CNN & NY Times report Palin VP choice

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
SportsFan68
No Scritches!!!
Posts: 21300
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:36 pm
Location: God's Country

#101 Post by SportsFan68 » Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:26 am

I just saw the notice -- a new local Republican club has scheduled its organizational meeting for Thursday at 7 p.m. I think this might bode ill for its future.

Or maybe it bodes well. I dunno.
-- In Iroquois society, leaders are encouraged to remember seven generations in the past and consider seven generations in the future when making decisions that affect the people.
-- America would be a better place if leaders would do more long-term thinking. -- Wilma Mankiller

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 24609
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

#102 Post by silverscreenselect » Wed Oct 01, 2008 8:37 am

The only time in history this has come up:

Spiro Agnew resigned on October 10, 1973. Nixon nominated Ford as VP on October 13, but he wasn't confirmed by the House and sworn in until December 6. That's a two month period in which, presumably, the speacker of the house could have become President.

Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974 and Ford became President. Ford nominated Rockefeller as VP on August 20, but he wasn't confirmed until December 19, over four months after Ford became President.

Of course, these gaps pale in comparison to the gaps before the 25th Amendment when VP's served for years (in John Tyler's case, virtually Harrison's entire term, the same with Truman and FDR and Johnson and Lincoln), but there was never any further succession.

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 24609
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

#103 Post by silverscreenselect » Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:07 am

If anyone has seen the movie Eagle Eye, the last few posts in this thread come in to play.
Spoiler
A super computer that has access to the nation's entire electronic network goes nuts (essentially becoming a female version of HAL) and decides that the government has become the enemy of the people. She/it tries to bring down the government by forcing the main characters to help set off a bomb in the Capitol during the State of the Union address when virtually everyone in the line of succession will be present. The computer is holding the Secretary of Defense captive as she/it has determined the SecDef to be the only member of the Administration who is not an enemy of the people and should therefore become the new President.

User avatar
wintergreen48
Posts: 2481
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:42 pm
Location: Resting comfortably in my comfy chair

#104 Post by wintergreen48 » Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:30 am

gsabc wrote:
TheCalvinator24 wrote:If fitness for the Presidency were a valid requirement, under that theory, we would have to apply it to every cabinet position that is listed in the line of succession.
Yeah, I remember when John Volpe, former governor of MA, was secretary of transportation for Nixon. That was when I first learned about the succession rules, and figured out that he was 13th in line for the presidency. Not a comforting thought.

National Lampoon ran a 'conspiracy' story while Nixon was President. The story line had the then Secretary of Transportation, Claude Brinegar, noting that he was just 13 heartbeats away from the Presidency, and he was plotting to remove everyone between him and the Presidency: among other things, he framed Agnew and force him to resign, he arranged for Kissinger to be the Secretary of State (although the Secretary of State is first in line within the Cabinet, foreign-born Henry Kissinger was ineligible to succeed), he arranged for the 55 mph speed limit as a way to slow down anyone else who might try to stop him (at the time, the 55 mph limit did not apply to big trucks; Brinegar was shown speeding to the White House in his official vehicle, 'Highway One'). Great Stuff.

User avatar
wintergreen48
Posts: 2481
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:42 pm
Location: Resting comfortably in my comfy chair

#105 Post by wintergreen48 » Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:33 am

Bob78164 wrote:
And didn't the Republican Party name Strom Thurmond as President Pro Tem of the Senate when it controlled that chamber? --Bob
Actually, the President Pro Tempore is not actually 'named' by either party: he just happens to be the Senator of the majority party who has the most tenure; Thurmond become President Pro Tempore when the Republicans regained control of the Senate by virtue (an oxymoron when used with reference to Strom Thurmond...) of the fact that he had been a member of the Senate since, well, I think when Reconstruction ended in South Carolina.

User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7635
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

#106 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:38 am

For the record I have an unblemished records of voting against Strom Thurmond, not that my votes counted for much. Nick Zeigler is the only Thurmond opponent who's name I can remember and that was in 1972.
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 22147
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

#107 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:49 am

wintergreen48 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
And didn't the Republican Party name Strom Thurmond as President Pro Tem of the Senate when it controlled that chamber? --Bob
Actually, the President Pro Tempore is not actually 'named' by either party: he just happens to be the Senator of the majority party who has the most tenure; Thurmond become President Pro Tempore when the Republicans regained control of the Senate by virtue (an oxymoron when used with reference to Strom Thurmond...) of the fact that he had been a member of the Senate since, well, I think when Reconstruction ended in South Carolina.
To be precise, the President Pro Tem of the Senate is elected by the entire Senate. I believe that the election has invariably occurred on a straight party-line vote after each party caucus determines its nominee for the position. Historically (at least in recent times), each party has nominated its most senior member for the honor.

In other words, there's no rule that says it has to be the most senior member of the majority party -- that's just how it's always played out. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Tocqueville3
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:39 am
Location: Mississippi

#108 Post by Tocqueville3 » Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:12 pm

BigDrawMan wrote:
Tocqueville3 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:I'm wondering, Cal, whether you still stand by this statement. --Bob
I don't speak for Cal, but we are both pretty conservative.

I don't think that McCain could have picked anyone better.
---------------
the former Miss Tenn South Carolina comes to mind.
US Americans could get behind that.


I know that liberals have trouble believing that but as far as this election goes, Sarah Palin was the best choice for John McCain's running mate. A lot of my opinion has to do with John McCain. She is a good fit with him. She might not be as good a fit with some other republicans but she is a great fit on his ticket.
--------------

I agree.She has W's air of incompetence which "some" people like in their leaders.


If I were Joe Biden right now, I would be nervous.

-----

she is quite the orator, to be sure.
What the hell?


You can't even get the quote thingie right.


You suck.

Post Reply