Monica's baby, the ruin of Clinton - a TL

[usertron2020]

Finally, so I guess that the NATO mission would be in jeopardy then. So much relief for the Serbs if they were going to be on the receiving end of the NATO airstrikes. Curiously enough, I'd imagine another American president trying to pull the same foreign affairs stunt as Clinton did in OTL.

My boss is a Kosovar.:mad: There was nothing of a "stunt" in Clinton's actions in the Balkans, no matter what the VRWC, Republic Sound Machine, and Fixed News would have you believe.

[BlairWitch749]

Considering Faircloth's behavior in his one term as a senator would indicate that only his running in North Carolina got him elected in the first place. IMVHO, I can easily see the wheels coming off the wagon for him again ITTL. But hey, it's your TL.

well running to the right of jesse helms and francisco franco didn't do him any favors... that and he felt like the bad guy in deliverance :rolleyes::D

[MarshalBraginsky]

My boss is a Kosovar.:mad: There was nothing of a "stunt" in Clinton's actions in the Balkans, no matter what the VRWC, Republic Sound Machine, and Fixed News would have you believe.

OK, but I'm not sure if this TL talked about any foreign affairs changes after Clinton's reputation went on a nosedive in the aftermath of his character assassination.

[usertron2020]

There comes a point when posting nothing but "bump" in a given thread becomes spamming.

That depends of the spacing of the bumps. Back-to-back on the same day, I agree with you. But what about 4-7 day intervals? BTW Hendryk, where have you been? I've been manning the ramparts against the Dark Forces of the VRWC all by myself. It's lonely out here. :(

[usertron2020]

OK, but I'm not sure if this TL talked about any foreign affairs changes after Clinton's reputation went on a nosedive in the aftermath of his character assassination.

Based on the nature of TTL, I'd say there haven't been any changes. The situation in the Balkans was not a "Wag the Dog" War. Despite the VRWC taking every opportunity to claim that it was, and ignoring what was happening in Bosnia and Kosovo. My thought at the time was even though Clinton wanted "no more Somalias", he wanted even less any more Rwandas. Given a choice between the two, he listened to the better angels of his nature (Despite the ferocity of the nattering nabobs of negativism:rolleyes:). Not everything was a political calculation for him. I suspect that in regards to Yugoslavia, he was seeking a foreign policy triumph for his legacy, after so many previous disasters.

I am curious to see how Gramm handles the wars, though. We shall see.

[usertron2020]

well running to the right of jesse helms and francisco franco didn't do him any favors... that and he felt like the bad guy in deliverance :rolleyes::D

I wonder if his losing by 4% was more a reflection of his opponent John Edwards' liberalism in a Southern state. I personally see that 4% margin of defeat as a "hard" margin, meaning the people of the Tarheel State were fed up with this guy regardless of who his opposition was. I wonder if Faircloth faced a serious primary? Probably not. The GOP was in a near delusional state about their chances in the 1998 off-year election. That is, until the polls actually opened, and they noticed the distinctly darker coloration of large numbers of voters in districts where they historically didn't vote much.

So, put a genuine Blue Dog Democrat up against Faircloth and he could lose by a larger margin than D'Amato did.:p John Edwards may have the $$$, but he also has BC (B. clintonitis).:rolleyes: ITTL, I can't see how that wouldn't come out.

[Oannes Rex]

Also, does Bill Clinton still get his approval from Congress regarding the NATO mission in Yugoslavia after his character assassination? I'm still wondering if the people in Congress would still trust him to make a good decision after Monica gave birth to Victor.

I shiver at the potential result of no NATO campaign. Displacement of thousands of people in Kosovo combined with a hard winter, the potential of a stream of refugees into Macedonia, the war spreading into southern Serbia and Macedonia with the potential of the latter country collapsing.

[BlairWitch749]

I wonder if his losing by 4% was more a reflection of his opponent John Edwards' liberalism in a Southern state. I personally see that 4% margin of defeat as a "hard" margin, meaning the people of the Tarheel State were fed up with this guy regardless of who his opposition was. I wonder if Faircloth faced a serious primary? Probably not. The GOP was in a near delusional state about their chances in the 1998 off-year election. That is, until the polls actually opened, and they noticed the distinctly darker coloration of large numbers of voters in districts where they historically didn't vote much.

So, put a genuine Blue Dog Democrat up against Faircloth and he could lose by a larger margin than D'Amato did.:p John Edwards may have the $$$, but he also has BC (B. clintonitis).:rolleyes: ITTL, I can't see how that wouldn't come out.

I think you might be misreading it; even ignoring Edwards personal wealth and it's effect on the campaign. He ran as a populist, and on top of that he had the whole young and handsome thing, especially versus hog farmer fat old bastard Faircloth; Edwards was certainly not the first or last candidate to get a bump (particularly in the female vote) from being orders of magnitude better looking than his opponent (See Obama, Barry vs McCain John S for relevant example)

[Angel Heart]

I shiver at the potential result of no NATO campaign. Displacement of thousands of people in Kosovo combined with a hard winter, the potential of a stream of refugees into Macedonia, the war spreading into southern Serbia and Macedonia with the potential of the latter country collapsing.

That actually happened with a NATO intervention IOTL. http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-eng101.gif

[usertron2020]

That actually happened with a NATO intervention IOTL. http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-eng101.gif

Not to the scale that no intervention would mean. Serbia's actions against Kosovo started all the way back in 1988, led by Milosevic himself. Slobo went to war (though not totally unjustified, thanks to ethnic Albanian militants in Kosovar) to "liberate" 120,000 ethnic Serbs from the tyranny of 1,600,000 ethnic Albanian Kosovars. Considering his history in Bosnia-Herzegovina, I hardly think his actions were those of a well-intentioned protector.

[usertron2020]

I think you might be misreading it; even ignoring Edwards personal wealth and it's effect on the campaign. He ran as a populist, and on top of that he had the whole young and handsome thing, especially versus hog farmer fat old bastard Faircloth; Edwards was certainly not the first or last candidate to get a bump (particularly in the female vote) from being orders of magnitude better looking than his opponent (See Obama, Barry vs McCain John S for relevant example)

If you think Obama's election had more to do with his "good looks":rolleyes: (with those ears and a body that's 6 foot tall and weighs fifty pounds!?), not the economic disaster bequeathed to McCain's campaign by W combined with the national terror of the country facing the possibility of a 1 in 4 chance (based on actuarial tables) of seeing President McCain dying in office and putting *SHUDDER* Sarah Palin in his place...:eek:

Then I really do not know what to say to that.

"Twinkle, twinkle, Kenneth Starr..."-Lauch Faircloth, 1998 OTL. Not ITTL, obviously. But with the vindication of the VRWC(tm) ITTL, I can well imagine him saying something similar on some other issue.

[Angel Heart]

Not to the scale that no intervention would mean. Serbia's actions against Kosovo started all the way back in 1988, led by Milosevic himself. Slobo went to war (though not totally unjustified, thanks to ethnic Albanian militants in Kosovar) to "liberate" 120,000 ethnic Serbs from the tyranny of 1,600,000 ethnic Albanian Kosovars.

Hard to tell. You see the biggest waves of Albanian refugees came during the NATO aggression. It would be interesting to do a TL where NATO doesn't intervene. Personally I think that it would have ended with the KLA being either defeated or staying dormant in Albania. How long it would have taken is a good question. (IOTL the KLA was for the most time, when not being busy getting annihilated by Serb forces, hiding underground or in northern Albania). IOTL Albanian seperatism swapped over to Southern Serbia and Northwestern Macedonia as a result of KLA terrorism being rewarded by the NATO so that the LAPMB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Army_of_Pre%C5%A1evo,_Medve%C4%91a_and_ Bujanovac), mistakenly thinking that the West would really give a damn about the Albanians, counted on NATO support once again, which didn't happen. In fact when NATO allowed the Serbs to re-enter the DMZ in southern Serbia the LAPMB was defeated. So no NATO intervetion and the resulting KLA defeat might butterfly the uprising in Southern Serbia and possibly Macedonia too.
The only thing I can say for sure is that it would be quite an interesting scenario.

Considering his history in Bosnia-Herzegovina, I hardly think his actions were those of a well-intentioned protector.

Slobo's support for the Bosnian Serbs was minimal and he abandoned them in 1994. He even urged Karadžić to accept the Vance-Owen plan. In fact, the Republika Srpska re-entered peace talks in 1995 after being pressured by Serbia to do so (of course the collapse of the VRS also did its part). He did have an influence on the Srpska, but he had no control over them.

As for Kosovo, since Slobo is dead I dare not say anything 100% for sure, but it is plausible to think that he would have turned it into a racist police state at worst. His presidency was on bought time since the electorial fraud in 1996 so everything depended on what he did with Kosovo (because outside the Kosovo Crisis he was very unpopular. Serbia was starved and crippled by international sanctions and while the common Serbs stood in lines for hours just to get food, he and his mafia pals lived like Persian God Kings at their expense).

[jerseyrules]

Weere the senate candidates the same as IITL? Because if so then William Weld / John McCain 2004! or if butterflies are in play maybe Mitt makes a comeback after his loss to Kennedy in 94.

[jerseyrules]

It's that time of the bump again.:p

[BlairWitch749]

If you think Obama's election had more to do with his "good looks":rolleyes: (with those ears and a body that's 6 foot tall and weighs fifty pounds!?), not the economic disaster bequeathed to McCain's campaign by W combined with the national terror of the country facing the possibility of a 1 in 4 chance (based on actuarial tables) of seeing President McCain dying in office and putting *SHUDDER* Sarah Palin in his place...:eek:

Then I really do not know what to say to that.

"Twinkle, twinkle, Kenneth Starr..."-Lauch Faircloth, 1998 OTL. Not ITTL, obviously. But with the vindication of the VRWC(tm) ITTL, I can well imagine him saying something similar on some other issue.

It's all about scale and opposition userton

versus 109283019283 year old McCain, Obama looked like Denzel Washington circa 1995

Faircloth versus John Edwards 1998..... to scale is Gary Busey/Southern James Gandolfinni versus 1995 Brad Pitt

[BlairWitch749]

Like Christ Cometh to cleanse the temple: A special offshoot of chapter 31 100 days series - I am a Republican. I'm loyal to the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. And I believe that my party, in some ways, has strayed from those principles, particularly on the issue of fiscal discipline; John S McCain

Washington DC January 1997

Senator John McCain was a friend of Phil Gramm's for more than a decade, and it surprised very few in the senate when he tapped the Arizona veteran to run the pentagon.

It was a position McCain was well qualified for; descended from 2 generations for 4 star navy admirals he had served as a bomber pilot in Vietnam, being shot down, wounded and horrifically treated as a POW. In his later life as a politician, he had been involved in the senate armed services committee and spoken out heavily against what he perceived as wasteful cold war relic spending and was a founding contributor to the site pigbook.com which detailed the worst abuses in government spending including botched procurement at the pentagon.

The vice air force chief of staff would remark that on his first day at the pentagon that McCain arrived like "Christ cometh to cleanse the temple". Gramm and indeed McCain say their mandate as balancing the budget first and foremost, and while McCain had served in the military and had friends in the highest positions he decided early on that it was his place to be Harry Truman and not Dwight Eisenhower. His tours to bases, factories, training and other facilities where dubbed inside the pentagon as pro-cant-ment tours (a spoof on procurement) as a dark joke due to the projects that where inevitably cut or canceled after he got his hands on them

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2201/2231396712_8ccde866bd_o.jpg
Having worked with the military most of his life John McCain knew the struggles he would face in cleaning house

His first target was one that he had been itching to get ahold in the senate for nearly a decade. The ATF (advanced tactical fighter) project which had been awarded to Lockheed Martin for their YF-22 fighter, which was getting close to making its maiden flight. Everything about the procurement bothered McCain, Northrup's YF-23 which "competed" with the YF-22 for position as America's next front line air superiority fighter had lost in spite of having a lower price tag and better specs (it featured better stealth attributes and was faster) To even a casual observer it appeared that the competition had been rigged for Lockheed and that massive corruption and bribery were undercurrenting this vital and indeed expensive procurement process. The to date cost overruns piqued his anger in a way in which Lockheed would ultimately regret

http://www.luke.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/091113-F-9104C-039.JPG
Sec Def McCain on one of his famed pro-cant-ment tours

The secretary put the screws to the airforce trying to find a viable reason why the YF-22 had been chosen or why the air force needed a 5th generation fighter at such massive expense at all. The answers he got where stunningly few beyond rather meager and unfounded pointing to ghost threats from China and Russia which the secretary correctly pointed out where two decades in the future if at all. "Russia just defaulted on their bonds and they are going to make an aircraft superior to the F-15... do you value your career when you make such statements general?"

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/Images/john-mccain-angry.JPG
Secretary McCain's reaction to an airforce general advising that the F-22 was needed to combat threats from Russia

Lockheed after getting negative feedback from their sources at the Pentagon which gave them fears of project cancellation or rebid ran full court press on McCain; with negative ads and heavy lobbying about the jobs that would be lost; however these fell relatively flat, and attacking a certified war hero like John McCain as soft on defense was a non-starter from the get go. The secretary's unconditional support from President Gramm, and the numerous friends he had on both sides of the aisle in both houses of congress assured that he would be given the benefit of the doubt; and on August 20th 1997 just weeks before the F-22's first scheduled military testing flight congress, with wide bi-partisan support cancelled the ATF contract.

to be continued...

thoughts?


http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-engine/files/2008-april/01aagramm_mccain.jpg
Sec Def McCain's strong support from the president allowed him to clean house at the pentagon

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avimage&iid=iwsRsxYd3.vU
Presidential support wasn't the only card McCain could count on to start trimming the pentagon's budget, his time in washington had built many strong relationships that went beyond partisan politics plus he was a born consensus builder

[historybuff]

McCain's an excellent choice for Sec Def, great update with him.

[usertron2020]

Now THIS is the Secretary story I've been waiting for.:) He'd have made a Great President. And a FAR better one. In 2000.:)

EDIT: Against any and ALL of his possible opponents.

[Orville_third]

Well, he wouldn't have lied about WMD...just sent us into Iraq...
And I disagree with two of his defense policies, namely his dislike of Civil Air Patrol (Even with the personal bias, I know we help save the USAF lots by flying missions for no pay), and the C-130 (Arguably the most versatile plane since the DC-3. I personally think McCain is jealous that it landed on a carrier without a tailhook...).
Still, with the Cold War over, things will likely get cut...which means more surplus!

[usertron2020]

Well, he wouldn't have lied about WMD...just sent us into Iraq...
And I disagree with two of his defense policies, namely his dislike of Civil Air Patrol (Even with the personal bias, I know we help save the USAF lots by flying missions for no pay), and the C-130 (Arguably the most versatile plane since the DC-3. I personally think McCain is jealous that it landed on a carrier without a tailhook...).
Still, with the Cold War over, things will likely get cut...which means more surplus!*

*-No, more tax cuts for the wealthy. Or am I wrong? Was Gramm such a deficit hawk that he favored eliminating the deficit and paying down the debt over tax cuts Uber Alles? If so, that raises him even more in my estimation. Almost enough to forgive his de-regulation mania.:)

Considering the relative cost of US expenditures on CAP, its a sad statement that McCain isn't seeing the Big Picture, and letting his old service prejudices come to the fore instead. And since he was Navy, what does he care about saving the Air Force $$$?:p

I question about Iraq though. He would have been doubling down on Afghanistan to "finish the Job", which in his eyes we failed to do in Vietnam. I can't honestly see him, as President, committing us to Iraq at the same time. HE had no military/foreign creds to prove, no moments of "Mission Accomplished":rolleyes:, and I can't see a man who spent all those years under torture glibly exclaiming: "Bring it on!".:mad: It was W who had Saddam on the Brain, WMDs or no. It wasn't McCain who had his mother constantly harping on him about when he was going to get the man who tried to kill his daddy.

I'm not saying McCain would never consider an invasion of Iraq, but I am saying that in a McCain Administration you wouldn't have had Karl Rove, or ANY political advisor, sitting in the Situation Room expounding on the domestic political pluses and minuses of invading Iraq vis-a-vis the next election (which had Colin Powell furious,:mad: to say the least).

[BlairWitch749]

Like Christ Cometh to cleanse the temple: A special offshoot of chapter 31 100 days series - Remember the words of Chairman Mao: 'It's always darkest before it's totally black.' - John McCain

Washington DC January 1997

Having a long standing Navy son take charge at the pentagon should have been the best thing the USN had seen in some time; but with President Gramm's promise in blood to balance the budget Secretary of Defense John McCain instead used his wealth of inside knowledge to violently wield the scalpel on his former service

http://buelahman.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/42759538.jpg
Even his own branch wasn't safe from McCain's cuts

His first assaults of naval procurement went after what he knew best; carriers. America currently had 10 carriers on active duty about to be bumped to 11 with the commissioning of the USS Harry Truman. There where plans on the table to lay down the keel of the next Nimitz class carrier USS Ronald Reagan for the following year, which would in theory replace the USS Constellation.

To John McCain this made no sense. The new ship would cost over 5 billion dollars; and constellation had just undergone an 800 million dollar massive refit (including the installation of new turbine engines) a couple of years before which made her from many perspectives almost as modern as any ship in the fleet.

His recommendation to the senate armed services committee practically smoked. "All three remaining Kitty Hawk Class carriers major refits are of recent vintage and the process can be repeated again at far less cost than the proposed CVN-76" This met a wall of resistance from the Virginia delegation whom had vital interests in the production of new carriers in their state. Senator John Warner who himself had been head of the Navy placed numerous angry phone calls to McCain and President Gramm advising that their policy was impossible for him. McCain relented; somewhat... CVN-76 would be built; but the lay down would be postponed 24 months and no additional Nimitz boats would be ordered; however Newport News would be given the opportunity to bid on additional future refits for the 3 remaining Kitty Hawk class carriers at some later date.

Carriers where not the only department that John McCain got his hands on to try and either cut or freeze funding. Although the first two seawolf class submarines fell outside his grasp being too close to commission; McCain was able to get the USS Jimmy Carter cancelled as he lambasted the seawolf program as being too expensive vis a vis upgrades to existing Los Angeles class subs. Several of the older Ohio class boats would also be allowed to retire; whilst others would be refitted as refit proved cheaper than new construction; nor did any of America's external threats seem to warrant expensive new construction

Other surface ships from frigates to cruisers met with McCain's wrath. As one CBO paper pusher put it; John McCain was able to make progress on reigning in defense spending to realistic levels in a way nobody had seen since the 1940's. We still had a capable force; but the most remarkable thing happened, he kept their budget flat for 2 years and then only grew at the rate of inflation afterwords which finally pulled the pentagon back from being such a huge source of the country's rolling budget deficits


http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/intel/08/08/14_mccain_lg.jpg
Secretary McCain castes a critical eye on military procurement

[Antipater]

I love the last two updates. Glad to see that the new SecDef is actually trying to reign in costs rather than simply becoming another part of the Iron Triangle that is defense spending.

However, no review of the Navy would be complete at this time without a thorough accounting of the SC-21 (Surface Combatant for the 21st century) program that ultimately produced the $3 billion dollar white elephants known as the Zumwalt class destroyers. Here is an idea: spend the same money on Arleigh Burke class destroyers that come in at about 1/3 the cost and upgrade the electronics!

But if the Navy and USAF has dead wood, then the Army represents a rotting house. There were plenty of tough calls that Rumsfeld made that could have been decided in the late 1990's, and would have saved untold billions. The Comanche helicopter and the Crusader artillery program come to mind.

Oh, and lets not forget the USMC. Their beloved Osprey program would be an obvious one to cut, though I am not sure if it would be politically feasible given its bipartisan support. Given that reality, the best option might just be to build more of the damned things, perhaps by forcing the Army to use them (as was intended until the late 1980's). Producing more of them would bring down the average cost to a reasonable level, and it is not as if the Ospreys are not superior to helicopter in almost every respect except cost.

[NoOneFamous]

He might make a good SecDef

[usertron2020]

How will the Gramm Administration get all this past Congress? I could see an overwhelming Democratic Congress, with a Democratic President, on a "guns-to-butter" binge, but the GOP? I would think that Gramm could wind up facing bipartisan opposition on some of the sacred cows of the Pentagon (frex, subs). Even W faced his first overridden vetoes over farm subsidies. Go too far on defense, and the same could happen ITTL over some of the military items. AFAIK, the line-item veto had already been gutted in the courts by this time.:(

Congress is going to want something from Gramm in exchange for all this belt tightening, or else they'll be looking at a nasty pummeling come 1998. Especially considering the large number of "marginal constituencies" at stake that year. Gramm may be willing to accept losing many seats in the off-year election, but the GOP Congressional leadership (and caucus in general) will NOT.

[BlairWitch749]

How will the Gramm Administration get all this past Congress? I could see an overwhelming Democratic Congress, with a Democratic President, on a "guns-to-butter" binge, but the GOP? I would think that Gramm could wind up facing bipartisan opposition on some of the sacred cows of the Pentagon (frex, subs). Even W faced his first overridden vetoes over farm subsidies. Go too far on defense, and the same could happen ITTL over some of the military items. AFAIK, the line-item veto had already been gutted in the courts by this time.:(

Congress is going to want something from Gramm in exchange for all this belt tightening, or else they'll be looking at a nasty pummeling come 1998. Especially considering the large number of "marginal constituencies" at stake that year. Gramm may be willing to accept losing many seats in the off-year election, but the GOP Congressional leadership (and caucus in general) will NOT.


Keep in mind the sum total (which isn't totally explained yet)... McCain has gotten a few things cancelled, but the sum result is flat for 2 years and then rate of inflation

[usertron2020]

Keep in mind the sum total (which isn't totally explained yet)... McCain has gotten a few things cancelled, but the sum result is flat for 2 years and then rate of inflation

Not to be cynical but I could see Democrats being critical of military cutbacks that under a Dem POTUS they'd probably favor (outside defense industry state politicos).

BTW, isn't Texas a defense industry rich state? How is he going to reconcile this? If he tries to include Texas in the level of sacrifices going on, he's going to piss off a lot of people very close to him (in his own Administration). If not, he'll infuriate everybody else.:(

[BlairWitch749]

Not to be cynical but I could see Democrats being critical of military cutbacks that under a Dem POTUS they'd probably favor (outside defense industry state politicos).

BTW, isn't Texas a defense industry rich state? How is he going to reconcile this? If he tries to include Texas in the level of sacrifices going on, he's going to piss off a lot of people very close to him (in his own Administration). If not, he'll infuriate everybody else.:(

Texas is home to some significant army and air force assets

McCain so far isn't being harry truman; he is just eliminating or postponing white elephant budget busters so that the pentagon's budget growth is kept in check

[usertron2020]

Texas is home to some significant army and air force assets

McCain so far isn't being harry truman; he is just eliminating or postponing white elephant budget busters so that the pentagon's budget growth is kept in check

That's good to see. My opinion of Harry has dropped considerably considering what I've learned lately about what he did to the military pre-Korea.:mad:

Still, Gramm better find SOMETHING to sacrifice in Texas, or else.

Remember (as one poster said regarding abolition of regulatory agencies and the GOP New England Congressional Caucus*) that the greater a majority of one party, the more likely that party will fall prey to internal factionalism (as did the Democrats all the way from the New Deal to Newt).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*-Remember, frex, that now the NRC will answer to an EPA that now answers to the Interior Department. And under a de-regulatory monster of a Gramm Administration, that's got to have a post-Three Mile Island/post-Chernobyl heavily nuclear powered region like New England scared shitless.

[Plumber]

My opinion of Harry has dropped considerably considering what I've learned lately about what he did to the military pre-Korea.:mad:
You mean not downsizing the military to joke levels like every President at the end of all other wars before him, and still getting a budget surplus?

[BlairWitch749]

You mean not downsizing the military to joke levels like every President at the end of all other wars before him, and still getting a budget surplus?

he took a 10 million soul military at the peak of power on the planet and winnowed it down to a 10 division army that was stunningly underequipped and sized given our security committments

[Plumber]

he took a 10 million soul military at the peak of power on the planet and winnowed it down to a 10 division army that was stunningly underequipped and sized given our security committments
Umm yeah. That's true. Because the war ended. He still left the military stronger than any president before him after a major war.

[usertron2020]

You mean not downsizing the military to joke levels like every President at the end of all other wars before him, and still getting a budget surplus?

In all the previous cases those wars ended with no new enemy on the horizon. Not so with the USSR right there at VJ-Day. And too much was assumed regarding US atomic hegemony, and the "obsolescence" of conventional arms. The mania had by Truman and his SecDef for the out-and-out destruction of all forms of military paraphenalia would have done Ghandi proud.

[Plumber]

In all the previous cases those wars ended with no new enemy on the horizon. Not so with the USSR right there at VJ-Day. And too much was assumed regarding US atomic hegemony, and the "obsolescence" of conventional arms. The mania had by Truman and his SecDef for the out-and-out destruction of all forms of military paraphenalia would have done Ghandi proud.
Only war with no new enemy on the horizon? What was the First Red Scare about?
Hindsight is 20/20. The US and USSR just got finished fighting the biggest war on the same side. The consensus in Washington was that the war was over. Contrary to popular portrayal, Truman, Wallace, and Byrnes all wanted good relations with the Soviets at first. The Cold War was Stalin's baby.
Truman wasn't anti-military. Like Ike, he was anti-military-industrial complex. Differently from Ike, Truman did more than just talk about it. Truman created the Department of Defense and NATO. The Marshall Plan was mostly Truman and Clark Clifford. Nixon's got nothing on the man from Missouri.
Anyway, I don't understand why the US needs to remain spending Reagan-levels on defense after the Cold War is over. Thankfully McCain isn't expanding the budget, but I would be more impressed if he brought it down to Nixon levels at least.

[Caesar Australis]

he took a 10 million soul military at the peak of power on the planet and winnowed it down to a 10 division army that was stunningly underequipped and sized given our security committments
America would have gone bankrupt if he hadn't.

[Plumber]

America would have gone bankrupt if he hadn't.

Indeed, not only did he prevent that, but he had huge surplus. In 1948.

[usertron2020]

Indeed, not only did he prevent that, but he had huge surplus. In 1948.

Which disappeared fending off a Communist invasion inspired by the evaporation of America's conventional deterrent. And all these financial arguments being made about the postwar US budget and military spending were also made by an earlier Western leading politician, both as his country's Chancellor of the Exchequer and later Prime Minister. Neville Chamberlain. For the sake of his own country's short-term economy, he had the defense spending levels of his government slashed while his potential enemies overseas were re-arming like mad. So he save millions of pounds over a few years, so that his successor would be forced to spend his country into bankruptcy dealing with the Hitlerian cancer he had allowed to metastasize.

You would never compare Truman and Chamberlain in any other measure. But the deliberate destruction of military supplies and arms simply to avoid paying the meager costs of storing them!?

BTW: How did we get so thread de-railed???

[jerseyrules]

I like McCain ITTL :D

[Imperator Novae Zealandae]

McCain seems to be doing nicely. Are we coming to the disastrous appointments soon? Seeing Ron Paul screw things up will be fun.;)

[usertron2020]

:DMcCain seems to be doing nicely. Are we coming to the disastrous appointments soon? Seeing Ron Paul screw things up will be fun.;)

Zell Miller will be a side-splitter. Remember, for all of Ron Paul's foibles, he's not likely, even ITTL, to become a "regular" on SNL.:D

[Orville_third]

Hmmmmmmmm...one wonders if Miller being out of the way could lead to a Democrat he criticized taking a bigger role in Georgia politics, namely Cynthia McKinney.

