A better way to pick a VP

[unhappycamper]

A better way to pick a VP
By David D'Alessandro | September 17, 2007


PRESIDENT CHENEY. If that possibility doesn't send a chill up your spine, how would you have felt about President Agnew or President Quayle?

The reason you may be feeling uncomfortable is quite simple. We never really elected those guys. We elected as president the guy who picked them as running mates because he calculated it would help him win the top job - not because they were necessarily ready to be president.

As a businessperson, I have always been fascinated with how Congress and the rest of the government are always telling businesses what to do - or not do. And, in the wake of Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, etc., maybe they should. Public and private companies are spending considerable efforts in succession planning in the event the CEO "gets hit by a truck," goes to jail, or just retires early.

The irony, of course, is that these are only business CEO jobs. When it comes to who might inherit the "most powerful job on earth," the US presidency, we the public pay little attention how the "heartbeat away" job is decided. If a major corporation were as derelict as Congress has been in succession planning, some enterprising US attorney would seek indictments.

~snip~

If vice presidents were that good, that qualified, how come only five have ever been elected president in their own right?

~snip~

I suspect if Cheney had had to actually go through such a thorough process, he would not be vice president.


Rest of this really good article at: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/17/a_better_way_to_pick_a_vp/

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Originally, the VP was the President's chiefest rival

Look at the Constitution as it was ratified by the Founders. The whole purpose of the Vice Presidency was to give positions of power to the two main choices for Chief Executive, with the runner-up becoming Chief Legislator (ie President of the Senate) as a consolation prize. The President and Vice President are supposed to be at logger-heads with one another, not co-conspirators.

But try to tell that to the "strict constructionists".... :eyes:

[eppur_se_muova]

2. The obvious catch is the temptation to disable the President ...

that was the justification for the change. Imagine a Dem pres and a Repug VP. Don't you think some RWA like Pat Robertson or Michael Savage would be quick to call for someone to "take out" the Dem ?? And don't you think someone like DDDDDick Cheney would put the plan into action?