Reagan assassinated in 1981, who does Bush Sr. choose as VP?

We had a thread on this question a few months ago. I'll just repost what I said then.

In terms of political and maybe geographical balance, Laxalt would probably be a good choice for Bush especially since there is a Republican governor of Nevada at the time to appoint his successor. The only issue I see possibly arising would be if Democrats wanted to make the nomination difficult they would probably be able to do so with some of the dirt from Laxalt's time as governor. Another possible option along the same vein (conservative with regional diversity) would be Phil Crane of Illinois, but again Democrats could make his drinking/alcoholism an issue if they wanted to do so.

Like @James G said, I don't see Bush going for Rumsfeld. Dole would be out for many of the same reasons, including personal animosity between him and Bush. You mentioned Cheney also, but I don't think he has the stature to make a VP in 1981 when he's only an ex-C.O.S and two-term member of the House of Representatives.

If Bush is looking to reassure conservatives, he could always go with former Senator James Buckley, Senator Orrin Hatch (who was considered a hard-line conservative back when he was first elected), Representative Jack Kemp, Governor Pete DuPont, or Secretary of Energy James Edwards.

On the other hand, if Bush isn't all that worried about conservatives he may go with someone like Senator John Warner, Senator John Heinz, Senator Dick Lugar, or Senator Howard Baker.

If he wanted to make an historic appointment there are two female candidates who spring immediately to mind: Senators Paula Hawkins of Florida and Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, but I would consider those to be truly long-shot choices.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
Howard Baker seems a good sensible choice. He's not going to excite people / voters but Bush 41 probably wouldn't want that I don't think.
 
Laxalt, despite past dirt would make the most sense IMHO, as he was not only a Conservative that can appease Reaganites, he was also a personal friend of Reagan's. If it does in fact prove hard to get Laxalt confirmed, then Kemp makes the most sense.
 
But Kemp had the charisma and name that Laxalt simply did not, and picking Kemp as opposed to Laxalt, while appeasing the Reaganite faction, would also geographically balance the ticket. The first time a ticket wasn't geographically balanced in modern history was the Clinton/Gore ticket.
 
But Kemp had the charisma and name that Laxalt simply did not, and picking Kemp as opposed to Laxalt, while appeasing the Reaganite faction, would also geographically balance the ticket. The first time a ticket wasn't geographically balanced in modern history was the Clinton/Gore ticket.
Bush/Laxalt isn't THAT unbalanced. Nevada is western, sure, but Texas is just as much southern as it is western, and in this scenario, regional balance wouldn't be THAT important as election day would be more than 3 years away. Also, Kemp wasn't very charismatic at all.
 
Bush/Laxalt isn't THAT unbalanced. Nevada is western, sure, but Texas is just as much southern as it is western, and in this scenario, regional balance wouldn't be THAT important as election day would be more than 3 years away. Also, Kemp wasn't very charismatic at all.

I'd half agree. With the next election so far out, regional balance probably isn't a huge issue, and I don't know if I necessarily see Kemp as being particularly useful in that aspect anyways. If a Republican is going to win New York, by this point in history, it's because they've already got the kind of momentum that's hard to overcome (i.e. Nixon in 72, and Reagan in 80 and 84). However, I have to push back on the idea that Kemp wasn't charismatic. He could be a little out there, for sure, but he was surely more charismatic than George H.W. Bush, and would energize Reaganites even better than Laxalt, imo.

Then again, i'm kind of a Kemp stan, so take this with a grain of salt.
 
Last edited:
Top