Quayle was a young electorally successful Republican, one of the best predictors of being able to be President is winning elections, Quayle was reliably doing that in statewide races Indiana back when Indiana elections were a tad more competitive than they are now.
H.W. Bush on the other hand gave off a grandfatherly quality, I strongly suspect Quayle’s biggest qualifier in the Bush team’s eyes were that he was young and looked even younger than he was.
I never considered Quayle stupid as much as comically inarticulate, ala Yogi Berra. He once began a speech to an audience in California, “I love California, I practically grew up in Phoenix”. A midwestern politician trying to bond with people in the southwest. A better speaker would have said, “I love the southwest, I practically grew up in Phoenix”. There is zero chance that Quayle actually thought Phoenix was in California. But that’s the story that went out.
Admittedlly, being inarticulate is less of a concern for a loveable baseball icon than a national-level politician.
The ‘potato’ incident was also less damning than I thought at the time. Quayle had been given an answer key which incorrectly spelled the word with an ‘e’ on the end. Good spelling used to be considered more of a marker of intelligence than is the case today, and was likely valued more by the journalists (for whom it is still an important skill) who gleefully reported the story.
I’ve speculated before that some presidential candidates might be choosing their running mates as impeachment insurance. The three I’ve specifically used as examples are Roosevelt choosing Wallace, Nixon choosing Agnew, and Bush choosing Quayle. In all three cases, the presidential candidate had reason to think there might be calls for his impeachment during his upcoming term if he was elected. And he might have strategized that he could reduce that possibility by setting up a unpalatable replacement.
I don’t think Roosevelt or Bush seriously feared impeachment. Nixon was paranoid enough maybe he was thinking about that as a sort of long game, dunno.
Also Quayle actually did grow up in Arizona, he moved back to Indiana where he had been born for High School, and after his political career was over he moved back to Arizona full time, so he’s actually spent most of his life there. I suspect, as said, he of course knew Phoenix wasn’t in California, but not everyone is good at expressing themselves (admittedly a Vice President/President should be.)
I guess we disagree fundamentally here. To me, the foremost consideration is whether the VP pick is fully qualified to step into the top job should necessity arise. That’s the metric I’m using in this thread, at any rate. If you were to ask any of these historical figures if that’s his standard they would all definitely answer indignantly “Absolutely! Dan Quayle (or Sarah Palin or Bozo T. Clown) is FULLY qualified, and electoral politics play ZERO part in my consideration blablabla” because they understand that admitting to electoral politics’ role in their decision not only looks bad but looks like an admission of weakness because it is in fact an admission of weakness, not to mention corrupt, personal ambitious, and total distregarding the best interests of the country. I wish people would start their own thread if you want to discuss this purely as smart political maneuevering because that is the farthest thing from what I’m looking for here.
They both had reasonable fears at the time of the relevant elections. Roosevelt knew that he was going to be breaking the spirit of various neutrality laws, if maybe not the letter. And lots of questions were being asked in 1988 about Bush’s role in the Iran-Contra scandal.
In both cases, talk of impeachment died out. Which arguably can be taken as evidence that impeachment insurance can work. For that matter, Nixon wasn’t impeached until after Agnew resigned and had been replaced by Ford.
If this were a valid way of thinking about the VP pick, every POTUS would just choose an utterly unacceptable doofus as his VP every time. No one can predict what he’ll do over the next four years that could get him impeached, but the job inherently entails choosing between options that are often perilous.
I thought we were having some interesting conversation about the different ways of judging the worth of a Vice Presidential candidate, but if you view it as a hijack I won’t continue.
Curtis Lemay, George Wallace’s pick. Scared me more than most, because he was already famous as a superhawk who wanted to bomb Hanoi into the Stone Age.
Admittedly Wallace never got close to making a serious run, but now that we know a Wallace-like personage with high name recognition can win, we ought to keep any eye out for the next Lemay. Tucker Carlson would have tapped him, sure.
Agnew was well qualified. He was educated, had a law degree and had worked in state government before becoming governor of Maryland. He would have been considered a good governor if he wasn’t a corrupt bigoted racist scumbag.
By that metric, the worst pick for Vice President was William R. King. He was ill with tuberculosis, was convalescing in Cuba when he took the oath of office, and died after being in office for only 45 days, never making it to Washington.
Leaving death aside, Arthur Sewall, William Jennings Bryant’s running mate in 1896, was a successful businessman but had no experience at any level of government, nor in the military. In fact, when the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorialized against McCain’s pick of Palin, they called Palin, “the least qualified running mate since the Swedenborgian shipbuilder Arthur Sewall ran as William Jennings Bryan’s No. 2 in 1896.”
Frank Knox, Alf Landon’s No. 2 in 1936, also had never served in government (although he was an Army officer in World War I.) Four years later Roosevelt appointed Knox Secretary of the Navy.
No. I already explained why those three presidents in particular knew they faced a significantly higher than normal chance of facing impeachment.
There’s a cost to choosing a bad running mate. While a bad VP reduces the chance of impeachment, it’s also possible the President might die in office and the VP will become President that way. So some voters will choose not to take that chance and won’t vote for the President/Vice President ticket.
In addition, choosing a bad running mate as impeachment insurance removes the possibility of choosing a good running mate who will add votes to the ticket. You can’t use the VP slot as a boon to appeal to some ideological, geographical, and demographic group of voters.
So a presidential candidate has to determine whether the risk of being impeached outweighs the lost votes.
He also missed his chance to be first lady.
I would think that “risk of impeachment” applies almost exclusively to POTUSes running for a second term, who’ve already done some highly controversial things in their first terms. Most of these are boxed into running with whoever was their VP first time around. I can’t even imagine a guy running for his first term thinking, “OK, now when I commit acts that Congress will deem ‘impeachable,’ my best defense will be…”
A change in political culture occurred mid-twentieth century. Before then, VPs were such a minor element in the government that Presidents occasionally picked a different one for their second term (FDR had three VPs, Lincoln had two). These days, it’s hard to imagine swapping out a VP.
It isn’t hard at all for me to imagine DJT swapping Pence for Margorie Greene. THAT pick would make McCain look brilliant for picking Palin by comparison.
I disagree. It certainly wasn’t true for Nixon in 1968 or Bush in 1988. They didn’t have a first term at those points.
In Roosevelt’s case, he was facing a much different situation in 1940 than he had faced in 1932 or 1936. The Congressmen who had supported him in his domestic policies during the Great Depression might not support him in his foreign policies against Germany and Japan. There was a very strong isolationist movement in the United States right up to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt had also made a critical blunder in the 1938 elections. He had felt that a number of Democratic Congressmen were not sufficiently loyal to his programs and had tried to replace them by supporting rival candidates. But most of the rival candidates had been defeated and Roosevelt now had to face the Congressmen in his own party that he had tried to kick out of office.
What I actually heard GHWB said about Quayle was that he was “attractive” and would appeal to women – a demographic he was well behind in. Heh. Every woman I knew thought he was Howdy Doody.
Another factor I’ve heard is that Bush wanted to balance the ages on the ticket. He was 64, which I believe at the time made him the fourth oldest candidate to run for President. So Quayle, who was 41, was supposed to bring “energy and enthusiasm” to the ticket.
This ended up backfiring. Republicans put too much effort into comparing Quayle to Kennedy and this led to the devastating moment with Lloyd Bentsen at the debate. After that, Quayle’s youth was seen as a negative, implying he lacked experience.
This was indeed true in the 1992 campaign, but Bush was elected in 1988 with Quayle as his running mate. Whether Quayle hurt or helped Bush in 1988 is certainly open to debate, but you really can’t fault Bush for keeping Quayle for his re-election bid. After all, it worked once, and four years later Quayle had some experience on the job.