[usertron2020]

Hmmmmmmmm...one wonders if Miller being out of the way could lead to a Democrat he criticized taking a bigger role in Georgia politics, namely Cynthia McKinney.

Not. A. Chance. In. Hell. It was only the creation of hyper-gerrymandered districts that allowed her a House seat in the first place. Even by the standards of the Congressional Democratic Black Caucus, she was a major fruit loop. Good riddance (to her AND Bob Barr).

[BlairWitch749]

Like Christ Cometh to cleanse the temple: A special offshoot of chapter 31 100 days series - The first pork-barrel bill that crosses my desk, I'm going to veto it and make the authors of those pork-barrel items famous all over America - John S McCain

Washington DC January 1997

John McCain knew the ins and outs of military waste with a life time of experience; he knew the games defense contractors and politicians played for votes, jobs, and money. Though he made cuts in many places that effectively leashed the Pentagon for the first time in a generation, the air force continued to be his personal pet project, and given their spending habits prior to his arrival at the Pentagon, it was certainly warranted.

The secretary audited the B-2 spirit program, which was rediculous when built for more than a 1 billion dollars a piece; but to McCain's overwhelming concern their on going operating costs where stunning.

Secretary McCain's testimony to the House and Senate armed services committees embarrassed the program and created a backdrop of support for his reforms.

My friends, let me tell you how the B-2 costs the tax payers. The bombers are based in Missoura which means to fly a mission to the east its nearly 2 hours of cruising to just reach the eastern seaboard, and 4 to reach the west. Now adding that extra flight and wasted fuel and refueling time would normally be bad enough but in this program the waste is spectacular. A single hour of flight in a B-2 necessitates 119 hours of maintainence; meaning because the bombers are based inland versus coastal bases, a mission to the east requires 338 hours of maintainence and a mission to the west requires 476 hours of service before they even leave American territory for their missions. Given that service on one of these machines costs the taxpayers nearly 10 thousand dollars an hour I can't imagine how on earth this has been justified versus splitting the squadrons to have half the bombers on the east coast and half in the west.

Questions flew back at McCain about Missouri's possession of specially climate controlled hangers required for the B-2's which McCain scornfully replied could be purchased for bases in California and Virginia with the savings from less than 6 missions enforcing the Iraq no fly zone.

Privately things where more complicated as the media lauded McCain's testimony as courageous and began applying pressure to congress to change the air force's way of doing business. The Missouri delegation was not happy, Kit Bond placed several stormy phone calls to McCain and Phil Gramm himself stating that the B-2 was vital to Missouri as a source of jobs and he couldn't be left holding the bag on McCain's waste trimming spree. John Ashcroft had a face to face shouting match with the secretary of defense that left both men on poor terms for some time to come

In the end Gramm had to bow to the pressure from his party, at least to coddle them; Missouri was an important state, and no matter how seriously he took his budget balancing promise from the election he couldn't let a bell weather like Missouri bear such a large public cut. A compromise would be made; the B-2's would leave, destined for expanded bases at Langly Virginia and Beale California; but to make up for McCain's squashing of the YF-22 a fresh run of F-15 strike eagles would be ordered to be built at Boeing's defense plant in Missouri with promises of a run of highly modernized KC-135's to at least be partially built in Missouri to compensate for the loss of the B-2's to coastal bases

Whilst not exactly being what McCain wanted, the end result did allow the airforce to begin gradually retiring some of the oldest and most worn out F-15 and KC-135 frames over time; and it certainly cost less than the track the pentagon had been on previously... of the experience some years later McCain would remark, not all victories can be decisive, especially when you are dealing with senators from your party; but I felt I accomplished my mission.

to be continued...


thoughts?

[Constantinople]

he took a 10 million soul military

Yeah. Since that's what we needed.

[jerseyrules]

Can we get a Chief Justice George H. W. Bush? I always thought that he would be great there and I bet the country's regretting not re-electing him.

[Emperor of Scandinavia]

Can we get a Chief Justice George H. W. Bush? I always thought that he would be great there and I bet the country's regretting not re-electing him.

I like that idea, but lets improve upon it.

It will be interesting to see how the GOP develops without Bush II becoming president. Perhaps people like Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney and John McCain will keep the GOP on a moderate path.

Possible Supreme Court Appointments
Barack Obama (quite likely)
Hillary Clinton (would be interesting)(plausable)
George Bush I (would follow example of Taft)
Karl Rove (would be interesting)
Condi Rice ( would be interesting)(plausable)


Wishing you well, his majesty,
The Scandinavian Emperor

[usertron2020]

Can we get a Chief Justice George H. W. Bush? I always thought that he would be great there and I bet the country's regretting not re-electing him.

Nominating Bush I for Chief Justice? And has anyone told Rehnquist this? What about when Rehnquist sez: "I will not leave so a man 110 days OLDER than I am can take my place!":mad:

[usertron2020]

I like that idea, but lets improve upon it.

It will be interesting to see how the GOP develops without Bush II becoming president. Perhaps people like Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and John McCain will keep the GOP on a moderate path.

Big Assumption: You are being serious.

If so, it says oodles about this thread that such supreme neocons as Donald (Burn 'em all, God will know his own) Rumsfeld and Dick (Darth Vader) Cheney could be said to be capable of keeping the GOP on a "moderate" path. Moderate compared to who!? Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?:eek:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BlairWitch749

PLEASE tell me you don't agree with this thinking.

The last thing Gramm needs is Bush 2.0:( Everything you've put together in the Gramm Administration shows Gramm as a man who wants to run the country, not endlessly run for office, as W did. W never really got out of election mode (having Rove running everything as his Chief-of-Staff didn't help). That's why he floundered so badly after 2006. Without an office to run for, a picked successor, or any desire to help in the 2008 congressionals (which neither Bush nor McCain wanted, anyway), he simply didn't know what to do for two years.

Your President Gramm, OTOH, is pretty much the Anti-Bush, as presidents (of ANY party) go. Competence, leadership, technical know-how, and new ideas. NOT a pack of yes men, party hacks, More yes men, a token moderate Republican (Christine Todd Whitman), MORE yes men, a token Democrat (SecTransportation Norm Mineta), MORE yes men, a token appointment of great stature (Colin Powell), MORE yes men, and finally, yes men. Did I mention yes men?:confused:

Gramm's Cabinet is not a Dream Team, as the presence of Paul and Miller prove. And you yourself said one more golden boy (or girl) would really be in wank territory. Might I suggest that perhaps to balance things out Gramm have one area that is a Black Hole that doesn't make for fixing? Like no matter how many changes he makes it just makes things worse in that area?

As you said: "I mean, both the justice departments under Clinton and Bush were fucking train wrecks." Maybe if Gramm had a "train wreck" of his own? For balance, it would have to be something big. Simply having an incompetent SecVA and/or SecHHS doesn't really cut it. And the tremendous talent ladled onto the Gramm Administration has pretty much covered all the bases in the senior Cabinet levels.

How about this? Something Gramm really can't be seriously blamed for but represents the ultimate wildcard(s) for any Presidency: Supreme Court Appointments! Sandra Day O'Connor and William Rehnquist BOTH wanted to retire earlier than they did, but were waiting for a Republican President (and OTL for the furor of Bush v. Gore to subside).

So, as God of this Universe, if you let a David Souter and an Earl Warren get onboard SCOTUS, that should silence ALL bitching about this being a "Republican-Wank Thread". I've seen the flak you've taken for this thread on other threads-some from me I confess:o-more or less stating that because of it you have no right to speak on the Clinton Wars.

Doing a Supreme Court reboot to the left may serve as an excellent way to immunize yourself from further grief, as in: "Yeah, I gave the White House to a Republican four years earlier than OTL. And a BETTER one than we got, OK! And yes, the Congress is still as GOP as ever. So what? Did you see what I did for the Supreme Court!? Obama would cheerfully commit murder for MY Supreme Court! SO FU!:mad: And I'm waiting to receive my sniveling craven apologies from all of you bastards the moment you have the moral courage to issue them to me!:cool:"

If the Liberal Wing should get the fifth AND sixth seats on SCOTUS, you have a RW POTUS and Congress, and a LW SCOTUS. Any problems Gramm has he can blame on a "Justice destroying Supreme Court!":D

EDIT: If it seems too much to have two "failed" SCOTUS appointments, remember that of the five made by Eisenhower, only Harlan really gave him the service he wanted. One was a centrist, one was a weak individual with no clear opinions of his own, and two (Brennan and Warren) he considered to be the only real "mistakes" of his entire eight years in office. And Earl Warren was his first appointment.
*End of message to BlairWitch749*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Possible Supreme Court Appointments
Barack Obama (quite likely)
Hillary Clinton (would be interesting)(plausable)
George Bush I (would follow example of Taft)
Karl Rove (would be interesting)
Condi Rice ( would be interesting)(plausable)


Wishing you well, his majesty,
The Scandinavian Emperor


Is this all a joke? Either this thread has the most RW population in the whole history of AH.com, or else this is an attempt at political humor.:rolleyes:

Empie of Scandia

TAKE. YOUR. MEDS. And don't forget next time to used your smilies. Smilies are your friend. If the Good Lord had meant us to not use smilies, he never woulda given us the 70s.:p

Like your SCOTUS list, tho. The thought of President Phil Gramm being impeached for suspicion(?) of insanity...:D

[Emperor of Scandinavia]

I think I need to explain why I think Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, and McCain were moderates/decent GOP’ers.


John McCain - Before he was the grumpy and angry old man he now is, he once was a "Maverick." He was a war veteran, so he personally understood the costs of war. He worked across party lines: immigration reform with Ted Kennedy, McCain/Feingold (campaign finance), and he wasn't afraid to question the party elites of the GOP.



Dick Cheney - More commonly known as "Darth Cheney", he actually isn’t as bad as people think he is. He is neutral on gay marriage (he has a gay daughter), and on the issue of torture, he is right. If torture will prevent a terrorist attack, torture away. He is a standard issue republican on the issue of taxes and supply side economics, and surprisingly enough, he has admitted that there needs to be some form of gun control (however miniscule). His experience involves being a 5 term congressman from Wisconsin, white house chief of staff under President Ford, and secretary of defense under Bush I. He would have made a formidable opponent in 1996. He certainly had plenty of useful policy experience to run for President with, unlike Obama in 2008.



Colin Powell – He seems to be moderate on most issues; he could work with both sides on issues that affect America, and if he got cooperation, he would have been counted among the nation’s best Presidents. He technically is a republican, but that would not stop him from thinking out side of the GOP box.



Donald Rumsfeld – He is a hawk like many republicans and believes in “trickle-down economics.” When he ran for president in 1988, he endorsed Bob Dole, not George Bush I. His experience involves being a 4 term congressman from Illinois, was a cosponsor of the Freedom of Information Act, head the Office of Economic Opportunity, and the Economic Stabilization Program under President Nixon, was a NATO ambassador, chief of staff and secretary of defense and white house chief of staff under President Ford. The issue of experience also applies here in that he had plenty of useful policy experience to run for President with, unlike Obama in 2008.



Now onto the issue of the Supreme Court, the list I provided was just a list of interesting people that could be appointed.



Barack Obama - president of the Harvard Law Review, earned a law degree, worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Keep him out of politics, and he very well could be on his way to becoming a judge or district attorney, and perhaps latter Attorney General. That could then lead to an eventual appointment to the Supreme Court.



Hillary Clinton – probably not plausible, but come on, who doesn’t want Hillary on SCOTUS. She would have to be appointed by a democratic president, perhaps Ann Richards.



George Bush I – I saw the idea posted by jerseyrules, and thought it would be interesting. There would be precedent in that former President Taft was appointed by President Harding as the Chief Justice of SCOTUS. I’m not sure why Bush would be appointed, but perhaps he hints at a run for the GOP nomination, so he is placated with a seat on the Supreme Court.



Karl Rove – now that I really think about it, this idea is quite well stupid. However wouldn’t that be an awesome confirmation hearing? Probably would be a replay of Robert Bork’s appointment by Reagan.



Condi Rice – probably not possible, but I thought perhaps the GOP could take away the “Diversity” aspect of the democrat ticket by appointing an African American conservative woman to the court. Perhaps it can’t be her unless she takes a course similar to the one I presented about Obama. Have her study law, teach for several years, become a judge, and then later a district attorney or attorney general. That could perhaps lead to her getting a seat on the Supreme Court.


So there you go, an explanation/reorganization of my prior post. If I need to explain my logic more Ill gladly do it.


Wishing you well, his majesty,

The Scandinavian Emperor

[BlairWitch749]

Big Assumption: You are being serious.

If so, it says oodles about this thread that such supreme neocons as Donald (Burn 'em all, God will know his own) Rumsfeld and Dick (Darth Vader) Cheney could be said to be capable of keeping the GOP on a "moderate" path. Moderate compared to who!? Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson?:eek:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BlairWitch749

PLEASE tell me you don't agree with this thinking.

The last thing Gramm needs is Bush 2.0:( Everything you've put together in the Gramm Administration shows Gramm as a man who wants to run the country, not endlessly run for office, as W did. W never really got out of election mode (having Rove running everything as his Chief-of-Staff didn't help). That's why he floundered so badly after 2006. Without an office to run for, a picked successor, or any desire to help in the 2008 congressionals (which neither Bush nor McCain wanted, anyway), he simply didn't know what to do for two years.

Your President Gramm, OTOH, is pretty much the Anti-Bush, as presidents (of ANY party) go. Competence, leadership, technical know-how, and new ideas. NOT a pack of yes men, party hacks, More yes men, a token moderate Republican (Christine Todd Whitman), MORE yes men, a token Democrat (SecTransportation Norm Mineta), MORE yes men, a token appointment of great stature (Colin Powell), MORE yes men, and finally, yes men. Did I mention yes men?:confused:

Gramm's Cabinet is not a Dream Team, as the presence of Paul and Miller prove. And you yourself said one more golden boy (or girl) would really be in wank territory. Might I suggest that perhaps to balance things out Gramm have one area that is a Black Hole that doesn't make for fixing? Like no matter how many changes he makes it just makes things worse in that area?

As you said: "I mean, both the justice departments under Clinton and Bush were fucking train wrecks." Maybe if Gramm had a "train wreck" of his own? For balance, it would have to be something big. Simply having an incompetent SecVA and/or SecHHS doesn't really cut it. And the tremendous talent ladled onto the Gramm Administration has pretty much covered all the bases in the senior Cabinet levels.

How about this? Something Gramm really can't be seriously blamed for but represents the ultimate wildcard(s) for any Presidency: Supreme Court Appointments! Sandra Day O'Connor and William Rehnquist BOTH wanted to retire earlier than they did, but were waiting for a Republican President (and OTL for the furor of Bush v. Gore to subside).

So, as God of this Universe, if you let a David Souter and an Earl Warren get onboard SCOTUS, that should silence ALL bitching about this being a "Republican-Wank Thread". I've seen the flak you've taken for this thread on other threads-some from me I confess:o-more or less stating that because of it you have no right to speak on the Clinton Wars.

Doing a Supreme Court reboot to the left may serve as an excellent way to immunize yourself from further grief, as in: "Yeah, I gave the White House to a Republican four years earlier than OTL. And a BETTER one than we got, OK! And yes, the Congress is still as GOP as ever. So what? Did you see what I did for the Supreme Court!? Obama would cheerfully commit murder for MY Supreme Court! SO FU!:mad: And I'm waiting to receive my sniveling craven apologies from all of you bastards the moment you have the moral courage to issue them to me!:cool:"

If the Liberal Wing should get the fifth AND sixth seats on SCOTUS, you have a RW POTUS and Congress, and a LW SCOTUS. Any problems Gramm has he can blame on a "Justice destroying Supreme Court!":D

EDIT: If it seems too much to have two "failed" SCOTUS appointments, remember that of the five made by Eisenhower, only Harlan really gave him the service he wanted. One was a centrist, one was a weak individual with no clear opinions of his own, and two (Brennan and Warren) he considered to be the only real "mistakes" of his entire eight years in office. And Earl Warren was his first appointment.
*End of message to BlairWitch749*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Is this all a joke? Either this thread has the most RW population in the whole history of AH.com, or else this is an attempt at political humor.:rolleyes:

Empie of Scandia

TAKE. YOUR. MEDS. And don't forget next time to used your smilies. Smilies are your friend. If the Good Lord had meant us to not use smilies, he never woulda given us the 70s.:p

Like your SCOTUS list, tho. The thought of President Phil Gramm being impeached for suspicion(?) of insanity...:D


this is not meant to be a super right wing wank; the destruction of clinton via monica's baby has resulted in an improved political position for the republicans by some level of default

I have had Gramm take his campaign promises seriously; but at the same time, tried to read the man for who he was, someone who had been in Washington a long time with many friends of many persuasions; a former democrat who isn't bound in blood to the heritage foundation or anyone else

at the same whilst an ally of GHWB he isn't indebted to all of GHWB's cronies and old hangers on they way W proved to be; Gramm is his own man and is picking his people based on his perceived vision of their merits and qualifications

dell, mulally and mccain have proved wise choices, as I think most of us would assume they would be; and Gramm had a real life relationship with all three men so it's with at least some level of plausibility that he would ask for their help and that they would accept

there are going to be problems; justice in spite of dell's improvements to their networking will still be a headache, as will anything touched by miller and ron paul; jennifer dunn will experience some success but it will come at a high political cost

[jerseyrules]

Wishing you well, his majesty,

The Scandinavian Emperor

Minor nitpick: I think Cheney was a congressman from Wyoming, not Wisconsin. Now that you mention it, I believe that Condi was president of Stanford's Board of Finance around this time...that's why W. appointed her NSA.

[jerseyrules]

Nominating Bush I for Chief Justice? And has anyone told Rehnquist this? What about when Rehnquist sez: "I will not leave so a man 110 days OLDER than I am can take my place!":mad:

What's he gonna say if he's dead?! :eek:

[jerseyrules]

If putting Cheney on the bench prevents him from becoming president in 2001 like in OTL I'm in.

Or you could just kill him :eek:

[usertron2020]

What's he gonna say if he's dead?! :eek:

He'll come back from the grave:eek: to remind the US Senate Judiciary Committee that you don't appoint and confirm 81 year olds to the Court.:p

[usertron2020]

If putting Cheney on the bench prevents him from becoming president in 2001 like in OTL I'm in.

Calling Cheney President in 2001 is outrageous trolling,:mad: and an insult to the memory of the 43rd President of the United States, Karl Rove.:rolleyes: Get your history straight.:p

[usertron2020]

I think I need to explain why I think Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, and McCain were moderates/decent GOP’ers.

Never challenged Powell, Condi Rice, and McCain as "Moderate Republicans." Certainly not centrists when taking the country as a whole, but within the GOP, yes. So no need to defend them as such.

Dick Cheney - More commonly known as "Darth Cheney", he actually isn’t as bad as people think he is. He is neutral on gay marriage (he has a gay daughter), and on the issue of torture, he is right. If torture will prevent a terrorist attack, torture away. He is a standard issue republican on the issue of taxes and supply side economics, and surprisingly enough, he has admitted that there needs to be some form of gun control (however miniscule). His experience involves being a 5 term congressman from Wisconsin, white house chief of staff under President Ford, and secretary of defense under Bush I. He would have made a formidable opponent in 1996. He certainly had plenty of useful policy experience to run for President with, unlike Obama in 2008.


Wyoming, not Wisconsin. Only 3 Electoral Votes. Running for POTUS therefore was never in the cards.

The problem with torture is its unprofessional. It is usually counter-productive, as the experts will tell you. I say this as someone who doesn't give a damn what happens to these bastards, nor do I accept that the US Constitution is a suicide pact. I am against it purely on the grounds of practicality.

That said, Dick Cheney is the worst kind of Imperialist/Superhawk (as is Rumsfeld). Those two, had it been up to them, would have had us going to war with Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, the Sudan, Somalia, and finally Iran in that order. The only reason we didn't is because it required a Draft which never could have gotten past Congress, and because on some issues even W was ready to put his foot down. And once no WMDs were found in Iraq W couldn't have gotten Congress to fund/approve a war against Monaco:rolleyes: much less anyone else.

After Bush v. Gore ended, Gore remained silent for 18 months before making any public statements criticizing the Bush Administration (and pretty genteel admonishments they were). That didn't stop Fixed News from screaming "Treason!" for his doing so. Cheney didn't wait 18 DAYS after Obama's Inauguration to make the rounds on the Sunday talk shows to lambast Obama for his choices for cabinet officers.:mad: Gee, I don't recall anyone at Fixed criticizing Cheney for this.:rolleyes:

Cheney is the worst of political hacks to be a Constitutional Officer since Spiro Agnew. I don't care what "qualifications and experience" he has. It is the MAN that counts. And he doesn't count for much. It was the very fact that he chose himself to recommend to W for VP that insured that short of W's sticking up a bank he would never himself be impeached. The alternative was simply too horrifying to contemplate.

Donald Rumsfeld – He is a hawk like many republicans and believes in “trickle-down economics.” When he ran for president in 1988, he endorsed Bob Dole, not George Bush I. His experience involves being a 4 term congressman from Illinois, was a cosponsor of the Freedom of Information Act, head the Office of Economic Opportunity, and the Economic Stabilization Program under President Nixon, was a NATO ambassador, chief of staff and secretary of defense and white house chief of staff under President Ford. The issue of experience also applies here in that he had plenty of useful policy experience to run for President with, unlike Obama in 2008.


Not a hawk. A superhawk. Don't judge him by the fact that he wasn't promoting every last weapons system to come down the pike ala Reagan to suggest otherwise. It was what he wanted to DO with what he had available that was the problem with him. No evidence that he ever really got out of the Cold War. Just substituted "Islamist" for "Communist", that's all. Add to that a total inability to admit error even worse than his boss W's (W at least finally admitted saying "Bring it on" was a mistake-In 2007!).

Good reason why when Will Ferrel-W announced on SNL that Donald Rumsfeld "had asked to be allowed to retire" (following the 2006 elections), they showed a Rumsfeld lookalike in the background being dragged out by White House Security.:D


Now onto the issue of the Supreme Court, the list I provided was just a list of interesting people that could be appointed.



Barack Obama - president of the Harvard Law Review, earned a law degree, worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Keep him out of politics, and he very well could be on his way to becoming a judge or district attorney, and perhaps latter Attorney General. That could then lead to an eventual appointment to the Supreme Court.


Obama's not interested in the law in terms of jurisprudence, and you need a Democratic POTUS ITTL for that to happen. Since I can now foresee no more Dem POTUS', and the dissolution of the Democratic Party no later than 2020:rolleyes: ITTL, that won't be an issue.

Hillary Clinton – probably not plausible, but come on, who doesn’t want Hillary on SCOTUS. She would have to be appointed by a democratic president, perhaps Ann Richards.


Who wouldn't want Hillary on SCOTUS? Everybody? Including Hillary herself? And Ann Richards was a political dead duck following 1994. For other reasons, see Obama's.

George Bush I – I saw the idea posted by jerseyrules, and thought it would be interesting. There would be precedent in that former President Taft was appointed by President Harding as the Chief Justice of SCOTUS. I’m not sure why Bush would be appointed, but perhaps he hints at a run for the GOP nomination, so he is placated with a seat on the Supreme Court.


George Bush I? Too old. As old as Rehnquist. POTUS' want their appointments to be around for awhile. No one could know that GHWB would last so long, and be so hearty. Also, Taft had tons of legal and judicial experience, while Bush I has zip (businessman, civil servant, politician). Plus, primogeniture insured his run in 1988. After losing in 1992, he was done.

Karl Rove – now that I really think about it, this idea is quite well stupid. However wouldn’t that be an awesome confirmation hearing? Probably would be a replay of Robert Bork’s appointment by Reagan.


Bork's trial-by-ordeal would have been a walk in the park by comparison. Even Harriet Myers had better credentials.:rolleyes:

Condi Rice – probably not possible, but I thought perhaps the GOP could take away the “Diversity” aspect of the democrat ticket by appointing an African American conservative woman to the court. Perhaps it can’t be her unless she takes a course similar to the one I presented about Obama. Have her study law, teach for several years, become a judge, and then later a district attorney or attorney general. That could perhaps lead to her getting a seat on the Supreme Court.


So there you go, an explanation/reorganization of my prior post. If I need to explain my logic more Ill gladly do it.


Wishing you well, his majesty,

The Scandinavian Emperor

Condi Rice would be appalled at the idea. Her legal experience is zilch. Your majesty, what's the procedure for forcing your abdication?:p

[BlairWitch749]

i get the feeling some of you are looking for some kind of history of the world level depth to this tl :p

i guess we will have to come up with some spin offs or something when my work slows down a bit so i can start brainstorming

[usertron2020]

this is not meant to be a super right wing wank;(1) the destruction of clinton via monica's baby has resulted in an improved political position for the republicans by some level of default(2)

I have had Gramm take his campaign promises seriously; but at the same time, tried to read the man for who he was, someone who had been in Washington a long time with many friends of many persuasions; a former democrat who isn't bound in blood to the heritage foundation or anyone else(3)

at the same whilst an ally of GHWB he isn't indebted to all of GHWB's cronies and old hangers on they way W proved to be; Gramm is his own man and is picking his people based on his perceived vision of their merits and qualifications(4)

dell, mulally and mccain have proven to be wise choices, as I think most of us would assume they would be; and Gramm had a real life relationship with all three men so it's with at least some level of plausibility that he would ask for their help and that they would accept(5)

there are going to be problems; justice in spite of dell's improvements to their networking will still be a headache,(6) as will anything touched by miller and ron paul;(7) jennifer dunn will experience some success but it will come at a high political cost (8)(9)

1) The problem is, this thread has ALREADY gone from a rightwing wank (dumping Slick Willie) to a super rightwing wank, and the Gramm Administration is barely out of the starting gate.

2) Agreed, it is by default, as you and I discussed some time ago. But "by default" explains Gramm's victory. It doesn't explain how No one he has appointed has failed the confirmation process, and the only two (unknown) problem children are in relatively secondary cabinet posts. Namely, VA and HHS. How often do those two departments create major national scandals?

3) Right on! Finally a GOP Presidency that breaks from the neverending story of Republican primogeniture, i.e. Nixon-Ford-Reagan-Bush I-Bush II.:mad: A fresh start for the Grand Old Party not seen since the Eisenhower Administration (who had effectively dumped the Taft people and the anti-semites). Or for the Democrats, Clinton's (the liberal wing of the party didn't like the DLC much).

4) Absolutely right. And exactly why his Cabinet is getting so wankish.

5) Not just plausible but probable, save for Dell leaving his empire. THAT I did find hard to believe. Gramm and Dell must be very VERY close.

6) Not a tithe as bad as OTL, though. With the supremely incompetent Reno gone, and the political whores (they weren't honest enough to be called hacks) Bush put in her place never arriving, Justice should actually do far far better with Gramm in charge. Not a smooth running well-oiled machine, perhaps. But after Clinton, I can't see someone as honest as Gramm tolerating an AG firing career civil service prosecutors for refusing to launch politically motivated prosecutions. Or worse, call off real prosecutions in the name of political hackery.:mad:

7) Well, that's pretty much a given. But then, their two posts could hardly cause major political embarrassments for Gramm. After all, they can always be fired.

8) I take it that as Director of the Office of Management and Budget she'll be made out as the chief villainess for the Gramm Administration's early years? Like Reagan's David Stockman was? But even then, she'll be vilified for doing her job, not screwing up. In short, no mistakes to be found here, just very hard and politically costly choices.

9) BlairWitch749

Another personal message for you, but also for the thread as a whole. Doing what was done to Slick Willie was fine by me, but as you say yourself it makes for a rightwing wank by default. That's not your fault. It is inevitable to the flow of the story.

But the dropping out of Dole, the nomination of Gramm, his near-Dream Team Cabinet, is another matter altogether. Now this puts you in superwank:( territory. Putting two relative cranks in as SecVA and SecHHS does not address the issue. Both men can be fired relatively quickly at little political cost to Gramm. Especially in regards to Miller, who isn't even a Republican.

That was why I put forward the idea of SCOTUS appointment failures. Its a way to balance the story, and something that has to be addressed. The older members of the Court (O'Connor and Rehnquist) want to retire anyway. It doesn't reflect on Gramm (only his vetting team), and prevents the thread from going into hyperwank territory.:eek::(:(:(:( Which is where it will be if Gramm DOES get the appointments (even ONE of the two) he wants.

You and I may be at about the same opposite sides of the political spectrum (I'd say solid conservative Republican for you and solid liberal Democrat for me). But that hasn't stopped me from enjoying a thoroughly properly researched and outstandingly well-written novella. I may not like the politics of it (except for the squeaky clean Republicans and squishing Slick Willie:D), but I know talent when I see it. But if you don't do something to make this more of a balanced story to be enjoyed by a general audience (like by pushing SCOTUS to the left) and less wishful thinking for the right, you are only vindicating your harshest critics.:(:(:(:(:(

[usertron2020]

i get the feeling some of you are looking for some kind of history of the world level depth to this tl :p

i guess we will have to come up with some spin offs or something when my work slows down a bit so i can start brainstorming

If you mean foreign affairs, I don't think so. Its not necessary. And its your own damn fault, anyway. You're so good, you've got us all hooked!:)

If you're worried about the War on Terror, don't. It's a long way off.

Plugging again for SCOTUS Appointment Failures.:p

[Sean Mulligan]

I have had Gramm take his campaign promises seriously; but at the same time, tried to read the man for who he was, someone who had been in Washington a long time with many friends of many persuasions; a former democrat who isn't bound in blood to the heritage foundation or anyone else



The fact that Gramm was a Democrat doesn't mean anything. Ronald Reagan as well as many Southern Republicans such as Trent Lott and Jesse Helms also started out as Democrats.

Gramm as a Senator spearheaded the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act which was partly responsible for the Subprime crisis. That act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which greatly contributed to the Global Financial Crisis. Phil Gramm's wife Wendy Gramm was on the Board of Directors of Enron in the late 90's. Did she resign that when she was First Lady? As a federal regulator she gave an exemption to trading in energy derivatives regulations. If Enron falls earlier, the scandal could severely hurt Gramm's reelection prospects and even if it happens during his second term, the scandal would hurt the Gramm Administration's credibility.

[usertron2020]

Gramm as a Senator spearheaded the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act which was partly responsible for the Subprime crisis. That act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which greatly contributed to the Global Financial Crisis. Phil Gramm's wife Wendy Gramm was on the Board of Directors of Enron in the late 90's. Did she resign that when she was First Lady? As a federal regulator she gave an exemption to trading in energy derivatives regulations. If Enron falls earlier, the scandal could severely hurt Gramm's reelection prospects and even if it happens during his second term, the scandal would hurt the Gramm Administration's credibility.

Enron was addressed long ago. The meltdown took place in 2001 and isn't to be changed ITTL. As FLOTUS, she has to resign, and divest all holdings. Wendy Gramm's actions in regards to Enron don't pass the smell test by any means, but it will only be an issue if Gramm is re-elected. Then he's looking at a catastrophic Sixth Year Curse in 2002. Especially considering the other economic issues at that time. BW749 has very strongly implied that the strong economic winds of the late 1990s will blow as OTL till 2000 (or even blow stronger), but he has been mostly silent about events post-1999.

Also, BW has made references to advice he has been given from friends in the trade who apparently think very highly of de-regulation even to this very day.

[jerseyrules]

Hmm...wonder who take Gramm's senate seat...

Perhaps Senator...RON PAUL :eek::D - in all seriousness Paul came in second to gramm in the GOP primary for that seat the first time around...

Please? :o

Also, will Gingrich get the boot in 98 as he did OTL? No budget deadlock = no "whiny baby" Gingrich

[bguy]

1) The problem is, this thread has ALREADY gone from a rightwing wank (dumping Slick Willie) to a super rightwing wank, and the Gramm Administration is barely out of the starting gate.

I really don't see where you are getting this as a super rightwing wank. So far all we have seen President Gramm do is play little ball. Some useful minor reforms and budget cuts but hardly anything earth shattering (especially given the size of the Republican majorities in Congress.) If entire Cabinet departments get abolished, Roe v Wade gets overturned, and Bin Laden gets captured then you'll have grounds to call this a super rightwing wank, but it's just silly to call it a super rightwing wank at this point.

It doesn't explain how No one he has appointed has failed the confirmation process, and the only two (unknown) problem children are in relatively secondary cabinet posts. Namely, VA and HHS. How often do those two departments create major national scandals?

Gramm has a massive Republican majority in the Senate, why would any of his cabinet nominations have failed? And of the Big 4 positions, Powell and McCain are likely choices for any Republican president in 1996 and keeping Rubin at Treasury is certainly reasonable. I raised some doubts about Giuliani as Attorney General since both social conservatives and the NRA will have major issues with him but given Giuliani's impeccable anti-crime credentials, Gramm could certainly muscle him through if he wants.

4) Absolutely right. And exactly why his Cabinet is getting so wankish.

McCain is already causing problems with the Senate and the defense establishment, Giuliani certainly cost Gramm a lot of political capital with social cons, and Ron Paul and Zell Miller are both ticking time bombs. Getting Dell into the Cabinet was a big win but then he is in a relatively minor department (how many Americans even know what the Commerce Department does). Powell is likely to prove as inconsequential in State here as he was OTL in that role. And the rest of the Cabinet doesn't seem all that impressive.

7) Well, that's pretty much a given. But then, their two posts could hardly cause major political embarrassments for Gramm. After all, they can always be fired.

Ron Paul at HHS could be a major embarassment if he starts talking about abolishing Social Security or legalizing drugs. Yes, Gramm can fire him, but then he'll have irritated the libertarian wing of the party at a time when the social and defense cons are already upset with him.

That was why I put forward the idea of SCOTUS appointment failures. Its a way to balance the story, and something that has to be addressed. The older members of the Court (O'Connor and Rehnquist) want to retire anyway. It doesn't reflect on Gramm (only his vetting team), and prevents the thread from going into hyperwank territory.:eek::(:(:(:( Which is where it will be if Gramm DOES get the appointments (even ONE of the two) he wants.

Gramm is already going to be under a microscope with social cons for forcing Giuliani on them and for not aggressively pushing their legislation. If he then also botches not one but two Supreme Court appointments the social cons will stay home in 2000 and Gramm will lose. He's going to be under intense pressure to get the Supreme Court appointments right and it is very unlikely he would screw up both appointments.

[BlairWitch749]

1) The problem is, this thread has ALREADY gone from a rightwing wank (dumping Slick Willie) to a super rightwing wank, and the Gramm Administration is barely out of the starting gate.

2) Agreed, it is by default, as you and I discussed some time ago. But "by default" explains Gramm's victory. It doesn't explain how No one he has appointed has failed the confirmation process, and the only two (unknown) problem children are in relatively secondary cabinet posts. Namely, VA and HHS. How often do those two departments create major national scandals?

3) Right on! Finally a GOP Presidency that breaks from the neverending story of Republican primogeniture, i.e. Nixon-Ford-Reagan-Bush I-Bush II.:mad: A fresh start for the Grand Old Party not seen since the Eisenhower Administration (who had effectively dumped the Taft people and the anti-semites). Or for the Democrats, Clinton's (the liberal wing of the party didn't like the DLC much).

4) Absolutely right. And exactly why his Cabinet is getting so wankish.

5) Not just plausible but probable, save for Dell leaving his empire. THAT I did find hard to believe. Gramm and Dell must be very VERY close.

6) Not a tithe as bad as OTL, though. With the supremely incompetent Reno gone, and the political whores (they weren't honest enough to be called hacks) Bush put in her place never arriving, Justice should actually do far far better with Gramm in charge. Not a smooth running well-oiled machine, perhaps. But after Clinton, I can't see someone as honest as Gramm tolerating an AG firing career civil service prosecutors for refusing to launch politically motivated prosecutions. Or worse, call off real prosecutions in the name of political hackery.:mad:

7) Well, that's pretty much a given. But then, their two posts could hardly cause major political embarrassments for Gramm. After all, they can always be fired.

8) I take it that as Director of the Office of Management and Budget she'll be made out as the chief villainess for the Gramm Administration's early years? Like Reagan's David Stockman was? But even then, she'll be vilified for doing her job, not screwing up. In short, no mistakes to be found here, just very hard and politically costly choices.

9) BlairWitch749

Another personal message for you, but also for the thread as a whole. Doing what was done to Slick Willie was fine by me, but as you say yourself it makes for a rightwing wank by default. That's not your fault. It is inevitable to the flow of the story.

But the dropping out of Dole, the nomination of Gramm, his near-Dream Team Cabinet, is another matter altogether. Now this puts you in superwank:( territory. Putting two relative cranks in as SecVA and SecHHS does not address the issue. Both men can be fired relatively quickly at little political cost to Gramm. Especially in regards to Miller, who isn't even a Republican.

That was why I put forward the idea of SCOTUS appointment failures. Its a way to balance the story, and something that has to be addressed. The older members of the Court (O'Connor and Rehnquist) want to retire anyway. It doesn't reflect on Gramm (only his vetting team), and prevents the thread from going into hyperwank territory.:eek::(:(:(:( Which is where it will be if Gramm DOES get the appointments (even ONE of the two) he wants.

You and I may be at about the same opposite sides of the political spectrum (I'd say solid conservative Republican for you and solid liberal Democrat for me). But that hasn't stopped me from enjoying a thoroughly properly researched and outstandingly well-written novella. I may not like the politics of it (except for the squeaky clean Republicans and squishing Slick Willie:D), but I know talent when I see it. But if you don't do something to make this more of a balanced story to be enjoyed by a general audience (like by pushing SCOTUS to the left) and less wishful thinking for the right, you are only vindicating your harshest critics.:(:(:(:(:(


any complete impolosion of a dem president (particularly right before an election) would necessarily translate to a better outcome for the republicans; as I have stated, a significant portion of Gramm's victory wasn't his being a better candidate than Clinton overall , but a massive combination of moderate/socially conservative/married suburban women type Clinton voters who where pissed off enough to stay home; the POD is wholly realistic; He was engaged in a sexual relationship with Monica at that time, Monica by all accounts was infatuated with him and would likely have wanted to keep a baby should one have been conceived; and the affair was being gossiped about inside the whitehouse enough where there was a very real chance of it coming to the public at any time.... I picked Gramm over Dole for pure entertainment as I find Bob Dole boring... Gramm is wholly realistic, as he had raised the most money, and came in 2nd in the first two primaries and without Dole could easily have won and unified the party and short circuited Buchanan

Gramm has 61 republican senators to confirm his people; and this is well before the fillibuster became a commonplace weapon nor where any of his pics super contraversial to where they couldn't get 51 republicans to vote for them

not having GHWB's people in there is going to prove a net positive


McCain is not totally perfect, there will be a price to be paid for his choices; and whilst he has done well in some areas (which I have covered first) his administration will not be perfect by a long shot... chalk it up to poor sequencing with a dose of wait and see

will edit more thoughts in later

[jerseyrules]

But srsly who filled Gramm's senate seat? Did he run for his seat and pres at the same time and win or did he not run for reelection; in either case there's a new TX senator...:confused:

[jerseyrules]

He'll come back from the grave:eek: to remind the US Senate Judiciary Committee that you don't appoint and confirm 81 year olds to the Court.:p

Ghwb is about 73 ittl

[usertron2020]

Ghwb is about 73 ittl

Still way too old for a SCOTUS appointment. Plus, a total lack of judicial/legal credentials, suspicion at the time by the hard right of being a RINO:rolleyes:, and no knowledge of the fact that he would live 16 more years (and counting...). Plus, I can't see him saying yes, nor can I see Barbara not clonking him over the head with a rolling pin.

[usertron2020]

But srsly who filled Gramm's senate seat? Did he run for his seat and pres at the same time and win or did he not run for reelection; in either case there's a new TX senator...:confused:

Republican governor. Doesn't matter that Gramm's seat is vacant. It will be quickly filled.

[usertron2020]

I really don't see where you are getting this as a super rightwing wank.(1) So far all we have seen President Gramm do is play little ball. Some useful minor reforms and budget cuts but hardly anything earth shattering (especially given the size of the Republican majorities in Congress.)(2) If entire Cabinet departments get abolished,(3) Roe v Wade gets overturned,(4) and Bin Laden gets captured(5) then you'll have grounds (6) to call this a super rightwing wank, but it's just silly to call it a super rightwing wank at this point.(7)

1) I've already said why it is a superwank (But not hyperwank. Yet), but I'll try again.:(

2) This thread is not titled "President Phil Gramm, 1997-?" You have to take the entire story as a whole. Knocking up Monica in 1996, having the pregnancy go through (and thereby insuring getting caught), resulting in Clinton's loss in 1996 is wank. Which is fine for the purpose of the story. But Dole could have beaten Clinton in these circumstances as well, and it would still be just a simple wank story.

Bob Dole the Elderly Candidate getting hurt and dropping out, the young, strong, flush with cash and ready Phil Gramm right there to take his place makes the story more interesting, yes. But it pushes the story even more in favor of the Republicans without really adding to Clinton's Downfall. Not superwank yet, though.

3) I'm gathering that's going to happen anyway, with Gramm in charge. It doesn't add much to wanking the thread, per se, as those departments can always be re-created later.

4) Uh, Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere anytime soon. There has never been more than three justices (Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia) seeking its overturning at any one time.

5) ASB. Especially given what we now know of UBL's movements OTL.

6) "Have grounds!?" This scenario you just laid out represents "having grounds?" What's a slam dunk in your eyes? 22nd Amendment gets repealed, Gramm elected POTUS for life, and Congress passes a law making the Democratic Party illegal?:eek:

7) No, its not. And I'll even do the math for you:

Slick Willie knocks up Monica + gets caught + loses in 1996 = wank1.

Elderly Dole drops out + Gramm wins election + throws together near-Dream Team Cabinet ("near" because of Miller and Paul) = wank2.

wank1 X wank2 = superwank.

Gramm has a massive Republican majority in the Senate, why would any of his cabinet nominations have failed?(8) And of the Big 4 positions, Powell and McCain are likely choices for any Republican president in 1996 and keeping Rubin at Treasury is certainly reasonable. I raised some doubts about Giuliani as Attorney General since both social conservatives and the NRA will have major issues with him but given Giuliani's impeccable anti-crime credentials, Gramm could certainly muscle him through if he wants.(9)

8) Slavish devotion by the Senate doesn't change the fact that skeletons will always come out of the closet eventually. ONE appointment generally fails, even if its just for hiding illegal aliens as domestic servants. One of the problems with any TL like this is that you can simply avoid this problem by dismissing the idea of appointing someone who WAS caught doing something OTL. The problem is, some of these people are undergoing scrutiny they never had to face OTL. But everybody's getting a clean bill of health anyway.

The confirmation process is not 100% one party only. Nailing appointments for legitimate reasons is just about the only way that the Democrats can fight back now. But BW749 has done such a great job with this TL I'm willing to accept that Gramm has rolled a Yahtzee with his appointments in terms of their backgrounds. But Gramm has now built up a fantastic level of karmic debt (in terms of good luck). Merely throwing a couple of second-tier Cabinet Officers like Paul (insubordination:confused:?) and Miller (Crazy Man:D) under the bus isn't going to do much to balance the scales. And anyway, would THEY really be missed?

At this rate, Gramm is going to have the smoothest running (domestically) first term in American History. And I include Washington in that!:eek:

9) I agree with all of this.

McCain is already causing problems with the Senate and the defense establishment,(10) Giuliani certainly cost Gramm a lot of political capital with social cons,(11) and Ron Paul and Zell Miller are both ticking time bombs.(12) Getting Dell into the Cabinet was a big win but then he is in a relatively minor department(13) (how many Americans even know what the Commerce Department does). Powell is likely to prove as inconsequential in State here as he was OTL in that role.(14) And the rest of the Cabinet doesn't seem all that impressive.(15)

10) Only by doing his job. BW749 said himself that President Gramm HAS to do exactly as he is doing now. Strike while the iron is hot, as he will never be in a stronger position politically and legislatively (despite some very wishful thinking by some posters) than he is coming out of the 96 Election. I personally have nothing but praise for what McCain is doing (though it'll cream the economy in my home state).:(:mad:

11) Social cons, but "law & order" Republicans will be thrilled to have Rudy on board.

12) Everyone agrees on that, but there is only so much TNT you can stick into VA and HHS before they go off. They can be very embarrassing, but also remember, they serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States. And I think we can all agree, Phil Gramm is a man to take shit from no one. First major bump in the road from either of them, and they are gone.

13) Low profile department but very high profile Cabinet Officer.

14) I think you are really wrong there. Powell was surrounded by idiots who thought they knew better than he OTL, while ITTL foreign experience is relatively light in the Gramm Administration. I suspect Powell, subject of course to Gramm's approval, will be more like a foreign affairs "Czar", rather than the cipher he was reduced to (in the end) OTL by the likes of Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld.

15) I disagree. TTL's Gramm Administration has gone for talent over party loyalty. It's the best thing I like about the Gramm Administration, and BW749's handling of it.

Ron Paul at HHS could be a major embarassment if he starts talking about abolishing Social Security or legalizing drugs. Yes, Gramm can fire him, but then he'll have irritated the libertarian wing of the party at a time when the social and defense cons are already upset with him.

So if he doesn't understand the ground rules from the start, POTUS Gramm can always point to the door and let him know where the exits are. Or his Chief-of-Staff can do it. No prisoners in the War on Drugs, and "even now we don't have the votes on Social Security Reform."

Gramm is already going to be under a microscope with social cons for forcing Giuliani on them and for not aggressively pushing their legislation.(16) If he then also botches not one but two Supreme Court appointments the social cons will stay home in 2000 (17) and Gramm will lose(18). He's going to be under intense pressure to get the Supreme Court appointments right and it is very unlikely he would screw up both appointments.(19)

16) Actually, with as huge a surplus of GOP Senators as he currently enjoys, Gramm may be able to deliver on some social legislation. Provided he is willing to give in on some defense cuts in the Northeast to get those New England Republicans onboard.

17) Not possible. He's better than anyone else they can get and the Democratic candidate would be unthinkable for them (to see a Dem win, that is). Besides, historically, Presidents don't take the fall for bad SCOTUS choices. The blame is latched onto the vetting teams. Which is why John Sununu was destroyed for telling GHWB that David Souter could be trusted.

The Warren Court was universally hated by conservatives, but Eisenhower was never blamed for it. Only his "incompetent advisors". California Governor Earl Warren was promised by Ike the first Eisenhower Administration SCOTUS appointment in exchange for his support in the 1952 Election. There was no way anyone could have expected such a hardcore conservative as Earl Warren (who was instrumental in the expulsion of the Nisei from the West Coast in WWII) would turn so hard to the left once he was on the bench.

So too, Byron White, one of JFK's two appointments, and one of the most extremely conservative justices seen on the court until the start of the Rehnquist Era. Who knew that was going to happen?

Ike was a general, not a lawyer, not a judge. Gramm is an economist, not a lawyer, not a judge. No way in Hell do generals and economists get the blame for wildcat justices who, once they've got their precious (my precious!) gavel in their hands, can do whatever they like in terms of judicial philosophy (Lifetime Appointment!). THE JUSTICES GET THE BLAME, not the President. Especially not a President with conservative credentials as authentic as President Gramm's.

If you combine the appointments made by Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Ford, they had a 75% failure rate in terms of political desirability.

18) I should think that by now it should be obvious that Gramm will be re-elected.:rolleyes:

19) IT HAPPENS. As I enumerated with Eisenhower's choices. He only got 1 out of 5. The whole point of this idea was to give a balance to the story. Has anyone else noticed that I'm the only person left posting on this TL who is not crying out chants of "Mega-Dittoes!":(?:confused::confused::confused: Relatively speaking, that is.:o:o:o:o:o

[usertron2020]

Any complete implosion of a dem president (particularly right before an election) would necessarily translate to a better outcome for the republicans; as I have stated, a significant portion of Gramm's victory wasn't his being a better candidate than Clinton overall, but a massive combination of moderate/socially conservative/married suburban women type Clinton voters who where pissed off enough to stay home; the POD is wholly realistic; He was engaged in a sexual relationship with Monica at that time, Monica by all accounts was infatuated with him and would likely have wanted to keep a baby should one have been conceived; and the affair was being gossiped about inside the White House enough where there was a very real chance of it coming to the public at any time....

:mad: There isn't really a good smilie for this.(*insert "frustration" smilie here*) You don't have to say anything to defend the Fall of Clinton and the GOP 1996 Landslide. As I have said OVER and OVER again it is a natural flow from the story. Inevitable, unless Pat Robertson is the GOP nominee.:rolleyes: HE'D find a way to blow it. Otherwise...

Yes, the basic story premise for the Fall of Slick Willie is a GOP wank. That's part of the story. It's understood. No complaints about that.

I picked Gramm over Dole for pure entertainment as I find Bob Dole boring... Gramm is wholly realistic, as he had raised the most money, and came in 2nd in the first two primaries and without Dole could easily have won and unified the party and short circuited Buchanan

OK. Got that. Putting in Gramm is not wanking per say, but it DOES make for a more vigorous GOP Administration, putting a thumb on the scales in favor of an even greater GOP wank.

Gramm has 61 republican senators to confirm his people;(1) and this is well before the fillibuster became a commonplace weapon (2) nor were any of his pics super controversial (3) to where they couldn't get 51 republicans to vote for them (4)

1) And has been said by me and others that number includes senators from not just "ruby red" states, but pink, purple, pale blue, and even sapphire blue states as well. And I don't believe ALL of them were the results of 1996 sweeps, meaning they are looking at an off-year GOP incumbency election in 1998.

This is NOT a Senate containing 61 GOP South Carolinians. Senators are responsible to STATES, not radically racially-gerrymandered House Districts. That's why fruit loops like Cynthia McKinney and VRWC founders like Bob Barr couldn't dream of running for the Senate even if they each spent an hour dropping acid!

2) Not challenging your word, but are you really sure about that? With a cloture buffer of just two votes, that's going to make the abolishment of some of those Cabinet Departments VERY difficult. I can't really see New England GOP senators voting for cloture on a bill to eliminate the Departments of Education, EPA, and Energy.

3) Never said they were.

4) Never said they wouldn't be approved in terms of their qualifications.

My point is when you have so many people up for approval, SOMETHING is usually going to come out of the woodwork to torpedo at least ONE appointment. Its just a matter of the odds, that's all. A past mistress, unpaid traffic tickets, unpaid taxes, bad business practices by a spouse, poor decision-making in a previous business venture, the discovery of someone having cheated on their entrance exams to kindergarten...:rolleyes:

I wouldn't put that last silly thing past people. I've already read of "family values" groups attacking Mitt Romney for his history of polygamy. His great-grandfather's, that is.:mad:

However, as I posted earlier, I'm willing to accept that Gramm's made a clean sweep with his appointments. They are all too much fun in their own individual ways to see them gone.:)

Not having GHWB's people in there is going to prove a net positive

Hence my previous "Right On!" interjection. Google "Right On!" if you are too young to know what that means.:D But also putting a second thumb on the scale for the Right.

McCain (5) is not totally perfect, there will be a price to be paid for his choices; and whilst he has done well in some areas (which I have covered first) his administration will not be perfect by a long shot... chalk it up to poor sequencing with a dose of wait and see (6)

will edit more thoughts in later

5) Did you mean to write "Gramm" here and just slipped with "McCain"? Perfectly understandable.

6) Those Gramm problems will have to be pretty devastating to represent any balance in the thread. Foreign policy disasters? Your lack of response regarding my SCOTUS suggestions would indicate to me Gramm is going to get just who he wants for the Supreme Court.

To be blunt, the next real hard error I see the Republicans make in this TL will also be the first.

[BlairWitch749]

userton, there will be republican overreaches; I just haven't gotten to them yet. My first posts on the cabinet members happen to have only hit on the more positive members, but the problems will be addressed in full.

I will cover Gramm's more aggressive moves later (RL has severely clamped down on my writing time) including the dissolution/consolidation of cabinet departments, and politically painful reforms to social security

[usertron2020]

userton, there will be republican overreaches; I just haven't gotten to them yet. My first posts on the cabinet members happen to have only hit on the more positive members, but the problems will be addressed in full.

My very point being that there ARE no "negative" members, except the two we all recognize, Paul and Miller. AND there just isn't that much harm the two of them together could accomplish before being shown the door. I'm not aware of any policies regarding the VA and HHS stipulated as being from the Gramm Administration that would be blowing up in Gramm's face.

I will cover Gramm's more aggressive moves later (RL has severely clamped down on my writing time) including the dissolution/consolidation of cabinet departments, and politically painful reforms to social security

As of December 2011, we can't get any real reform in Social Security. Nor did we when the Republicans held every rein of power for four years in the middle of the W Administration. How is TTL going to accomplish it 14 years sooner? If Gramm plays the Imperial Presidency Card, he may find himself gridlocked anyway, congressional majorities be damned.

BTW? As things are going? With no end in sight?

Clinton Downfall (favors the Right)

+ GOP 1996 Victory (wanks the Right)

+ Rise of Phil Gramm (favors the Rightwank)

+ Gramm near-Dream Team Cabinet (superwank)

+ consolidation of cabinet posts (favors superwank)

+ Social Security Reform (hyperwank)

That things could go wrong for Gramm, or any Republican POTUS from here on, is obvious. But I am truly beginning to doubt that you can truly bring yourself to actually write such things in a concrete, literal, and specific fashion. Sudden writer's block, I mean.

[BlairWitch749]

My very point being that there ARE no "negative" members, except the two we all recognize, Paul and Miller. AND there just isn't that much harm the two of them together could accomplish before being shown the door. I'm not aware of any policies regarding the VA and HHS stipulated as being from the Gramm Administration that would be blowing up in Gramm's face.



As of December 2011, we can't get any real reform in Social Security. Nor did we when the Republicans held every rein of power for four years in the middle of the W Administration. How is TTL going to accomplish it 14 years sooner? If Gramm plays the Imperial Presidency Card, he may find himself gridlocked anyway, congressional majorities be damned.

BTW? As things are going? With no end in sight?

