Gerard Baker
Win luxury hampers plus Waitrose vouchers & guidebooks
Dick Cheney’s in a spot of bother again. He hasn’t shot anyone this time. It’s not his wayward aim with a 28-gauge shotgun that’s in the news, but his deadly accuracy with a nine-point legal memo.
The US Vice-President has been refusing to comply with a fairly routine internal government supervisory process designed to determine how official information should be classified and declassified. His lawyers have said he will not submit documents to the National Archives on the ground that, since the US Constitution makes the Vice-President part of both the executive branch and, per his role as president of the Senate, the legislative branch of government, and since the two are supposed to be separate, he can’t really be part of either, and therefore can’t be subject to the usual legal obligations.
It is a splendid piece of legalistic legerdemain, the sort that makes lawyers want to hug themselves in self-appreciation and do victory laps around a bamboozled courtroom. But it is, as even Mr Cheney’s remaining admirers (Mr and Mrs Hiram Z. Quailshooter of Jackson, Mississippi) have acknowledged, a tad breathtaking in its audacity.
Its import is, quite literally, that the Vice-President gets to ignore the law because he is his own special branch of government, not defined by the Constitution, The French used to have a term for this idea: “L’état, c’est moi.” Sadly, for fans of 18th-century absolutist monarchy, Mr Cheney’s daring bid at a Restoration didn’t last. Yesterday, an evidently unpersuaded White House dropped the extra-constitutional claim, though it still said there were other reasons for Mr Cheney not to comply.
But the episode was instructive. The Vice-President is the focus of considerable attention at the moment. The Washington Postpublished this week one of those 100,000 word series so beloved by the American press (Is there any more disheartening phrase in the English language than “first in a four-part series”?) that lovingly documented Mr Cheney’s central role in the big decisions of the Bush Administration, from the legal status of detainees in the War on Terror to torture and energy policy.
This latest episode over the National Archives provides a fascinating insight into how Mr Cheney has developed his role over the past six and a half years. Before Mr Cheney, the vice-presidency was famously an empty job. He would attend funerals of foreign dignitaries, throw out the ceremonial first pitch at baseball games; and, if he was really lucky, get to head a task force on issues such as harnessing energy from the Aurora Borealis.
But the current incumbent has been something else. He has actually used the very vagueness and general ethereality of the vice-president’s role and turned it into the freedom to roam the institutions of American government untrammelled by legal or political constraints and always in total secrecy.
He has, to use the infamous description of the vice-president’s role by one of his predecessors, taken the pitcher of warm spit and turned it into a vial of liquid kryptonite. All of which merely underlines that it is high time that America had a serious discussion about the way it chooses its vice-president.
The country is in the early stages of the longest presidential campaign in history. It will have cost, when a winner is eventually declared, upwards of a billion dollars and will have involved the direct participation of well over a hundred million people in repeated ballots. Every candidate – even the nutters and the no-hopers – will have had every last wart and polyp examined in excruciating detail by the media.
But when it comes to picking the vice-president, the task will be delegated to one person – the presidential nominee of each party, who after a week or two of desultory deliberation, will pick some smiling nobody on the ground that he or she may just pull a state or two into the presidential candidate’s column.
And yet the vice-presidency has been an important job in America, long before Dick Cheney used it to become the Dr Strangelove of the Bush Administration. Even if the next veep goes back to being, as I suspect he may, the mourner-in-chief at African leaders’ funerals, he will still be of large political consequence.
This is not because of what he does but because of what he usually becomes. The vice-presidency is the very best spot from which to run for the presidency. In the past 50 years, every single vice-president who has later sought his party’s nomination for the presidency – with one exception – has got it: from Richard Nixon to Al Gore, by way of Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Gerald Ford, Walter Mondale and the first George Bush. The exception was Dan Quayle. While most of these had distinguished careers before the vice-presidency, it was clearly getting the No 2 job that propelled them to the presidency.
I can think of no better illustration of the phenomenon and its implications than the current president. Why, really, is George Bush now President of the US? Certainly, he had been an effective Governor of Texas, but the main reason he got a start in politics was because his father had been President. And why was his father President? Largely because he had been Ronald Reagan’s Vice-President.
Mr Bush Sr only got on the Republican ticket in 1980 because of a last-minute change of heart by Mr Reagan. He had been planning to announce that his No 2 would be Gerald Ford, the former President. But his advisers were not convinced and in frantic, last-minute discussions at his Detroit hotel, he was dissuaded.
Suddenly needing a new nominee, his advisers lighted on George Bush, Mr Reagan’s losing opponent in the primaries that year. They summoned him at three o’clock in the morning, and the rest, as they say, is history. That decision in a Detroit hotel room produced in effect, three presidential terms – one for Mr Bush Sr, and two for his son.
The US presidential election process is, for all its faults, a terrifically exhaustive way to select the leader of the world’s most powerful country. The vice-presidential selection process? Not so much.

Gerard Baker is United States Editor and an Assistant Editor of The Times. He joined in 2004 from the Financial Times, where he had spent over ten years as Tokyo correspondent and Washington Bureau Chief. His weekly oped column appears on Fridays
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles


Why good girls pay good money for bad-girl baubles

Search The Times Births, Marriages & Deaths
2007
£47,995
2008
£42,945
06/2006
£40,850
Great car insurance deals online
£33,000
Macmillan Cancer Support
Central/South West
£50k
NHS
Nationwide
£
£30k OTE
Meltwater News
Nationwide
circa £70k
Central Office of Information
London
5% below developer pre-launch price!
Luxury Appts, beautiful gardens w/ Thames views
Great Homes Available on a shared Ownership Basis
Great Investment, River Views
Visit the ‘entertainment capital of the world’
at great sale prices!
Christmas Cruises
From only £995pp
APTs East Coast now from only
£2425pp.
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - find property for sale and rent in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
I once researched the question, and it turns out that the States have the power to set many terms of the presidential election (in fact, some early states had the legislators choose their electors). A few states, when I checked, allowed voters to split the ticket, vote for presidential candidate from one party and VP from the other (more technically, for their pledged electors).
In the earliest arrangement (changed by constitutional amendment, I think in 1804), the electors cast one vote for both positions. Whoever got the most votes became president. The runner up became VP and presided over the Senate. The idea was to choose the best two people, and if anything, make forming political parties difficult (the losing party would still get the VP slot). It was also envisioned at the outset that the electors would use their own discretion. The people chose electors based on the electors' own political judgment, and then the electors voted for whoever they felt best.
David Hardy, Tucson, USA/Arizona
Since the passing of the 12th Amendment in 1803 split the Presidential and Vice-Presidential votes in the Electoral College, exactly two sitting Vice Presidents have been elected to the Presidency -- Van Buren and George H. W. Bush. Both went on to serve only one term. Only one other VP since then, Richard Nixon, has ever managed election to the Presidency without being the incumbent President when he ranâand he lost when he was running as the incumbent Vice President.
On the other hand, we see that in every one of the last eight U.S. Presidential elections, at least one of the major party candidates was a governor or ex-governor. And we see that in seven-eighths of those elections, a governor or ex-governor won.
Accordingly, the vice-presidency is the very best spot from which to run for the presidency <b>and lose</b>.
Steven, El Paso, TX, USA
Bravo!!
Well written article exposing the Puppet Master - Lil' Cheney. I would like to see follow-up article(s) on the Iraq war profits of Halliburton and it's subsidiaries. If so inclined, try looking at the Caryle Group.
zorrro, san diego, usa
Long gone are the days when Thomas Marshall (who?), Woodrow Wilson's vice-president could joke: "There was a woman with two sons, one of whom ran away and went to sea and one of whom was elected Vice President of the United States. Neither was ever heard of again."
As vice-president, you get to ingrain yourself with the party leadership, build up a support base, and have your photo in the newspaper every day. For that reason, maybe the VP choice should be included in the nominating proceedure.
With respect to Chenney, I always thought the choice strange. Chenney originally was tasked with reviewing possible VP choices, and in the end, he himself was named. Granted, in 2000, Chenney's reputation was very different. He was a respected elder statesman and was probably seen as a calming influence on Bush. I do find it interesting that he is now seen as "Darth Vader" but in hindsight, he should not have accepted.
Anthony Calabrese, Chicago, IL, USA
Well done Mr Baker you infuriated a lot of litlle Americaners. Their comments amused me. I think the truth hurts.
Denver Watt, Osaka, Japan
The vice president has but two duties according to our Constitution, serve as the President of the Senate (and to break any voting ties) and to take over the duties of the President if he becomes incapacitated or dies while in office.
Out of sheer curiosity what would happen if the Prime Minister were to die or become incapacitated while in office? Is there a procedure in place that would automatically select someone? Or would Britain be hamstrung for days or weeks while the party in power comes to a decision?
Peter, Richmond, VA USA
I repeat my comment since you did not print it. Mr. Baker, your understanding of US politics is inadequate, at best. George W. Bush was hardly an "effective" governor. Texas has the weakest governorship in the US. The Queen has more political power than the Texas governor. Bush's only task in Texas as governor was to sign off on death penalties. Admittedly, he carried out that task very well indeed.
