WI: George W. Bush Assassinated in 2003

[Jay Roosevelt]

What if Bush had been assassinated in late 2003 by an anti-war radical? Obviously Cheney becomes POTUS, but what changes in the long run?

Does the GOP nominate Cheney in '04? If so, does he pull an LBJ and ride the sympathy vote to victory? Do the dems still nominate John Kerry? Who wins the '04 election? What does/doesn't change in Iraq/Afghanistan? With the Katrina response?

 

[MattII]

Don't know about the other stuff, but I can't see a whole lot of difference with Katrina, it's quite possible no-one realised there was an issue, until it showed up at the worst possible time.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

What if Bush had been assassinated in late 2003 by an anti-war radical? Obviously Cheney becomes POTUS, but what changes in the long run?

Does the GOP nominate Cheney in '04? If so, does he pull an LBJ and ride the sympathy vote to victory? Do the dems still nominate John Kerry? Who wins the '04 election? What does/doesn't change in Iraq/Afghanistan? With the Katrina response?

Once he is sworn in as President, the pressure to run would be high.

Not running would give a huge advantage away for the GOP.

He would be responsible for the agenda for a year anyway, and be faced with the prospect of turning it over to a man who spent a year bad mouthing Cheney and everything he did.

He was already committed to be VP during that time.



I think a lot would depend on if any other potential GOP candidate polled as winning.


If not, I think he would agree to run and plan to just serve one term.


Big Question is who he picks as VP, because that's going to be the next nominee.


Leads to differences in political tone. Cheney is less aloof than Bush was.


And softer on Gay Rights.


More attention paid to Mary Cheney. Daughter of President a lot more weight than Daughter of Vice President.

 

[Dirk_Pitt]

Once he is sworn in as President, the pressure to run would be high.

Not running would give a huge advantage away for the GOP.

He would be responsible for the agenda for a year anyway, and be faced with the prospect of turning it over to a man who spent a year bad mouthing Cheney and everything he did.

He was already committed to be VP during that time.



I think a lot would depend on if any other potential GOP candidate polled as winning.


If not, I think he would agree to run and plan to just serve one term.


Big Question is who he picks as VP, because that's going to be the next nominee.


Leads to differences in political tone. Cheney is less aloof than Bush was.


And softer on Gay Rights.


More attention paid to Mary Cheney. Daughter of President a lot more weight than Daughter of Vice President.

Really? Was not aware. Funny actually, for the person painted as the most evil man ever.

 

[UncleDynamite]

Cheney wasn't in the best health, but the GOP would have a HUGE advantage due to a sympathy vote if Cheney ran and Cheney of all people would know that. Cheney would probably immediately pick a "strong" VP that he had confidence in to take the reins if he died in office. I don't know who exactly that would be. Cheney uses his control of the agenda for the next year to push through GWB's Social Security reform plan.

Unlike being pretty close as per OTL, the 2004 election is more or less a foregone conclusion from the get-go. The Democrats, deciding to go big or go home, nominate Howard Dean, hurting them on the campaign trail. Cheney wins the election easily(probably without having to get SoCons out to vote with anti-SSM referenda).

Katrina still happens, I doubt it'd turn out any different, and the President would take the blame. Cheney would probably be harsher on Pakistan than GWB was as well, and the Iraq War would inevitably grow unpopular and Cheney's approval ratings would sink with it(though I doubt he would go as far low as Bush's OTL). The Democratic victory of 2006 happens, to a lesser extent than OTL, the financial crisis and recession still happen, I doubt Cheney would've done any of the bailouts.

The Democratic primaries are a disastrous and indecisive slugging match between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at first, but voters eventually coalesce around compromise candidate John Kerry.

With Cheney refusing to participate in Republican politics(partially because he's a liability and partially because he doesn't feel like it) the GOP campaign goes a bit differently: Cheney's VP(whoever he or she is) has had their image dragged down by the Administration and decides against running. Social conservatives, dissatisfied after 8 years of being out in the wilderness, nominate Mike Huckabee, who turns off fiscal conservatives and rural non-evangelical whites, especially after a disastrous debate performance.

Kerry wins easily, though he fails to carry IN, NC, CO, or VA as Obama did OTL.

The Kerry administration proves disastrous, with Kerry seen as half-hearted, ineffectual, and waffling by both parties. Dissatisfaction with his handling of the recession leads to a good year for the GOP with ~230 seats(less than OTL, Kerry is unpopular, but no Kerrycare to rally around).

As things drag on, Kerry sinks further and is thrown out of office by the Jindal-Ryan ticket in 2012.

EDIT: Maps, maps, maps!

2004(I just added an extra 5-point GOP swing to OTL's 2004):

2008:

2012:

 

[vultan]

Really? Was not aware. Funny actually, for the person painted as the most evil man ever.

Dick Cheney came out in favor of gay marriage several years ago.

 

[UncleDynamite]

Really? Was not aware. Funny actually, for the person painted as the most evil man ever.

He declared himself in favor of gay marriage as soon as he left office(IIRC, he was always in favor, but didn't declare it while in office because he didn't want to be seen as arguing with the President.)

 

[jmc247]

Cheney wasn't in the best health, but the GOP would have a HUGE advantage due to a sympathy vote if Cheney ran and Cheney of all people would know that. Cheney would probably immediately pick a "strong" VP that he had confidence in to take the reins if he died in office. I don't know who exactly that would be. Cheney uses his control of the agenda for the next year to push through GWB's Social Security reform plan.

Cheney would be bigger on foreign policy then domestic. He wanted Bush to bomb Syria and Iran in his second term. Expect the troop numbers in Iraq to climb far sooner after Cheney takes office and him to ask for an increase in the size of the Army and Marines.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Cheney wasn't in the best health, but the GOP would have a HUGE advantage due to a sympathy vote if Cheney ran and Cheney of all people would know that. Cheney would probably immediately pick a "strong" VP that he had confidence in to take the reins if he died in office. I don't know who exactly that would be. Cheney uses his control of the agenda for the next year to push through GWB's Social Security reform plan.

Bush didn't really have a set plan. HE wanted a debate on the issue. I don't really see this being a huge issue for Cheney. Maybe some reform, but not a wholesale restructuring.

Unlike being pretty close as per OTL, the 2004 election is more or less a foregone conclusion from the get-go. The Democrats, deciding to go big or go home, nominate Howard Dean, hurting them on the campaign trail. Cheney wins the election easily(probably without having to get SoCons out to vote with anti-SSM referenda).

Dean would do better then expected. That anti-war crowd was still there, they were just muted because the Democratic Leadership thought it was losing issue, at that time.

Dean, by coming out against the Conventional Wisdom, of the moment, and doing better then expected, would achieve a very high level of credibility and status, especially as support for the war later falls.

Katrina still happens, I doubt it'd turn out any different, and the President would take the blame. Cheney would probably be harsher on Pakistan than GWB was as well, and the Iraq War would inevitably grow unpopular and Cheney's approval ratings would sink with it(though I doubt he would go as far low as Bush's OTL). The Democratic victory of 2006 happens, to a lesser extent than OTL, the financial crisis and recession still happen, I doubt Cheney would've done any of the bailouts.

I've never heard that Cheney had any problems with Bush treatment of Pakistan. And with the size of Pakistan, IMO, no reasonable President is going to be harsher with them.

And I do see Cheney doing the bailouts, though differently.

The Democratic primaries are a disastrous and indecisive slugging match between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at first, but voters eventually coalesce around compromise candidate John Kerry.

Kerry won the Primary OTL because of his military hero background. 4 years later that would not carry the same weight.

With Cheney refusing to participate in Republican politics(partially because he's a liability and partially because he doesn't feel like it) the GOP campaign goes a bit differently: Cheney's VP(whoever he or she is) has had their image dragged down by the Administration and decides against running. Social conservatives, dissatisfied after 8 years of being out in the wilderness, nominate Mike Huckabee, who turns off fiscal conservatives and rural non-evangelical whites, especially after a disastrous debate performance.

