Who should Kerry's running mate be?

Shadow WarChief · Post by **Shadow WarChief** » 2004-04-25 01:59pm

Which running mate would offer Kerry the best chance of success of getting your vote and who would offer him the best chance of getting the majority's vote?

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-04-25 02:35pm

Shadow WarChief wrote:Which running mate would offer Kerry the best chance of success of getting your vote and who would offer him the best chance of getting the majority's vote?

In today's America, with its growing respect of military service and religious Piety, maybe Liebermann?

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-04-25 03:35pm

Clark.

Middleclass · Post by **Middleclass** » 2004-04-25 03:49pm

It'll never, ever happen, but I good deal of Republicans that I know said they would switch if Kerry somehow got McCain as a running mate.

Other than him, personal bias favors Stephen E. Landsburg. That is the coolest man on earth.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2004-04-25 04:10pm

Heh, a bipartisan administration hasn't been seen since Adams. That'd be kinda interesting.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2004-04-25 04:50pm

Jesse Ventura!

No, seriously... Kerry's too much of a cold fish to really be able to reach out to people. He's rich, he's Bostonian (which is practically a separate class of American), he's Yankee, and he looks like an ol' hound dog shaved and standin' on two legs.

He needs someone who can reach out to the people, who they can really appreciate-- and The Body'd be perfect for that! After all, if he could get elected Governor of Minnesota... it's not called the "Show Me State" for nothin' after all!

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2004-04-25 05:10pm

Evan Bayh. He's an enormously popular democratic senator in Indiana, which is by and large a conservative state. He's also known to be a moderate as well, which would help Kerry IMO.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-25 05:11pm

Me, muahhaha and I shall promote my "kill them all" initative.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-26 01:24am

Natorgator wrote:Evan Bayh. He's an enormously popular democratic senator in Indiana, which is by and large a conservative state. He's also known to be a moderate as well, which would help Kerry IMO.

The problem is that Kerry is known to be the antithesis of conservative.
Even with Bayh on the ticket, Kerry would lose Indiana (the last time we went Dem. was in 1964) and Bayh wouldn't he a big draw in other areas as he's not that well known in the rest of the country.

What Kerry should do is pick the governor of a large state outside of New England in order to both provide the 'regional balance' that used to be prized and corral the 'favorite son' electoral vote of that state.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-04-26 01:27am

In today's America, with its growing respect of military service and religious Piety, maybe Liebermann?

Do that and you lose Califorina, or at the very least, much of Holllywood's and The Tech sectors support as every time Libby gets any press time he normal is trying to drum up support for his overturning of the Free Spreech Right

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-26 02:19am

Bill Clinton might be an interesting choice.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-04-26 04:40am

The Kernel wrote:Bill Clinton might be an interesting choice.

Lucky for us its impossible as the Vice President must fufill all the same requriments as the President, which he does not(That can't serve 3+ terms one)

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-26 05:53am

Mr Bean wrote:
The Kernel wrote:Bill Clinton might be an interesting choice.
Lucky for us its impossible as the Vice President must fufill all the same requriments as the President, which he does not(That can't serve 3+ terms one)

No, actually the Twenty-Second Amendment only states that a person can't elected for president for more than two terms. It says nothing about a person assuming presidential authority in the result of incapacitation. Have a look:

XXII Amendment wrote:No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

KhyronTheBackstabber · Post by **KhyronTheBackstabber** » 2004-04-26 06:41am

Elheru Aran wrote:Jesse Ventura!

No, seriously... Kerry's too much of a cold fish to really be able to reach out to people. He's rich, he's Bostonian (which is practically a separate class of American), he's Yankee, and he looks like an ol' hound dog shaved and standin' on two legs.

He needs someone who can reach out to the people, who they can really appreciate-- and The Body'd be perfect for that! After all, if he could get elected Governor of Minnesota... it's not called the "Show Me State" for nothin' after all!

I'd vote for him. As a matter of fact at Wrestlmania Ventura was there, and he said "Maybe in 2008, it's time we put a wrestler in the White House." Frankly, given our picks for this election, I wish he was running now.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-04-26 11:33am

The Kernel wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:
The Kernel wrote:Bill Clinton might be an interesting choice.
Lucky for us its impossible as the Vice President must fufill all the same requriments as the President, which he does not(That can't serve 3+ terms one)
No, actually the Twenty-Second Amendment only states that a person can't elected for president for more than two terms. It says nothing about a person assuming presidential authority in the result of incapacitation. Have a look:

XXII Amendment wrote:No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

The amendment pretty clearly says that you can't serve more then two terms plus two years for a total of ten and can't be placed in a position in which that would be exceded. Clinton has served 8 years already, he cannot be Vice President.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-26 11:51am

Sea Skimmer wrote: The amendment pretty clearly says that you can't serve more then two terms plus two years for a total of ten and can't be placed in a position in which that would be exceded. Clinton has served 8 years already, he cannot be Vice President.

