Markdown at your local Veep dealer...
Now that Hillary Clinton is officially suspending her campaign (certainly much earlier than I expected), we turn to the next round of endless speculation: who will the vice presidential candidates be?
For the Democrats, will it be the "dream ticket" of Obama/Clinton? (My guess is this will only happen if we assume the dream in question is the one where you're falling and falling and then suddenly you wake up, hit the bed, and realize you just had a nightmare.) I've heard countless other names floated: former presidential hopefuls Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, even Chris Dodd; state governors Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, Ted Strickland of Ohio, Tim Kaine of Virginia, even Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas; Senators Jim Webb of Virginia, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, hell, even Republican (and early Iraq war critic) Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. My guess is Obama will select someone from a state in which he's weak (or a typically red state), and maybe also a Clinton supporter to show party unity.
For the Republicans, McCain's former opponents Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, as well as state governors Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Charlie Crist of Florida, and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota (the state with the longest streak of going Democrat, thank you very much Walter Mondale) are the most common guesses. McCain's challenge is to go conservative enough to win over skeptics on the right without going too conservative as to alienate the middle.
Amid all the confusion, I would like to propose (to either candidate) an as-yet undiscussed selection for the vice presidency: me.
Think about it: I'm non-partisan, which for either candidate signals a desire to move beyond partisan politics, and also suggests that in my limited capacity I will do what's right for the whole country as opposed to a particular party. For McCain, my strong First Amendment credentials will hopefully offset those who distrust his in the wake of McCain-Feingold, and my economic conservatism could bring back the long-defunct, currently laughable notion of the Republican party as the party of fiscal responsibility. For Obama, my no-nonsense approach to foreign policy might assuage accusations of appeasement, and being a military brat sorta counts (in the not-really-at-all way) as service. Also, over the last ten years, I've been resident of three potential swing states (Virginia, Tennessee, and Florida) as well as two strongly partisan states (California and Texas). It's win-win-win!
But Mike, the U.S. Constitution says you're too young to be vice president.
Wait, the Constitution still matters? I was under the impression we had thrown that away a long time ago. Wonder where I got that crazy idea?
Song lyric of the day:
"Slip through, ever the thief
You're posed to hero, but we'll see
This thing is your mission
The lone wishing condition"
- the New Pornographers, The Jessica Numbers
For the Democrats, will it be the "dream ticket" of Obama/Clinton? (My guess is this will only happen if we assume the dream in question is the one where you're falling and falling and then suddenly you wake up, hit the bed, and realize you just had a nightmare.) I've heard countless other names floated: former presidential hopefuls Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, even Chris Dodd; state governors Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, Ted Strickland of Ohio, Tim Kaine of Virginia, even Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas; Senators Jim Webb of Virginia, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, hell, even Republican (and early Iraq war critic) Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. My guess is Obama will select someone from a state in which he's weak (or a typically red state), and maybe also a Clinton supporter to show party unity.
For the Republicans, McCain's former opponents Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, as well as state governors Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Charlie Crist of Florida, and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota (the state with the longest streak of going Democrat, thank you very much Walter Mondale) are the most common guesses. McCain's challenge is to go conservative enough to win over skeptics on the right without going too conservative as to alienate the middle.
Amid all the confusion, I would like to propose (to either candidate) an as-yet undiscussed selection for the vice presidency: me.
Think about it: I'm non-partisan, which for either candidate signals a desire to move beyond partisan politics, and also suggests that in my limited capacity I will do what's right for the whole country as opposed to a particular party. For McCain, my strong First Amendment credentials will hopefully offset those who distrust his in the wake of McCain-Feingold, and my economic conservatism could bring back the long-defunct, currently laughable notion of the Republican party as the party of fiscal responsibility. For Obama, my no-nonsense approach to foreign policy might assuage accusations of appeasement, and being a military brat sorta counts (in the not-really-at-all way) as service. Also, over the last ten years, I've been resident of three potential swing states (Virginia, Tennessee, and Florida) as well as two strongly partisan states (California and Texas). It's win-win-win!
But Mike, the U.S. Constitution says you're too young to be vice president.
Wait, the Constitution still matters? I was under the impression we had thrown that away a long time ago. Wonder where I got that crazy idea?
Song lyric of the day:
"Slip through, ever the thief
You're posed to hero, but we'll see
This thing is your mission
The lone wishing condition"
- the New Pornographers, The Jessica Numbers
13 Comments:
I'd have to check, but I'm not sure the limitations on Presidents apply to Vice-Presidents...at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.
So, actually you'd be a perfectly good candidate.
Ben,
From the 12th Amendment:
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of the President shall be eligible to that of the Vice-President of the United States."
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I mostly meant the expansions of executive powers far beyond what they were ever intended to be. The whole spying thing doesn't concern the First Amendment so much as the Fourth, and obviously the intrusion of the federal government on issues that should be left to state and local governments is clearly contrary to the Tenth. (The latter is a violation of the last seven or so regimes, and hardly solely the fault of the Bush White House.)
Also, in fairness, I linked to the White House, not to George W. Bush in particular. As you point out (though I might take some exception to the relative peace argument, depending on what we're relative to), Bush is far more honorable, and has done far more good, than many others in his administration.
But anyway, I mostly just put it in for humor value.
Also, Sarah Palin is smoking hot, at least for a politician. That oughta win some votes. VPILF, anyone?
This comment has been removed by the author.
McCain was born in the Canal Zone (a U.S. territory at the time) and Obama was born in Hawaii after statehood. So it's a non-issue.
Once again, I repeat, we don't know Obama was born in Hawaii; we have absolutely 0% proof of it. To be president you have to be a natural born citizen (jus soli); born to an American mom (jus sanguinis) is not enough. His staff has been contacted several times about his place of birth and will not release it. You could white out everything but 'Barry Obama', 'Hawaii' and '1961' and it would work. But the fact they won't release it leaves alot of people to believe there's something on the birth certificate that's not so pleasant (any guesses?). Now if Jeff has found where they've released the information, I'll retract it. I'll guess he hasn't.
As for McCain, his birth was not recorded in the hospital in Panama in 1936. We only have the word of his 90-year-old mother and a newspaper announcement. Plus this also overlooks the constitutional discussion about whether Panama should count (not everyone born on military bases is eligible). The way the Senate got around it though was to rule on McCain only, NOT everyone. So in theory, if in 2012 another candidate ran who was born in Panama in 1936, the Senate would have to decide again in a separate issue because the Constitution is ambiguous on the McCain case -- essentially, the Senate jumped in with a ruling so there wouldn't be any lawsuits. To say this is a non-issue is to be completely ignorant of it.
Kos has a scan.
As for McCain, the Constitution is somewhat ambiguous as to whether you have to be born in the U.S. proper or just born as a citizen (the phrase "natural born citizen" has a lot of wiggle room in it). I'm inclined to give him credit even if he was born outside the Canal Zone, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people who would disagree.
C'mon Jeff, that's obviously a total forgery.
How? It looks like a reprinted birth certificate to me.
That's just because of your liberal bias, and the bias of a liberal media.
Post a Comment
<< Home