The Second Term of Gerald Ford

[Psychic Octopus]

Keep it up!!

[Bo]

I hope Jackson wins in the House. I'm glad to see a hawkish Democratic President after Vietnam and I don't want to see all the hawks removed from the Democratic Party as in RL.

By "RL" you mean your imagination, right?

No, RL=Real Life.

Is that an MMORPG or something? Cause here in the real world, the Democrats have been dominated by hawks for decades.

You call the Democrats hawks? Oh, please. The Democrats opposed American entry into the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, planned to invade Saudi Arabia and possibly other countries, and threatened American interests. If Democrats are hawks, then Hell froze over.

Yes, I call the Democrats what they are, which is a party of warmongers. The Democrats have never united to oppose war, and certainly not in the past few decades.

And it was a Democratic-controlled Congress that approved Bush I's Gulf War.

Yes, but that was because nearly all Republicans but only about one-fifth of Democrats in Congress voted in favor of the Gulf War. That 1/5 of the Democratic Party allowed the Gulf War resolution to narrowly pass while about 4/5 of the Democrats in Congress voted against this resolution. If there's two things I'm really angry with about the Democratic Party, it's that nearly all hawks and social conservatives (especially pro-lifers) got kicked out of the party in the 1960s and 1970s. That's why I consider myself a Democratic-leaning independent. I agree with the Democrats very strongly on economic policy, but strongly disagree with them on social issues and foreign policy.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I hope Jackson wins in the House. I'm glad to see a hawkish Democratic President after Vietnam and I don't want to see all the hawks removed from the Democratic Party as in RL.

By "RL" you mean your imagination, right?

No, RL=Real Life.

Is that an MMORPG or something? Cause here in the real world, the Democrats have been dominated by hawks for decades.

You call the Democrats hawks? Oh, please. The Democrats opposed American entry into the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, planned to invade Saudi Arabia and possibly other countries, and threatened American interests. If Democrats are hawks, then Hell froze over.

Yes, I call the Democrats what they are, which is a party of warmongers. The Democrats have never united to oppose war, and certainly not in the past few decades.

And it was a Democratic-controlled Congress that approved Bush I's Gulf War.

Yes, but that was because nearly all Republicans but only about one-fifth of Democrats in Congress voted in favor of the Gulf War. That 1/5 of the Democratic Party allowed the Gulf War resolution to narrowly pass while about 4/5 of the Democrats in Congress voted against this resolution. If there's two things I'm really angry with about the Democratic Party, is that nearly all hawks and social conservatives (especially pro-lifers) go kicked out of the party in the 1960s and 1970s. That's why I consider myself a Democratic-leaning independent. I agree with the Democrats very strongly on economic policy, but strongly disagree with them on social issues and foreign policy.

are you a Bob Casey Democrat?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I hope Jackson wins in the House. I'm glad to see a hawkish Democratic President after Vietnam and I don't want to see all the hawks removed from the Democratic Party as in RL.

By "RL" you mean your imagination, right?

No, RL=Real Life.

Is that an MMORPG or something? Cause here in the real world, the Democrats have been dominated by hawks for decades.

You call the Democrats hawks? Oh, please. The Democrats opposed American entry into the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, planned to invade Saudi Arabia and possibly other countries, and threatened American interests. If Democrats are hawks, then Hell froze over.

Yes, I call the Democrats what they are, which is a party of warmongers. The Democrats have never united to oppose war, and certainly not in the past few decades.

And it was a Democratic-controlled Congress that approved Bush I's Gulf War.

Yes, but that was because nearly all Republicans but only about one-fifth of Democrats in Congress voted in favor of the Gulf War. That 1/5 of the Democratic Party allowed the Gulf War resolution to narrowly pass while about 4/5 of the Democrats in Congress voted against this resolution. If there's two things I'm really angry with about the Democratic Party, it's that nearly all hawks and social conservatives (especially pro-lifers) got kicked out of the party in the 1960s and 1970s. That's why I consider myself a Democratic-leaning independent. I agree with the Democrats very strongly on economic policy, but strongly disagree with them on social issues and foreign policy.

Being anti-war is part of being pro-life.

[Bo]

I hope Jackson wins in the House. I'm glad to see a hawkish Democratic President after Vietnam and I don't want to see all the hawks removed from the Democratic Party as in RL.

By "RL" you mean your imagination, right?

No, RL=Real Life.

Is that an MMORPG or something? Cause here in the real world, the Democrats have been dominated by hawks for decades.

You call the Democrats hawks? Oh, please. The Democrats opposed American entry into the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, planned to invade Saudi Arabia and possibly other countries, and threatened American interests. If Democrats are hawks, then Hell froze over.

Yes, I call the Democrats what they are, which is a party of warmongers. The Democrats have never united to oppose war, and certainly not in the past few decades.

And it was a Democratic-controlled Congress that approved Bush I's Gulf War.

Yes, but that was because nearly all Republicans but only about one-fifth of Democrats in Congress voted in favor of the Gulf War. That 1/5 of the Democratic Party allowed the Gulf War resolution to narrowly pass while about 4/5 of the Democrats in Congress voted against this resolution. If there's two things I'm really angry with about the Democratic Party, it's that nearly all hawks and social conservatives (especially pro-lifers) got kicked out of the party in the 1960s and 1970s. That's why I consider myself a Democratic-leaning independent. I agree with the Democrats very strongly on economic policy, but strongly disagree with them on social issues and foreign policy.

Being anti-war is part of being pro-life.

I'm all in favor of peace. However, sometimes war and other military operations (ex. bombings) are necessary to accomplish a particular goal or to protect a country's interests. In fact, the U.S. bombed the former Yugoslavia twice in the 1990s in order to stop and prevent gencoide, which also causes many innocent human lives to end.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I hope Jackson wins in the House. I'm glad to see a hawkish Democratic President after Vietnam and I don't want to see all the hawks removed from the Democratic Party as in RL.

By "RL" you mean your imagination, right?

No, RL=Real Life.

Is that an MMORPG or something? Cause here in the real world, the Democrats have been dominated by hawks for decades.

You call the Democrats hawks? Oh, please. The Democrats opposed American entry into the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, planned to invade Saudi Arabia and possibly other countries, and threatened American interests. If Democrats are hawks, then Hell froze over.

Yes, I call the Democrats what they are, which is a party of warmongers. The Democrats have never united to oppose war, and certainly not in the past few decades.

And it was a Democratic-controlled Congress that approved Bush I's Gulf War.

Yes, but that was because nearly all Republicans but only about one-fifth of Democrats in Congress voted in favor of the Gulf War. That 1/5 of the Democratic Party allowed the Gulf War resolution to narrowly pass while about 4/5 of the Democrats in Congress voted against this resolution. If there's two things I'm really angry with about the Democratic Party, it's that nearly all hawks and social conservatives (especially pro-lifers) got kicked out of the party in the 1960s and 1970s. That's why I consider myself a Democratic-leaning independent. I agree with the Democrats very strongly on economic policy, but strongly disagree with them on social issues and foreign policy.

Being anti-war is part of being pro-life.

I'm all in favor of peace. However, sometimes war and other military operations (ex. bombings) are necessary to accomplish a particular goal or to protect a country's interests. In fact, the U.S. bombed the former Yugoslavia twice in the 1990s in order to stop and prevent gencoide, which also causes many innocent human lives to end.

Clinton was a war criminal, yes.

[Bo]

I hope Jackson wins in the House. I'm glad to see a hawkish Democratic President after Vietnam and I don't want to see all the hawks removed from the Democratic Party as in RL.

By "RL" you mean your imagination, right?

No, RL=Real Life.

Is that an MMORPG or something? Cause here in the real world, the Democrats have been dominated by hawks for decades.

You call the Democrats hawks? Oh, please. The Democrats opposed American entry into the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, planned to invade Saudi Arabia and possibly other countries, and threatened American interests. If Democrats are hawks, then Hell froze over.

Yes, I call the Democrats what they are, which is a party of warmongers. The Democrats have never united to oppose war, and certainly not in the past few decades.

And it was a Democratic-controlled Congress that approved Bush I's Gulf War.

Yes, but that was because nearly all Republicans but only about one-fifth of Democrats in Congress voted in favor of the Gulf War. That 1/5 of the Democratic Party allowed the Gulf War resolution to narrowly pass while about 4/5 of the Democrats in Congress voted against this resolution. If there's two things I'm really angry with about the Democratic Party, it's that nearly all hawks and social conservatives (especially pro-lifers) got kicked out of the party in the 1960s and 1970s. That's why I consider myself a Democratic-leaning independent. I agree with the Democrats very strongly on economic policy, but strongly disagree with them on social issues and foreign policy.

Being anti-war is part of being pro-life.

I'm all in favor of peace. However, sometimes war and other military operations (ex. bombings) are necessary to accomplish a particular goal or to protect a country's interests. In fact, the U.S. bombed the former Yugoslavia twice in the 1990s in order to stop and prevent gencoide, which also causes many innocent human lives to end.

Clinton was a war criminal, yes.

So you're saying you're okay with at least hundreds of thousands of innocent people being brtually murdered for their ehtncicity and/or religion? Part of being pro-life means preventing genocide. Libertas, are you pro-life?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I hope Jackson wins in the House. I'm glad to see a hawkish Democratic President after Vietnam and I don't want to see all the hawks removed from the Democratic Party as in RL.

By "RL" you mean your imagination, right?

No, RL=Real Life.

Is that an MMORPG or something? Cause here in the real world, the Democrats have been dominated by hawks for decades.

You call the Democrats hawks? Oh, please. The Democrats opposed American entry into the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, planned to invade Saudi Arabia and possibly other countries, and threatened American interests. If Democrats are hawks, then Hell froze over.

Yes, I call the Democrats what they are, which is a party of warmongers. The Democrats have never united to oppose war, and certainly not in the past few decades.

And it was a Democratic-controlled Congress that approved Bush I's Gulf War.

Yes, but that was because nearly all Republicans but only about one-fifth of Democrats in Congress voted in favor of the Gulf War. That 1/5 of the Democratic Party allowed the Gulf War resolution to narrowly pass while about 4/5 of the Democrats in Congress voted against this resolution. If there's two things I'm really angry with about the Democratic Party, it's that nearly all hawks and social conservatives (especially pro-lifers) got kicked out of the party in the 1960s and 1970s. That's why I consider myself a Democratic-leaning independent. I agree with the Democrats very strongly on economic policy, but strongly disagree with them on social issues and foreign policy.

Being anti-war is part of being pro-life.

I'm all in favor of peace. However, sometimes war and other military operations (ex. bombings) are necessary to accomplish a particular goal or to protect a country's interests. In fact, the U.S. bombed the former Yugoslavia twice in the 1990s in order to stop and prevent gencoide, which also causes many innocent human lives to end.

Clinton was a war criminal, yes.

So you're saying you're okay with at least hundreds of thousands of innocent people being brtually murdered for their ehtncicity and/or religion?

No, that's why I oppose Clinton's slaughter in southeast Europe.

[Bo]

I hope Jackson wins in the House. I'm glad to see a hawkish Democratic President after Vietnam and I don't want to see all the hawks removed from the Democratic Party as in RL.

By "RL" you mean your imagination, right?

No, RL=Real Life.

Is that an MMORPG or something? Cause here in the real world, the Democrats have been dominated by hawks for decades.

You call the Democrats hawks? Oh, please. The Democrats opposed American entry into the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, planned to invade Saudi Arabia and possibly other countries, and threatened American interests. If Democrats are hawks, then Hell froze over.

Yes, I call the Democrats what they are, which is a party of warmongers. The Democrats have never united to oppose war, and certainly not in the past few decades.

And it was a Democratic-controlled Congress that approved Bush I's Gulf War.

Yes, but that was because nearly all Republicans but only about one-fifth of Democrats in Congress voted in favor of the Gulf War. That 1/5 of the Democratic Party allowed the Gulf War resolution to narrowly pass while about 4/5 of the Democrats in Congress voted against this resolution. If there's two things I'm really angry with about the Democratic Party, it's that nearly all hawks and social conservatives (especially pro-lifers) got kicked out of the party in the 1960s and 1970s. That's why I consider myself a Democratic-leaning independent. I agree with the Democrats very strongly on economic policy, but strongly disagree with them on social issues and foreign policy.

