Agreed, and the fact is, it's pretty much always been of some import, and moreso in the past 100 years. The VP may appear to be just some guy hanging around sometimes breaking a tie in the Senate, but the position is an important one on a national and international level -- not to mention should be (I think, ideally) someone who balances out the Prez and rounds out the major opinions shaping any national decisions.
If the blather about the VP-choice is focused so strongly on delivering votes from a certain subset of the electorate -- and next to nothing about what s/he would deliver when in office -- that really disturbs me. It makes me wonder if the nominee is thinking, oh, I don't need a sounding board, I don't need someone to round me out. I just need someone to deliver those extra votes, and the rest? Eh, that doesn't matter.
But it does matter! Such an attitude is quietly saying the VP-choice isn't going to make a difference, won't pull any real weight. We wouldn't expect a student to really be able to contribute in partnership with a teacher, but neither would a wise choice be to create such partnership and expect the results you'd get from two powerful, experienced teachers working together. The student's going to lag. Question is, can we afford such a lag?
Makes me even more cynical, makes me feel like the VP-choice was plunked down on the ticket less for any real contribution and solely because she makes a good Vanna White to the party's gameshow host. I find that particularly offensive.
no subject
Date: 1 Sep 2008 10:27 pm (UTC)Agreed, and the fact is, it's pretty much always been of some import, and moreso in the past 100 years. The VP may appear to be just some guy hanging around sometimes breaking a tie in the Senate, but the position is an important one on a national and international level -- not to mention should be (I think, ideally) someone who balances out the Prez and rounds out the major opinions shaping any national decisions.
If the blather about the VP-choice is focused so strongly on delivering votes from a certain subset of the electorate -- and next to nothing about what s/he would deliver when in office -- that really disturbs me. It makes me wonder if the nominee is thinking, oh, I don't need a sounding board, I don't need someone to round me out. I just need someone to deliver those extra votes, and the rest? Eh, that doesn't matter.
But it does matter! Such an attitude is quietly saying the VP-choice isn't going to make a difference, won't pull any real weight. We wouldn't expect a student to really be able to contribute in partnership with a teacher, but neither would a wise choice be to create such partnership and expect the results you'd get from two powerful, experienced teachers working together. The student's going to lag. Question is, can we afford such a lag?
Makes me even more cynical, makes me feel like the VP-choice was plunked down on the ticket less for any real contribution and solely because she makes a good Vanna White to the party's gameshow host. I find that particularly offensive.