Rice is the Secretary of State and the former National Security Advisor. It’s ridiculous to say she doesn’t have the experience to be Vice-President.
I agree with Shodan. I think she’s been a crappy National Security Advisor and Secretary of State these past seven years, and if I were in Congress I would probably vote against her nomination as VP, but c’mon, her resume and life experiences are more impressive than those of many past VPs.
A similar thread from late 2005: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=340362&page=1
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Rice is the Secretary of State and the former National Security Advisor. It’s ridiculous to say she doesn’t have the experience to be Vice-President.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah. She has way too much experience. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Ravenman, Carol Stream, whoosh. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Ah. I get it now. Your comment wasn’t nearly as clever as your rolleyes would suggest.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
The Dems control the Senate 51-49 (yes, I know 2 INDs, but they vote with the DEMS.)
[/QUOTE]
Lieberman *caucuses * with the Dems, but he damn sure doesn’t *vote * with them. In fact, he glories in criticizing everything they do, in his second job as Fox’s tame “Democrat” on their entertainment shows.
Don’t be so damn literal, everyone - you risk missing the point entirely.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Why would they confirm any choice? Leaving the vice presidency vacant leaves Pelosi a heartbeat away from the OO. 
[/QUOTE]
With a vacant VP slot, the Dems could then redeem themselves by impeaching Bush before his term expires.
[QUOTE=Duckster]
With a vacant VP slot, the Dems could then redeem themselves by impeaching Bush before his term expires.
[/QUOTE]
So, what would impeachment accomplish?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
So, what would impeachment accomplish?
[/QUOTE]