SackAttack
05-10-2008, 03:53 AM
Read an article on CNN.com about some funky vice-presidential stuff a few minutes ago. One of the things it said, indirectly, was that Lincoln had 4 Vice Presidents. I didn't think that was right, so I went to check Wikipedia, which seems to back me up.
Wikipedia also says that just four veeps have been elected to serve as POTUS following the end of their predecessors' term(s).
Thomas Jefferson barely counts, since that was a time when VP was "awarded" to the loser of the general election, rather than a part and parcel of the Presidential ticket.
So, really, three sitting VPs have been elected, Richard Nixon got elected after having served as VP, but not as a sitting VP, and a further nine succeeded to the Presidency as a result of natural death, assassination, or resignation.
A relative griped to me a while ago about Bush not having replaced Cheney as VP prior to his second term, with the idea being that a strong candidate could have been groomed for the 2008 election. I'm sure the 'heartbeat' aspect is important to him as well, but it seems like the 'grooming' aspect is more relevant to him.
With all of that said, and assuming that Presidential candidates already select their running mates with an eye towards strengthening the overall ticket, what about the rest of it?
Would you rather your candidate of choice focus more on picking an able "heartbeat replacement," or on somebody who can be groomed to run a winning campaign in 2016?
Wikipedia also says that just four veeps have been elected to serve as POTUS following the end of their predecessors' term(s).
Thomas Jefferson barely counts, since that was a time when VP was "awarded" to the loser of the general election, rather than a part and parcel of the Presidential ticket.
So, really, three sitting VPs have been elected, Richard Nixon got elected after having served as VP, but not as a sitting VP, and a further nine succeeded to the Presidency as a result of natural death, assassination, or resignation.
A relative griped to me a while ago about Bush not having replaced Cheney as VP prior to his second term, with the idea being that a strong candidate could have been groomed for the 2008 election. I'm sure the 'heartbeat' aspect is important to him as well, but it seems like the 'grooming' aspect is more relevant to him.
With all of that said, and assuming that Presidential candidates already select their running mates with an eye towards strengthening the overall ticket, what about the rest of it?
Would you rather your candidate of choice focus more on picking an able "heartbeat replacement," or on somebody who can be groomed to run a winning campaign in 2016?