To wit; I can't help but wonder personally whether not Mr. Lott is calling for the end of the vice presidency as a role, because of the pattern that has developed over the last several presidencies, not so much from a logistics point of view.

I think we can exemplify the pattern with the last few. Al Gore, Dick Cheney , Joe Biden.

In order, a complete moron who could not identify a bust of Ben Franklin upon looking at him, and is firmly convinced the best way to deal with the worlds problems is to cut off all energy use, Dick Cheney, who liberals don't like, and yet was an extraordinarily strong a vice president at give in his president's policy in the implementation thereof, and Joe Biden whose level of idiocy has yet to be defined, but is certainly looking promising, given his history, even since taking on the position.

There is much to dislike in that history of the VP, particularly for those of the center to left persuasion... (which I hasten to add, I doubt Mr Lott is sympathetic to, based on other reading I've done of him.)

There does seem to be plenty, however, to help sell Mr. Lott's book on the topic of the vice presidency.

So, are we're to eliminate the role of the vice presidency in these United States based on the fact that some people, apparently Mr. Lott included, don't like a few of those who filled the role? Look; I happen to think Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, to be the two of the worst people for these United States in our history (aside from FDR, whose transgressions against this country were at least partially addressed by means of term limits) and yet I'm not screaming for the elimination of the presidency. SZo, on what basis are we to make such a move against the VP?

One may generously assume that Mr. Lott has a more insightful point of view on the vice presidency based on the research for his book. Yet the insights don't seem to be clearly listed in the Washington post article promoting it.