By: NCViking

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal is stirring up hornet nests on the left by daring to postulate that Dick Cheney may be a viable GOP candidate for president in 2012 in an OpEd piece. The bloodthirsty evil behind the Bush Administration has been an outspoken critic of Obama policies relating to the “War On Terror” … sorry … “The Nondescript Something We May or May Not be Doing Involving People That We Misunderstand Initiative” creating a buzz around him that is making people ponder the possibility.

Taranto being interviewed about the article on MSNBC:

Notice the interviewer’s response to a statement that there will be a few years (under Obama) of gentler policies towards terrorists “I don’t think that’s fair!” as if he personally offended her somehow by the comment.

Taranto’s premise is that if Obama’s softening of Bush-era policies lead (God forbid) to another 9/11-type attack, the GOP should nominate Cheney since he is a proven hawk for national security.

Our guess, however, is that Cheney overstates when he says “so many Americans have doubts.” We’d venture that for most people the Obama administration’s see-no-evil approach is comforting. After years of fear and vigilance, it’s nice to be able to relax and not worry so much about terrorism.

It’s nice–but potentially dangerous. If the Bush administration’s policies really did keep us safe for 7½ years, then it stands to reason that the Obama administrations’ policies may be endangering us now. Certainly that is how the public would see it in the event of another terrorist attack.

If that happens, heaven forbid, Obama will be seen to have failed in the most basic presidential duty, and the Bush administration will be vindicated. As inconceivable as it may seem today, the 2012 election may end up turning on national security. Republicans would be wise to nominate someone with both toughness and experience. Under such circumstances, it’s hard to think of a better candidate–assuming, of course, that he could be persuaded to run–than Richard B. Cheney.

I often laugh at the left’s bogeyman caricature of Cheney as evil incarnate, but this doesn’t mean I buy him as a viable candidate for president. He may have pushed the limits of law and authority in an aggressive way to keep America safe, in some ways misguided, but certainly not for sinister reasons. What Cheney is can be described as horribly polarizing – people either love him or hate him, with not much in the middle. He is a man of action and convictions, not consensus, which does not bode well for leading a nation of diverse beliefs and opinions. To be an effective president, you need to be popular among the people, inspiring to your constituencies and govern from the center. Reagan and Clinton knew this and were effective, Bush and Obama did/do not. Cheney even less so, representing an almost singular constituency. Even if a terror attack occurred, running to the opposite side of the pendulum would not be good for the country. He would be a feel-good candidate for scared Americans and far right elements of the GOP, but not the game changer Republicans need.

Cheney has never indicated any desire to be President and was one of the few VP’s not to ride the coattails of incumbency to his party’s nomination. He seems to be just defending Bush administration policies and being a patriot by acting as a pit-bull to keep Obama and America from getting too complacent regarding the threats we face … though the left certainly doesn’t see the “Evil Bastard” in that way …

UPDATE: DNC Releases Anti-Cheney Ad

Looks like Dick Cheney is striking a nerve with Democrats …

• Economic Crisis of Confidence - February 8th, 2010
• Cato Analysis and Fact Check of SOTU Speech - January 28th, 2010
• State of the Union Déjà vu? - January 26th, 2010
• Purple Predestination - January 25th, 2010
• Prince Composes New Vikings Fight Song (Oh Yes He Did!) - January 22nd, 2010