Pretty Good Ad

This blog does not endorse any candidate for anything, and will never be shy about decrying nonsense, no matter the source. That said, this is an ad worth watching:

Click here to comment or read others’ comments.


15 Responses to “Pretty Good Ad”

  1. 1 1 Harold

    Certainly sounds superior to the Trump jumble of incoherence and lies and avoids the personal issues with Clinton. I don’t understand American politics, but wouldn’t a Johnson/Weld campaign split the Republican vote and put Hillary in the whitehouse? Are they proposing a presidential job-share?

  2. 2 2 Harold

    Are they proposing two terms as a limit for congress? Would that change things as much as they claim?

    I wondered what the last amendment to the constitution was. What was going on with the 27th? 200 years to ratify – seems very odd. Before that was 1971, to reduce voting age to 18. I had not realised the term limits for president was only introduced in 1951 by the 22nd amendment.

  3. 3 3 David Pinto

    Harold, I have seen them say they look at POTUS/VPOTUS as a partnership. They plan to have one staff, with Weld in on everything.

  4. 4 4 Ken B

    When Cheney was VP there were rumblings, and law articles, about whether that was constitutional. Surprisingly, there’s a good case it isn’t. The VP is actually part of the Senate.

  5. 5 5 Ken B
  6. 6 6 Khodge

    I love the eye roll.

    They don’t seem to be over-promising. There are no real problems getting the implied agenda through a Republican Congress. The international positions are already the responsibility of POTUS. (The Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress, not the power to end it.)

  7. 7 7 Ken B

    Harold, I have to ask. Did you think the limit was set before FDR?

  8. 8 8 Ken B

    The best thing about the ad, judging its effectiveness, is that they don’t seem like ideological dorks set to rail against public sidewalks. They seem like normal people.
    I bet some folks that the LP would grow once it shed Ron Paul and his crazy uncle image. I think I may be collecting.

  9. 9 9 Harold

    Ken B #7 I had no idea FDR had served so many terms, so yes, I imagined the two terms limit to be older.

  10. 10 10 John Berntson

    The Vice Presidency is a separate office, even if voted in as a ticket (and, if Johnson-Weld get enough electoral votes, we could even see a president and vice president from different parties). His constitutional duties are all in the senate and that happens to be where his paycheck comes from.

    However, there is nothing that says that the president cannot put him in charge of things, if the VP agrees. Some, like space policy, are nearly traditional. And while the president cannot fire the vice president from his office, he can fire him from any additional duties he has been given. Naturally, both president and vice president would want to avoid this bit of bad publicity.

    In any case, the relationship is very modular, dependent on the needs, skills, and personalities of the two office holders. If these two want to be partners and share staff, I do not see why they could not, though it would always behoove a VP to have somewhere to escape to, just in case POTUS has a Nixon moment. There should be enough separation that both office holders cannot be taken out by the same crime.

    /end ramble

  11. 11 11 Ken B

    John 10

    There is a decent separation of powers case I think. When I read the pieces I too thought there was no bar to having the VP so involved in the administrative branch, as it’s not mentioned anywhere. But structural arguments can be very strong. Marbury was a purely structural argument for instance.

  12. 12 12 John K Berntson

    You could be right, Ken, at the technical legal level, but a strong, active VP has been the norm since at least Fritz Mondale. It is difficult to fathom, in any case, how any legal proceeding to prevent an activist VP would play out.

    Is the goal to stop the VP from chairing meetings and answering his phone in the West Wing? Good luck. Invalidate decisions he has made? How? Just about anything the executive does outside the cabinet departments goes out under the president’s signature in any case. The simple matter of standing will be hard to decide, never mind the issue of proving you were somehow hurt by the vice president doing something the president wanted him to do anyhow.

    Cheney ordered all the planes to land? On his own? It wasn’t really the SecTrans or the FAA director or GWB ordering it at the VP’s request? Can you prove it? And what if he had? Were you hurt by it? Sure, you missed your connection, but who didn’t that week. Nobody was upset by it. And this was one of the most public probable VP directives in modern history.

    (Sure, I was against it, but I am a libertarian hard case. I always thought, for instance, that setting up the TSA was the complete opposite of the correct solution, that the airlines should have been put firmly in charge of their own security, rather than absolved of any responsibility.)

    So, if a Vice President Weld involves himself in the executive, with a President Johnson’s tacit approval, I don’t see where you are going to stop him – or what of substance you would accomplish if you did.

  13. 13 13 Ken B

    Of course that is true. The only recourse would be impeachment. Similarly if Hillary chose Trump as her advisor and let him make all the decisions it’s hard to see any other recourse. This just shows that even a written constitution is also partly unwritten. Shouldn’t we demand from Johnson what we would demand from Clinton or anyone else: a decent respect for all parts of the constitution?

  14. 14 14 The Original CC



    These two are very good picks.

    Someone once told me that if you want to change the path of a parade, you have to stand *slightly* in front and lead them. But if you’re too far in front, then you’re just some doofus throwing a baton in the air.

  15. 15 15 The Original CC

    Oops, I was trying to quote Ken B (#8) there.

    “The best thing about the ad, judging its effectiveness, is that they don’t seem like ideological dorks set to rail against public sidewalks. They seem like normal people.”

Comments are currently closed.