Until one of them becomes president, the most important and public decision John McCain and Barack Obama will make is their choice of a running mate. It's clear to me that the parties go about choosing a vice president very differently. Let me explain.
The Democrats tend to follow the traditional route. They ask the expected questions of their potential running mates and usually choose the person who answers most of them the best: Who is prepared to serve if something happens to the President? Who 'balances' the ticket in terms of policy and geography? Who swings a 'swing state' in our direction? Essentially, who is the perfect complement to our candidate? Nothing surprising here -- this is how most of us expect the process to unfold.
Yet, the Republicans seem to have a very different methodology. Arguably, the last Republican presidential candidate to choose a 'competent' running mate (and I am being generous here), was Ronald Reagan when he chose Papa Bush. Now that he has died and been officially sainted, most people have forgotten that when Reagan was first elected he was a very divisive figure who stirred intense feelings from supporters and detractors alike.
So what happened? Just 69 days into his presidency there was a failed assassination attempt on Reagan. But for the heroic efforts of the Secret Service and a quick trip to the hospital, George Bush would have been president for nearly a full term. Instead, Al Haig was in charge -- at least in his mind -- Reagan recovered, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Before that, Gerald Ford also picked someone with appropriate experience and likability -- Nelson Rockefeller. Even though he didn't serve a full term, twice, assassins tried unsuccessfully to take out Ford. If they had succeeded, it would have been oysters Rockefeller all around.
There are a great many things to criticize our Republican friends for, but one thing I've noticed -- when something doesn't go their way, they learn how to fix it and adjust accordingly.
For the answer to this problem, they only had to look back as far as Richard Nixon, who despite being one of the most despised figures in American political history, was never the target of an assassination attempt. Why was that? Because, he had the infinite wisdom to choose someone who was even more despised than he was. In fact, as a teenager, I remember seeing anti-Nixon, anti-war rallies on television with protesters carrying signs proclaiming, "Shoot Spiro First."
The first President Bush learned his lesson. His vice presidential pick was almost a taunt. Can't you just hear him thinking, "Go ahead -- take me out -- Dan Quayle will be your president. Ha Ha, joke's on you."
In between, Bill Clinton did it the Democratic way -- he chose quality. And while no one pulled a gun on him, he was subjected to his share of potshots and but for a few votes in the Senate, Al Gore would have been humming, "Hail to the Chief." Perhaps if Clinton had chosen someone more loathsome, the impeachment proceedings would have never happened.
When it came time for Bush II and Gore to make their choices -- they stuck to their party themes. Gore chose the seasoned, but at the time non-threatening, Joe Lieberman, while Bush looked to his father's example and chose the meanest, most divisive SOB he could find. Despite the highest disapproval ratings ever recorded, he has remained unscathed. Thank you Dick Cheney.
What does all this mean for 2008? Barack Obama is going to be safe and smart. Look for him to choose a Senator with impeccable foreign policy credentials, a Governor of a swing state, or some other appropriate, quality choice.
What about John McCain? Hey, McCain's been shot at before and I don't think he looks forward to that happening again. So, if he is any student of history, look for a graduate of the Karl Rove Charm School on the ticket. McCain/Rumsfield anyone?
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
So this is suppose to funny, right?
So no attempts were made on the lives of bush 41, 43 and Nixon because of unpopulare vps?
Balderdash!!
Assasination isn't a political strategy. By your logic, Hinkley would have let the whole Jodie Foster thing slide if only Reagan had a less likable VP.
I'm hopeful Obama will ignore the conventional wisdom and choose a different sort of running mate. However, I think you're wrong about the security angle of having a candidate who protects his President. Instead, I think Republicans have been successful with VP candidates who make their Presidents look good for other reasons.
Next to Dan Quayle, Bush Sr. looked like a giant, instead of the insignificant gnat he was made to seem by Reagan. Bush needed the contrast.
In the cases of Agnew and Cheney, their fierceness against opponents helped protect the base, leaving their running mates free to tack toward the center. Nixon ran as a peace candidate, for crying out loud. And, remember GWB's "compassionate conservatism?"
I hope Obama won't pick someone just to bring votes, but someone who will make for a good tag team. With rare exceptions (Johnson helping to take Texas and much of the South), VPs don't bring votes. What the best bring is a better overall campaign.
I'd like to see a true blue liberal. No blue dogs like Webb for "balance." And no old guard figures for gravitas or just because they could carry a state. They can't carry a state and if they have enough gravitas, they'd make Obama appear even more youthful and inexperienced (see Dukakis//Bentsen).
Now, who would make Barack Obama look better? Did I hear anyone mention Dennis Kucinich? He could convincingly carry the liberal banner while making Obama at least look really, really tall.
It will be either McCain/Lieberman or McCain/Rice (as in Condi Rice.)
My money is on McCain/Rice.
Hell, even though she is the current Secretary of State, she could drop everything and begin campaingning and NO ONE WOULD NOTICE. That is how useless she is in her current capacity.
Also, the Republicans would be perfectly happy to sacrifice her to the biggest election debacle in the history of the party.
Putting her on the ticket will not be much of a help. She is as useless as shrubie is and does not even know how to think for herself. Cheney has been pulling her strings too.
What do I know? But it looks to me to be wildly unlikely that Rice will be offered the vice presidential slot. I see the trial balloons about the possibility of her getting the nomination as being released for some kind of political purpose that has nothing to do with her actually being offered the Republican vice presidential slot.
But as unlikely as it is that Rice will be on the ticket it is even more unlikely that it will be Lieberman. People around here tend to see Lieberman as some sort of quasi Republican either because of his views about the Iraq war or because they see him as a conniving snake. Neither one of those things actually makes him a Republican and McCain is in no position to put him on the ticket for that reason alone. But Lieberman's acceptance of Hagee and his hyper hawk middle east views would move the ticket too far into wacko land for McCain.
Do we actually need a Vice-President? What is this Office good for?
If the Office of the President needs replacement, we have the entire cabinet and the Senate to choose the next President.
Since you asked, the Office is good for being the President of the Senate and the ability of casting the deciding vote in case of a 50/50 split. Like when the Republican"s wanted to cut 70 Billion from Medicare, Medicaid, After School programs, housing for the homeless, student loans etc, all the Dems and a few GOP members voted not to cut the funding¦ Cheney came in and cast the deciding vote, and the entitlements were cut.
Then of course the Republicans gave 70 billion in tax breaks. The average middle class person making $38,000 a year got $12 (yes that"s 12 bucks) but if you made 1 million dollars you got $4000.
Yup, being VP has it"s perks!
Anthony
http://www.manualfordemocracy.com/
The Democratic party is in a similar position with choosing a Veep as they were in choosing a Presidential nominee; too many great candidates.
On the other side, I cannot imagine anyone who would be willing to be McCain's veep who would do him any good. What major GOP player has not been discredited in the last 7+ years?
I am hoping for a near 50 state sweep, with both houses of Congress going Democratic as well, and then some changes that we desperately need can get passed.
It's much like the respective original candidate fields in the first place. The Democrats have an All Of The Above problem and the Republicans have a None Of The Above problem.
If you look back at history this theory on VP choices is why Andrew Johnson wasn't convicted by the Senate during his impeachment trial.
Since at the time the VP was vacant and the line succession was different, the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate would have succeeded into The Office of President.
That man was Senator Benjamin Wade who was as a controversial and polarizing figure as Dick Cheney is now. No one wanted him as President, so some moderate Senators are thought to have voted for Johnson's acquittal.
I'd love to see Obama win while taking a page from the Republicans. He should pick Al Sharpton or Barbara Lee. More than anything else, they would both keep the hard core nut job racists from taking a shot at him.
And really, how cool would it be to see Al Sharpton presiding over the Senate!
Al Sharpton? Then eve ->I
Al Sharpton even I would vote for McCain if that heppened. Ewwwwwww!
I find this crazy theory bizarre...choosing someone based on whether they would be easy targets for assassins? I mean, come on, the Repubs do many things, but this idea is sheer lunacy...
BTW: Al Sharpton gets trashed alot...in many ways, I like him more than Obama, chiefly because he doesn't try to pander the way I think Obama is to voters...by not discussing issues affecting the African American community, he will appear not to be the "black" candidate...I do not get this cockamamie logic...
That's because it's tongue-in-cheek.
Obama will pick the best VP for him. My guess is it will be a white male for ticket balancing. The US is not ready for a woman and a black [bi-racial] on the same ticket. We need time. Personally, I like Jim Webb, but whoever Obama picks will be the right VP for him and we will support that ticket in November.
Independent for Barack Obama '08
Oh, absolutely. With Al Sharpton on the ticket, how could he possibly lose?
"For the answer to this problem, they only had to look back as far as Richard Nixon, who despite being one of the most despised figures in American political history, was never the target of an assassination attempt."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Byck
I suspect Lieberman's itching to get the second spot on the McCain ticket, and if that happens they'll try to sell it as bi-partisanship, reaching across the aisle, etc.
But enough about that.
When was the last assassination that was helpful to the left instead of to the right?
Wasn't King or RFK, obviously, and even the wounding of Wallace in '72 was enough to keep him from taking as many votes away from Nixon as he might have otherwise.
No, I am not advocating the assassination of anyone by anyone for any reason.
The wounding of Wallace, as horrible as it was, heas helpful to the left because Wallace was on the way to getting the '72 nomination. I know that lots of people here wistfully look back to what might have been in an RFK presidency, but imagine George Wallace getting the 1972 Democratic nomination and where the left would be then?
Scary, huh?
Why do you think Republicans love the gun lobby?
The theory is illogical that Bragman proposes...just nuts.
It's ironic that in four years, Joe Lieberman has gone from "safe" to "sorry". If John McCain selected him as running mate, he'd have fit both parties' modes in two different elections.
Hmmm, ya never heard who Gore's running mate was, didja? Talk about yer "bottom of the barrel" VP choices.
I give up? Dan Quayle?
Your commentary was quite accurate, I came to that conclusion quite some time ago. It is perhaps why no impeachment proceedings were initiated after the Democrats took control of Congress two years ago. Had they been successful, we would now be sitting through a Chaney administration whilst witnessing the occurrence of a second impeachment. Thus it would be better for us to wait until after Washington"s spring cleaning in 2009.
If the Democrats pick such quality vp candidates how come they have only won the White House twice in almost 40 years? Maybe the should take a harder look at their Presidental candidates.
If Republicans weren't afraid to count the votes in Florida (that is to say, if Republicans weren't afraid of democracy), then the Democrats would have had their 4th and 5th win in 40 years (because Republicans can't count... Jimmy Carter).
Leper
--The Republican Party's New Motto: "It's not our fault."
I wouldn't go there after the Michigan and Florida debacle...
Cheney skews the theory a bit: he headed the VP selection committee that selected him.
Dan Quayle is a great man, and the word is that he's on Obama's shortlist for VP. All he has to do is spell potato. That'll keep hope alive.
Loading comments…
Posted June 8, 2008 | 04:10 PM (EST)