Clinton Downfall (favors the Right)

+ GOP 1996 Victory (wanks the Right)

+ Rise of Phil Gramm (favors the Rightwank)

+ Gramm near-Dream Team Cabinet (superwank)

+ consolidation of cabinet posts (favors superwank)

+ Social Security Reform (hyperwank)

That things could go wrong for Gramm, or any Republican POTUS from here on, is obvious. But I am truly beginning to doubt that you can truly bring yourself to actually write such things in a concrete, literal, and specific fashion. Sudden writer's block, I mean.


Justice is going to have problems (not as bad as Reno, but problems; Rudy was not good at picking subordinates)

Gramm has a majority that W never had a wiff of, he is going to ram through social security reform at a high cost in political capital; that will not be right wing wank in and of itself (given the negative blow back that will come from it)

the Clinton downfall and the GOP victory are the same thing and not too separate divergences; as you point out; Clinton's total implosion creates a backdrop for automatic GOP victory, even if Bob Dole was the candidate

the rise of Phil Gramm is for story interest only; as we agree, under the circumstances created, Dole would have won anyway (probably at similar margins) my choice of Gramm was for entertainment and interest....if the divergence from Dole was to be a wank, I would have tweaked it so either Colin Powell or Pete Wilson where the candidate which under the circumstances created could have inflicted reverse 1964 on the democrats

I don't quite see it as a dream team (excepting Dell) as more realistic... McCain was qualified for sec def and close friend of Phil Gramm's, he would have been very likely to get that post had he won; Powell as we know from OTL was a hot ticket for a cabinet posting in the next Republican administration; Rudy has been rumored for AG several times in RL and would be a top tier candidate in a 1997 republican take over.... Rubin staying on is realistic, Dunn and Fowler are Newt hatchetwomen and would have been good copy for any Republican taking over in that period (plus it get's women in the cabinet which has a value).... Mulally was a friend of Gramm's for more than 15 years at that point; Boeing had delayed for too long by that point already giving him the CEO position (Boeing not only misses his services immensely, but Mulally has worked miracles at Ford after he left); so it's possible as OTL later that he might jump ship for a better opportunity since Boeing hadn't given him the top spot........ the total cabinet will end up a mixed success maybe 60-40 65-35 success rate or something along those lines

consolidation of cabinet posts is just republican platform; I don't follow how that will be wank territory, especially if there is some negative blow back and ship jumping from it as you have pointed out will be a likely consequence

just a note a de-regulation

my friend at schwab has advised of two things that where Gramm specific

One his change in the law that allowed the banks to also become brokerage houses is a strawman issue, the brokerage houses that where not banks where still massive systemic risks to the economy anyway, such as Bear, Goldman and Lehman

and his other major deregulation issue was eliminating the uptick rule which allowed runaway short selling... however my friend advised that although this rule was bad; it couldn't be fully exploited till about 2006 when high frequency algorithm based trading started appearing at hedge funds

[bguy]

Bob Dole the Elderly Candidate getting hurt and dropping out, the young, strong, flush with cash and ready Phil Gramm right there to take his place makes the story more interesting, yes. But it pushes the story even more in favor of the Republicans without really adding to Clinton's Downfall. Not superwank yet, though.

How exactly is Gramm that much of a difference from Dole? Both are fiscal conservatives who aren't that interesting in social issues and neither is especially charismatic.

4) Uh, Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere anytime soon. There has never been more than three justices (Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia) seeking its overturning at any one time.

5) ASB. Especially given what we now know of UBL's movements OTL.

Exactly. Which is why this isn't a "super right-wing wank". Those are the kind of things that would be happening if it was.

6) "Have grounds!?" This scenario you just laid out represents "having grounds?" What's a slam dunk in your eyes? 22nd Amendment gets repealed, Gramm elected POTUS for life, and Congress passes a law making the Democratic Party illegal?

For calling something a "super right-wing wank" the burden is going to be pretty high. Just winning an unloseable election and then appointing a reasonable Cabinet isn't going to get you there. At the very least it would be worth waiting until the Gramm Administration actually achieves one piece of conservative legislation that Republicans weren't able to achieve in OTL 1997-2000 before going all Chicken Little on the story.

7) No, its not. And I'll even do the math for you:

Slick Willie knocks up Monica + gets caught + loses in 1996 = wank1.

Elderly Dole drops out + Gramm wins election + throws together near-Dream Team Cabinet ("near" because of Miller and Paul) = wank2.

wank1 X wank2 = superwank.

Still not sure where you are getting this idea that it is a Dream Team Cabinet. What exactly is so special about McConnell or Wilson? And we have yet to see how effective Dell and Mulally will be at managing their Departments. Private sector skills don't always neatly carry over into riding herd on the federal bureaucracy. And McCain and Giuliani both come with personality issues of their own that may undermine their talents.

And even if we accept it is a Dream Team Cabinet, they still haven't done anything yet. Winning an election and getting good people into the Cabinet means nothing if it isn't translated into actual achievements.

8) Slavish devotion by the Senate doesn't change the fact that skeletons will always come out of the closet eventually. ONE appointment generally fails, even if its just for hiding illegal aliens as domestic servants. One of the problems with any TL like this is that you can simply avoid this problem by dismissing the idea of appointing someone who WAS caught doing something OTL. The problem is, some of these people are undergoing scrutiny they never had to face OTL. But everybody's getting a clean bill of health anyway.

Truth be told I don't think Paul would get confirmed. He would probably say something controversial enough at the confirmation hearings to kill his nomination. Of course if BW had put that in the story, you would probably then say that was further proof of it being a super-duper right wing wank since Gramm just got rid of the biggest potential flake in his Cabinet very early on at no real cost :D

If it really bothers you so much why not just pretend that McConnell or Wilson was Gramm's 2nd choice for their position and the first choice's nomination fell apart for some reason? It won't alter the narrative of the story one iota and it will apparently make you feel better about it.

At this rate, Gramm is going to have the smoothest running (domestically) first term in American History. And I include Washington in that!.

Are you forgetting who the Speaker of the House is? I'm sure Gingrich will cause Gramm some major headaches.

10) Only by doing his job. BW749 said himself that President Gramm HAS to do exactly as he is doing now. Strike while the iron is hot, as he will never be in a stronger position politically and legislatively (despite some very wishful thinking by some posters) than he is coming out of the 96 Election. I personally have nothing but praise for what McCain is doing (though it'll cream the economy in my home state).

Maybe, but it is still going to get Gramm a lot of flak (especially given McCain's rather caustic personality.) Republicans in Congress are going to resent defense cuts and will likely cause Gramm a lot of heartburn if he pushes to far on them.

11) Social cons, but "law & order" Republicans will be thrilled to have Rudy on board.)

Except most law and order Republicans are big 2nd Amendment supporters and will dislike Rudy's stance on gun control.

14) I think you are really wrong there. Powell was surrounded by idiots who thought they knew better than he OTL, while ITTL foreign experience is relatively light in the Gramm Administration. I suspect Powell, subject of course to Gramm's approval, will be more like a foreign affairs "Czar", rather than the cipher he was reduced to (in the end) OTL by the likes of Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld.

Maybe. Powell didn't exactly shine as Secretary of State though even before 9-11. Can you recall a single major thing he achieved as Secretary of State? He may have a little more latitude here simply because Gramm isn't all that interested in foreign policy, but Secretaries of State who don't already have a strong pre-existing relationship with the President usually end up marginalized in favor of the National Security Advisor (who has much greater access to the President.)

16) Actually, with as huge a surplus of GOP Senators as he currently enjoys, Gramm may be able to deliver on some social legislation. Provided he is willing to give in on some defense cuts in the Northeast to get those New England Republicans onboard.

Gramm isn't particularily interested in social legislation though (nor is Gingrich for that matter.) We'll probably see a child tax credit and a partial birth abortion ban, but that's about all I would really expect. (And those very same majorities are going to mean social cons are going to expect a lot more.)

17) Not possible. He's better than anyone else they can get and the Democratic candidate would be unthinkable for them (to see a Dem win, that is).

Social cons are perfectly willing to stay home though if they aren't satisfied with the Republican candidate. Heck, W estimates he lost two million votes in 2000 because of social cons staying home due to his DUI. And he was a lot more palataple to social cons than Gramm is. A President Gramm who appoints a pro-choice, pro-gay rights AG, miffs 2 Supreme Court appointments, and fails to achieve any high profile social conservative legislation despite having huge majorities in both houses, is not going to get social con support in 2000.

Besides, historically, Presidents don't take the fall for bad SCOTUS choices. The blame is latched onto the vetting teams. Which is why John Sununu was destroyed for telling GHWB that David Souter could be trusted.)

GHWB partially redeemed himself though with the Thomas pick. Whereas you are asking for Gramm to have two Souter type nominations. And of course GHWB lost his reelection.

The Warren Court was universally hated by conservatives, but Eisenhower was never blamed for it. Only his "incompetent advisors". California Governor Earl Warren was promised by Ike the first Eisenhower Administration SCOTUS appointment in exchange for his support in the 1952 Election. There was no way anyone could have expected such a hardcore conservative as Earl Warren (who was instrumental in the expulsion of the Nisei from the West Coast in WWII) would turn so hard to the left once he was on the bench.

Most of the Warren Court's activist decisions occured long after Eisenhower was out of office though. And again Ike is kind of a special case. When Gramm liberates western Europe he can get away with appointing liberals to the bench.

And FWIW Warren was certainly known to be a liberal Republican in 1953. Ike has no on to blame for himself for that selection. William Brennan was more of a surprise to Ike but then again Ike appointed him just because he wanted to appoint a Catholic to the "Catholic seat" in advance of the '56 election. If Ike had wanted to guarantee a conservative Catholic, he would have appointed Clarence Manion.

Ike was a general, not a lawyer, not a judge. Gramm is an economist, not a lawyer, not a judge. No way in Hell do generals and economists get the blame for wildcat justices who, once they've got their precious (my precious!) gavel in their hands, can do whatever they like in terms of judicial philosophy (Lifetime Appointment!). THE JUSTICES GET THE BLAME, not the President. Especially not a President with conservative credentials as authentic as President Gramm's.

If you combine the appointments made by Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Ford, they had a 75% failure rate in terms of political desirability.

But a lot has changed since those times. There is a much more developed conservative legal infrastructure in place to make sure there is not another Brennan/Blackmun/Stevens/Souter type. The court has become much more politicized. The religious right has become much more powerful (and Supreme Court justicies are pretty much the issue they care about the most.) And Republicans have become a lot more sensitive to having stealth appointees go left once they get on the bench. Why do you think the Harriet Miers nomination fell apart OTL? Gramm could maybe survive one Souter type appointment, but he would be politically dead if he screwed up that badly twice.

19) IT HAPPENS. As I enumerated with Eisenhower's choices. He only got 1 out of 5. The whole point of this idea was to give a balance to the story.

Giving balance to the story is a pretty poor reason to have everyone suddenly start acting out of character. BW has done a good job with the story so far. Why not trust him to continue to do so.

[usertron2020]

Justice is going to have problems (not as bad as Reno, but problems; Rudy was not good at picking subordinates)

True. But this was due more to his "my-way-or-the-highway" personality. Which makes me wonder how he'll do having to answer to someone else for a change.

Gramm has a majority that W never had a wiff of, he is going to ram through social security reform at a high cost in political capital; that will not be right wing wank in and of itself (given the negative blow back that will come from it)

The damage is done to the Gramm Administration, however. For the GOP at large, its happy-days-are-here-again.

the Clinton downfall and the GOP victory are the same thing and not too separate divergences; as you point out; Clinton's total implosion creates a backdrop for automatic GOP victory, even if Bob Dole was the candidate

That can be argued either way.

the rise of Phil Gramm is for story interest only; as we agree, under the circumstances created, Dole would have won anyway (probably at similar margins) my choice of Gramm was for entertainment and interest....if the divergence from Dole was to be a wank, I would have tweaked it so either Colin Powell or Pete Wilson where the candidate which under the circumstances created could have inflicted reverse 1964 on the democrats

Dole would be a less likely candidate for re-election. God only knows what the stresses of office could have done to his health. Pete Wilson was about as exciting as a dead fish and would never have gotten the nomination. Mrs. Powell would never have let Mr. Powell run. No centrist (in a national electorate sense) in this day and age gets nominated by the GOP. But I agree about the reverse 64 Election.

I don't quite see it as a dream team (excepting Dell) as more realistic... McCain was qualified for sec def and close friend of Phil Gramm's, he would have been very likely to get that post had he won; Powell as we know from OTL was a hot ticket for a cabinet posting in the next Republican administration; Rudy has been rumored for AG several times in RL and would be a top tier candidate in a 1997 republican take over.... Rubin staying on is realistic, Dunn and Fowler are Newt hatchetwomen and would have been good copy for any Republican taking over in that period (plus it get's women in the cabinet which has a value).... Mulally was a friend of Gramm's for more than 15 years at that point; Boeing had delayed for too long by that point already giving him the CEO position (Boeing not only misses his services immensely, but Mulally has worked miracles at Ford after he left); so it's possible as OTL later that he might jump ship for a better opportunity since Boeing hadn't given him the top spot........ the total cabinet will end up a mixed success maybe 60-40 65-35 success rate or something along those lines

Everything you say is absolutely true. No argument. But the results of their efforts, while destructive for the Gramm Administration, only push forward rightwing causes all the more.

consolidation of cabinet posts is just republican platform; I don't follow how that will be wank territory, especially if there is some negative blow back and ship jumping from it as you have pointed out will be a likely consequence

It is wank territory if Gramm pulls it off.

just a note a de-regulation

my friend at schwab has advised of two things that where Gramm specific

One his change in the law that allowed the banks to also become brokerage houses is a strawman issue, the brokerage houses that where not banks where still massive systemic risks to the economy anyway, such as Bear, Goldman and Lehman

and his other major deregulation issue was eliminating the uptick rule which allowed runaway short selling... however my friend advised that although this rule was bad; it couldn't be fully exploited till about 2006 when high frequency algorithm based trading started appearing at hedge funds

Its been my experience that the more things become de-regulated the more people affected by those changes will find new ways to slip their bonds and engage in ever more risky ventures unimagined in the minds of regulators and legislators (like derivatives).

Maybe you should get a second opinion?:confused:

I will admit however that uber-deregulation can go either one of two ways:

a) The white hot nature of an overheated economy will burn beyond the 2000 Election, perhaps as much as a year longer than OTL (end of 2001?). But leading to a bigger crash than OTL.

b) The economy will burn out so quickly that when the crash comes (1999?) the downturn won't be as severe and the recovery may come more quickly (though not to the point of arriving by Election Day 2000).

[usertron2020]

How exactly is Gramm that much of a difference from Dole? Both are fiscal conservatives who aren't that interesting in social issues and neither is especially charismatic.

Never said Gramm was charismatic. But Dole in 1996 was perceived as too old, and Gramm was not.

Exactly. Which is why this isn't a "super right-wing wank". Those are the kind of things that would be happening if it was.

And my point is that the things you listed are NOT superwank. They are hyperwank.

For calling something a "super right-wing wank" the burden is going to be pretty high.(1) Just winning an unloseable election and then appointing a reasonable Cabinet isn't going to get you there.(2) At the very least it would be worth waiting until the Gramm Administration actually achieves one piece of conservative legislation that Republicans weren't able to achieve in OTL 1997-2000 (3) before going all Chicken Little on the story.(4)

1) Depends upon your POV, I guess.

2) No, but HOW you got to having such a winnable election gets you a simple wankery. Everything COMBINED after that is what gets you the wank turned into superwankery.

3) Considering that OTL the Gingrich Congress considered their #1 "piece of legislation" to be the Impeachment of a popular President, they have only themselves to blame for not accomplishing anything. They fell victim to "Silent Majority-itis". The last two years it was the Post-Impeachment discredited Republican Congress who found it impossible to get anything past Clinton's veto pen.

4) Hardly "Chicken Little". I stand by my statement that the next mistake by ANY Republican on this thread will be the first. How does that rate a cry of "The sky is falling!"? That is merely an observation of the facts at hand.

Still not sure where you are getting this idea that it is a Dream Team Cabinet. What exactly is so special about McConnell or Wilson? And we have yet to see how effective Dell and Mulally will be at managing their Departments. Private sector skills don't always neatly carry over into riding herd on the federal bureaucracy. And McCain and Giuliani both come with personality issues of their own that may undermine their talents.

Because it is the equivalent of a GM on a baseball team signing virtually the entire line-up of last year's All-Star Team. It may well turn out that they are a bunch of prima donnas who can't work together (Rudy comes to mind). But it still represents one helluva roster.

And even if we accept it is a Dream Team Cabinet, they still haven't done anything yet. Winning an election and getting good people into the Cabinet means nothing if it isn't translated into actual achievements.

Well, on that we agree.

Truth be told I don't think Paul would get confirmed. He would probably say something controversial enough at the confirmation hearings to kill his nomination. Of course if BW had put that in the story, you would probably then say that was further proof of it being a super-duper right wing wank since Gramm just got rid of the biggest potential flake in his Cabinet very early on at no real cost :D

Not really. I don't have the axe to grind against Paul that I confess I do against Miller.:o Have I not said specifically that pushing Paul and Miller under a bus does nothing to balance the direction of the TL evermore to the right?

If it really bothers you so much why not just pretend that McConnell or Wilson was Gramm's 2nd choice for their position and the first choice's nomination fell apart for some reason? It won't alter the narrative of the story one iota and it will apparently make you feel better about it.(5)

For one thing, do you really think either man would tolerate being Gramm's second choice?:p

5) :rolleyes:

Are you forgetting who the Speaker of the House is? I'm sure Gingrich will cause Gramm some major headaches.

Only until Newt's bimbo is uncovered.:D And I don't see Gingrich being TOO much of a crybaby ITTL. He never had a GOP POTUS while HE was Speaker, so we really can't judge what his possible behavior might have been.

Maybe, but it is still going to get Gramm a lot of flak (especially given McCain's rather caustic personality.) Republicans in Congress are going to resent defense cuts and will likely cause Gramm a lot of heartburn if he pushes too far on them.

Unless Gramm plays divide-and-conquer between the deficit hawks and the uh, hawks.:rolleyes: Also, as an economist, Gramm has cred as to balancing the budget such as no POTUS before him. And Gramm can always play the Good Cop to McCain's Bad.

Except most law and order Republicans are big 2nd Amendment supporters and will dislike Rudy's stance on gun control.

Even big 2nd Amendment supporters were willing to give at least a partial pass to the mayor of New York City, considering the problems he had dealing with the "Iron Tunnel" of illegal arms sales flooding NYC thanks to relatively unregulated sales in states like Georgia. And in the end, he answers to a President from Texas.

Maybe. Powell didn't exactly shine as Secretary of State though even before 9-11.(6) Can you recall a single major thing he achieved as Secretary of State?(7) He may have a little more latitude here simply because Gramm isn't all that interested in foreign policy, but Secretaries of State who don't already have a strong pre-existing relationship with the President usually end up marginalized in favor of the National Security Advisor (who has much greater access to the President.)(8)

6) In seven months? Considering W had him spending all his time trying to hem in the man who tried to kill his daddy? (I'm trying, momma, I really am!:()

7) Putting together a "Coalition of the Willing" for Iraq? Not exactly a good thing. Rallying world support for going up against Afghanistan, before W went and blew all that capital on Iraq. And it was kind of hard getting W to listen when W was taking more seriously the Foreign policy advice he was getting from his political advisor & Chief-of-Staff Karl Rove.

8) This will depend quite a bit on developments in the Balkan Peninsula, and who Gramm chooses to listen to about it.

Gramm isn't particularily interested in social legislation though (nor is Gingrich for that matter.) We'll probably see a child tax credit and a partial birth abortion ban, but that's about all I would really expect. (And those very same majorities are going to mean social cons are going to expect a lot more.)

Well, if Gramm blows off the social cons completely, then I can see him getting into trouble with them.

Social cons are perfectly willing to stay home though if they aren't satisfied with the Republican candidate. Heck, W estimates he lost two million votes in 2000 (9) because of social cons staying home due to his DUI. And he was a lot more palataple to social cons than Gramm is. A President Gramm who appoints a pro-choice, pro-gay rights AG, miffs 2 Supreme Court appointments,(10) and fails to achieve any high profile social conservative legislation despite having huge majorities in both houses, is not going to get social con support in 2000.(11)

9) BS. That's Rovian game-playing to "explain away" how close he came to losing. His conversion to Born Again Christianity is absolutely genuine. Even I will give him that. The social cons were with him, period. That's why his election represented such a clean sweep of red states.

10) Well, that's not going to happen, is it?

11) He'll get it by default. And he WILL get SOME social legislation through, if only as a sop to get some of his spending cuts passed.

If the economic downturn is butterflied ITTL (to the point of being delayed beyond Election Day 2000), as I expect it will be, the votes Gramm gets from gratefully flush Independents will more than make up for social cons sulking at home.

GHWB partially redeemed himself though with the Thomas pick. Whereas you are asking for Gramm to have two Souter type nominations.(12) And of course GHWB lost his reelection.(13)

12) See 10

13) Thanks to a three way election throwing states into contention that the Democrats had not seen come into play since 1964. Bush didn't lose because of David Souter, failure to institute school prayer, and not having a SCOTUS that undid Roe v. Wade. He lost because of "Read My Lips." Which is really too bad, as raising taxes did wonders for reducing the deficit. Much of the economy that Clinton took the credit for was due to the long term economic foresight of GHWB.:mad: No justice in politics.:(

Most of the Warren Court's activist decisions occured long after Eisenhower was out of office though.(14) And again Ike is kind of a special case. When Gramm liberates western Europe he can get away with appointing liberals to the bench.(15)

14) Uh, "Brown v. Board of Ed.?" That one decision alone caused more of an explosion against SCOTUS than all their other decisions combined. And Ike should have gotten a sixth star for his decision to enforce that ruling rather than pulling an Andrew Jackson.:mad:

15) :D He WILL be in a position to liberate parts of South-Eastern Europe.

And FWIW Warren was certainly known to be a liberal Republican in 1953.(16) Ike has no on to blame for himself for that selection. William Brennan was more of a surprise to Ike but then again Ike appointed him just because he wanted to appoint a Catholic to the "Catholic seat" in advance of the '56 election. If Ike had wanted to guarantee a conservative Catholic, he would have appointed Clarence Manion.(17)

16) "Liberal" is a relative term in 1952, when the promise was made. Eisenhower was still a political Innocent at the time, not unlike Grant (though not THAT innocent, I'll admit). This was a GOP still filled with anti-semites, when William F. Buckley's sterling service for the Conservative Movement had not yet fully taken effect, when primordial individuals like Senator Robert Taft were still considered legitimate candidates for President of the United States. And it is difficult to understate the effect on the thinking on people's minds what Warren's role was regarding the expulsion of the Nisei. Whatever he might have been thought of in 1952, the words "bleeding heart" certainly could not have come to mind.

17) At the distance of so many years, it is easy to say who could have been trusted and who could not. Had Clarence Thomas proved to be a bust, people would have been screaming: "How could Bush have been STUPID enough to appoint a 43 year old? We knew NOTHING about him!" Of course, that idea presupposes the "high-tech lynching:rolleyes:" doesn't take place, putting him on his current pathway regardless whatever his mindset was pre-trial-by-ordeal.

But a lot has changed since those times. There is a much more developed conservative legal infrastructure in place to make sure there is not another Brennan/Blackmun/Stevens/Souter type.(18) The court has become much more politicized.(19) The religious right has become much more powerful (and Supreme Court justicies are pretty much the issue they care about the most.) And Republicans have become a lot more sensitive to having stealth appointees go left once they get on the bench.(20) Why do you think the Harriet Miers nomination fell apart OTL? (21) Gramm could maybe survive one Souter type appointment,(22) but he would be politically dead if he screwed up that badly twice.(23)

18) Meaning so many Reagan-Bush-W appointees out there that those with an established record are easy to find. But that's no insurance that someone can't have a change of heart, or even just turn into a weathervane.

19) On that we agree. Hyper-politicized since Roe v. Wade.

20) All true. But unless the Religious Right have perfected the Vulcan Mind Meld...

21) Uh, no. That was competence, period. Even hardcore Congressional Republicans, even Fixed News, EVEN SEAN HANNITY, turned up their noses at this women, once they saw her list of qualifications (or total lack thereof). Good Solid Conservative Hard Right Republican Senators would have voted against her, if only to save W from himself.

22) See 10 & 12:rolleyes:

23) No, he wouldn't. Not with the economic good times he has to look forward to in the next four full years. A hard, competitive election, but he won't lose. Remember, the Democrats and some Independents will be quite pleased at such "failures". To the point that some of the Democrats will stay home too. With many more Independents voting for Gramm. Especially if the younger voters now know that Roe v. Wade is utterly Rock Solid Safe. OTOH, ITTL you're looking at only two Democratic SCOTUS appointments in the last thirty years, and no prospects for any for another four to eight.

Giving balance to the story is a pretty poor reason to have everyone suddenly start acting out of character.(24) BW has done a good job with the story so far.(25) Why not trust him to continue to do so.(26)

24) I'm not claiming that anyone should "act out of character." That would be like suggesting that any OTL SCOTUS justices should change their politics. Which isn't going to happen. But SCOTUS is not a person, not does it have character. It is a nine member sum of its individual parts. What I suggested was a way to have the TL add something to reduce the level of nonstop wankery I've seen in the story so far. And judging by the responses I've been getting from the rest of the readership so far (and the defensiveness of the author), well, see below.

25) Which is why I care so much about what happens to the future of such a superbly written story.

26) Because it pains me to see after all this time and effort that Hendryk is being vindicated after all.:(:(:(:(:(*insert extreme disappointment smilie here*)

[bguy]

And my point is that the things you listed are NOT superwank. They are hyperwank.

Well I guess that depends on how we define those terms, to me (using the abortion issue as an example):

Right-wing wank: O'Connor and Kennedy both retire. President Gramm successfully appoints conservative justices who oppose Roe v. Wade to appoint them.

Right-wing super-wank: Souter and Stevens retire and or die. President Gramm successfully appoints conservative justices who oppose Roe v. Wade to appoint them. South Dakota enacts a law banning abortion. The new very conservative Supreme Court upholds said law.

Right-wing hyper wank: Constitutional amendmant passed banning abortion.

The first level is possible. The second level is border line ASB. The third level is outright ASB. And by that standard this timeline is no where near the Super-wank level yet alone Hyper-wank. (I'll agree it is a Republican wank, but then those do happen from time to time in real life. The 1972 and 1980 elections would be called Republican wanks and the 1964 and 2008 elections would be called Democrat wanks if they were done as alternate history timelines.)

4) Hardly "Chicken Little". I stand by my statement that the first mistake by ANY Republican on this thread will be the first. How does that rate a cry of "The sky is falling!"? That is merely an observation of the facts at hand.

Again though it is very early in the Gramm Administration. How many mistakes did FDR make in his first 100 days? Or LBJ in 1964? Gramm is still in the honeymoon phase right now, right after winning a landslide election. Realistically things should be going smoothly for him right now.

Because it is the equivalent of a GM on a baseball team signing virtually the entire line-up of last year's All-Star Team. It may well turn out that they are a bunch of prima donnas who can't work together (Rudy comes to mind). But it still represents one helluva roster.

Ok, look at it this way, do you really think conservatives would be all that happy with this Cabinet? Of the Big 4 positions, 2 are moderates, 1 is a Democrat, and the last one (McCain) is pretty much in a category of his own. From a conservative standpoint it is certainly an acceptable Cabinet, but hardly one that is going to make them get weak in the knees.

