Whatever Became of Hubert?

|

Speculation over Kerry's choice for the veep slot is heating up; McSweeny's runs down the list.

Advertisement

NEXT: One Likes to Know Everything

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ah, that was terribly satisfying. Almost makes me wish Bill Clinton would be VP.

  2. Hmm. Is there some law that disallows Bill Clinton from being VP?

    If he can be VP, would be able to succeed Kerry if something should happen, or is he barred from ever being Prez again, no matter how it’s done?

  3. Hmm. Is there some law that disallows Bill Clinton from being VP?

    If he can be VP, would he able to succeed Kerry if something should happen, or is he barred from ever being Prez again, no matter how it’s done?

  4. Hmm. Is there some law that disallows Bill Clinton from being VP?

    If he can be VP, would he be able to succeed Kerry if something should happen, or is he barred from ever being Prez again, no matter how it’s done?

  5. He could be President again, he just couldn’t run for President again. So, conceivably, Kerry could win, and have an “accident,” leading to a third Clinton term.

  6. Damn, sorry ’bout that.

  7. He could be President again, he just couldn’t run for President again.

    It is by no means clear that he could be; the 12th amendment can be read either way. The Supreme Court would end up having to decide — and it’s pretty much a given that the current court would come down on the side of “he can’t be President, so he can’t be Vice-President”.

  8. They could just skip in the line of succession if he can’t be president, and President Kerry dies.

    Though I agree, the conservative majority of this SC would almost certainly make up another “this isn’t a prededent, dammit” excuse to favor the Republican ticket, if they’re given the chance.

  9. I can’t believe he skipped Arnold, from California.
    Pro: Delivers California, Once he wins would no longer be governor of California, Maria would be the Second Lady.
    Con: Also ineligible for president (but Congress can take care of that when they fix things for Clinton), Would just have to show up to overshadow Kerry.

  10. I like the idea of VP Perot. Put a crazy man in a useless job, and good things will happen! πŸ™‚

  11. Actually, as I think of it, I want Clinton around some more. Even though I didn’t agree with his policies, the man was just so damn fun. He was awesome.

    I mean, he bangs an intern on company time in his government-issued office and then lies about it under oath (yes, yes, I know, technicalities, etc.), and gets impeached, yet somehow New Gingrich is the one who loses his job. I mean, the man was a genius. I give him props!

    Love him or hate him, there’s no denying that he was fun to watch! πŸ™‚

  12. I think the intent of the 22nd Amendment is relatively clear: You can be elected twice yourself, you can serve >2 years of someone else’s term and be elected once, or you can serve

  13. Have all of you forgotten my candidacy already?

    Very well then. Your punishment shall be to survive when I awaken. You will survive and suffer the hellish world that I bring about, after all others have been killed and devoured.

  14. 21. Richard Nixon, President USA

    Pro: Since he’s dead, by comparison Kerry will look like he cares.

    Con: He still is more charismatic than Kerry.

  15. Though I agree, the conservative majority of this SC would almost certainly make up another “this isn’t a prededent, dammit” excuse to favor the Republican ticket, if they’re given the chance.

    They wouldn’t have to “make up” anything. You can’t be vice-president unless you’re eligible to be President.

    From dictionary.com:
    Eligible: “That may be selected; proper or qualified to be chosen; legally qualified to be elected and to hold office.”

    Clinton is legally qualified to hold the office of President; he is NOT legally qualified to be elected President. Ergo it is perfectly reasonable to say “Bill Clinton is not eligible to be President”; ergo he cannot be vice-President.

    In closing, I’d like to say that it takes a lot of gall to argue in favor of an action that is clearly against the intent of the Constitution, arguably against the wording of the Constitution, and completely unprecidented in American law, and then turn around and say that the “conservative majority” would have to “make up an excuse” to shoot it down. How’s this for an excuse: you’re proposing an illegal and flagrantly unconstitutionl action.

  16. “he is NOT legally qualified to be elected President. Ergo it is perfectly reasonable to say “Bill Clinton is not eligible to be President”‘

    And no, “NOT legally qualified to be ELECTED president” is not the same thing as “not eligible to become president.” Since you can serve as president without being elected, the two are not interchangeable. Plenty of wiggle room there.

  17. I think the bottom line is that his eligibility to the office of VP is at best in a gray area, and at worst non-existent.

    More importantly, this was supposed to be a fun thread! I want Cthulu for VP: Why vote for the lesser evil?

  18. joe,

    The last sentence in the 12th Amendment pretty much says it all: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. “

    Democratic Party pipe dreams to the contrary, Felonious Bill will remain an ex-President.

  19. How about:

    22. Godzilla

    Pros: Understands parenting, would appeal to soccer moms and sci-fi nerds. Points out the folly of men, appeals to Greens.

