Posted on 09/05/2008 3:09:14 PM PDT by paudio
If anyone knows what it is like to be Sarah Palin right now, it is James Danforth Quayle.
"It sure sounded familiar," Dan Quayle chuckled, his voice coming over the telephone line from Phoenix, 20 years and a lifetime away from the explosion of shock and negative news stories that greeted his ascension to the vice presidential nomination, as it has hers.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
What the media never told the general public was that the teacher at the school Quayle was at gave him a card with the word potato spelled inaccurately.
What is Obama's excuse for not knowing what Memorial Day is? Anyone that doesn't know what it represents isn't qualified to be President on Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader.
If I had an afternoon to kill in Huntington Indiana I do believe I would go to the Vice Presidential Museum.
I'd probably learn a thing or two, and then I would know three things. ;)
I know, I liked Dan Quayle, and was pulling for him when he flirted with running for president (1996, I think). The media had destroyed his chances (as they did with Newt Gingrich) to prevent that from happening. Still, a museum of Vice Presidents? Might be fun to see John Nance Garner’s bucket of warm spit.
I'm pretty sure Quayle knows how many states are in the country and what Memorial Day is!
Also, expectations will be set very low for her debate performance and sky high for Slow Joe. I think she'll hit another grand slam and Joe will be disgraced for disappointing expectations so much.
I heard the story (forget the VP in question, but it doesn't matter a bucket of warm spit) that the VP lived in a high-rise building and when he came home he saw the building was on fire.
He was stopped by the firemen but said “I'm the Vice President” and they let him through.
Then the fire-chief thought for a second and said “The Vice President of what?”
“The Vice President of the United States” was his reply.
“Get back on the other side” the fire-chief said “I thought you meant the Vice President of the Building.”
Is the Vice President (and President of the Senate) entitled to speak in the Senate? I don’t recall a VP ever saying anything of consequence from the Senate. Would Sarah Palin change that?
Quayle had 4 years in the House and 8 years in the Senate before being picked as vice president. When it comes to experience Palin should wish she looked like Quayle. A man unfairly maligned.
Not outside the normal course of the Vice-President's duties. Announcing votes and the like. Even though the vice-president presides over the Senate, they traditionally spend almost no time there.
Wow that amazing.
There must be quotes from Mr. Quayle backing this up.
After listening to Sarah and seeing her uncanny ability to think on her feet, Biden and the MSm better look out!
I think the Vice President could speak before the Senate he is “President of the Senate”, but I doubt it wouldn’t be taken as an affront to Senatorial pride (which is legendary). Besides the vote in case of a tie the VP is seen as part of the Executive branch. I have never seen anything more than the five duties I already mentioned. Electoral appeal, pet cause, pit bull, successor, tie vote in the Senate.
His most famous blunder occurred when he corrected a student’s correct spelling of “potato” to “potatoe” at an elementary school spelling bee in Trenton, New Jersey, on June 15, 1992.[16] According to his memoirs, Quayle was uncomfortable with the version he gave, but did so because he decided to trust what he described as incorrect written materials provided by the school. He informed student William Figueroa that he had misspelled the word “potato”, when in fact Figueroa had spelled it correctly. Quayle then had Figueroa add an “e”, not only making it incorrect, but once again making himself a target with this misspelling. Quayle was widely lambasted for his apparent inability to spell the word “potato”. Figueroa was a guest on Late Night with David Letterman and was asked to lead the pledge of allegiance at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. The event became a lasting part of Quayle’s reputation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle
No, he isn’t. But he’s a nice guy and did a good job as VP, based on what I remember of Bush 1.
I don’t forget about Roosevelt, who served for 12 years alone. But he had a Depression, which the people (horribly wrongly) interpreted as justifying a benign King to rule over us. Nothing like the Depression will sweep Republicans into office fro twenty years, because when big, bad things happen people look for someone to take care of them, and that runs counter to our philosophy. No Depression, no FDR, just like no Civil War, no Republican frenzy across the turn of the centruy.
As for the counter-historical uninterrupted Republican run starting with Nixon, I’ll admit, Republicans have done especially well in the presidency since the liberals went crazy in the sixties. However, Carter was almost inevitable given how badly Nixon was portrayed in the media. And Reagan, who took it back from the sixties-favorite Carter was different enough from Nixon to almost be from another party. And Dukakis was simply a pathetic candidate.
Granted, Nixon and Reagn were enormously popular in their time, and Carter was unpopular. But the failure of Republicans to continue in the Reagan tradition after Bush I was elected goes toward proving my point, I think. No single party can, outside of special circumstances, hold onto power for an entire generation.
“Roosevelt-Truman era (D) In Power 1932-1952 - 5 terms”
Really, this is more like one two-termer (since it is constitutionally impossible to repeat what FDR did these days) and a single-termer (since Truman finished FDR’s last term and was re-elected once).
“Harding-Coolidge-Hoover era (R) In Power 1920-1932 - 3 terms”
This is accurate, and, I think, proof of a genuine consensus among the people of the time that Wilsonian progressivism was unacceptable.
“McKinley-TR-Taft era (R) In Power 1897-1913 - 4 terms
Grant-Hayes-Garfield-Arthur era (R) In Power 1869-1885 - 4 terms”
These two runs of Republicans was really one run, twice interrupted by one man (Grover Cleveland). It began not with Grant, but with Lincoln, and it was ensured by the Federal Army’s occupation of the South.
I, too, was refering to the post-WWII cycle of a change of party every eight years. That is what happened with Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, and Nixon. Reagan bucked the trend, but it reasserted itself after Clinton and probably will continue after Bush.
To march back to the FDR era and before is as useful as pointing to the “era of good feelings,” 1801-1829, when Democratic-Republicans ruled supremely.
“Simple as that”
It seems simple, but I don’t know if it is. 9/11 is certainly the worst single event ever to occur on American soil. And unlike the Great Depression, it does require state action to fix. However, Republicans will never stoop to the level of Wilson or Hitler to propagandize the urgency of the moment—despite the falacious leftist civil-libertarian plank that Bush’s color-coded threat-level and speeches about duct tape constitutes some sort of perpetual grab for power.
It isn’t necessary to propagandize anything: just tell the truth, and I suspect that a President McCain will do just that.
We can be sure that a President Obama won’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.