Bookmark1995
Banned
It was one of the last times the moderate Republicans had any real influence. Flash forward to 1996 and the 70+ Bob Dole was considered a "liberal Republican" by Goldwater.
Blue Skies in Camelot: An Alternate 60's and Beyond
- Thread starter President_Lincoln
- Start date
It was one of the last times the moderate Republicans had any real influence. Flash forward to 1996 and the 70+ Bob Dole was considered a "liberal Republican" by Goldwater.
He did not get it because you cant be an ass like Ford was on the issue and demand Effectivelly Co Governance, Influence and maybe a pick of a high value office in the Cabinet, sure but demanding to share power is a disrespectful overreach and is not within the vice Presidents duties.
Wasn't it the other way around? Ford wasn't asking for co-governance, Reagan was offering it.
No, Reagan asked him if he would be willing to do the vice presidency and he responded by demanding Co governance for the job. that got it dropped like a rock,
Huh I didn't that's what happened and why he got dropped. Thanks for letting me know.
I don't think it's been explicitly stated that Hillary was entirely more political but I believe she is a lawyer or some sort of politician while her husband Bush Jr. Is involved in a business career so she would probably be more likely to run for office(which would be interested given the support of the Bush family and some Rockefeller republicans).
What state would she run in? Connecticut? Massachusetts? New York?
To be fair....he may have done that to get dropped.
As I recall his ambition was to be and remain Speaker of the House, he didn't want to PotUS or VP.
So he may have deliberately made an unreasonable demand in hopes of being able to go back to the House.
he was retired at this point and never ran for the house again
As the story goes before the Arizona primary Dole leans over to Goldwater and says “we’re the liberals now”. Goldwater himself hated Reagan’s idiot brigade and was true to his principles—absolutely by the 1990s that made even Goldwater liberal versus the party.
Not exactly. It was the TV interview Ford gave that put it in the public eye that cancelled it. Reagan was deeply considering the Ford option and might well have taken it barring the interview. Because his other choices were Bush and Baker, compared to them… yeah I would have tried to get Ford too.
That's still rotten too, preempting the nominee like that and laying out those ridiculous demands (which wraps !we make him look like a chump) also what's wrong with Bush and Howard Baker?
Last edited:
Floor of the convention interview with Cronkite. Here’s a psych paper speculating it was therapy for Ford to be so open lol.
? Ford told Reagan what he wanted. Reagan considered it, and almost accepted. Negotiation is how politics works (barring one side choosing to unilaterally obstruct but that would break the system).
—
In the view of the time?
Bush is a lightweight loser wimp with no backbone. But he got the second most votes and would be a quick and easy “unite the party” move if no Ford. Plus he’s kept his adultery quiet unlike some people.
Baker is boring and adds nothing to the ticket except reassuring people that a grown up is on the ticket versus the far right still scary Reagan. So third choice.
Last edited:
Just noticed the typos, stupid kindle fire...
2. Announcing things like that before there finalized is a massive breach of trust and has the potential to undermine the campaign.That alone should of screwed him
1. That was improper to ask for, the President is the one in charge and their should not be any question about it. It also is very insulting basically saying you don't have the stuff to measure up and he wants to be there for training wheels.
2. Announcing things like that before there finalized is a massive breach of trust and has the potential to undermine the campaign.That alone should of screwed him
Yeah...excellent Foregin policy guy who knows his place and can act as a good go between with foreign leaders and do a excellent job keeping a level head if things go to hell. He's my first choice Also what adultery?
A southern senator who could do a good job guiding the agenda through the senate. Also a pretty darn good choice to me...
1. Some of Reagan’s advisors thought of it like you, Reagan himself was willing to talk. Think of it like Ford asking to be Mondale/Gore powerful, which is unusual from historical VP standards but already not unprecedented
2. It, uh, did kill Ford’s chances.
This timeline’s Bush is a far far better man than OTL but he had the right circumstances for it and decades less of involvement in ever-crazier internal party politics lol.
Jennifer Fitzgerald was allegedly Bush’s long time mistress, well known in DC. As for how many other affairs he had, who knows?
Like both views on Baker are true, he can be many things
.
2. It, uh, did kill Ford’s chances.
This timeline’s Bush is a far far better man than OTL but he had the right circumstances for it and decades less of involvement in ever-crazier internal party politics lol.
Jennifer Fitzgerald was allegedly Bush’s long time mistress, well known in DC. As for how many other affairs he had, who knows?
Like both views on Baker are true, he can be many things
.
Last edited:
The allegations against Bush in regards to his relationship with Fitzgerald are hardly proven so far as I can tell (supporters of the theory can only point to general suspicions and scattered pieces of "evidence"), and even were it so, this grievous fault shouldn't completely overshadow his general devotion to his family across the rest of his life. The attached Vox article has nothing to do with affairs (also doesn't mention Ms. Fitzgerald), tries to connect him to more grievous offenses by present political figures, and is hardly proof of anything (although those allegations do merit further research on my own part).
This article is hardly damning proof. For one thing, at no point does the author ever go so far as to call Bush spineless, instead arguing against the the tendency to ignore the faults of Bush in the aftermath of his death. Although I do agree with some of the criticisms of the author, particularly concerning Bush's record not he abortion debate (although he would hardly be the first politician to change his own ideals to fit the times), I heartily disagree with many of his others, particularly concerning the Gulf War, where he tries to argue that it would have been a more principled and intelligent thing to try to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 1991 (because nation building in Iraq would definitely have been much more successful in 1991 than 12 years later (sarcasm)).
While the man IOTL had his faults (and I agree that I prefer him ITTL), he handled the country well in a time of great crises abroad and even if he could not remain above the sinking level of political actions during his time in politics, he generally did his best to be a gentleman and respectable statesman.
I thought my opening clearly referenced “view of the time”, but yeah I should have been clearer.
I’m not arguing my viewpoint, I was pointing out what the conventional wisdom was circa 1980 to fill in the picture. Links provided are also not my arguments: think shorthand to help people have a fuller idea of Bush, because people are often complex and can be many things—and the players considering Bush knew and thought about such things.
But as I said, thankfully TTL Bush is a better man
I’m not arguing my viewpoint, I was pointing out what the conventional wisdom was circa 1980 to fill in the picture. Links provided are also not my arguments: think shorthand to help people have a fuller idea of Bush, because people are often complex and can be many things—and the players considering Bush knew and thought about such things.
But as I said, thankfully TTL Bush is a better man
Last edited: