To: prairiebreeze
I don't believe that will ever be the case as Fred has already expressed his disinterest in being a Veep.
Given how powerful Cheney is (destroying NOLA with his weather machine, shooting anyone he wants to with his shotgun, etc.), VP can be a position with a lot of power.
Maybe we should insist that anyone who wants our vote should agree they'd serve as VP as well.
Given Fred's polling now, I think Fred is the likely nominee. But it would be good to pin these guys down in a debate on the question. "Would you serve as VP? If not, why not?"
8 posted on
06/29/2007 4:51:05 AM PDT by
George W. Bush
(Rudi: tough on terror, scared of Iowa)
To: George W. Bush
And if “I’m just not interested in the position” was the answer, would that satisfy you?
9 posted on
06/29/2007 5:08:14 AM PDT by
prairiebreeze
(PUT AMERICA AHEAD --- VOTE FOR FRED!!.)
To: George W. Bush
Maybe we should insist that anyone who wants our vote should agree they’d serve as VP as well.
That’s just plain silly.
14 posted on
06/29/2007 7:10:24 AM PDT by
Atlas Sneezed
("We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them, I won't chip away at them" -Mitt Romney)
To: George W. Bush
Maybe we should insist that anyone who wants our vote should agree they'd serve as VP as well.I doubt it would matter, in modern primary history (post JFK's run), only twice has a nominee picked a primary opponent for the VP slot.
Reagan picked Bush sr in 1980, and Kerry picked Edwards in 2004.
Both regretted it.
16 posted on
06/29/2007 9:17:57 AM PDT by
Sonny M
("oderint dum metuant")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson