VP Candidates

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by HatterDon, Sep 26, 2008.

  1. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    A brief history of ...

    There's been some concern this week that Sarah Palin doesn't come off as someone who has the experience, stability, or basic understanding of the problems inherent in the position of President of the United States to be "one heartbeat away" from the office. Some of this concern has been partisan, and it's easy to see that the Republicans are also concerned with it by the series of shrill defenses and attacks on attackers that it has caused. So, what does Sarah Palin's audition for "Clueless" on CBS Evening News say about her fitness -- or lack of same -- to be vice president?

    Well, historically, very little. Vice presidents being viewed as "potential presidents" is relatively new. In the early days of the republic, the vice-president was the guy who finished 2nd in the electoral college. Some of these guys -- Adams, Jefferson -- wound up as president next time around, but the early "key successor position" in American politics in the Early National Era was Secretary of State -- Monroe, Madison, etc. Once elections began to feature a "ticket" consisting of candidates for president & vice president, the 2nd spot on the ballot became almost invisible to the American people. In fact, when George H.W. Bush was elected president in 1988, he was the first sitting VP to be elected president since Martin Van Buren around 150 years earlier.

    Until recently, vice presidential candidates were generally veteran party servants. In the 20th century, as the back-room boys starting picking the tickets, the VP position was often a plum to be traded in support of a goodie in return. Interestingly, the death of a president after one of these "shotgun marriages" usually resulted in the succession of a fantastically talented man who might not have gotten the chance otherwise -- see Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Harry Truman.

    As the 20th century reached its halfway point, choosing the VP candidate was being seen as a means to bring disparate wings of the party together. In 1952, Dwight D. Eisenhower [who was rumored to have been considering a run for the White House four years earlier as a Democrat] made the Republican Party's right wing nervous. To placate them, Ike's people recommended naming a red-baiting young senator from California -- Richard Nixon -- as VP. At the end of their eight years together, Eisenhower was asked if he could provide a list of accomplishments of his vice-president [who was running for the big chair at the time]. Ike said that if he had a week or so, he might be able to think of one. Similarly, in 1960, the Kennedy camp realized that they needed an experienced Southerner with a lot more political savvy than they had to carry the South -- and especially Texas. And so Kennedy named Lyndon Johnson as his VP, beginning a partnership of two men whose every handler hated the other guy with a passion.

    Age and health were never much of a concern in naming a VP. In the late 1800s, there was a serving VP who was in his 80s! This changed in the 1960s, when President Johnson had some heart problems. Following the heart problems that Ike had, the term "one heartbeat away" became not so much a consideration when choosing a VP, but it certainly became something your opponent could rake you over the coals about. And so the pattern began.

    A ticket with an older guy at the top might have a younger person in support. A younger guy got an older guy. An easterner got a westerner. A southerner got a northerner. In many cases, the person nominated was almost as unknown as was Sarah Palin a month ago. William Miller, Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle, and Geraldine Ferraro leap to mind (and then fade away into obscurity).

    Okay, but what about the ability to take over? Well, face it. Presidents don't think they're EVER going to die, and if they do, they're not going to tell the electorate, "Hey, if I'm going to die inside of four years, I've got the perfect person to replace me." That's because the electorate will only hear: "I'm going to die inside of four years." Also, most presidents don't pick the guy they really like, and don't want the guy they pick to become as popular or more popular than they are.

    The truth is, the job of the vice-presidential candidate is to be mean so the top guys isn't seen as mean, and to placate a wing of the party. The greater truth is that, once elected, the VP doesn't have even that responsibility. So the VP job has become more akin to being Miss Minnesota -- open a shopping center; visit sick children in the hospital -- except Miss MN doesn't attend nearly so many funerals. The last eight years are the ONLY eight years in the history of the United States in which a vice-president had a substantial say in policy and contributed daily to executive decisions. We're not likely to see that happen again any time soon.

    So, where does this leave Sarah Palin? She was signed on to see if she could siphon off any disaffected Hillary supporters. She's young, she's bright, she's attractive, she's smart, and she pushes all those buttons within the Republican tent that McCain doesn't -- pro-life, pro-gun for example. She's also a chief executive. The Republicans screwed up trying to make her what she isn't -- a canny viewer of the national scene, a master of the nuances of the economy, or an expert on foreign relations -- but there's still 6 or so weeks to go in the campaign. And besides, there is no evidence that who the VP candidate is EVER is a consideration in swaying the "undecided" voter.

    Just a little perspective. Now I happily relinquish control of the Campaign '08 section. You may now return to your regularly scheduled partisan scandals and rumors.
     
    #1
  2. stlouisbrad

    stlouisbrad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    This the most rational thing I've read on here concerning politics. Thank you very much. It's a very nice change.
     
    #2
  3. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    thanks, Brad. I try.
     
    #3
  4. FulhamAg

    FulhamAg New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    Agreed, thanks for bringing the perspective. Too bad we can't get you a spot on the networks and cable news ch's to impart that message.
     
    #4
  5. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    none of them want to hire "expert commentators" who try to see merits in all sides involved. It's what cost me a lot of print [and, who knows maybe TV] time in the late 80s/early 90s when I was a "middle-east expert." They wanted one pro-Israel and one pro-Arab/Persian. They didn't want ANYONE to say "75% of what both sides are saying is correct and needs to be listened to." So, instead I taught school [for peanuts] and lectured at USAF leadership schools [for free]. Sigh.

    Drove HatterMom nuts.
     
    #5
Similar Threads: Candidates
Forum Title Date
Miscellaneous Are the candidates's wives abreast of the job? Jun 5, 2007

Share This Page