Nonsense about the role of the Vice President

[hgc]

With the going of Cheney and the coming of Biden, there has been much talk in the media about the role of the Vice Presidency, about what Cheney did to "enhance" it and what Biden will do to "change" it back to something it used to be. (Nevermind the nonsensical gibberish spewed by Palin on the matter.)

The truth is there is no such thing as the role of the VP, other than to break tie votes in the Senate. The "Office of the Vice President" is a fictional construct, with no basis in the constitution.

Cheney, and every other VP before hiim, had exactly as much power and influence as the President allowed. It's not that the Vice Presidency with Cheney had unprecedented power, but that Cheney, personally had all that power. This is because Bush is a weak and feckless executive, and Cheney is extremely motivated and ambitious. I am convinced that if Cheney had been Bush's Chief of Staff, he would have had pretty much the same role he has had.

When it comes to Biden, once again, Obama will decide his level of influence. There is nothing relevant about it that is up to Biden, and nothing inherent in the office that contributes to Obama's decision on the matter.

Now, can someone please explain this to the chattering idiots who pose as political journalists in every corner of the television media?

[gdnp]

I'd say you did a pretty good job.

[Darth Rotor]

--snip excellent post--

Now, can someone please explain this to the chattering idiots who pose as political journalists in every corner of the television media?

I owe you a beer. Well said.

[hgc]

I owe you a beer. Well said.


Thank you, sir. I eagerly await the occasion.

[Ladewig]

I would add one more small role: to attend funerals of vice-presidential-level politicians in ally countries.

[NorthMass]

Hopefully Biden does a better job than Cheney, though I am no fan of Biden either.

[BazBear]

Well Dick's a dick, but you have it about right responsibilty wise :) Never did buy the "puppet" BS. If Dubya listened too much, that's on his dime.

edited for spelling

[davefoc]

My sense of it is that you are correct hgc. But the standard story seems so unlikely that I remain somewhat unconvinced of its truth.

It seems that Cheney had unprecedented power and that for a good part of the early Bush administration he was the principal decision maker with regard to Iraq, the middle east and maybe American foreign policy in general.

He also wielded unique power with regards to the Justice department and the defense department.

From my perspective the most unlikely part of the story wasn't Cheney it was Bush. Bush seems to have allowed himself to have been manipulated by Cheney and Rove so completely that it is hard to see what role Bush played in the early Bush administration beyond that of figurehead.

I think I understand people like Rove and Cheney. I may not always agree with their ideology or their sense of ethics but their nature is easily in the range of what I see as normal human. Rove and Cheney are thoughtful people. When they talk I get a sense of what their thought process is like. I get a sense of why they did A instead of B.

Bush is different. His actions seem driven by emotion and narcissism. I don't get any sense of somebody that has weighed the issues and justified decisions based on a reasoned approach. Even now as his administration winds down the only consistent characteristic seems to be a desire to be beneficent with other people's money, something that has been a hallmark of his administration as he directed his instincts to decision making based on benefiting various partisan and cronies. There is no inner sense of a need to balance the good versus the damage of his decisions. Decisions are good if people he cares about benefit regardless of the overall impact of his decisions.

But this is not straightforward corruption. I was impressed when he withdrew the pardon of somebody that turned out to be something other than he had believed when the pardon was made. Clearly this is somebody that wants to do the right thing. But he just isn't thoughtful enough to even begin to understand how to determine what that is. And for reasons that I don't see he seems to have turned over the responsibility of analysis and decision making to others even when it seems those people have far overstepped their bounds and their actions have been disastrous.

When historians look back on the Bush administration in a hundred years, will the Role of Cheney be viewed as a unique aberration from the nature of a typical Vice Presidency or will history see it as something more routine than it seems, at least to me, to be now?

[hgc]

My sense of it is that you are correct hgc. But the standard story seems so unlikely that I remain somewhat unconvinced of its truth.

It seems that Cheney had unprecedented power and that for a good part of the early Bush administration he was the principal decision maker with regard to Iraq, the middle east and maybe American foreign policy in general.

He also wielded unique power with regards to the Justice department and the defense department.

From my perspective the most unlikely part of the story wasn't Cheney it was Bush. Bush seems to have allowed himself to have been manipulated by Cheney and Rove so completely that it is hard to see what role Bush played in the early Bush administration beyond that of figurehead.

I think I understand people like Rove and Cheney. I may not always agree with their ideology or their sense of ethics but their nature is easily in the range of what I see as normal human. Rove and Cheney are thoughtful people. When they talk I get a sense of what their thought process is like. I get a sense of why they did A instead of B.

Bush is different. His actions seem driven by emotion and narcissism. I don't get any sense of somebody that has weighed the issues and justified decisions based on a reasoned approach. Even now as his administration winds down the only consistent characteristic seems to be a desire to be beneficent with other people's money, something that has been a hallmark of his administration as he directed his instincts to decision making based on benefiting various partisan and cronies. There is no inner sense of a need to balance the good versus the damage of his decisions. Decisions are good if people he cares about benefit regardless of the overall impact of his decisions.

But this is not straightforward corruption. I was impressed when he withdrew the pardon of somebody that turned out to be something other than he had believed when the pardon was made. Clearly this is somebody that wants to do the right thing. But he just isn't thoughtful enough to even begin to understand how to determine what that is. And for reasons that I don't see he seems to have turned over the responsibility of analysis and decision making to others even when it seems those people have far overstepped their bounds and their actions have been disastrous.

When historians look back on the Bush administration in a hundred years, will the Role of Cheney be viewed as a unique aberration from the nature of a typical Vice Presidency or will history see it as something more routine than it seems, at least to me, to be now?


dave, spot on. It is definitely the case that Bush is the biggest aberation of character among all the players in their roles. My take about the profound aberation of Bush is that in the usual case, almost ineluctable, anyone who has the gumption to get himself elected President is going to be someone acutely interested in pulling the levers of power. Bush is just plain too lazy or incapable of focus or something, who knows what, to actually be the real, rather than posing as, top dog. It's a very strange case.

But I also think that Cheney is a special case. He is rather comprehensive in his ambition and reach. You can add to your list of Cheney's power portfolio his stamp on environmental policy, illegal domestic spying, casting aside the Geneva Conventions, and many other fronts, and his grand project: the Unitary Executive. Not many individuals could have filled the power vacuum left by Bush so thoroughly and purposefully.

Here's one thing I think historians will look at in the curious case of Bush: his continuous rhetoric about how all the war fighting and decision making that he does as President is "hard work." You can go on Youtube and find mashups of his utterances along this line. Very telling. Hard work on his part his the least thing that has been exhibited or evidenced in his term of office. He doth protest too much.

[Beerina]

Hopefully Biden does a better job than Cheney, though I am no fan of Biden either.


I agree wholeheartedly, if, by "does a better job", you mean, "gets back to doing nothing but waiting for the president's heart to stop."


I always found it humorous that Clinton bragged so much, especially late in his term, how Gore was the most involved VP in US history. Then Cheney comes along and smashes that record all to Hell.

[dudalb]

The Veep has as much power..outside the thrilling jobs of presiding over the Senate (which is routinely given to freshman Senators to teach them parlimentary procedure, which should tell you how important it is) and being the deciding vote in a tie,and waiting around in case something happnes to the Pres...as the president wants him to have.
Thus John Adams famous statement that the Veep "is the most insignificant office ever conceived by the mind of man".

[davefoc]

dave, spot on. It is definitely the case that Bush is the biggest aberation of character among all the players in their roles. My take about the profound aberation of Bush is that in the usual case, almost ineluctable, anyone who has the gumption to get himself elected President is going to be someone acutely interested in pulling the levers of power. Bush is just plain too lazy or incapable of focus or something, who knows what, to actually be the real, rather than posing as, top dog. It's a very strange case.



After I looked up what ineluctable meant I realized this was an exact expression of what I tried to say above.