First Read makes an observation:
“By selecting Paul Ryan as his running mate on Saturday, Mitt Romney did something that Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, Al Gore, and John McCain did in previous presidential contests: They used their VP pick to try to shake things up. Trailing in the summer, they chose a running mate — be it Geraldine Ferraro, Jack Kemp, Joe Lieberman, or Sarah Palin — to change the fundamentals of the race. These picks all worked in the short run, but only once (with Lieberman) did it serve its purpose for the rest of the campaign. (Gore, after all, was able to battle back to where he actually won the popular vote.)”
Lieberman wasn’t selected to help Gore win Connecticut. He was picked to reassure big donors, to provide some moral cover for Bill Clinton’s peccadillo, and to boost turnout among the Jewish community in Florida. It not only helped Gore win the popular vote, it also helped him to win Florida, the Electoral College, and the election. If not for a confusing butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County that led to a ton of overvotes and a bunch of mistaken votes for Pat Buchanan, Gore would have been president.
Even with the butterfly ballot fiasco, an honest recount would have shown Gore and Lieberman to be the real victors. And, in that case, we might all be dealing with a President Lieberman today. That’s why selecting a vice-president matters. Think back to Eisenhower’s choice of Richard Nixon. When it comes to changing history, few things have as much potential influence as plucking someone out of obscurity and putting them on the presidential ticket. Other examples: Teddy Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson.
Also, Geraldine Ferraro, Dan Quayle, John Edwards, Sarah Palin, and Paul Ryan.
For Johnson, the vice-presidency was actually a step down in his power and prestige, from leader of the senate. He regretted it deeply as a terrible mistake, right up until the instant that a bullet put him in charge.
Yes, in his case, he wasn’t obscure.
Initially though he figgered on a shooting or the Addison’s or related kicking in to cause Kennedy’s demise — “One in four presidents dies in office, and darlin’ I’m a gambling man” he told Claire Booth Luce in the limo on the way to the Inaugural. And early on he figgered on a little power grab co-presidency as well as, incredibly, keeping de facto his Majority Ldr status in the senate. But JFK smartly brushed aside his major demands and left him only a few crumbs, while angry senate libs called him out to his face for his unconstitutional effort to run the senate Dem caucus.
And as time went on and Kennedy increasingly marginalized him as VP for many minor foreign trips, yes by then he might have regretted taking the job.
Funny though how his about to be finished political career got suddenly revived by dramatic events in his home state. I’ll stop there except to say I believe JFK was going to dump him from the ’64 ticket.
OMG!!!! LBJ was on the GRASSY KNOLL!!!!
No way Kennedy was dumping Johnson. Too many bodies were buried in too many graves that Johnson had the first buyers option on. Hell, Johnson had shit on J Edgar!!
No way Johnson would get dumped.
The somewhat (judging by the last 2vols) pro-Johnson Rbt Caro disagrees with you about Johnson being dumped.
And Johnson himself by the fall of 63 clearly believed he was about to be dumped.
And what was he going to use as blackmail against Kennedy? Nothing there Lyndon had personal knowledge about (re affairs). And it would have been the word of a marginalized little known VP believed to be on his way out in that post, not to mention the scandal over a close associate being investigated by the senate as of Nov ’63, versus a very popular president about to become a successful two term prez after dispatching the radical Goldwater.
Yes, Caro makes a pretty good case for a Johnson dumping. Although I don’t recall any discussion of who Kennedy might’ve replaced him with on the ticket (at least in the most recent volume). Another Southerner, perhaps?
But though Kennedy surely would’ve defeated Goldwater, I wonder whether his 2nd term would have been that successful. He and his staff never seemed to have much understanding of legislative affairs, and Caro makes the case (and I’m sure will continue to in his next volume) that Johnson’s mastery of the Congress, knowledge of and relationships with the powerful Congressman were key to many of the Democrats legislative achievements of that era.
Yeah. My thoughts exactly. When I said that LBJ knew where the bodies were buried, I wasn’t necessarily saying he would use them against Kennedy. Just because Kennedy WANTED to replace him, doesn’t mean that he would be able to … even if he could FIND someone to do it. Assuming that Johnson wanted to keep being VP (I would assume so, but I guess its not a lead pipe cinch), he could have burned enough bridges with the leading lights of the Dem Party to make them back off. Remember, Johnson had power base just as effective as the Kennedy’s, Browns, Bush’s and Talmadge machines.
Forget a woman or a minority. Not gonna happen in a real campaign in the ’60s. Very few senators, including the Happy Warrior, would have had the guts to defy Johnson. I can’t remember the House, but the VP prospects would have few and far between. That would mean the governor’s. No western Gov would defy LBJ. Maybe Brown in CA, but that’s about it.
My whole point? Wanting to dump is not necessarily going to be easy. Which means it won’t necessarily happen.
You’re forgetting the Bobby Baker senate investigation as well as major media reporters suddenly scouring the trail in the fall of ’63 looking for evidence on Johnson’s past dubious deeds, all of which was hitting the fan in the month before Dallas.
Johnson thought not only that his political career was over. He thought he was going to prison.
And that Bobby Kennedy was probably behind the investigations.
It looked like it wasn’t a matter of whether he wanted to step aside but only how soon before the upcoming election he would be forced out by serious allegations of wrongdoing. No threats to the party or even to Kennedy would have been availing. At that point he would have gone into plea bargain mode to avoid prison and in exchange for immediately stepping down the senate investigations would be quietly dropped or suspended. Something like what Agnew did to avoid the slammer. In any case Kennedy and the senate committees held the upper hand, not the badly weakened and no longer feared former ML.
Caro’s main source, JFK’s secretary Evelyn Lincoln, wrote in her 2d book (Kennedy and Johnson) that the president stopped by her desk for a brief chat just before the TX trip, during which Kennedy told her he doubted Lyndon would be on the ticket. He specifically mentioned NC Gov Terry Sanford as a possible replacement, “But it won’t be Lyndon” she quotes him as saying.
Caro finds this longtime Kennedy worker and loyalist a credible source on this issue. So do I.
Re 2d term, after a strong reelect and Dem victory in cong’l races in 64, he would have passed all his major domestic legislation with the new working liberal majority Johnson benefitted from (counting Repub libs and moderates).
Further: no VN War. End of Cold War with Russkies after second major test ban treaty and cooperation on joint Moon venture. Kennedy and Jackie would have visited Moscow to sign agreements, to cheering crowds. Reform of CIA possibly with Bobby heading that effort (I know–very dicey that one). Strong economy after tax cut across board plus second tax reform bill with more liberal congress.
Second term plans–including recognition of Communist China–were discussed by RFK in his oral history interviews (pub 1988). Obviously a number of major reform actions were being planned, and the FP and intel ones would have mightily upset some powerful forces.
Interesting about Sanford – one of the most liberal Southern governors, I believe.
And good point about the increased legislative margins after ’64, although I still wonder how Kennedy would’ve gotten past those powerful committee chairmen. Not saying he couldn’t have, it would just be interesting to read some alternative history on that.
You’re more optimistic than me about the prospects for a Soviet detente – keep in mind that Kruschev was replaced in ’64 by the much more repressive Brezhnev. And US withdrawal from Vietnam in the mid-60’s would surely have led to many politically potent cries that yet another Dem president had “lost” a Southeast Asian country to the Russkies.
Also, I can’t help but think that Kennedy’s incredibly reckless series of sexual affairs would have eventually been exposed, and crushed his Presidency. Though maybe a supportive press corps would have cooperated and waited until after he was out of office. But Kennedy’s Addison’s (plus the powerful and dangerous medical treatments he was given) would have killed him within 10 years, and possibly much sooner.
