I think the point was that Ford was elected as VP. (I think)
And I would just like to mention LBJ and whoever replaced Lincoln in case the VP thing doesn’t count:)
Chance…
I’m in a peaceful mood, but would you mind explaining why your logic does not apply to me? I don’t remember advocating flouting a law I didn’t like. However…you are the one upset with the current law being enforced just because you do not like the results.
"I think the point was that Ford was elected as VP. (I think) "
Nope, Ford was picked by Nixon as a replacement for Spiro T. Agnew who was forced to resign V.P. when his sins in the construction industry became public knowledge. The Greek government subsequently banned him from entering the country for the rest of his life.
And I’ll take this opportunity to gently chide Freedom2 by pointing out that LBJ was elected as President in 1964, so for at least four years LBJ was the elected President of the US.
If you’d like to try scraping for other examples, go for Chester Alan Arthur, Andrew Johnson, and John Tyler, the only three vice-presidents to become President through ascension but never be elected as President. But still, they were elected as Vice-President, something Ford never had occur.
(But Bush has been elected by the votes that were counted. The entire issue is whether votes uncounted deserved to be counted, but that in no way means that Bush was “appointed”. Unless you just like twisting terms so you can use them to smear people.)
Freedom2 said: you are the one upset with the current law being enforced just because you do not like the results.
Frankly, this is insulting. My complaint about the electoral college has been running since long before this election. Had the situation been reversed, I’d still be very much in favor of recounts and of flushing the archaic election system that the United States has. Granted, I’m not at all happy that Bush’s stonewalling finally forced this conclusion, but I have to admit, when you’ve got the bird in hand, it’s hard to do the right thing. Agreeing to a fair recount would have been understandably difficult for Bush who was ahead by a very miniscule margin and who had well-placed allies in the state of Florida. Do you see? Conflict of interest. That’s my complaint right now. Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush: conflict of interest.
Now that the election is over, we should change this archaic law. I agree that we should adhere to the law as it stands for the 2000 election. However, I maintain that justice was circumvented by these arbitrary deadlines. We’re talking about the election of the president of the United States and people get hung up on deadlines?!? What the hell? What about a fair and accurate count? I’ll take a fair verdict over a fast verdict any day.
As to Johnson and Johnson: Andrew Johnson was elected. Since he got the runner-up votes in the 1864 Republican primary, he’s considered to have been “elected” president, even though he was sworn in as president solely because Abe Lincoln died in office. The three other “elected” presidents who succeeded a president who died in office were John Tyler (1841), Millard Fillmore (1850), and Chester Arthur (1881). I’m not sure when they stopped nominating vice presidents that way, but I do recall people criticized Harry Truman in the 1948 election for having never been elected. The same might have applied to Teddy Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge, who also took the oath after the president himself died in office, but I’m not sure what the policy was for vice presidential nominations at that time. Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson did win the elections of 1948 and 1964, respectively, so historians consider the two of them to have actually been elected, even though they only ascended to office through unfortunate appointment. This isn’t a slam against Ford or anything; I actually kind of liked the guy, though I do have my criticisms.
I’d like to see your source for this, because it flies in the face of everything I’ve read about Andrew Johnson (which is more than you’d expect).
Johnson wasn’t a Republican- he was a Democrat, and was serving as Military Governor of Tennessee (and formerly the only Southern Senator who did not abandon his post when his state seceeded) when Lincoln asked Johnson to be his running mate. Once Johnson joined the ticket, the Republicans began calling themselves the “War Union” party to draw attention to the fact that Johnson was a Democrat but willing to support the War and Lincoln.
There were no primaries in 1864. The entire primary structure didn’t really even begin until the beginning of the 20th century, and even then it was mostly used as show. And even assuming that there was some strange surrogate election you’re calling a “primary”, Johnson never planned to run for President, and certainly wouldn’t have done so as a Republican. Lincoln’s main competitor for the Republican nomination was John C. Fremont, the failed general and first Republican candidate for President (back in 1856); Fremont even tried to run as a third-party candidate, but pulled out of the race after Sherman took Atlanta and it seemed that the tide of the war was finally turning fully towards the Union.
I think you may be under the mistaken impression that our original system of electing Presidents- the winner of the Electoral College becomes President, the runner-up becomes Vice-President- lasted beyond 1800 and the fiasco that was the Jefferson-Burr conflict. The Constitution was amended so that our current system- each elector votes for both a President and a Vice-President- began with the 1804 election (though the appointment of Vice Presidents due to a vacancy wasn’t established until an Amendment in 1967; thus Ford was the firs VP to be appointed to fill a vacancy).
I’d love to see sources on that as well; for all of the vitriol bestowed upon Truman during his first term, I never heard anyone take umbrage to the fact that he had never been elected.
Well now I’ve seen it all.
I could have sworn this started up top with this:
I’m still floating around in a peaceful mood, but I can’t quite seem to grasp how you can claim I only like the Rule of Law when it is convient, and then get upset when I turn the question around.
I see you are having trouble with a couple of details. Those “well-placed allies” you refer to are both elected officials. Elected by the people fo Florida. Jeb recused himself, and I think he is the ONLY person on either side who should have. Politics is partisan, what do you expect? Do you expect a party to get in power (by the will of the people) and then choose to abdicate it’s responsibility and relinquish power when it might help them?
C’mon…this makes no sense…where would you stop? What is the benefit of ever being in power then?
Archaic like…
The Bill of Rights?
I think you may be surprised that quite a few of us like this system. I’m not sure the age of it has any place in a rational debate. Is freedom of speech any less valid these days, or do you just pick the parts you don’t like? (like the 2A?)
See…we have these things called rights…and then these things called processes to preserve them.
Those “arbitrary” deadlines were in place to preserve the right of the loser to contest the election before Dec. 12th. We got a first hand look at what happens when you extend the original deadline. You end up running out of time for the contest. The harsh reality is that there is a deadline in effect. We can’t keep going forever. There has to be loser and a winner.
Florida sucks…they need new machines…but that is for 2002.
I realize you are mad, but we don’t all agree. Unfortunately we do all have to live together. It makes things a lot more civil when we agree to the rules up front. Al Gore saw that tonight, and respected it. I hope you are able to do the same.
Truman wasn’t the subject of criticism because he wasn’t elected president and had taken over as veep, he was criticized because hardly anyone liked the way he ran the country. Truman bungled a series of crippling labor strikes, for starters.
There was an inevitable postwar recession and Truman got “credit” for being president during it.
He also appeared to not know what some of his Cabinet members were speaking about, in particular, Henry Wallace, who was opposed to Truman’s anti-USSR foreign policy.
I could go on and on with Truman’s first term problems. The only problem he faced in achieving the presidency from the vice-presidency was that he wasn’t Franklin Roosevelt.
As for Andrew Johson, John Corrado has it right. Lincoln felt that he would have a much better chance of reelection if he had a Democrat on the ticket instead of a much more anti-Southern Republican in Hannibal Hamlin.
Reconstruction would have been a lot different with a President Hamlin than a President Johnson.
I don’t think a President Bush instead of a President Gore will present as sharp a difference.
The thought of four years of listening to people calling the President “Shrub” as if it was the funniest joke in the world (“Geddit? Bush? Shrub? Hyuk!”) turns my stomach. I didn’t think “Slick Willie” was funny, nor “Billary”, nor the other endless inanities Rush Limbaugh and his ilk came up with during the last eight years, and I’m not looking forward to at least four years of the other half of the political spectrum producing a similar level of inanity.
As discussed extensively in the George Bush is an Idiot thread, if you can’t get past the man’s name, how do you expect to be taken seriously about any valid criticisms of his actions or policies you may have? Grow up, people.
