republicans, is this helping, or hurting your party

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by dmek25

At first, it seemed like a joke. Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto opined on Monday that -- if the 2012 election were to turn to national security -- "it's hard to think of a better candidate... than Richard B. Cheney."

But while his headline -- "Cheney for President" -- provoked guffaws in some quarters, several of the party's most well-regarded strategists and pollsters are actually taking the idea deadly seriously.
anyone down for this?

I saw him on TV today (you know, me being at home all day) and his basic premise, which is a huge assumption, is if we have another 9/11 during Obama's presidency. Based on that assumption, Taranto thinks Dick Cheney would be the most credible and strongest voice in the Republican party regarding national security. And that somehow Republicans would flock to Cheney lock and step based on that one policy position alone.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Cheney would have folks ear if something on that scale took place on American soil again, but the majority of Americans just couldn't swallow another four years of Dick Cheney. Not even the most loyal Republican feel that way.

National security gravitas aside, I don't think Cheney has the physical stamina to run a national campaign for two years. But then again I didn't think John McCain could endure such a grueling schedule either.