Reply #39: Yeah, talk is cheap... that's why you find so much that ain't worth readin

[atre]

I really shouldn't grace your groundless personal attack with a reply, but I'm in a giving mood. Happy Mother's Day:

I guess you apparently think that "VP is a legislative position" and "VP is part of the executive branch" are mutually exclusive thoughts? So much so that you placed this point in bold as if you've actually scored a real point? I'm embarassed for you. You toss around insults like "uninformed" yet flout such poor logical deduction skills, all while appearing very bitter.

VP is primarily a legislative position, notwithstanding the fact that it is a position within the Executive Branch. Consider for a moment the position of Solicitor General, the person the White House has argue its cases before the Court. While the Solicitor General is certainly a member of the "Executive" Branch, it is patently absurd to suggest that it is an "executive" role, at least if you use any English Dictionary. Clearly, the position is "judicial" or "legal" in nature.

The VP's many "legislative" roles include not only "breaking ties," as you say, but PRESIDING over the Senate. This is the only constitutional role specifically vested in the Vice Presidency by the Constitution.

You are partially correct in that, in modern times, the Vice President has taken on increasing significance by the addition of new roles. It's true that Dick Cheney has a seat at the National Security Council (I don't think he "heads" it, as you say), but I don't think that Gore assumed this role; I believe it's more of a Bush II (Cheney pulling the strings) kind of thing. However, there are also other "new" roles enjoyed by the position. For example, the VP has also become the President's CHIEF LOBBYIST in Congress. Witness the fact that both Al Gore and Dick Cheney had not one but TWO offices in Congress.

Here is a list of Vice Presidents (incomplete obviously, since it ends at Quayle) hosted by the SENATE website: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/artifact_collection/vp_busts.htm

You may be interested to notice that there is not a single General or institutional military man among them, while there are scores of experienced legislators. In fact, it doesn't appear as if any of them were selected for foreign policy creds, the only exception I can think of (Dick Cheney) was selected after the principal candidate couldn't name a single leader in a single global hotspot. Furthermore, his foreign policy creds come from foreign business experience and NOT by serving in the military (which of course, he's never done). And I don't think you'll disagree: that selection has turned out to have been perhaps the worst in VP selection in the history of the United States.

I can see it now... You're gonna parrot Condi and Bush and Cheney and say, "911 changed everything." If you want to play that game, fine... but it gives credence to everything they've said. We have to do things differently now...? pre-emptive war, torturing possible suspects, erasing our freedoms, tearing up the Constitution, military-cred VPs. Wonderful. When does it end?

Which gets me to why I bitterly oppose a Clark VP candidancy. I like Clark; I really do. But the problem with people suggesting we NEED Clark that such talk feeds this American culture of fear by suggesting that we have reason to need a military man on the ticket. Read the book "The Culture of Fear" or watch the movie "Bowling for Colombine" and you'll get an idea what I'm talking about. A Wesley K. Clark candidacy sends all the wrong signals to America: "Be afraid. Be very afraid." Even the peaceniks must appear battle-ready now. We've always been at war with Oceania, and we always will. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Your suggestion that only a military person would be fit to serve as President in the event of the death of the President is interestingly conservative and anachronistic; it's also been proven patently false. In fact, military service is not a prerequisite to a great Presidency, as is witnessed by Bill Clinton's term of office. And in fact it also often leads to quite the opposite. See General Grant, for example.