The recent FWOb post concerning US Senator Evan Bayh's chances for the vice-presidency following the third place finish of U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucus drew a number of comments.
Some of those comments concerned former Vice-President Dan Quayle and suggested that his time in the vice-presidency made it less likely that any person from Indiana would be chosen anytime soon for the second spot on a major party's national ticket.
Reader John Wonderly asked in response: "What did Quayle do to ruin any future chance of an Indiana VP?" No subsequent comment took him up on his question.
Dan Quayle's handling of the vice-presidency is not yet a settled question. Future historians will shape that judgement.
What we do know is that Dan Quayle performed well in matters such as the Phillipine crisis when Corazon Aquino's presidency was challenged. Dan Quayle was right in his analysis of the fallout when President George Bush backtracked on his tax pledge. Richard Darman and other Bush advisors did more to wreck the President's 1992 re-election efforts with that move than any other single policy decision. Dan Quayle would have avoided that.
Those incidents of Dan Quayle's leadership have gotten a little lost in the automatic - and unthinking - response of those who disparage Mr. Quayle with a quip, a wink and a laugh.
The unfortunate thing is that Mr. Quayle's national image was firmly set by the national pundits starting with the announcement of his selection on the New Orleans waterfront and throughout the ensuing 1988 campaign. The Bush national campaign's approach was to control, coach and script the vice-presidential nominee until he began to sound like someone much different - and more stilted - than we knew from his Indiana campaigns for the House and Senate.
Which brings us to a comparison with the 2008 presidential candidacy of US Senator John McCain.
The best thing that happened to John McCain was the mid-summer meltdown of his campaign organization last year. He had a campaign team that was running things very differently than when he ran in 2000. They were managing the candidate and the campaign in a way that was not reflective of John McCain's nature.
Much of his top staff resigned or were fired. The campaign staff shrunk dramatically.
McCain started being McCain again. And it started fueling his resurrection in New Hampshire.
Some of us wonder what would have happened if the 1988 and 1992 Bush campaign staff had let Quayle be Quayle. Things may or may not have turned out differently. However, those of us who lived in northeast Indiana would have seen a man who acted and spoke a lot more like the Congressman and Senator we knew and who had served us well - the fellow who was relaxed, direct and connected with folks across the whole spectrum of age, income, and backgrounds.
Dan Quayle was surely in command of his own presidential campaign in 2000, however. And he sank like a rock.
Posted by: Nancy Nall | January 07, 2008 at 09:48 AM
Not being from this area originally I didn't have any "local" feel or opinions on Quayle. I do know that the perception on the East Coast and even among the N.J. GOP was that Quayle was selected as someone who couldn't overshadow Bush One. When compared to the popular and well scripted Reagan Bush was bland, and lacked charisma and popularity which made it necessary to choose someone unknown and dull.
Posted by: John G. Wallace | January 07, 2008 at 10:36 AM
I remember well the rationales floated for the choice of Quayle when people started asking "who the hell is he?" and "why?"
And the glibfest that ensued when Big Bush's handlers described Quayle as "the Robert Redford of politics" whose manly charms will win over the women while his youthful coolness will resonate well with the young people, blah, blah, blah.
Quayle was Quayle, alright. And he was no Jack Kennedy. Or any of the above. He was a bone tossed to the religious right.
Posted by: Alex Jokay | January 07, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Gotta agree with Mitch on several points, and with John Wallace on others.
I remember I had come home from the doctor's office in blinding pain (ingrown toenail had just been removed) and had lots of co-tylenol in me, and then heard the news that GHW Bush had selected Quayle....I honestly thought I was just doped up!!
IMO, Mitch is EXACTLY right about GHWB; when he joked about his huge flip-flop on taxes while jogging - saying "read my hips" by way of renouncing his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge, that was IT! I remember being actually angry at the guy!!
And in those days, I was a huge, huge fan of Jack Kemp - who would have won in 1988 if more people could have known how completely GHW Bush was going to burn down the "Reagan Legacy"...and who SHOULD have been GHW Bush's running mate.
Coulda's, shoulda's, and woulda's, eh?
Anyway, nobody really disputes that Quayle was a sub-par congressman (pun intended), although he did grow a bit as a senator...and (as a voter who always voted for Quayle for congress and the senate) he was out of his depth at the White House, in my opinion.
Posted by: Brian Stouder | January 07, 2008 at 11:21 AM
I also have to take issue with your version of history, Mitch. You say the campaign "controlled, coached and scripted" DQ until he bore no resemblance to his former self. What I remember is a little harsher: They tried to bury him alive. Mike Dooley was working for the JG at the time, and they sent him on Quayle's campaign trail. The datelines were from crummy little towns all over the back end of nowhere. After the National Guard fiasco, the GHWB handlers wanted him as far off the radar as they could get him.
It's fair to say Quayle got a bad rap, in that it was so cartoony it beggared belief, but if he'd been the genius the far right always claimed he was, it never could have gotten that far. On that infamous day in Huntington when he was media-mobbed, he looked like a deer in headlights and sounded worse, but maybe that was part of his scripting.
The really interesting person in that family, to me, was Marilyn. I always thought she and Hillary were two sides of the same coin, an observation that would doubtless reduce Marilyn's back teeth to powder if she heard it. But the more I think about it, the truer it seems.
Posted by: Nancy Nall | January 07, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Nance isn't the only one who thought Marilyn Quayle was the real force to be reckoned with.
Back in late 1988 I shot a photo for the Free Press of the "Quayle Quartet," (plus three others who horned in, including Orvas Beers,) down at Columbia Street, formerly Mother's. That was where the group, (Walter Helmke, Ernie Williams and two others whose names evade me) would meet to plot Dan's future. I asked it they often met with Mr. Quayle. They told me that Marilyn was more likely to attend than Dan.
Posted by: Steve Linsenmayer | January 07, 2008 at 04:08 PM
Nancy, Nancy, Nancy,
I appreciate your recalling my Travels with Dan back in '88, but I must take issue with one thing: How can you possibly refer to such places as Casper, Wyo., Fresno, Cal., or Boise, Id., as "crummy little towns all over the back end of nowhere?"
Trust me, they were way behind the back end.
Some of us saw how tightly Quayle's campaign was scripted the evening we flew into Las Vegas.
They put us up for the night at a place called the Alexis Park Resort. Nice digs, but no gambling of any sort on the premises. There wasn't a slot machine, a crap table, a Big Six wheel or even a high stakes Go Fish game available.When a couple of us ran into Quayle handler Stu Spencer later that night, we asked why the campaign picked it for the media. "If we stayed at a casino, you'd spend all day tomorrow asking how much he won or lost," Spencer said. "You're not gonna be asking that question now, are you?"
Posted by: Mike Dooley | January 07, 2008 at 09:51 PM
What always makes me smile is that political climate has shown Quayle to be way ahead of his time.
Quayle commented on Murphy Brown's unwed pregnacy. And people laughed that it was only TV and how dare he critics unwed mothers. But everyone has since recognized TV shapes American culture and childrens behavior, and have finally opened their collective eyes to the problems of fatherless homes.
Not to mention this all stirred the silent religious majority, and organized them into a dominate political group.
So, I guess the Clintons were wrong, its not about the economy stupid. America has come to realize that, and we are seeing that in the current campaign.
So does that make Quayle right?
Ed. note: It made him prescient. Dan Quayle was always good at looking at a political situation and "seeing around the corner." He had an excellent sense of people and human nature that served him well.
Posted by: Craig Edward Eckert | January 08, 2008 at 09:07 AM
Dan Quayle is a fascist windbag
Posted by: Craig Matthew Norman Charles Michael Patrick Skinner | January 09, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Dan Quayle is a fascist windbag
Posted by: Craig Matthew Norman Charles Michael Patrick Skinner | January 09, 2008 at 12:47 AM ....
Opinion noted. Care to expound on rationale leading to aforementioned opinion?
Posted by: tim zank | January 09, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Ooops - I apologize for disparaging DQ and then being too busy over the past week to get back here and respond to the challenge :).
To address the question - "What did Quayle do to ruin any future chance of an Indiana VP?" - I'm looking around for my "that was easy" button.
This is neither a republican nor a democratic thought process. This is a PR thing. Whether it was his own doing or the doing of the puppeteers behind the scenes - the man I admired (loved when he met with the peeps of northern Indian!) seemed to turn into a complete idiot.
Evan Bayh, from a super-ficial perspective, can only be seen to those outside of Indiana, as DQ jr. He's white, fair-haired, a product of the "system", "young", "family-oriented", etc...
That's just the way it is. It has nothing to do with his ideology, his record, or his aspirations. Quiz some of your buddies outside of this state. See what they think.
Posted by: Kristina Frazier-Henry | January 12, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Being "right" doesn't mean much in politics (or anywhere else - but perhaps in a trivial pursuit tournament).
Being "effective" is what you need in someone who has any chance of making a positive impact on this crazy-ass world.
Part of having an excellent sense of people and human nature is knowing WHEN you should keep your yap shut.
He failed - oh - but don't worry. He's not alone.
Posted by: Kristina Frazier-Henry | January 12, 2008 at 11:03 PM