    Cons: With a purposeful grimace and a terrible sound, he pulls the spitting high-tension wires down. Radioactive, thus abhorrent to Greens.

  20. “he bangs an intern”

    Uconsummated felatio may count as “an affair,” but I wouldn’t count it as banging! πŸ™‚

  21. She didn’t inhale.

  22. Dan drools:

    In closing, I’d like to say that it takes a lot of gall to argue in favor of an action that is clearly against the intent of the Constitution, arguably against the wording of the Constitution, blah blah blah…

    The suggestion was a joke, you retard.

  23. Since Kerry is such a big government guy, to achieve balance on the ticket he’d have to run with Ron Paul or maybe Hayek’s ghost…

  24. “The suggestion was a joke, you retard.”

    Zing!

  25. What ever happened to old crazy Tom Eagleton? Kerry could be behind him 100%.

  26. Tim,

    At the risk of being labelled a retard, I think Dan was not referring to the McSweeny’s entry (clearly a joke) but Joe’s response to the thread (not a joke, but another chance to whine once more about the SCOTUS and Bush v. Gore)

  27. The suggestion was a joke, you retard.

    Posted by Tim Cavanaugh at May 29, 2004 01:08 PM

    You’ll have to forgive Timothy, he gets grumpy when he is hung over.

  28. Dang it, being ineligible to be president is different than being term limited out of being elected again. I still think he could be VP.

  29. For all the humor of these amature jokers, it will be the real professional funny folk in the Democrat leadership who come up with the real joke. They found Kerry, didn’t they?

  30. That Constitutional issue is messier than I thought. I would have been sure that someone who’s been President for two terms was ineligible under Amendment 12 to be President again, and thus couldn’t be Vice-President; but Amendment 22 does indeed restrict only being elected president, not attaining the office by some other means. If, say, Bill Clinton were Speaker of the House and both Bush and Cheney died, then it looks as if Clinton could succeed to office.

    There’s also the question of what “elected” means. Strictly speaking, to elect is to choose and isn’t limited to a popular vote, so it might be argued that the Speaker is “elected” and thus is ineligible.

  31. Anarchist homey here don’t play dis game.

    What everyone seems to desire is one half name recognition and one half alpha male. That’s what seems to be being debated.

    Wouldn’t the world be a better place if we could choose from among:

    1. Tom Turkey (Ben Franklin’s favorite son)
    2. Lily Tomlin
    3. Caspar Milquetoast
    4. Don Knotts
    5. Jane Fonda and Jeanine Garofolo, co-vice-presidents
    6. Joe/ Josephine Shit, the ragperson
    7. John “Queer” Pubic
    8. “Momma” from the Carol Burnett show

  32. All I know is that I would vote for 14 Dogs from Ohio in a heartbeat.

  33. Clinton was fun to watch. In part because of his bullet proof fascade. The other side of the coin was that he’d whip the conservatives into such a state of delirium that they would argue for abortion if Clinton were to try to ban it.

    Alas, their won’t be any grudge match, and the Republicans remain Clinton’s noisy bitch. Term limits suck all the fun out of politics.

  34. Hubert Horatio Hornblower Humphrey was a hell of a vice president and still could be, by gum, except for the unfortunate fact he died.

    I just wanted to inject a note of nostalgia from having dined just a table or two away from Hubert and Muriel. It would have been about 1974 in DC. Decent, though ruthless as I am, I respected their pseudo-privacy by not ogling them blatently nor trying to chat them up.

  35. And a news media who never let the public forget Quayle’s potatoe never even once mentioned the worst President we ever had and his “Hubert Horatio Hornblower” intro.

  36. The original Constitution set only three eligibility requirements to become president: age, natural-born citizenship, and residency. The 12th Amendment refers to these restrictions when stating a vice-president must have the same qualifications as the president. The original text says nothing about vice-presidential eligibility, because the original election method was to make the presidential runner-up the vice-president, restating the eligibility requirements would have been redundant.

    The 22nd Amendment speaks only to qualifications for election, not succession. The 25th Amendment says the Vice President becomes President upon vacancy. Under the 12th Amendment, the Vice President must meet the three eligibility requirements in Article II. But the 25th does not, in my view, incorporate the 22nd Amendment as an eligibility requirement.

    Furthermore, the original provision regarding succession beyond the Vice President remains intact, and it grants Congress the exclusive power to declare “what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.” Now this clause clearly distinguishes election and succession, since it allows an office to act as president until an election intervenes.

