Kerry/Gephardt Ticket?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in598358.shtml
Gephardt had the chance to endorse someone before the MO primary on Tuesday, but declined. Now, he's set to endorse John Kerry tomorrow in Michigan. Do you think that this might lead to a Kerry/Gephardt ticket, or is Gephardt just jumping on the Kerry bandwagon a little early?
Gephardt had the chance to endorse someone before the MO primary on Tuesday, but declined. Now, he's set to endorse John Kerry tomorrow in Michigan. Do you think that this might lead to a Kerry/Gephardt ticket, or is Gephardt just jumping on the Kerry bandwagon a little early?
Comments
All you had to do was throw Liebermann in the equation as secretary of state and I would prefer the republican lineup. I´ll rather have someone I disagree with ideologically over the "no vision" ticket.
No Vision? What a great name. Kerry, Gephardt and Liebermann should make themselves into a punk band.
Originally posted by Anders
All you had to do was throw Liebermann in the equation as secretary of state and I would prefer the republican lineup.
Well, that makes no sense at all.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Well, that makes no sense at all.
Because you disagree?
I just think they are the worst candidates.
I can't think of a worse decision
get this failed Dem establishment OUT and get some new people in
They're tired and have shown that they can be successful at one thing: being LAME!!!
Originally posted by Eugene
If Kerry has any brains, he wouldn't touch Gephardt with a 36726746724-foot pole. He needs to solidify a centrist stance, not veer to the left.
Unless he wants to carry Missouri and their 11 Electoral College votes which any Democrat needs to pick up to win. Missouri has voted for the winner in all but one election for the last 50 years and adding Gephardt would all but guarantee that the ticket picks it up.
Originally posted by pfflam
Anders said it well
I can't think of a worse decision
get this failed Dem establishment OUT and get some new people in
They're tired and have shown that they can be successful at one thing: being LAME!!!
By all means find something better. But first get rid of the bad situation that's already in the Whitehouse!
Originally posted by Anders
Because you disagree?
No, Anders. It makes no sense because what you're describing is a logical impossibility. It is highly unlikely that the opposition to the candidate with whom you differ ideologically would lack vision. A candidate would have to have no ideas about running the country, would have to make no decisions while president, and would have to say nothing in order to not put forth any ideas about the future of our country. How can a candidate like that ever succeed at ANY stage of the campaign?
You are essentially saying, "I would vote for President Bush over a candidate who puts forth no ideas about the future of country."
Now how does this apply to Kerry? And in what way, if any, does he lack "vision?"
IMO, Bill Richardson would be a much better option. If Kerry is feeling truly inspired, he should choose John Lewis of Georgia.
Originally posted by Kirkland
While winning Missouri would go a long way to putting the Democrats at 270, I think a Midwestern New Democrat of some sort could serve the same end. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has endorsed Kerry, and not after her state's primary, either. She could be an interesting pick ? could help in the Midwest and open up the gender gap, which is the true key to Democratic victory.
I'm glad to see that others recognize Michigan Gov. Granholm's potential. She's had a rather interesting history--moving from a Detroit prosecuter with a 98% conviction rate, to Michigan's Attorney General, to a governor campaign with hints of scandal and finally to a Governorship in which she has eliminated the majority of her state's $3 billion deficit left by former neoconservative Governor John Engler without raising taxes.
Kerry picking Granholm certainly would rock the boat, but I honestly view her as having a lot of similarities to Mondale's 1984 VP pick, Geraldine Ferraro. In her campaign, Republican Lieutenant Governor Dick Posthumous repeatedly bashed her for some undocumented transactions when she and her husband were responsible for building Metro-Detroit airport's latest expansion. Furthermore, Granholm has an interesting handicap in that she was born a Canadian--effectively, she cannot be the President of the United States under the current constitution.
Living in a suburb of Detroit, there has been a lot of buzz around here about it. Granholm carries a 77% approval rate in the state (and all without a terrorist attack, har har), but is relatively unpopular among younger voters because of the cuts she's had to make into education to balance the mess of an economy the Republican administration left her. Michigan only narrowly went to Gore in 2000, and I think picking Granholm would firmly lock it in Kerry's favor.
