It has recently been revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney has been receiving a deferred compensation salary package from his old company, Halliburton. As has been known in the past, he also has stock options in the company that he may exercise in the future. (Stock options are not stock; instead, they're an option to buy stock at a pre-set price.)
Cheney has defended himself by pointing out that his deferred compensation cannot rise or fall based on his old company's performance. Furthermore, he's already pledged to give the proceeds from any future exercise of his stock options to three designated charities. As such, John Cole rightly defends Cheney from those who would irresponsibly accuse the man of "accepting blood money" or "war profiteering." Such claims are irrational nonsense, and should be ridiculed as the partisan smears that they are. John does a good job of showing why such irresponsible claims are beneath civilized people.
However: as people like Ara Rubyan are wont to point out, most people don't listen with their heads, they listen with their hearts. Cheney has publicly claimed to have "no" financial ties to the company, but it turns out he does have them. There's no way to get around how bad that looks, and what a terrific opportunity for political gamesmanship it presents to his political opponents. Like it or not, it's now open season on Dick Cheney.
It doesn't really matter one little bit that Cheney can't possibly profit from, or lose money on, anything Halliburton does while he's in office. The fact is that he said he had no financial ties, and he does. His claim may have been an unthinking blunder, but some will automatically call it a lie simply because that's just how politics works. That's an accusation that will have some bite, and will confuse people who don't bother to look deeply into the issue.
And most people won't look deeply into the issue. Shallow boneheads like Bill Maher will be sure to keep the drumbeat going non-stop for the next year and beyond. Irresponsible, ill-informed attacks like the ones from Oliver Willis are going to continue. For better or worse, Cheney should have known better. Such an oversight is all but unforgivable politically. I'm sure the VP's office is in full damage-control mode now, but I'm afraid the damage has already been done.
Although a resignation by Cheney would probably be an overreaction, the Bushies ought to quietly drop Cheney from the ticket next year. Bush needs to get over his well-known tendencies toward fierce loyalty, and consider the problems of a wartime Presidency crippled by accusations of financial malfeasance. However ill-founded such accusations might be, politics ain't always fair. To be an effective wartime leader, a President must rid himself of distractions that make it harder for him to do his job.
Regardless of whether Bush wins or loses re-election, just having this problem around will serve as an unnecessary, and possibly dangerous, distraction. It needs to be dealt with.
Cheney must go.
I agree - Cheney must go. One wonders why Pres Bush tolerates Cheney's shenanigans- regardless of the truth of the matter, it makes Cheney look like a man who is just using his position to feather his own nest!!!
Kinda makes the whole Whitewater "thing" look insignificant doesn't it? I wouldn't trust Cheney with the money for a soda run. He's brilliant the way he passes himself off as honest...that's why I don't mind Maher's ribbing of him.
Tim the Soldier
I respectfully disagree, Dean, but only on the reasons, not the solution.
I believe that Cheney should go because of his health, not because of his past business success. The spot should be filled with someone who can win in 2008 and Cheney is too old and not fit enough to last.
But if you fall into the trap of criticizing someone, or excluding them because of a retirement or buy out package they've negotiated, we're left with a pool of potential reprensentative who've never worked in the private sector--who've never been successful in business.
A similar thing happended when the Chancellor of the UC system retired about 10 years ago (his name escapes me). He'd worked in the UC system for 35+ years, working his way up the academic ladder. He had taken advantage of tax deferred income and directed a significant portion of his earnings to his retirement account--an option available to all UC employees. When the UC system decided to offer all their employess a golden handshake, and he was in his 60s, he took it. Then the public went nuts because his retirement deal was over $1.5 million. It was HIS money. It was not the public's money. It wasn't a bonus, it was his earnings, deferred in a legal way. He'd invested it in the UC system and some bureaucrat was going to decide that he didn't NEED that much money? Screw him!
What you are proposing is that we can only have in office, those who've been lifetime bureaucrats, people 20 years from retirement age, or the perpetually unemployable. Successful people who are able to negotiate golden handshakes or excellent retirement packages should NOT be the basis for excluding someone from public office. They are able to get those deals because they are WORTH it. MANY people choose to go into public life after they've had a business career. It is only then that they are able to afford a career in the public sector. We WANT those people because they are not vulnerable to secret payoffs under the table deals. They are financially independant. In addition, they don't need to kiss the ass of anyone to get the money they need to run their campaigns. This is what made Perot (gag) so appealing to people--he was able to tell special interest to piss off.
If we're going to use the argument that some cad and lying sack of shit like Bill Maher might be able to convince a set of ignorant, anti-Capitalists, and anti-success socialists that those who've been successful are evil and tainted, they've already won, and Capitalism is the loser.
NO! There are no wrong dealings here. Just the potential for twisting the truth.
A man works hard in the private world. His worth to a company includes a retirement/exit deal which includes deferred salary. THAT is not a crime or in any way under-handed. With that success he is able to continue to live a life style that he's earned and spend his retirement in paying back, through public service. THAT is an example of success that we should be encouraging, not criticizing.
Judge a man by the company who pays his retirement? Insist that he's incapable of being impartial because of his past success? Not a chance.
One of the prices of becoming President is that you put all your significant assetts in a blind trust. It's a requirement of the job, has been for some time. The smart thing for Cheney to have done would have been to either cash out the options upon taking office, or, put the options into a blind trust and let the trustees decide what to do with them and when, if ever, to exercise them.
Instead, just to get away from the criticism, he's offered to give the options away to charity--but in a way that makes it look like he had something to hide, even though those stock options have been public knowledge for some time.
I don't want to spend the next year fighting over this lunacy, do you? That's what we're looking at now. If the man had merely said, "I have a retirement package from Halliburton that won't change no matter how well the company does, or how poorly it does," then this would mostly be a non-issue. But now, he's stepped on a landmine, and created a major political thorn that we'll all get sick of hearing about.
I, frankly, just want him gone because I'm not looking forward to a year of explaining to shallow-minded partisans and confused would-be voters why a retirement package is not "blood money." That's not healthy for the country, frankly, as it's a meaningless argument that distracts from real issues.
The man should have known better.
I have a great deal of trouble with basing policy and administrative decisions on the disingenuous posturings of the political enemy. Because while there is a limit to how much "dirt" I can accept on my side, I know there is no bottom to the disingenuity of the other side.
Tim, I'm ready to start pounding my head against the wall in frustration.
How dare you compare this to Whitewater! Do you have any idea of what has actually happened in regards to Cheney's income? Do you?
Here's what happened: Cheney deferred the payment of his 1999 salary over several years. That's it. What he's getting right now is a paycheck from 1999. In fact, he even bought an insurance policy (I didn't know you could do this for deferred payments) that protects those payments, so if Halliburton goes toes-up, he still gets paid. In other words HE HAS NO FINANCIAL INTEREST IN HALLIBURTON. End of story. Which part of that do you not freaking understand?
Arrrgh.
I will, however, admit that he flubbed this one. As Dean said, it isn't the impropriety here (there isn't any) but the appearance of impropriety that is the problem.
have a great deal of trouble with basing policy and administrative decisions on the disingenuous posturings of the political enemy. Because while there is a limit to how much "dirt" I can accept on my side, I know there is no bottom to the disingenuity of the other side.
Brian, that is exactly what I meant, but I am not the language artist you have demonstrated yourself to be. Perfectly stated.
Few understand the role the VP plays in the formulation of policy in the White House, but I think it's fair to guess that he's a pretty important figure.
The VP is not, in this case, an ornament on the ticket. He really is part of the team, and to junk the VP would be to remove a significant voice in the policy process. Do you not like what you know of what Cheney's been doing, policywise?
as people like Ara Rubyan are wont to point out, most people don't listen with their heads, they listen with their hearts..
Sigh. At least you spelled my name right.
What I've said on countless occasions is that people gather information with their heads and then make decisions with their hearts.
I wish I was wise enough to have been the originator of that observation; but I was not.
As for Cheney? He's a complete bonehead. I guess I buck the tide of conventional wisdom in saying that almost all of the decisions that Cheney has had a hand in have been bad ones.
He's a knucklehead of the first order.
Why do you believe replacing Cheney will be a benefit? The first response from the other side will be a huge "I told you so!" followed by an even louder "where there's smoke, there's fire!" Replacing Cheney legitimizes the opposition's smear campaign without ending the "issue". Halliburton will remain in the campaign for the same reason it was introduced. Its OIL! BIG OIL! Bush/Cheney/Big Oil/Texas is all one word to the Green Left. Dropping Cheney will not change that.
From a strictly political point of view, what makes you believe Cheney will damage the ticket when it counts in November? Far from being concerned about this (non)issue, a very large portion of our society can't even tell you the name of the VP! When was the last time you met someone who claimed to cast his vote primarily for the VP, not the Presidential candidate?
Condi for veep!
Glenn:
The problem is: if they keep Cheney, they'll be leaving themselves wide open to charges of corruption, "big oil," ad nauseum.
The Democratic party has been trying to beat Bush's administration over the head with Halliburton since 2000, but now they have real, verfiable numbers. That's not good for Bush.
Dean,
Cheney must stay - he's an integral part of the war-winning team we've got in DC, and this thing about Haliburton is too arcane to make a great deal of political waves...plus, we of the GOP have learned - going after the Veep is just the precursor towards going after the President, if the Democrats got Cheney's scalp, it'd only encourage them.
Casey,
Well, if you don't think that the upper 1% control what really goes on in society, I'm not sure we can ever come to a meeting of the minds on this issue. We might convince ourselves that things are on the up and up because most of us enjoy a reasonable standard of living and really don't want to rock the boat. But I don't think for one minute that everything is on the up and up. How many fortune 500 boys are going to be sent over to fight with us? Now, they will be reaping the benefits of my labor in the Army while they drive by in their Escalades and Hummers without shedding a drop of blood.
Eisenhower said it best when he warned against the overwhelming power of the military industrial complex. It's easy for the right to label opponents as unpatriotic, but what we really are is sick of the massive profiteering that comes from war. If you're not sickened by the fact that CEOs from Grumman, Lockheed Martin, all received bonuses of millions of dollars while soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines carryout the job.
Of course, I have had too much coca cola today, maybe the caffeine is talking.
Tim the Soldier
Dick Cheney is a valuable part of the administration. The accusations against him are pure, unadulterated crap. Sorry, Dean, but your reasons are no good. The people who yell and scream about BIG OIL! BIG OIL! will continue to do so whether Cheney is in office or not. As was said earlier, pulling Cheney from the ticket for this reason would only be pandering to Bush's enemies, who will still try to screw him no matter what.
As Mrs. Du Toit said, though, it might be a good idea for Bush to shuffle Cheney out of the Vice President's position--but instead of retiring him completely, give him a senior position that clearly illustrates that he's not being fed to the wolves. Frankly, these calls for Cheney's head won't be productive anyway. Bush values loyalty and knows that Cheney hasn't done anything wrong. Cheney has been consistently loyal and deserves better than what idiots like Bill Maher would give him.
To prove your point there are people like sid, who claims Cheney's feathering his nest based on a post that makes clear he isn't.
But I still disagree. There are a certain percentage of people who don't care what the facts or issues are. They vote for one party, or occasionally against one party. Dropping Cheney will do nothing to satisfy those people anyway. It's mostly people in this group that care about this issue. If there is a better VP available Bush should select him, but this flap should carry exactly zero weight.
Cheyney's deferred compensation is similar in the relevant respects to a defined benefit pension plan. Are we to exclude all such recipients from office?
I also disagree with you about the "lie". I've never seen the direct quote, so it isn't clear to me that he did lie. Is this another "Bush lied", where his critics parse his comments to make it appear misleading?
Is it a Dowdism, or perhaps a Gilliganism?
Lastly, if you let extremists knock out your candidates over such substantively baseless non-issues, that's all we will ever discuss in the future. Like negotiating with terrorists, allowing them to win encourages them.
Some of you guys are talking about this from the perspective of Bush being re-elected. I never said anything about that. So let me be clear: I believe that dropping Cheney would do nothing to help Bush be re-elected. Odds are it would hurt slightly, unless Bush got a very exciting candidate as a replacement.
I blanche at the thought of Howard Dean as our next Commander in Chief (there are dozens of Democrats I'd rather see as President), but I'd be saying the same thing if he were in charge now: "your political opponents have a bogus charge against a member of your administration that they won't let go of, and that the average voter lacks the savvy to see through. We're in the middle of a war, and we don't need to be spending time and energy dealing with this crap. For the good of the country, you need to do the unfair thing and get rid of this person--quietly, with dignity, but it must be done."
Politics is a mean game. Democrats love to talk about how "mean" Republicans can be, but the truth is that they have never--and I do mean never--been in the least bit better in this regard. I prefer my politicians to be people who try to avoid that, but I recognize that it's not always avoidable.
Allowing Cheney to serve out his term while another candidate is brought in for the election next year will allow the issue to peter out in most people's minds. Not the rabid partisans, of course, but they'll have been effectively neutered. Because the average voter will say, "Why are they attacking this guy who's leaving?"
Cheney can site health and plenty of other reasons to save face. Hell, he can even say, "politics is a mean business, I've realized that I'm getting older and my ability to roll with the punches--especially the below-the-belt ones--is not what it used to be. I realized I can't be as effective as I'd like to be because of it. I think I can serve my country better in other ways."
In fact, I'd love him to say it just that way.
I'm with Jay Solo: Condi for Veep!
I'm not willing to vote for Cheney for Pres in 2008, but I would vote for Condi. And if Hildebeast runs for President in 2008, it will make liberal heads explode to see a qualified Republican black woman running against her.
Dean,
Any departures of anyone from the Administration would only encourage the most vile elements....No, we've got this crew and we're taking the whole lot of them to January 20th, 2009 or we're taking none of them....
Politics is mean, and its gotten a lot meaner over the past 30 years...These days, you can only get by as the Noble Lord once said: "never retract, never explain; get the job done and let them howl"...in the end, President Bush and his Administration will stand or fall by the great issues of the day, not partisan nitpicking about the financial portfolios of varied Administration members.
Tim:
Thank you for talking completely past my point. I refuted your claim that Cheney's income (from a 1999 paycheck) was in any way corrupt. Instead of addressing that, you instead provide some sort of Illuminati-conspiracy theory of modern American society. Yes, I think had too much coke today. {smirk]
Ask yourself another question: how many of of the over-forty "Fortune 500 boys" (as you say) are vets? Also recall that between 1970 and 1990 military service has carried a negative connotation in many ways.
I have to ask, since you brought it up: you've never specified your MOS; what is it, anyway? :)
Re: the legendary military-industrial complex; what the FUCK does this have to do with Cheney, Halliburton, or the Fortune 500!? Focus, man, focus!! {wry grin}
Or is your argument: "we know the elite run everything. we know because they are the elite. we know this because they are elite, and rich. Ike warned us this about this."
And don't hand me any of this crap about "labelling opponents as unpatriotic"!! Do NOT put words in my mouth. And if you are so "sick of the massive profiteering that comes from war," get your head out of your ass and learn some basic history and economics. Christ, I can't believe I'm saying this to someone enlisted in the US Army...
Military spending will always be subject to corruption. Period. Look at history. Any more questions?
Why is military spending subject to such corruption? Simple. Again, according to history, most armies, most of the time, spend most of their time not fighting. In other words, they spend most of their time not showing what they can or can't do. In modern industrial terms, they spend most of their time (here's the key point) not using their equipment in combat...
