Why are Veep Nominees so Lame?

8 responses so far

• 1 EscapeVelocity // Sep 24, 2009 at 12:19 pm

  You dont want to encourage people to murder you, to get to the VP.

• 2 sinz54 // Sep 24, 2009 at 12:33 pm

  VPs are lame because the job description is lame.

  Except for casting tie-breaking votes in case of a Senate tie vote, the VP has no political power unless the President is unable to serve out his term. Hence the President doesn’t have to fear that the Vice President’s powers are alienating the public from the administration. The Vice President has no powers. So the job is largely ceremonial, and any airhead can fill it.

  There’s also the political fact that no Presidential candidate wants a running mate who will upstage him, just like every stage actor fears an understudy who can perform the role better than he can. When a Presidential candidate has chosen a running mate who would obviously make a better President than he would, he’s usually lost. (Example: Dukakis picking Bentsen.)

• 3 Observer // Sep 24, 2009 at 1:09 pm

  Sinz54, please press the “end deep freeze button” on your cryo-chamber, and do your first ever 21st Century google search for the name “Cheney.” Your distinctly 20th C view of the limits of the job might change slightly. The VP can have political power in several ways – if delegated that power, if perceived to be powerful, or if he/she grabs that power and is allowed to run with it – much as is the case with the President himself, as the Presidency, too, is a job rich in more perceived power than specific authority. The job is what the VP, and the President, make of it.

  I’ve seen a fair number of stories in the last six months referring to public servant joe or intelligence officer schmoe “acted on orders from the Vice-President” in reference to Cheney, so its clear that the VP can be a powerful figure – if people are told to treat him or her as such. Or if they’re berated into doing so.

  And in truth, I prefer at least an Al Gore level of activity to the Bush-Mondale-Quayle model of VP. I’ve always thought it was a dumb waste of staff and salaries to keep the VP hidden and under wraps. VPs could be very useful showing the flag to monitor and bird-dog middle-priority issues that aren’t number one on the list, much as Biden is doing now with Iraq, for example. Hell, if it wasn’t for the issue of Senate confirmation, I’d want to see VPs take responsibility for a specific portfolio, but obviously that’s a technical distinction.

• 4 Churl // Sep 24, 2009 at 4:55 pm

  Ho hum. Another swipe at Palin, a predictable Frum snooze-inducer. He really should get out more.

• 5 SFTor1 // Sep 24, 2009 at 11:59 pm

  Sarah Palin is not lame. She is a demagogue, a religious zealot, a backstabber, and a poser. There is a difference.

• 6 SFTor1 // Sep 24, 2009 at 11:59 pm

  Dilettante. I forgot dilettante.

• 7 Churl // Sep 25, 2009 at 9:30 am

  …and yet even more gratuitous and soporific Palin bashing.

• 8 sinz54 // Sep 25, 2009 at 10:11 am

  observer:

  Cheney is an exception.

  Can you name Truman’s vice president? What was he known for?

  Can you name Eisenhower’s vice presidents? What were they known for?

  What noteworthy things did LBJ do when he was JFK’s vice president?

  What noteworthy things did Humphrey do as LBJ’s vice president?

  What noteworthy things did Rockefeller do as Ford’s vice president?

  What noteworthy things did Dan Quayle do as GHWB’s vice president?

  Here’s the entire list of VPs. See how many of them YOU think made an impact on history during their term(s) as VP:

  http://www.presidentsusa.net/presvplist.html

You must log in to post a comment.