Cheney changed the face of the VEEP slot. What should Dems do with this in 08?

[Stinky The Clown]

First off, this is NOT a thread to bash Cheney. We're all excellent at doing that (cuz its so damned easy), but please, not here. I am making this post with more seriousness than that.

Cheney turned the VP slot into a serious policy-making position. Tales of his being a co-president, as we all know, are not in the least overblown. And many people see that as a good thing. Of course, it is nigh onto impossible for us to see anything as being good through the evil that is The Dick.

Anyway, my question is, what do you think Democrats ought to do with this remade vice presidency. In the past, VPs have been chosen for some notion of ticket balance ..... or strategy ..... or to attract some particular voting bloc. But never has a VP candidate been selected primarily for policy acumen.

Might doing so be a benefit?

Should the Dems walk down this path?

Again, because Cheney used the role for pure evil is no reason to throw out the whole notion of a meaningful vice presidency.

Please weigh in.

[Ilsa]

1. Kucinich for VP. I think I'd like alot of his policies regarding

labor and healthcare. Whichever Democrat wins the nom and election will have foreign policy top on his/her list. You get my drift, though, of having a VP mostly oversseing certain domestic issues.

[Maribelle]

2. I don't know if even another republican president would allow this abuse.

And I feel pretty sure once Bush won the republican nomination, the machinations of the devil were firmly planted.

With the abject failure of the neocon political philosophy, they are left with only attempting to paint Bush's legacy with a fake-gold filigree, with Rove's and Cheney's able assistance.

Future presidents, be they republican or democrat, will seriously throttle back on this abuse of the executive branch.

However, should the role of Vice President be deemed necessary to be a more powerful position for benefit of the nation, the responsibilities of the VP should be clearly defined in the Constitution. Once that is accomplished, then the VP should be nominated and voted on separately from the President, I would think.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I like you final paragraph's suggestion .... but .....

.... is it not also true that the president can delegate parts of his job, so long as he is the final one on the hook?

I think Chimpolini giving all that power to Cheney was legal. Where the evil came in is what he and Cheney did with it.

My quesiton still stands ..... do you think we should pursue this or let it go?

[NoFederales]

3. Little is being said by Dems or supporters of the "remaking" or "undoing"

of so many of the * Administration's policies. It's hard to know whether there is secret salivations going on, anticpating the new Executive Pandora Toolbox, or just too damned afraid of answering tough questions on how a Candidate would deal with the subject.

I think these types of questions should be part of the National Debate forum. The American Public, I hope, should be awakening to the power stranglehold that politicians crave, and should be demanding a return to the system of checks and balances, to the return of the rule of law.

Which Candidate would come out to renounce the "remaking" of * policies? I'll stand by such a one.

NoFederales