Re Khrushchev, his hand would have been strengthened internally had a cooperative and mostly similarly situated “moderate” pres Kennedy been in the WH for another term, the two of them now working basically in a positive spirit to end major differences and bring about an end to the costly cold war.
This view is shared by NK himself, according to his son Sergei, ex prof at Brown Univ. A lengthier and more detailed explanation on this point is given by author James Douglass in his landmark recent book JFK and the Unspeakable.
Re VN, few Americans cared what happened to a tiny insignificant country 8,000 mi away, and the ones who did, on the Right mostly, including Goldwater, would have had their views soundly rejected at the polls in ’64. I think the always popular JFK, even more popular after a big reelect victory, would have gotten plenty of political backing to get out of VN from Dem cong’l leaders and rank and file had he needed it.
Recognizing China however, in addition to his other progressive moves, might have presented problems.
Kennedy wasn’t that popular before he was shot. He was in trouble electorally. Probably would have defeated Goldwater, but Nixon might have won a re-match. Rockefeller could definitely have beaten him, but the conservatives were already starting to purge their party.
Wasn’t that popular? Just under 60% in the last polling just bef Dallas, even as he lost some Southern white Dem support following his submitting the major CR bill in June. Historically the most popular prez in modern polling times.
Nixon? Good god no. He’d just been thumped by Pat Brown for gov in CA. He couldn’t cone close to beating Brown but he was gonna beat Kennedy? Laughable.
Rocky was too moderate in 64, a time for the hard right of the party to assert itself. And JFK sure didn’t fear him. As Bobby put it, “The Kennedys eat Rockefellers for breakfast.”
Barry was clearly on track to be the nominee that year. JFK only feared one pol — moderate Gov George Romney of MI, who Kennedy thought offered great personal and political appeal. He ordered his staff never to bring up Romney’s name in press discussions and instead always mention Goldwater as the opponent the president most dreaded facing. Hehee.
hmmmmmm…Forgot about Sanford. Yup. He and Johnson were not exactly bosom buddies (page 50). Sanford had Klan problems but more from not doing anything about them than having anything to do with them.
Well, if I’m wrong it wouldn’t be the first time. Interesting discussion, tho.
I remember reading a rumor that Richard J. Daley was going to replace LBJ. That would have nailed Illinois down for sure.
Would he have taken it? I’m not sure. The Boss really was the Boss.
Two Irish Catholics on the same ticket? In 1964 or today? You have some amusing rumor sources.
It was some major news magazine that I read on a plane. Don’t remember which.
Given the history of the Republican party in choosing their candidates Ryan will be the presidential candidate in 2016. So unless he’s totally discredited we’ll be looking at a well-known Ryan then. May be more dangerous then.
Read Nate Silver on how his nomination increases Ryan’s statistical chances of becoming President one day.
I’m always glad when observations of past elections treat 2000 as a win for Gore. But it doesn’t follow that his VP pick was therefore a good one. Picking Lieberman spoke volumes about what kind of President Gore would be (just as we came to the same conclusion about McCain) and I’d bet that he lost more votes than he gained. There were better ways to get help in Florida.
Mostly agree except recall there was no significant outcry from the liberal wing at the time of Lieberman’s pick or later. Mostly we sucked it up and carried on.
Thus was after all the “raging moderate” Al Gore of 2000, known to have been miffed at Bill for Monica putting a damper on his own chances at the presidency.
Myself I wish he’d taken Bill’s unsolicited (and unheard?) advice and picked Sen Mikulski. John Kerry in the alternative.
It was quite possibly what flipped WV from blue to red. And losing those five measly electoral college votes is what made FL more important than it needed to be.
Yeah, but it also flipped Florida to blue…that is, except for the Dade County butterfly ballots and the Supreme Court hijacking of the recount….
The only flipping that may have happened in FL was the massive election fraud perpetrated by Jeb! & Co. My guesstimate is that they “disappeared” 3% of the vote through a variety of means from voter suppression to not counting ballots — the Palm Beach Co. butterfly ballot and SCOTUS were but fortuitous subsequent events.
Honestly don’t think Lieberman added that many additional votes in FL for Gore.
The thought that we could be dealing with a President Lieberman today rather than President Obama, almost makes me think it was better that the SC decided the way it did. Almost.
Hard to believe Dems would nominate Joe for P even if he served loyally as VP for two terms. Especially if he ran in his own right as the center-right DINO he really is.
And I think Hillary, partly motivated by payback against Joe over the Monica Matter, would have gotten in and trounced him just running from the mildly center-left. Even with Penn running the campaign and the MSM attacking her daily while pimping for Joe.
Well worth watching
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/13/an_extreme_choice_embracing_ayn_rand
From VP to POTUS (excluding by death or resignation) isn’t common. More common than from loser VP nominee to POTUS in a subsequent election, and it wouldn’t have led to Joe occupying the WH.
Did you miss the little soap opera last week in which Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, among others, essentially extorted Romney to pick someone like Ryan? Amid hints of a brokered convention from anonymous sources.
Being able to play the Great GOP Wurlitzer is what changed.
Yes, it matters. Veeps do become president even though it is a lousy position from which to run for President.
That, along with the tax return pounding, may only have led to the hurry-up, ill-timed, and poorly executed announcement. Ryan like Quayle may be the stand-in, surrogate son until the sons of the patriarch are ready to step in and fulfill their dynastic destiny. GHWB chose dumber and Mitt chose more extreme, both of whom satisfy a portion of the nutso wing of their party.
Listening to Obama’s stump speech in Iowa this morning I got the feeling that a new angle of attack was just opened up…the Farm Bill.
In Iowa, with crops failing under the onslaught of drought, the message is powerful. The Farm Bill is an imminent tie to middle America’s heart and soul, her jobs, her environment and thus her economy. Obama is jumping into this new angle of attack importance while Romney/Ryan are tangled up with Medicare and now they’ll have to multi task on the defensive. Oh yeah, and Global Warming is on the ground in Iowa.
Hehee. Honest to Immanuel, Obama-Biden are being gifted with a huge amount of politically toxic material to throw at the two Rs, roughly if 1964 Goldwater proportions.
And if they can’t win being dealt this hand …
Well, there is still the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy by the GOP to suppress the black vote in key states.
And maybe what Netanyahoo is cooking up for an October Surprise wrt Iran to help his buddy Willard.
I heard the attack too
Speaking of hog tying your opponent.
In Nov. 1999 Rep. Paul Ryan voted for S-900, The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. The one bill most responsible for the economic and financial collapse of the United States of America in 2008.
S-900, The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (three Republicans), repealed Glass-Steagall. This set the stage for the creation of “too big to fail” banks.
This law did three things that directly contributed to the real estate collapse.
And a lot of people got rich.
Thank you Bill Clinton, for the autumn of 2008.
And too many other Democrats who had voted for that atrocious piece of law.
This page is slightly dated but contains almost all current members of congress who, in 1999, voted to repeal Glass-Steagall. From both parties.
The Congress That Crashed America
http://home.ptd.net/~aahpat/aandc/congcrash.html
Which is why as a political attack against the GOP ticket the Glass steagle vote won’t help our side.
One of Bill’s substantive mistakes. A rather big one in terms of long term consequences.
That partisan hypocrisy is why I am no longer a Democrat or an Obama voter.
Democrats were as responsible as Republicans for the financial collapse of America and they all need to be brought to account.
Here is my web page The Congress That Crashed America http://home.ptd.net/~aahpat/aandc/congcrash.html listing all current members of Congress (from both of the dominance parties) who voted, in 1999 to repeal Glass-Steagall.
Thank you. I will read them.
Biden’s vote on Gramm-Leach_Bliley was what?
Joe Biden voted to repeal Glass-Steagall too.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&sessio
n=1&vote=00354
I was afraid so. The Senator from MBNA and DiscoverCard.
Beat ya to it, Boo. See new sig.