They attacked John Glenn for having “never held a job” so I know what you mean.
I thought it was his fellow-Democrat, Howard Metzenbaum, who said that about him (in the Primary).
They attacked John Glenn for having “never held a job” so I know what you mean.
I thought it was his fellow-Democrat, Howard Metzenbaum, who said that about him (in the Primary).
I agree with you here; Wallace had the potential to be one of my favorite politicians ever. He was an anti-establishment firebrand who would have fitted any “Liberal Republicans, Populist Democrats” Timeline if not for that loss. He always wanted to “stand up for the little guy”, and while that was usually directed towards working class white people, it could have easily made him a strong fighter for civil rights and the working class. A Southern Henry Jackson if you will. Unfortunately, he was too much of an opportunist, and we only saw his non racist side following 1972, when he began to leave any potential position of power outside of Alabama. If he had switched back to being pro-Civil Rights earlier, like after the CRA, like WJ Bryan Dorn, he would’ve made a great running mate for HHH in 1968, or, a great candidate in 1976.George Wallace (If he hadn't turned racist; note that he did not partake in the 1948 Dixiecrat walkout in the DNC and was pretty moderate on race issues until his "I'll never be out-n******* again*" gubernatorial loss in 1958)
That, at first blush, sounds a lot like Herbert Hoover.Would the much mentioned Al Gore have been a good president? Most insider accounts paint him as very risk averse and indecisive. Remember that (whether you are from either the left or right) there is an enormous chasm between "ideologically sound" and "good". Are they an effective administrator, able to delegate properly and to work with Congress? Are they a flexible thinker and able to adapt to changing circumstances?
Would the much mentioned Al Gore have been a good president? Most insider accounts paint him as very risk averse and indecisive. Remember that (whether you are from either the left or right) there is an enormous chasm between "ideologically sound" and "good". Are they an effective administrator, able to delegate properly and to work with Congress? Are they a flexible thinker and able to adapt to changing circumstances?
Hoover was a more capable President than many give him credit for but a rather rigid thinker and doctrinaire in economic matters. He is also a good example of the a person who would surely have been on any list of "alt-Presidents" in a TL where he hadn't been elected and long screeds would be written about how he would have dealt more capably with the 1929 Crash than the sitting President.
Ray Mabus, as an alternative to Bill Clinton. Birch Bayh, Howard Baker, James Baker. John Heinz, Mickey Leland, and Paul Wellstone, if they hadn't died. George Marshall. In the 19th century, John Marshall, Winfield Hancock. And of course, Robert "by the way it is" Kennedy. I agree with the other person who said he's the best president we never had.
Just about any of the OTL runners up post-1900, save Goldwater and perhaps McGovern or Bryan - though I suspect even Bryan wouldn't have been half as bad as sometimes supposed.
As for alternative nominees, Champ Clark would be fine in 1912, and Wood, Lowden or just about anyone other than Harding in 1920.
Had Wilson not finished his second term, Marshall would have plugged the gap as well as anyone.
Any of Johnson, Stevenson or Symington in 1960, or Rockefeller on the other ticket. Muskie, Jerry Brown, Jack Kemp and Gary Hart would all be interesting. John Glenn any time.
The President needs to be able to work with the legislature granted, but his role is essentially Executive. Terrorist incidents, diplomatic crises, North Korean nuclear tests, pirates seizing US vessels in the Red Sea don't operate at a very leisurely pace -and nor does modern media. At the end of the day, no lives depend upon the success of the Presidential campaign!Now, all of that being said, I don't know if this undercuts his ability to potentially be a good President. The campaign is much more rapid fire than the slower pace of the legislative process
The President needs to be able to work with the legislature granted, but his role is essentially Executive. Terrorist incidents, diplomatic crises, North Korean nuclear tests, pirates seizing US vessels in the Red Sea don't operate at a very leisurely pace -and nor does modern media. At the end of the day, no lives depend upon the success of the Presidential campaign!
most crooked (Grant) were generals,
Would the much mentioned Al Gore have been a good president? Most insider accounts paint him as very risk averse and indecisive. Remember that (whether you are from either the left or right) there is an enormous chasm between "ideologically sound" and "good". Are they an effective administrator, able to delegate properly and to work with Congress? Are they a flexible thinker and able to adapt to changing circumstances?
That, at first blush, sounds a lot like Herbert Hoover.
Wasn't trying to quote your selectively and I am sure that campaigns are pretty high octane stuff but, having worked on (animal and public health ) crisis response teams it's like the man said "Plan but don't plan on the plan". Amazing the amount of unforeseen stuff that needs to go to the top of the house for an (immediate ) decision. You don't need a genius in charge but you do need someone decisive.Yeah, that's why I mentioned a rapid-response strategy on events outside of their control in the part you didn't quote.
What I mean is, for example, if you have a BP-oil spill, you're immediately going to focus on that-- on a campaign, you have to set thematic elements, and parcel out resources on more of a blank canvass, which Gore was clearly not good at. Presidents still have agenda setting, but the parts that they can control, are mainly legislative and move at a more tedious pace. The parts they can't control are generally things that they still have to focus on, so this Gore weakness would not necessarily point to ineffective leadership. After 9/11, I don't expect Gore would have the same indecision as he did on campaign messaging issues or where to throw out ad points in the final weeks.
Also, as someone who has worked on his fair share of campaigns, it always feels pretty life and death in the moment.
Grant wasn't actually crooked he just had alot of bad subordinates around him IIRC