Only until Newt's bimbo is uncovered.:D And I don't see Gingrich being TOO much of a crybaby ITTL. He never had a GOP POTUS while HE was Speaker, so we really can't judge what his possible behavior might have been.

Gingrich is still Gingrich. He still has the same ego and ambitions and weaknesses regardless of whether it is a Republican or Democrat in the White House. And with the GOP having gained seats in the '96 election Gingrich is in a much stronger position here than he was OTL at this point, so he will doubtlessly try to push an aggressive (i.e. controversial) agenda. Think Pelosi in 2009.

Even big 2nd Amendment supporters were willing to give at least a partial pass to the mayor of New York City, considering the problems he had dealing with the "Iron Tunnel" of illegal arms sales flooding NYC thanks to relatively unregulated sales in states like Georgia. And in the end, he answers to a President from Texas.

Yes, but in the end people are policy. Gramm doesn't have time to micromanage the Justice Department, and Giuliani in particular seems like the type that will stretch any authority he is given to the breaking point.


6) In seven months? Considering W had him spending all his time trying to hem in the man who tried to kill his daddy? (I'm trying, momma, I really am!

7) Putting together a "Coalition of the Willing" for Iraq? Not exactly a good thing. Rallying world support for going up against Afghanistan, before W went and blew all that capital on Iraq. And it was kind of hard getting W to listen when W was taking more seriously the Foreign policy advice he was getting from his political advisor & Chief-of-Staff Karl Rove.

Well look at it this way, what evidence is there that Powell will be a good Secretary of State. He has never served in the State Department before, never been an Ambassador, never been on the Senate or House Foreign Relations Committee. The State Department is a notoriously difficult department to wrangle. His OTL performance in the position doesn't exactly suggest he is a naturally gifted diplomat (or bureaucractic turf warrior). Maybe he will excel here, but at this early stage in the story there is no particular reason to believe he is going to turn out to be a superstar.

9) BS. That's Rovian game-playing to "explain away" how close he came to losing. His conversion to Born Again Christianity is absolutely genuine. Even I will give him that. The social cons were with him, period. That's why his election represented such a clean sweep of red states.

So what exactly was the point of releasing the DUI story (in the week right before the election) if not to chase away social con voters?

11) He'll get it by default. And he WILL get SOME social legislation through, if only as a sop to get some of his spending cuts passed.

??? I don't understand that. If anything it is likely to be the opposiste. Moderate Republicans and Democrats are likely to insist on sidelining social legislation as their price for supporting the spending cuts.

If the economic downturn is butterflied ITTL (to the point of being delayed beyond Election Day 2000), as I expect it will be, the votes Gramm gets from gratefully flush Independents will more than make up for social cons sulking at home.

Probably, but Gramm can hardly count on that. He doesn't know what the economy is going to look like in 2000 (or 1998 for that matter), so he has to tend to the social cons along the way. And that means not screwing up the Supreme Court appointments. That is by far the biggest thing social cons expect from a Republican president (since the Supreme Court is pretty much the decider on all social issues.) They will not be amused if Gramm whiffs twice on Supreme Court picks.

14) Uh, "Brown v. Board of Ed.?" That one decision alone caused more of an explosion against SCOTUS than all their other decisions combined. And Ike should have gotten a sixth star for his decision to enforce that ruling rather than pulling an Andrew Jackson.

Only in the Deep South though, the rest of the country supported or at least didn't care about Brown. The rest of the country was far more outraged by the later Warren (and Burger) Court decisions on crime, pornography, school prayer, busing and of course abortion.

And notable even on the Brown decision, Warren greatly watered down the impact on Brown with the "all deliberate speed" language which pretty much let the Deep South ignore the decision. It wouldn't be until 1969 (i.e. long after Eisenhower was out of office) that the Supreme Court actually got serious about enforcing school desegregation in the Deep South.

16) "Liberal" is a relative term in 1952, when the promise was made. Eisenhower was still a political Innocent at the time, not unlike Grant (though not THAT innocent, I'll admit). This was a GOP still filled with anti-semites, when William F. Buckley's sterling service for the Conservative Movement had not yet fully taken effect, when primordial individuals like Senator Robert Taft were still considered legitimate candidates for President of the United States. And it is difficult to understate the effect on the thinking on people's minds what Warren's role was regarding the expulsion of the Nisei. Whatever he might have been thought of in 1952, the words "bleeding heart" certainly could not have come to mind.

Because of course it was only conservatives like that moss backed reactionary Franklin Roosevelt who supported Japanese-American internment and only liberals like that wild eyed left wing radical Robert Taft who opposed it. :D

18) Meaning so many Reagan-Bush-W appointees out there that those with an established record are easy to find. But that's no insurance that someone can't have a change of heart, or even just turn into a weathervane.

Absolutely, but such a change might not manifest itself for years or even decades after the appointment. (Heck, right now there are legal scholars that think Scalia will vote to uphold the individual mandate.)

21) Uh, no. That was competence, period. Even hardcore Congressional Republicans, even Fixed News, EVEN SEAN HANNITY, turned up their noses at this women, once they saw her list of qualifications (or total lack thereof). Good Solid Conservative Hard Right Republican Senators would have voted against her, if only to save W from himself.

Disagree at least in part. There were concerns about her competence, but there were also a lot of concerns on the Right that she would turn out to be another Souter.

23) No, he wouldn't. Not with the economic good times he has to look forward to in the next four full years. A hard, competitive election, but he won't lose. Remember, the Democrats and some Independents will be quite pleased at such "failures". To the point that some of the Democrats will stay home too. With many more Independents voting for Gramm. Especially if the younger voters now know that Roe v. Wade is utterly Rock Solid Safe. OTOH, ITTL you're looking at only two Democratic SCOTUS appointments in the last thirty years, and no prospects for any for another four to eight.

Democrats will be fired up to vote against Gramm though because of his economic policies. And Independents could go either way. A strong economy will certainly help with them, but if Gramm tackles meaningful entitlement reform, or the Democrats nominate a charismatic enough candidate then the Independents could still turn on him. And since Gramm can not be certain what the economy is going to look like at election time, he can't afford to alienate the social cons.

If nothing else he will need them for the mid-terms which tend to run against the incumbant party anyway. A depressed social con base in '98 = possible loss of House which pretty much kills the Gramm agenda for the next two years.

[jerseyrules]

I don't know what everyone's bitching about; I like the tl the way it is. To change things up a bit maybe have 1 or 2 court appointments but don't make them uber-liberal or conservative; I'd be fine with either of the Maine ladies and Orrin hatch or Gonzales replacing say Stevens/Breyer/Ginsburg and Kennedy/O'conner

[usertron2020]

I don't know what everyone's bitching about; I like the tl the way it is. To change things up a bit maybe have 1 or 2 court appointments but don't make them uber-liberal or conservative; I'd be fine with either of the Maine ladies and Orrin Hatch or Gonzales replacing say Stevens/Breyer/Ginsburg and Kennedy/O'Conner

Uh, all the Justices you just listed have already been put on the bench. O'Conner was ready to leave at the next GOP POTUS, as was Rehnquist. Now they've got one. Only the odious nature of Bush v. Gore kept them on the bench until W's re-election. Clinton got his two in his first 18 months and no appointments by anyone else until 2005. The only prospects for SCOTUS departures ITTL are Rehnquist and O'Conner.

Besides, my suggestion of SCOTUS surprises is dead (not that it ever really was alive). BW749 has made it perfectly clear there will be no Souters ITTL.

Gonzales would be only slightly less indigestable than Harriet Myers (and would require a W Administration anyway). Hatch is already too old. The Maine ladies would be unthinkable for the GOP Base. Their politics are too well known.

This means two relatively quick appointments for Gramm in the next six months to a year (don't want them in an election year if you can avoid it). One vote to overturn Roe v. Wade is lost, yes. But so is a vote NOT to overturn it. With two solid GOP appointments in their place. If Gramm lets the socals pick his SCOTUS appointments to keep them happy (As bguy has strongly suggested)... Then that's Scalia, Thomas, and the two newbies making four solid votes to overturn Roe, and only the ever more turning to the right Anthony Kennedy (The "Weathervane") in their way. With a 61 seat GOP Senate, what's to stop it?

[BlairWitch749]

Uh, all the Justices you just listed have already been put on the bench. O'Conner was ready to leave at the next GOP POTUS, as was Rehnquist. Now they've got one. Only the odious nature of Bush v. Gore kept them on the bench until W's re-election. Clinton got his two in his first 18 months and no appointments by anyone else until 2005. The only prospects for SCOTUS departures ITTL are Rehnquist and O'Conner.

Besides, my suggestion of SCOTUS surprises is dead (not that it ever really was alive). BW749 has made it perfectly clear there will be no Souters ITTL.

Gonzales would be only slightly less indigestable than Harriet Myers (and would require a W Administration anyway). Hatch is already too old. The Maine ladies would be unthinkable for the GOP Base. Their politics are too well known.

This means two relatively quick appointments for Gramm in the next six months to a year (don't want them in an election year if you can avoid it). One vote to overturn Roe v. Wade is lost, yes. But so is a vote NOT to overturn it. With two solid GOP appointments in their place. If Gramm lets the socals pick his SCOTUS appointments to keep them happy (As bguy and BlairWitch749 have both strongly suggested/implied)... Then that's Scalia, Thomas, and the two newbies making four solid votes to overturn Roe, and only the ever more turning to the right Anthony Kennedy (The "Weathervane") in their way. With a 61 seat GOP Senate, what's to stop it?


I didn't say a word about the supreme court userton; i haven't even researched the court's situation for the period yet

[usertron2020]

I didn't say a word about the supreme court userton; i haven't even researched the court's situation for the period yet

Upon mature consideration, and reviewing the old posts again, I see you are quite correct. My apologies.:o I allowed myself to tar you with a brush deserved for others, and that's unfair to you.:(

FYI? The notes I posted about SCOTUS' available seats ARE accurate. Two GOP seats available NOW (though you can push them forward as much as you like, going past 2000 ITTL is really ASB, considering what is known about Rehnquist and O'Conner), and the four minority liberal justices can last through 2009. Plus Thomas, Kennedy, and Scalia can last indefinitely as well.

BTW? Its usertron2020. I don't mind dropping the #, and I actually like the "UT", but "userton" sounds like you're casting aspersions about my weight.:D

[jerseyrules]

Uh, all the Justices you just listed have already been put on the bench. O'Conner was ready to leave at the next GOP POTUS, as was Rehnquist.

I said those could retire and be replaced with either of the Maine ladies and Gonzales/Orrin Hatch. I feel bad for hatch; he really wanted to be on the SCoTUS

[usertron2020]

I said those could retire and be replaced with either of the Maine ladies and Gonzales/Orrin Hatch. I feel bad for Hatch; he really wanted to be on the SCoTUS

Let me reiterate: The Social Conservatives would declare Jihad if either Maine Senator were named. Gonzales is a W man, period. Hatch was already 63 by the time of the Gramm Administration. That's too old. Granted, he's still hale and hearty today, but there's no way Gramm could have know that would be the case in 1997.:(

Orrin Hatch replacing Sandra Day O'Conner means a solid minority of four votes on the bench to overturn Roe v. Wade. That leaves only the right wing weathervane Anthony Kennedy stopping Roe from being overturned, or sent back to the states.:( And judging by both Bush v. Gore AND Kelo v. New London, Kennedy is capable of anything.

[jerseyrules]

Gonzales is a W man, period.

nope he was considered by hwb but he picked Souter instead because of his views on affirmative action. Okay what about Al D'Amato for pres or SCOTUS

[usertron2020]

nope he was considered by hwb but he picked Souter instead because of his views on affirmative action. Okay what about Al D'Amato for pres or SCOTUS

Nope right back at you.:D There is no "master list" for SCOTUS appointments for the Republican Party. You just switched one Bush appointer for another Bush appointer.:p All this says is Gonzales had strong ties to the Bushes, period. Like I said. Glad you agree with me then.:p

As to Al D'Amato? I hate to speak so highly of a man who is a truly accomplished SOB,:mad: but his record (already ITTL as well) makes him the purest of poisons to the national Republican Base due to his being quite probably THE (or one of THE) strongest Republican champions of Gay Rights in the US Senate. He supported gays serving openly in the military, as well as extending equal employment protections to gays. Not much by today's standards, perhaps. But down right revolutionary for a Conservative Republican in 1996.

Also, this TL doesn't really extend (as far as I know) to as far as 2004 for POTUS. As to SCOTUS? He's only slightly less sufferable to the socals than the Maine ladies.

[BlairWitch749]

Nope right back at you.:D There is no "master list" for SCOTUS appointments for the Republican Party. You just switched one Bush appointer for another Bush appointer.:p All this says is Gonzales had strong ties to the Bushes, period. Like I said. Glad you agree with me then.:p

As to Al D'Amato? I hate to speak so highly of a man who is a truly accomplished SOB,:mad: but his record (already ITTL as well) makes him the purest of poisons to the national Republican Base due to his being quite probably THE (or one of THE) strongest Republican champions of Gay Rights in the US Senate. He supported gays serving openly in the military, as well as extending equal employment protections to gays. Not much by today's standards, perhaps. But down right revolutionary for a Conservative Republican in 1996.

Also, this TL doesn't really extend (as far as I know) to as far as 2004 for POTUS. As to SCOTUS? He's only slightly less sufferable to the socals than the Maine ladies.


I put a little bit of the thought into SCOTUS yesterday and have figured J Harvie Wilkinson III from the 4th circuit as a possible nominee; he was appointed by Reagan, and has been floated for SCOTUS several times in OTL and his conservative credentials would see him breeze through a republican senate

[usertron2020]

I put a little bit of the thought into SCOTUS yesterday and have figured J Harvie Wilkinson III from the 4th circuit as a possible nominee; he was appointed by Reagan, and has been floated for SCOTUS several times in OTL and his conservative credentials would see him breeze through a republican senate

ITTL, for what is known (today) of his opinions, he'd be considered an automatic anti-Roe vote. Wouldn't mean much if he replaces Rehnquist. If he replaces O'Conner...

[jerseyrules]

ITTL, for what is know (today) of his opinions, he'd be considered an automatic anti-Roe vote. Wouldn't mean much if he replaces Rehnquist. If he replaces O'Conner...

Look at real life; we had Sam fucking Alito replace O'Conner! :rolleyes: It isn't unrealistic to have any of this happen. Maybe have an anti-abortion woman replace O'Conner with similar credentials...say.......MICHELE BACHMAN :eek: I believe at this point she is an attorney and Republican state senator in MN giving her similar credentials to O'Conner, who was GOP senate majority leader in AZ. Both women, both similar ideologically (at this point) but Bachman would only be in her early thirties...is there some sort of constitutional age requirement for SCOTUS?

[jerseyrules]

As for the midterms I don't care if you give Schumer the governorship and completely destroy the NY state GOP but don't you dare touch Senator Pothole :mad::p;)

[usertron2020]

Look at real life; we had Sam fucking Alito replace O'Conner! :rolleyes: It isn't unrealistic to have any of this happen. Maybe have an anti-abortion woman replace O'Conner with similar credentials...say.......MICHELE BACHMAN :eek: I believe at this point she is an attorney and Republican state senator in MN giving her similar credentials to O'Conner, who was GOP senate majority leader in AZ. Both women, both similar ideologically (at this point) but Bachman would only be in her early thirties...is there some sort of constitutional age requirement for SCOTUS?

No age limit for SCOTUS. So there's hope for you yet jerseyrules:D Michele Bachman would never survive confirmation. Foot-in-mouth disease. Also, if I'm not mistaken, O'Conner was both older and had serious judicial experience as well at the time of her appointment. She was almost the Anti-Harriet Miers. How far along was Bachman's state legislature career at the time? I would think she was a complete unknown at the time.

I think BW749's idea for Wilkinson is rock solid. The only question left is for appointment #2.

As to Alito? Both he and Roberts have turned out to be the worst of corporate whores, not radical Christian Fundamentalists/Anti-Abortionists or anything even remotely approaching such beliefs. I think W decided he didn't need the grief of a national abortion war (while he was up to his neck in Iraq and Afghanistan) so he went with pleasing his corporate base rather than his Christian Evangelical Base. He could always tell the socals that he was "disappointed" in his picks (even if many of W's backers were delighted with them).

[usertron2020]

As for the midterms I don't care if you give Schumer the governorship and completely destroy the NY state GOP but don't you dare touch Senator Pothole :mad::p;)

I'm sorry jerseyrules. You obviously have some close connection to Alphonse D'Amato (you're not him, are you?:eek:). But as was pointed out to me (in my ignorance:o) his 1992 re-election was by a razorthin margin against an opponent who was the New York State Democratic Party's answer to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy(tm):rolleyes: In 1998 he was positively trounced in the largest losing margin in the US Senate. Even Lauch (Twinkle, twinkle, Kenneth Starr) Faircloth lost by a lesser margin. Though admittedly Faircloth WAS running in North Carolina, not New York State.

If you look back in this thread, the New York Senate and gubernatorial 1998 elections were gone over in great detail. I'll only say here that no one, not even Schumer (who absolutely didn't want the job, anyway), could take down George Pataki. That guy couldn't be brought down in New York State by kryptonite!:eek:

ITTL, instead of D'Amato running in the Sixth Year Curse of the Clinton Administration, he's trying for re-election during the off-year elections of an incumbent GOP POTUS. It could be argued that without Impeachment, he's not facing an angered Democratic Base, which is true. Instead he'll be facing an energized Democratic Base following all the hard right Gramm Administration initiatives passed by the previous congress.

Not complaining about that last, BW. Your logic about Gramm going balls-to-the-wall, rather than playing it safe, is unassailable.

There will be a correction, despite all the incredable amounts of wishful thinking on this thread (GOP Senate GAIN of four seats!?:rolleyes:). And if there's any GOP Senator(s) to get the axe, it'll be D'Amato (and Faircloth).:mad:

The truth is, the people of New York State have become so heartily sick of Al D'Amato by 1998, that Senator Pothole has become Senator Sinkhole.:D Spending 1994 to 1996 as "The Senior Senator from Whitewater" didn't help.

And its Pataki, by a landslide.:) Schumer wants to be Senate Majority Leader someday. He doesn't want to play Don Quixote to Pataki's windmills.

EDIT: See posts #658 through 700 for discussions on internal New York State politics in 1998.

[Ariosto]

I know at some point I suggested a GOP gain of four, but that was also when I was reading Glen's TL on the Democratic Domination of America so I suppose I had such things on my mind. :p

However, the only seat that I see flipping beyond that of OTL would be Kentucky, with Jim Bunning losing to Scotty Baesler, thus giving the Democrats a net gain of one seat. Georgia I don't see flipping, and even if it went to a run-off Coverdell would likely win that. Illinois is being defended by the scandal ridden Carol Mosley, and considering the Gramm Administration would be investigating her activities, combined with here personality, she likely loses by an even larger margin then she actually did.

[bguy]

No age limit for SCOTUS. So there's hope for you yet jerseyrules:D Michele Bachman would never survive confirmation. Foot-in-mouth disease. Also, if I'm not mistaken, O'Conner was both older and had serious judicial experience as well at the time of her appointment. She was almost the Anti-Harriet Miers. How far along was Bachman's state legislature career at the time? I would think she was a complete unknown at the time.

I think BW749's idea for Wilkinson is rock solid. The only question left is for appointment #2.

If Gramm wants a woman appointee that will satisfy social cons to replace O'Connor than how about Edith Jones or Priscilla Owen? Jones is only 48 and has already been a federal appellate judge for 12 years by this point. Owen is even younger at 43, but has been on the Texas Supreme Court for 4 years and has a very business friendly record (which Gramm would like.)

[usertron2020]

If Gramm wants a woman appointee that will satisfy social cons to replace O'Connor than how about Edith Jones or Priscilla Owen? Jones is only 48 and has already been a federal appellate judge for 12 years by this point. Owen is even younger at 43, but has been on the Texas Supreme Court for 4 years and has a very business friendly record (which Gramm would like.)

Sounds good. Maybe for appointment #2? Perhaps Gramm doesn't want O'Conner's seat to be the "token" woman's seat? It seems to me that Owen's age and Texas connections would put her over the top. At least until her 1971 Playboy Pet-of-the-Year Centerfold is dredged out.:(*

*-just for the lulz,ian

[bguy]

Sounds good. Maybe for appointment #2? Perhaps Gramm doesn't want O'Conner's seat to be the "token" woman's seat? It seems to me that Owen's age and Texas connections would put her over the top. At least until her 1971 Playboy Pet-of-the-Year Centerfold is dredged out.:(

For what its worth Jones is from Texas as well.

[usertron2020]

For what its worth Jones is from Texas as well.

Well, there's always rock-paper-scissors...:D

[pnyckqx]

Sounds good. Maybe for appointment #2? Perhaps Gramm doesn't want O'Conner's seat to be the "token" woman's seat? It seems to me that Owen's age and Texas connections would put her over the top. At least until her 1971 Playboy Pet-of-the-Year Centerfold is dredged out.:(*

*-just for the lulz,ianAre you kidding me? i could just see the jokes: Police officer: "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say will be held against you"...Suspect: "How about a naked judge Owen for about two hours!":)

[usertron2020]

Are you kidding me? i could just see the jokes: Police officer: "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say will be held against you"...Suspect: "How about a naked judge Owen for about two hours!":)

Uh, I'm not sure I get that...:o:confused:

[BlairWitch749]

UT, Faircloth went down by 4 points to an extremely wealthy candidate who had a massive advantage in age looks and enthusiasm

Not to say he wouldn't go down anyway; the man was a gigantic tool whom as I have mentioned previously could easily have been the bad guy in deliverance

It's just that one has to assume the vetting process following Clinton's implosion would get a lot more rigorous (probably in both parties) and someone with Edward's after hours activities is going to either be crushed in a primary or pulled apart by the state party bosses who are going to have orders from the dnc to run only squeeky clean candidates

However, if the dems can find a squeeky clean blue dog (pro life and pro guns) they would stand a decent chance of taking the seat

[Ariosto]

<SNIP>

What about the Attorney General, Mike Easley?

[usertron2020]

What about the Attorney General, Mike Easley?

He'd have to be dragooned into it, as he had his eyes on the NC Governor's Mansion, not a US Senate seat (sort of a Tarheel Eliot Spitzer). Also, there's the fact that he got into financial/political difficulties of his own in 2006 (though I question how much the charges against him had to do with criminality rather than his party affiliation).

[Ariosto]

He'd have to be dragooned into it, as he had his eyes on the NC Governor's Mansion, not a US Senate seat (sort of a Tarheel Eliot Spitzer). Also, there's the fact that he got into financial/political difficulties of his own in 2006 (though I question how much the charges against him had to do with criminality rather than his party affiliation).

Other than him John Edwards is the only man I can find who would apparently be able to to take down Faircloth, unless of course they manage to Dragoon the Governor himself Jim Hunt; however I have a feeling he would be even less receptive to the idea than Mike Easley.

[usertron2020]

Other than him John Edwards is the only man I can find who would apparently be able to to take down Faircloth, unless of course they manage to Dragoon the Governor himself Jim Hunt; however I have a feeling he would be even less receptive to the idea than Mike Easley.


There's always the possibility of a "White Knight" coming out in a dark horse candidacy and pulling off an upset. Not ASB, considering that the Congressional GOP, following back-to-back landslides as well as winning the White House have to be beyond cocky at this point. I can't see any incumbent, even D'Amato, being more over-confident going into re-election in 1998 than Faircloth. Its an off-year GOP incumbency, true. But considering how the humiliating results of OTL caught the GOP by such a complete surprise, its not beyond the pale that history repeats itself, if from a totally different paradigm.

EDIT: Don't forget that Jerry Brown's father Pat lost his re-election attempt after he trounced his previous opponent, a former US Vice-President. He didn't take his challenger to his incumbency seriously, since he was just an old washed up movie actor whose campaign slogan was: "Win One For The GIPPER!":eek::cool::eek:

Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus. And sometimes he shows up on Election Day!:D

[jerseyrules]

You obviously have some close connection to Alphonse D'Amato (you're not him, are you?:eek:).

Nope it's just he was the last honest (and come to think of it the last) GOP senator from my state. Possibly we get a replication of the Great Switch of 1958 (CA) but in NY: Pataki runs for senate while Senator Pothole becomes Governor Pothole :eek::D:cool:

[jerseyrules]

No age limit for SCOTUS. So there's hope for you yet jerseyrules:D Michele Bachman would never survive confirmation. Foot-in-mouth disease. Also, if I'm not mistaken, O'Conner was both older and had serious judicial experience as well at the time of her appointment. She was almost the Anti-Harriet Miers. How far along was Bachman's state legislature career at the time? I would think she was a complete unknown at the time.

She was 3nd term in MN senate as of 2000 and well-known for her clashes with more moderate GOP gov. Tim Pawlenty, which gave her the name recognition for her 06 congressional campaign

[usertron2020]

She was 3nd term in MN senate as of 2000(1) and well-known for her clashes with more moderate GOP gov. Tim Pawlenty, which gave her the name recognition for her 06 congressional campaign

1) According to Wiki that's when her first electoral victory actually occurred.

Not putting my faith in Wiki, per se, but if this is incorrect when WAS she first elected? Also, if her wiki bio is accurate her creds qualify her as a tax lawyer (5 years experience as an IRS lawyer, do her fans know that?:eek:) or a Lutheran minister (at that time). The latter is not to be cute. Her qualifications in Lutheran (I'm Lutheran myself) theology are apparently quite strong for a layperson.

But SCOTUS!? In Gramm's first term? (2) Its ridiculous. She would be a name among child-welfare advocates in Minnesota at that time, and that's just about it.

2) Really, Gramm's first term (and really the first two years, even the first year only) will see two appointments. There won't be any more available until the next Democratic POTUS (Both of Clinton's appointments are already on the bench ITTL and the two that retired under Obama are still living) comes along.

Assuming that ITTL the Democratic Party isn't abolished by then.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[usertron2020]

Nope it's just he was the last honest (and come to think of it the last) GOP senator from my state. Possibly we get a replication of the Great Switch of 1958 (CA) but in NY: Pataki runs for senate while Senator Pothole becomes Governor Pothole :eek::D:cool:

Do you have any idea how many hard working Democrats there are in the South, Southwest, Midwest, and Rockies who never have a hope in Hell of seeing a Democrat elected in their states? At any level above mayor?

The Rocky Mountain States do have a history of occasionally electing the bluest of Blue Dog governors, true. But that only happens in One Party State circumstances where the supremacy of the long term ruling party leads to rampant corruption within the party leadership. Not saying it doesn't happen in One Party Rule Blue States, but there are relatively VERY few states (outside of New England) that are as sapphire blue as the Rockies are ruby red. And the Rocky Mountain States don't have the attention paid to it that more populous regions do.

Note however that even Massachusetts will elect Republicans to Washington. When's the last senator who got sent to DC from Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, or Utah? That's 10% of the Senate right there in the GOP's bank more or less permanently. And since there ARE the rare exceptions in those regions I haven't gone into detail over the Midwest, Southwest, and Deep South.

I REPEAT, SEE POSTS #658 TO 700. THEY SHOULD ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT PATAKI/SCHUMER/D'AMATO/et al. This has all been gone over already.