    3 U.S.C. sec. 19 governs succession past the Vice President. It refers to officers “act[ing] as President” provided they “qualify.” Again, I take that to mean eligibility under Article II, not electoral eligbility under the 22nd Amendment. And in keeping with the 25th Amendment’s use of the phrase “Acting President,” I would conclude the Constitution as a whole distinguishes acting as president from being elected president (except when a Vice President outright succeeds the President, but that was not made explicit until the 25th Amendment’s passage.)

    So to answer the original question: Yes, the Constitution does permit Bill Clinton to be elected Vice President and succeed to the presidency outright if need be.

  37. Slick,

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

  38. http://volokh.com/2004_02_29_volokh_archive.html

    Volokh did a pretty good job analyzing the Clinton issue back in March. Scrool down or search.

  39. Walter, you don’t suppose the media grew between the 60s and the 90, do you?

  40. joe – not in any generally acceptable definition of growth.
    When Kay Boyle, instructor at SF State, announced that it was no longer enough for reporters to cover a demonstration, now they should also pick up a stone themselves and throw it, and NOT ONE OUTLET OBJECTED, the slide had truly begun. They haven’t hit bottom yet.

  41. “And a news media who never let the public forget Quayle’s potatoe never even once mentioned the worst President we ever had and his “Hubert Horatio Hornblower” intro.”

    That creates an interesting paradox: If the media never mentioned it at all, how do we know it happened?

    Fortunately, I can produce a counterexample and thus keep smoke from coming out of people’s ears:

    http://www.dispatch.com/news/convention/aug00/369775.html

    But, oh dear, I’m rebutting Walter Wallis again. Worse than shooting fish in a barrel. I’d better go out and mow the lawn.

    And please, no one bring out the “fact” that JFK called himself a jelly doughnut or I’ll have to bring out my whole rebuttal of that. πŸ™‚

  42. thank you garym for the first ever written confirmation of my recollection.
    What is the ratio of that mention to the potatoe mention? Just a rough estimate is enough.

  43. So the only thing Marilyn Monroe, Judith Exner and Jackie O shared was a taste in jelly doughnuts?

  44. I just realized a benefit of bringing Clinton back: Clinton was our most openly and stridently heterosexual President ever. In an era where conservatives are lamenting gay marriage, surely Clinton would be the ideal role model to bring back! πŸ™‚

  45. “I do not need either your acknowledgement or your approval to validate my statements.”

    Now that’s a fantastic recipe for interesting and enlightening discussion here. Let’s all make fantastic and unsupported claims (thoreau’s got the idea!) and then act righteously offended when others expect us to provide some shred of evidence. Like how all those prison guards were democrats! (So are the Spice Girls!)

  46. I cannot compel belief on your part any more than you can compel silence on my part. The casual reader is left with the decision – whose assertions are more likely true, if any are.
    We all know that all news reports are objective and that editors would sooner die than allow their personal prejudices to color the news.

  47. The casual reader is left with the decision – whose assertions are more likely true, if any are.

    There’s another option: You could provide documentation for your claims (in the form of links) and we could decide based on evidence rather than the credibility of posters and whether the assertions register on our BS detectors.

    Until then, Scary Spice is all your fault, you terrorist! πŸ™‚

  48. Yeah really Walter. What were you thinking with those other Spice girls? They just paled next to the super cute Posh…also, only two or three good tunes.

    Now there was another English girl group, all three are knockouts with oodles of style and verve, and they had lots of great songs. That’s right, back to the new wave 80’s….it’s BANANARAMA!

    http://bestcovers.tgnetwk.com/audio/bananarama_the_greatest_hits_collection_front.jpg

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/totp2/features/wallpaper/images/800/bananarama.jpg

    http://www16.tok2.com/home/kamechan/bananarama.jpg

    http://www.inmusic2000.de/POP_Queens/M-POP_Queens/A-POP_Queens/B-POP_Queens/bananarama01.JPG

    http://www.hakushouse.com/images/RnR45/0a0630g.jpg

  49. FWIW, I saw the “Horatio Hornblower” clip on an episode of “Dick Clark’s Greatest TV Bloopers” back in the 80s. FWIW.

  50. I cite from memory incidents I remember from direct observation because they were not otherwise mentioned in the general media. I admit to some responsibility for the Spice Girls since I took all their virginities, but a gentleman never admits such. If that got back to Madona she would never forgive me, so keep it between ourselves, huh?
    Betcha you don’t remember when all the school bands shunned any march music, to validate their anti-war credentials, do ya? And when Armed Forces Day open houses were cancelled because of the fear of on basy demonstrations? Another Wallis fantasy?
    That was about the time when Wallis filed a lawsuit against the City of Palo Alto to stop a proposal to make a $50,000 gift of city funds to the Bok Mai Hospital Fund.
    Stick around kids, learn something.

  51. Walter,

    Well OK. You’re a gentleman then. That’s excellent.

    On the matter of documentation for your claims; remember Walter, that willingness to provide links and book or periodical citations not only affords others a way of verifying those claims, it also may help them to better appreciate your point of view. It’s what gentleman and ladies do around here anyway.

  52. Walter, I proved your last categorical assertion false. This new claim of yours is so obscure I can’t even find a reference on Google to a Kay Boyle encouraging stone-throwing. Your epistemology to the contrary, there is no reason for anyone to believe the unsupported claims you throw out.

  53. How can one cite one’s own knowledge? Nothing exists until it is acknowledged by “The powers that be”? You can get stuff out of books out of books. I am mostly an initial source, to be cited or not at your pleasure. If you sometimes find what I say hard to believe, remember that if you live long enough, someday you will witness something eminently newsworthy. When you get home, you will turn on the TV or open the newspaper and say “That sure as hell wasn’t what I saw.” I have just been at it a while.
    First KIA in my outfit was “Pop” Gittleson. He was 26.

  54. Walter,

    If you’re reporting personal observations and knowledge, then I and probably just about everyone else here would accept that you may not be able to cite something the rest of us could check on, and we can take your observations for what we think they’re worth. If you were reporting a personal observation regarding Kay Boyle’s comments and there are no transcripts or other records of her comments, saying so would probably have been a more useful response, for the purposes of these comment boards, than “I do not need either your acknowledgement or your approval to validate my statements.”

    Regarding your claim (which you’ve repeated several times) that the responsible Abu Ghraib guards and highers up were all democrats, I’m assuming this wasn’t a personal observation; but you’ve still never provided any evidence to support it, despite numerous requests by myself and others that you do so. So, once more, do you have any evidence to support that claim? Your military service is certainly worthy of our respect and appreciation, and I offer my thanks to you. But that doesn’t mean we should accept at face value every claim you make here, military or otherwise.

  55. Even if Clinton were somehow eligible for the VP slot, I think Kerry is smart enough not to take him on board.

    Because it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you’re one heartbeat away from Bill Clinton and a return to the Oval Office, he’s going to figure out a way to tie up *that* loose end.

  56. garym

    If it hurts when you do that, don’t do it.
    I assume that before you made your last assertion you went back and read every word printed about the S F State troubles?
    Like Carter’s blunder, for which you provided the first published acknowledgement I had seen, the Kay Boyle statement also did not receive any amplification or repetition, because it did not fit the interests of advocacy journalism to repeat it. I do not need either your acknowledgement or your approval to validate my statements. Your roaring llike a stuck pig is reward enough. At S F State it happened.

  57. Walter Wallis is a terrorist. Walter Wallis is also single-handedly responsible for the disaster known as the Spice Girls.

    Evidence? Why do I need evidence when these things are self-evident to me? The burden is on Walter to disprove me, and a failure to find any support for my case will not suffice. Only negative evidence will suffice.

  58. Walter,

    Although I am distressed to learn of your terrorist status; I do want to thank you for bringing us the Spice Girls since Posh Spice is absolutely drop dead gorgeous!

    http://www.nothingisreal.com/old/04/pictures/posh2.jpg

    http://users.ev1.net/~alternity/tv/pageboy/Victoria_Beckham.jpg

  59. Ask someone else who was in the SF State troubles.
    I told you all how I derived my assertion about the guards, and no one has come up with a better process, seeing as how no one has published their voting registration cards to the contrary.
    Everyone walks eggshells around Hillary’s general.
    My daughter was a student at SF State during the troubles so I was paying close attention to what went on. At the time I was also a member of the ISGS and so I was particularly interested in Sam’s behavior, especially when he said to Kay “You’re Fired!” [Betcha thought Trump invented that phrase, didn’t you?] The “You’re fired ” is documented because the press wanted to show Sam’s arbitrariness. Kay’s perversion apparently doidn’t prove any point and thus didn’t make the cut. But ask, anyway.

  60. Walter, what the hell are you talking about? There are more reporters, more news channels, the internet, etc etc etc since the 60s. What does Kay Boyle, whoever the hell she is, have to do with anything?

    Is this yet another “Hey look over there!” tactic?

  61. joe, “…Kay Boyle, whoever the hell she is…” says it all about your criticism.
    Yes, there are more reporters, etc. You can find 1500 different sources of pictures of stacked naked prisoners but almost no mention of the lady General’s political relationships. Reporters reporting on other reporters hardly expands the news supply.
    I always figured my tactic was “Hey look over here” but I guess, from your side it sounds like look over there because that is not the direction you want folks to look.
    About the earlier thanking me for my service – My monument was a South Korea vibrant and prosperous against the backdrop of a North deep in slavery.
    Feather Merchants.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.