Posted on 08/16/2012 11:26:19 PM PDT by Seaplaner
Ford dumped Rockefeller in ‘76. JFK was gonna dump LBJ in ‘64. FDR dumped Henry Wallace in ‘44, etc., etc.
I say no.
Vice President Henry Wallace (D-Iowa) was the closest thing to a communist (if not an actual party member) that this country had ever seen in one of the top spots until January of 2009. If FDR had died while Wallace was VP, he and Eleanor Roosevelt would’ve “radically transformed” the USA years before Mr. Obama was born.
JFK made noises about dumping LBJ, but would not have done it. He was not popular on the day before his assassination, and had no cred in the South.
Henry Wallace was an embarassment who had become a political liability and Roosevelt knew he was going to die. He was replaced in early July, which is an eternity ago, and FDR could have run with a cardboard cut-out and won.
Who says it has to be Hillary? We act as if there aren’t any other Democrats to choose from. Why wouldn’t Mr. Obama go with a Hispanic, some other female, or even an Hispanic female?
Kooky yes, a commie at one point, probably. But give him some credit for coming around.
Hillary has too much to lose and not enough to gain by being VP.( If she wants to run in 4 years the slot is hers....she does not need the VP position to gain stature) She and Bill are also looking at the internal polls
‘I expect a fake pubic plea from Obama to Hillary to be the VEEP, while...”
Dear God, even Gynecologists in training want nothing to do with THAT PUBIC AREA.
‘I expect a fake pubic plea from Obama to Hillary to be the VEEP, while...”
Dear God, even Gynecologists in training want nothing to do with THAT PUBIC AREA.
So instances before I was born.
I know they hated each other but wow, I never heard that before. For who?
There was a reason he didn’t pick her in 2008, he doesn’t need her scandals on top on his. Her current “popularity” is built on a sandcastle cause she’s currently in a “non-partisan” role.
He would be smart to dump Biden though, he is a liability.
The bright side is that if Wallace* had become President, the U.S. would’ve rapidly and permanently given back the majority to the GOP with the 1946 elections.
(*I’d add that Wallace was a bit of a flake ideologically, he started out as a liberal “Progressive” Republican like his father, became a Democrat, than a “Progressive” (Communist), and later returned to the Republicans, stepping away from his prior moonbattery by the ‘60s)
Actually, I don’t believe it was going to take much prompting for LBJ to leave the ticket in ‘64. He hated being VP and had less influence in power in the position than he did as Senate Majority Leader. He didn’t want to stick around clear through to ‘68 in the job before he could make a run for President.
As an addendum to Wallace, FDR wanted to replace him with the almost as equally loony Supreme Court Justice Bill Douglas (both Douglas and Truman were considered on equal par for the VP slot, though supposedly Jim Farley manipulated the situation to position Truman for the pick).
He won't because McCain suggested it.
The other instance, of course, already mentioned was McGovern dumping Sen. Eagleton after he’d already been nominated for Sargent Shriver in ‘72 (though that wasn’t in yours (or my) lifetime).
Supposedly it was internally floated to dump Dan Quayle for ‘92 when Bush, Sr’s approvals hit the basement. IIRC, Quayle was not the top pick for 1988. There was an attempt to get CA Governor George Deukmejian on the ticket (the last Conservative Guv from that state), but Deukmejian didn’t want to turn the state over to the liberal Democrat Lieutenant Governor Leo McCarthy (whom would’ve gotten the last 2 years of Duke’s term and a leg up for the 1990 elections).
Although probably never past the rumor stage were the urgings for Dubya (for 2004) to have a running mate who would definitively run to succeed him in 2008. Cheney, too, was supposedly not the first choice for 2000, which was PA Governor Tom Ridge. But Ridge is a pro-abort Catholic and regarded as a RINO, and that was a no-no that might’ve been enough to cost him the election. Personally, I’d have rather chosen OK Gov. Frank Keating, a pro-life Catholic.
I’ve mentioned it many times. The replacement was going to be the person JFK initially wanted in 1960, liberal Missouri Senator Stuart Symington. I think that he would’ve lost the general election in ‘60 for the ticket (at least openly) as he wouldn’t have been able to orchestrate the fraud LBJ was able to (at least in Texas).
Conceivably, Symington could’ve served the 2 terms as VP and succeeded JFK, had he lived to 1969 (and then President until 1977). Symington would remain in the Senate until his retirement at the end of 1976.
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.