Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iowa Governor Vilsack gaining support for V.P. nominee [Backed by DLC]
DeMoines Register | 6/12/04

Posted on 06/12/2004 5:46:24 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last
To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

I know Truman and Roosevelt wern't VP when elected, but still, they were VP's that ended up as president and were re-elected. Ford was very close to being re-elected as well.

Also, Nixon arguably won in 1960, and didn't hold any position between 60-68, so in some way, he went from VP to Pres.

All I'm saying is that being VP is often an effective road to becoming president. 5 Presidents in the past 100 years have been VP's before becoming president.


61 posted on 06/12/2004 1:55:34 PM PDT by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier

Explain to me why you like Rice and not Guliani for VP. They are very similar politically, neither pro-life, weak on other social issues, both good on economic/crime/international affairs.

I don't think he should ditch Cheney, but if he did, I don't understand objecting to Guliani and not Rice.


62 posted on 06/12/2004 2:01:21 PM PDT by zbigreddogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist
"And Rudy would make a great President, IMHO. People who make complaints about him do not realize the political necessities of being in New York politics."

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But Rudy's record suggests he is a gun grabbing, baby killing (pro-abort) RINO. There is NO way he would gather the critical support in the South. The conservative base would eat him alive. The barometer for conservatism in the country will be easy to spot. It depends on the next terrorist attack on home soil and how many casualties are produced. Method of attack will be important, too.

But you make a good point about the next President coming from a cabinet position.

63 posted on 06/12/2004 2:02:21 PM PDT by ExSoldier (When the going gets tough, the tough go cyclic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz
I'm pretty sure that Rice is not a strongly pro-abortion. She is definitely pro 2nd Amendment and Rudy is decidedly anti-gun. Just on that single issue, Rudy would be doomed. But the main reason is politics. A black, female VP would just about lock up the African American vote and drive the Democratic Party into unbeliveable splits internally. How can I be so sure? I teach in an inner city school. I have done some polling; unscientific to be sure, but it sure caused an uproar! LOL Liberal black teachers split mostly in favor of Rice. Same for the senior students I taught....the ones who vote.
64 posted on 06/12/2004 2:12:17 PM PDT by ExSoldier (When the going gets tough, the tough go cyclic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
If Rudy talked up the conservative curcuit in the South for 4 years he would get through to them. I have lived in NYC for over 20 years and seen him at close quarters for years. That "gun-grabbing, baby killing" stuff really is not true. That is what I meant by the polictical necessities of New York politics. Once free of that he would have quite a different position.
65 posted on 06/12/2004 2:17:15 PM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
Between Vilsac and Heintz they have the condiment vote sewed up.
66 posted on 06/12/2004 2:27:11 PM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mini-14

I think the Vilsack 2nd term had more to do with a lackluster GOP candidate.


67 posted on 06/12/2004 3:12:02 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (STAGMIRE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist
"gun-grabbing, baby killing" stuff really is not true."

Sorry, but BALONEY. I have heard him and read his speeches and he IS a gun grabber. You are correct about New York politics, but he is what he is and that's why he fits in so well up there. But it simply will not play in the South. I remember when there was a shooting on the observation deck of the Empire State Building. He was WAILING about the lax gun laws in other states and how crime would never go down until there were uniform laws against guns nationwide.

Once free he would have a different position?

Why can't he pick a truthful position and stick to it period? That just tells me he'd tailor his politics depending on the audience just like Kerry. He's better off running against Hillary or little chuckie schumer.

68 posted on 06/12/2004 3:22:25 PM PDT by ExSoldier (When the going gets tough, the tough go cyclic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar

Heinz ketchup and Vilsack pickles. This team will be grist for the comedians.


69 posted on 06/12/2004 3:22:31 PM PDT by PJ-Comix (Saddam Hussein was only 537 Florida votes away from still being in power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: idkfa

Vilsack polls slightly higher than the Ebola virus here in Iowa.


70 posted on 06/12/2004 3:45:13 PM PDT by nonliberal (Bush 2004: He is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: al44
Vilsack is a liberal in the Dick Gephardt mode. He is not a polarizing figure, which makes him dangerous. He is an effective campaigner who has the strong backing of Iowa labor unions.

As his Lt. Governor he chose Sally Pederson. Pederson is married to James Autry who co-founded People for the American Way with Norman Lear. One of Vilsack's biggest individual contributors is Vance Opperman, a Minneapolis native who runs West Publishing. Opperman was an organizer for SDS at the University of Minnesota in his college days.

71 posted on 06/12/2004 3:53:41 PM PDT by nonliberal (Bush 2004: He is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mini-14
Whether Vile-sack is popular or not, Doug Gross -- his equally vile Republican challenger -- would have had little if any chance of beating anyone, especially an incumbent.

Those who know Gross describe him as a sleazy, conniving, backstabbing lawyer. He won the primary simply because two good men were also on the ballot and split the conservative vote between them.

If nothing else, the '02 Republican primary was a hard lesson in how not to nominate a good man to run against the 'Rats.