Testing military equipment or doctrine is like testing flashbulbs; you can't do it. The best you can do is hope like hell that you aren't as wrong as the other guy.
Until about 200 years ago, it wasn't so bad. You could, reasonably, get by using the same tricks your top did when he was a recruit. Even then you ran the risk of encountering troublemakers like Adolphus Gustavus, Alonso Cordova, or Napoleone who create a paradigm shift in warfighting.
These days, tremendous changes in technology drives (or should) doctrine. One perfect illustration is the Battle of France, 1940: the allies had the edges; more divisions, more tanks, heavier tanks, bigger guns, etc., etc., etc... But while the Allies had the better numbers, the Germans had the better doctrine. Remember who won?
Add to this a 10 or 20-year gap between wars, and it becomes really difficult to determine just which (expensive, of course) technology will be the war-winner. The greater the gap, the greater the uncertainty.
Do you have any probability theory? Adding multiple probabilties means determining their products. In other words, adding two 1/4 chances (probability 0.25 each) results in a 1/16 chance. (0.25 * 0.25 = 0.0625, or 1/16) So adding the probability of buying the right (for the next war) equipment, and using the right (for the next war) doctrine gives a very long shot against...
What does this mean? When you only fight wars every 30 or 40 years (or even every 10 or 20 years), you have no idea what hardware will do the job, and what doctrine will use that hardware effectively.
Another small example from WW2: in 1940 Germany overran most of Europe using concentrated armored formations coordinated with motorized infantry. In reaction America organized a very large number of tank-destroyer battalions. Which, with their 37mm anti-tank "destroyers" proved worse than useless against 1944/45 German armored formations, but seemed (to US company or division commanders) be pretty nifty assault guns. The fact that the guns weren't designed for that, and that the doctrine was out of whack, or that this was a great way for tank-destroyer battalions to get shot up didn't matter, alas.
Bottom line in this case: the tank-destroyer battalions were worse than useless, and the American Sherman tanks nearly so. What saved US armored formations was the massive air domination that the USSAF enjoyed, which enabled the P-47 to occupy the role of armored scout/tank destroyer.
Yet Another example: very few experts, before December 1941, felt that carriers would be the ship of decision in future fleet actions. At best the carriers would launch their tiny, flea-like planes to act as scouts for the massive dreadnoughts. In reality the BBs acted as screens to protect the vulnerable (but valuable) CVs. And those tiny, flea-like planes proved to have a vicious bite... :)
Point being that is it very difficult, if not nearly impossible, to determine what technologies will be useful in the next war.
This brings us back to the US Congress. They want to fund defense. They also want to stay in office. And one of the best way to get kicked out of office is to be percieved as being "weak on defense" (see current debate for specifics {g}).
How do you pick the right technology? You can't, just like you can't test light bulbs!! The only way to test a new technology or doctrine is to actually go to war with it... Which means that there have been a lot of technologies and ideas that never had the chance to be tested, since the US didn't want to go to war just to test them out.. :)
Therefore defense companies can overcharge to their heart's content, with the warm and fuzzy knowlege that the taxpayers will only find out 50 years later.
But don't blame this on some unseen, behind-the-scenes Illuminati, Tim. Blame it on the the every-day citizens of the United States of America who regularly (and damn near literally) bring home the bacon every year.
Oh, and if you are so sickened by the huge amounts that CEOs from Grumman, et. al. make, reflect that this is a trend for CEOs across the Western world. Why? Simple. A truly talented person commands top price. Simple supply and demand, mi amigo... It's the same reason that Michael Jackson makes more money than the roadies backstage; people plump down money to see him, not the bloody roady. When an E-9 can run run a large American company with a bottom line in the billions of dollars, then he'll be able to make the same money a CEO can...
Mark:
I disagree with your last post on many levels, not the least of which is: it doesn't matter what your principles are if you aren't in office!
