Don’t Draft Cheney or Rice—

Unless the GOP Wants to Lose

 

R. Andrew Newman

R. Andrew Newman is a writer whose work has appeared in The Weekly Standard, National Review, and Modern Age.

If Republicans want to lose in 2008, they need only nominate Condi Rice or Dick Cheney, two names being bandied about as great hopes for maintaining the White House.

Even though Rudy Giuliani’s star shined the brightest in a recent Marist College survey of GOP hopefuls, I have left him out of the mix because I can’t imagine Republican movers and shakers being so tone deaf. His ranking had to be the power of name recognition, and the former New York City mayor best not get his hopes up. Unless the rest of the field self-destructed early in the primaries, how far would a supporter of partial birth abortion get, no matter how well he governed or how well he managed the city after 9/11?

Thankfully, not very far.

The GOP tent is big but not that big. Giuliani on the ticket would turn off the base, the committed folks who dial the phones, ring the doorbells, who do the tedious but critical work that made President Bush’s second term a reality.

Condi Rice seems like a dream candidate--but only if you want Hillary ensconced at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Dick Morris says the secretary of state is the GOP’s only chance to defeat Hillary. He’s no prophet. His reasoning should be obvious. Since she’s a black woman, she’d (so the argument goes) be able to counter Hillary woman to woman and encourage more minorities to vote Republican.

But why would moderate and conservative women who don’t share Hillary’s philosophy vote for her because they share a gender? Granted, the presence of a black woman at the top of the ticket might increase inroads to the black community. But her baggage would more than offset any gains. I’m not talking about her race, but her position on abortion. True, she’s no Rudy Giuliani. She favors parental notification laws and a ban on partial birth abortion. But she calls pro-lifers the “other side.”

If it came down to Rice versus Clinton, I’d grumble and vote for Rice. But I don’t think the GOP should count that my loyalty would be indicative of the base. Not having a strictly pro-life dog in the hunt is a variable the GOP shouldn’t risk in what would be another close election. To win, Clinton only needs to shave a percentage here and there.

Already she knows an issue that resonates with red state America: the federal government’s unwillingness to curtail illegal immigration. Would Rice go to the mat for secure borders? I have my doubts.

I doubt Cheney would either, but in many areas Cheney would be a godsend in the White House. He knows his way around Washington and how to get things done. He boasts solid philosophical credentials (to the right of the president). But he has some serious liabilities. His health is one, though making too big of an issue of that could backfire for the Democrats.

His demeanor is another. He’s the tough-minded, vice-principal, the one who put the fear of God into kids back in the old days. Or the efficient CEO. But is he a leader? I fear he doesn’t have the flair to capture the public’s imagination.

President Bush deserves credit--credit he won’t get until he’s out of office--for dramatically increasing the importance and effectiveness of the vice-presidency. In the past, VPs have seen the office as a stepping stone to something better. But Cheney said he had no intentions of running for the top spot, so he’s been able to become truly the president’s go-to man.

In this capacity, Cheney knows whom he serves. The President’s positions are his positions. But on his own, he would step into the line of fire--in his own party. The issue of gay marriage isn’t going to go away. And Cheney, frankly, is weak on it. We need a constitutional amendment to rein in the courts, but Cheney opposes it. He says the states should decide.

Clinton will offer the typical Democrat dance routine: She’s not for gay marriage, but for arrangements so gay couples enjoy the same legal benefits. This is a wink, wink, nudge, nudge that supporting gay marriage remains political suicide, but she’s in their corner.

Cheney’s position wouldn’t be much better. What would conservative Christians in the GOP do? A marriage amendment is passable. Why, then, would they want to punt? In a match-up between Clinton and Cheney, at least a sliver of them would consider the party insufficiently serious in the culture war and either vote for a third party or stay home.

Clinton will be tough enough to beat without putting up the wrong candidates.     *

“The slave has but one master; the ambitious man has as many as can help in making  his fortune.” –Jean de La Bruyere