I Want To Float A VERY Out-Of-The-Box VP Idea

Kerry/Gore in 2004

After hearing Gore's speech, I can't imagine a better VP choice.

The man has VP experience, National Security experience, is associated with the best of the Clinton administration, and has found his voice as a Bush opponent.

Attack dog, patriot, statesman.

And it would turn the race on its head.

Downside?

[Eye and Monkey]

1. I'd vote for that ticket, but then I'd vote for Carl Childers - ABB!

Seriously, other than the possible hang-over that some folks associate with Gore, WHY THE HELL NOT?

[freetobegay]

2. He ran For President & won

Then had it stolen from him. I don't think he would take the VP slop if offered.

[Warpy]

4. I don't, either

...but he'd be an asset to the ticket. I'd vote for him on the #2 spot any ole time.

Kerry needs to pick somebody fairly soon, if only to have somebody else in the media's eye and getting the message out.

If truth be known, I'd vote for my cats in both spots. At least since they've been neutered, they won't get us into any more fights.

[Alerter_]

11. Gephardt might be better than Gore, they were both pro-war

On economic issues I'd prefer Gephardt. But Gore would be fine with me.

[Josh]

17. Excuse me? Gore was NOT pro-war.

He was the first one to give a speech criticising Bush for trying to go to war on bullshit evidence. It was at the Brookings Institution. Gore and Dean were the first anti-war people out there in the mainstream.

[lastliberalintexas]

21. Although I was and am a Dean supporter,

I think Kucinich was out there against this invasion just as quickly. We had many, many fine Dems speaking out againt our illegal invasion- too bad they weren't all in Congress! We could have used Gore's vote against the IWR.

[flaminbats]

3. A brilliant idea...

It would secure all of Gore's voting base from 2000 while enabling Kerry to bring additional votes to this base. Somehow I don't think it's likely Gore would embrace this solution.

[Ironpost]

5. waiting to hear the entirety of his speach

thirty minutes to go. My friend asked me when I informed them that I was watching the speach, said to me. You like Al Gore. My response was that the best years of my life were when Bill and AL were in the whitehouse, and the best years of your life were also. Just inexperience kids. 56 years young and still going strong... Yes

[Leilani]

6. He spent 8 years as Veep

I doubt that he would want to go through that again.

But I would support him, if chosen.

7. If Gore served another 8 years as VEEP

he would still only be 64 in 2012, and while that is a little old, it is still younger than the age at which Reagan, Harrison, GHW Bush, or Buchanan took office.

He would be the best prepared Pres candidate ever, IMO, and if the Repukes tried to put a Bush up against him, it would be a complete joke.

Gore could run with a female candidate (imagine Landrieu's experience by 2012), and it would be seen as Gore's day in the sun. A long overdue payback for his 2000 victimization at the hands of the BFEE.

[Cheswick2.0]

25. Gore/Kerry would be more like it

.

[henslee]

8. Fckin brilliant and i never swear. A mind blower. So mad its genius.

[union_maid]

9. I'd drop my teeth if Gore was willing

And the teeth are still my own. No one wants to be VP twice.

10. YES YES! Imagine Kerry asks Gore to help vet the new VP

then, at the end of the process, selects the man who helped him, ala Bush-Cheney in 2000.

[union_maid]

12. It would certainly be an extremely strong ticket

especially seeing as Gore won the presidency once already. I'm still doubtful about anyone choosing to be the Veep for two presidents.

[henslee]

13. Yeah but what if Gore felt it were his duty under the circumstances to

serve in such a capacity during a time of crisis. It would be quite a singular distinction. It would be noble and patriotic. And he's been out of the limelight just long enough to not be tired. He won the popular vote. It would be a Machiavellian mind blower.

[henslee]

14. This is a mind blowing Machiavellian and brilliant idea.... Kick Kick Kick

Talk about strategy.

[Dr Fate]

15. It will give the media an excuse to talk about Monica.

And that is what they will do during the campaign- connect every 1990's "scandal", real or imagined to Kerry...

Fun hypothetical- but not gonna happen...

Gore in the Kerry Admin? Yes- that would work...

[ArkDem]

16. That might be the most exciting pair to ever hit the

American political scene.

[MontecitoDem]

24. Are you being sarcastic?

I would agree, if so.