But to make it simple for you? No way does the RNC or President Gramm allow a Pro-Choice Republican to run for the US Senate. Al D'Amato himself recognized that while Pataki's views on abortion were poison for DC GOP politics (1) they made him eminently electable for the NY governor's mansion.

1) He'd be so distrusted by his fellow GOP caucus members that the Dems might even consider wooing him!:cool:

As to Schumer? Its in the earlier posts.

Governor Pothole?:eek: New York politics can seem crazy sometimes, but they always have a certain basis in logic to them. And they are certainly not California crazy. A craziness caused by the fact that CA should probably be two, three, or even four states.

Its one thing to play games with names and elections, moving around both as if we can fit the squarest of pegs into the roundest of holes, but by and large IRL it doesn't work that way. Both Pataki AND Obama hated their legislative careers, and couldn't wait to get into executive office.

Al D'Amato loved the spotlight of being a hard conservative in a northeastern state, and as the representative of the most successful member in congress to arrive with the Reagan Landslide. He was thought of being something of a joke in his career initially, but by 1986 with a certified war hero like former eight year PoW retired Rear Admiral Senator Jeremiah Denton going down to defeat (in Alabama!), D'Amato coasted easily to re-election.

Unfortunately for Al, the longer he stayed the more he wore out his welcome. He was lucky to be facing the politically incompetent Robert Abrams (who survived a bitter four-way primary battle with Geraldine Ferraro, Elizabeth Holtzmann, and al sharpton) for re-election in 1992, and he still barely survived. He just didn't seem to appreciate that while House members had a 98% re-election rate, Senators only had the odds in their favor 2:1. Meaning for every three re-election tries, you're going to lose once. He was right on schedule.

The longer he was in the Senate, the more of a political tin ear he developed. By the time of the 1996 election, he'd spent two solid years on the Senate Banking Committee basically on nothing, nothing, nothing; but Whitewater, and how to impoverish West Wing secretaries and file clerks with legal bills. He DID backtrack OTL following Clinton's re-election, and probably ITTL Gramm will bring him up short, but the damage was done. And the only friend he'll have by this time in Albany is Pataki himself. Who won't be too pleased if Al asks him to switch jobs.:mad:

Honest Al... Well, he didn't fool around, or take bribes, but he had a very poor choice of someone to call a friend (Philip Basille). Not to mention one of the most ruthless personalities in Congress in terms of abusing his powers to destroy the lives of innocent people for the sake of his own sense of personal aggrandizement.:mad:

[BlairWitch749]

keep in mind there is going to be a mayoral election coming up... I wonder if Schumer would have been interested in that; it's more high profile than being the junior senator from NY in a republican dominated administration and congress; and given his ruthless skill in campaigning and media whoring there is an excellent chance he would win

[usertron2020]

keep in mind there is going to be a mayoral election coming up... I wonder if Schumer would have been interested in that; it's more high profile than being the junior senator from NY in a republican dominated administration and congress; and given his ruthless skill in campaigning and media whoring there is an excellent chance he would win

*SIGH* BW, I get the distinct impression you don't LIKE Chuck Schumer.:rolleyes: But then, he IS a Democrat, right? Nice way to take the most successful Democrat in DC politics out of the picture by dumping him in a glamorous but dead-end job, right? Well, as always, its your thread.

[BlairWitch749]

*SIGH* BW, I get the distinct impression you don't LIKE Chuck Schumer.:rolleyes: But then, he IS a Democrat, right? Nice way to take the most successful Democrat in DC politics out of the picture by dumping him in a glamorous but dead-end job, right? Well, as always, its your thread.

I respect Schumer's ruthlessness and political savior fair; however I do find him personally sleezy and a bit of a bombastic douche

My description of media whore has nothing to do with like or dislike; Paul Ryan is a media whore, as is Palin and Newt and so on.... there is a common joke in congress that the most dangerous place in Washington is between Schumer and a camera:D

Why does mayor have to be a dead end? It's high profile, he would have a pretty decent chance of winning, and he is young enough where he could serve a term or two there and then move on to broader horizons

That isn't to say D'amato shouldn't go down anyway to someone else; I was merely speculating that in a scenario where Rudy has left to go to Washington in 1997 if Schumer who represents queens and parts of brooklyn wouldn't enterain the idea of taking a shot at gracie mansion (to this point in the tl it did wonders for rudy's career)

[jerseyrules]

(snip)

I wish there was more variation in state politics too...and btw the great switch in CA didn't work anyway; it likely wouldn't here...I just think it would be interesting is all...now what about Jack Kemp coming out of retirement convincing Al to step down? That would be fun...Pothole does something somewhere...maybe planning another run at some other time when he is more favored to win...or not at all.... Anyway I always liked the idea of Senator Kemp. :D. Pro-union, pro-affirmative action, socially acceptable for an off-year election. Giuliani would also fit the same bill...though the CPNY would possibly run a candidate of their own if either pissed them off too much

[jerseyrules]

(snip)

I think you have a point...Senator Giuliani anyone? New York would be like :eek: and then they'd go :cool:
;). Giuliani picked to run in 2000...a really bad time to run for him due to his own life, etc.

[jerseyrules]

On SCOTUS, what about James Buckley? A federal circuit judge since the Reagan administration, with experience in the state dept and 6 years in the senate to boot, with all the conservative cress anyone could ask for, and not too old.

[Ariosto]

*SIGH* BW, I get the distinct impression you don't LIKE Chuck Schumer.:rolleyes: But then, he IS a Democrat, right? Nice way to take the most successful Democrat in DC politics out of the picture by dumping him in a glamorous but dead-end job, right? Well, as always, its your thread.

I have been thinking on this, in an unbiased fashion to the best of my ability. Now, Schumer is indeed best suited in positions regarding the Legislature, that is where his tactics and skills come into play the best. As such, right off the bat it would seem he would more than likely wish to run for the US Senate.

However, polls at the time showed him far behind Ferraro and even Mark Green going into 1998, and he would not achieve that landslide of support we know him for until the closing months of that year. He had now way of knowing if he could make it up, and so he would see it as an incredible up-hill battle that he very likely could end up losing, possibly damaging his prospects in the future.

However he is very popular in New York City. The former Republican Mayor who was considered a shoe-in for reelection has now left for the Gramm Administration, thus leaving the field wide-open. If he were to serve there for even a single term, it would help his prospects in getting elected to Washington at a latter date, even for the Presidency if it came to that by having some manner of executive experience. Since Ferraro (who I would assume would win the Senate Primary and Election) would need to retire from the Senate in 2004 due to Health Reasons, I could very well see Schumer taking that seat; thus he not only still ends up in the Senate, but in the same seat he held in OTL, and with seven to eight years as Mayor of New York under his belt.

Who knows? Under those conditions he could possibly run for the Presidency in 2008, thus making him even more successful than OTL.

[Ariosto]

On SCOTUS, what about James Buckley? A federal circuit judge since the Reagan administration, with experience in the state dept and 6 years in the senate to boot, with all the conservative cress anyone could ask for, and not too old.

He is too old. Anything over seventy years of age is too old, simply because a President will want their pick not only to represent their positions, but be sure to last long after they have left office. There is a reason many of those vetted are in either their forties or fifties.

[Colossus]

Really liking this. Please keep it up

[usertron2020]

I respect Schumer's ruthlessness and political savior fair; however I do find him personally sleezy and a bit of a bombastic douche (1)

My description of media whore has nothing to do with like or dislike; Paul Ryan is a media whore, as is Palin and Newt and so on.... there is a common joke in congress that the most dangerous place in Washington is between Schumer and a camera:D (2)

Why does mayor have to be a dead end? (3) It's high profile, he would have a pretty decent chance of winning, and he is young enough where he could serve a term or two there and then move on to broader horizons (4)

That isn't to say D'amato shouldn't go down anyway to someone else; I was merely speculating that in a scenario where Rudy has left to go to Washington in 1997 if Schumer who represents queens and parts of brooklyn wouldn't entertain the idea of taking a shot at gracie mansion (5) (to this point in the tl it did wonders for rudy's career (6))

1) Other than that you have nothing against him, right?:rolleyes:

2) Which makes him only the 3,879,983rd politician to have that joke made about him since the first development of photography...:D

3) Because every single last Mayor of New York City (since the consolidation of the five boroughs in 1898) HAS wound up in political oblivion, with only ambassadorships as consolation prizes. Many have TRIED for higher office, and all have failed. TTL's Rudy represents the most successful post-mayorality of NYC in history, and its a non-elective office.

4) Like the US Senate?:rolleyes:

5) I'm quite certain Charles Schumer is a far, far better student of American Electoral History than I am.:o

6) By the grace of an even MORE irresponsible Clinton (no condom) than OTL plus Gramm's apparent admiration.

TTL does not have a Rudy post-9/11 "America's Mayor". There's no reason to see the Mayoralty of NYC as a springboard to anything.

[usertron2020]

I wish there was more variation in state politics too...and btw the great switch in CA didn't work anyway; it likely wouldn't here...I just think it would be interesting is all...now what about Jack Kemp coming out of retirement convincing Al to step down? That would be fun...Pothole does something somewhere...maybe planning another run at some other time when he is more favored to win...or not at all.... Anyway I always liked the idea of Senator Kemp. :D. Pro-union, pro-affirmative action, socially acceptable for an off-year election. Giuliani would also fit the same bill...though the CPNY would possibly run a candidate of their own if either pissed them off too much(1)

1) Indeed. Not to mention you'd need a brain transplant for D'Amato to convince him to step down. Remember, no one in the GOP planned for a thrashing in 1998 OTL, and following two back-to-back GOP landslides ITTL, they won't here either. Perhaps even less so. If Kemp tried this, he'd be laughed at by D'Amato and everyone else. Kemp would have very serious problems with cross-state appeal. In an off-year GOP incumbency, he'd split the party in a primary (win, lose, or draw) and the "winner" would go down to defeat in the general anyway.

[usertron2020]

I think you have a point...Senator Giuliani anyone? New York would be like :eek: and then they'd go :cool:
;). Giuliani picked to run in 2000...a really bad time to run for him due to his own life, etc.

2000 would be FAR better. He runs with the Gramm ticket pulling up his numbers, rather than trying to do voodoo on D'Amato to get him to stand aside.:rolleyes: No one could predict his oncoming cancer.:(

[usertron2020]

I have been thinking on this, in an unbiased fashion to the best of my ability. Now, Schumer is indeed best suited in positions regarding the Legislature, that is where his tactics and skills come into play the best. As such, right off the bat it would seem he would more than likely wish to run for the US Senate.(1)

However, polls at the time showed him far behind Ferraro and even Mark Green going into 1998, and he would not achieve that landslide of support we know him for until the closing months of that year. He had now way of knowing if he could make it up, and so he would see it as an incredible up-hill battle that he very likely could end up losing, possibly damaging his prospects in the future.(2)

However he is very popular in New York City. The former Republican Mayor who was considered a shoe-in for reelection has now left for the Gramm Administration, thus leaving the field wide-open. If he were to serve there for even a single term, it would help his prospects in getting elected to Washington at a latter date, even for the Presidency if it came to that by having some manner of executive experience.(3) Since Ferraro (who I would assume would win the Senate Primary and Election) would need to retire from the Senate in 2004 due to Health Reasons,(4) I could very well see Schumer taking that seat; (5) thus he not only still ends up in the Senate, but in the same seat he held in OTL, and with seven to eight years as Mayor of New York under his belt.

Who knows? Under those conditions he could possibly run for the Presidency in 2008, thus making him even more successful than OTL.(6)

1):)

2) Except those numbers reflect the fact that prior to 1998 he still wasn't a household name like Ferraro was. And Ferraro had not done any fundraising while Schumer's skills in that arena are legendary.

3) NO, IT WOULDN'T. See previous post about the total dead-end nature of becoming a New York Mayor in terms of future ELECTIVE office.

4) Actually, I've already brought up short other posters who suggested this. Ferraro's cancer was detected right around Election Day 1998. Meaning, as I said earlier, she either continues with the arduous demands of serving as a US Senator, and dies in office; OR, she resigns to undergo chemotherapy. Either way, Pataki names her successor. Somehow, I don't think it would be Chuck Schumer.:rolleyes: Yet another roll of the dice falling to the GOP's favor. AGAIN.

5) You haven't mentioned Moynihan's seat in 2000? Who gets it, Rick Lazio?

6) No NYC Mayor has ever come even remotely close, except Rudy. And we all know how that turned out.

[Ariosto]

1):)

As I said, I prefer to try and look through unbiased glasses, except when reading Glen's Kennedy TL.

2) Except those numbers reflect the fact that prior to 1998 he still wasn't a household name like Ferraro was. And Ferraro had not done any fundraising while Schumer's skills in that arena are legendary.

He still is going to have to weigh his chances in a manner where the Mayoralty at least he would be in a good position to win with only token opposition, whereas he would have to strenuously campaign across most of New York for the Senate office to get by the primary.

However, looking at it again, I think Mark Green would drop out of the Senate Race to run for Mayor of New York since he would later do that anyway. Of course that would also include Fernando Ferrer, Al Sharpton, and Ruth Messinger. And then we would likely also have Michael Bloomberg running for Mayor as a Faux Paus Republican in order to avoid that primary fight.

3) NO, IT WOULDN'T. See previous post about the total dead-end nature of becoming a New York Mayor in terms of future ELECTIVE office.

I am of the opinion that the curse regarding Mayors of New York City is simply due to a continuous strain of bad luck, bad situations, and bad campaigning. John Lindsay as an example, who basically became so unpopular that he could not gain traction for anything once he was finally thrown out of office.

Not saying your wrong, but I classify it more along the lines of the "Curse of Tippecanoe".

4) Actually, I've already brought up short other posters who suggested this. Ferraro's cancer was detected right around Election Day 1998. Meaning, as I said earlier, she either continues with the arduous demands of serving as a US Senator, and dies in office; OR, she resigns to undergo chemotherapy. Either way, Pataki names her successor. Somehow, I don't think it would be Chuck Schumer.:rolleyes: Yet another roll of the dice falling to the GOP's favor. AGAIN.

Didn't know the illness cropped up that early. Well, I would assume it would be caught months earlier given she would be under even more strain following her primary victory. Thus, though she would have to drop out of the race, she would be replaced by another candidate. Unfortunately I am not sure who this would be, but they should still be able to beat D'Amato unless they crash like the Hindenburg.

5) You haven't mentioned Moynihan's seat in 2000? Who gets it, Rick Lazio?

No, I assumed Nita Lowey would win it with the absence of Hillary Rodham as a candidate. Guiliani still can't really enter the equation due to his prostate cancer and marital troubles, and Lazio is not about win; come close maybe, but not actually take the seat.

6) No NYC Mayor has ever come even remotely close, except Rudy. And we all know how that turned out.

Guiliani ran a horrid campaign, ignoring the early Primary states in favor of the latter contests, and also got hit by a number of high-profile scandals in December that were still being shuffled around by the time Iowa and New Hampshire came around. He basically failed himself in that regard, though Bernard Kerik could not be helped.

Lindsay, to put it bluntly, never had any base except among the Establishment.

[jerseyrules]

He is too old. Anything over seventy years of age is too old, simply because a President will want their pick not only to represent their positions, but be sure to last long after they have left office. There is a reason many of those vetted are in either their forties or fifties.

Whoops, thought he was 10 years younger :o just Double checked his wiki page

[Ariosto]

After much thought on the matter I have come around and now believe Chuck Schumer would indeed run for the Senate Seat. Basically it would be him and Ferraro, with Mark Green running for Mayor of New York. The fact is the Primary for Mayor is going to be nasty, and he would be more in place as a member of the Senate than as Mayor, despite the Republicans having a strong advantage there with their Super Majority. Thus there would be no change there as far as I can see, except maybe D'Amato losing by a slightly larger margin.

However this would be balanced out by Lauch Faircloth winning reelection. I have also given this much thought, and though it should be by a close margin, thus sending shivers up his spine, I don't see him being thrown out without Edwards in the mix, and as BW said I seriously doubt, with the measures they are going to take in recruiting their candidates, that they will endorse Edward's candidacy. I am of the mind that they would push for Erskine Bowles, the only one I can possibly see who would agree to run that the establishment would support, even if it requires quite a bit of pressure on their part. However he doesn't have the same pull that Edwards did, or the financial resources. Again, I think the race would be close, but Faircloth would win by a hair-width of a margin.

[usertron2020]

Ariosto

I like Michael Bloomberg.:) He's done far more for unifying NYC than Rudy OR Dinkins ever did. A good solid centrist who pleases everybody and offends no one (except those with an eternal chip on their shoulders).:) Maybe electing him in the 1990s might be a little early for him (he's still busy making umpety-ump $$$:)), but if he sees his chance, maybe. FYI? Without Green, Ferraro and Schumer split his votes, with perhaps slightly more going to Ferraro. Making for a Schumer Landslide (approx. 60-40 Schumer).

BlairWitch

I am a long time board gamer myself. Have you considered, in the closest of elections, using dice to help determine some of the electoral outcomes? NYC and the 1998 elections, say? It might help have things look less like a thumb on the scale.:( A surprise Kentucky win for the Dems, while Faircloth runs a better campaign? Maybe Edwards runs anyway, as OTL, and gets caught? Or runs anyway as an Independent, and splits the vote, allowing Faircloth to coast to victory? Or Faircloth fails victim to his own notorious foot-in-mouth disease, leading to an exciting three way horse race?:cool:

I know dicing may seem childish, but it CAN help to introduce an element of chance into the story that otherwise may see a predictable exercise in (unknowing) wishful thinking.:(

[Ariosto]

Ariosto

I like Michael Bloomberg.:) He's done far more for unifying NYC than Rudy OR Dinkins ever did. A good solid centrist who pleases everybody and offends no one (except those with an eternal chip on their shoulders).:) Maybe electing him in the 1990s might be a little early for him (he's still busy making umpety-ump $$$:)), but if he sees his chance, maybe. FYI? Without Green, Ferraro and Schumer split his votes, with perhaps slightly more going to Ferraro. Making for a Schumer Landslide (approx. 60-40 Schumer).

Bloomberg is the only candidate I can see for the Republicans at the time, despite not being one himself ironically. That and he already has plenty of mullah so I don't see why making more would detract him from running for an office he has had his eye on. Course there would be harassment scandals coming out around this time which could hurt his candidacy, not for the Republican nomination mind you but the Mayoralty. Should be an interesting race depending on who the Dems nominate.

As for Schumer, you have it about right I think. Many of Green's supporters I can see going for Ferraro, especially if Green endorses her candidacy, but then go on over to Schumer once he starts catching steam later on in the campaign.

I am a long time board gamer myself. Have you considered, in the closest of elections, using dice to help determine some of the electoral outcomes? NYC and the 1998 elections, say? It might help have things look less like a thumb on the scale.:( A surprise Kentucky win for the Dems, while Faircloth runs a better campaign? Maybe Edwards runs anyway, as OTL, and gets caught? Or runs anyway as an Independent, and splits the vote, allowing Faircloth to coast to victory? Or Faircloth fails victim to his own notorious foot-in-mouth disease, leading to an exciting three way horse race?:cool:

I know dicing may seem childish, but it CAN help to introduce an element of chance into the story that otherwise may seem a predictable exercise in (unknowing) wishful thinking.:(

Know this wasn't directed at me, but I wish to make three points.

One, Edwards is not going to run as an Independent. My view is that he was already aiming to run for the Presidency and was simply using his Senate Seat as a launching pad for a Presidential Campaign, similar to what Barack Obama has done. Making a run as an Independent would completely doom any chance of that happening. If he doesn't run in 1998, then he likely runs for Jesse Helm's seat in 2002, and may very well win under the circumstances depending on what they may be.

Two, Kentucky is going to the Democrats, lest we hear more about wankage. :)

Three, I have used dice to determine election outcomes, and it just doesn't feel legitimate. Not saying that it is a bad method, because a lot can happen in an election, even small things that normally are not observable, that could swing it, but using dice often feels like something of a cop out. I myself for example often prefer to research the characters involved, the situation, and then determine from those and other resources what the likely, unbiased outcome may be (which admittedly can be difficult).

[usertron2020]

Bloomberg is the only candidate I can see for the Republicans at the time, despite not being one himself ironically. That and he already has plenty of mullah so I don't see why making more would detract him from running for an office he has had his eye on. Course there would be harassment scandals coming out around this time which could hurt his candidacy, not for the Republican nomination mind you but the Mayoralty. Should be an interesting race depending on who the Dems nominate.

I'd appreciate your views on the Dem primary candidates, including the possible inclusion of Mark Green. As to Mike Bloomberg? How about this for his campaign slogan: "We will bury you in a wave of Socialist:mad:-uh, Financial Power!":o:p

As for Schumer, you have it about right I think. Many of Green's supporters I can see going for Ferraro, especially if Green endorses her candidacy, but then go on over to Schumer once he starts catching steam later on in the campaign.

I didn't even think about the effect of Green endorsing Ferraro.

Know this wasn't directed at me, but I wish to make three points.

One, Edwards is not going to run as an Independent. My view is that he was already aiming to run for the Presidency and was simply using his Senate Seat as a launching pad for a Presidential Campaign, similar to what Barack Obama has done. Making a run as an Independent would completely doom any chance of that happening. If he doesn't run in 1998, then he likely runs for Jesse Helm's seat in 2002, and may very well win under the circumstances depending on what they may be.

Your logic about Edwards never running as an Independent is unassailable. I agree with you completely on that point. IIRC though, Jesse Helms' retirement announcement caught everyone by more surprise than Pat Moynihan's.

Two, Kentucky is going to the Democrats, lest we hear more about wankage. :)

I will PM you on that matter.

Three, I have used dice to determine election outcomes, and it just doesn't feel legitimate. Not saying that it is a bad method, because a lot can happen in an election, even small things that normally are not observable, that could swing it, but using dice often feels like something of a cop out. I myself for example often prefer to research the characters involved, the situation, and then determine from those and other resources what the likely, unbiased outcome may be (which admittedly can be difficult).

This will be in the PM too.

[jerseyrules]

Alright now we've been debating about the midterms a while; steering off politics, lets talk about the elephant in the room: Ron Paul and Zell Miller in the cabinet: what's gonna happen?

[usertron2020]

Alright now we've been debating about the midterms a while; steering off politics, lets talk about the elephant in the room: Ron Paul and Zell Miller in the cabinet: what's gonna happen?

Obviously, they are both going to the Supreme Court!:p

[jerseyrules]

Obviously, they are both going to the Supreme Court!:p

Sorry; I know that's so obvious...I really should stop trolling :p

[Snake Featherston]

I find it extremely convenient and handwaving-esque that Dole's death removes Pat Buchanan just like that, particularly in the Louisiana that chose David Duke to represent the GOP. This seems more wishful thinking than a serious TL. Louisiana Republicans in the 1990s chose a Klan leader as their nominee for governor, them not choosing Buchanan and choosing Gramm instead seems to be not simply hand-waving but full-on butterfly smashing, not netting.

[BlairWitch749]

I find it extremely convenient and handwaving-esque that Dole's death removes Pat Buchanan just like that, particularly in the Louisiana that chose David Duke to represent the GOP. This seems more wishful thinking than a serious TL. Louisiana Republicans in the 1990s chose a Klan leader as their nominee for governor, them not choosing Buchanan and choosing Gramm instead seems to be not simply hand-waving but full-on butterfly smashing, not netting.

Gramm and Buchannan finished in a near statistical tie in LA... with a late Dole drop out, it's natural that his support would go to the more establishment Gramm (who also nearly won Iowa, and could be considered likely to win Iowa in a scenario where Dole has dropped out)

[Snake Featherston]

Gramm and Buchannan finished in a near statistical tie in LA... with a late Dole drop out, it's natural that his support would go to the more establishment Gramm (who also nearly won Iowa, and could be considered likely to win Iowa in a scenario where Dole has dropped out)

Not in the Louisiana of the 1990s. The idea of them being in a dead heat in this scenario is an absurdity, again these guys picked DAVID DUKE for governor over the more moderate Roemer.

[usertron2020]

I find it extremely convenient and handwaving-esque that Dole's death removes Pat Buchanan just like that, particularly in the Louisiana that chose David Duke to represent the GOP. This seems more wishful thinking than a serious TL. Louisiana Republicans in the 1990s chose a Klan leader as their nominee for governor, them not choosing Buchanan and choosing Gramm instead seems to be not simply hand-waving but full-on butterfly smashing, not netting.

Agree with all of this. Except that didn't Dole simply get badly injured, not die?:confused:

SPECIAL NOTE FOR THE MODERATORS: The following is dark tongue-in-cheek, but also to a point accurate regarding David Duke: He is a Nazi, not a Klansman. I know that seems like the ultimate in splitting hairs, like the difference between Nazis and Fascists, but the difference IS there.

David Duke is a Nazi, through and through. He is someone who was ultimately thrown out of the Ku Klux Klan on the grounds of excessive Anti-Semitism! I know! I know! WTF are you talking about UT!? How can you be tossed from the Klan for being too anti-semitic!? Easy. When Duke tried in his leadership position within the Klan to turn the emphasis of the Klan from White Supremacy to Anti-Semitism.

Historically, the Klan has used anti-semitism as a recruitment tool and source of fundraising in regions where local African-American populations were relatively thin on the ground, but anti-semitism was rife. But the Klan was founded on White Supremacy, whatever their belief systems are today. In the original days of the Klan of Nathan Bedford Forrest, anti-semitism just wasn't considered an important issue. Only in the "Second Generation" of the late 1800s did the anti-semitic bile start flowing. Duke got in trouble for trying to take the Klan to the next level.

As horrific as the history of the Klan is, by calling Duke a "Klansman", people make the innocent mistake of covering a Brownshirt with White Robes and Hood. Evil as the KKK was and is, they never came close to the Third Reich.:eek: Which is what David Duke truly represents.:mad:

[jerseyrules]

Agree with all of this. Except that didn't Dole simply get badly injured, not die?:confused:

SPECIAL NOTE FOR THE MODERATORS: The following is dark tongue-in-cheek, but also to a point accurate regarding David Duke: He is a Nazi, not a Klansman. I know that seems like the ultimate in splitting hairs, like the difference between Nazis and Fascists, but the difference IS there.

David Duke is a Nazi, through and through. He is someone who was ultimately thrown out of the Ku Klux Klan on the grounds of excessive Anti-Semitism! I know! I know! WTF are you talking about UT!? How can you be tossed from the Klan for being too anti-semitic!? Easy. When Duke tried in his leadership position within the Klan to turn the emphasis of the Klan from White Supremacy to Anti-Semitism.

Historically, the Klan has used anti-semitism as a recruitment tool and source of fundraising in regions where local African-American populations were relatively thin on the ground, but anti-semitism was rife. But the Klan was founded on White Supremacy, whatever their belief systems are today. In the original days of the Klan of Nathan Bedford Forrest, anti-semitism just wasn't considered an important issue. Only in the "Second Generation" of the late 1800s did the anti-semitic bile start flowing. Duke got in trouble for trying to take the Klan to the next level.

As horrific as the history of the Klan is, by calling Duke a "Klansman", people make the innocent mistake of covering a Brownshirt with White Robes and Hood. Evil as the KKK was and is, they never came close to the Third Reich.:eek: Which is what David Duke truly represents.:mad:

When the hell did we start talking about David Duke? :confused: :eek:

[Snake Featherston]

When the hell did we start talking about David Duke? :confused: :eek:

Way back when, as I was reading through this TL it had Pat Buchanan be brushed aside for a complete nothing with Bob Dole out of the race. I'm simply noting this is the Louisiana where a Neo-Nazi was running for governor about this time and their not voting for Pat Buchanan in this scenario is rather less likely. It's one instance where he stomped on a butterfly with a steel boot instead of recognizing the butterflies of one of his PODs.

