Republican Nominee MUST Select Anti-Establishment Running Mate

Home  »  Big Government  »  Republican Nominee MUST Select Anti-Establishment Running Mate
Print This Post Print This Post
Mar 5, 2016 No Comments ›› admin

By Barrack

Hamlin (L) was conservative Vice President in Lincoln's first term; Johnson was pro-slavery Democrat Lincoln picked for his second term.

Hamlin (L) was conservative Vice President in Lincoln’s first term; Johnson was pro-slavery Democrat Lincoln picked for his second term.

When Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, a pro-slavery Democrat became president and was later impeached. When JFK was assassinated, a government entitlement champion and establishment figure largely responsible for the modern day welfare state took the reigns. Then, had Ronald Reagan not escaped assassination, establishmentarian George H.W. Bush – whose familial legacy continues to age like a bad wine – would have become president much sooner than he did.

Regardless of who wins the Republican nomination for President this year, it’s imperative that we don’t stop with an anti-establishment nominee. It’s equally important that we have an anti-establishment ticket. Donald Trump is an outsider with years of insider access; he’s not a politician but he knows what makes them tick. Ted Cruz is an outsider on the inside of the U.S. Senate. Should one of them win the nomination, the best way to ensure an outsider agenda carries on is to select an outsider as his running mate. If Trump gets the nod, Cruz would be a great choice. If Cruz wins, Trump will have no interest. That said, no one with a conservative score below 90% should be acceptable.

Cruz and Trump: two outsiders who should bury the hatchet.

Cruz and Trump: two outsiders who should bury the hatchet.

In the Senate, only four make the cut (one of them is Cruz). In the House, only 18 of the 435 members would qualify; Governors are another possibility.

The vice president has a largely boring job with no responsibility save for breaking ties in the Senate and being ready to assume the mantle of leadership at any time. Lincoln, Kennedy and Reagan all committed huge mistakes relative to running mate selections.

In 1861 – at the beginning of Lincoln’s first term – Hannibal Hamlin became the first vice president from the Republican Party. By all accounts, Hamlin was a conservative, perhaps to the right of Lincoln. As an opponent of slavery, he was referred to as a “radical Republican” by Democrats.

Then, in an effort to appeal to a broader base of support, Lincoln jettisoned Hamlin in 1864 and instead chose as his second term running mate, a pro-slavery Democrat who opposed the fourteenth amendment, which ended slavery. That Democrat – Andrew Johnson – assumed the office of the Presidency barely one month after being sworn-in as vice president, when Lincoln was assassinated.

Lincoln was the victim of a conspiracy led by John Wilkes Booth, a confederate Democrat. Though there is no evidence that Booth assassinated Lincoln so that a pro-slavery Democrat would take his place, the consequences were as if Booth had done just that. The Democrat Party establishment suddenly had one of its own as President, though Johnson was later impeached. Like Bill Clinton more than 100 years later, Johnson survived his Senate trial.

LBJ (L) and JFK (R)

LBJ (L) and JFK (R)

In 1961, a young John F. Kennedy was sworn into office. By all accounts, he was a conservative Democrat who appeared disinterested in throwing in with the establishment. By today’s standards, JFK would be to the right of every Democrat in the U.S. Senate and most Republican Senators; though he did select a prominent member of that establishment as his running mate. Upon Kennedy’s assassination, the presidency was assumed by Lyndon Baines Johnson, one of the 20th century’s most destructive presidents.

LBJ’s greatest contribution to society was growing government entitlement programs like welfare, medicare, medicaid, etc. In fact, the LBJ presidency was 180 degrees antithetical to the most famous excerpt from any JFK speech:

It is undeniable that upon JFK’s assassination, LBJ went to work reversing the essence of that message. In fact, he governed as if JFK said it this way:

Johnson presided over the Vietnam war and intense racial divisions within the country. Just days before the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Johnson delivered his infamous resignation speech.

Conspiracy theories that Johnson may have had a hand in JFK’s assassination notwithstanding, the consequences were the same. An establishment, liberal politician was sworn-in to office and did tremendous damage to the country; LBJ ranks among the worst presidents in U.S. history. That would not have happened had JFK chosen an anti-establishment figure like himself.

Clinton (L), George W. Bush (C) and George H.W. Bush (R) far too cozy together.

Clinton (L), George W. Bush (C) and George H.W. Bush (R) far too cozy together.

In 1980 – much to the intense chagrin of the Republican Party establishment – the anti-establishment conservative Ronald Reagan won the nomination. However, he had the wealthy establishment Republican George H.W. Bush thrust upon him as a running mate.

Then, not even two months into his first term as president, Reagan’s assassination was attempted by John Hinckley, who was inspired by his “love” for Jodi Foster and used the twisted logic that attempting to assassinate a sitting president might win her affection.

Fortunately, Reagan survived but what if he hadn’t? We know what America would have missed out on but of what might it have suffered?

Corrupt Clinton and Bush have always been curiously chummy.

Corrupt Clinton and Bush have always been curiously chummy.

As vice president, George H.W. Bush – with the help of Oliver North – collaborated with then Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas. The high level cabal was so diabolical that it’s the part of Iran-Contra so seldom told. Bush’s willingness to work with Clinton contributed mightily to the Governor’s rise in politics. Had this relationship not taken hold and become one of mutually assured political destruction, it’s unlikely that Clinton ever would have become president.

Nonetheless, Reagan’s decision to select Bush laid the groundwork for not only Clinton’s rise but also for the rise of his successor, George W. Bush, who went out of his way to avoid poking the Clinton machine. This means that the simple act of Reagan selecting Bush as his running mate helped to give us Clinton(s).

Now, in 2016, America is dealing with the prospect of Clinton’s wife Hillary becoming president.

It’s true that no one should second guess history. Reagan didn’t know that it would play out as it did. Ditto for Lincoln and Kennedy. The simple fact however, is that the odds of bad decisions go down drastically when conservatism is chosen over liberalism or even moderation.

The job description of the vice president of the United States may sound trite but make no mistake; the potential to alter American history with the choice is staggering. This is why whomever the Republican nominee is, a conservative champion should be chosen as that person’s running mate.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

%d bloggers like this: