Posted on 07/08/2014 9:07:07 AM PDT by chrisser
I forgot, too, that Metzenbaum tried to install his son-in-law, Joel Hyatt, into his Senate seat. Had his term expired in 1992 instead of 1994, he might’ve succeeded.
It may help win some votes in Ohio.
It’s a shame Bricker lost in ‘58. I wasn’t familiar with his rat successor, Stephen Young, sounds like a peach.
A greater shame he wasn’t elected VP in ‘44.
Too bad Lausche wasn’t convinced to switch parties, he sounds ok.
We lost too many in ‘58. The biggest Senate fiasco in the popular vote era.
Young was a leftist moonbat, and a pretty nasty piece of work (probably enhanced by senility, for which we see a lot of these days in the Senate) and ‘64 saved his butt, at least for the general (curiously, this was where John Glenn announced his run to challenge Young from the right, but withdrew after his household accident — obvious fears that Young wouldn’t be able to hold the seat against Taft, Jr., who was the nominee that year). Curiously, had Taft won, it’s possible his seniority might’ve saved him in 1976, but perhaps not.
Of course, when Lausche was in the Senate in the ‘50s, there were still Conservative Democrats and you could get elected appealing to socially Conservative White working-class ethnics within the party (at least in the north). That’s gone now. It didn’t work for Lausche anymore when he ran for a 3rd term in 1968, as the moonbat element was already taking over (he lost the nomination to Jack Gilligan, who would lose to RINO Saxbe, only to parlay his exposure to run for Governor successfully in 1970).
Lausche, of course, despised the leftist rise in the Democrat party. He detested his seatmate Young (though he apparently got on with Bricker), and refused to endorse Gilligan, either. His best approach would’ve been to have switched parties around 1966, as that might’ve given him a chance to make sufficient inroads to have won the GOP nomination in ‘68 (if Taft or Saxbe had decided to challenge him). Of course, he was 73 then, and age actually mattered to some back then. As it turned out, he lived until almost 95 (dying in 1990). Probably could’ve remained in the Senate until 1980 under the right circumstances (though surviving ‘74 would’ve been tough, especially against Glenn).
I’m sure you also read the speculation that Ike wanted to lure Lausche onto the ‘52 ticket. That would’ve set up a Catholic vs. Catholic scenario in ‘60, since he likely would’ve been the nominee against JFK. It would’ve been funny, since Lausche would’ve had to have chosen a Westerner for the ticket (since there were no Southerners in the GOP beyond a few Congressmen)... so his VP would’ve been Senator Nixon (then 10 years in that office), unless GOP Senate leader Bill Knowland had not made that awful attempt to switch jobs with Gov. Goodwin Knight in ‘58...
IMHO, Portman wants to be a good and supportive father, which by itself is laudable, and perhaps is wondering if he did something wrong and is trying to make up for it. But he’s a team player and I don’t see him making a big deal out of the marriage issue.
As for choosing Cleveland, I suppose they chose it because they thought the facilities and lodging would be good for the delagates.
I saw this and thought you might be interested:
http://www.amazon.com/Frank-J-Lausche-Political-Maverick/dp/1882203496
DJ, Ohioans voted for GA Jimmuh in 1976; Ford won ill IL though.
I don’t think Reagan had any input at all in the choice of the convention in Detroit; it was made by the Bill Brock people, and I know Brock was once “conservative” to a degree.
Did not know about the Sebelius history in Kansas, but I always wondered how a Baraqqi regime partisan got in office out there.
Looks interesting, thanks.
This has been explained earlier on the thread. Cleveland will be one of the SAFEST places to have the convention! "Downtown" with the stadiums, convention center, Rock Hall, restaurants, hotels, theater district, casino, can be kept secure for a convention. Larger conventions have gotten rave reviews from participants.
Can it handle crowds? Of course. It isn't uncommon for there to be an Indians game, a concert at the Q and plays at the same time.
We're not perfect, but we're not Detroit or Newark. Have you ever been to Cleveland?
A slip on my part, as it was a paper-thin margin. Just 11,000 votes separated them. If the Maddox voters had gone to Ford, he’d have carried the state. I think the story went that had the election been held a week or two later, Ford would’ve closed the gap nationally. Of course, if he had, and the continuation of RINO mediocrity, we might not have gotten Reagan in 1980.
It also helped that the KS “Moderate Republicans” (leftist RINOs) sabotaged the Conservative GOP nominee for Governor in 2002, paving the way for her.
Nice of them to hold convention at beginning of summer —
this way after the establishment steals it for Jeb or Mitt there will be plenty time to get a third party up and running
I'm still baffled why the GOP selected Detriot in 1980, it seems a bit like the RATs deciding to hold their convention in Myrtle Beach, SC.
Even though it was 34 years ago, I think by 1980, Detroit would have had a similar reputation as it has now, as a RAT-infested cesspool. If the point of the convention was indeed to be a "symbolic" representation of how the Carter administration was taking America in the same direction as Detriot, it seems to have worked.
Of course, in that respect, it makes equal sense to have it in Cleveland in 2016:
http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/us_cities_shrinking.html
Cleveland isn't the crime-ridden hellhole that Detroit is, of course (there are a number of popular tourist attractions like the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, as well a very picturesque historic area called the Tremont neighborhood), but the city's population decline and stagnant economic situation is similar.
Fieldmarshaldj's suggestion makes more sense for an Ohio showdown though: having the RATs meet in Cleveland and the GOP meet in Cincinnati.
Brock would have selected Detroit because he was then the chairman of the RNC. He later tried to return to the Senate from MD.
I spent 24 hours in Cleveland in 2005 and found it attractive. I also was able to drive east to Mentor to the Garfield Home. It won’t be a bad location per se; but Republicans will never win much of anything in Cleveland ever again. It was a Republican town before the New Deal.
I understand none of the Tafts were much good except for Robert, Sr., and he even boosted urban renewal, which destroyed low-cost housing in the central cities.
Unfortunately, both parties got on the bandwagon for urban renewal. It sounded like a good idea at the time, but in practice, it ended up destroying countless inner cities and innumerable historic buildings.
Well, it would have made a lot more sense than McCain almost picking Lieberman. I'd like the think the convention would have rejected that choice, if he'd been so foolish as to go through with it.
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.