Here’s hoping Bush confounds his critics and shows a previously unsuspected level of maturity and leadership ability. But I’m not placing any money on it.
jr8
“The results of political changes are hardly ever those which their friends hope or their foes fear.”
– Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), Government
Chance the Gardener wrote
How very generous of you, to concede that the law should be followed.
How lacking of you to say “law, shmaw” when it doesn’t serve your purpose.
I’ve been here in Texas for almost 10 years now. As far as I can tell, Bush has done exactly two things since being elected governor, and one of those is “run for President”.
The other is signing the CCW bill into law, the sole issue on which Bush and I agree.
Oh, I think that “justice” and “law” are hardly interchangeable terms. It’s a perfectly valid opinion to think that justice was not particularly served by the laws in a given instance, and I think that is his point. FTR, I think “rule of law” is hardly a bastion for either side here. The Reps were all for law first when it came to Harris’ deadline, but not when it came to the military overseas ballots or the flawed ballot applications in Seminole county, when they cried “justice first.” The Dems were all for “rule of law” then, but not when it came to the butterfly ballots or Harris’ deadline. It all comes down to how one evaluates “justice,” and more cynically, “self interest.”
Consider the nicknames “His Fraudulency, George W.”
Or “The Pretender to the American Presidency”.
Or just : “The Great Pretender”.
We all know Nader really won. 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jab1 *
**
Which one is it? Was Ford elected by Nixon and Congress, or not?
First of all, you took that out of context. The full quote was:
What you quoted was a clarification of my question, not an assertion. As for what made me think that this your position:
Now, what does “fair” mean? Does it not mean “what I agree with”? Wouldn’t it be accurate to rephrase that first sentence as “I certainly have no problem with the rule of law, provided the law says what I want it to”? And does not the second sentence make it clear that the law does not sau what you want it to?
Seeing as how you’ve made groundless accusations, and I haven’t, your charge of projection is ironic.
Just how is that obvious? “Vox populi” is a statement of the populace as a whole. As a statement, it is a medium of information, and is therefore part of the media.
I haven’t put words in anyone’s mouth. And you still haven’t answered my question as to why you don’t consider vox populi to be part of the media.
Is this topic going to be like “Y2K”? On January 3, 2000 we perfered not to admit we thought there was going a problem, and the expression and concern vanished . Or is it going to be “who killed Kennedy”?
I nominate “Who killed Al Gore’s victory?” Was it…
…the future-ambassador-wanna-be in the Secretary of State’s office?
…the “good son” Florida Governor?
…the vote-blocking Bush family loyalist, James Baker III?
…the all-too-eager-to-retire conservative Supreme Court justices?
…Professor Plum in the observatory with the wrench?
Can anyone actually name one action that Jeb Bush took that was at all unfair in regards to this whole election. As far as I know, he recused himself from any participation, and kept that promise. I keep hearing vague accusations being hurled at him, but no one has ever mentioned any single inappropriate action that he took. At least most conspiracy theorists have the decency to invent a conspiracy before asserting one exists.
Well I think Jeb looks too clean for any accusation to hold up.
No, Bush didn’t win in Florida. It was a tie. Winning by a margin of 537 votes out of approx. six million cast is winning by about 1/100 of one percent. That’s a tie, as the margin of error is greater then the spread between the two front-runners. The proper solution would have been to disallow Florida’s election results on the grounds that the winner cannot be determined. Alternatively, the results could have been tossed out on the grounds that they were too tainted by incompetence and wrongdoing to be valid.
Right!!! And the South did’t lose the “War of Northern Aggression” either!!!
Bush won the electorial votes of the state of Florida not once but twice. The law would have declared him the winner if the difference had only been by one vote regardless of how you would have preferred Gore to steal the election.
I personally would have preferred a much larger margin of victory but reality is what it is. Get a grip instead of a gripe!