Westman Timeline Pt. I

[Mechaman]

Earlier
July 22nd, 1984
Seattle, Washington
The Home of Senator Harold "Harry" Francis Callahan:

GOP VP candidate is home from campaigning with his running mate Michael Harrison.  Over the past two weeks the two men had been campaigning all over the Mountain West.....and had received lukewarm reaction almost everywhere they went.  It was just incredible........four years ago some of these states were solidly Republican for D'Israeli (especially Wyoming), but now the GOP couldn't get them excited for all the free beer in China.
This irked Harry Callahan, who considered him a "proud west American".  He was proud of the western Republican Party, a party that stood for individual liberty and free market principles.  It pissed him off to no end that the eastern establishment was trying to force itself onto the state parties in the west.  If men like Vincent D'Israeli were alive today to see what was happening in some of the western Republican governments like what the Peters Administration in Montana was doing they wouldn't recognize the party.
The inevitable civil war between West and East was going to be a costly one for the Republican Party.  So what if the Moderate Reform Party has endorsed the ticket and are returning to the Republican Party, it was only delaying the inevitable.  The conservatives had already fled to Phil Crane and followed him from the Constitution to the Conservative Party.  They didn't seem ready to return to the GOP.  And now the tension between the libertarian west and the "moderate" east was reaching a boiling point.  Thank god for Mark Hatfield, the Senate Leader and fellow west Republican politician, or the libertarians might've been thrown out to the dogs by now.
And the results of the National Convention were a bit encouraging.  Michael Harrison was a good man with reasonable positions.  He was a bit crazy about the environment, but outside of that he seemed mostly libertarian and well meaning.  Truth be told, Beauregard seemed to be slipping a lot these past few years.  Honestly Callahan, knowing the guy for over two decades, wouldn't be surprised if Beauregard was just doing it to mess with the moralistic crusaders within the party.  His latest outburst would suggest that, even if possible mental instability could be a cause.  But Callahan doubted it, D'Israeli is way too smart to suddenly go apesh*t mental on everybody.
For Callahan the western GOP represented everything great about this nation: Individuality, Freedom of Choice, and Laissez Faire on morality.  For Callahan, a libertarian pro-choice Irish Catholic, it was truly the party of choice.  He was a very small minority, but he could give a damn.  Really could give a damn.

(more to come)

[Mechaman]

July 22nd, 1984, Continued:

Harry Callahan prepares himself a Bacardi and Cola and sits down on his couch and turns on the television.
Oh great, another Dirty Harry film.
Callahan watches as Sudden Death comes on.  The Dirty Harry series weren't really his favorite, but he got a kick out of the main lead, some Jew guy named Harvey Keitel.  The series, about a strong handed cop (named Harry Goldstein) who usually takes matters into his own hands against an overbearing San Francisco Police Department, was one of the most profitable movie series of Eastwood Films.  Clint Eastwood, the Director and Executive Producer of the film, had previously said that when he was younger he always wanted to play a policeman in film.  Eastwood, who used to be part of a western tv show called Rawhide in the late 1950's and early 1960's, would give up acting to take over operations of his friend David Roth's film company Roth Film Enterprises Inc.  Over the years he has won much acclaim over his work as a director and producer that Callahan would doubt Eastwood regretted leaving the acting world.
Just as he begins drinking his wife, Sandra, comes out of the bedroom and lays her head down on his lap.  Callahan reflexively puts his hand on her stomach.  Sandra Erica Callahan, a former model, a striking 34 year old blonde who met Callahan when he was in the Washington State Senate representing parts of southern Seattle.  At the time he was 30 years old, and she was 18.  People around his parts rose hell about it, due to the age difference between the young senator and the young model who just graduated high school.  Eventually people began to shut up about it as they got older, but he could still feel the residual judgement of society, especially from his devoutly religious mother who thought Sandra was "just a child".  Maybe Callahan was just a horny devious bastard who was blinded by young tang, maybe Sandra found an older more experienced man to be sexy, it don't matter no more.
His wife started talking:
Sandra: I missed you Harry.
Callahan: Well I think it's got obvious I missed you too, if you are a good judge of pant geometry.
Sandra laughs.
Callahan: I'm telling you this recent party nomination stuff is stressing me out.  You know with all those WASPy assholes from Maine and New York griping about how they are being left out how we aren't "moderate" enough.  How we are quickly becoming the party of western libertarian radicals......
Sandra: Blah blah blah.  You know you can't win against those bastards honey.  They won't be satisfied, they won't shut up about how "purist" the party is until everybody is swearing the Rockefellerian pledge or eating grey poupon at National Conventions.  They are elitists, what do you expect?  Elitism is so non-sexy.......unlike you.
She sits up in his lap and starts necking him.
Callahan: You're right.  They are worse than the conservatives.  I might've disagreed a lot with conservative foreign policy and morality issues, but they at least admitted they wanted a conservative party.  They didn't bullsh*t about how the party was running away from them and towards "radical elements" and they were being ostracized while in fact they were promoting their own version of party purity.
Sandra bites his ear.
Callahan: They are really starting to piss me off!
Sandra: You are sexy when you are angry.  Enough talk love.  It's been....far too long.  Why worry about cleaning up the Republican Party?  It'll be just fine.  Maybe you should......put the broom inside the closet?
Callahan caught her drift, figuratively speaking.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I've been asking this about other timelines also: How do the American people (or you) rank the Presidents since Harry Truman? Who are seen as numbering among the "greats" and who are abject failures? My guess would be:

Robert F Kennedy (D-NY) 1969-1973
Estes Kefauver (D-TN) 1953-1961
Charles Percy (R-IL) 1961-1963
Thomas Dewey (R-NY) 1949-1953
Harry S Truman (D-MO) 1945-1949
Thurston B Morton (R-KY) 1963-1969
Ronald W Reagan (D-CA) 1973-1981

[Mechaman]

I've been asking this about other timelines also: How do the American people (or you) rank the Presidents since Harry Truman? Who are seen as numbering among the "greats" and who are abject failures? My guess would be:

Robert F Kennedy (D-NY) 1969-1973
Estes Kefauver (D-TN) 1953-1961
Charles Percy (R-IL) 1961-1963
Thomas Dewey (R-NY) 1949-1953
Harry S Truman (D-MO) 1945-1949
Thurston B Morton (R-KY) 1963-1969
Ronald W Reagan (D-CA) 1973-1981

Yeah I believe that would be pretty spot on.
Many people consider RFK to be the greatest President since FDR mostly due to his charisma and "politics of unity" rhetoric.  Even in many places in the South many young adults have poster of Robert Kennedy on the wall.  The ideological successors to Robert Kennedy are almost as numerous as those of FDR's.  Thus there is quite a bit of headbashing in the Democratic Party now days due to philosophical differences between the two.  When he was elected in 1968, many feared what America would turn out to be like with a Catholic President.  To the surprise of many he ended up being the most beloved President since FDR.

Estes Kefauver is most well known for overseeing one of the most prosperous eras of capital growth in America as well as one the longest eras of peace since the 1920's.  But most of all people rank him positively for being the President who got the 1956 Civil Rights Act passed.  Imagine Eisenhower if he had been a little more bold on Civil Rights.  That is Kefauver.

Charles Percy didn't really get much accomplished in his two years in office, but the America people generally have a high opinion of him due to his youthfulness and charisma.  That, and his Cold Warrior stance towards Communist states in a time when paranoia about nuclear war endeared him to "strong America" conservatives.  Current President Crane even goes as far to say that "if Charles Percy didn't die from that illness we probably wouldn't be in the mess we are today."

Thomas Dewey was an "average" President.  He didn't suck at foreign policy (hell he won the Korean War) but his administration, finding themselves at war with their own party in Congress, greatly damaged his chances at re-election.  Even with a strong economy and a country at peace the Democrats managed to score an upset victory over Dewey.

Harry Truman is generally regarded as a failure.  But as time went by people began to appreciate some of his decisions as President, especially the adoption of the Civil Rights plank into the Democratic Party platform.  Despite having a longshot at winning in 1948 he ran anyway.  In the end the critics would be proven right and he would end up losing to Thomas Dewey.  Even if the South had stayed loyal he would've still lost the election to Dewey.

Although Thurston B. Morton was known for his efforts to expand medical care for senior citizens, promote Affirmative Action programs, and getting the Equal Rights Amendment past Congress he would be marred by his handling of the Persian War.  Like LBJ, the backlash against an unpopular war would ultimately lower his reputation amongst the Presidents.  Some even say that if it weren't for the war in Persia Morton would be ranked "right up there with Kefauver and Kennedy as one of the greatest Presidents since Roosevelt."  However, due to the war he would be forever ranked along the likes of Reagan, Pierce, and Buchanan.

Ronald Reagan is generally regarded overwhelmingly negative amongst American voters.  In fact Reagan's highest approvals came in the weeks after RFK's death with approval ratings in the upper eighties.  However, not even a month after he ascended to the Presidential office his popularity gradually went south.  By 1976 he was even more unpopular than Truman was in early 1948.  Many say that it was Reagan's stubbornness in dealing with Congressional Republicans and Constitution members that ultimately caused his unpopularity.  Libertarian Republicans insist that it was Reagan's bullheaded push for the Public Healthcare Act that made him unpopular, claiming that his disregard for compromise in the bill (that would limit federal authority in medical care) that made him so despised by the American people.  Comedian George Carlin said it best when he said that "President Reagan's position in regards to government is quite simple: f*** you!"  It wasn't so much that he was a New Deal Democrat than the fact that when Reagan got an idea he gave Congress the finger.  Despite his stubbornness in governing, in his mind "doing what's right regardless of consequence" governing he somehow survived the 1976 Presidential Election by attacking the Republican Congress.  The result?  The most unpopular President since Truman not only wins the White House by a hair but the Democrats win both Houses of Congress.  However, later on in his presidency he wouldn't gain any momentum back, just getting more and more hated by the day.  Reagan's lowest point in popularity would come in March 1980 when PPP would record his approval rating at 19%.  To this date many are surprised that Reagan lasted almost eight years as this nation's President.  In many American minds he is usually ranked near dead last.  Sometimes the only President ranked worse than Reagan is James Buchanan, to give you an idea of how disliked Reagan is in the 1980's.

[Mechaman]

August 10th, 1984
Butte, Montana
Westman for Governor rally:

Scott Westman and Lawrence Watson are on a stage in front of several thousand people gathered in downtown Butte, Montana.  Of note the union membership was out in force to see just how serious Westman was about securing their votes.  Westman could probably win Butte without appealing to the union vote but lately he has been making a huge push to get organized labor behind him in the upcoming race.  Westman seemed hell bent on not only winning the Gubernatorial, but of causing a massive victory that would humiliate the Montana GOP.
Westman walks up to the podium to a lukewarm reception.
Westman: Ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pleasure that I introduce the guest speaker for this rally.....US Senator Lawrence Watson of Pennsylvania!
The crowd erupts in applause as Larry Watson makes his way to the podium.  Watson, a big supporter of labor union rights, was getting more applause from the people of Butte than Westman did.  Watson speaks:

Good Afternoon Butte, Montana!  I take it from the cheers I've gotten so far today that you guys know who I am.  Well I know you too, Butte.  I know you are a union community.  You more than anybody else in this state understand the importance of unions to protect worker's rights and protection.  Scott Westman's record on unions is not perfect, however it isn't all bad.  Especially compared to Governor Peters record.  If anything at all a Scott Westman governor would be more willing to listen to you people than any Montana GOP governor would.  When I introduced my Labor Fairness Bill in mid 1981 you want to know who cosponsored it?  Scott Westman.
You know what Governor Peters has tried to do to labor over the past three years?  He's tried to shut labor down permanently.  He's tried to introduce measures that would allow his elitist corporate friends from New York to have full run over unionized workers.  Because they see you as threats, as threats to their profit lines.  These people truly do not care about the American worker, just efficiency!
You can see how desperate Peters and his grey poupon overlords from Greenwich are getting when the administration is trying to push forth legislation that would require armed troops to be at union strikes to "ensure order".  Why?  Because these Republicans believe that you are filthy mongrel union laborers who contribute to nothing other than sucking away at their caviar money!
Scott Westman, however, personally knows many union workers.  Scott Westman's mother is a member of the teacher's union in White Fish Montana, Scott Westman's daughter is a member of the Berkeley Trade-Mart union, Scott Westman's close friend Carl Herschelwitz established a union specifically dealing with worker's rights and protections in computer construction factories!  Scott Westman is intimately involved with unions and the people who are in them.  Believe me when I say that his idea to fire the airline workers, something he spent weeks contemplating, was not an easy decision for him.  He thought the matter through for a long time, tried to think of alternatives, but in his pragmatic mindset he felt that the situation warranted something drastic.  It was not at all an easy decision, in fact in pained him to have to suggest that the federal government fire thousands of union workers.
He may not be a saint because of that one decision, but he's a hell of a lot better on union rights than the current governor who has ordered the Montana State Guard to break up strikes with use of force.  Governor Peters, the man responsible for the Anaconda Massacre that left 5 union members dead because they wanted better worker protections at the mine they worked in.  And don't get me started on how unsafe the average corporate factory is now days because unions have almost no rights left in this state.  Scott Westman, for all his flaws, would restore union rights of assembly and would guarantee at least the most basic of worker protections.  A vote for Scott Westman is a vote for your rights.  So on November 6th, 1984 when you are in the voting booth vote for Fred Harris for President and Scott Westman for Governor if you want to see your rights restored and your voice heard in the workplace!

Lawrence Watson's speech in front of the assembled unions of Butte would win much praise amongst the many unions in the country.  Overnight Westman's reputation amongst union workers would explode as many started to see him as a pragmatic supporter of worker's right as opposed to the outright opposition to worker's rights of the Peters Administration.  The speech would set off a Westman Campaign of "anti-elitism" against the Peters Administration, which Westman would charge was corrupted by "out of state corporate big whigs" and "Northeastern blueblooded statists."

[Dr. Cynic]

I think I may be turning into Tony Benn

[Mechaman]

Washington, D.C.
Senate Chambers
August 19th, 1984:

Senate Leader Mark O. Hatfield Presiding.
Hatfield: I understand that our esteemed colleague from the state of Wyoming has a new bill he wants to share with everybody?
Senator Beauregard D'Israeli (ML-WY) walks up to the podium with what looks like a little red book and begins waving it around as he speaks.
D'Israeli: Why yes I do Marky Mark.  This right here is my solution to the question of personal property rights.  Instead of having individual property owners sign papers that gives them property rights we instead take all property rights and we entrust them to the people!  All property rights are to be shared by everyone and anyone who dates violate these rights shall be executed via public shooting!  As condition of sharing the property no more firearms are to be stored away in property, lest the people responsible dare face the death penalty via firing squad!
Somewhere in the room Joe Biden is laughing.

Two hours later
Senate Break:

Senator Adrian Vincent Moore (D-Missouri) is taking a smoke break when a reporter walks up to him.
Reporter: Senator Moore, what do you think of Senator D'Israeli's remarks today.
Moore laughs, before looking into the reporter's eyes.
Moore: Seriously?
Reporter: Yes, seriously.
Moore looks around before deciding to go balls deep.
Moore: I think he's afuckin' fruitbasket.
The reporter gasps as Moore walks off, finishing his smoking break.

[Mechaman]

August 30th, 1978
Washington D.C.
Capitol Hill:

Scott Westman is walking down the steps of Capitol Hill when he sees a stunning young blond at the bottom of them.  He immediately goes down the stairs and gets next to the blonde and puts his arm around her.
Westman: Hello lovely.  What are you doing here at Capitol Hill?
Laura Finney cracks up.  So this is Senator Horny Toad.  Lawrence warned me about him.
Laura: Oh you must be Senator Westman.
Westman moves her closer to him.
Westman: Was my intimately sexy aura a dead give-away?  How about I make up for it by taking you out to the best seafood place in town, baby?  After all I can't really blame a young, beautiful girl for being so attracted to my presence to show up at Capitol Hill waiting for me.  Come on babe, let's have some smoked Salmon and then afterwards you can have a nice nightcap on me?
Laura laughs even harder. God this guy is such a horn dog.  It's a miracle he hasn't been sued by the interns for sexual harassment.
Laura: That's real nice and all Mister Westman.  You sure are a handsome man, but I'm waiting for somebody.  So please (lifts his arm off her shoulder)....hands off.
Westman: Well you can forget all about your boyfriend lady, I'll show you a good time.
Laura: No, I mean I am waiting for somebody.  A US Congressman.  Larry Watson?
Suddenly Westman's skin turned pale. Oh my god, I just hit on Larry's girl!  I'm going to hell!
Westman slowly steps away from her.
Westman: You're............her?
Laura: Yes I'm "her".  Maybe if you had enough respect for women to not hit on every one of them you see near the Hill you would know better than to hit on your friend's girl.  But I think it can be forgiven, considering you are Senator Horny Toad.
Westman scoffs at the nickname.
Westman: How dare you!  I worked hard to get where I am at today sleeping with half the interns and even a few pages!  I will not be demeaned by such a puritan woman as yourself who is all preachy about monogamy and sh*t!  Now if you'll excuse me, Missus Prude, I got some fellas I'm meeting with at the bar.
Laura: Great!  I'll see you there!
Westman: Okay, see ya!
Right as Westman turned around he remembered that Watson would be at the bar.  Which meant that if his girl was in the states.........yep.  Tonight was going to be the big night..........

[Mechaman]

August 20th, 1984
Great Falls, Montana
Westman Rally:

Scott Westman is on the stage with South Carolina Republican Congressman Giovanni Russo.  Russo's appearance at a Westman rally would give the campaign a big boost due to the high ranking of Russo, who was House Majority Leader.  Russo usually didn't talk much, so Westman just asked him to do a short introduction.  Unlike Watson, who Westman would have do half of his speeches if he could, Russo didn't have a reputation for great speeches.
The 5'5" Russo walks up to the microphone flanked by Westman.
Russo: Good afternoon Great Falls.  My name is Giovanni Russo, I am the House Majority Leader of the US House of Representatives representing parts of Charleston, South Carolina.  Today I am here to endorse Scott Westman.  After you hear this speech you will understand why I as a Republican and as a libertarian have endorsed him over Peters.
Russo gets off stage as Westman, who was a foot taller, got behind the mic.
Westman: Short and straight to the point, words that define Russo.
(crowd laughs)
Westman: Easy buddy, that was not a shot at your physical height.  Merely a praise of your ability to say things as they are.  Good afternoon.  Today I am here to announce yet another major plank on my platform: the elimination of the Montana state Sales Tax.  The sales tax has proven a most unwelcome burden on every Montana citizen who has bought goods since like ever.  It is an unwelcome intrusion into our pocket books.  In my mind there is no reason why one should go to a store and end up paying anywhere from 10 cents more to $1,000 more than is listed in the price.  This is frustrating, this is mind boggling, and most of all it is unacceptable for the 1.5 million residents of this state.  The sales tax is a regressive tax that impacts the working families of this state the most due to their limited income to better their situation.  The sales tax also causes unacceptable rises in the cost of living, as exemplified by the record high costs of living for the working families of this state.  And it is unfair to force businesses to act as the collecting agents for our tax dollars.
I believe that if we eliminate this sales tax it can be made up for in other means, such as the selling off of state controlled industries like alcohol and the addition of certain property includible under the property tax.  This, along with drastic reductions in the amount of spending, will help us balance our budget without delving further into our "rainy day" fund.  Overall I would like to see a Montana that is freed from excessive taxation and spending and ranks amongst the best in this nation in regards to the state of our "fiscal reserve".

Westman's speech on eliminating the state sales tax, which had been in place since 1952, would win praise from many fiscal conservatives and even some liberals who saw the sales tax as "regressive".  By positioning himself as more fiscally conservative than the incumbent Republican governor many started saying that Westman was on his way to not only beating Peters but "humiliating him beyond measure" in the gubernatorial.
However, there was one thing Westman overlooked.

[Mechaman]

August 21st, 1984
Circle, Montana
Michael Oglesby (Conservative) Rally:

Michael Oglesby, the Montana Conservative Party nominee for Governor, is addressing a crowd of several hundred in the small eastern Montana town of Circle.  He begins to speak:

Circle, never before have the two other choices been so unacceptable as to make this Conservative Party a true alternative to the two party duopoly that has existed over the past hundred plus years.  You have the Republican Party of Richard Peters, a party that has proven to be at the whim of the Eastern Establishment who are only "moderately" tyrannic.  Governor Peters doesn't care about Montanan values, he merely cares about the cash flows his buddies in the Rockefeller Foundation give him for implementing their ideal blueblooded utopia.  Over the past three years individual liberty and choice has never been at more peril than it has under the Peters Administration, and for what purpose?  The Governor knows this wouldn't be popular with Montanans but yet he continues to follow this path.  He continues to raise taxes yet his spending is out of control.  He continues to allow the immoral legality of abortion in this state.  He continues to send the state guard to raid law abiding American citizens just for owning guns that make elitists from Connecticut feel uncomfortable.  His administration may be the most unpopular administration in Montana history, if the people running the polls weren't bought off by his friends in the Rockefeller Media.
But don't think that makes Scott Westman the better choice.  Scott Westman, sure he's campaigning against the corrupt Peters Government, but let's not forget what Scott Westman stands for. A Scott Westman Government would be one of radicalism, of extreme liberal social engineering.  A Scott Westman Government would be a government that would empower the alcohol, tobacco, and even the still illegal marijuana industries.  A Scott Westman Government would see nothing wrong with the treatment centers of this state being overfilled with addicts to these harmful substances, hell a Scott Westman Government would be in there with them!!!!!
(crowd laughs)
It may sound funny now Circle, but we all know it's true.  Scott Westman himself has called the ban on marijuana to be "extreme moral fascism" and that if he were governor he would "take all steps necessary to legalize and liberalize marijuana along the same lines as alcohol."  Considering that one of the biggest selling points Westman has touted so far is eliminating the sales tax this would mean that alcohol wouldn't be taxed at all.  I believe that no "vice taxes" would result in untold problems for the people of this state, something Westman doesn't believe would happen.  And don't get me started on the former Senator's position on sexuality, how homosexuality is completely normal and no different than heterosexuality and that the age of consent of 16 is "draconian".  Well what does Westman think the age of consent should be?  15?  14?  13?  12?  How low should it be Westman!?  HOw low!?  Because we know from your record nothing seems to be too low for you!
I agree with Scott Westman about the need to downsize government from how big the Peters Administration has made it and I agree we need to lower spending.  However I disagree with his whole belief system of getting rid of moral government that has prevented this state from becoming an anarchistic hippie wasteland.  Knowing Westman's record, he would probably welcome such a wasteland.

