McCain's VP:

At the moment, Palin is getting much more coverage than McCain, and way more coverage than Biden (in terms of the amount of time devoted to discussing her). If anyone should be crying, "Foul!" it's Biden.

The Sarah Palin Selection: Why McCain's Inexperienced Running Mate Falls Short of Meeting the Implicit Constitutional Qualifications For Vice Presidents
(By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw.com Commentary, September 05, 2008)

In truth, the Vice President of the United States is important for only one reason: He or she will become President of the United States upon the death, incapacity or resignation of the President. Nine times in our history, vice presidents have succeeded to the presidency: John Tyler (1841), Millard Fillmore (1850), Andrew Johnson (1865), Chester A. Arthur (1881), Theodore Roosevelt (1901), Calvin Coolidge (1923), Harry Truman (1945), Lyndon Johnson (1963), and Gerald Ford (1974). Of course, the vice president also has a significant secondary role: It is he or she, acting with a majority of the Cabinet, who can declare the president incapable of carrying out the duties of the office, and then take charge - until the action is either ratified or rejected by a majority of the Congress. So far in our history, however, this has never occurred.

Given the fact that the 2008 GOP standard-bearer John McCain is seventy-two years of age, his selection of an inexperienced Vice Presidential running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, has again focused attention on the process and procedures for selecting vice presidents - or, to put it more bluntly, the utter lack of process or procedures in selecting the person who is a heartbeat away from the presidency. McCain, not unlike others before him, selected a less than fully vetted running mate for political reasons. That is surely a concern for voters to think over in the upcoming election - but it raises a systemic concern, too, for the long run.

Consider this parallel: Does anyone believe that if John McCain were president and had selected Governor Sarah Palin under the Twenty-fifty Amendment to fill a vacancy in the vice presidency, Congress would have confirmed her? Not likely. In fact, it is even less likely that McCain would have even attempted to do so, for he would have embarrassed himself.

While the Constitution does not expressly set forth qualifications for the vice-presidency, it strongly implies them --- and Palin falls short.

Our founders gave little thought to the vice presidential selection process. Initially, the candidate who placed second in Electoral College votes became vice president. While this worked for the first three presidential elections, the election of 1800 produced a tie in the Electoral College, between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (both of the same party), and although Burr was the announced candidate for vice president, when he came up with a tie vote, he refused to step aside, forcing the resolution of the contest in the House of Representatives, which proved to be a messy affair.

This clear flaw in the system was corrected by the Twelfth Amendment, which requires electors to vote separately for president and vice president. It was the Twelfth Amendment (adopted in 1804), along with the growth of political parties, that encouraged the pairing of candidates in the presidential election. Since then, the vice presidential selection process has evolved from party leaders' making the selection to the current system, under which the party's presidential nominee is given the power to select a vice presidential running mate.

The Twenty-fifth Amendment (adopted in 1967) indirectly codified the power of a candidate for president to select his vice president, for the Amendment states that when there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, "the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress." A Vice President, like a President, must be a natural born citizen, at least thirty-five years of age, and a resident of the United States for fourteen years.

Of course, Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, meets the minimum constitutional requirements. But there also exists a clear subtext within the Constitution, and related statutes, that suggests that there are other, implicit qualifications for the Vice President, as well - qualifications as to which Governor Palin falls short. While this subtext is plainly not formally binding on either a presidential candidate or president, candidates and presidents have traditionally followed the implicit qualifications suggested by the Constitution.

I served as minority counsel to the House Judiciary Committee when the Committee was working on the Twenty-fifty Amendment. Accordingly, I recall well the difficult debates and discussions on how vacancies in the vice presidency should be filled. The procedures under discussion ranged from a special national election for the vice president, to a convening of the Electoral College to make the decision, to the selection of a vice president by the Congress.

The process that was actually settled on, as I mentioned earlier, codified the procedure that had evolved over the years, through which the candidate selected his running mate. In line with that procedure, presidents were similarly given the power to fill vacancies in the office of the vice president. But there was a crucial difference: Under the Twenty-fifth Amendment, presidents can only fill that office with the approval of a majority vote of both the House and Senate. Confirmation thus entails not only ratification by the public, but also scrutiny by political pros who assure Americans that the new vice president is up to the task of taking charge.

Twice, the Twenty-fifty Amendment has been employed to fill a vacancy in the vice presidency. Nixon appointed Gerald Ford to fill the office when Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned (under threat of indictment). Then, after Nixon resigned, and Ford succeeded to the presidency, Ford used it to appoint Nelson Rockefeller his Vice President.

Both Nixon and Ford explained their decisions, and the criteria at the top of their lists. Nixon wrote in RN: Memoirs of Richard Nixon that from "the outset of the search for a new Vice President I had established four criteria for the man I would select: qualification to be President; ideological affinity; loyalty and confirmability." (Emphasis added.) Nixon's first choice was his Secretary of Treasury John Connally, who was dropped because he would have confirmation problems. (Connally was, in fact, later indicted but acquitted.) New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller and California Governor Ronald Reagan were taken off Nixon's list because the selection of either one over the other would have split the Republican Party. Finally, also on the list was Jerry Ford, the Minority Leader of the House, on whom Nixon settled.

Ford explained in A Time To Heal: The Autobiography of Gerald R. Ford that he had given considerable thought to filling the vice presidency when he became president, and his staff developed a ranking system. "There was one overriding criterion," he wrote to explain his baseline: "[H]e had to be a man fully qualified to step into my shoes should something happen to me."

Ford's top aides eliminated George H. W. Bush, who had served in the House of Representatives and headed the Republican National Committee, "as not yet ready to handle the rough challenges of the Oval Office." And when Ford settled on one of the wealthiest men in America, Nelson Rockefeller, it resulted in protracted confirmation hearings because of the extent of Rockefeller's holdings (which might have raised conflicts of interest). But in the end, Rockefeller was confirmed.

The Twenty-fifth Amendment only covers succession to the presidency or vice presidency when one of these offices is vacant - not both. It is silent if there are vacancies in both of the offices of the President and Vice President. The scenario of concurrent vacancies has, however, been addressed by Congress, most recently in a 1947 law.

The line of succession to the presidency begins with the Speaker of the House of Representatives (currently, Nancy Pelosi of California). Next is the President pro tempore of the Senate (currently, Robert Byrd of West Virginia). Finally, if neither of these officers is willing or able to take the post, the succession law turns to the President's Cabinet members.

The current order of succession is Secretary of State (currently, Condoleezza Rice), Secretary of the Treasury (Henry Paulson), Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates), Attorney General (Michael Mukasey), Secretary of the Interior (Dirk Kempthorne ), Secretary of Agriculture (Edward Schafer), Secretary of Commerce (Carlos Gutierrez, who was born in Cuba, and thus not "natural born"), Secretary of Labor (Elaine Chao, who was born in Taiwan, and thus not "natural born"), Secretary of Health and Human Services (Mike Leavitt), Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Steven Preston), Secretary of Transportation (Mary Peters), Secretary of Energy (Samuel Bodman), Secretary of Education (Margaret Spellings), Secretary of Veterans Affairs (James Peake) and Secretary of Homeland Security (Michael Chertoff). Under the succession statute, the presidency is filled for the remainder of the president's term.

Although this 1947 succession statute has been appropriately criticized, Congress has been reluctant to change it. The Congressional consensus has been that if there is a dual vacancy in the Executive branch's elected officials, it should be temporarily filled by a seasoned elected official from the Legislative Branch. In practice, while the full line of succession has been stipulated, it is unlikely that we will ever need to go beyond the Speaker of the House to fill the vacancy temporarily.

If neither the Speaker nor the President pro tempore is up to the task of serving, Congress has been comfortable with the caliber of appointees serving as Secretaries of State, Treasury, or Defense to serve as temporary president - for no one believes (absent a dramatic situation such as a massive attack on the seat of government that would call into force continuity-of-government plans) that the succession process would ever proceed beyond the "big three" Cabinet posts.

When Nixon selected Ford to be his Vice President, and Ford selected Rockefeller, the government was divided, with the Democrats controlling Congress. Yet a Democratic Congress approved both Ford and Rockefeller to be Vice President based on inter-branch comity. Surely no one would argue that Sarah Palin is in a league with Ford and Rockefeller when it comes to experience.

Nor does Palin possess anything close to the experience qualifications of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, or the President pro tempore of the Senate, Robert Byrd. Indeed, I feel confident that Palin could not get confirmed for any of the top presidential succession posts, namely the posts of Secretary of State, Treasury and Defense. Palin's lack of qualifications have been widely noted. Newspapers from her state have raised questions of her qualifications.

Recently, I was in Alaska, just after Palin's name was first floated as a possible McCain running mate. Although I am not a Democrat, I gave a keynote speech at the Democrats' state convention. During my visit, a senior Democratic Party official said to me that he sure hoped McCain would select Palin, because based on his observation of her record Alaska, he opined that, : "She's screwing up Alaska big time, and she could probably assure defeat for McCain." His wish may be coming true.

You must have missed the definition of "majority/minority" as well. I brought an article a few pages back. Minority isn't limited to numerical minority. You don't have to agree, though. It DID basically point to underrepresentation politically....

A minority or subordinate group is a sociological group that does not constitute a politically dominant voting majority of the total population of a given society.

That's an interesting opinion, I don't happen to agree with it though.

H2O MAN wrote:

That's an interesting opinion, I don't happen to agree with it though.

Hey, just passing on the numbers. That poll, at least, shows Biden to be the most popular of the four. And it's the last poll out that includes all four.

Actually... the news is reporting that Biden is the least favored VP choice and the vast majority of people would feel very comfortable if Palin became president should anything happen to McCain.
These same people are less than comfortable with the prospect of Biden becoming president should something happen to Obama.

okie, basically I feel about Obama the way you feel about McCain. He wasn't my first choice, but I can live with him, and I prefer him to his opponent.

But I'm really tired of hearing the word "liberal" bandied about, generally inaccurately, and being used as a slur and as synonymous with "Democrat". If we want to have meaningful discussions, whether in A2K or on the national stage, it really helps if we define our terms and use them with some precision.

I can tell you how I think of, and use, the word "liberal". For me the term refers to two seperate dimensions on the political spectrum. The first dimension is the liberal--conservative balance of power scale in terms of commitment to states' rights vs federal government control, and in terms of state funding vs federal funding. In my mind, this is the original, and most appropriate, use of the term. Then there is the liberal--conservative social values continuum, things like pro-choice vs pro-life, gay marriage, and support, or non support, for various social welfare programs. People may not always fall in the same part of the continuum on these two spectrums--one can be conservative in terms of balance of power, but liberal in terms of social issues or vice versa. And most people are not at the extremes on either of these scales. Most people, including most elected officials, fall closer toward the middle (or centrist) position.

I do think the Democratic party is more liberal, on both dimensions, than the Republican party, but most Democrats are hardly radical liberals, they are closer to the middle. On the other side, McCain is not really a strong Conservative on either dimension, he's much closer to the middle. Palin, however is a radical conservative in terms of social values, and she's probably a radical Conservative on the power balance dimension as well, if she had any association with a group that would like to see Alaska secede from the union. On the other hand, as a governor, she's all too willing to put out her grubby hands to scoop up those earmarked federal funds, so she'd like to have her cake and eat it too. But, since she's now speaking against such earmarked funds, I guess we can consider her a genuine radical Conservative, albeit a hypocritical one.

And when, and why, did we suddenly start using the word "elitist", and what on earth does it mean?

Does it refer to people who worked their way up, the hard way, got good educations, and then moved into positions of power and influence through their own abilities and accomplishments? Seems to me, that's not "elitest", it's the American dream. Why are such people now considered out of touch with average Americans? They came from average backgrounds and lead basically average lives, except they have now achieved a position of influence/prominence. Why are these people, who finally "made it" now tagged as "elitest"? Why aren't they considered genuine success stories?

On the other hand, not considered "elitest" is George Bush, son of a president, grandson of a U.S. senator (a politically patrician background if there ever was one) and a graduate of both Yale and Harvard (aren't those East coast elitest ivy league schools?). Bush manages to convince people he's just "one of the guys", and unthinking people buy this crap. McCain, the son of an Admiral (not exactly an average background), and a man so currently wealthy he cannot remember how many homes he owns, is seen as another non-elitest "everyman".

If we are ever to have meaningful political discussions in this country, I think we have to stop the name-calling and labeling, and sterotyping, such as "liberal", and "elitest", and "un-American"--almost all of which comes from the Republican camp--and really begin to discuss the issues, and the pros and cons of each candidate's solutions, without getting caught up in a lot of emotional hype that does nothing but distract from what's really important.

Recently, McCain's campaign manager made an astounding statement.

Quote:

Rick Davis, campaign manager for John McCain's presidential bid, insisted that the presidential race will be decided more over personalities than issues during an interview with Post editors this morning.

"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

Davis added that issues will no doubt play a major role in the decisions undecided voters will make but that they won't ultimately be conclusive. He added that the campaign has "ultimate faith" in the idea that the more voters get to know McCain and Barack Obama, the better the Republican nominee will do.

Think about that. The issues take a backseat to what voters think about a candidate's personality. Therefore, you must denigrate or smear or negatively distort, your opponent's personality or character in order to win this election, at least in the eyes of McCain's campaign manager. This is the gameplan of McCain/Palin. This is the reform we want? This will reduce partisan divisiveness? This will help voters to make a clear choice of leaders based on the issues? This is the same old smoke and mirrors garbage that got Bush elected, and will give us four more years of the same.

You are onto something, yes Bush is more like one of the guys. I don't think his education went to his head.

In regard to McCain, he doesn't care how many homes his wife owns, thats the point, McCain isn't into the money.

I want to hear the Democrats actually sound like they are proud of the country, and actually want the country to succeed. All I hear is doom and gloom, the war is lost, the economy is terrible, etc. They are the most pessimistic bunch of people I have ever heard, and alot of people get fed up with that.

If I am any measure of alot of people, I am fed up with politicians telling me that the country needs totally changing, changed to what I might ask, and that we are all a miserable bunch of losers that the government has to help or we are sunk. I want to hear something uplifting,

August 31, 2008
Economic View
Is History Siding With Obama’s Economic Plan?
By ALAN S. BLINDER

CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics.

Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson?

Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.

I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.

Such a large historical gap in economic performance between the two parties is rather surprising, because presidents have limited leverage over the nation’s economy. Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.

The second big historical fact, which might be called the Great Partisan Inequality Divide, is the focus of Professor Bartels’s work.

It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now " an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.

The Great Partisan Inequality Divide is not limited to the poor. To get a more granular look, Professor Bartels studied the postwar history of income gains at five different places in the income distribution.

The 20th percentile is the income level at which 20 percent of all families have less income and 80 percent have more. It is thus a plausible dividing line between the poor and the nonpoor. Similarly, the 40th percentile is the income level at which 40 percent of the families are poorer and 60 percent are richer. And similarly for the 60th, 80th, and 95th percentiles. The 95th percentile is the best dividing line between the rich and the nonrich that the data permitted Professor Bartels to study. (That dividing line, by the way, is well below the $5 million threshold John McCain has jokingly used for defining the rich. It’s closer to $180,000.)

The accompanying table, which is adapted from the book, tells a remarkably consistent story. It shows that when Democrats were in the White House, lower-income families experienced slightly faster income growth than higher-income families " which means that incomes were equalizing. In stark contrast, it also shows much faster income growth for the better-off when Republicans were in the White House " thus widening the gap in income.



The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent.

The sources of such large differences make for a slightly complicated story. In the early part of the period " say, the pre-Reagan years " the Great Partisan Growth Divide accounted for most of the Great Partisan Inequality divide, because the poor do relatively better in a high-growth economy.

Beginning with the Reagan presidency, however, growth differences are smaller and tax and transfer policies have played a larger role. We know, for example, that Republicans have typically favored large tax cuts for upper-income groups while Democrats have opposed them. In addition, Democrats have been more willing to raise the minimum wage, and Republicans have been more hostile toward unions.

The two Great Partisan Divides combine to suggest that, if history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?

Alan S. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has advised many Democratic politicians.

Then I want to stop hearing Democrats accusing our military of atrocities, etc., without evidence, and I want to hear the Democrats actually sound like they are proud of the country, and actually want the country to succeed. All I hear is doom and gloom, the war is lost, the economy is terrible, etc. They are the most pessimistic bunch of people I have ever heard, and alot of people get fed up with that.