[GovernmentShrinker]

However, Cheney was not running for President. There really is a big difference. The international perception of the US government is always closely tied to the President. The VP is an asterisk. The Republican Party would be crazy to nominate a candidate who can reasonably be expected to die or be very ill and close to death before the end of his first term.

[dragnet2]

However, Cheney was not running for President. There really is a big difference. The international perception of the US government is always closely tied to the President. The VP is an asterisk. The Republican Party would be crazy to nominate a candidate who can reasonably be expected to die or be very ill and close to death before the end of his first term.

I agree with some of that.

Another concern would be time missed due to treatments, therapy, and taking drugs as part of his treatment.

[maine-iac7]

Oh good grief = are you the enemy or just a sucker?

[holden]

"nominate a candidate who can reasonably be expected to die or be very ill and close to death before the end of his first term."

"[R]easonably be expected?" Says who? We went through all this nonsense from Dimwits with Ronald Reagan, when the left was trumpeting how voting for him would be silly/wasted/lead to disaster because he was already almost past his normal life expectancy.

Beyond his two terms, Reagan lived what, another dozen years? It's beyond strange how all such idle speculation only applies when the question involves a Republican. For Clinton, he was simply allowed to keep his medical records secret.

HF

[I'm ALL Right!]

The Republican Party would be crazy to nominate a candidate who can reasonably be expected to die or be very ill and close to death before the end of his first term

....which is exactly what they want you to conclude from this hit piece.