Besides which, I think Dick is getting along in years.
Not to mention, this would be the MONSTER time to pick Condi Rice as VP. Wouldn't that just get the watermelon's panties in a bunch!!? A real feminist as VP, and better yet, she's black. Yowza. The best mister "touchy-feely, I feel your pain, I'm the first black president" Clinton could do was the conventional "give them what they can handle" Welfare or HUD appointment.
Yes, Cheney must go.
But, not for the reasons mentioned. Cheney did nothing wrong that I can see. His enemies have been gunning for him since his term of office began and nothing vital has been struck yet. The leftist jerks like Bill Mahar or Al Franken will always be spouting about something-- why not that. So, If I think this is a tempest in a teapot then why should Chaney go?
Because he adds nothing to the ticket. He brings no voting constituency to the 2004 election. He won't be running in 2008, so he can't defeat Hillary. He adds no strategic thinking, no extension of the Bush legacy. He might make a good NSA chief, so why waste him in the VP slot. If the Republicans intend to retain their majority party status then they need to groom someone to replace Bush. An incumbent VP has a better chance of winning; why not take advantage of that?
An incumbent VP has a better chance of winning;
No, an incumbent VP has a better chance of losing. Nixon, Humphrey, Mondale and Gore were sitting Veeps and lost. In recent times only Bush 41 has successfully taken that path to the White House.
Bush has said he'll keep Cheney if Cheney is willing to stay. Cheney says he wants to stay on. Condi says she's not interested in running for anything at this point.
Cheney is not going to run for President. I don't have that from the horse's mouth, but everything I've seen gives me as close to a moral certainty on that point as I can get on matters political.
A Vice President is more likely to become President as a result of the sitting President dying in office, than as a result of the sitting Veep running for President and winning. The latter case has happened, I believe, four times in history (the last being Bush 41), while the former has occurred nine times. Talk of either Cheney or a Vice President Condi (which isn't going to happen this cycle anyway) being the next President, is just plain silly.
The next Republican President is going to come from the same place four of our last five Presidents have come from: the ranks of Governors.
Jeez.
Correction: Mondale wasn't a sitting Veep when he lost to Reagan in 1984. My bad, but the point still stands.
Only two sitting Vice Presidents have been elected President.
Cheney is a very competent executive with a CV which very few can match, in large scale government AND profit-making enterprises. There are sufficient demonstrations above that his deferred compensation package doesn't compromise him ethically. Yes, the professional leftie clamorists will invent 'facts' to yowl against the administration on his case, but that's their patented strategy - refer to the Bush Lied!!!! and The Iraqi Resistance Is Winning canards, and Tax Cuts For The Rich Only. If his departure increases chances for re-election success in 2004, then fine, give him the sincere thanks that he deserves, let him retire and make sure he has a hot line for future consultations.
But for God's sake don't take actions demonstrating that he's suddenly some sort of pariah. That's Clinton tactics, and the Bush Administration should set its sights higher.
Dean:
Only two sitting Vice Presidents have been elected President.
I seem to be opposing you in the comments a lot lately. It's nothing personal, really.
But the correct number is three: John Adams, Martin Van Buren, and George Bush, Sr.
I will note that no opposition party candidate has ever lost against a sitting President elected as a sitting Vice President. Also, the only two-term Presidents who ascended from the Vice Presidency by any means did so in the 20th century: Teddy Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, and LBJ.
I generally don't subscribe to the idea that one's current position is an absolute determinant as to one's electability to the Presidency, or to one's future performance, with the sole exception of the Presidency itself. Of course, having some high-profile position (Senator or Governor, say) obviously helps.
McGehee:
The next Republican President is going to come from the same place four of our last five Presidents have come from: the ranks of Governors.
You mean three of our last five Presidents. Since 1972, only three sitting Governors have won election to the Presidency: Carter, Clinton, and George W. Bush.
If you take the 28-year period before that, you can't find a single sitting Governor, but two Vice Presidents (Truman and Johnson), a Senator (Kennedy), a General (Eisenhower), and a private citizen (Nixon). Indeed, counting the unelected Ford, the Vice Presidency was as much a factor for the Presidency from 1944-1976 as Governorship was from 1976-2000.
And if you look at the credible Democrats in the current election, you find a Representative, three Senators, a General, and someone else. That someone else (Dean) should probably count as a sitting Governor, even though he resigned his seat to run for President. Nevertheless, if a sitting Governor were necessary for gaining the Presidency, wouldn't you expect more of them in the Democratic primary race?
My point, I suppose, is that no specific high political office can yet claim the title of "President-maker".
Me:
But the correct number is three: John Adams, Martin Van Buren, and George Bush, Sr.
Oops. Missed one: Jefferson.
Which makes McGehee correct, barring any more missteps on my part.
Er, sorry Jeff, I should have said "four sitting" VPs have been elected.
I meant to make a distinction between Vice Presidents who've managed to get elected, and Vice Presidents who've gone straight to the Presidency via election. My bad.
The Vice Presidency has long been a credible factor in national elections, but it's less important than people think it is. We do usually elect governors--that is McGehee's point, and it's a good one.
Of course, this can all be a matter of simple statistical aberration, since we've only had 43 Presidents. I merely note that, as a matter of statistics, trying to pick out a Vice President in order to designate an heir has never been a good strategy, because sitting Vice Presidents just don't get elected President all that often.
Well, you have to put a pretty big asterisk next to Jefferson's name. On the list of sitting VPs to be elected President, he is the only one who came from the opposite party, which completely inverts the general theory that these guys got elected by promoting continuity with their predecessor.
Dean:
I merely note that, as a matter of statistics, trying to pick out a Vice President in order to designate an heir has never been a good strategy, because sitting Vice Presidents just don't get elected President all that often.
This is very true.
I think part of the reason for this is the fact that we generally take a dim view of heir-apparents in general. Very, very few Presidents have been able to anoint an heir by any means: Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, and Reagan are the only ones that come to mind.
Thus, I don't think it's very surprising that the VP job looks very much like a dead-end if you take out the VPs to ascend upon the death of a President.
We do usually elect governors--that is McGehee's point, and it's a good one.
Perhaps as a recent trend, yes, but not overall. And even as a recent trend, the evidence is very slim. As you yourself point out, the field is very slim and spread out, making it hard to extrapolate any patterns.
The single government office most associated with attaining the Presidency is still the Vice Presidency, for obvious reasons. After that, I'm not sure whether Governor, Senator, or General would be the most common. But, recent history notwithstanding, it would be a close count between the three.
Jeff, some time ago I ran across an analysis of this, and in the past 200 years, we've elected something like 1 sitting House member, three or four sitting Senators, four sitting Vice Presidents, a few Generals, a few incumbents who inherited the Presidency, and something like 28 sitting or out-of-office Governors (ala Reagan) to the Presidency.
It may be statistical aberration, but the trend doesn't seem to be all that recent.
I'll see what I can dig up--but right now I'm doing this instead of my homework, and need to cut it out. ;-)
Sam: Good point on Jefferson. Indeed, mentioning anything prior to the Constitutional amendment which had the President picking out his Vice President is probably inappropriate.
Prior to that, the Vice President was always the guy who came in second in the electoral college vote. Which sounds interesting, but which everyone found out was a bad idea for sound governance.
If we take out all elections prior to that Constitutional change, of course, then we have reduced our sample size from 43 to, what, 39? (Trying to remember when that amendment was passed.)
Casey,
Nothing like raw politics, huh?
Call me a bit old-fashioned, but I still think you have to pay your dues...if Ms Rice would be kind enough to come out here to Nevada and be our governor for a bit, then I'd be more willing to support Presidential aspirations on her part...plus, it'd be nice to have someone in Carson City with an IQ higher than room temperature.
