone often enough doesn’t make them true. At least Cheney would probably veto the “ruin the country with illegal aliens” bill.
duff65 on June 26, 2007 at 3:53 PM
So far the anti-Freds have not succeeded in convincing us not to support him. Not one candidate is squeaky clean, so we have to support the one who we agree with on the issues and who we have the most confidence in.
Rose on June 26, 2007 at 4:27 PM
I hear ya’ Allah — it’s the NY BS-meter thing going off, and there ain’t nothin’ wrong with that.
Nichevo on June 26, 2007 at 4:34 PM
I don’t see any comparison between Pres. Bush and Mr. Thompson. Pres. Bush has trouble articulating and he was too much of a peace maker, never wanting to offend even his political enemies. I don’t see Mr. Thompson as being that way. He is far more articulate and doesn’t appear to be unwilling to stand up to the democrats. As far as the issues, I haven’t heard him say anything so far that I don’t agree with.
Rose on June 26, 2007 at 4:40 PM
I like Fred, so far. I’d like to see him do more. Don’t want him to do this. Not at all. Simple. Even for me.
PowWow on June 26, 2007 at 5:01 PM
I’m still waiting patiently for someone to explain this little gem of wisdom. ‘Cause I don’t have a damn clue what the Hell he’s talking about.
If he’s trying to say that Fred Thompson physically LOOKS like George Bush, then I think he deserves a slap from both of them.
The only other candidate who stands out more than Fred Thompson on policy issues is Ron Paul. And I hate to break it to you, but the Democrats pretty much have the lunatic vote sewed up.
The only other possibility is that he’s basing this solely on accents. Because Giuliani’s “tough on terror and limp-wristed on social issues” seems pretty much IDENTICAL to George Bush.
As for the rest of the “ten little indians”, if George Bush snuck onto the stage with them, I’d be hard-pressed to pick him out of that lineup. Come election day, the liberal media will have painted any of them and George Bush into one amorphous mass.
Hey, this is America, and I’ll fight to the death to preserve anyone’s right to hate Fred Thompson more than life itself. Say ANYTHING ELSE you want about the guy, but no one with half a lick of sense can deny for one second that the man stands out like a sore thumb. He couldn’t help that if he wanted to, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t want to.
logis on June 26, 2007 at 5:18 PM
What he’s talking about, I think, is that both Bush and fred? are fine with prepared speeches, but you get them away from controlled environments and they stumble all over the place trying to sound like they know what they’re talking about.
IE…just watch freds? Leno, Robinson, and London Q&A vids. It was embarrassing.
csdeven on June 26, 2007 at 5:29 PM
I think it’s annoying that people would think of Clinton’s years as those of economic growth, and Bush’s as years of decline whenever it’s the exact opposite…. someone please explain this to me… :(
j_ehman on June 26, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Who’s talking about hate? Why the extreme, when the comment wasn’t phrased that way?
All I’m suggesting is that people slow down some; we really haven’t seen Fred under fire. What we’ve seen so far have been controlled situations: blog postings, prepared speeches, and a (well done) Michael Moore retort by a skilled actor. He could very well be all that he is acclaimed to be, but if he falls short of the superlatives that are being heaped upon him in advance, there’s bound to be let-down.
I’m wondering if there isn’t a seige mentality at play here; we’ve grown so used to defending Bush when he wouldn’t defend/explain himself on the WOT, that now any doubts about the number one contender are seen as a continuation of the “bushitler” meme.
Nichevo on June 26, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Not really hate, but a lot of condescension towards Mr. Thompson’s supporters. But that’s ok, we’re tough, we can handle it.
Rose on June 26, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Exactly: that’s been a rhetorical question for about fifty posts now.
It’s always annoying when someone who’s not particularly cogent to begin with insists on making up his own peculiar language without bothering to tell anyone. But, by your brand spanking new definition, Ronald Reagan was the biggest “Bushitler” of all.
You see, what you call “looking like Bush” happens to be the exact same thing that everyone else in the English speaking world refers to as “looking like Reagan.”
Unlike George Bush’s meandering stutter-fests, Reagan’s speeches were downright awe-inspiring. But he met most air-headed press conference questions with a jovial smile, a glassy stare, a hem and a haw.
Which one of those two aspects of what you call Reagan’s “Bushitlerism” were people thinking of when it came time to vote? And which one do people so fondly remember after three decades of personal attacks? I’ll give you a clue: it’s NOT the one you’re fixating on.
And, whether you happen to like it or not, that is exactly what most other people in America are longing for right now.
logis on June 26, 2007 at 10:06 PM
What’s the problem? We’re all just a bunch of flighty twits who need the “grownups” to tell us all – over and over and over again – that we’re living a fantasy and we’re about to have all of our silly and completely unfounded hopes and dreams dashed by the “real world” that they understand ever so much better than we can.
All they’re doing is trying to protect us from having our tender little feelings hurt.
How could anyone consider that condescending?
logis on June 26, 2007 at 10:13 PM
There are differences between groupies, fred?heads, and fred? supporters.
Groupies rent their hair over fred? like the beatles groupies did. Screaming hysterically and crying because of the hollywood-esque appeal to fred?. They use insane spin to spin all negatives into positives.
fred?heads are ideological supporters who understand what he says and denies his checkered history. They are a milder form of groupie.
fred? supporters are those who are waiting for him to announce and are leaning towards him, and don’t believe his negatives are negatives. This is normal for most supporters regardless of the candidate.
You two seem to be confusing the three definitions.
csdeven on June 27, 2007 at 12:00 AM
So, WE are “confused” because we didn’t understand the the precise “definitions” of all these newly-coined variations on your primary epithet — before you just now made them up?
Essentially, that’s the same thing as saying that no one makes sense to you except for the voices inside your head.
logis on June 27, 2007 at 5:25 AM
Yeah. I use the terms and I get to define them. And now that you’ve been edumacated, if you continue to CHOOSE to be offended, then you do so because you have a desire to be looked upon as a victim.
You ain’t Jesus dude. Climb down off your cross.
csdeven on June 27, 2007 at 7:29 AM
Hey, settle down there dude. I never said I was “offended” by the voices; all I said was that we can’t HEAR them until you translate them for us.
And since you bring it up: wouldn’t that technically make YOU the one who’s claiming to be the prophet?
logis on June 27, 2007 at 8:57 AM
You don’t need to be a prophet to look at fred? within the realm of reality and not in the persona he has created through some TV show he was on.
I have been dead on in my assessment of fred? since day one. Almost every single point that I brought up when he first considered thinking about wondering if he needed to contemplate a course of action that might lead him to consider wondering about an announcement that he might think about announcing, has come to fruition.
The groupies cannot see it and even deny all of freds? obvious fakeries. I actually had a groupie tell me that freddie boy doesn’t act for his roles, all he has to do is be himself! These are the people helping to drive his poll numbers. Sorry, but the groupie mentality is for rock stars and movie stars. And you know whats sad? fred? is starting to believe his on BS. Just like these vacuous shallow movie stars.
csdeven on June 27, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Hehe. Well, at least we have one thing to be thankful for: that the Ron Paul supporters are around to explain the concept of “reality” to the rest of the world.
logis on June 27, 2007 at 12:52 PM