Alternative History
Advertisement

Only VP from 2001? That means President Condit spent two years without a Vice President, which would have put the Republican Speaker next-in-line for two whole years. Why did Condit not invoke the 25th amendment and nominate a Vice President (Kerrey or someone else) in 1999 or 2000? Cprhodesact 00:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a fair point and good feedback. Thanks. I'll do some thinking and make changes to make this more plausible. Nhprman 06:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thinking on this further, I guess one of the reasons why I was going to leave the VP slot vacant is that it would be extraordinary to be placing a man in the vice-presidency during an election year. I expect it would be a rough confirmation process for Kerrey - or anyone for that matter, and very partisan. I couldn't see hearings taking place in 1999, so soon after the ascension of Condit, though. Still, I do see the point about leaving the VP seat vacant, and may very well change this. Nhprman 06:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You might consider a West Wing-style deal between the hostile Republican Congress and the President. Perhaps Condit could appoint an 'acceptable' VP in 1999 - someone the Republicans can accept, because he's no threat to them, and then replace this guy with Kerrey in the lead-up to the 2000 election. Cprhodesact 08:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That's kind of brilliant, actually. I like it. I was thinking last night that he may not appoint someone because, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, he found the Speaker to be acceptable. Of course, in this TL (with it's 1999 POD), that's not necessarily Denny Hastert. 14:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Advertisement