As you well know, the Vice President is generally almost irrelevant in people's decision as to which ticket to choose.
That is even more true these days, when most campaigning is effectively done on television by the President, rather than by both in different areas at different times.
I have made no decision as to how much I like Gore; he seems O.K., but I haven't focused on him much. And I certainly doubt if most supporters of the Prez. in 92 and 96 focused on him more.
I voted for Bush the first time. I can tell you that Quayle did not enter positively into the decision. In fact I spent some time worrying about any remote possibility that he might become President. But I figured that, unlike Reagan, Bush was relatively young and in very good health.....
Yes, to remove the President IS to undo the election. The Constitution provides for that but only under extraordinary circumstances.
And this was no High Crime and Misdemeanor. Perjury often would be. Not this perjury, concerning only his consensual sexual relations with an adult woman, given in a frivolous politically motivated, funded and directed lawsuit which was then dismissed, concerning a matter only collateral to the subject of the suit, and which was later determined to not be necessary or material to the suit going forward by the judge.
It truly was the most minor and understandable of all imaginable perjuries.
Not properly impeachable. The current hysterical is neo-puritan and quite ridiculous. I agree with the French, and most of the rest of the world (saving those countries who relish any internal turmoil in this country).
Doug |