The Conservative rally, which was uncommonly harsh in tone in regards to both major party candidates, would give Oglesby a lead over the Republican candidate Governor Peters.  However, Scott Westman would still have a solid 10 point lead over Oglesby.  Unlike in 1982 Scott Westman would be ready for any potential strong Conservative candidacy.  In fact, this time he was HOPING for it.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Seems like Westman is getting a bit more right-wing.. unless this is a side he just hasn't shown off before.

[Mechaman]

Seems like Westman is getting a bit more right-wing.. unless this is a side he just hasn't shown off before.

Keep in mind that he was also the United States Senator who crafted the Economic Recovery Act of 1981, which would lower the highest income brackets from 78.95% down to 38.95% by 1985 while also effectively halving the ad valorem tariff rate on most imports.
Scott Westman is one of the most economically right wing Democrats in the country, and there is good reason for it.  With the exception of healthcare his economic views are very little different from the average libertarian Republican.  A lot of the Westman family (besides Rebecca Roth) are economically "liberal" in the traditional sense of the word.  William Westman, well known as a Tammany Hall loyalist and anti-New Dealer, was a trusted friend of conservative Republican Robert Taft, so much to the point that Robert considered asking William to be his VP choice if he won the GOP nomination.
Scott Westman, though arguably one of the most socially libertarian Democrats in the nation is also one of the most right wing Democrats in regards to economic issues.  If he lived during the 1800's he probably would've been called "Jeffersonian" or "Bourbon Democratic" in his outlook.

[Dr. Cynic]

Seems like Westman is getting a bit more right-wing.. unless this is a side he just hasn't shown off before.

Keep in mind that he was also the United States Senator who crafted the Economic Recovery Act of 1981, which would lower the highest income brackets from 78.95% down to 38.95% by 1985 while also effectively halving the ad valorem tariff rate on most imports.
Scott Westman is one of the most economically right wing Democrats in the country, and there is good reason for it.  With the exception of healthcare his economic views are very little different from the average libertarian Republican.  A lot of the Westman family (besides Rebecca Roth) are economically "liberal" in the traditional sense of the word.  William Westman, well known as a Tammany Hall loyalist and anti-New Dealer, was a trusted friend of conservative Republican Robert Taft, so much to the point that Robert considered asking William to be his VP choice if he won the GOP nomination.
Scott Westman, though arguably one of the most socially libertarian Democrats in the nation is also one of the most right wing Democrats in regards to economic issues.  If he lived during the 1800's he probably would've been called "Jeffersonian" or "Bourbon Democratic" in his outlook.

In that regard its an odd alliance and friendship he's formed with Watson. I think though that their friendship also lies within being a mutually beneficial one. Watson, should he be the ambitious and aggressive type that he seems, would benefit from Westman having a more stridently libertarian economic platform if he needed more conservative votes and Westman gets the Watson cred with the unions. Not a bad arrangement.

[Mechaman]

Seems like Westman is getting a bit more right-wing.. unless this is a side he just hasn't shown off before.

Keep in mind that he was also the United States Senator who crafted the Economic Recovery Act of 1981, which would lower the highest income brackets from 78.95% down to 38.95% by 1985 while also effectively halving the ad valorem tariff rate on most imports.
Scott Westman is one of the most economically right wing Democrats in the country, and there is good reason for it.  With the exception of healthcare his economic views are very little different from the average libertarian Republican.  A lot of the Westman family (besides Rebecca Roth) are economically "liberal" in the traditional sense of the word.  William Westman, well known as a Tammany Hall loyalist and anti-New Dealer, was a trusted friend of conservative Republican Robert Taft, so much to the point that Robert considered asking William to be his VP choice if he won the GOP nomination.
Scott Westman, though arguably one of the most socially libertarian Democrats in the nation is also one of the most right wing Democrats in regards to economic issues.  If he lived during the 1800's he probably would've been called "Jeffersonian" or "Bourbon Democratic" in his outlook.

In that regard its an odd alliance and friendship he's formed with Watson. I think though that their friendship also lies within being a mutually beneficial one. Watson, should he be the ambitious and aggressive type that he seems, would benefit from Westman having a more stridently libertarian economic platform if he needed more conservative votes and Westman gets the Watson cred with the unions. Not a bad arrangement.

