"Death of a President" Actually Takes Place

Over a year without a VP?
That's generally been the norm. Not necessarily something he has to stick with, though.

And I don't know about that loss. With the assination National Security is brought back to the fore as a political issue. , which generally favors Republicans.

Hillary is not to bad on that, as she voted for the Iraqi invasion (thus not seen as soft ) but Cheney would definetly be seen as a scarier leader (to our enemies) and would still likely be benifiting from some sympathy and rally around leader thinking.
Perhaps, but the Republicans (having control of the White House and government for those many years) will already be known entities not just on national security but on all issues, which doesn't favor them given the approval ratings from the public. Similarly, there's only so much closing your eyes and plugging your ears a public can do in a decade, so to speak. We'd already done that not long after 9/11 where it was your a$$ if you dared speak out against the President or US policy. I doubt they'd get that following Bush which is what would favor Cheney because people already kept that whole "Freedom Fries" period in mind and lampooned it by 2007. Again, I expect sympathy humanistically, but not politically; that public blissful ignorance period is too worn out.
 
Every VP since 1900 who succeeded to the office ran in the following election.

I think Cheney might well have.

Prior to the 25th amendment- 1967 I think- there was no provision for replacing a VP before the following election. I am sure that a VP would have been nominated and confirmed.

I am inclined to think that were Cheney the candidate the overall unpopularity of that administration would out weigh the year old sympathy following the assassination.
 
Bush never went through the Civil war nor did something as momentous as ending slavery and saving the Union. Not to mention Lincoln was not seen as a Great Satan of sorts among everyone. There was a vocal group and ever increasing public sentiment to end the war and opinion that Lincoln was being tyrannical, but Lincoln managed to maintain support and win in 1864 due to Union successes gaining the support of the public for the Lincoln Presidency. Similarly, as has been said much whenever Bush or co. tried to compare George to Lincoln, you can be disliked for sucking just as much as you can for doing good, but it doesn't mean the former suddenly transforms into the latter as a result.

JFK had 60% approval ratings and was facing multiple social and geopolitical problems which transformed the 20th century (Civil rights, poverty, space, the Cold war and so forth), and his assassination largely brought out feelings of sadness at a loss of the future.

Johnson one was a disaster. Two was good and historians are casting LBJ in an ever more improved light.

Bush would be remembered like McKinley if McKinley were disliked and rammed the country into the ground.

Thing is Bush won a second term so he he can't have been that despised at least for election period time. He probably wouldn't be deified as Lincoln or JFK were but some other posts which basically keep him being despised despite his death seem unrealistic. In the short term at least it would be considered in bad taste to express such views and probably would be unexceptable to many for decades. Think how critics of JFK still have to qualify things so as not to appear to be supporting his assasination.
McKinley's probably a good fit, respected for his death but largely forgotten otherwise.
I'll disagree with you on LBJ- he may not have been one of the worst but he hardly qualifies as good- Vietnam and Great Society see to that and overshadow his achievments in Civil Rights and elsewhere.
 
Thing is Bush won a second term so he he can't have been that despised at least for election period time.
Bush won a second term already on the rocks and by a bare margin, and things plummeted from the cliff head first starting in 2005 if I recall.
He probably wouldn't be deified as Lincoln or JFK were but some other posts which basically keep him being despised despite his death seem unrealistic. In the short term at least it would be considered in bad taste to express such views and probably would be unexceptable to many for decades.

Think how critics of JFK still have to qualify things so as not to appear to be supporting his assasination.
McKinley's probably a good fit, respected for his death but largely forgotten otherwise.
The wind would be sucked out of the mood, with probably a bit of frustration at having to hold one's tongue, but I don't see the mood going away. Bush would be remembered without such burning passion of dislike, but still dislike. Similarly, unlike Kennedy, Bush was majority detractor, minority support; Kennedy the reverse.


I'll disagree with you on LBJ- he may not have been one of the worst but he hardly qualifies as good- Vietnam and Great Society see to that and overshadow his achievments in Civil Rights and elsewhere.
The Great Society instituted a number of important programs and fulfilled many that FDR himself wanted to carry out but never could do to GOP opposition and his death. The problem was that it lead to debt, not so much out of itself as trying to pay for both it and the Vietnam ulcer. One or the other could be funded, not both, and that's why we had to pay for it throughout 1970's and in many ways even up to today. Vietnam was bad, but it does not or should not overshadow so many other achievements.
 
I will say this: often what occurred was that the less palatable parts of JFK's legacy were transferred to LBJ. As regards the film I agree with Mark , Death of a President isassassination porn like JFK and its ilk.

OOC: I thought this was William Manchester's book of the same name we were discussing, which is just as grotesque but in a different way.
 

Jasen777

Donor
An assassination in today's media environment would be huge, rivaling 9/11. A similar rally to the flag and doves being quiet would happen. Bush's legacy would get a considerable boost.

Terror and the wars remain the biggest issues in the elections, with even the economy and health care relegated to second tier status. Obama's campaign never gains traction and Clinton cruises to a fairly easy victory over Edwards in the Democratic primaries.

Cheney will have to nominate a VP right away as there will be a scare about further "terrorist" actions and assassinations, as well as health concerns, and Pelosi is next in line until he does.

Just about everything depends on what Cheney wants to do. Considering he never had any interesting in running for President I don't think he would run in 2008, though it's possible he could change his mind after getting a taste. But I'd go with the assumption that he won't.

Any reasonable person nominated by Cheney would likely to be confirmed in this situation. The question is if Cheney wants to pick someone to be a caretaker with him, or if he wants to appoint a raising star and make them heir apparent. Caretaker choices could see people like Gates, Powell, Baker, Kemp, etc. Given that Cheney never threw his weight around much in the primaries in OTL, this seems pretty plausible. There's not anyone great around to appoint as the heir appearent anyways who Cheney likes.

Assuming Cheney gets someone like Powell who isn't interested in running in '08 appointed, it's hard not to see McCain winning the Republican nomination since the issues are going to be more favorable to him. A McCain vs. Clinton close election seems like a very reasonable prediction. If the housing buble can hold off acouple months I'd think McCain would have a slight edge, but a slight edge for Clinton if the housing bubble bursts on schedule.

The Veep picks for such a race would be completely up in the air. McCain might not feel the same need to pander to base with a pick like Palin. Normally Obama might be a good pick, but given his middle name and inexpereince, he would seem a bit unlikely in this situation. For her sake hopefully Clinton would avoid Edwards.
 
I'm of the mindset that Bush would've probably gotten near-martyr status, (if not complete) specially due to his defining moments during 9/11, and since in this WI the public perception is that he was killed by a muslim. Hell Lincoln did more things that were against the Constitutional Rights of Americans than Bush did, and people were willing to give HIM the benefit of the doubt.

I don't know if Cheney would've run for another term. Probably depends on how things turned out in the wake of Bush's assassination.
 
I've had one thought on this that would prevent a presidential run by Cheney which is his health. If the assasination occurs around the time he was having heart troubles the stress of that and the presidency may severly impact his health preventing him running again. Even Bush was visibly aged by the presidency and he was extremely healthy and athletic going in.
 
Top