Should we abolish the vice-presidency?

[Cliffy]

@Professor_So_And_So

Something that’s interesting to me, as I don’t recall this happening before in my lifetime, is an obviously large segment of the voting population focusing on the VP candidates in order to gauge which ticket deserves their vote.

The VP slots are getting a lot more attention this year than in the past, yes. I think there are two reasons for that. First, the VP selection is the only act of governance you get to see the potential president make before the election. He can talk about policies, he can even talk to some extent about others he will put in office (but it’s illegal to name a shadow Cabinet, and of course those are just campaign promises anyway which might be broken). But the VP as chosen is definitive and, if the ticket is elected, the nominee will become VP – the president can’t just change his mind later. So the selection process tells you something about how the nominee will not just position himself, but how he will actually govern once elected.

On that rubric, you’ve got to be very scared by McCain. The Palin pick is clearly a bad choice from a governance perspective, so he didn’t care as much about the welfare of the nation as he did about winning the political points. Moreover, it turned out to be bad from a political perspective, so even when McCain thinks a given problem is important, his judgment on it is poor. He chose Palin after a 15-minute meeting and one or two phone conversations, so he clearly makes decisions without considering them fully or getting all applicable details. And it feeds into the brief on McCain that he makes decisions erratically and with no overarching strategic focus – he cares about small-scale, tactical victories only. His goal wasn’t to pick someone who could run the country if he died. His goal was to pick someone who would generate enough press that it would step on Obama’s convention bounce. And certainly, he did succeed in that – but it was the goal of a weekend, and the consequence would potentially saddle us with someone this poor for years – and maybe have her become president. So it’s not exclusively that she’s so bad (although given McCain’s age, his physical health, and his history of cancer, it’s by no means illegitimate to take the possibility of a Palin presidency into account). But that it shows the kind of decisionmaking he’ll do as president, and it’s a very poor example.

Compare this to Obama’s selection – deliberative, and ultimately set on picking someone, not just because of their political chops – Biden’s reputation in this area is mixed, but he was generally thought to be a liability on the trail because he’s gaffe prone. I think this has turned out to be wrong, but it was the thinking at the time. (Of course, Delaware was already going to go blue anyway.) But rather, someone who will legitimately help him govern, and is knowledgeable enough to take over if, god forbid, something were to happen to a President Obama. Plus, it shows Obama is confident enough that he doesn’t mind smart people in the roo who will challenge his views. Biden and Obama agree on a lot, but anybody who knows Biden’s reputation understands that just because he’s the #2 man, he’s not going to let that get in the way of expressing his opinion if he thinks Obama’s got his head up his ass. (At least behind closed doors.)

On the other side, the hard-right, social conservative base was wary about McCain because once upon a time he was willing to stand up and say that President Bush was in bed with some very horrible people, back when he liked saying that sort of thing. Palin is an unreconstructed social conservative, so her selection plays very well in those crowds, and presumably serves to convince them that McCain actually believes that stuff too, if he was willing to put his legacy in her hands. (Query whether this accomplished much besides engendering good feeling. Were these people going to stay home on election day even with McCain/Romney on the ballot? With a black guy running on the other ticket? I doubt it.)

In general, this type of analysis hasn’t been part of VP selections because VP selections have previously been made for more obviously political reasons than Obama’s selection of Biden, but on that basis, they’ve been at least better political moves than McCain’s selection of Palin.

Also, let’s face it – she’s hot. That occasions a lot of coverage. And she’s really bad on the trail. So that engenders even more coverage.

–Cliffy

[Little_Nemo]

Nine out of forty-one past Presidents have not completed their term of office and have been succeeded by their Vice President. With odds like that, the voters should have a chance to decide who the Vice President is.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@Ravenman

Oh, I think there’s probably some practicality in having a VP as a stand-in for the President. Like a Deputy Secretary of State does for the Secretary of State, or Steven Ballmer to Bill Gates, or Prince Charles to Queen Elizabeth, or Ed Zotti to Cecil Adams.

I’m actually thinking we should go the opposite direction, that there should be a primary campaign for Vice President. I don’t think allowing candidates free reign in picking their own successor, and then sticking the American people with their choice even if it is terrible, is necessarily the greatest thing in the world.

And just imagine if people could vote separately for the Vice President! Would Cheney have been reelected in 2004 if not for the fact that the people weren’t given the choice? We could have seen something like White House with President Bush and Vice President Edwards, or something like that. For fans of divided government, I suppose one could make an argument that it may be a moderating force in hyper-partisan times.

I think that idea is very interesting, although I wonder about the political obstacles a POTUS would have to daily overcome to oppose a VP that was from another party. It would likely throw monkey wrenches of partisanship into an already partisan environment that wouldn’t be helpful.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Cheney, for example, has served as the chair of Bush’s “Energy Task Force”, in addition to being the shadowy puppeteer behind the forces of darkness, etc.

Is there any direct evidence of Cheney being the Emperor Puppeteer behind the marionette Bush?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

Is there any direct evidence of Cheney being the Emperor Puppeteer behind the marionette Bush?

Well, if you listen really carefully during the State of the Union address you can sometimes hear him say, “Yesssssss, my apprentice” during the parts where W gets a standing ovation… but I suppose that’s kind of circumstantial.

It was a joke, Sparky!

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Well, if you listen really carefully during the State of the Union address you can sometimes hear him say, “Yesssssss, my apprentice” during the parts where W gets a standing ovation… but I suppose that’s kind of circumstantial.

It was a joke, Sparky!

Well, that and that suspicious lump in Dubya’s suit during the Kerry debates that kept Rove and Cheney in direct contact with their charge, telling him what to say and do. And barring knowing what to say, just shrug and giggle that “my fellow Americans” laugh, while cutting to a scene from his ranch where he was clearing brush (which of course is a metaphor for killing “terrurists”).

[Guinastasia]

@jtgain

I think we did just fine from 1789 to the mid 1960s during those times when there was no VP. I think the problem arose when Johnson became President and that made the next in line some crotchety old bastard that scared the hell out of anyone should he become President.

Wait-you mean Humphrey was even crotchetier than Johnson? Is that even possible? :eek:

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

he didn’t care as much about the welfare of the nation as he did about winning the political points. Moreover, it turned out to be bad from a political perspective, so even when McCain thinks a given problem is important, his judgment on it is poor. He chose Palin after a 15-minute meeting and one or two phone conversations, so he clearly makes decisions without considering them fully or getting all applicable details. And it feeds into the brief on McCain that he makes decisions erratically and with no overarching strategic focus – he cares about small-scale, tactical victories only. His goal wasn’t to pick someone who could run the country if he died. His goal was to pick someone who would generate enough press that it would step on Obama’s convention bounce. And certainly, he did succeed in that – but it was the goal of a weekend, and the consequence would potentially saddle us with someone this poor for years – and maybe have her become president. So it’s not exclusively that she’s so bad (although given McCain’s age, his physical health, and his history of cancer, it’s by no means illegitimate to take the possibility of a Palin presidency into account). But that it shows the kind of decisionmaking he’ll do as president, and it’s a very poor example.

This (is why we need a VP). Picking a VP is the only thing a Presidential nominee must actually do, and it speaks volumes.

[Ravenman]

@YamatoTwinkie

Voting Ron Paul (for example) in as VP in the 2004 election would just mean that Bush would ignore him for the remainder of his term, and would bring in Cheney as a high-level advisor. No difference.

There is a difference. Cheney would not have been a heartbeat away from the presidency for the last four years.

Do you think that if Cheney had been required to run for Vice President on a separate ballot, that he would have been reelected in 2004? Or, more to the point, let’s say McCain actually had a shot in this election. Do you think Sarah Palin would stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected Vice President if it weren’t for the fact that that no American is given the chance to vote for McCain, but not Palin?

@FoieGrasIsEvil

I think that idea is very interesting, although I wonder about the political obstacles a POTUS would have to daily overcome to oppose a VP that was from another party. It would likely throw monkey wrenches of partisanship into an already partisan environment that wouldn’t be helpful.

I’m not sure I’m following your point here. Can you flesh it out some more?

Let me put this idea in a different light. For every high office in our country, there is some sort of “check” to make sure someone too whacky doesn’t get in there. For congressmen and senators, it’s elections. For cabinet secretaries and judges, it’s confirmation by the Senate. For the President, it’s elections, too. For Vice President… well, the President stands for election, right?? Oh, wait, a political party could, in theory, reject a presidential nominees choice for VP. So the whole effective system of checks and balances for selecting a VP boils down to a vote at a political convention. I submit that’s not what the Constitution had in mind at all.

[Captain_Carrot]

@Ravenman

Do you think Sarah Palin would stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected Vice President if it weren’t for the fact that that no American is given the chance to vote for McCain, but not Palin?

Uh, yes. In fact, she’d have a better chance than McCain. Did you miss the part where she energized their base? There’s one guy in my Poli Sci class who’s voting for Palin, not McCain.

[Ravenman]

@Captain_Carrot

Uh, yes. In fact, she’d have a better chance than McCain. Did you miss the part where she energized their base? There’s one guy in my Poli Sci class who’s voting for Palin, not McCain.

Yeah, energized the shrunken Republican base. Her unfavorable rating is now at 51%. link. Folks with those poll numbers don’t tend to win elections, especially if they are on downballot races.

On edit: and Biden’s favorability is at 59%. I’m just sayin’.

[Little_Nemo]

I think we did just fine from 1789 to the mid 1960s during those times when there was no VP. I think the problem arose when Johnson became President and that made the next in line some crotchety old bastard that scared the hell out of anyone should he become President.

Wait-you mean Humphrey was even crotchetier than Johnson? Is that even possible?

Humphrey was elected Vice President in 1964. When Johnson became President in 1963, the Vice Presidency was vacant. The next in line if Johnson had died was Speaker of the House John William McCormack.