Marcia , Gp,
If the Republicans win the next election, we know what Cheney's new job will be - back in the shadows but still running the country. One can see from his past that this has been his career all along. He became VP only because he saw that spot as the best one at the time to exert leverage. Note that his daughter is running a campaign for a presidential wannabe and you can see what his plan is for the future.
Hotspur, NYS, US
Bush has wasted the opportunity to be a truly great world leader at a time when the United States was in an unchallengeable position.
We could have done with someone who could have used all that might for the benefit of mankind. Instead he has disillusioned people about political power.
Marek, London,
I have to admit I didn't read the whole article but I do wonder what the purpose of the vice president is, isn't s/he supposed to be helping out the people of the United States? Didn't we even hire him to do that? I think he needs to reread his job description or maybe it needs to be rewritten.
jasper smith, seattle, wa
Only one Vice President? I think you forget Harry Truman's VP in 1952 who failed to secure the nomination. Another pertinent fact is that Richard Nixon, Al Gore, Hubert Humphrey...... all lost the general election in 1960, 1968 and 2000 respectively.
Don't get started on Vice President Agnew.
I suspect Dick Cheney would carry Wyoming in 2008 if he ran -- but he'd certainly lose. The VP slot is presidential poison. Three Electoral College votes does not make a President.
Kyle Allen, Gosport, England
The ineffectual U.S. Vice President was spotlighted in Mr. Throttlebottom of George S. Kaufmann and Morrie Ryskind's 1931 musical, "Of Thee I Sing." The danger of the clueless V.P. was underlined by Harry S. Truman's situation upon the death of Franklin Roosevelt.
Nixon served quite capably during the time that Eisenhower recovered from a heart attack. Kennedy didn't give Johnson all that much to do (except the space program), and Johnson gave Humphrey even less.
Agnew served as Nixon's attack dog; amiable Ford was his St. Bernard with the pardon.
Mondale had an excellent partnership with Carter, one that Republicans aimed to emulate.
Oddly enough, in the 1800s, the Vice President often felt offended if the President were so gauche as to ask him to become an advocate for legislation.
Howard Denson, Jacksonville, USA/Florida
Having watched the results of Cheney's advice?orders? to President Bush, I am to the point of just hoping that Cheney doesn't decide to bomb my Wal-Mart, on the grounds that the garden tools there are actually tools for terrorist activities. On a more serious note, I am holding my breath until our presidential election is over and the inauguration of the next president has taken place. It's not so much wanting Bush out, as it is that Cheney, his court, and his influence over the US policy will be gone.
marcia, lubbock, tx usa
One thing that separates Dick Cheney from recent Vice-Presidents is that because of his health he has had no intention of running for President. Consequently he has done what he believes is best for the country and not spent the time wooing the press, Congress and the electorate with the idea building support for his future election. Unfortunately his lack of kow-towing alienated the princes of the media and Congress and led to his vilification from almost day one.
Rosario , Exeter, New Hampshire
There is a vast difference between making a concise point and drawing an issue out. Trying to compare the broadsheets of Britain with Fox news is like trying to compare a particle accelerator with a wheel. I think Mr Maney should realise this fact. Also the very fact that he has commented upon an article in an "inferior" British paper I believe speaks for itself.
Michael Powell, Newcastle Upon Tyne,
Sorry but Baker has jis facts wrong. Neither Spirio Agnew nor Nelson Rockefeller ran for president after being Vice President: Agnew, who was elected twice, for the reason he went to the pokey for bribery and Rockefeler, who was not elected, stood down so the gerals ford could put someone potentially more electable on his doomed ticket.
oldasiahand, Guildford, UK
The problem isn't selecting the vice-president but in what powers the president chooses to delegate to him. Being the rich-kid nothing that he is, Shrub gladly let Cheney become the wall between himself and reality.
It's a classic story played many times before by Richelieu, Potemkin, Bismarck and Rasputin, to name but a few. The one bright spot in this version is that both Shrub and Cheney have a constitutional limit ticking away on them.
TJ Cassidy, Arlington, Virginia, USA
Gerard - in your list of veeps to candidates, you omit that Nixon (on leaving office as Eisenhower's VP), Humphrey, Mondale and Gore lost, and to say Ford and Johnson launched themselves from VP to Pres is disingenuous, as they never began a campaign as one and ended it the other.
So, although they have lifted their profile, in truth only George HW Bush has "propelled" himself from vice president to president, and he might never have got the job...
Kenneth, Glasgow, Scotland
It is our fault. Dick Cheney's record was out there for all to see, even in the '80s. The American people, buying into the "Bucket of warm spit" model of the Vice Presidency were willing to accept nearly any one witout first vetting him.
To say that George Bush had been an effective Governor is true in so far as he executed his resonsibilities in office. But Texas has a weak governor constitution which places most power in the legislature.
We should have known about both Bush and Cheney.
We were suckered!
Jim Walton, Washington, DC
I tried to find which American VP might have attended an "African leader's funeralâ but could not recollect any. Nearly all of the 1960s - post independence decade - African leaders were either killed in coup or died in exiles. Mandela could have attracted at least a VP's courtesy call at the grave side, but he is still alive. It seems you chose African leaders to illustrate the low esteem that have for the American Vice President is parallel to the contempt that you harbor against Africa. I can agree that African leaders are common affront to their countries. Do you have to fabricate facts to credit corrupt dictators with honors that they have not earned and received using an American official who himself is an affront to his nation's constitutional honor?
Tseggai Isaac, Rolla, Missouri, USA
Mr. Baker I must say you show a lack of historical perspective. The process of picking a vice presidential candidate is far more open now than it has ever been, and the candidates are far more qualified. (Than, for instance, John Nance Garner, who was a typical prospective running mate in his day and you can tell most of what you need to know about him by the phrase that he's remembered for). Despite the way he is depicted in the British press, Cheney is not some guy from Halliburton but has a lifetime's experience in government including a stint as a congressman. And an active VP is new but is the result of pundits lamenting the waste of having a do-nothing VP for decades. The argument goes back to Truman at least. In every democratic country you have to be chosen by some party apparatus to run for office, far more so in, say the UK, France. Cheney's argument is lame but not w/o basis in the Constitution, and is premised not on being above the law but part of the legislature
Marcos Reilly, Chicag, USA
akram, London--
One assumes you are talking about Jimmy Carter. Correct?
Terry L. Walker, Ladson, S.C. / USA
I realize that the majority of you great Liberal thinkers still think that GW planned 9-11 and Cheney carried it out. I for one thank God everyday that Al Gore didn't become President because we would still be apologizing to the hijackers families for building the Twin Towers so high that they accidentily ran into them.
GROW UP and leave the college campus for awhile.
Peter Knutson, Cape Coral , Florida USA!
Questions for America, how does a nation that invents so much, a nation which put man on the moon, produce such an incompetent and hopelessly out of depth leader?
The political system leaves a lot to be desired.
akram, London,
Your otherwise excellent article has, I fear, fallen for the sanitised version of history by describing the VP's job as being akin to a pitcher of warm spit. The bodily fluid evoked by John Nance Garner in his famous quote was "warm piss". I know it's not nice to put readers off their breakfasts but that's what the man said (and he was qualified to know, having served as FDR's VP for eight years).
Hugh Costello, London,
It appears that maybe he is a criminal, perhaps the most powerful Capo of the Energy Mafia; a very dangerous gangster anyway. I live in other hemisphere, but the problem is that this guy is inclined to explode our whole planet, just as Bin Laden.
Sauer, Flavio, Petropolis, Brazil - Rio de Janeiro
It's interesting that the most unimportant job you can think of in American politics is to "attend African leaders' funerals". I appreciate the attempt at humour but am frankly surprised you even bothered to capitalise the A in Africa. It's a huge continent, filled with diversity and yet it seems to be so easy to dismiss by, in particular, Times writers. The lack of understanding is offensive. And until someone starts to treat Africa like it actually counts, there won't be any changes there.
Michelle, London,
To ironically dismiss "American Media" as too fond of a 4 part series is a greater comment on U.K. media (paper) than the American press (Post, Times).
Brits tend to love the quick and short sarcastic sound-bite dismissal than a reasoned and fair, long piece. In this sense, you approach FOX News.
The Post revealed more than any bilious harangue displayed in either the Guardian or Channel 4.
The Post piece wonderfully skewered Cheney. Read it.
Tobin Maney, Madison, USA
George W. Bush has never known what he is doing himself, so it is no surprise he neither controls or understands what Vice President Cheney gets up to.
George W. had only been abroad three times before taking office and Dick Cheney has run the world his way from the VP office, why should he change the way he operates.
The law may not catch up with him but with his health record, nature may do it for him.
ken.H, Harrow.,
Of course, Cheney was in charge of Bush's VP selection committee, until he decided he was better qualified than all the candidates he had identified. You couldn't write it.
bob, saint petersburg, florida, usa