A Bi-Partisan Presidential Ticket?

AlicornsPrayer · #1 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 04:04 PM

A member of my board just posted this article and I thought I'd share it with others here...

Personally, I would actually support such a ticket myself if it was made available. Especially considering that prior to this suggestion in the article, that I personally am considering not to vote for any of the nominees because of the rift in their policies and platforms.

But I'd deffinately would be more comfortable with a more balanced and fair election if the President/Vice-President ticket had canidates from both parties rather then just one party's agenda.

Guess it's the moderate in me that finds the idea of this type of ticket most appealing...Alot still depends on who the party leaders choose for their canidates once the get their party's nomination...But it does present some hope for those of us that are still undecided because we're tired of Democratic and Republican rhetoric.

Anyways, here's the article: McCain-Clinton '08? Obama-Hagel? That's the Ticket - washingtonpost.com

Quote:

PARTYING TOGETHER
McCain-Clinton '08? Obama-Hagel? That's the Ticket

By Lanny J. Davis
Sunday, January 14, 2007; Page B03

Imagine this scenario: The country is so deeply divided that the media have color-coded the map of the United States to indicate the partisan chasm -- one color covers the South and most of the border states, the other drenches the North.

As the presidential election year nears, one candidate, a shoo-in for his party's nomination, has an obvious choice for running mate. Yet he also senses the uniqueness of the moment. So he makes a risky decision: He asks a leader of the opposition to run for vice president alongside him, forming the first bipartisan presidential ticket in U.S. history.

This is no fantasy. It's the decision Abraham Lincoln made when, running for reelection in 1864, he asked his Republican vice president, Hannibal Hamlin, to quit the ticket in favor of the highly partisan Democrat Andrew Johnson.

Lincoln's experiment in bipartisanship was tragically cut short when he was assassinated less than a month after his 1865 inauguration. But if ever there was a time to give it a second try, it's now.

Today's national unease and rabid partisanship -- so similar to the circumstances of 1864 -- raise the challenge for someone to form a bipartisan ticket in 2008. The lingering trauma of 9/11, the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism call for an administration open to bipartisan solutions to the crises that confront the country.

Last year's congressional elections showed that voters are tired of the partisan gridlock in Washington. They want some solutions from liberals and others from conservatives. That's the new politics of our age, as exemplified by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's reelection in Connecticut as an "independent" Democrat. Though he has voted mostly with his fellow Democrats over the years, Lieberman is open to both liberal and conservative approaches.

The most important reason for a bipartisan presidency in 2008 is the need to find solutions to the war in Iraq and to avoid delaying the end of significant U.S. involvement over fear of partisan recriminations. Solving the dilemma of Iraq -- how to get U.S. troops out of harm's way in a civil war yet not leave behind a rogue state dominated by terrorists -- will require bipartisan effort and support.

A bipartisan administration is also essential for enacting new taxes. Most responsible political leaders in both parties know -- though few are willing to admit it publicly -- that there is no way to pay for the war in Iraq, even as it winds down, and reduce the deficit while also addressing health care, energy independence, global warming and Social Security other than by raising taxes. Only a bipartisan presidency pushing leaders on both sides of the aisle can make it possible to tackle that issue honestly.

So how do you put a bipartisan ticket together? Theodore Sorenson, speechwriter for President John F. Kennedy, wrote a book in 1984 describing the various ways it might be done.

The Democratic and/or Republican nominee could do what Lincoln did -- reach out to a leader of the other party as a running mate at the nominating convention. Another scenario, which I prefer, would be for the two parties to nominate their respective tickets and wage a traditional partisan campaign on the issues, so that voters could see each party's approach and weigh their preferences. After the election, the winner would ask his or her vice president-elect to step down (and become, for example, secretary of state) while inviting the defeated presidential or vice presidential candidate from the other party to serve as vice president. This plan would ideally be announced during the campaign -- with the vice presidential candidate agreeing to act as a placeholder on the ticket -- so that the electorate would be aware of the commitment to a bipartisan presidency.

In this scenario, the vice president could be selected after the election by the Electoral College, which would presumably honor the president-elect's request to vote for the president or vice president of the defeated party. Or the selection could occur after the inauguration, with the newly sworn-in vice president resigning and the resulting vacancy filled, under the 25th Amendment, by a majority vote in both houses of Congress. The advantage of this latter method is that it would receive Congress's ratification of the concept of a bipartisan presidency.

In forming his administration, the new president would continue to adhere to the ideal of bipartisanship, selecting a 50-50 Cabinet and choosing judicial nominees on the basis of merit rather than party.

Continued at: McCain-Clinton '08? Obama-Hagel? That's the Ticket - washingtonpost.com

cnredd · #2 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 04:12 PM

It's an unreastic scenario...It only attempts to coddle the emotional aspects...

There are a few reasons I could mention why, such as the possibility of situations (and most likely) that the VP will disagree with the President in interviews and speechs, but the major reason this shouldn't be done is a Congressional one...

The VP breaks ties in the Senate...Name a president that wants a bill to pass knowing that the person they put in place has the constitutional authority to squelch it....

I couldn't...

AlicornsPrayer · #3 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

It's an unreastic scenario...It only attempts to coddle the emotional aspects...

There are a few reasons I could mention why, such as the possibility of situations (and most likely) that the VP will disagree with the President in interviews and speechs, but the major reason this shouldn't be done is a Congressional one...

The VP breaks ties in the Senate...Name a president that wants a bill to pass knowing that the person they put in place has the constitutional authority to squelch it....

I couldn't...

The same thing could happen of the President squelching something the VP want's passed...And it's not unusual for either to do such a thing.

It could also make them both more open to comprimise, in my opinion since both of them would have been voted in to represent ALL the voters...Dem and Rep alike. Cause their vote in wouldn't be just this party/that party, but both parties. Especially when one or both of them ran for election again and could then count on voters from both parties to consider how they comprimised on issues while previously in office...

Funny thing is, people thought the same thing when Lincoln decided to do it...But it worked out even though he's occupation of the White House was terminated with a bullet at a show. Cause his VP carried through with the President's goals, although he was free to say 'hey, we're in charge now so bully to what Lincoln and his wanted'...

The American public has been vocal about how tired they are of the partisan going-ons...And I not only believe it's workable, depending on who the nominee chooses as their VP running mate, but really would be more reflective of our people then what we currently have to choose from.

Not to mention, it would deffinately give other countries currently harping about how divided our nation is politically...They'd have to rethink alot of their propaganada in regards of how keeping us politically divided works to their benefits. Because a truely UNITED America on the political front would be what was gained.

cnredd · #4 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlicornsPrayer

The same thing could happen of the President squelching something the VP want's passed...And it's not unusual for either to do such a thing.

What?!?!

WHEN has a VP undermined a President's bill???...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlicornsPrayer

It could also make them both more open to comprimise, in my opinion since both of them would have been voted in to represent ALL the voters...Dem and Rep alike. Cause their vote in wouldn't be just this party/that party, but both parties. Especially when one or both of them ran for election again and could then count on voters from both parties to consider how they comprimised on issues while previously in office...

It wouldn't be compromise...In fact, it would be the opposite...

Half of Congress will side with the prez and the other half for the vice-prez...

It would actually make the party opposite the president stronger because they's now have someone in the Executive branch working for them...

Anmd what president would WANT that?...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlicornsPrayer

Funny thing is, people thought the same thing when Lincoln decided to do it...But it worked out even though he's occupation of the White House was terminated with a bullet at a show. Cause his VP carried through with the President's goals, although he was free to say 'hey, we're in charge now so bully to what Lincoln and his wanted'...

It would've been seen as vulgar to do the opposite...

Imagine resceinding the president's goals based solely on the reasoning that he's now dead...That wuld've destroyed the party...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlicornsPrayer

The American public has been vocal about how tired they are of the partisan going-ons...And I not only believe it's workable, depending on who the nominee chooses as their VP running mate, but really would be more reflective of our people then what we currently have to choose from.

If that's the case, then it would be Lieberman before anything lose to Hillary or Obama...

Compromising parties is one thing, but doing so by taking members on the far end of the other party is a disaster...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlicornsPrayer

Not to mention, it would deffinately give other countries currently harping about how divided our nation is politically...They'd have to rethink alot of their propaganada in regards of how keeping us politically divided works to their benefits. Because a truely UNITED America on the political front would be what was gained.

Lipstick on a pig...

Spencer Collins · #5 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 04:44 PM

I'm a Unity 08 delegate and frankly,I have lost faith in the Bi-Partisan ticket.There are so many reasons why this plan will not work.The main reason is that there would be severe problems with carrying out the Presidents agenda. The President and VP may agree that the Bi-Partisan bickering must end but how do we ever achieve this when the ticket would have great philosophical differences? Invariably the VP would be intentionally left out of the loop due to these well know differences.This would promote more hostilities between the parties not less.

AlicornsPrayer · #6 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

What?!?!

WHEN has a VP undermined a President's bill???...

Cheney? About the bill that was tried to be passed to make SSM illegal on a federal level?

He was very vocal because of his daughter and that although he didn't agree with her orientation, he also didn't agree with removing possibilities to her life by federal laws and said it should be done at state levels by what the states wanted.

And many felt that because of that, that's why many on the Republican side choose not to vote yes so it could pass. That indirectly, his opposition to Bush's anti-SSM stance lent a strong backing to why it didn't go over so well with Republicans across the board as first thought.

cnredd · #7 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlicornsPrayer

Cheney? About the bill that was tried to be passed to make SSM illegal on a federal level?

He was very vocal because of his daughter and that although he didn't agree with her orientation, he also didn't agree with removing possibilities to her life by federal laws and said it should be done at state levels by what the states wanted.

And many felt that because of that, that's why many on the Republican side choose not to vote yes so it could pass. That indirectly, his opposition to Bush's anti-SSM stance lent a strong backing to why it didn't go over so well with Republicans across the board as first thought.

I need to know more on this...I don't even know what "SSM" is...

AlicornsPrayer · #8 (**permalink**) 03-16-2008, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

I need to know more on this...I don't even know what "SSM" is...

??? Don't know what SSM is?

Same
Sex
Marriage

Or did you forget about that constitutional amendment trying to be added twice during Bush's presidency? And it's complete flop both times in Congress?

cnredd · #9 (**permalink**) 03-17-2008, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlicornsPrayer

??? Don't know what SSM is?

Same
Sex
Marriage

Or did you forget about that constitutional amendment trying to be added twice during Bush's presidency? And it's complete flop both times in Congress?

Federal Marriage Amendment

Quote:

Bush told the Washington Post that although he still supported the amendment, he would not lobby heavily for the passage because he believed that until a federal court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, there would not be enough votes for passage. Vice President Dick Cheney has neither endorsed nor condemned the FMA, arguing that same-sex marriage is an issue for the states to decide.

Surprisingly (or not), I have the exact same position as Cheney...

Also, this "disagreement" between Prez & VP is a small priority...It's not something that undermines policy as I originally was trying to indicate...If the VP were to disagree with something like National Health care or foreign relations with the prez and was vocal about it in an attempt to thwart the prezident's plans, that's a helluva lot more detriment than a social issue...

EDIT - I'd also like to point this out...

Quote:

Cheney went on to reiterate the position he first outlined in the 2000 campaign -- that same-sex marriage should be left to the states to decide. He noted, however, that Bush has endorsed a constitutional amendment preventing the states from recognizing such marriages.

"At this point . . . my own preference is as I've stated," Cheney said. "But the president makes basic policy for the administration. And he's made it."

Your example doesn't work because I asked "WHEN has a VP undermined a President's bill???"...

As you can see through Cheney's answer, he is not undermining the president's position...In fact, what he's saying is that he personally is against it but he knows his place as VP and will NOT undermine the president's position...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode