Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Forget the Dream Ticket, How about the "McCain's Worst Nightmare Ticket"?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Impedimentus Donating Member (84 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-01-08 07:12 PM
Original message
Forget the Dream Ticket, How about the "McCain's Worst Nightmare Ticket"?
Obama - Clinton (Bill Clinton)?


Nothing to stop Bill from running for VP and it would drive the opposition absolutely crazy!

I have no doubt that it would win and if Sen. Obama needs a bulldog to go after Rove's boys Bill Clinton is the perfect fit. Of course, once in office things might get a little messy.


OK, just musing :)



P.S. Prediction: If McCain drops out expect to see the Republicans nominate Jeb Bush - Dick Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-01-08 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. McCain drops out it will be
Pawlenty

A young unknown that the media can spend a month fawning over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faygo Kid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-01-08 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. Uh - no. Unconstitutional.
Bill is not eligible to serve as president. Therefore, he cannot serve as veep.

I could see Jeb Bush on a Romney-Bush ticket, though. Not Dick. He will never run for election again. Doesn't mean he won't hold power - just that he won't run in any election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tedoll78 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-01-08 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. BZZT!
Edited on Fri Aug-01-08 07:25 PM by tedoll78
Read the actual text of the 22nd Amendment - he's not eligible to "be elected" President. There's a difference between "serving" as President and "being elected" as President, and the 22nd only places limits on one of those things. It's a technicality, but it's there in black and white.

There are two routes to the Presidency:
1) election
2) succession

The 22nd Amendment places limits on only one of those two routes, leaving the other one completely untouched.

Some may argue "intent of the authors," but the writers of the 22nd were intelligent folks who chose their wording very carefully. If they had wanted to bar "serving" or "succeeding" or "being President" they could've easily worded it accordingly. But they deliberately chose not to.

Edit: The text, my bolding added:
Section 1. 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. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faygo Kid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-01-08 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Interesting. Perhaps I should revisit this issue.
I did some research, and found this article from 2006. You may have a point. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901572.html

I have never been a big fan of the 22nd Amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Impedimentus Donating Member (84 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-01-08 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. Not unconstitutional
Edited on Fri Aug-01-08 07:28 PM by Impedimentus
Not unconstitutional!

1. 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. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.


He can serve for a total of 10 years, so he could serve for 2 more years (one interpretation). Hopefully, he would not serve as president again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
recoveringdittohed Donating Member (463 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-01-08 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. The ticket to Nowhere!
McCain-Stevens
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Impedimentus Donating Member (84 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-01-08 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Sounds good to me ...


or McCain - Craig.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phredicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-01-08 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
8. I can't imagine a former president could stand being vice president;
and that doesn't even touch on the fact that these guys are not exactly bestest pals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Impedimentus Donating Member (84 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-01-08 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. They don't have to be pals.

Kennedy and Johnson hated each other but they beat Nixon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faygo Kid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-01-08 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. A former president went back into the House, and served with distinction.
John Quincy Adams, and no level of public service was beneath him.

Underrated American.

You are absolutely correct on your second observation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phredicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-01-08 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. John Quincy Adams was indeed a great man,
and especially a great congressman. But there's a big difference between becoming a congressman and going from President to becoming the officeholder that J. Q. Adams' father suggested be addressed as "Your Superfluous Majesty".

And for the president on such a ticket, there would be the unappetizing prospect of having the ultimate backseat driver - after all, he's done the job, and you haven't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-01-08 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
12. Did you like the way Bill took on Rove on 'Clintons trashed WH' lie? That lasted 9 months.
Edited on Fri Aug-01-08 08:25 PM by blm
How did Bill confront Rove and the RW attack that Bill Clinton was soft on terror and how did Bill confront the EIGHT FOCKING BOOKS that claimed Bill Clinton was responsible for 9-11? Did Bill do one thing about that from 2001-2005?

Do you even REMEMBER that Bill spent his summer2004 book tour supporting Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war and boasted of defending Bush from the 'criticisms of the left' that just happened to be coming mainly from our Dem nominee at the time?

Because he NEEDED Bush protected to carry off the planned Hillary2008 campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC