Does the VP make any difference?

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
I've just watched a discussion on FOX about the GOP VP race. Some folks are arguing for McCain for VP as he is attractive. Most think it will be some boring unknown bland guy.
Maybe the bland guy will be more pro-choice.
Maybe he can deliver his state.

Does it make a difference?

It seems to me that McCain is flawed and too combative to be worthwhile.

I would argue for something risky. I wish that
someone like Colin Powell or JC Watts would be chosen. I know Powell isn't the best for the RKBA but Bush needs to break the mold, I think.

As far as the position on the RKBA for the VP.
If it can be shown that the RKBA vote for
Bush helps him to win, the VP will change as
happened with Gore.

I excuse the guys voting for the Vegetarians or whatever from this discussion.
 
Latest news/rumor has it that G.W. will be selecting former SecDef Dick Chenny (sp?) as his running mate.

An interesting and unusual choice in that

1) Dick is his main campaign manager/advisor. I've never really heard of anyone looking to their campaign staff for VP.

2) Dick worked for Daddy Bush - Up till now GW has gone out of his way to avoid publicly embracing any of his father's staff. I guess he has been trying to carve out his own identity/image.

3) Dick really does'nt seem to deliver a constiguency of any kind - usually VP candidates are choosen with some kind of veiw to what state/special interest group they can deliver.

Anyone know anything about Dick from a policy point of veiw. Being a former Bush SecDef I would assume he is pro-military. Other then that, who knows?

------------------
"If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example. . ." - Oliver Wendell Holmes
 
Cheney was a congressman from Wyoming. He's very bland, but from what I've read he has no skeletons. Still, he wouldn't make for an exciting ticket. The only thing he could bring to the party would be a reinforcement for GW's lack of international experience. One downside is that he's in the oil business (or has connections to it), and that would give Gore two fronts to attack on, the first being Bush's ties to "big oil."

Of all of the "viable" names being mentioned, my personal favorite is John Kasich. Although
the guy needs a good barber, he's on the spot on just about any issue I can think of. But he doesn't bring enough to the ticket for him to be selected. Just my .02

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
Glenn,

Does the Vice President make any difference?

Well, we all remember LBJ. Many of us received an all-expenses paid tour of lovely South East Asia thanks to his ostensible leadership. Fifty-eight thousand Americans did not return home and countless others had their lives interrupted (at best) or shattered (at worst).

I have always believed that Kennedy would not have gotten us as deeply embroiled in Vietnam. Accordingly, if you accept that premise, many pivotal things would have differed had Johnson not succeeded to the Presidency. Perhaps most important would have been continued patriotism and faith in our government among "baby boomers". These qualities were at a high during the Kennedy Administration -- "Ask not what your country . . . ." -- and they might not have been replaced by the post-Vietnam cynicism and governmental distrust had Kennedy served through January 1969.

Yes, Vice Presidents do make a difference.

Regards.
 
When Nixon was VP to Eisenhower, we were pretty heavily involved in the Indo China mess. When Johnson was VP to Kennedy, we were still heavily involved and had practically insured that the North could re-suppply the South through Laos without more than token harrassment.

When the French got surrounded at Dienbienphu, in the North, we had enough strength in the area to enable them to withstand the siege long enough for us to evacuate them. That was in 1954. The public was informed that we would not support the French attempt to stop communism there because Eisenhower had been elected on the "peace" platform and would not violate the voters trust. Yeah right.

Then in in the first of the 60s we had the Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV) which consisted of a limited number of advisors to the South Vietnamese. Yeah right again. In addition to MACV there were a lot of people from all our service branches workin there. With , once more, losses that went unrecognized by the public.

Whether out of fear of pissing off the Russians or due to pressure from the one worlders; we seemed determined to do all we could except win that conflict.

During that conflict I could see no influence by the Vice Presidents on domestic or international affairs. Maby I was too close, by the end of 62 I had spent 44 months in the area. Went back for 6 months more in 66. Monkey and football comes to mind.

After watchin our Kommander in heat through two terms I think the president's wife has more power than the elected vice president. Would really like to see Keyes get the vp spot and prove me wrong.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
Consider this scenario. Bush has won the White House. Congress is running a gun control bill through the committees. A good president will twist arms and try to derail the legislation.

He gets input from his advisors. Some are RKBA types, some are neutral (you know the type) and some feel that if the president doesn't sign the bill it will go hard on Republicans for the mid-term elections.

The president gets input from those in the room, including his VP. Now, who do you want the VP to be? Governor Pataki? Governor Ridge? Or someone like Alan Keyes, or the Governor of Oklahoma, or ...

Yeah, it matters.

Rick
 
Does the VP matter? Well, of course they can! For one thing, the VP stands a significant chance of becoming President, either because the President died or resigned, or because he runs to succeed him. If, for instance, Ronald Reagan hadn't chosen Bush to "ballance the ticket", and instead had picked another conservative, this whole attack on "assault weapons" which got started on Bush senior's watch might never have happened.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
For about 25% of the Presidencies the VP made a big difference. 10 out of 42 times the VP had to assume the office. That is a significant number and so the pres. candidate should take the time to make a good choice.

Don't forget the 20 year rule. Starting with Harrison, elected in 1840, the president has died in office every 20 years, and usually violently. The "curse" was broken by Reagan, but he came awfully close when he was shot by Hinckley. Let's see, what year is this? 2000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top