Granholm's regional appeal and familiarity with working in an industrial economy would lock Ohio and Pennsylvania for Kerry. There are a few other more visible running mates out there--Gephardt and NM Gov. Bill Richardson come to mind--but Kerry definitely could do worse than picking Granholm for the Dem ticket.
Originally posted by iSushi
Furthermore, Granholm has an interesting handicap in that she was born a Canadian--effectively, she cannot be the President of the United States under the current constitution.
Wow, I was not aware of that. She can't be president or vice president, then. That's too bad, she seems like a very impressive person.
Okay, then, put me on the Bill Richardson bandwagon (for now). :-)
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
Wow, I was not aware of that. She can't be president or vice president, then. That's too bad, she seems like a very impressive person.
Okay, then, put me on the Bill Richardson bandwagon (for now). :-)
Kirk
Actually, the specific clause states:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."
While this can be expanded on so that all of the cabinet members must be born in the United States, Secretary of State Madeline Albright was born in Czechoslovakia, so the Democrats have implemented it without this posing a significant problem.
I, myself, am torn between Richardson and Granholm...but, if the Dems can get over the birthplace hurdle, she poses a great threat to the Republicans in the Midwest.
You cannot be vice president unless you are 35 and a natural-born citizen who is not a convicted felon.
Kirk
Originally posted by ShawnJ
No, Anders. It makes no sense because what you're describing is a logical impossibility. It is highly unlikely that the opposition to the candidate with whom you differ ideologically would lack vision. A candidate would have to have no ideas about running the country, would have to make no decisions while president, and would have to say nothing in order to not put forth any ideas about the future of our country. How can a candidate like that ever succeed at ANY stage of the campaign?
You are essentially saying, "I would vote for President Bush over a candidate who puts forth no ideas about the future of country."
Now how does this apply to Kerry? And in what way, if any, does he lack "vision?"
I see Kerry as a pragmatic bureaucrate that doesn´t vote from ideas but from strategy and effeciency. An bureaucrate can kill the idea of politics as the arena for visions. You can´t attack bureaucrates because they doesn´t do anything wrong on the microlevel but they kill ideas. Bush have been great in that narrow sense taht ideas and ideology matters because Bush have been a clear answer that I think is wrong. With that you can define clear alternatives.
Originally posted by Kirkland
The difference is that the Constitution sets the same requirements to be vice president as there are to be president, including the native born amendment. There is no such requirement for members of the Cabinet. If a member of the Cabinet is not a natural American, they are simply removed from the list of potential successors ? succession would skip over their office.
You cannot be vice president unless you are 35 and a natural-born citizen who is not a convicted felon.
Kirk
Heh, I was not aware of that, myself
It's a shame. Grnaholm has the potential to pull a huge number of fiscal conservatives. Not to mention the amount of space she's getting on John Kerry's webiste...they seem to be developing a good relationship.
Originally posted by iSushi
Heh, I was not aware of that, myself
Don't see why you would be, really. The succession laws are confusing and have changed many times in the last 200 years ?_and so has the status of the vice presidency (there are something like 4 amendments which deal with the role, succession and election of the vice president).
It's a shame. Grnaholm has the potential to pull a huge number of fiscal conservatives. Not to mention the amount of space she's getting on John Kerry's webiste...they seem to be developing a good relationship. [/B]
Not only that, but I had to correct my column to remove my suggestion of her as veep. Most embarrassing. :-)
Kirk
Originally posted by Anders
I see Kerry as a pragmatic bureaucrate that doesn´t vote from ideas but from strategy and effeciency. An bureaucrate can kill the idea of politics as the arena for visions. You can´t attack bureaucrates because they doesn´t do anything wrong on the microlevel but they kill ideas. Bush have been great in that narrow sense taht ideas and ideology matters because Bush have been a clear answer that I think is wrong. With that you can define clear alternatives.
Anders, strategy and efficiency are ideas.
... Still waiting on how Kerry somehow lacks "vision."
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Anders, strategy and efficiency are ideas.
No they are not. Strategies and efficiency are like a machine. But it doesn´t tell you what the machine produces. Hitler had a strategy and was efficient, but his ideas were horrible. It doesn´t tell what you want and what your ideas are.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
... Still waiting on how Kerry somehow lacks "vision."
I would say that its him to prove he has. As said so many times here its impossible to prove negatives. I really don´t see anything with him that stands out more than the average politicians who on a general basis aren´t visionaries.