How Important is the Vice President?

Do you all remember Loyd Benson of Texas? He was a darn good vice presidential candidate, and he trounced Quayle during the debates. Jack Kemp was a good Vice Presidential Candidate on the other side. In neither case did that transalate into too many votes.

The conditions might be different this time, however. President Bush and President Cheney are much closer and appear much closer than most previous President/Vice President Combos. Attacking Vice President Cheney, particularly as a symbol for the failures of this administration (the secrecy, cushy deals with big business, the sneering), might substantially hurt President Bush's reelection chances.

So what's your take; how important is our vice presidential nominee? (although smart money says we won't know who he or she is for a little while; the interest in who Kerry picks translates into interest in the Kerry Campaign).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

The shrub is banking on his "wartime president" status to win this election. He's tough on terrorism...:eyes:....he's protecting the American citizens....:eyes:.....He caught Saddam....:eyes: KKKRove has already started in on Kerry being soft on terrorism. The VP that Kerry chooses will HAVE to have experience in foreign policy. He will HAVE to have experience in defense. Those are THE issues of 2004.

Who has 35 years of military experience? Who commanded 19 countries in Europe? Who has spent a lot of time in the Pentagon and knows the ins and outs of our defense dept.? Wesley Kanne Clark.....that's who. THIS 2004 VP has to be an experienced military man if we want the shrub out of Al Gore's WH. Kerry may have some foreign policy experience, but KKKRove will use his Senate record and all of his votes against him. He will pick and choose votes, show them out of context and Kerry's experience will be minimized by Rove....guaranteed and the sheeple will listen to ONLY the daily TV soundbites and believe everything they hear. They couldn't begin to do that to Wes Clark. Kerry needs him on the ticket.

...wiping the floor with Cheney will be a most beautiful sight!

More voters choose jobs and the economy as the more important issue than national security. Besides, unless the current questions about the Bush Administration's handling of terrorism continue to blow up in the White House's face, I think most national security voters will end up choosing Bush. While I think Wesley Clark makes as strong a national security ticket as you could have in the current field of contenders, I'm not so sure that's what we should aim for. We could choose Edwards and send him to Ohio and Pennsylvania and West Virginia to trumpet our economic message, and that might do us more good than trying to win people over on Clark.

For one thing, if the running mate is another pro war, pro PNAC, pro corporatist DLC sellout, Kerry is going to lose a lot of votes. That's a reality that y'all better face right now.

Second - and this is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about - is the issue of Kerry's health. Any doctor on earth will tell you that you aren't officially cured of cancer until you have been clean for 5 years, which means Kerry would be at risk for his entire 4 year term. He could survive the entire 4 years with no problems, but then again he may not. And in the event he does not, then the man or woman (NOT Hillary!) sitting in that #2 chair should be fully prepared and able to assume the duties of the Presidency.

Kerry is smart enough to know that whoever he picks is literally a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, and will choose accordingly.

Too often people get caught up in which person can bring what states as the running mate.
While this is very important in an election year where the nation is practically split down the middle, it's not as important as remembering that the vice president should be able to step into the president's shoes at a moment's notice.
Think about it - weren't you scared off your gourd when Quayle was Veep thinking that idiot might have to take over if Bushh 41 kept puking under that table in the far East? ;)

I was too young to vote in '88, but yes, I would have been appalled. Sen. Kerry will choose a competent running mate who will be able to instantly 'fill his shoes', should that sad neccessity arise. I'm equally sure that Sen. Kerry knows more about the people being suggested as running mates than all of us combined, do, and I will therefore trust his judgment on the matter.

I mean, you really need someone to attend the funerals.

Lieberman almost pulled out Florida. That's why he was picked and he spent most of his time there. He also was picked to thwart the morality attacks against Dems which he failed at.

Gore scored in the debates and brought Tennessee. More important, he gave Clinton cover for some of the morality attacks. Gore was an attack dog and allowed Clinton to play nice while Gore attacked.

Bush 1 did the same thing. He was the mean one, the connected one, while Reagan played good ole boy that voters like. Sort of the same roll for Cheney. He was the smart insider. Voters could take a risk on the frat boy because this long time insider would make sure that nothing too crazy would happen. Bush was the funny, nice guy while Cheney was the attack man who knew about government.

Kerry has to pick an attack dog. Kerry has a personality that wants to take on the ruling powers. (I like that) He needs a surragate to take on that roll so he can just play above the frey. He needs a VP who doesn't hold punches so that Kerry can seem statemanlike. I think Lieberman failed because he played nice which made Gore attack.

Well, I'm biased. I think Clark is the best choice.

It's now widely accepted that the VP is in-training for the presidency.

Al Gore was a hellified working VP, one of the best. I regret to say that Cheney is also doing a lot, too, but in his case, it's about being a puppeteer.

The average voter wants to be comfortable with the VP choice -- he's a heartbeat away, and he can round out and compliment the Presidential candidate in a way that's pleasing and reassuring to the voter.

John Nance Garner, who occupied the office under President Roosevelt in the 1930s, famously described it as "not worth a warm bucket of spit."

One of the few things I remember from my long ago class in US History... :evilgrin:

The 1st decision the candidate makes is Veep choice, therefore it sends a message to the country about what kind of President he will be.

I don't think a good Veep can save a candidacy, ex:Dukakis/Bentsen, however in this close a race, it could be the deciding factor.

When an incumbent is running for reelection, you have to give the voters a reason to throw the bums out.

A majority of voters are dissatisfied with Bush's domestic policies, yet they trust him on nat'l security.

I believe Kerry needs to demonstrate that not only will he be better on domestic issues, but you can trust him on nat'l security.

Therefore I believe the Veep MUST have strong nat'l security credentials. That's why I support Clark.