Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Salon's Joan Walsh Shows Palin/Ryan Bias & Poor Understanding Of Election History

Apart from her utter liberal bias and Palin disdain thus being on the wrong side of history, Salon's Joan Walsh shows an ignorance, or perhaps a wilful blindness towards presidential election history.

In her efforts to attack the Romney/Ryan ticket Walsh posits that Ryan may be having buyers remorse about having signed up for the 2012 run, and that his future presidential prospects may have been irreversibly dimmed because he answered Romney's siren song.

She points out that "there's not much of a market market for losing VP candidates" in her exposition as to how Ryan's career prospects may be well reduced, and then follows this up with a bit of pseudo-history for the uninformed:

"There’s not much of a national market for used V.P. candidates who lost the election. He can talk to Dan Quayle (who admittedly won once), John Edwards, Joe Lieberman and Sarah Palin for advice.  Only one losing-ticket V.P. in American history, the extraordinary Franklin Delano Roosevelt, has gone on to be elected president."

Rather than let polemics get in the way of proper historical research, lets take a look at the facts. In the past 100 years there have been 25 losing VP candidates-the full list is below. Of the 25, 5 had no chance of being elected because they were dead four years after their VP run, so yes, in their case, there was not much of a market for whatever services they might have been able to provide in their condition.

There was a market for three-FDR/Mondale/Dole one of whom won, so the percent of those who ran and won is not too bad especially considering Mondale and Dole were up against hopeless odds. So there were 17 others who were "unmarketable" one whom the jury is still out on. Actually 16 unmarketables, because Earl Warren was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which some may consider to be a better job than president, especially as it is not term limited.

So the 16 unmarketables are, as Walsh would certainly admit surely, if she were honest about it, or had bothered to look at the list dispassionately, just that-unmarketable, and would never have been considered as presidential nominees. Most were put on the ticket to be geographical ballast e.g. the never to be remembered William Miller. Some for political favors, e.g. William Jennings Bryan's brother Charles Bryan.
The unspeakable John Edwards marketability speaks for itself.

So to correct Walsh, there is a market for those who have run for vice-president and lost, but who have realistic chances of getting the nomination. Much as Walsh would not like to admit it one such is Sarah Palin. 

Vice-presidential candidates who lost since 1912*

1912 Nicholas Butler. No nationwide media attacks on him.
1916 Charles Fairbanks No attacks four years later because he was dead, but unlikely there would have been any anyway.
1920 F.D. R. (Before he was F.D.R.) Plenty of attacks in New York state but nationwide-nothing.
1924 Charles Bryan Who? (actually W J Bryan's brother)
1928 Joe Robinson. Nope, nothing happened
1932 Charles Curtis. See Fairbanks
1936 Frank Knox. Nothing happening for Frank nationwide negative media wise
1940 Charles McNary. See Curtis/Fairbanks
1944 John Bricker. Didn't suffer from adverse media attacks
1948 Earl Warren. Plenty of media attacks when he was Supreme Court head but not presidential election attacks.
1952 John Sparkman. No sparks
1956 Estes Kefauver. See Curtis et al. Mortality rate   surprisingly high for losing VP candidates.
1960 Henry Lodge. Too patrician to be attacked
1964 William Miller. Who?
1968 Edmund Muskie. Faded into political oblivion 
1972 Sargent Shriver. Too likable to be attacked and never taken seriously as a candidate
1976 Bob Dole. Nice gentleman who the media would have been seen as bullies picking on ex post facto.
1980 Walter Mondale. No personality to attack
1984 Geraldine Ferraro. From obscurity and back again. Also the days when women were not fair game.
1988 Lloyd Bentsen. No point in attacking the harmless, dignified, old gentleman.
1992 Dan Quayle. Same as Bentsen but young/undignified.
1996 Jack Kemp. No threat to anyone and too nice a guy to attack for no discernible reason.
2000 Joe Lieberman. Not a nationwide candidate possibility but attacked in Connecticut by his own party.
2004 John Edwards. Beyond any possibility of being attacked politically as utterly dead politically.

2008-2012. Sarah Palin. Attacked without any remorse or ethics, and often any discernible reason, from her national debut to this very day. Hated by the leftist media/Dem's/Hollywood (all one and the same).
Not running for any office four years from VP nod yet would have had, surely more attacks than any previous candidate either during campaign and afterwards.

Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.