Who doesn’t love the Veepstakes? Not only is the whole game fun to play—Clue and CandyLand rolled into one!—but it also has a delightful seasonality about it, a breezy, summery quality that lets us know that the heat of general election season really is, once again, upon us. So we don’t fault the Veepstakes for its self-indulgence or its tendency to legitimize campaign-generated rumor or the fact that it does the voting public little good, save for the titillation of being part of a rhetorical roller coaster that speeds along its own question-mark curve. Hey, it’s the Veepstakes. It’s tradition.
And this year’s enactment of that tradition, it’s worth noting, has been especially—amusingly—roller-coaster-esque. We’ve seen TV reporters become particularly aggressive in their questioning of their running-mate-worthy guests, dedicating, sometimes, half an interview to their attempts to trick those guests into admitting they’re being vetted. We’ve heard veep-trail talk of Viagra and facial hair and political pawn-ery. We’ve seen the candidates’ suitors publicly declaring their devotion by acting as surrogates—The gas tax holiday is a terrific idea! The surge is definitely not working!—for their candidates. We’ve seen front-runners-who’ve-dropped-out (Jim Webb, Bobby Jindal) and front-runners-who’ve-been-decided-against (Hillary Clinton, apparently). We’ve even seen one wooer, Charlie Crist, remedy the potential liability of his erstwhile confirmed-bachelorhood with a shotgun engagement. Truly, excitement all around!
But though its melody will linger on, the Veepstakes’s song will soon be ending. The short lists, we’re told, are now really short; the announcements of the Veepstakes Winners will come, you know, “soon.” (The Washington Post might just win the award for the Most Space-Wasting Veepstakes-Related Headline, with this, from the front page of last Friday’s paper: “McCain May Act Soon on VP Pick.” His convention is basically a month away; when else but “soon” would McCain announce his choice?) Word on the street—K Street, anyway—is that things will come down to The Two Tims, Kaine (Obama) and Pawlenty (McCain). But, again, nothing’s for sure.
With that in mind, here’s a thought: If we’re going to spend so much time and space speculating about the candidates’ potential running mates, then why don’t we fill the Veepstakes’s news hole not just with rumination, but also with some substance? Instead of simply rehashing rumor—It’s so gonna be Webb!—and peddling predictions—Jindal’s a lock!—why don’t we complement the gossip with some conversation? Perhaps with some edifying discussion about why we should, you know, care about all this in the first place? Seriously. Why don’t we spend some of our remaining Veepstakes time—not all, but some—talking about the office at the core of all the speculation?
The vice presidency, after all, being Constitutionally unfettered—indeed, the only demands that document makes of a veep is that he break ties in the Senate and stay alive—makes for a kind of moldable seat for its occupant. Unlike the presidency, in which, by design, the office transcends the man, when it comes to the vice presidency, the man transcends the office. And that office has evolved over the years from the presidential contest’s consolation prize (and not much of a consolation, at that: “My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived,” John Adams famously wrote of his own veep experience) into a position that more nearly reflects the office’s “second in command” shorthand. In the past sixteen years, in particular—and the past seven-and-a-half, in even more particular—the office has attained unprecedented power.
Will the power trend continue with the next VP, whoever he or she may be? Or will the next resident of One Observatory Circle scale back his or her influence? Will we see a future veep in the mold of John “All I Have to Do Is Have a Pulse” Adams? Or of John “Not Worth a Pitcher of Warm Piss” Garner? Or Garret “Assistant to the President” Hobart? Or Al “I Do My Thing, You Do Yours” Gore? Or Dick “I Do My Thing, You Can Do Yours If I Say So” Cheney?
Most likely, the vice presidency—for the next four years, and the foreseeable future—will be cast in the Gore model. The next veep will probably be a true executive deputy, with his or her own governmental responsibilities and, importantly, stewardship over his or her own policy priorities. But that, of course, is mere—and more—speculation. Vice presidential power going forward may be more than Gore’s, or less. We won’t know how the office will evolve until we know who its next occupant will be. But in the meantime, as we find ourselves nearly at the end of 2008’s Veepstakes game, it’d be nice to do a little talking about the four (or eight?) years that will come after the game ends—not to speculate about what the office will look like, or about who, ultimately, will occupy it, but to discuss what it should look like, how we’d like it to be shaped. Which would be a change in the Veepstakes’ rules, sure. But it’d also make the game, at this point, much more fun to play.



I notice one name not mentioned here among the VP "front runners who have been decided against" category...
John Edwards.
In fact, I haven't seen a peep here about the MSM's failure to follow up on Johnie's alleged "love child" meeting with his baby mamma at the Beverly Hilton.
Seems like something's going on at CJR that looks like that "liberal bias" that we all know can't possibly exist among the "watchdogs" of "professional journalism".
Wonder what it is?
Posted by padikiller on Wed 30 Jul 2008 at 05:51 PM
Padikiller is exactly right. I can remember when the MSM ignored this news item:
Though the space alien that endorsed Bush probably put him over the top, votewise...
Posted by Circusboy on Thu 31 Jul 2008 at 08:38 PM
This story has been lingering in the tabloids and the blogosphere for nearly a year. Only the National Enquirer has the ability to nail it down. So much for the investigative abilities of "professional journalists".
If some GOP "has been" had fathered a love-baby the MSM would have been all over him like white on rice.
Here we have a guy who is not only still a candidate for President (he merely suspended his campaign) but is also sniffing around for a Veep nominiation.
No story here, though, people. Move on.
Posted by padikiller on Thu 31 Jul 2008 at 11:08 PM
Funny, in all your poo pooing of the NE, you fail to mention that they have a higher reputation for accuracy than their mainstream counterparts.
The best thing about this story, even if the MSM never touches it is I will never have to see the Breck Girl in my America again.
Posted by TDC on Thu 31 Jul 2008 at 11:23 PM
I love the irony of you two (or one, who knows?) wanting the MSM to pay attention to Edwards. They didn't pay attention when he was running for President! What a laugh.
As for the relevance of the tabloids as journalism, there's a reason tabloids lose defamation lawsuits: they're often wrong. The link that I posted above seems to have been scrubbed; it was the front page stories on the Bush divorce. You may remember the Kerry affair that you probably were pushing several years ago as well.
Bottom line: you only seem to trust the news that you're partisan to. The Edwards story may very well be true, but personally I don't read US Magazine. Maybe you should renew your subscription.
Posted by circusboy on Fri 1 Aug 2008 at 09:43 AM
The liberal "professional journalists" of the MSM are fiddling while Rome burns around them. This is a huge story with hundreds upon hundreds of hits in the blogosphere, on radio, in the international press, and even (finally) over at Editor and Publisher.
The facts in this case should not be hard to uncover- it's just that nobody in liberal-dominated newsrooms of America wants to dig up dirt on Dems.
Or perhaps so many investigative journalists are busy tracking down "Lucy Ramirez" to nail down Dan Rather's TANG memos, that nobody outside of the National Enquirer is available to track down John Edwards or his Baby Mamma.
Posted by padikiller on Fri 1 Aug 2008 at 10:11 AM
I personally could care less. Apparently others feel the same. Edwards star was dropping long before this, despite what you think.
Posted by Circusboy on Fri 1 Aug 2008 at 02:45 PM