The VP is going to be picked by the Party Old Guard to be someone who was planning to be President. He is going to want to run.

The question is who they picked.

Kerry wins easily, though he fails to carry IN, NC, CO, or VA as Obama did OTL.

I'm not seeing Kerry. Hillary is sitll the obvious choice, though i see no reason other than butterflies for Obama NOT to repeat OTL.

The Kerry administration proves disastrous, with Kerry seen as half-hearted, ineffectual, and waffling by both parties. Dissatisfaction with his handling of the recession leads to a good year for the GOP with ~230 seats(less than OTL, Kerry is unpopular, but no Kerrycare to rally around).

As things drag on, Kerry sinks further and is thrown out of office by the Jindal-Ryan ticket in 2012.

OTL was pretty rough and Obama won.

 

[UncleDynamite]

Bush didn't really have a set plan. HE wanted a debate on the issue. I don't really see this being a huge issue for Cheney. Maybe some reform, but not a wholesale restructuring.

Fair enough. I think we'd see something on the issue before 2004, if only so RBC can be seen to be "finishing the President's legacy".

I've never heard that Cheney had any problems with Bush treatment of Pakistan. And with the size of Pakistan, IMO, no reasonable President is going to be harsher with them.

It's my recollection that Cheney wanted Bush to hold them to a few more things, but I could be wrong. I meant harsher diplomatically, not saying he'd invade.

Kerry won the Primary OTL because of his military hero background. 4 years later that would not carry the same weight.

Fair enough, I kinda pulled Kerry out of... thin air. Really, I was expecting anyone to move between HRC and Obama and play both sides.

The VP is going to be picked by the Party Old Guard to be someone who was planning to be President. He is going to want to run.

No, the VP will be picked by Cheney because Cheney is Cheney and he did things his way.

The VP would've still been a prominent Administration Republican during Hurricane Katrina, the CIA leak scandal, and the recession. I doubt they'd run in 2008.

I'm not seeing Kerry. Hillary is sitll the obvious choice, though i see no reason other than butterflies for Obama NOT to repeat OTL.

If you butterfly away his 2004 DNC speech, Obama never becomes a national figure and his 2008 Presidential run(if it exists) will get less steam.

OTL was pretty rough and Obama won.

IOTL a huge part of Obama's victory in 2012 was that he was charismatic and personally popular. A POTUS with a similar record minus those and his organizing skills would've been dead in the water in 2012.

 

[Plumber]

Let's not forget Cheney pushed for war with both Syria and Iran.

 

[Georgepatton]

So wait, wait wait wait, President Bush is gunned down by a radical anti-war activist, somewhat that didn't happen OTL despite the vociferous opposition in some areas to his policies, and this doesn't matter at all?

Like, if an anti-war activist, proclaiming their undying opposition to the war in Iraq, got up to the point that they would murder the President to put a stop to it (as the nation will learn in the inevitable manifesto), then the Democrats would nominate an anti-war candidate?

Does this not seem unlikely to anyone else?

I mean, the knock-on effects of, I dunno, someone from Code Pink pumping hot lead into George Bush with a cry of 'No Blood for Oil!' can't be ignored, can they?

 

[Demon-Something]

Don't know about the other stuff, but I can't see a whole lot of difference with Katrina, it's quite possible no-one realised there was an issue, until it showed up at the worst possible time.

Agreed. FEMA was a joke agency until after the hurricane, and a lot of fault for the human nightmare afterwards is theirs for not having anywhere near the proper equipment or plans.

However, Louisiana takes an even bigger share in this. Not only did they not have any plans or sufficient equipment to properly evacuate (not to mention keep their levees in good shape,) they had no communication to speak. The state government was holed up in Baton Rouge, waiting for communication from New Orleans. New Orleans had set up communications from a laptop in a hotel room, and unsurprisingly, there was no connection. Without it, they couldn't call for help from Baton Rouge, and Baton Rouge couldn't call for help from the federal government.

Long story short, Katrina was a black eye to anyone in the Oval Office, regardless of any other factors. Sadly, it was one of those things where a tragedy had to happen to expose in the first place.

 

[fb111a]

So wait, wait wait wait, President Bush is gunned down by a radical anti-war activist, somewhat that didn't happen OTL despite the vociferous opposition in some areas to his policies, and this doesn't matter at all?

Like, if an anti-war activist, proclaiming their undying opposition to the war in Iraq, got up to the point that they would murder the President to put a stop to it (as the nation will learn in the inevitable manifesto), then the Democrats would nominate an anti-war candidate?

Does this not seem unlikely to anyone else?

I mean, the knock-on effects of, I dunno, someone from Code Pink pumping hot lead into George Bush with a cry of 'No Blood for Oil!' can't be ignored, can they?

Such an event will also have made George W. Bush a martyr for the War on Terror, and it also would have dealt a very serious blow to the anti-war movement. You can bet that conservative media outlets like the Washington Times and Fox News would be digging.

George W. Bush then becomes the GOP's answer to JFK.

 

[Peelitebkearns]

I agree-this strengthens Kerry in the primaries, but weakens him in the general. I wouldn't be surprised if Wesley Clark gets more attention ITTL, maybe overtaking Dean and becoming Kerry's main primary aponent. "The Dean Scream" is almost certainly butterflied here, though I doubt if that alone enables him to remain viable for the 08 election cycle, when presumerably the war in Eraq becomes more unpopular.

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

Really? Was not aware. Funny actually, for the person painted as the most evil man ever.

Cheney was more a neoconservative than anything else. The paternalistic social conservatism was more Dubya's thing.

Likely Cheney becomes to some extent Nixon redivivus.

 

[Tammany Tiger]

Colin Powell and Condi Rice soon find themselves looking for a new job.

Congress passes follow-up legislation that includes some provisions that were too sweeping for the original Patriot Act. The ostensible reason is to catch "lone wolf" terrorists, but the overall focus is on increased surveillance powers.

Bill Frist becomes Vice President.

Opposition to the war becomes toxic to many Democrats. Dean fades, and Dick Gephardt defeats John Kerry in the primaries.

 

[spiderduck1997]

Colin Powell and Condi Rice soon find themselves looking for a new job.

Congress passes follow-up legislation that includes some provisions that were too sweeping for the original Patriot Act. The ostensible reason is to catch "lone wolf" terrorists, but the overall focus is on increased surveillance powers.

Bill Frist becomes Vice President.

Opposition to the war becomes toxic to many Democrats. Dean fades, and Dick Gephardt defeats John Kerry in the primaries.

The Patriot Act would most certainly be expanded.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

So wait, wait wait wait, President Bush is gunned down by a radical anti-war activist, somewhat that didn't happen OTL despite the vociferous opposition in some areas to his policies, and this doesn't matter at all?

Like, if an anti-war activist, proclaiming their undying opposition to the war in Iraq, got up to the point that they would murder the President to put a stop to it (as the nation will learn in the inevitable manifesto), then the Democrats would nominate an anti-war candidate?

Does this not seem unlikely to anyone else?

I mean, the knock-on effects of, I dunno, someone from Code Pink pumping hot lead into George Bush with a cry of 'No Blood for Oil!' can't be ignored, can they?

Good point.

The anti-war movement just got quite the black eye.

The backlash would be terrible.

Kerry actually still loses out because of his anti-war background post Vietnam.

Wesley Clark actually might bet more attention. Military background and old enough to look nonthreatening in this scenario.

Unless the assassin was an aging hippy?

 

[Paul V McNutt]

Cheney runs and loses in 2004. President Kerry loses in the economic collapse of 2008. bBecause there is no stimulus the economy is worse President McCain loses'in 2012.