Well there goes that little theory, but it wasn’t going to happen anyway.
He chose a corrupt Vice-President. Two out of four of his Attorneys General were convicted of Watergate related crimes, most notably Mr. Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! himself, John Mitchell. Earl Butz, of “three things” fame, was convicted of tax evasion. That’s only cabinet level off the top of my head. See also Haldeman, Erlichman, Dean, etc., etc., etc.
Lincolnesque, indeed.
Well… he was a white bipedal Republican. Ahem.
Work with us here!
I addressed a specific point about his cabinet. Nothing you wrote refutes my point. What **Elendil’s Heir ** wrote however, did.
Gee, Nixon was a corrupt, guilty, bigoted, nasty piece of work who appointed many corrupt people to positions of power and here’s another newsflash Generalissimo Franco is still dead.
BTW: Is the VP really considered a member of the Cabinet?
You said he made Lincoln-like appointments to his Cabinet, and only told one side of the story.
Well, Dick Cheney argued he was actually part of Congress, right up to the moment the Democratic majority tried to get him to do something they wanted. :rolleyes:
It’s a constitutionally-ambiguous office, to be sure, with a foot in both the executive and the legislative branches, but partaking more of the former than the latter. Vice presidents didn’t routinely attend Cabinet meetings until FDR’s time, and even he kept Truman in the dark about the Manhattan Project. Nowadays, yes, I would say the VP is considered part of the Cabinet; he (someday she) usually sits directly across the Cabinet Room table from the President.
And since Lincoln appointed Cameron those were Lincolnesque indeed.
I meant the appointments were Lincoln-like in regards to appointed people from the other party and those that had high stature in their fields. I don’t recall many doubted that Kissinger was Nixon’s superior in foreign policy.
If you were objecting to the good team part of what **carlb ** said, I will agree that your examples do counter that, but I did not attempt to make that claim and I sure as hell would not want to try.
Jim
Sherrod Brown gave up a good shot at a House chairmanship in order to run for the Senate. Ergo, he’s probably the sort to go for more money & higher station in lieu of more actual influence & responsiblity. He might go for it, & Clinton/Gore demonstrated that a ticket from neighboring states can win.
Oh, wait, it would drive his wife supercrazy to take a four-year leave of absence. Better not.
In the category of giving the VP to a Clinton supporter, Rendell has apparently previously stated he does not want the VP job. There have been some arguments made for Strickland though. George Will made some -
Of course would he want it? He would not be using it to prepare for his own Presidential ambitions but still, not a bad gig for a term and then retire. Next time call up someone to groom for the job in 2016.
Has Brian Schweitzer, Gov Montana been mentioned here?
As an Ohio Democrat, I like Ted Strickland very much (he’s my parents’ former congressman), and suspect he’d take the Veepship from either Hillary or Barack if offered. He could probably deliver Ohio for either.
Another strike against my once upon a time favorite VP choice Richardson - his being on the ticket isn’t required to get Hispanic support.
I’m still stuck on trying to figure out where he does need the most support, and how that fits with the strategy he will use to hit McCain hardest. I know that he does not want to go for the 50 plus one technique - he wants to be a transformative President which means spreading the board and going for an electoral mandate. He is going to contest some traditionally Red states as well as try to secure swing ones. His financial advantage will help him do that and the format recently suggested of free-form town-meeting debates will highlight his intellectual vigor (his debating skills are now well honed after so many against Hillary’s skillful foil) relative to McCain (who does not do well off script) as much as the first televised debates helped the media savvy JFK.
So does he use the VP choice to secure a battleground, freeing up resources for the broader attack, or use the choice to help the attack in those reddish purple areas? Does he use the VP to solidify some traditional support while he himself reaches across more, or to help him reach across and hope that the party can heal without the chip thrown to the Clinton side?
Today’s New York Times has some speculation about their respective strategies. By their analysis they will both fight for independents , and the Western states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada (which altogether have fewer electoral votes than PA). McCain’s forces will try to portray Obama as too young and inexperienced and fire up the Evangelicals to come out against him despite their lack of enthusiasm for McCain.
Does the VP instead need to be primarily chosen mainly to offset those tactics?
Yes, in reality particular choices accomplish more than one of those objectives to various degrees. But still …
I hate saying it, but I’ll say it again - Obama will most likely choose a white man with military or some other pertinent experience. Obama needs the working class whites backing him, he needs to change some minds - but not necessarily just in appalachia.
Obama needs to really choose wisely -
Webb
A thought…
Is there any constitutional reason Obama couldn’t choose Hagel? If not, and he did, do you think Hagel would accept?
He should probably choose a bitter, xenophobic, gun clutching church goer.
No Constitutional reason why he couldn’t. I doubt he’d say yes to the Veep spot (I think it’s unlikely he would go so far as to change parties), but a cabinet spot (where he could remain a Republican) is not out of the question. That’s happened before. Clinton had a Republican Def Sec.
Couldn’t a Republican be the VP of a Democrat without changing parties?
Constitutionally, yes, but it’s extremely unlikely that it would happen. Voters would find the succession issue too troublesome.
I think Jim Webb is a great idea…I’ve said it before. I have no doubt Obama will listen to his advisors and his gut - it’s worked so far in his campaign I don’t see this as a hurtle as much as I see it as a decision in a series of choices that will lead to the white house.