Being anti-war is part of being pro-life.

I'm all in favor of peace. However, sometimes war and other military operations (ex. bombings) are necessary to accomplish a particular goal or to protect a country's interests. In fact, the U.S. bombed the former Yugoslavia twice in the 1990s in order to stop and prevent gencoide, which also causes many innocent human lives to end.

Clinton was a war criminal, yes.

So you're saying you're okay with at least hundreds of thousands of innocent people being brtually murdered for their ehtncicity and/or religion?

No, that's why I oppose Clinton's slaughter in southeast Europe.

He didn't slaughter anyone. He saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Bosnia and Kosovo. Get your facts straight.

[Bo]

I hope Jackson wins in the House. I'm glad to see a hawkish Democratic President after Vietnam and I don't want to see all the hawks removed from the Democratic Party as in RL.

By "RL" you mean your imagination, right?

No, RL=Real Life.

Is that an MMORPG or something? Cause here in the real world, the Democrats have been dominated by hawks for decades.

You call the Democrats hawks? Oh, please. The Democrats opposed American entry into the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, planned to invade Saudi Arabia and possibly other countries, and threatened American interests. If Democrats are hawks, then Hell froze over.

Yes, I call the Democrats what they are, which is a party of warmongers. The Democrats have never united to oppose war, and certainly not in the past few decades.

And it was a Democratic-controlled Congress that approved Bush I's Gulf War.

Yes, but that was because nearly all Republicans but only about one-fifth of Democrats in Congress voted in favor of the Gulf War. That 1/5 of the Democratic Party allowed the Gulf War resolution to narrowly pass while about 4/5 of the Democrats in Congress voted against this resolution. If there's two things I'm really angry with about the Democratic Party, is that nearly all hawks and social conservatives (especially pro-lifers) go kicked out of the party in the 1960s and 1970s. That's why I consider myself a Democratic-leaning independent. I agree with the Democrats very strongly on economic policy, but strongly disagree with them on social issues and foreign policy.

are you a Bob Casey Democrat?

I guess I would be classified like that. I recently took the Political Matrix Test and I got about +3 on social issues but about -7 on economic issues. I'm also very hawkish on military/defense matters. I would have supported all the wars and military operations that the U.S. did since it was created except the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, which I consider to have been unnecessary. Was Bob Casey hawkish on military/defense matters, though? Did he support the Gulf War (of 1990-1991)?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

The Second Term of Henry M. Jackson

The second term of President Jackson with unemployment dropping to 8.5%, but inflation rising to 3.4%. President Jackson promised that after the war was over and his infrastructural spending stopped, he would reign in inflation and the deficit.

President Jackson began talks with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985, about resolution to the not-so-secret war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in Iran, and arms control. With uprisings in Latvia, Estonia, and the Ukraine, it became almost certain that the Soviet Union was at it's final hour. Aides privately disclosed that talks between Gorbachev and Jackson, however, were often contentious, and one compared them to taking two steps forward and one step back.

However, Gorbachev would be negotiating with a new man, for on October 5th, 1986, the nation mourned the death of President Henry M. Jackson, to a sudden heart failure.

President Henry M. Jackson

May 31, 1912 - October 5th, 1986

The First Term of Lloyd Bentsen

Vice President: Vacant
Secretary of State: Ann Richards
Secretary of Defense: William "Flynt" Nichols
Secretary of Treasury: Mike McCormack
Attorney General: Henry B. Gonzalez
UN Ambassador: Bob Krueger
Chief of Staff: Dave McCurdy

To appeal to the Democratic Party's liberal base, and get a pick that would easily get through Congress, he requested retiring Speaker Tip O'Neill (whom he assured as just a vacany filler, and would not be on the ticket in 88.) O'Neill was confirmed.

(Coming up, 1986 midterm elections)

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Vigorous campaigning by President Bentsen helped cushion the usual blow received during midterm elections during a President' second term (albeit the first one of President Bentsen.) The Republicans only made a net-gain of two seats. Bentsen publically promised a withdrawal from Iran by 1987, but was not very coherent about his plan for withdrawal. Regardless, there were improved relations with the U.S. and Russia with a much more open-minded President Bentsen, as opposed to his predecessor.