72 posted on 06/12/2004 7:03:01 PM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion. Your mileage may vary. You have the right to be wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: 11th Earl of Mar
Vilsack would be a good choice for Kerry. Kerry needs someone from the Midwest to boost his chances at winning the battleground states of MI, WI, MN, IA, and OH. Will Vilsack be able to deliver? Maybe, maybe not. However being Governor, makes Vilsack far more qualified than a lightweight like Sen. John Edwards.
73 posted on 06/12/2004 9:01:32 PM PDT by Kuksool (Get your souls to the polls in November)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zbigreddogz
In the last century, how many former VP's were elected twice?

Only Nixon. Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson all became President after the death of a President and were re-elected once.

Nixon and Bush were the only VP's to win election to the Presidency while not the current President. Taken as a whole, it's not a favorable position to be in if you aspire to the Presidency.

Look at the Vice-Presidents of the 20th century:

Theodore Roosevelt (1901)
Charles Fairbanks (1905 - 1909)
James Sherman (1909 - 1912)
Thomas Marshall (1913 - 1921)
Calvin Coolidge (1921 - 1923)
Charles Dawes (1925 - 1929)
Charles Curtis (1929 - 1933)
John Garner (1933 - 1941)
Harry Wallace (1941 - 1945)
Harry Truman (1945)
Alben Barkley (1949 - 1953)
Richard Nixon (1953 - 1961)
Lyndon Johnson (1961 - 1963)
Hubert Humphrey (1965 - 1969)
Spiro Agnew (1969 - 1973)
Gerald Ford (1973 - 1974)
Nelson Rockefeller (1974 - 1977)
Walter Mondale (1977 - 1981)
George Bush (1981 - 1989)
Dan Quayle (1989 - 1993)
Al Gore (1993 - 2001)

Of the 21 Vice Presidents, 7 went on the hold the Presidency. Those men won a grand total of 7 elections at the top of the ticket. Compare that to former Governors who won a total of 14 elections out of 25 from 1900 to 1996. The stepping stone to the White House is a Governor's Mansion, not the Observatory.

74 posted on 06/12/2004 11:09:43 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool

Here is yet another problem for Kerry just as it sadly was a problem for Bush in 1988. Kerry needs to pick a Vice-Presidential candidate that will not overshadow him. That means not a real exciting choice due to the fact that Kerry just isn't that exciting himself.

Shoot, if Howard Dean had won the nomination, he could have chosen anyone he wanted, but Kerry just doesn't have that option. He just isn't a strong personality.


75 posted on 06/12/2004 11:13:51 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
IMHO, Edwards would have been trouble for Bush. Looks, charisma, southern eloquence and charm (I actually liked him). I think he'll sway voters even as VP. Bush would absolutely NEED to counterstrike with a different VP. Someone north and south like. Giulianni (sp?) or someone I'll admit i like though he's a dem, Liebermann, although the Jewish thing is a problem in Middle East politics. Please don't flame me too much for saying I like a couple on Dems. Æ
76 posted on 06/12/2004 11:21:20 PM PDT by AgentEcho (If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AgentEcho

I think Edwards is a fool, but would be more palatable to the voters than is Kerry. That might help Kerry if he chose Edwards, or it might hurt him. It could backfire, as it did in 88 when Dukakis chose Benson, and spent the entire campaign listening to comments such as "too bad Benson's not at the top of the ticket." That did not help him, and ended up hurting him.


77 posted on 06/13/2004 6:10:58 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist
She will have a very hard time even holding on to her Senate seat even if Pataki ran against her.

Which is why, IMO, she won't run for reelection. She's already gotten what she needs- the ability to claim that she's an independent woman and not merely her husband's shadow. It's not like she became Senator to serve the needs of the people of New York, after all.

78 posted on 06/13/2004 6:25:14 AM PDT by jalisco555 ("The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." W. B. Yeats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: AgentEcho
IMHO, Edwards would have been trouble for Bush. Looks, charisma, southern eloquence and charm (I actually liked him)

I've never understood the argument that Edwards is charismatic. This is a guy that has won only one election in his life and is not running for reelection because he would almost certainly lose. He won a total of one primary against the weakest Democratic field in a generation. His boyish good looks and well-tailored suits may have been effective with personal injury trial juries but they haven't gotten him very far in national politics.

79 posted on 06/13/2004 6:30:39 AM PDT by jalisco555 ("The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." W. B. Yeats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555
I think that the people of New York state know this deep in there hearts. I have no proof, but I believe there was massive vote fraud in that election, anyway. Certainly if she runs against Gulinai or Pataki she will lose. By most measures she has been a quite poor Senator for the state. New York politics have almost always been about "pothole politics," and "bringing home the bacon." one rarely sees Clinton doing her actual job, which is, of course, representing the state of New York. If it were not for partisan politics she would not have gotten anywhere at all. She just makes the worst public appearances and comments. If she did not have the media covering for her and immediately burying her gaffs she would be widely unpopular.

If Bush turns this around and gets a solid win - and again by solid, I mean just something like 52% of the popular vote, and, of course, keeps Congress in GOP hands - then we will see the Clintons leave the stage. This will not solve the problem of the Democrat Party, but it will remove one danger.

Much hands on this election.

80 posted on 06/13/2004 6:44:17 AM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson