More Political Silliness, or "Big House, Big Car, Not Much To Do. Why Not?"

[omorka]

So The Hill newspaper asked the 97 US Senators who aren't currently busy running for President whether they would consider accepting an offer to be the Vice-Presidential nominee. Some of them were typically stuffy; some didn't want to say anything on the record that could come back to bite them in a later election. A couple just fell all over themselves (Sen. Brownback's response is particularly risible.) But several had the huevos to respond with the appropriate humor. The above, for example, is Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah.

A few other gems:

Sen. Robert Byrd: “No, I can already preside over the Senate, and I do not enjoy spending a lot of time at ‘undisclosed locations.’ ”

Sen. Tom Carper: “Yes. Sign me up. I’ve been kidding people for years: The hours are better, the wages are just as good — whoever heard of a vice president getting shot at? — and it’s a great opportunity to travel. And actually since time has gone by, the job is robust … So sure. Anybody here would, if they’re going to be honest. The chances are slim to none. But I promise you, I would deliver all three of Delaware’s electoral votes.”

Sen. Edward Kennedy: “I plan to stick with my current job until I get the hang of it.”

Sen. Barbara Mikulski: “Absolutely. Absolutely. I think I would be great. First of all, I know how to behave at weddings and funerals. And I know how to be commander in chief. I’d bring a lot of fun to the job. We would rock the Naval Observatory.”


Both the senators from Mississippi manage to say something concise and sensible. Also, I don't particularly like Sen. Lieberman, but his answer is pretty classy. Sen. Craig's is . . . bizarre.

Comments

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

The ones who scare me are the ones who answer some form of, "Sure, doesn't everybody?" That answer signifies two things: (1) ambition; and (2) the presumption that everyone thinks the same way the speaker does. Such people are not only going to seek as much power as they can get, but once they get power they're going to use it without any restraint- certain that anybody else would do the same thing, were they honest about it.

I find two such answers here (not counting "anybody would be honored to be asked," which is a less explicit answer): Tom "The Job is Robust" Carper (DE) and Dianne Feinstein (CA). I was already deeply unhappy with Feinstein (most recently for supporting AG Mukasey's nomination), but Carper... I'll have to keep an eye on him.

OTOH, I like Ted "Impeach Me Now" Stevens (AK)'s answer for its sheer irony: at 83 years old, the person he'd be waiting on to die might be him.

[princejvstin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the fact that a couple of Senators *younger* than McCain said that they were too old was pure gold.

[kansas-dave.livejournal.com]

The fact of being a senator signifies ambition and implies nothing about abusing power.

[kansas-dave.livejournal.com]

*too early*

I mean, the fact of being a senator signifies ambition. Being frank and funny about it implies nothing about abusing power.

[omorka.livejournal.com]

Thought I'd answered this already, but I guess not: I don't see ambition as an inherently negative trait, and, like kansas_dave says, being a US Senator is pretty much a reliable tell for that already. Plenty of people are ambitious but have principles about the manner in which power is used, whether those are internal moral principles or just a respect for the Rule of Law. This is not to say that they aren't also fallible, of course, but that's true whether they're ambitious or not.

And I don't see "doesn't everybody?" as a statement that they believe everyone thinks the same way on all things, just that one. That the executive branch is inherently more powerful, ergo desirable, than the legislative one. Now, one would hope that not all legislators see things that way, of course, but in the current climate I think it's understandable.

[kansas-dave.livejournal.com]

He he! Carper's is my favorite.