Posted on 09/07/2011 7:13:54 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Yeah, it was the vote for Ford for VP in 1974 that was 92 to 3 (the three votes (all Dem) against Ford were Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, Thomas Eagleton of Missouri and William Hathaway of Maine).
Ford would’ve had a problem getting anyone through other than a VERY liberal RINO confirmed as VP (Nelson Rockefeller) in that hyper-polarized post-Watergate period. Had Ford been a Conservative and chose a like-minded Republican, I’d wager the VP office would’ve remained vacant until 1977.
Heh. I can't believe I posted that. Freudian slip, indeed. RATs might have a field day except Ted Kennedy did the same thing.
>> The vote in the Senate for Rockefeller was actually 90 to 7. 4 rats Birch Bayh, Howard Metzenbaum , Jim Abourezk and Gaylord Nelson joined 3 Republicans, Goldwater (who changed his mind from being pro), Helms, and William Scott of Virginia. <<
I had forgotten Goldwater was in the Senate at the time, his NAY vote on Rockefeller isn't surprising given the falling out they had during the 1964 campaign. Helms was one of the only two NAY votes on Carol Mostly-Fraud's ambassador nomination, so that doesn't surprise me, either. And Scott was probably similarly a staunch conservative.
>> Ford would’ve had a problem getting anyone through other than a VERY liberal RINO confirmed as VP (Nelson Rockefeller) in that hyper-polarized post-Watergate period. <<
You may be right, although Bob Woodward made a similar case in his book "The Brethen" when he discussed John Paul Stevens confirmation. Basically that the retiring justice William O. Douglas was such an ironic and legendary left-wing hero that the Dems would have borked ANYONE in 1976 who showed any conservative tendancies at all. So Ford narrowed the choice down to two well-renowed "centrist" federal judges: Stevens, and another judge whose name I've forgetten. Ford met with both to make his final decision: the first guy was flashy, boisterous, and flamboyant, while Stevens was modest, polite, and unassuming, so Ford went with Stevens. Horrible pick, IMO, ("popular Chicago lawyer" should have been a red flag) though a good case can be made the Stevens didn't morph into a backstabbing liberal a-hole until the 80s.
>> Had Ford been a Conservative and chose a like-minded Republican, I’d wager the VP office would’ve remained vacant until 1977. <<
True, but the point is this thread is not speculating on what would have happened then, but speculating on how these types of candidates would fare in TODAY'S political environment. I see the point about Ford having his back against the wall in the post-Watergate era. But how would an uber-RINO pick for veep fare in the current U.S. Senate? Imagine if Cheney (heart problems and all) had become President in 2007 and chosen Arlen Specter as veep? (certainly comparable to Rockefeller in terms of being the most prominent and despised RINO in office at the time). I doubt the nomination would have made it out of committee, conservatives would melt down the phone lines of any Republican Senator who considered voting for Specter. Even then the situation is not comparable because Cheney was a staunch conservative whereas Ford was not. Imagine a McCain presidency where there was a veep vacancy so he tapped a post-Obama endorsement Colin Powell for the job? A Rockfeller-type Republican nominated for veep would have no chance at Senate confirmation in modern America.
Ditto with my Reagan and Kennedy scenarios. I'm speculating if they were born at a differnet time and running for President in 2012.
With Kennedy, that's assuming he was born in the late 60s so he'd be 40-something in 2012. Take his "New Frontier" platform from 1960 and imagine it fitted for contemporary politics. With him out of the picture for 1960, he'd be running in a RAT party that had Lyndon Johnson for two terms from 1961-1968. I believe in that scenario, JFK would be something of an Anthony Weiner-type Dem for President today(especially with the sleazy sexting), though the comparison is not entirely accurate because Weiner was pro-Isreal and Kennedy was pretty pro-Palestinian during his administration.
With Reagan, he'd have to be born around the time Trent Lott was (1941ish) to make him a comparable age in 2012 that Reagan was in 1980. (Lott is 69 now). Again, I'm looking at what his positions were in 1980 "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" and the GOP platform at the time, and adjusting to fit what issues are being discussed in 2012.
I think if Reagan had lived in a different era he'd have a very good chance at the GOP nomination in 2012, especially if the weak opposition in the race now were his opponents. For Kennedy it's hard to say since you have to imagine no Obama in he race (JFK wouldn't have run against an incumbent RAT), and I don't know what kind of Dems would emerge as 2012 contenders in a non-Obama world. But suffice it to say, Kennedy's big government and union-friendly agenda would have been a comfortable fit for most of today's Dems, not to mention the New England elitist mold is even more of a Dem trait now than it was in 1960.
And yet another freudian slip in post #42. I mean to say Justice William O. Douglas was an ICONIC liberal, not an ironic one. (”Republican” Stevens was the ironic one)
Your revisionist crap only works on the young'uns.
Of course just saying Reagan amnestied millions of illegals and leaving it at that is kinda like saying the us killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the 40s and leaving out the WWII part.
Catastrophic.
Catastrophic is the exact word for it and any ‘reform’ short of sending “immigrants’ home will only make it worse.
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.