December 3rd, 1986, marked the beginning of the "Savings and Loans" crisis. The result was a financial meltdown in the stock market, and consequentially another down turn compared to the slim economic growth during the Jackson Presidency.

President Bentsen's Approval Rating
46% Approve
47% Disapprove

Despite the economic down-turn, his poll numbers were cushioned by a 'sympathy vote' for the recent death of Jackson.

On January 11th, 1987, Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker was the first to announce a Presidential bid.

"In these times of chaos, the nation needs a leader. My former Senate colleague is a good man, but I feel as if he is not a good leader."

[President Mitt]

I don't know which is more satisfying, Jackson dying, or Howard Baker running for President.

[Historico]

Hmm...I doubt that President Bentsen would totally revamp Scoop's cabinent, with only 2 years up to his own potential inauguration. So the neocons for now would stay in control for the White House. I know that Bentsen was much more of a fiscal conservative than Jackson, and may after America withdrawl from Iran(What are your postwar plans for such an unstable region?) do major cuts to Defense Spending, institute an across the board Tax Cuts for the middle class and Deficit reduction policies. So I think things could potentially turn around for Bensten(but he wasn't the most aw inspiring candidate) and his lack of Charisma can potentially harm his chances. And Also with Iran, might Colin Powell stay a Democrat ITTL having served as a Major General under Democratic Administrations?Can't wait to see what happens...Keep it comming

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

President Bentsen addressed Congress in his first State of the Union. During his speech, he promised cooperation with the U.N. for Iran's future. "Though they were a helpful ally in the war effort, I do not want to see this nation become a satellite of Iraq. Ambassador Krueger and I have been working with the U.N., and within a year there will be no more than 50,000 U.S. troops in Iran, along with a multinational peacekeeping force and a push for democratization." President Bentsen also promised that once the deficit was reduced by 50%, he would restore the taxes on the wealthy to the rate they were before President Jackson's increase, and lower the middle class taxes to levels lower than they were before the increase. On the subject of the Savings and Loans Crisis, he announced that there would be a Senate Investigation on the matter, which he supported. His State of the Union was met with much applause.

February 2nd, 1987, freshman Senator Ross Perot (R-TX) announces his candidacy for President of the United States.

Both men began campaigning in Texas. Ross Perot had handily beaten Baker in fundraising, but the Minority Leader was leading in the polls.

Who Do You Support for President?

Baker: 48%

Perot: 29%

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

With the economy in freefall, Senator Ross Perot was able to tout his credentials as a businessman and carried the more moderate February primaries. Baker described Perot as "the most inexperienced old man I've ever seen," but his attacks did not resonate with the electorate.

Baker was able to hold his own against Perot's monetary juggernaut, with his experience as a politician and the support of the establishment. He boosted his fundraising efforts in preparation for the March 8th onslaught of the primaries. If he weathered the storm, he'd be able to build an aura of inevitability.

Perot tried to brand himself as a maverick, and a new face of the Republican Party. "No, I don't have much experience as a politician. Most of the experienced politicians haven't exactly been doing the best job, have they? Perhaps this primary should be a referendum on the establishment."

March 1st saw the withdrawal of US forces from Iran. About 50,000 would stay there as part of a multi-national peacekeeping force, with Generals of the armies governing their respective regions. Troops from France, the U.K., Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and others were included. President Bentsen emphasized the need for other Middle Eastern countries to have a stake in the stability of Iran, and was vehemently opposed to Soviet involvement. General Colin Powell retired afterwards, moving to Pennsylvania and registering as a Democrat.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Go Perot!

[Psychic Octopus]

Excellent update.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

With the retirement of Associate Justice Lewis F. Powell on March 3rd, President Bentsen was left with his first vacancy to fill. He announced a rather unusual pick, a governor from a neighboring state to his native Texas..

William Jefferson Clinton, fmr Governor of Arkansas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

March turned out to be a very favorable month for Senator Baker. On the massive March 8th primaries, he swept almost the entire South, whilst Perot allocated his resources in Kentucky, Virginia, and New England. However, he would regret taking his own state for granted - Baker came within three points of him, having support of the Texas GOP and spending massive resources there. It was a serious check to the momentum of Senator Perot.