Otherwise, let's remember what happened to Dean after he was endorsed by Gore! I don't think Gore has as much credibility now, or as much favorables.

[On the Road]

18. God, I Would Love That!

I think Kerry's big enough to be unafraid of Gore's greater support and recognition.

While it might seem like a step down for Al, are his current options any better? It's really the best way for him to run again if he ever wants to be president.

And boy, has he ever become a good attack dog. That's what you need in a VP.

[Doosh]

19. Kerry/Corzine

22. I like Corzine better as, oh say...Senate majority leader

VP? nah.

[Hippo_Tron]

49. Either Corzine or Dick Durbin...

It's time to put some democrats with spines in our congressional leadership.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. My dad thinks that's a brilliant idea...

Kerry/Corzine '04 "We'll never ask you for a dime in campain contributions".

[Upfront]

20. Great Idea

This would bring me back on board. I would back Al anytime anywhere.

23. better idea Gore/Kerry

as long as we're engaging in pipe dreams!!!!:evilgrin:

26. Kerry/Gore is realistic

since Kerry has the nomination.

Whether it is probable or not...

But Gore/anyone in 2004 isn't even a consideration.

27. surely you didn't take my post seriously?

shame shame shame
I was just trying to lighten things up.

30. uhm, yeah...I did...

:silly:

But then, you really sounded serious.

[sandnsea]

28. Is that constitutional?

I honestly don't know.

If Gore can keep giving speeches like he gave yesterday, it's a GREAT idea! I was very impressed. No more kindergarten teacher, that used to drive me bonkers. I think being out in the real world, and with students, has really helped him enormously.

29. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits multiple terms as VP

Just POTUS.

The only requirements for VP are that you be Constitutionally eligible for the Presidency, and that you do not reside in the same state as your Pres candidate.

I think it be news worthy, history making, and a damn good choice.

Gore is even from the South! lol

[JI7]

31. yes, even bill clinton can be vp

[bitchkitty]

33. I wish, but no he can't.

He served two terms as President; he is not Constitutionally eliglble to be President, and therefore he is not Cosntituionally eliglble to be Vice President.

[troublemaker]

34. Yup. That lets out Granholm too.

[bitchkitty]

36. How so?

Did I miss something?

[liberalron]

56. Don't mean to answer for Troublemaker,

and I'm not sure what they were getting at, as a reply to bitchkitty's post; however, Gov. Jennifer Granholm was born in Canada. Too bad, she is good.

[JI7]

37. but Clinton CAN serve as vp

the constitution bars him from being ELECTED president since he served 2 terms. but there is nothing to prevent him from being vp,and if anything happens to the president, from clinton taking over as president again. because in that case he would not have been elected president.

[serryjw]

40. Sorry.....NOT true!

quote............12th amendment
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
------end quote

42. Sorry...It IS True

The 12th amendment speaks only about the eligibility of the VP.

The 22nd amendment speaks about POTUS term limits, and says nothing about eligibility, only about electability:

"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."

The 2nd Article of the Constitution is the one that speaks of eligibility, and there are only THREE requirements:

"No person except a {1}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 {2}not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been {3}fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

UnderArticle 2, Clinton is eligible to serve as President, but under amendment 22 he is not able to be elected to that office.

[serryjw]

43. S0 Clinton could NEVER again be VP

He is NOT eligible to be prez so he could not serve at VP.

45. Clinton is eligible.

The 2nd Article of the Constitution lays out who is eleigible, and there are only THREE requirements:

{1}Must be a natural born Citizen.

{2}Must have attained the age of thirty-five years.

{3}Must have spent the last fourteen years as a resident within the United States.

So, tell me which of these three tests Clinton fails. The truth is that he does not fail any of them, therefore, according to Artgicle 2, Clinton is eligible to SERVE as President.

Since he is eligible, he can also serve as the VP.

The only thing Clinton can NOT do is be elected to the office a third time.

[JI7]

46. right ,key word being "ELECTED"

he can be elected vp and then serve as president if something happens to the president because in that case he would not have been ELECTED president.

[serryjw]

50. Sorry, You are INCORRECT

22 amendment.....quote
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.
If he can not take office a second time; he can't be VP which would be a 3rd time!

51. Im sorry, but your post doesn't make sense.

I'm not trying to pick on you, but you seem to be confusing being "elected" with "serving."

In addition, you are ignoring my repeated posts concerning Article #2.

Once again-

Clinton IS "eligible" to serve as President (otherwise he never would have been elected President at any time). Once eligible, always eligible--unless you move away from the US, thus failing the residency aspect that makes up the final of THREE eligibility requirements.

Being elected twice does not make one "ineligible" to serve as President, it only disqualifies one from being elected to a further term.

The evidence you site above only that any person who fulfills more than two years of another President's term can't be elected more than once. The wording of that sentence implies two scenarios:

1)Candidate "X" serves one term as President. At some later date, X runs and is elected as a VP to Candidate "Y". Less than 2 years into the term, Y dies/resigns/is impeached, etc.., so X fulfills the term as Pres for more than 2 years. X can not be ELECTED again. It does not say that he becomes ineligible to serve again.

2)Scenario #2 differs only in the order of progression. This time, X begins as VP, serves out Y's term (more than two years), then is elected once. X can not be elected again. He can run as Candidate Z's VP, and serve out any length of Z's term, if required.

In fact, Clinton could be the only VP the Dems ever have until the day he dies! He could serve out any length of any term, as long as he is never elected to the office of President again.

*Is that a good idea? Nope!

*Do I want Clinton to be the VP choice? Nope.

*Can clinton-Constitutionally and legally-run as and serve as a VP, and fulfill any Presidential term thriough the order of ascension? YES.

[serryjw]

53. You can twist the 22nd anyway you want..BUT he is still ineligible

consulted a professor of law at my university!

54. I'm not twisting-- I'm reading, and I'm quoting. Here are MY references:

Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar
American University Washington College of Law professor Jamin B. Raskin
George Washington University Law School professor Jeffrey Rosen
Northern Illinois University professor of history David Kyvig
(as referenced by Jack Schafer for this Slate article:
http://slate.msn.com/id/1006013/ )

AND

Columbia University Vice Dean and professor of law Michael C. Dorf
(as sited in this CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/08/columns/fl.dorf.goreclinton.08.01/ )

This is an interesting Constitutional point! :)

[serryjw]

55. That's WHY we have SCOTUS

Law Professors obviously disagree. I'm still in the camp under the 12th that this would be unconstitutional.

[zoeyfong]

32. I say Gore/Dean. They have both been right on, and certainly Gore

deserves it. Also the two compliment each other very well.

[mstrsplinter326]

35. PLEASE GOD NO!!!!

Gore cant even win when he wins. Don't vote him in, let him get appointed. Why doesn't Kerry put together some allstar cabinet???

Cabinet members could include:
The 43rd president of the US (Clinton)
Gore
Clark
the 40th president of the US (Carter)

[Radical Activist]

38. I like Gore as SOS

Wouldn't Gore be the perfect man to get us out of the Iraq mess as the nations cheif diplomat? He already has relationships with most world leaders. Secretary of State is the sort of position an elder statesman like Gore should hold. I would love to see him in that role when Kerry wins.

[zulchzulu]

39. It might happen.

It makes sense in a lot of ways. Cheney vs. Gore in debates would be pretty damn cool. And Gore has certainly improved post-2000.

Any attacks on Gore have already been done by the media. People would tire quickly of newly-yapped horseshit accusations from the usual suspects.

And you have the Southern vote and recognition immediately there.

[fabius]

41. Downside - the press hates Gore.

They would never give him an even break, that's why he didn't run. Look at the hysteria and idiocy after his brilliant speech and after the obvious failure and criminality of the Bushies. Gore wil never get fair press coverage.

Somebody like Edwards would do a lot better. Even Gephardt would get better coverage.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

44. Pros and Cons

Pros:

Fully vetted
Huge following
High name recognition
Reminds Dems (if they needed it) that he already won once

Cons:

He'll never do it
Americans don't like to be reminded they made the wrong decision

[PATRICK]

47. No reruns on our side

The other side is laboring under the old hat, disillusionment factor. Don't even give a hint of same old same old. That's really a weak point but I think Gore remains on top but steps down if goes back to being VP, in actuality a decrease in his current high stature. Irony of sorts.

Does this make Kerry a stalking horse for Gore's redemption of 2000? No there are negatives, however slight that put him down the field of choices, not to mention whether he could carry Tennessee this time round. Negatives weigh very heavy in the VP balance.

[henslee]

52. Wow, this thread won't die!