Dean:
It may be statistical aberration, but the trend doesn't seem to be all that recent.
No; I think that would be very interesting, if the numbers were as you say. I admit my own lack of statistics on this front.
There have been a number of prominent Senators that have run for the office, and at least one very influential success (Kennedy), which may be skewing my internal counter. That, and my personal bias for Senator Henry Clay, who ran several times and who (IMHO) was a better candidate than his opponent in several of those, but who never won.
I'll see what I can dig up--but right now I'm doing this instead of my homework, and need to cut it out.
OK. Take your time, but I would be very interested in the link.
Dean:
Sam: Good point on Jefferson. Indeed, mentioning anything prior to the Constitutional amendment which had the President picking out his Vice President is probably inappropriate.
Good point.
If we take out all elections prior to that Constitutional change, of course, then we have reduced our sample size from 43 to, what, 39? (Trying to remember when that amendment was passed.)
Good guess! The 12th Amendment passed in 1804, during Jefferson's tenure. The first handpicked VP was, therefore, George Clinton, VP during Jefferson's second term.
Since Jefferson was an incumbent, and was himself elected as a sitting VP, he should be excluded. This makes three Presidents elected the old way, for a total sample size of 40.
(Arguably, Washington should have been excluded anyway, because only two of the four "traditional" President-maker jobs existed when he was elected.)
The first handpicked VP was, therefore, George Clinton, VP during Jefferson's second term.
Yes, and a great American he was. Not only was he a great President, but his later work in founding the Parliament of Funk was even more impressive.
Dean,
Your dating yourself there, buddy....those of us who need carbon-14 to determine age should shy away from overt things like that....
A good discussion.
These points I make.
Quietly?????
>>I meant to make a distinction between Vice Presidents who've managed to get elected, and Vice Presidents who've gone straight to the Presidency via election.
What does this mean? Do you mean elected instead of apointed as VP?
I'd like Cheney to stay. When the ship sinks all those responsible should go down with it. This IMHO is the least of his problems.
And I would never call it blood money. I just find it disgusting that Cheney seems to be a very secretive and dishonest person - at his very core.
You mean three of our last five Presidents. Since 1972, only three sitting Governors have won election to the Presidency: Carter, Clinton, and George W. Bush.
Technically, I'm correct because I didn't specify that all four were sitting when elected President.
If we specify sitting, however, the number is two: Carter was a former Governor by 1976.
Ain't this fun? ;-)
Dean:
Not only was he a great President, but his later work in founding the Parliament of Funk was even more impressive.
I raise an eyebrow in your general direction.
McGehee:
If we specify sitting, however, the number is two: Carter was a former Governor by 1976.
Well, sorta. Carter's term ended in 1975, long after his presidential campaign had started. It's clear that he didn't run for reelection in Georgia because he was running for President.
So, just as I acknowledge Howard Dean as a "sorta-sitting Governor" in that he was able to use his prestige as a sitting Governor to launch his campaign, I'd count Carter in that camp.
Certainly, there's a difference between Carter and Reagan in that respect, given that Reagan had been out of the Governor's office for four years by 1980.
Ain't this fun? ;-)
No doubt.
Andrew:
What does this mean? Do you mean elected instead of apointed as VP?
He means "winning a Presidential election while holding the office of Vice President" versus "ascending from Vice President to President, and then managing to become elected to that post".
Think LBJ versus Bush Sr. LBJ became President after Kennedy's death, but won the next election. Bush Sr. was directly elected to his first term while still Vice President.
Personally, I like Cheney very much. I find him to be a man of high ideals and principle. I'd prefer him as President. But he isn't President. That said, he's OLD and sick. There is some concern about his ability to survive another four years. That means there needs to be someone in the wings to take his place.
Condi is not ripe enough yet for the seat. She's not yet tough enough.
J.C. Watts--now there's Presidential material.
But that's the problem--other than Watts, I can't think of another up and comer that is ready to step in.