[BlairWitch749]

Way back when, as I was reading through this TL it had Pat Buchanan be brushed aside for a complete nothing with Bob Dole out of the race. I'm simply noting this is the Louisiana where a Neo-Nazi was running for governor about this time and their not voting for Pat Buchanan in this scenario is rather less likely. It's one instance where he stomped on a butterfly with a steel boot instead of recognizing the butterflies of one of his PODs.

Pat Buchanan worked for Nixon for god's sake... the man might have been more populist than Dole or Gramm but his record certainly wasn't more conservative (especially versus Gramm)

Buchanan won Louisiana 44-42 versus Gramm; and with Dole dropping out, it's fair to suppose that a lot of establishment support would have went to Gramm (and Gramm had raised a shit load of money)

Buchanan only got 23 percent of the vote in Iowa and 27 in New Hampshire, he was in no way an heir apparant in the party... I basically had Dole's support go to Gramm, we could argue about the plausibility of that; but Buchanan doing better than he did is highly unlikely

[Snake Featherston]

Pat Buchanan worked for Nixon for god's sake... the man might have been more populist than Dole or Gramm but his record certainly wasn't more conservative (especially versus Gramm)

Buchanan won Louisiana 44-42 versus Gramm; and with Dole dropping out, it's fair to suppose that a lot of establishment support would have went to Gramm (and Gramm had raised a shit load of money)

Buchanan only got 23 percent of the vote in Iowa and 27 in New Hampshire, he was in no way an heir apparant in the party... I basically had Dole's support go to Gramm, we could argue about the plausibility of that; but Buchanan doing better than he did is highly unlikely

Buchanan's an avowed white supremacist and Neo-Nazi. With the removal of Dole, it will be Buchanan who has an easier time tapping into the same thing Duke did than Gramm has with winning Louisiana. This is again a state whose Republicans picked a Neo-Nazi as their gubernatorial candidate.

[BlairWitch749]

Buchanan's an avowed white supremacist and Neo-Nazi. With the removal of Dole, it will be Buchanan who has an easier time tapping into the same thing Duke did than Gramm has with winning Louisiana. This is again a state whose Republicans picked a Neo-Nazi as their gubernatorial candidate.

Avowed white supremacist and neo nazi? really? his comment about Hitler vis a vis Toland's work was wholly accurate and he calls him a murderer/genocider in the same quote... it was a case of the media playing gotcha because he said Hitler was a gifted political organizer and speaker, and good and finding the weakness of his enemies; things which we know are true

I guess we could argue his immigration stances are based on racism but even that falls into shades of grey

And despite him being the populist racist whatever in the campaign, he didn't even get 50 percent; there is no reason for his support to increase due to a dole drop out since Dole voters wanted no part of Buchanan

[Snake Featherston]

Avowed white supremacist and neo nazi? really? his comment about Hitler vis a vis Toland's work was wholly accurate and he calls him a murderer/genocider in the same quote... it was a case of the media playing gotcha because he said Hitler was a gifted political organizer and speaker, and good and finding the weakness of his enemies; things which we know are true

I guess we could argue his immigration stances are based on racism but even that falls into shades of grey

And despite him being the populist racist whatever in the campaign, he didn't even get 50 percent; there is no reason for his support to increase due to a dole drop out since Dole voters wanted no part of Buchanan

His book about WWII being an unnecessary war and his brand of so-called Palaeo-Conservatism *are* White Supremacist, his view of immigration as threatening the purity of a white, Christian state might as well have been written by Theodore Bilbo or Jefferson Davis. You're forgetting that if Dole drops out of the race so close to the caucus this *will* dramatically upend received calculations about who would win the race. Again, David Duke was chosen for governor by Louisiana Republicans about this time so why precisely are the same people that chose Duke not going to jump to select Buchanan? At this time Louisiana has a closed primary so only Louisiana GOP will be choosing here, and since they chose David motherfucking Duke, you need a damn good reason why they will not choose Buchanan more than handwavium.

[BlairWitch749]

His book about WWII being an unnecessary war and his brand of so-called Palaeo-Conservatism *are* White Supremacist, his view of immigration as threatening the purity of a white, Christian state might as well have been written by Theodore Bilbo or Jefferson Davis. You're forgetting that if Dole drops out of the race so close to the caucus this *will* dramatically upend received calculations about who would win the race. Again, David Duke was chosen for governor by Louisiana Republicans about this time so why precisely are the same people that chose Duke not going to jump to select Buchanan? At this time Louisiana has a closed primary so only Louisiana GOP will be choosing here, and since they chose David motherfucking Duke, you need a damn good reason why they will not choose Buchanan more than handwavium.

They nearly chose Gramm.... Gramm lost by 2 points, he didn't get blown out, it was super competitive; the path was Dole dropping out seeing an establishment shift to Gramm to make up the difference with the momentum taking him farther

Lets not make Gramm out to be Mitt Romney or Nelson Rockerfeller, the man was a hardcore Texas conservative who on the whole is probably more conservative than Buchanan then or now and a Louisiana victory for him was actually expected by the pundits of the period

For whatever racism was still around in Louisiana in 1996, they didn't vote for Buchanan to give him a double digit victory; he won with a weak plurality and just a couple of thousand votes would have seen him go down

[Ariosto]

I have to agree with BW, and that with Dole's resources behind him Gramm would carry Louisiana. Would it be by a large margin? Hardly. Would Buchanan get extensive media coverage by getting as many votes as he would? Absolutely, just like Clinton and McGovern did after New Hampshire. Buchanan would remain a strong player but many of the voters he would be playing for would also be drawn by Gramm, something that Dole was incapable of due to being to the Left of Buchanan.

[Snake Featherston]

They nearly chose Gramm.... Gramm lost by 2 points, he didn't get blown out, it was super competitive; the path was Dole dropping out seeing an establishment shift to Gramm to make up the difference with the momentum taking him farther

Lets not make Gramm out to be Mitt Romney or Nelson Rockerfeller, the man was a hardcore Texas conservative who on the whole is probably more conservative than Buchanan then or now and a Louisiana victory for him was actually expected by the pundits of the period

For whatever racism was still around in Louisiana in 1996, they didn't vote for Buchanan to give him a double digit victory; he won with a weak plurality and just a couple of thousand votes would have seen him go down

The Louisiana GOP chose David Duke 4 years prior. I assume you're not willing to credit them with changing their stripes in a mere four years. I'm not saying this'd lead to Buchanan winning the nomination, mind. All I'm noting is that you really picked a bad state for Gramm to suddenly start winning.

[usertron2020]

The Louisiana GOP chose David Duke 4 years prior. I assume you're not willing to credit them with changing their stripes in a mere four years. I'm not saying this'd lead to Buchanan winning the nomination, mind. All I'm noting is that you really picked a bad state for Gramm to suddenly start winning.

BlairWitch749

I think this is the whole point Mr. Featherston is trying to raise. If you ever did a 2.0 on this TL, a different pivoting point for Gramm would be needed. Obviously, in this TL its far too late. Other than that, well... Even if Buchanan won Louisiana by an actual majority, it would only result in the GOP nomination process going exactly the way the Louisiana gubernatorial general election did with David Duke v. Edwin Edwards.

Despite the fact that Edwin Edwards was so corrupt (even by the standards of the state that gave us "The Big Easy") he eventually went to prison, the election itself was remarkable with the entire GOP establishment up to President George H.W. Bush himself not only endorsing Edwards, but in many cases actively campaigning for him.

The GOP in the face of a Buchanan victory in Louisiana would rally to Gramm in legions. Its not like Gramm is an Eastern Progressive Republican, after all.:rolleyes:

[ProfJets]

The Louisiana GOP chose David Duke 4 years prior. I assume you're not willing to credit them with changing their stripes in a mere four years. I'm not saying this'd lead to Buchanan winning the nomination, mind. All I'm noting is that you really picked a bad state for Gramm to suddenly start winning.

Technically speaking, the Louisiana GOP did not nominate David Duke for anything. In fact, they nominated nobody; there were three serious Republican gubernatorial candidates in the first round in 1991. It so happened that in a vote of all Louisianans (i.e. including Democrats and independents, not just GOP) Duke got the second most votes and so proceeded to the runoff. Though perhaps he won most of the Republican vote in round one or two; I don't know enough to say.

[Snake Featherston]

BlairWitch749

I think this is the whole point Mr. Featherston is trying to raise. If you ever did a 2.0 on this TL, a different pivotting point for Gramm would be needed. Obviously, in this TL its far too late. Other than that, well... Even if Buchanan won Louisiana by an actual majority, it would only result in the GOP nomination process going exactly the way the Louisiana gubernatorial general election did with David Duke v. Edwin Edwards.

Despite the fact that Edwin Edwards was so corrupt (even by the standards of the state that gave us "The Big Easy") he eventually went to prison, the election itself was remarkable with the entire GOP establishment up to President George H.W. Bush himself not only endorsing Edwards, but in many cases actively campaigning for him.

The GOP in the face of a Buchanan victory in Louisiana would rally to Gramm in legions. Its not like Gramm is an Eastern Progressive Republican, after all.:rolleyes:

Precisely. I'm not claiming Buchanan would win the nomination, I'm just noting selecting 1990s Louisiana as where this all starts was not the wisest move given what 1990s Louisiana actually showed was probable and possible both.

[Nazi Space Spy]

Buchanan's an avowed white supremacist and Neo-Nazi. With the removal of Dole, it will be Buchanan who has an easier time tapping into the same thing Duke did than Gramm has with winning Louisiana. This is again a state whose Republicans picked a Neo-Nazi as their gubernatorial candidate.
I agree with your point on the Lousiana primary, though Blairwitchs explanation is ok by my standards. What I disagree with you on is Pat Buchanan. He is neither a Neo Nazi or a Anti Semite, and I personally think he would of been a great President. Anyway, thats for another section of this forum ;).

[jerseyrules]

A great Christmas present would be an update ;)

[BlairWitch749]

Nothing but coal in our stockings this year, jerseyrules.:( Didn't you know BlairWitch749 is the grandson of the Grinch? That's why he's a Republican.:D

Unfortunately no update to be accomplished before the new year I'm afraid :o... I have a semi outline written for Dunn involving social security reform which should be posted the week after new years... after that IDK, work has been extraordinarly busy, and the baby no longer stays in the same place when I put her down, so home is busier as well

UT, as you are the resident expert on the VA, I would happily solicit you for a guest chapter on our dear friend Zell Miller

[usertron2020]

PMed you on Miller.

[jerseyrules]

Haha an update on Zell Miller...that's a Christmas present worth waiting for ;):D

[usertron2020]

Haha an update on Zell Miller...that's a Christmas present worth waiting for ;):D

jerseyrules

If BlairWitch749 gives his permission I could forward you the huge number of PMs that have gone on between BW749 and I over details on the future Miller updates. But I don't know how BW feels about that. We've only agreed on a general outline at this time. I feel very strongly that I have to do serious research about Zell Miller The Man, not Zell Miller The SNL Punchline.:(

I can only promise that circumstances about Miller in the TL will probably not be what people expect.:)

EDIT: At this time it looks like the setting will be in the Fall of 1997.
EDIT2: Hmm... Its shocking how many relevant books Miller has written post-2000 "revelation", and how few before. Looks like the only relevant one for looking inside his head (in 1997) is his book on the USMC and its applications to American culture. It was published just one year after the "present" of TTL-1998. I'll have that in a few days.

[jerseyrules]

jerseyrules

If BlairWitch749 gives his permission I could forward you the huge number of PMs that have gone on between BW749 and I over details on the future Miller updates. But I don't know how BW feels about that. We've only agreed on a general outline at this time. I feel very strongly that I have to do serious research about Zell Miller The Man, not Zell Miller The SNL Punchline.:(

I can only promise that circumstances about Miller in the TL will probably not be what people expect.:)

EDIT: At this time it looks like the setting will be in the Fall of 1997.
EDIT2: Hmm... Its shocking how many relevant books Miller has written post-2000 "revelation", and how few before. Looks like the only relevant one for looking inside his head (in 1997) is his book on the USMC and its applications to American culture. It was published just one year after the "present" of TTL-1998. I'll have that in a few days.

All right; thanks ;)

[Glen]

POD date means this technically belongs in the increasingly misnamed Future History.

[Abe Lincoln1865]

Glen I almost feel you are going a little crazy with the movings. Now some are justified but this is too much.
(please don't ban or kick me)

[Hendryk]

POD date means this technically belongs in the increasingly misnamed Future History.
I'm not really seeing the justification to move this thread to FH. It takes place in the recent past, with no FH elements that I've noticed. Now, by all means move it to Chat, since it is, by the author's own admission (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=4542018&postcount=423), an openly partisan tract rather than legitimate AH; but I don't think it belongs in the FH forum unless the rules have been changed.

[Evan]

POD date means this technically belongs in the increasingly misnamed Future History.
What? Last time I checked the calendar, it was 2012. The PoD for this is in the 1990's!

[usertron2020]

What? Last time I checked the calendar, it was 2012. The PoD for this is in the 1990's!

Future History?

Well, if we've finished the 1997-2005 Gramm Administration, finished the 2005-2013 W Administration, finished the 2013-2021 Jeb Administration, and are now in the Santorum Administration...:eek::mad::rolleyes:

[Tovarich]

POD date means this technically belongs in the increasingly misnamed Future History.

Glen, I seriously think you're wrong about POD date, rather than time of content, being the prime marker for which forum a TL belongs in.

Could you ask Ian to clarify for us all, maybe?

(Heh, is this what it's like for Americans all the time, having to wonder what the Founding Fathers would've wanted? Good thing ours is still alive and can be asked directly):D

[AYoungContrarian]

I've brought up Glen's actions in this and other threads for discussion here (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=226962).

[Glen]

POD date means this technically belongs in the increasingly misnamed Future History.


I screwed up - confabulated Turtledove categories with Forum categories (again).

Now that I have had more sleep - I have reconsidered and I do believe that this belongs in After 1900 - my apologies for the confusion and disruption.

[BlairWitch749]

I screwed up - confabulated Turtledove categories with Forum categories (again).

Now that I have had more sleep - I have reconsidered and I do believe that this belongs in After 1900 - my apologies for the confusion and disruption.

by all means move her back

[BlairWitch749]

I'm not really seeing the justification to move this thread to FH. It takes place in the recent past, with no FH elements that I've noticed. Now, by all means move it to Chat, since it is, by the author's own admission (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=4542018&postcount=423), an openly partisan tract rather than legitimate AH; but I don't think it belongs in the FH forum unless the rules have been changed.

Did you have a plausibility argument to make there?

didn't think so

[usertron2020]

Did you have a plausibility argument to make there?

didn't think so

BlairWitch749

I think what's happening is that you are being tarred by the brush deserved by some of your posters. If one takes the time and carefully sifts through your updates compared to the posts of some of the readers? There's the political destruction of Clinton, yes. In your updates, that is. Also, I can see the chortling glee by SOME posters at what is happening, clearly filtered by and based on their political POVs. That is true. But YOU YOURSELF have made things abundantly clear about your disgust with, even hatred of, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy(tm). Which we have both agreed could be counted among Clinton's biggest enablers (in spite of themselves:rolleyes:).

Were you a naked political hack (ala Sean Hannity say) you would have had Clinton taken away in handcuffs, leg irons, orange jumpsuit, perp walk and all.:eek: But the selection of Phil Gramm as the recipient of the Greatest October Surprise Ever marks a departure from just Clinton bashing. You had Gramm pull the plug on any last minute political BS the GOP House wanted to pull on Clinton as he went out the door. This is why I think this TL has not been consigned to CHAT.:)

Also, has anyone noticed how much friendlier things have gotten (short of one area I will address in a second) regarding the TL now that we are in Gramm's first year? No blue v. red crossfire.

The only exception for this has been discussion of the 1998 Mid-Terms. I must take full responsibility for this entirely upon myself.:o:o:o:o It was I who started the HUGE battle over midterms long before the TL has ever come close to those elections. You yourself BW would only say again and again that you hadn't outlined anything for the 1998 elections, and THAT'S IT. That didn't stop me and everyone else from engaging in nonstop speculation about the future results.

However, those discussions were a sad eye opener.

NOTE: With the exception of myself and later Ariosto... He and I started out on opposite sides of the arguments being made but came together in the end... Everyone else was predicting a GOP landslide in an off-year GOP incumbency election. Despite my pointing out that that has never happened in the last century w/o extraordinary circumstances developing, which you yourself BW have made clear will not happen ITTL. Everybody else seemed to think that a bustling economy (plus Monica-gate STILL burning two years later!?) would solve all problems for the GOP. I kept repeating the words "wishful thinking" but it was like cannonballs off an ironclad.

What this all told me was that the readership of this TL was not only VERY conservative, but much more conservative than you BW.;) While Hendryk's politics are no secret to anyone, it doesn't make him WRONG. Not in his predictions of story flow, at least. I just don't agree with him about it being a blatant political tract. The trouble is everything has gone so easily for the GOP so far that it allows for the argument that the TL looks like one.:(:(:( But only because the storm clouds are still beyond the horizon. But they are there and they are coming. Its just that some of them are years away.

If one takes the time to LOOK, a non-biased reader can see the differences between your own political beliefs and those of most of your fans. At least those who are posting.

The difference between you and I BW is that you and I both despise Slick Willie, while I love Hill and you... I don't really know. You really don't seem to like her very much AT ALL. But you keep promising she'll do well ITTL. I'm damned to see how she could do AS WELL, much less better, than she's done OTL, unless you see her as POTUS one day.:confused:

[Ariosto]

NOTE: With the exception of myself and later Ariosto... He and I started out on opposite sides of the arguments being made but came together in the end... Everyone else was predicting a GOP landslide in an off-year GOP incumbency election.

Yes, but few are going to be happy with the results as I predicted them up to 2002, at which point they would be breathing a sigh of relief. At the same time I would not be able to determine how certain Senators, such as Jim Jeffords, would react to the more Conservative direction, and if they might go Independent and caucus with the Democrats so as to remove the Republican Supermajority.

[usertron2020]

Yes, but few are going to be happy with the results as I predicted them up to 2002,(1) at which point they would be breathing a sigh of relief.(2) At the same time I would not be able to determine how certain Senators, such as Jim Jeffords,(3) would react to the more Conservative direction, and if they might go Independent and caucus with the Democrats so as to remove the Republican Supermajority.(4)

1) By "few are going to be happy" are you referring to the TL readership?

2) Ditto.

3) Actually, Jeffords' defection had more to do with the GOP's threats to strip New England dairy farmers of price supports, a supreme political no-no in New England. As was typical of the W Administration, they just blew him off, despite his threats of defection. The usual maladroitness to be expected of W, when it came to anyone who refused to march in lockstep with him 100% of the time. Particularly with the Senate split 50-50 at the time. No wonder W left the White House with New England so totally sapphire blue (outside the Maine Ladies).

4) That's up to the OP. I don't see that happening, unless Gramm grows as arrogant as W did OTL. BW knows Gramm's mind far better than I, so I won't even make predictions in that regard.

[BlairWitch749]

A new social promise and opportunity A special offshoot of chapter 31 100 days series - As we have always seen here in the U.S. the universal truth about elections is that people vote their pocketbook -Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn

January 1997 and ongoing Washington DC

Jennifer Dunn was one of the THE prime examples of Phil Gramm picking technocrats and people gifted in their understanding of the economy to be a part of his administration, even versus Dell and Mulally

Dunn, 56 had graduated from the University of Washington and Standford with advanced degrees in business and engineering and had worked as a systems engineer and network administrator prior to being elected to congress in 1992.

On her entrance she had rapidly risen in the house leadership and quickly became one of Speaker Newt Gingrich's primary hatchetmen; or woman in this case. Prior to Gramm's decision to leave Robert Rubin in place at treasury, Dunn had been rumored to be on the short list for that posting. Her position not only involved running the white house's involvement in the ongoing evolution of the federal budget, but she served as a critical go between for Gramm and Gingrich; both of whom had large ego's that Dunn was able to carefully coddle when needed and put into place when required.

Dunn was a bit shocked when Gramm gave her the assignment to draw up all the necessary planning documents and charts for what he believed would be the cornerstone of his first term. "Jenn, I want you to draw up a plan to change the allocatation of social security into more diverse securities and investments; I don't want young people to be outpaced by inflation on 13 percent of their income any more... I want it to run like a soveriegn wealth fund, but for god's sake don't call it that, write it up so it can be a more mobile body like state pension funds; draw up lot's of comparison charts to the success rates of CALPERS and the NYS state pension fund

Dunn was quick to point out that such a plan would incur a very high political cost and that the democrats would label any plan to alter social security as "the destruction of social security"

Gramm replied that he anticipated this, and planned to win the argument over the next 7 or 8 months with the hopes of getting this to congress for votes in September

Dunn suggested it might be a wiser course to press the matter in the first 100 days to take advantage of their high levels of political capital and limit the window for the democrats to attack the plan but Gramm was adamant "Something this big can't be rammed through without consensus and genuine public debate and support, we have to win the argument"

For the next 30 days, Dunn and her team crafted a new plan which they called the Social Promise and Opportunity Act or SPOA for short, it's key points where as follows:



Existing seniors and those 54 and 1/2 and older would stay in the current system with no changes to allocation or benefit structure
Those who wished to stay in the existing system would be allowed to do so
An automatic management option would be offered for those who didn't want to be in the old system but didn't want to take an active role in overseeing their social security funds; which would see them placed into so called "target funds" which would be more aggressive for younger workers, steadily switching to more secure and income oriented funds as the citizen got older
A self management option would be offered, allowing the citizen to pick a series of 401k style mutual and target funds of a diverse nature, with the ability to make changes on a quarterly basis
The amount allowed to be allocated (to start the program) would be on a sliding scale... those 40-54 could allocate up to 33.3 percent, those 30-39 could allocate 47.5 percent and those 29 and younger could allocate 60 percent; younger workers would be allowed to keep their higher level allocation percentages as they got older, if they chose to
Excess gains beyond the needs of existing social security payouts and services are to be equally split between paying off the national debt, and being held in reserve for social security in the even of down or flat stock sessions
Should the national debt reach a level less than 10 percent gdp in total, triggers would be emplaced to allow for higher allocation percentages to try and stem of the need for bonds to be bought by social security; at this point excess gains would be 50 percent social security reserve 50 general operations



to be continued...


thoughts?

[Hendryk]

As we have always seen here in the U.S. the universal truth about elections is that people vote their pocketbook -Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn
If that was the case, the Republicans wouldn't stand a chance, considering their consistent record of shilling for a tiny minority of superrich at the expense of the overwhelming majority of the population. Quite a lot of people actually cast their ballot on non-economic criteria, the so-called "values" that right-wingers love to campaign about to keep a good chunk of the country voting against its self-interest.

[usertron2020]

If that was the case, the Republicans wouldn't stand a chance, considering their consistent record of shilling for a tiny minority of superrich at the expense of the overwhelming majority of the population. Quite a lot of people actually cast their ballot on non-economic criteria, the so-called "values" that right-wingers love to campaign about to keep a good chunk of the country voting against its self-interest.

You know I have a relative who BRAGS that he only has three questions on deciding who he's going to vote for:
1) Who's gonna take my guns?
2) Who's gonna take my guns?
3) Who's gonna take my guns?

This is a tale as old as time itself.

In ancient times, the Mob was told their problems were the fault of either a) foreigners/barbarians, or b) other political factions than the class of rulers currently in power.

In the middle ages up to today, its...actually, the number of targets to "BLAME FOR EVERYTHING" today are far too numerous to even list.:( But basically, everyone who isn't a middle-aged straight white male republican conservative (but I repeat myself:rolleyes:) upper-class($$$) christian evangelical (MASWMRCUCCE). But if you ARE a MASWRCUCCE, then YOU ARE GUILTY OF EVERYTHING!:p:p:p:rolleyes: Heck, even if you're just a MASWM, YOU STILL ARE GUILTY OF EVERYTHING!:mad:

:D:D:D

[jerseyrules]

Great to see this updated ;). Liking this...:D

[Plumber]

That's one way to be a one-term President...

[usertron2020]

That's one way to be a one-term President...

BW749 has made it clear he hasn't outlined the story even to 1998, much less 2000. Also, he's said that there will NOT be an October Surprise 2.0/3.0. Either in '98 or 2000. Whether for Gramm or against him.:cool:

If this passes though, we could see 1998 as an even bigger Democratic landslide (1) than OTL. We shall see.

1) Not trying to start this AGAIN,:o:o:o but OTL that year WAS a Dem landslide. Coming out of the "Sixth Year Curse" election with a wash in the Senate and five seats lost in the House. But if POTUS Gramm is seen humping:p the "third rail"...:eek: This time, with a GOP President... Gramm is not a sixth year incumbent, but Slick Willie isn't on the ballot either.:mad: The Senate shouldn't change TOO much from OTL. Except as another poster said one of Kentucky's Senate seats will turn blue. The House on the other hand... Lucky for the GOP the House represents the "Tyranny of the Majority".

[BlairWitch749]

A new social promise and opportunity A special offshoot of chapter 31 100 days series - I don't understand the Democrats' approach to Social Security in this country, and I'm not alone - William Weld (Senator Weld ITTL)

The Spring Summer and early Fall of 1997, Washington DC

The SPOA would become the signature legislative action of Phil Gramm's 1997-2001 period; although it was a bitter and hard fought battle; it's first introduction to the media was in an interview that Phil Gramm gave to 60 minutes on CBS where he named it as the next great change to come to America... and following this announcement, members of his administration and republicans on the hill began making the rounds with the newspapers and Sunday talk shows to tout Dunn's SPOA.

Out front for the administration where Dunn and Michael Dell. Dell was quickly won over to the plan when he saw the potential of the huge influx of new monies into the stock market which would spur massive growth and investment capabilities for the blue chips and even smaller players in the S&P 500 and Russel 2000 index which would be offered to the taxpayers. Dunn was calm and collected in her evaluation of the program which she labeled as necessary to grow the economy for the 21st century with Tim Russert on Meet the Press

The congressional speerpoint was held by William Weld in the senate. Weld had a strong business background and had worked financial miracles in Mass during his time as governor; bringing the states budget into order for the first time in many years; the man was able to get reelected in 1994 with a stunning 74 percent of the vote in a highly democratic state, so it was no surprise that he was Gramm's chosen leader on this project. Weld cogently explained over and over again that social security would finally begin to distance itself from inflation, and divorce itself from the governments general operations and borrowing schemes.

Blandishments aside the status quo, inertia and the democrats where difficult obstacles to be tackled. Bob Graham from Florida naturally lead the effort to roadblock SPOA. He labeled it as the end to social security and the installation of Las Vegas as the retirement savings account in a Miami Herald Op-Ed. Tom Daschle, Richard Gephardt and the new chairman of the democratic national committee Leon Panetta put together a concerted effort to label the plan as a tool of big business to play roulette with the country's retirement savings; the effect began to tell; Connie Mack was safe having just been comfortably reelected beside Phil Gramm; but the house members looking at the always looming midterms where not. Whilst the debate raged... assemblyman Jeff Miller (staying as a democrat) successfully won a special election taking Florida's first district which had been vacated by Joe Scarborough becoming white house chief of staff... Tillie Fowler's former seat also in northern Florida (4th) was only narrowly taken by Michael Bennett who had left his position in the state senate to run to keep the seat for the Republicans.

It was much the same across the sun belt as the democrats pounded message after message across the full spectrum of media decrying any change to social security as it's destruction with potential elimination of benefits that people had worked for.

Gramm held firm, responding to attacks over the summer, drawing comparison to the SPOA and the CALPERS state pension plan which continued to be heavily successful in the red hot stock market...the stock market as well accepted the plan positively; CNBC's Larry Kudlow and Mark Haines came out emphatically in favor of the plan and continued to make Michael Dell a repeat guest on their shows; and progress in various congressional proceedings saw the DOW Jones continue to jump as the plan looked like it would come to be

The Democrats where not the only ones to charge a price for having to take such a difficult vote; the previous fucking with Missouri on defense appropriations early in the year saw Bond and Ashcroft "listen" to their senior citizens and demand and gain additional unpopular concessions from Gramm which saw additional new modified KC-135's having to be built in Missouri along with a new national guard depot.... the biggest sop was that the SOPA server farm and administrative functions would have to be based in St. Louis instead of the more logical and preferred areas in Northern Virginia under consideration. Ashcroft proved to be one of the bigger thorns in Gramm's side about the SPOA even more so than some democrats as Gramm had been able to gain some lukewarm support from California's Diane Feinstein who saw the useful comparisons between CALPERS and the SPOA plan

On September 16th 1997 the SPOA passed the house 267-165 with 19 democrats supporting and 2 republicans joining the dissenters; and it passed the senate 3 days later 61-37 with Phil Gram signing it later in the day. 6 months would be set aside to get the program in place and at the end of the 1st quarter in 1998; the American taxpayer would get to make their first allocation decision

Some of the talking heads in financial circles predicted that on passage of the SPOA that the stock market would take another massive leg forward. This didn't materialize as the Dow Jones industrial average had gained more than 2000 points during the year already (historical) and the passage of the SPOA was already priced in to the market as it sat at the highs of the year at 9000 points. It was one of the more bittersweet ironies that on the day Gramm signed the SPOA into law, the Dow lost 165 points as the wall street movers decided to lock in some of their large profits the year had already brought them

to be continued...


thoughts?

[thekingsguard]

On one hand I like reform to SocSecurity

On the other, tieing it to the stock market is... questionable.

In any event, keep up the good work!

[Tyg]

That SS reform has much more interesting potential long-term effects than the immediate gyrations of the stock market. It suggests some interesting changes in both the future obligations of the federal government and participation in financial markets. We are talking about a fair amount of money here, after all.

All in all, good news for the relatively solid, boring listed companies that are probably following or participating in the federal government's large investment into IT. Provided that sort of securities investment takes preeminence over Pets.com and rapid IPOs, the bubble might be milder than it was OTL.

After SS reform combined with the trimming of the military budget, I bet the long-term federal budget projections look rather interesting. Presumably some kind of tax cuts or tax reform is inevitable, but that might not be so bad budget-wise, depending on the specifics.

Now, Medicare... Let's see if Gramm has any bright ideas and enough political capital to handle that.

[BlairWitch749]

That SS reform has much more interesting potential long-term effects than the immediate gyrations of the stock market. It suggests some interesting changes in both the future obligations of the federal government and participation in financial markets. We are talking about a fair amount of money here, after all.

All in all, good news for the relatively solid, boring listed companies that are probably following or participating in the federal government's large investment into IT. Provided that sort of securities investment takes preeminence over Pets.com and rapid IPOs, the bubble might be milder than it was OTL.

After SS reform combined with the trimming of the military budget, I bet the long-term federal budget projections look rather interesting. Presumably some kind of tax cuts or tax reform is inevitable, but that might not be so bad budget-wise, depending on the specifics.

Now, Medicare... Let's see if Gramm has any bright ideas and enough political capital to handle that.


social security was the benchmark; and as well be developed later, it will cost gramm dearly, despite being ultimately a good thing for the country

[usertron2020]

social security was the benchmark; and as well be developed later, it will cost gramm dearly, despite being ultimately a good thing for the country

I wonder: short of constitutional amendments, what is it about his reforms that cannot be reversed?:confused:

[Ariosto]

I wonder: short of constitutional amendments, what is it about his reforms that cannot be reversed?:confused:

Depends on what in question is being reversed. Social Security will likely be defended by the Republican Senators, and thus the Democrats would need a Super-Majority to successfully overturn it even with a Democratic President in the White House.

[usertron2020]

Depends on what in question is being reversed. Social Security will likely be defended by the Republican Senators, and thus the Democrats would need a Super-Majority to successfully overturn it even with a Democratic President in the White House.

Considering the slavishness in both voting and on Social Security issue alone (for those who depend on it, which is most of them) for senior citizens, I wonder what's to stop constituents from putting the fear of Almighty God into their representatives? Even in ruby red states like Idaho, there are such things as primary challenges. Its not like this Congress in 1997 is being run by the Tea Party.

[BlairWitch749]

I wonder: short of constitutional amendments, what is it about his reforms that cannot be reversed?:confused:

once people have an individual account with their name on it, particularly one growing well ahead of bonds or TIPS in the heat of the boom in the 90's they will be loath to go back to just buying treasuries and surrendering that individual account

sort of like the concept behind obamacare, once people get tax credits that make it easier for them to get health insurance, and once small business rates go down with the exchanges, people won't accept it going back to the way it was before

[jerseyrules]

I'm liking this so far. More please thx ;):D

[Reylance]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997

Will something similar to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 be passed? The primary effects of the law were lowering the capital gains tax rate to 20%/10%, which would certainly contribute to the stock market boom seen in OTL. The bill also eliminated capital gains on primary residences. On the other hand, it introduced a child tax credit, one of many steps that moved away from the Reagan goal of a tax code with fewer deductions to go with lower rates.

The bill passed with unanimous Republican support and support from a supermajority of Democrats.

[Reylance]

once people have an individual account with their name on it, particularly one growing well ahead of bonds or TIPS in the heat of the boom in the 90's they will be loath to go back to just buying treasuries and surrendering that individual account

sort of like the concept behind obamacare, once people get tax credits that make it easier for them to get health insurance, and once small business rates go down with the exchanges, people won't accept it going back to the way it was before

Are the individual accounts assets that can be passed on to one's heirs? One of the benefits of any defined benefit pension plan is that because people who die before receiving benefits receive nothing*, the survivors get more. The tontine-like nature sucks if you're the movie cop who dies two days before retirement.

*I'm referring to the pension benefit of Social Security here. I know there are other benefits that make up a small part of the program.

[BlairWitch749]

Are the individual accounts assets that can be passed on to one's heirs? One of the benefits of any defined benefit pension plan is that because people who die before receiving benefits receive nothing*, the survivors get more. The tontine-like nature sucks if you're the movie cop who dies two days before retirement.

*I'm referring to the pension benefit of Social Security here. I know there are other benefits that make up a small part of the program.

Yes, minus a small transfer tax; these individual accounts will be able to be passed on to heirs; a la the Chile model which both there and in studies from the Heritage foundation has been shown to drastically increase the savings rate and reduce wealth inequality

[FDW]

Yes, minus a small transfer tax; these individual accounts will be able to be passed on to heirs; a la the Chile model which both there and in studies from the Heritage foundation has been shown to drastically increase the savings rate and reduce wealth inequality

Has that study been confirmed by groups other than the Heritage foundation?

[BlairWitch749]

Has that study been confirmed by groups other than the Heritage foundation?

it's been physically confirmed on the ground by Chile who saw their savings rate increase dramatically over a 30 year period

the wall street journal estimated in 2006 that a similar program would add 6 or 7 trillion dollars to social security's total assets within 20 years

[usertron2020]

it's been physically confirmed on the ground by Chile who saw their savings rate increase dramatically over a 30 year period

the wall street journal estimated in 2006 that a similar program would add 6 or 7 trillion dollars to social security's total assets within 20 years

I'd still like to see those studies confirmed by organizations other than the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal. You know, some outfits who are NOT currently pushing Pope Benedict XVI to declare Ronald Reagan the patron saint of the United States.:p Despite the fact that Reagan was not a Roman Catholic.:rolleyes:

[Hendryk]

it's been physically confirmed on the ground by Chile who saw their savings rate increase dramatically over a 30 year period
Savings rate is not a relevant factor. The Chinese have one of the world's highest savings rates, but that's precisely because they know they'll have nothing but their own savings to fall back on in case of health problem.

This TL, which was a political author tract from the start, now reads like a barely-redacted version of the posts you used to make in the health care debates a couple of years ago. If you want to claim that a system that will pour plenty of money in your pockets is the best thing ever, do it in Chat. This forum is for alternate history, not political wish fulfilment.

[BlairWitch749]

I'd still like to see those studies confirmed by organizations other than the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal. You know, some outfits who are NOT currently pushing Pope Benedict XVI to declare Ronald Reagan the patron saint of the United States.:p Despite the fact that Reagan was not a Roman Catholic.:rolleyes:

It's fairly logical UT... SS as currently allocated buys bonds which have been in a low interest rate cycle for 30 years; whereas the DOW (provided you reinvest dividends) has far and away outpaced those bounds... even last year where there were swings up and down; and the DOW finished relatively unchanged (up 1 and change percenter) had you reinvested your quarterly dividends which happened to coincide nicely with several dips in the market; you would have been up 8 percent per Jim Cramer (an ardent Obama supporter no less) on Street Signs last week

making 8 percent is superior to making 4 percent:)

[BlairWitch749]

Savings rate is not a relevant factor. The Chinese have one of the world's highest savings rates, but that's precisely because they know they'll have nothing but their own savings to fall back on in case of health problem.

This TL, which was a political author tract from the start, now reads like a barely-redacted version of the posts you used to make in the health care debates a couple of years ago. If you want to claim that a system that will pour plenty of money in your pockets is the best thing ever, do it in Chat. This forum is for alternate history, not political wish fulfilment.

Hendryk,

I am going to stick my New Year's resolution and be polite

The US for decades had a nearly negative savings rate; I'm no expert on China to comment on the dynamics that shape their rates; but in the US people building up a small reserve of money would be a welcome change versus the over aggressive spending of OTL

If you where to run a search, you would see I posed the concept of Monica getting pregnant as a board question back in 2009 and then spent a lot of time after that taking some of the suggestions and crafting it into a TL

I haven't played loose with the facts... Monica and Bill had a sexual relationship, Monica and Bill were sexually active on the dates I chose in this TL, Monica's friend Linda Tripp was secretly compiling proof of the affair for a future books release and media expose, the affair was exposed by Clinton's enemies and used in an effort to destroy him, it is rumored privately that Hillary was furious over the Lewinsky affair, the republicans have wanted to partially privatize social security since the 1980's and tried unsuccessfully to do so in 2006; and it is still part of the republican party platform and was included in the Ryan budget plan

So in regards to social security being privatized... I took something that was republican party platform; endorsed by Phil Gramm in real life, physically attempted by the Republicans in 2006, and is still part of their platform today and inserted it into a timeline where the Republicans had taken the white house and had big majorities in congress..... do you see a plausibility issue with that?

[Sean Mulligan]

Would the privatized Social Security System provide the same survivors and disability payments provided for under the current system?

[jerseyrules]

Look forward to more; great as usual ;)

[jerseyrules]

Bump it up

[jerseyrules]

Bumping this

[jerseyrules]

Are you there, mr. Blair?

[BlairWitch749]

Are you there, mr. Blair?

RL has been swamped... :o

[jerseyrules]

RL has been swamped... :o

I understand ;)

[BlairWitch749]

It's all about the money... money... money (part of the SPOA series) - If we don't make tough decisions today our children are going to have to make much, much tougher decisions tomorrow. - Paul Ryan on his first campaign

Summer 1998 Washington DC

Jennifer Dunn strolled into the Oval Office with a few CBO and OMB aids shuffling behind her as she triumphantly held a large binder in her hand ready for presentation to President Gramm

The first quarterly results of the SPOA were in, and she was going to brief the president on performance and administrative progress prior to announcing results to the media... and she had to admit, the numbers were damn good.

Social Security within the context of the rapidly growing economy was taking in, in excess of 100 billion dollars a quarter, and even though the SPOA had only just started offering services, over 30 billion dollars had been invested in just the last three months alone; and in the context of that new investment, and the incredible surge in earning generated by the banks and the furiously expanding technology sector, the Dow Jones Industrial average had burst through 9,000 points and currently sat at 9800 points.

Dunn could barely contain her grin as she presented the allocations and plans to improve allocation and get more people signed up as the program matured and more people became aware of it, and then the president asked the question she could hardly contain herself from blurting out it's answer from when she walked in the door

"Mr President, the SPOA made 18 billion dollars in profit this quarter beyond benefits to be paid and standard setting aside of reserves"

"Say again Jenn I thought you just said the SPOA made 18 billion dollars since January"

"It did Mr. President"

"(Running his fingers over his bald head)...is there any chance that has been leaked to the media... how long can we keep a lid on it"

"I just finished compiling all the reports; congress is due for feedback on friday, and the SPOA is required to file a quarterly report by October 15th with full disclosure"

"Allright, allright... I'm thinking... I want to give a prime time address to announce the good news; let the democrats really have to choke on their words about how this would "destroy" the retirement system... then I want us to make a big public spectacle about buying back and retiring some bonds with that money, the market and the press will love that, we can ride the coat tails of that strait through the midterms if we play our cards right"

"I can imagine it will be an interesting day in the bond pits in Chicago when we start doing that"

"Bill Gross, El-Ahrian and all the other bond junkies who have been trying to throw off the boom with their stupid ideas about how that run on the banks in Russia makes the USA a more difficult investment requiring higher rates will have to eat their damn hats"

"Well besides having the Smith Barney managers eat their hats, it will surely attract a whole bunch of foreign investment into our private sector... assuming of course we can manage the environment and make a face of asking for it; but that is still secondary to the joy we should take in letting the democrats get roasted for their being on the wrong side of this"

"(Slamming his fists on the table in triumph) Now that is why I am in politics; I am going to go on at 845 on Thursday... pre-empt Seinfeld and Friends... oh making those dem front men at NBC have to take money away from their ad dollars to show my pretty face.... I love this job sometimes Jen; thank you for all your hard work on this, I need you and your team to put together some easy to understand charts for me to show on tv; then I want you Joe and Spence to come up with some talking points for the talk shows and filter this into the committee so we can get some damn campaign ads going to light a fire for our guys in the midterms"

to be continued...

thoughts?

[Cylon_Number_14]

First, let me put plain that I have only a basic understanding of how SPOA works; second, let me say I really hope that this doesn't cause yet another political argument here...

So... it made $18 billion in a quarter during the superheated 90's economic boom. How do you think the program would do during periods of barely-adequate growth and during recessions? At what point would there be a net loss for a quarter and how would that be dealt with by the program?

[BlairWitch749]

First, let me put plain that I have only a basic understanding of how SPOA works; second, let me say I really hope that this doesn't cause yet another political argument here...

So... it made $18 billion in a quarter during the superheated 90's economic boom. How do you think the program would do during periods of barely-adequate growth and during recessions? At what point would there be a net loss for a quarter and how would that be dealt with by the program?

the SPOA is being run as a mix between CALPERS/NYS Pension fund and a semi self managed 401k

That 18 billion represented it's first quarter in action with it's assets only just starting to build

The way I have had Gramm build the program; half of gains are placed into reserve for future social security stability (ie rainy day fund) half pays down the national debt

Considering it would largely be buying index funds and dividend paying large caps; and has huge ongoing investment quarter over quarter; I would guesstimate that the DOW/S&P 500 would have to lose 3ish percent in a quarter for the fund to only break even

[jerseyrules]

Glad to see this back!

[thekingsguard]

always happy to see an update here

[jerseyrules]

Hope to see an update soon, hopefully summer brings showers of updates in all the good TLs ;)

[jerseyrules]

I gotta bump this. I'm sorry, but it was God's work my boy

[jerseyrules]

I completely understand that you're busy, I'm just wondering when you'll be done with school? Will we get an update then? :o:D

[kevvy2010]

Pretty good timeline so far, but I have one nitpick. Why not have Bob Dole remain the nominee? Why the old cliche of some guy slipping and being physically incapacitated, thus having things turn out differently? It would have been more interesting to see a Dole Administration.

[usertron2020]

Pretty good timeline so far, but I have one nitpick. Why not have Bob Dole remain the nominee? Why the old cliche of some guy slipping and being physically incapacitated, thus having things turn out differently? It would have been more interesting to see a Dole Administration.

The OP has a mancrush on Gramm.:p

[Kome]

I completely understand that you're busy, I'm just wondering when you'll be done with school? Will we get an update then? :o:DBlairwitch is in school? Say wha? :confused:

[jerseyrules]

Blairwitch is in school? Say wha? :confused:

I just assumed.

[BlairWitch749]

Blairwitch is in school? Say wha? :confused:

Yea, makes one feel old, I graduated college in 2004.

Since I got promoted at work I've had less time for TL crafting, to say nothing of Victoria's cancer scare (plus she is a busy ass little toddler now)

I promise an update on Saturday

[magussprite]

Yea, makes one feel old, I graduated college in 2004.

Since I got promoted at work I've had less time for TL crafting, to say nothing of Victoria's cancer scare (plus she is a busy ass little toddler now)

I promise an update on Saturday

I just went through this in one complete reading... can't wait for more!!!

[jerseyrules]

can't wait for more!!!

^^^^ this ^^^^^ :D

[BlairWitch749]

It's all about the money... money... money (part of the SPOA series) If borrowing and spending all this money led to more jobs than we would be at full employment already - Paul Ryan

Washington DC May 1998 Just Before the sweeps for Seinfeld and Friends

President Gramm, walked confidently, no bounded to the podium for his prime time 845pm address on the SPOA's first reported progress.

My fellow Americans, we fought a long difficult battle to reform social security and bring it into the 20th and soon 21st century. There was a lot of good honest debate mixed in with a healthy dose of fear of change, But I can here tonight report to you, the financial markets and the world that our changes ARE working. I am delighted at this time to announce that on top of paying all benefits and setting aside more than 14 billion dollars for the social security trust fund in the last three months, the SPOA has returned an additional 19 billion dollars in profits the last three months. In previous times and years both parties would call for a windfall such as this to be either returned as tax cuts or offer new social programs to be offered with that money. That is why the SPOA is so different as this will not be done; instead, that money will be used to retire some of America's outstanding bonds some of which go back in vintage to the late 1960's. There is no reason in the world that a country with an economy as dynamic and powerful as ours should be a debtor nation. I intend tomorrow to make an appearance in front of my fellow Texan Ross Perot's debt clocks tomorrow, retire the bonds and for the first time in my adult life time; and indeed the first time in the lifetime of far too many americans watch our national debt actually go backwards.

This has to be our goal as a nation; not only to produce a balanced budget which we have done this year and last, but to pay off the borrowing of the past; republican and democrat created alike. Not being saddled with that debt will allow fantastic new opportunities for our government to invest in magnificent projects of all walks from modernizing our colleges to putting a man on mars by 2010; and it will also allow for sustained, permanent, growth creating tax relief in the future

I thank you for your time this evening, and am inherently proud of the fine people who put the SPOA together, and you the american people for seizing the opportunity to build wealth in a way our parents could never have imagined. God bless you, and god bless the United States


To call Gramm's press conference game changing and shocking would have been a grave disservice. The evening news ran the story clear through 930pm screwing up sweeps as people hungered for additional information. Dunn had done her job as administration officials flocked with their chests bowed out to all the cable and conventional outlets for interviews on how successful the SPOA had been to date. As Spencer Abraham on Matt Drudge's "DRUDGE REPORT ON FOX", 2 years ago I couldn't honestly tell you my children would ever see a dime of social security; and now I am more hopeful for the country than I have even been in my life; I have to say the President worked a miracle on this

Drudge's website received a leak from gallup that night that had him pre-empt their tracking poll with pleasing results for the administration


Do you approve of President Gramm's job performance
Yes: 58 percent
No: 37 percent
unsure: 5 percent

Do you approve of the SPOA/Social Security reform
Yes: 54: percent
No: 41 percent
unsure: 5 percent

to be continued

thoughts?

[Imperator Novae Zealandae]

Cool. Great to see another update.

[thekingsguard]

Huzzah an update!

It's kind of sad there's no way I'll see something like that last update happen in the near future... (sigh)

[jerseyrules]

Awesome to see an update! More please ;)

[FDW]

I was wondering when you were going to post again.

[Sean Mulligan]

As Spencer Abraham on Matt Drudge's "DRUDGE REPORT ON FOX", 2 years ago I couldn't honestly tell you my children would ever see a dime of social security; and now I am more hopeful for the country than I have even been in my life; I have to say the President worked a miracle on this





Thats garbage. The guy is either misinformed or a liar. Figures from the Social Security Trust Fund at the Time showed that with only moderate average annual growth rate Social Security would meet all or at least most of its obligations for the next 75 years. The program wasn't in any crisis.

[jerseyrules]

Thats garbage. The guy is either misinformed or a liar. Figures from the Social Security Trust Fund at the Time showed that with only moderate average annual growth rate Social Security would meet all or at least most of its obligations for the next 75 years. The program wasn't in any crisis.

This is just one opinion. That doesn't make it fact

[BlairWitch749]

It's all about the money... money... money (part of the SPOA series) -The genius of the American system is that through freedom we have created extraordinary results from plain old ordinary people - Phil Gramm

Ross Perot's Time's Square Debt Clock May 1998 9am

President Phil Gramm reveled in the moment, as the Smith Barney and other well known bond traders were compelled to gather around as he historically ordered Robert Rubin and Jennifer Dunn to issue the calls on 19 billion dollars in the oldest outstanding American bonds. And with that the debt clock which had run up to 3.244 trillion dollars rolled back to 3.225 trillion dollars. Photographs were taken but Gramm made no speech as his address from the previous evening already covered what had and would happen. Besides, he had been offered and accepted the opportunity ring the opening bell at the NYSE today; and given how the futures looked, it wasn't something he would have ever missed.

Asian markets were open when Gramm hit the airwaves and their shares began trading sharply higher. The bond pits and the commodities markets were already open today for business and the story they told was amazing. Yields on the benchmark ten year treasury imploded; breaking through 5 and then 4 percent in the first hour of trading before finding support at 3.25 percent. Oil similarly was roughly handled dropping through 15, then 14 then 13, then 12 dollars a barrel before finding support as the dollar gained heavily against all other currencies.

But the actual equity futures were THE big story. Particularly after Jennifer Dunn had made a 925 appearance on CNBC's squwak box program with the administration friendly Larry Kudlow and Mark Haines where she announced that the SPOA was flooded with calls from citizens looking to enroll and that her office expected 4 million new applications in the coming quarter. The futures surged almost out of control; The dow's implied open would see her burst through 10,000 points and 11,000 points within minutes of the open. The Nasdaq's implied open would see her gain 450 points nearly hitting the sky high 3000 point level. The S&P 500's implied open would see it break 1100 and 1200 within minutes.

Gramm rang the bell to the thunderous applause of the furiously bidding trading pits. Volume was astronomical as retail and corporate investor alike joined in the feeding frenzy creating a tremendous backlog of orders which created slowdown in the NYSE and NASDAQ's computer networks. The SEC was forced to call a 30 minute halt to trading at 1047 AM to allow the network to catch up and to hopefully circuit break what had become a nearly out of control rally. At the halt the Dow stood at 11,273.58 with literally thousands of "market" buy orders stacked on her. To the SEC's consternation, this merely gave people more time to stack orders and when trading resumed it quickly shot up another 200 points. Michael Dell's former firm went from 18.70 dollars a share (despite a recent stock split dilution) to over 26 dollars a share in the first two hours of trading. Short sellers entered a complete panic adding to the frantic buying activity

It would not be until 2pm that the volume would finally begin to slow down to a more manageable pace as everyone who was going to put in an order that day, had done so or been scared off by the rapid price gains. The Dow gave back 150 points in the last 15 minutes of trading as longer term investors locked in their once in a generation gift and the close was pegged at 11,309.94. The stock market had gained more than 2 trillion dollars in total value in a single day. The SPOA raked in more than 35 billion dollars beyond required benefits and reserves for the quarter in a single day

Phil Gramm omitted all the restaurants New York had to offer instead preferring to sit in the presidential suite at the 4 seasons with his wife and his staff attentively glued to the returns coming in on CNBC and the round the clock cable coverage of the market's explosion to the upside. His grin was near permanent as guest after guest both business based and employed by the administration came on praising this as America's most glorious economic day in her history. Joe Scarboroughs "this is why we elected an economist to be our president" had the president slamming his fists on the table in sheer joy as to his triumph

Gramm and his wife ordered room service for themselves and the staff as the evening cable shows came on. Matt Drudge's "Drudge Report on Fox" at 10pm once again secured leaks at gallup and the wall street journal with new polling data

Do you approve of President Gramm's job performance
Approve 62 percent
Disapprove 31 percent
Unsure 7 percent

Do you approve of the SPOA/Social Security Reform
Approve 60 percent
Disapprove 34 percent
Unsure 6 percent

Do you think President Gramm deserves reelection
Yes 58 percent
No 35 percent
Unsure 7 percent

Who would you vote for in the following hypothetical presidential election match up in 2000

Gramm 57
Gore 35
Unsure 7

Gramm 60
Daschle 33
Unsure 7

Gramm 56
Nelson 39
Unsure 5

Gramm 60
Gephardt 33
Unsure 7


to be continued...

thoughts?

[jerseyrules]

Great to see another update :D

It seems as if business-friendly candidates will do very well in the midterms, seeing as the economy is roaring (I'm not sure that's even a good enough word). Perhaps a certain Mormon businessman might even make his debut as Massachusetts' governor four years early ;)

I'm not sure about figures at the time, but this will either usher in a massive, sustained economic boom or bust the market with the economy unable to sustain itself. Hopefully the former ;)

[Imperator Novae Zealandae]

Great to see another update :D


I'm not sure about figures at the time, but this will either usher in a massive, sustained economic boom or bust the market with the economy unable to sustain itself. Hopefully the former ;)

I could see the market crashing shortly. Great to see another update though.

[BlairWitch749]

I could see the market crashing shortly. Great to see another update though.

that is certainly a ponderable... IMO something like SPOA especially one that publicly pays back debt would certainly cause a significant spike; especially piled on to the enthusiasm of the .com boom. the question is does the market implode as bad as otl; worse? or does the SPOA put in a floor of constant new money that stops a correction before it reaches bear market level

[FDW]

that is certainly a ponderable... IMO something like SPOA especially one that publicly pays back debt would certainly cause a significant spike; especially piled on to the enthusiasm of the .com boom. the question is does the market implode as bad as otl; worse? or does the SPOA put in a floor of constant new money that stops a correction before it reaches bear market level

I'm inclined to say worse, in part because of my belief in the human capability to fuck shit up.

[jerseyrules]

I'm inclined to say worse, in part because of my belief in the human capability to fuck shit up.

Sig-worthy ;)

[MrHuman]

Sig-worthy ;)

Exactly what I was thinking!

[jerseyrules]

Update? :o