Clinton v Bush

[zorkpolitics]

The 22nd amendment prevents Bush or Clinton from being elected President, but it does not prevent them from serving as President again.  Thus, both could run as VP candidates.

Which candidate would benefit most from Bill Clinton as VP or George W Bush as VP?

[TomC]

George Bush would be useless as vp; Clinton would be overshadowing. As a nom, Bush would help a moderate like McCain or Giuliani or maybe Romney. Clinton could only help Hillary

[TheresNoMoney]

Clinton would kill Bush in any race. Look at the country under Clinton and then look at the county under Bush..........hmm I wonder which one the voters of America preferred?

[Erc]

Scoonie...

I know both sides use the "Were you better off now than you were four years ago" tactic...but no matter who uses it, it gets old very, very fast.

Stop repeating it in every other thread.

[Notre Dame rules!]

Clinton would kill Bush in any race. Look at the country under Clinton and then look at the county under Bush..........hmm I wonder which one the voters of America preferred?

I don't know, let's ask the voters.   Despite a roaring economy, Clinton managed on 49% in his re-election.  Bush, on the other hand, managed to poll 51%--and that's after the US has just endured a recession and a devestating attack on our homeland.

[opebo]

Clinton would kill Bush in any race. Look at the country under Clinton and then look at the county under Bush..........hmm I wonder which one the voters of America preferred?

I don't know, let's ask the voters.   Despite a roaring economy, Clinton managed on 49% in his re-election.  Bush, on the other hand, managed to poll 51%--and that's after ... a devestating attack on our homeland.

The 'devastating attack' is precisely why he got the extra couple of percent.

[minionofmidas]

The 22nd amendment prevents Bush or Clinton from being elected President, but it does not prevent them from serving as President again.  Thus, both coudl run as VP candidates.

Except that Pres. and VP are subject to the same electability restrictions (see the XIIth Amendment). Thus, they could not.

[MODU]

Is it two terms period, or two consecutive terms? 

If it is the latter, I would say that in 2012, Clinton and Bush should run on a unity ticket.  hehehe . . . after all, they've been very chummy with each other lately.  *laughs*

[MissCatholic]

Clinton vs Bush map. Imagine Ohio i was president wqhen the private sector created 26 millions jobs, he was president when he made 0 jobs

[TheresNoMoney]

Stop repeating it in every other thread.

'

The truth hurts, huh? The majority of the people in this country would LOVE to go back to the roaring 90's under President Clinton.

[TheresNoMoney]

[Despite a roaring economy, Clinton managed on 49% in his re-election.  Bush, on the other hand, managed to poll 51%--and that's after the US has just endured a recession and a devestating attack on our homeland.

There was no viable 3rd party candidate in 2004 and there's also the fact that no wartime president has ever lost an election.

[AuH2O]

No, they cannot legally run as VP.

[MODU]

The truth hurts, huh? The majority of the people in this country would LOVE to go back to the roaring 90's under President Clinton.

The truth was that the US was in an economic boom period due to technological advances and relative peace.  Mickey Mouse could have been in office at that time, and the economic conditions would have been the same.  Though Clinton didn't do anything to screw it up, he also didn't do much to help it either (other than staying out of the economy and let Greenspan handle it).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, they cannot legally run as VP.

It looks fine with the wording of the constitution to me. The only thing is I bet the SCOTUS will rule 5-4 that Clinton can't be VP.

[AuH2O]

This has long since been established... former Presidents cannot be VP. Period.

[Brandon H]

Bush I could run again, but I think losing re-election would damage him too much if he were to try (not to mention he is old).

The country would prefer to go back to the 80s when Reagan was President which led to the boom in the 90s.

[TheresNoMoney]

The country would prefer to go back to the 80s when Reagan was President which led to the boom in the 90s.

LMAO, good one. Did you forget about the "Black Sunday" stock market crash in 1989 and the great recession under Bush Sr. after Reagan was out of office?

Our economy was sh*t and that's the big reason Clinton was elected in the first place. Clinton was responsible for turning the country around, you hack.

[TX_1824]

The country would prefer to go back to the 80s when Reagan was President which led to the boom in the 90s.

LMAO, good one. Did you forget about the "Black Sunday" stock market crash in 1989 and the great recession under Bush Sr. after Reagan was out of office?

Our economy was sh*t and that's the big reason Clinton was elected in the first place. Clinton was responsible for turning the country around, you hack.

It's funny that a president and his party will claim full responsibility for a good economy and will site outside factors during an economic decline. Also, those of different political persuasions can view the same data and come up with two vastly different points-of-view. Example, the Reagan years.

Personally, I believe that the government is not in the business of creating jobs. The only way the government, or any particular president for that matter, can create jobs is to create more government institutions/programs which require higher taxes to fund. Government can only create jobs in the private sector by encouraging those companies to hire and expand through incentives. The government can't tell a company to hire 10,000 employees anymore than I can tell you to stop posting in this forum. You, much like a business, are going to do what is best for your own self-interest. So saying Clinton was responsible for the economic turn around is not completely acuarate, with all due respect. He just took credit for a good economic period as any person would in his position.

[zorkpolitics]

The 22nd amendment prevents Bush or Clinton from being elected President, but it does not prevent them from serving as President again.  Thus, both could run as VP candidates.

Except that Pres. and VP are subject to the same electability restrictions (see the XIIth Amendment). Thus, they could not.

Actually one can serve unlimited terms as President, but they can only be elected to the Presidency twice.  The XII amendment says no person constitutionally ineligible for the President can serve as VP.  The 22nd amendment only refers to electability to the office of President, it does not exclude someone serving more than two terms if they serve out a term of someone lese elected to the Presidency.

[Joe Republic]

I somehow doubt the constitutionality of this idea, but from a hypothetical perspective, Clinton would be a bigger help as VP.  He would help the Dem ticket in its geographically weakest area, and also helps win the moderate vote.  Bush fails on both counts there.