Charlie Black, a senior adviser to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign, tells NRO that former McCain aide Nicolle Wallace is peddling “fiction, not only in her new novel, but in what she is saying about Governor Palin.”
Over at the Washington Examiner, Byron York reports that Wallace is claiming, in a new Time interview, that McCain’s team considered bumping Palin from the veep slot. “There certainly were discussions — not for long because of the arc the campaign took — but certainly there were discussions about whether, if McCain were to win, it would be appropriate for her to be sworn in,” Wallace tells the magazine.
Black says that’s nonsense. “Nicolle, like any author, is trying to sell books. This comment to Time, like her book [It’s Classified], is a piece of fiction. There were never any such discussions. At no high level of the campaign was there ever such talk. She’s probably doing this to sell her book.”
“Look, I was with McCain 90 percent of the time. If I wasn’t around, I knew what was happening. And nothing like this happened.” Wallace, he says, “is one of the few dissidents,” one of the “disaffected” staffers who continues to criticize Palin, and “she is inaccurate in doing so.”
UPDATE: My colleague Katrina Trinko reports:
There was no widespread discussion at any point among the McCain campaign staffers of not swearing in Sarah Palin if John McCain was elected president, a senior McCain aide says, contra what Wallace told Time.
“One, I’m not aware of it but that’s not to say she [Wallace] didn’t have that conversation with Steve Schmidt or her husband,” the aide says. “Two, it’s horses***. If they were having that conversation, they were having it in a vacuum and it was irrelevant. Three, it’s really just beyond pathetic that we’re almost three years on from the campaign and she’s got nothing better to do than trash Sarah Palin. It’s just pathetic.”
McCain's campaign was swirling around the bottom of the toilet until he grabbed Palin. Republican's weren't going to hold their noses, but probably not vote at all. The members of that campaign should be kissing her feet for getting people to actually show up for rallies and get his popular vote over 40%. They're just jealous that she was more popular than the actual candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewhile I am no fan of McCain, Ms. Wallace always seemed loathsome, even during the campaign. They do forget the shot of energy Palin brought to the ticket.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMcCain's campaign was swirling around the bottom of the toilet until he grabbed Palin. Republican's weren't going to hold their noses, but probably not vote at all. The members of that campaign should be kissing her feet for getting people to actually show up for rallies and get his popular vote over 40%. They're just jealous that she was more popular than the actual candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCompletely unbelievable. The Vice President does not serve at the pleasure of the president.
After election day, there is absolutely no way to "bump" a Vice President-elect, short of suing prior to inauguration and obtaining an injunction against his/her inauguration. Short of proving some kind of overwhelming evidence of fraud on Palin's part, it's hard to imagine any such injunction being granted.
Once inaugurated, the only way to remove a sitting VP, just like a sitting president, is through the impeachment process.
Anyone working on a campaign who wasn't an imbecile would know this. Wallace's statement rings hollow, entirely.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot going to read the book, but from the comments in the post, it looks like Wallace was claiming that the discussions were about dumping her prior to the election.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought that she must have been discussing doing something prior to election day, which perhaps would have been legally possibly - I don't know - but then I read this part of the Examiner piece where she is quoted as saying this...
""There certainly were discussions -- not for long because of the arc the campaign took -- but certainly there were discussions about whether, if McCain were to win, it would be appropriate for her to be sworn in,"
She seems to be alleging that they were talking about a 25th Amendment solution for Palin's alleged mental instability.
That's even less believable than impeachment. She is essentially saying that professional political operatives were discussing the possibility that the first act of a newly installed president would be to create a constitutional crisis. That's insane.
Then again, considering the idiotic campaign John McCain ran, I guess anything is possible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith that explanation, I conceed that you have the right explanation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgain, what is the process for a party 'dumping' it's nominee? And is there any method for selecting a replacement? I think not.
When you come out of the convention as the nominee you are going to appear on the ballot. Following election day it is all up to the electors. There is no alternate, and there is no do over.
There would be no such discussion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA way to remove a VP who refuses to resign, regardless of pressure applied by the President, is impeachment.
Other than that, if the President deems the VP to be an "Enemy of The State", (by violating the President's express desires) which 'laces the VP under the umbrella of the EO directive ordering assassination.
In view of what we know about the innate bent of his "personality", this would most probably be Prez.Stinky's favored method. Keeps Congress from getting "all wee wee-ed up" as it were...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"[B]ut certainly there were discussions about whether, if McCain were to win, it would be appropriate for her to be sworn in,”
This is an intriguing concept (put aside whether it's true). What would a winning Presidential candidate do if, after Election Day, he wanted to bump his VP?
The electors - notwithstanding various state laws and party rules that purport to bind them - are, constitutionally, free agents. They can vote for whoever they want and I don't see how their vote could be ignored (unless it was for a person who wasn't constitutionally qualified), or how they could be replaced with a more acquiescent elector, if they didn't vote as they were "supposed" to and didn't announce ahead-of-time (in time to be replaced under state laws) what they were going to do. I doubt, constitutionally, that they even could be punished.
So the winning candidate could try to replace his VP (via some mechanism done through the national and state parties), but he's taking a big risk. If he doesn't convince 270 electors to vote for his new choice, he could throw the election of the VP into the Senate or (under the right circumstances) throw it to the VP candidate of the other party.
This would have made a good "West Wing" episode.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think a more likely, even if still remote, problem would the the death or incapacitation of a president-elect or vice-president-elect. Would the presidency default to the vp-elect in the event of the president-elect being unable to be sworn in? What would happen if instead it were the vp-elect who could not be sworn in? Would the succession act apply here, thus making the Speaker of the House Johnny on the Spot?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat happens if the Pres- or VP-elect dies or is incapacitated prior to January 20 depends on when that death or incapacitation occurs.
There is no real Pres- or VP-elect in November - just a presumed Pres- or VP-elect. All we do in November is choose the electors, who are free to vote, in December (the actual Election Day), for whoever they wish. We expect them to vote for the person who won the most popular votes in their state, but in my view, we cannot require them to vote for anyone in particular - constitutionally, they are free agents.
Regardless, as a practical matter, if the presumed Pres- or VP-elect dies between November and December, the party would nominate a replacement and the electors would be expected to cast their votes for that person.
This is the case even if the person who dies isn't on the winning ticket. In 1872, Horace Greeley (D) lost to Ulysses Grant (R) and died between the "popular" Election Day and the real one. The electors were freed to vote as they wished (since it didn't really matter) and they scattered their votes for a variety of persons.
But once the electors have cast their votes, the die is cast:
Per the 20th Amendment:
"Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."
There are all sorts of ways this could play out. The governing law (which is long) is contained in Title 3 of the U.S. Code, Sections 15, 19 and 20.
There is an instance in which the Speaker could become President (although my own view is that the laws that purport to include the Speaker of the House and the President pro tem of the Senate in the line of succession are unconstitutional) - but that is if there is neither a President nor a Vice President available on Inauguration Day.
This doesn't answer all the questions: it's easy to come up with scenarios that leave one scratching his head. And keep in mind that if the Presidency was at stake, we have to presume that people - Governors, Members of Congress, etc. - would twist and bend every rule to get the outcome they wanted.
So let's just hope it doesn't happen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA way to remove a VP who refuses to resign, regardless of pressure applied by the President, is impeachment.
Other than that, if the President deems the VP to be an "Enemy of The State", (by violating the President's express desires) which 'laces the VP under the umbrella of the EO directive ordering assassination.
In view of what we know about the innate bent of his "personality", this would most probably be Prez.Stinky's favored method. Keeps Congress from getting "all wee wee-ed up" as it were...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat is more delusional - that they could prevent their elected VEEP from taking the oath, or that they actually thought there was a chance they were going to win?
I think the latter. In a year where the Republican was going to have to run a near perfect race just to be competitive, the GOP nominated a terrible candidate who ran an even worse campaign.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is revisionist nonsense. The financial crisis on Wall Street struck on September 15. McCain-Palin led in daily polling for 9 consecutive days before that, with slowly but steadily growing margins. We were on a trajectory to make it a very close contest, the kind that could go either way depending on a few states (FL, OH, etc.) Many of us working in the campaign headquarters (I was a speechwriter) knew that a large part of this was the energy brought to the campaign by Sarah Palin. Many others, Nicolle Wallace among them, saw things differently.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut we all agreed on this: the financial crisis ruined our campaign's chances. The atmosphere in the Crystal City HQ in the days following was morgue-like. The "fundamentals are strong" gaffe and the Steve Schmidt-advised "suspend the campaign" maneuver only solidified the damage already done.
I was not privy to all the discussions of High-Level campaign officials. But I can tell you that if the discussions Ms. Wallace allude to had been serious, it would have been hard to contain. Pretty much everyone in the building had a strong opinion on Palin and what she brought to the effort, and some sparks would have flown around such a topic.
Also, Charlie Black is a standup guy. If he says Wallace is just trying to sell books, well, having met both folks I know who I believe.
It wasn't the crisis, it was McCain's inept response, suspending then not suspending his campaign, then signing on to the opening salvo of bailouts.
The same bailouts that fired the start of the TEA parties. McCain, had he been a leader, could have tapped into the discontent already visible at that early date. But, being a creature of the beltway, it was just not in him. Too many people saw through him, and not seeing a real choice, stayed home on election day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, what snowy mountains my car could climb if I could make tires of the stuff "conservatives" say affirming the MSM Narrative.
If they're not careful, the GOP Establishment fools are going to regret attacking conservative ideas and candidates from the left.
Meh, Nicole Wallace is just tweaked because Gov. Palin way, way hotter than her.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCome on folks, relax. It's called a product tie-in. McGuiness' book made a (muted) splash and this is likely just one of a few tagalongs trying to strike while the iron is, well, at least room temperature.
Palin herself would appreciate the cross-marketing, I'm sure.
Call me anything, but just call me, and all that...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid I miss the sarc tag?
Because this book has on its copyright page the usual disclaimer that this this is a work of fiction and doesn't resemble people living or dead, etc.
And now Wallace is on the record saying her mentally unstable VP character is based on Palin?
Libel anyone?
Hardly cross-marketing.
But if I somehow missed your implied sarc tag, then ... ooookay.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh. And I'm lifting this comment from Firelight, because it contains all the pertinent links to shoot Wallace's contentions out of the water - unless she's prepared to also libel A.B. Culvahouse?
"What Nicole Wallace is really asserting is that Washington veteran AB Culvahouse failed at his job by not recognizing crazy.
Here is the process Mr. Culvahouse put Gov. Palin thru External Link
...
Here is Culvahouse (who looked into the background of Pawlenty, Romney etc... in the search for McCain's VP) had to say about Palin: External Link
...
Here is Mr. Culvahouse answering questions about Palin and vetting:
External Link
...
External Link
...
There is no way that Mr. Culvahouse would have overlooked such a detail as Wallace claims. This is just another case of sour grapes. Nicole was a total and complete failure in her job on the McCain campaign and she needs someone to blame. In fact, to be so arrogant and ignorant to think that as a staffer you could even suggest removal of a constitutional position tells me that Nicole is the crazy one."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse