Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by 3 to be 4, Sep 30, 2006.
He's smart enough to know that 2008 is too soon.
Wouldn't mind seeing him as a running mate. Just not sure who the candidate would be.
I think he's confident enough in his own abilities to not be someone else's pawn to secure the black vote and the white liberal guilt vote.
That wasn't my thought pattern. I was thinking more in terms of him being a little too inexperienced for the Presidency, but if he had a role as VP, it would be a good move for him and the country.
I think it is premature to consider him for this office, he seems to be future viable candidate, but needs to create some name appeal before he runs for a higher office.
Why..? The VP does nothing. His sole purpose is to balance the ticket and help the Presidential nominee win the election.
WTF are you talking about? The VP's role is determined by the President. Johnson had a small role as VP in JFK's administration except for funerals and voting in a Senate tie. On the other hand, Dickk Cheney? Are you going to seriously state that Cheney's role in this administration is minuscule?
Technically QuiGon is right. The VP has ZERO power as an official. Realistically however, being a VP does put you in the loop. The public tends to view the VP as the second man in charge, thus building a sense of responsibility for the position. I think VP's tend to project well toward the less informed portion of the public. Being Governor of Illinois would be a better stepping stone to a presidential run for Obama, as gov's do far better than Senators historically in presidential elections, but a tenure as VP might be good enough. 2008 woud be a mistake for Obama, just as it was a mistake for Edwards. I think Edwards is toast as a presidential reality. I think the more you run and loose, the more of a retread you are viewed as in the publics eyes. Edwards would serve himself well if he bypassed 2008, and concentrated on a later election. He's young enough to do so. Obama would be served well to do the same. Obama is an excellent speaker. I do enjoy listening to him articulate, but I'm not sure he has enough substance to be president. Speaking alone is not enough. GW has proved that in sense since he can't speak at all. Ultimately you need to have some solid policy positions to win. That, or favorable circumstances.
Dick Cheney has way too much power, period. We may never know exactly how much power he has, but wielded it to the detriment of our country. A Obama needs to stay as far away from the Illinois Governor's office as he can. The last Gov. (R, Ryan) is about to serve time for his corrupt behavior. The current Gov.(D, Blagojevich) might escape prosecution, but he is also dirty. Mayor Daley and his machine is dirty, and there have been a number of Illinois congressmen convicted of corruption in recent years. No, he needs to stay in the Senate or run as the VP candidate.
Dick Cheney has alot of influence maybe, but he has ZERO authority. There is a big difference, albeit legally, between the two. Cheney is a bit too Cold War for my taste. I think GW has allowed too many dinosaurs hijack foreign recent policies. They think that this is Cold War redux, it's not. The Cold War will prove easy compared to TWAT.
As for Obama, I disagree. If Illinois politics, especially the governorship, is/has been as corrupt as you say, then it would serve him well to run, win, and clean up all that's gone wrong. What would be better for his political career than that? He'd then be a governor & senator, and would be highly qualified to become a president. Remember, it's not the office that is corrupt, it's the person.
BTW, did you know that of the 43 president in US history, only 15 were Senators, of those 15, seven had served as governors also. That means that there were only 8 Senator only politicians who served as President.
Uhuh. Wow. Dick Cheney does nothing. Okay! OMFG.
Dick Cheney has serious influence, but he his position holds virtually zero legal authority.
vice-president of the United States
The vice-presidency of the United States is one of the two positions in the government of the United States that is filled in an election open to all eligible voters in every state and the District of Columbia. The vice-president is the second highest ranking officer in the executive branch of the federal government, beneath only the president of the United States. Both serve concurrent 4-year terms. The constitutional duties of the vice-president are relatively unimportant, however, and traditionally vice-presidents have had little influence on public affairs. The Founding Fathers who wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787 provided that all of the "executive power" would rest in the hands of the president. Almost as an afterthought, they created the office of vice-president in order to provide for a successor should the president die or resign.
The significance of the office relates almost entirely to the fact that the vice-president succeeds to the presidency if the president dies, resigns, or is removed from office through the impeachment process. Altogether, eight presidents have died in office, and one has resigned. With the adoption in 1967 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it is also possible for the vice-president to assume the duties of the presidency if the president becomes disabled.
President of the Senate
The vice-president is assigned only one responsibility by the Constitution, and that is in the legislative branch, not the executive branch. The vice-president is designated as the presiding officer of the Senate of the United States and has the additional responsibility of casting a tie-breaking vote whenever the votes of the senators are evenly divided on any roll call.
The vice-president's role as president of the Senate has not proved to be significant. The rules of parliamentary procedure adopted by the Senate provide little opportunity for the presiding officer to affect the course of the deliberations or to exercise political influence. By custom, the vice-president does not speak except to issue rulings, and the members of the Senate generally discourage the vice-president from lobbying in the Senate chamber in support of a bill favored by the administration. Behind the scenes, however, some vice-presidents, particularly those who have previously served in the Senate, have been effective in winning votes for bills favored by the administration and in explaining administration policies to the members of the Senate and House of Representatives. In practice, the vice-president does not preside over the Senate with any frequency, except for ceremonial occasions. The duty is usually delegated to a junior member of the Senate.
The responsibility for casting tie-breaking votes is not a great one. First, if a vote on a measure has ended in a tie, it is regarded as defeated, and a negative vote by the vice-president would be superfluous. Thus, only if the vice-president favors a particular measure and casts an affirmative vote can the tie-breaking vote prove decisive. Second, tie votes do not occur often. For example, Richard Nixon cast only eight votes during eight years as vice-president. The growth in the size of the Senate has reduced the statistical likelihood that tie votes will occur. Furthermore, most issues are negotiated in advance among influential members of the Senate, so that a clear majority for or against a particular bill is usually formed before the actual vote is taken.
Separate names with a comma.