I see nothing that says that at all. It says that a person cannot be elected to more than two terms (or one if they have served half of an appointed term), but it says nothing about appointments.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-04-26 11:51am

The amendment pretty clearly says that you can't serve more then two terms plus two years for a total of ten and can't be placed in a position in which that would be exceded. Clinton has served 8 years already, he cannot be Vice President.

I suggest you read the Amendment carefully. There is nothing that states a person cannot be elected Vice-President after serving two Presidental terms; the clause refers to the office of the President, not the Vice-President.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice,

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-26 12:09pm

But the 12th amendment would appear to forbid him.

12th Amendment wrote:Amendment XII

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

The argument could be made that since Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to be elected President again, he's also ineligible to be Vice President because of the 12th's prohibition.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-26 12:11pm

Forgot to add:

The case for either side of the issue isn't clear cut and likely would be have to be settled by the Supreme Court, and that complication alone would likely deter Kerry or any other Democrat from naming Clinton.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-26 12:16pm

Glocksman wrote: The argument could be made that since Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to be elected President again, he's also ineligible to be Vice President because of the 12th's prohibition.

But he's NOT ineligable for the office of President. He's ineligable to be elected to the office of president. If he was appointed to that office (in the case of the incapacitation or death of the President) then he won't have been elected, thus it meets with the criteria of both the XXII and the XII amendments.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-26 12:30pm

The Kernel wrote:
Glocksman wrote: The argument could be made that since Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to be elected President again, he's also ineligible to be Vice President because of the 12th's prohibition.
But he's NOT ineligable for the office of President. He's ineligable to be elected to the office of president. If he was appointed to that office (in the case of the incapacitation or death of the President) then he won't have been elected, thus it meets with the criteria of both the XXII and the XII amendments.

It does in modern language, but what about the language usage of 1804, when the 12th was written?

Eugene Volokh (UCLA Law Professor) has this to say on the subject of 'eligible' vs. 'elected':

This isn't an open-and-shut argument: The real original meaning question is how the word was actually used in legal sources around 1804, when the amendment was enacted, and dictionary definitions, especially from 1913, are only a first cut at this. Still, I do think that this evidence supports the Clinton-isn't-eligible view; and I suspect that in 1804 legal parlance, "eligible" really did mean pretty much what it does in that definition. But I leave it to others to do more exhaustive research.

There are other law professors who disagree with Prof. Volokh, such as Stephen Gillers, so this isn't a settled issue by any means.

I don't have a firm opinion on this either way because I'm not knowledgeable enough on this aspect of the Constitution and the circumstances of the 12th's adoption to have an informed opinion, but it would appear to be ambigious to the point of requiring a SCOTUS ruling on his eligibility considering we are talking about the Presidency and the last thing we need as a country is something happening to Kerry (if he's elected) and then the legitimacy of the VP's acension to office being seriously questioned.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-26 12:39pm

Forgot to add: The 1913 definition he's referring to is a point someone made about 'eligible' and 'electable' both sharing the same latin root.

Re "eligible," note that it is in fact synonymous with "electable": the two terms are derived from the same Latin verb. Lexicography confirms this sense, as in the 1913 Webster's definition: "1. That may be selected; proper or qualified to be chosen; legally qualified to be elected and to hold office."

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-04-26 01:22pm

And either way, it really doesn't matter whether Clinton could legally serve as Vice-President or not since the controversy alone would harm the Kerry campaign. Kerry's smart enough to avoid having a massive controversy like that in the middle of his campaign and so Kerry-Clinton '04 is unlikely to ever happen outside of daydreams and what ifs.

Not to mention, the simple fact that no President is going to want an ex-President hanging around as part of their administration.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-04-26 01:30pm

As for my personal hope, I'd like to see John Edwards as Kerry's running mate. I'd feel a lot better about voting for Kerry with him as a running mate than I do now.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-04-26 02:02pm

The Kernel wrote:
Glocksman wrote:The argument could be made that since Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to be elected President again, he's also ineligible to be Vice President because of the 12th's prohibition.
But he's NOT ineligable for the office of President. He's ineligable to be elected to the office of president. If he was appointed to that office (in the case of the incapacitation or death of the President) then he won't have been elected, thus it meets with the criteria of both the XXII and the XII amendments.

That's not the point. In order to be serve as president, there are certain requirements you have to meet. You must meet those same requirements to serve as vice president. One of those requirements is that you must not have served two terms as president already.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Who should Kerry's running mate be?

Who should Kerry's running mate be?

Re: Who should Kerry's running mate be?