I was inaccurate, of course, when I mentioned Cheney's "incompetence". If I'd been awake I would have linked "imcompetence" with "impotence" and riffed on that. My statement on "incompetence" was a cover for my own bad typing. I'm aware that Cheney is in fact much more a Svengali or the power behind the throne than an incompetent. But his political liabilities are in fact now huge. What Don Firth brought up in the other thread is yet another example--exactly what was he doing on the ranch of a woman who is one of the biggest lobbyists in Texas?

Bobert--I don't think 1968 is actually a good parallel. I think it's likely that if Johnson had run rather than bow out, he would have won--despite the Vietnam War. Remember McCarthy did not in fact win in New Hampshire. It's not at all clear there was a majority against the war at that point. And, as you know, Nixon had negatives--and Johnson had postives. But obviously we'll never know.

Back to Cheney: by resigning, Cheney gets to be a profile in courage for the Republicans--resigning for the good of the party. He'll also be able to do full-time fund-raising and whipping up the faithful--without wasting his precious time "presiding" over the Senate. His main useful role there now is in breaking ties.

Whistle Stop--interesting you suggest Condoleeza. She's been put forward as a presidential candidate in the Wall St Journal before. Do you think then that the US has overcome racism now to the extent that a majority of the electorate, including LOTS of conservatives, would vote for her? I certainly agree that Hillary has already alienated a huge swath of voters

My own take is that in fact the US has overcome racism to that degree--but therefore Condi would in fact lose. Many many liberals would vote against her--for the very reason that Bush would want her as VP. Many liberals--in fact most thinking beings, black, white and any other color, I would think--would never want anybody in 2008 who showed the slightest inclination to continue Bush policies--in virtually any sphere. Especially in foreign policy, but also in domestic policy he has been a total disaster--in everything from fairness to the poor to the environment. To get the Republican nomination, Rice would have to say enough to convince Republicans that she would continue Bush policies--and that would doom her with the general electorate. Especially since there are enough racists backing Bush who would never vote for a black woman.

Doug R--note where this idea (of Cheney stepping down) came from--that flaming liberal (and Reagan worshipper) Peggy Noonan. (I don't think Sing Out attitudes have rubbed off on her). Added to which, with your usual care in reading, you have missed the obvious point that, as McGrath and others note, much, perhaps most of Bush's opposition, does NOT want Cheney to resign. He's the perfect devil-figure, both for fund-raising and to run against as far as policies and record.

I am not advocating that he resign or that he not resign--I'm just reporting speculation in the Journal. If pushed, I'd say liberals are better off with him staying--as I said, the target for verbal barbs and engine of liberal fund-raising--forever--or til the end of Bush's term, whichever comes first. With Cheney still in, liberals get the best of both worlds--a very convincing bogeyman, hence fund-raiser--and now one they can ridicule to their hearts' content.