Until now, nobody has pointed out that Hur needed a good reason not to prosecute Biden for violating the plain language of a federal statute, and thus that his apparent digression into Biden's memory might not have been motivated by Trumpist bias (even if his language was unnecessarily insulting). Good for you!
That said, one part of the FDR analogy is of course not going to hold. Harris isn't being replaced, even though, if Dem power brokers were self-honest, she should be. For FDR and an old fashioned Democratic Party, the maneuvering to replace Wallace could be done behind the scenes. And, because FDR had enough of a cushion, it was perceived, over Dewey, this could be done without affecting the race. Today's Dems don't have either one of those in play, of course.
On the history, I think they did worry in '44 about the veep and electability. Wallace was seen as too far left and too quirky, and Jimmy Byrnes, who may have been FDR's personal favorite choice, as too compromised on race, as Black voters became a more important part of the coalition in the North.
On today's politics, my own judgment is that replacing the Vice President would be seen as both personally disloyal (never an attractive trait) and not solving the problem (as there is no sure-fire replacement whose stature would reassure those worried about the President's age).
I was thinking, on this part, the analogy would be Poppy Bush and Potatoe Quayle in 1992. IIRC, Byrnes in 1944 was also an ex-Catholic, and some voters might have ignored the "ex" part.
Until now, nobody has pointed out that Hur needed a good reason not to prosecute Biden for violating the plain language of a federal statute, and thus that his apparent digression into Biden's memory might not have been motivated by Trumpist bias (even if his language was unnecessarily insulting). Good for you!
Amen. I think how the press decides to handle this issue will be a test of whether it's truly independent.
Sobering.
Well put all around, Dick.
That said, one part of the FDR analogy is of course not going to hold. Harris isn't being replaced, even though, if Dem power brokers were self-honest, she should be. For FDR and an old fashioned Democratic Party, the maneuvering to replace Wallace could be done behind the scenes. And, because FDR had enough of a cushion, it was perceived, over Dewey, this could be done without affecting the race. Today's Dems don't have either one of those in play, of course.
Thanks for reading, and for this.
On the history, I think they did worry in '44 about the veep and electability. Wallace was seen as too far left and too quirky, and Jimmy Byrnes, who may have been FDR's personal favorite choice, as too compromised on race, as Black voters became a more important part of the coalition in the North.
On today's politics, my own judgment is that replacing the Vice President would be seen as both personally disloyal (never an attractive trait) and not solving the problem (as there is no sure-fire replacement whose stature would reassure those worried about the President's age).
I was thinking, on this part, the analogy would be Poppy Bush and Potatoe Quayle in 1992. IIRC, Byrnes in 1944 was also an ex-Catholic, and some voters might have ignored the "ex" part.