WI: Ronald Reagan was assassinated?

I was with you until you said Iraq was a putative Soviet client. Iraq was a US client, and Saddam Hussein was a secular ruler opposed to Iran, Iran was the Soviet client at the time ever since the Ayattollah took over turning Iran into a religiously controlled oligarchy.

Given US antipathy toward Iran, I agree that the situation with respect to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war was complex. The US did favor Iraq in that war. But in most other respects Iraq was a soviet client (mostly)...most of its military hardware was Soviet and its foreign policy was generally pro-Soviet.

You've got to prove to me that Iran was ever a Soviet client state, however. Its Islamic revolutionary government was just about as hostile to the godless USSR as it was to satanic America, and it's my understanding Iran unofficially helped supply US-assistance to the anti-Soviet Mujahedeen fighters in Afghanistan.
 
A majority vote from both branches of Congress is needed to confirm a new VP in this instance. And damn straight Congress would play politics over a VP nomination. Tip O'Neill was not stupid and whereas the Senate gets to confirm ambassadors, cabinet members, Supreme Court justics, and confirm treaties all of which is done without any House of Representative input; the selection of a VP is the ONLY time the House gets to confirm a person and given that party politics is always more divisive in the House than the Senate the House is not used to doing this type of activity. The only times I can recall it happening was Agnew's resignation under Nixon and the selection of Gerald Ford and then Ford on Nixon's resignation nominated and got Nelson Rockefeller as VP. There have been MANY cases of a vacancy of the VP in history and rarely were they filled. Andrew Johnson did not have a VP after Lincoln died, neither did Chester Arthur on Garfield's death, Coolidge did not have a VP, and most importantly- Truman did not have a VP from Roosevelt's death until his swearing in on his own elected term in 1949!

Let us not forget that when Kennedy died, Johnson served out that term without a VP and we were in the height of the Cold War and Vietnam.
Well, that was because the 25th Amendment wasn't enacted until 1967.
 
Well, that was because the 25th Amendment wasn't enacted until 1967.

True. I had thought there was a never used mechanism for selecting a VP after a sitting one resigned, impeached, or "promoted" to President. But I was wrong. So the only two times the 25th could have been used, it was indeed used. I will have to bone up on whether Ford and Rockefeller's nominations were the ones that Nixon and Ford would have picked and if there were any complications or controversies. And of course having your own party in control of Congress helps.
 
The Republicans held the Senate in 1981, they would be able to approve of the VP with no trouble. If the Democrats tried to filibuster the appointment of a new VP in the wake of the assassination, they would take severe losses in both houses of Congress in 1982, with the Republicans taking the House. This would be like the Democrats trying to block the Authorization for military force in Afghanistan in 2001.

In 1974, the main opposition to Rockefeller actually came from conservative Republicans IIRC. In 1973 the Congressional Democrats basically forced Nixon to choose Ford, but Nixon's approval was probably about 50 points lower than Bush's would be after Reagan's assassination.
 
The Republicans held the Senate in 1981, they would be able to approve of the VP with no trouble. If the Democrats tried to filibuster the appointment of a new VP in the wake of the assassination, they would take severe losses in both houses of Congress in 1982, with the Republicans taking the House. This would be like the Democrats trying to block the Authorization for military force in Afghanistan in 2001.

In 1974, the main opposition to Rockefeller actually came from conservative Republicans IIRC. In 1973 the Congressional Democrats basically forced Nixon to choose Ford, but Nixon's approval was probably about 50 points lower than Bush's would be after Reagan's assassination.

It takes BOTH houses of Congress to confirm a Vice President. Not just the Senate. It is the only time the House is involved in a confirmation. Democrats can block in the House, don't need to fillibuster in the Senate.
 
It takes BOTH houses of Congress to confirm a Vice President. Not just the Senate. It is the only time the House is involved in a confirmation. Democrats can block in the House, don't need to fillibuster in the Senate.
Regardless, the point still stands that nobody is going to deny the sitting President during a time of mourning his pick of VP unless the Speaker wants to see horrible losses in the midterms for acting like a petulant child. We're talking about Tip O'Neill, not Newt Gingrich and even he probably wouldn't do this if put in the same position.
 
Regardless, the point still stands that nobody is going to deny the sitting President during a time of mourning his pick of VP unless the Speaker wants to see horrible losses in the midterms for acting like a petulant child. We're talking about Tip O'Neill, not Newt Gingrich and even he probably wouldn't do this if put in the same position.

You're looking at this in a bubble, or I suppose outside the bubble looking at the end result. No president, even in this situation is going to pick his best choice for a VP and send that name to Congress expecting Congress to have no choice but to vote yes on one that will help him win the next election and then go on to be elected twice on his own as President. Closed door meetings between the leadership of both parties in both houses with the President, cabinet, potential nominees; Democrats of both chambers and Republican potential presidential candidates who don't want a strong VP to challenge "their turn" in 7 years will push behind the veil for a weaker VP. Democrats don't have to filibuster in the Senate, don't have to be on the record on the House floor. This is smoke filled backroom stuff.

The idea that the Democrats get hurt by blocking the executive's nominee underestimates the American public and overestimates the political acumen of over 400 individuals with varying interests working together. There's a reason Congress as a whole has the lowest approval rating of just about anything that exists. Gingrich shutting down the government is a prime example. It will be months after Reagan dies before a nominee is even picked let alone put through committees and voted on the floor.
 
Congress isn't going to block Bush's VP appointment. In the wake of an assasination Bush will have the political capital to push through whoever he wants; playing politics here would be political suicide. The whole back-room negoiation thing won't apply here, the minute the Democrats start dragging feet the Republicans will make it a public issue. There's absolutely no point for the Dems to pick a fight with Bush over VP confirmation unless they want to see 50+ losses in the house in 1982.
 
Congress isn't going to block Bush's VP appointment. In the wake of an assasination Bush will have the political capital to push through whoever he wants; playing politics here would be political suicide. The whole back-room negoiation thing won't apply here, the minute the Democrats start dragging feet the Republicans will make it a public issue. There's absolutely no point for the Dems to pick a fight with Bush over VP confirmation unless they want to see 50+ losses in the house in 1982.

Exactly. All Bush has to say is, "The Democrats are refusing to confirm a VP because in case if President Reagan's tragic murder were to occur to me, they want President Tip O'Neill."
 
Top