John Glenn, whom many thought was a viable Vice Presidential pick or even a primary challenger to the incumbent President remarked that he was not interested in the Presidency. There was much suspicion as to why he denied interest; some felt that there was a hint of impropriety with his investigation into the Savings and Loans crisis.

[Historico]

So wait, who did Bentsen tap as his Vice Presidential Pick lol, I think you may have forgotten about the 25th Amendment? I think Bensten would have chosen an History making pick either with Woman or a Minority, someone preferably younger than him to shore up any questions about his age. I think Governor Martha Layne Collins of Kentucky would be a strong due to her ability to help Bentsen lock down the South(Think OTL Clinton/Gore Southern Strategy). Tom Bradley in California(If he won the Governor's race ITTL in '82), Andrew Young in Georgia,  etc. Im still gunning for Perot to win the GOP nomination...and Bentsen/Collins all the way(Leaves room for Powell in '96)

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

So wait, who did Bentsen tap as his Vice Presidential Pick lol, I think you may have forgotten about the 25th Amendment? I think Bensten would have chosen an History making pick either with Woman or a Minority, someone preferably younger than him to shore up any questions about his age. I think Governor Martha Layne Collins of Kentucky would be a strong due to her ability to help Bentsen lock down the South(Think OTL Clinton/Gore Southern Strategy). Tom Bradley in California(If he won the Governor's race ITTL in '82), Andrew Young in Georgia,  etc. Im still gunning for Perot to win the GOP nomination...and Bentsen/Collins all the way(Leaves room for Powell in '96)

Bentsen picked Speaker O'Neill, but much like Gerald Ford did with Rockefeller, he won't have O'Neill on the ticket.

[Historico]

So wait, who did Bentsen tap as his Vice Presidential Pick lol, I think you may have forgotten about the 25th Amendment? I think Bensten would have chosen an History making pick either with Woman or a Minority, someone preferably younger than him to shore up any questions about his age. I think Governor Martha Layne Collins of Kentucky would be a strong due to her ability to help Bentsen lock down the South(Think OTL Clinton/Gore Southern Strategy). Tom Bradley in California(If he won the Governor's race ITTL in '82), Andrew Young in Georgia,  etc. Im still gunning for Perot to win the GOP nomination...and Bentsen/Collins all the way(Leaves room for Powell in '96)

Bentsen picked Speaker O'Neill, but much like Gerald Ford did with Rockefeller, he won't have O'Neill on the ticket.

Oh ok, thatnks for the Claification...Go Bentsen/Collins!!!

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Though having a string of comebacks, Perot was ultimately unable to hold off the tidal wave of momentum Baker ran off with after he swept Dixie and many other primaries on March 8th. Baker countered Perot's anti-establishment arguement by making his own case for gravitas, as opposed to empty rhetoric.

On July 18th, President Lloyd Bentsen announced a historic selection for his running mate.. Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall.

"This is a man who changed the nation, when he argued for the fundamental civil rights of disenfranchised Americans.. A fellow Texan of mine, the deceased Lyndon Johnson, made the historic decision to appoint this honorable man to the Supreme Court.. and I will make the historic decision of selecting him to be our next Vice President. He brings to the ticket wisdom, experience, and diversity."

Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker gave a low key but well-received acceptance speech for the nomination. To add some geographic balance to the ticket and appease the more conservative wing of the party, he selected Senator Paul Laxalt of Nevada as his runningmate.

The two contenders headed off to campaign...

[Bo]

I don't know which is more disappointing, Jackson dying, or Howard Baker running for President.

[Historico]

Wow, Can't say that I was expecting for a Thurgood Marshall VP pick with him just being turned '80 years old especially with Bentsen not being a Spring Chicken himself. I think Age will be a huge issue for both campaigns, cuz when you add them up the Democrats are a combined 147 and the Republicans a combined age of 127 especially coming off a recent Presidential Death in office. I just wonder if President Bentsen is able to sneak in the "No Jack Kennedy line" ITTL...Keep it comming

btw here is a better look at what Marshall looked like towards the end of his life...