Their friendship lies within the common party identification and intense dislike of "Northeast Republican Elites".  You have to keep in mind that in this timeline virtually all the Democrats in Congress are united around the idea of public healthcare.  And "conservative" Southern Democrats are a dream of yesteryear, except maybe in Texas (and those "conservatives" are pretty pro-choice and in favor of same sex rights equal to heterosexuals, so bleh not really "conservative") because of "yellow dogged loyalty".  In regard to economics Westman would probably be slightly to the left of the average Texas Democrat (he would be a little more pro-union, but that's probably it).  In the US Senate Westman's libertarianesque economic views aren't so clear due to a legislative focus and not gubernatorial focus.  Though when he campaigned in 1974 and 1976 he was often called "the libertarian anti-war candidate" by the press.
Though it has to be noted that in 1982 Watson endorsed Brian Lovato, the progressive Independent, as the nominee against Westman.  So it isn't all blind friendship and loyalty.
And yes, Watson is going to benefit from his friendship with Westman.  Especially in regard to a certain social issue important to Pennsylvanians......

[Mechaman]

Social Issues within the parties:
Part 1

Abortion:

Democrats: State's Rights, though most Democrats are personally pro-life.  However, there is a growing faction of mostly western Democrats that are adopting pro-choice views.  Though there are exceptions in the east, most notably Daniel Moynihan of New York.  Estimated prolife/prochoice/Undecided: 67/29/4
Republicans: Lean pro-choice, due mostly to feminist influence in party platform.  However, there are a growing number of Republicans (mostly western and plains state) who are personally pro-life and support the federalist approach (State's Rights).  This latter faction is small in number but has grown rapidly over the past decade.  Senate Majority Leader Mark O. Hatfield is a pro-life Republican.  Estimated prolife/prochoice/Undecided: 44/47/9
Constitution: Pro-choice actually, for nefarious reasons (to reduce the number of uneducated minorities on welfare).
Conservative: The most pro-life party that wants to establish a national Right to Life Amendment that would define birth at conception in the US Constitution. Estimated prolife/prochoice/undecided: 87/11/2
Moderate Reform: Overwhelmingly pro-choice.  The Party of NARAL. 13/82/5

Second Amendment:

Democrats: Against any and all gun bans as violation of "constitutional rights".  Several politicians, especially in the mostly urban Northeast, do support regulations (such as a 7 day waiting period or "child locks" on handguns).  Union, rural, and mountain west Democrats are the most opposed to gun control while Northeastern and California Democrats are most in favor of "rational gun control" methods.  Social Democrats and libertarian Democrats seem to be the most opposed to gun control while urban moderates and liberals are the most in favor.
Republicans: Northeast "moderate" faction is supportive of assault rifle and handgun bans.  Some politicians, like Congressman David LeBouf (R-CT) openly lament "the gun culture of rural America".  Western "libertarian" faction and "conservative" Republicans throughout the Midwest and South are generally supportive of gun rights, though some more moderate conservative Republicans support "common sense" legislation.
Constitution: Mixed.  Support laws that limit gun shops in urban areas, but overwhelmingly supportive of gun rights in rural areas.
Conservative: Very pro-gun
Moderate Reform: Ban all guns except bolt action hunting rifles.

Gay Rights:

Democrats: 56% in support of homosexual relationships equal to heterosexual marriage, 79% in favor of Limited Same Sex Partnerships, 96% in favor of equal "domestic rights" for homosexuals.
Republicans: 64% in support of homosexual relationships equal to heterosexual marriage, 85% in favor of Limited Same Sex Partnerships, 94% in favor of equal "domestic rights" for homosexuals.
Constitution: 9% in support of homosexual relationships equal to heterosexual marriage, 38% in favor of Limited Same Sex Partnerships, 47% in favor of equal "domestic rights" for homosexuals.
Conservative: 38% in favor of homosexual relationships equal to heterosexual marriage, 68% in favor of Limited Same Sex Partnerships, 87% in favor of equal "domestic rights" for homosexuals.
Moderate Reform: 81% in favor of homosexual relationships equal to heterosexual marriage, 97% in favor of Limited Same Sex Parternships, 100% in favor of equal "domestic rights" for homosexuals.

The Death Penalty:

Democratic: Mostly opposed, though there are a few (mostly in the South) that do hold pro-death penalty views. Polls show 17% support/79% opposed/4% undecided
Republican: Mixed.  Death penalty is overwhelmingly opposed by libertarian Republicans, 50/50 amongst liberal Republicans, and slight support amongst conservative Republicans.  Polls measured at 42 support/47 oppose/11 undecided
Constitution: Overwhelmingly in support.
Conservative: Lean support, though a good deal (who also oppose abortion) are against.  Polls have Conservatives being 56/42/2 on the death penalty.
Moderate Reform: Mostly opposed, though pro-death penalty MR members aren't rare.  Polls had Moderate Reform members at 30/65/5 on the death penalty.

That's it for now, I'll come up with more later.

Note: due to the variety of positions on gun issues I left out an estimate or poll with numbers.  Just use your mind on that one.

[Dr. Cynic]

<<<<With exception of guns is closest socially to Moderate Reform.

[Mechaman]

<<<<With exception of guns is closest socially to Moderate Reform.

I kind of figured.
Democrats in general have their prolife and anti-death penalty leanings due to the Catholic hierarchy that replaced the Dixiecrats as a dominant interest of the Democratic Party (pretty much, in the 1950's Eleanor Roosevelt and her allies in New York would fail to shut down Tammany Hall.  As a result of that failure Tammany and other political machines would end up reversing the trend of reformers and end up EXPANDING their influence instead of waning off into the ash heap of history).  Strong support of gun rights amongst Democrats, especially amongst pro-labor Democrats, is mostly a reaction against the "Yankee gun grabbing elitism" of Northeastern Republicans.  Lawrence Watson currently has an A- rating from the National Rifle Association.  He would have a perfect record if it weren't for a vote he made against allowing guns onto public schools (which he called "beyond crazy").
Weaker support for gay equality amongst Democrats than Republicans are also explained away due to more of a religious influence in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.  Though it should be noted that in the mid 1980's equality for homosexuals is not only a lot higher than it was IRL 1984, but even more so than it is right now IRL.  The Kennedy Administration did away with the ban on homosexuals serving in the military in 1970, to give you an idea about how much more progressive America is in regards to gay rights.

As the author William R. Teagle once wrote about American politics in 1971: "American politics is nothing more than a feud between two angry little children.  One named Patrick (Democratic Party) and the other named Winfield (Republican Party).  Along the way Patrick kicked Billy (Dixiecrats) to the curb because he wanted to be friends with Bernie (African Americans).  Not wanting to soil his reputation Winfield not only refused to be Billy's friend, but he spit in his face to make a point.  Ever since then it's been Billy against the world, trying to find his true purpose."

[Dr. Cynic]

<<<<With exception of guns is closest socially to Moderate Reform.

I kind of figured.
Democrats in general have their prolife and anti-death penalty leanings due to the Catholic hierarchy that replaced the Dixiecrats as a dominant interest of the Democratic Party (pretty much, in the 1950's Eleanor Roosevelt and her allies in New York would fail to shut down Tammany Hall.  As a result of that failure Tammany and other political machines would end up reversing the trend of reformers and end up EXPANDING their influence instead of waning off into the ash heap of history).  Strong support of gun rights amongst Democrats, especially amongst pro-labor Democrats, is mostly a reaction against the "Yankee gun grabbing elitism" of Northeastern Republicans.  Lawrence Watson currently has an A- rating from the National Rifle Association.  He would have a perfect record if it weren't for a vote he made against allowing guns onto public schools (which he called "beyond crazy").
Weaker support for gay equality amongst Democrats than Republicans are also explained away due to more of a religious influence in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.  Though it should be noted that in the mid 1980's equality for homosexuals is not only a lot higher than it was IRL 1984, but even more so than it is right now IRL.  The Kennedy Administration did away with the ban on homosexuals serving in the military in 1970, to give you an idea about how much more progressive America is in regards to gay rights.

As the author William R. Teagle once wrote about American politics in 1971: "American politics is nothing more than a feud between two angry little children.  One named Patrick (Democratic Party) and the other named Winfield (Republican Party).  Along the way Patrick kicked Billy (Dixiecrats) to the curb because he wanted to be friends with Bernie (African Americans).  Not wanting to soil his reputation Winfield not only refused to be Billy's friend, but he spit in his face to make a point.  Ever since then it's been Billy against the world, trying to find his true purpose."

Damn the NRA and it's pro-kid killing agenda!

If Westman and Watson exert more control over the Democratic Party sometime down the line as I figure they will, how do you feel the party will change?

[Mechaman]

<<<<With exception of guns is closest socially to Moderate Reform.

I kind of figured.
Democrats in general have their prolife and anti-death penalty leanings due to the Catholic hierarchy that replaced the Dixiecrats as a dominant interest of the Democratic Party (pretty much, in the 1950's Eleanor Roosevelt and her allies in New York would fail to shut down Tammany Hall.  As a result of that failure Tammany and other political machines would end up reversing the trend of reformers and end up EXPANDING their influence instead of waning off into the ash heap of history).  Strong support of gun rights amongst Democrats, especially amongst pro-labor Democrats, is mostly a reaction against the "Yankee gun grabbing elitism" of Northeastern Republicans.  Lawrence Watson currently has an A- rating from the National Rifle Association.  He would have a perfect record if it weren't for a vote he made against allowing guns onto public schools (which he called "beyond crazy").
Weaker support for gay equality amongst Democrats than Republicans are also explained away due to more of a religious influence in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.  Though it should be noted that in the mid 1980's equality for homosexuals is not only a lot higher than it was IRL 1984, but even more so than it is right now IRL.  The Kennedy Administration did away with the ban on homosexuals serving in the military in 1970, to give you an idea about how much more progressive America is in regards to gay rights.

As the author William R. Teagle once wrote about American politics in 1971: "American politics is nothing more than a feud between two angry little children.  One named Patrick (Democratic Party) and the other named Winfield (Republican Party).  Along the way Patrick kicked Billy (Dixiecrats) to the curb because he wanted to be friends with Bernie (African Americans).  Not wanting to soil his reputation Winfield not only refused to be Billy's friend, but he spit in his face to make a point.  Ever since then it's been Billy against the world, trying to find his true purpose."

Damn the NRA and it's pro-kid killing agenda!

If Westman and Watson exert more control over the Democratic Party sometime down the line as I figure they will, how do you feel the party will change?

It would probably result in a more socially liberal party.  At least in regards to abortion and gay rights.  Economically speaking the party would probably stay the same, though some more fiscally conservative measures (like welfare reform) would take place.  However, policies like Social Security and Public Healthcare would stay the same.  Actually, a bigger push for a National Healthcare System (Single Payer) would be introduced into the platform, so it might drift left in some respects.  In regards to foreign policy I would expect the Democratic Party as a whole would be against foreign interventionism and would become centrist on trade (y'know conditional free trade agreements based on civil rights issues in other countries).  Emphasis on cutting the military budget and eliminating the nuclear weapon stockpile would also be emphasized.
I would expect the Catholic social hierarchy would actually decrease due to the social libertarianism of both men.  This would result in a loss of socially conservative Catholics but would end up winning more of the western vote and the Northeast.  The social libertarianism of both men would also alienate traditionalists and conservatives in the South who usually vote Democratic but would be made up for with massive gains in the West and the Rust Belt.
Either men could become President down the road.  Westman has the advantage of name recognition (he's part of a political dynasty), related to the Kennedy Family via marriage, and the perception of being older and more experienced (though he and Watson are equally politically experienced).  Watson, however, kicks Westman's ass in the charisma department, is connected to big labor, is very close to the Udall Family (who, if they endorse Watson, could put him over in the West), and has a "cleaner" record than Westman (after all Westman did put it in a girl who happened to have a bag on her, something that's pretty icky to pro-family people).
But at the moment both of them are seen as young and inexperienced and probably won't run for until at least 1988.  They probably won't be serious contenders until at least 1992, and that's if neither one loses a political race in the meantime (besides a presidential or vice presidential nomination).

[Dr. Cynic]

I'm quite excited for what the future holds for everyone. I'll be keeping an eye

[Mechaman]

November 2nd, 1976
CBS Election News with Dan Rather:

Welcome back to CBS Election News and I got a big announcement for those of you in Arizona.  It seems that incumbent Republican Senator Paul Jones Fannin has been defeated by Democratic Congressman Morris Udall.  The Congressman, well known as a vocal and witty progressive, will join fellow Arizonian, Barry Goldwater, in the US Senate.  The two men, close friends despite ideological differences, should prove to be a most interesting tandem in the years to come.
Congressman Udall, who was elected to his District in 1960 after it had become vacated after the tragic death of his brother Stewart Udall, was speculated as a possible primary challenger to President Reagan last year.  Instead, he would shock the political world by announcing his intention to run for the US Senate instead of stay in the US House where he was the ranking Democratic member of the Conservation (Environmental) Committee.  We look forward to seeing how a Senator Morris Udall would perform in the Senate.

[Mechaman]

More cynical outside political analysis:

The Democratic Elitist:

The Democratic Party wants the people to believe that all of the elites are within the Republican Party.  They want you to believe that the Republican elites are eating grey poupon while watching as their corporate cronies steal all of your hard earned cash and take away your union protections and take away your guns yada yada.  What is hilarious about all of this is that the Democratic Party is just as elitist as the Republican Party.  It's just easier to disguise your elitism when you can portray the opposition as an oppressive majority.  The only real difference between the Democratic elitists and the Republican elitists is that the Democratic elitists drink Poitin instead of Du Voir and eat Drisheen instead of Grey Poupon.
The Democratic Elitist might be as Irish as Soda Bread but cut him and he still bleeds like the atypical Republican WASP elitist: blue.
People talk about the Rockefellers, people talk about the Cabots, people talk about the Adams family.  They talk about the wealth, the prestige, the recognition.  But let's backtrack there a minute.  You wanna know which families are of more wealth?  Of more recognition?  Of more prestige?  How about the Kennedys of Hyannis Port, Massachusetts?  How about the Donnellys of Fairfield, Connecticut?  What about the Costellos of Palo Alto, California?  All Irish, all Catholic, all Democratic.......all of exponentially more wealth than the typical Republican WASP elitist.  These families control international business empires that go far beyond anything even the Rockefeller family was able to do.  Yet, we are supposed to believe that these Hibernian elites, whose blood is as blue as the sky, suddenly are more qualified to identify with the common man than their Grey Poupon eating contemporaries in the Republican Party?  These overlords don't even want to live in the same area, the same ZIP code as the oppressed lower class public they say they are defending!!!

Noah K. Fitzgerald
Socialist Union Party Activist and Author
Excerpt from "The Shadow Government: How the Elites Destroyed the Working Class"

[Dr. Cynic]

More cynical outside political analysis:

The Democratic Elitist:

The Democratic Party wants the people to believe that all of the elites are within the Republican Party.  They want you to believe that the Republican elites are eating grey poupon while watching as their corporate cronies steal all of your hard earned cash and take away your union protections and take away your guns yada yada.  What is hilarious about all of this is that the Democratic Party is just as elitist as the Republican Party.  It's just easier to disguise your elitism when you can portray the opposition as an oppressive majority.  The only real difference between the Democratic elitists and the Republican elitists is that the Democratic elitists drink Poitin instead of Du Voir and eat Drisheen instead of Grey Poupon.
The Democratic Elitist might be as Irish as Soda Bread but cut him and he still bleeds like the atypical Republican WASP elitist: blue.
People talk about the Rockefellers, people talk about the Cabots, people talk about the Adams family.  They talk about the wealth, the prestige, the recognition.  But let's backtrack there a minute.  You wanna know which families are of more wealth?  Of more recognition?  Of more prestige?  How about the Kennedys of Hyannis Port, Massachusetts?  How about the Donnellys of Fairfield, Connecticut?  What about the Costellos of Palo Alto, California?  All Irish, all Catholic, all Democratic.......all of exponentially more wealth than the typical Republican WASP elitist.  These families control international business empires that go far beyond anything even the Rockefeller family was able to do.  Yet, we are supposed to believe that these Hibernian elites, whose blood is as blue as the sky, suddenly are more qualified to identify with the common man than their Grey Poupon eating contemporaries in the Republican Party?  These overlords don't even want to live in the same area, the same ZIP code as the oppressed lower class public they say they are defending!!!

Noah K. Fitzgerald
Socialist Union Party Activist and Author
Excerpt from "The Shadow Government: How the Elites Destroyed the Working Class"

It's good that wasn't about Lawrence Watson, the Scottish lapsed Methodist

[Mechaman]

More cynical outside political analysis:

The Democratic Elitist:

The Democratic Party wants the people to believe that all of the elites are within the Republican Party.  They want you to believe that the Republican elites are eating grey poupon while watching as their corporate cronies steal all of your hard earned cash and take away your union protections and take away your guns yada yada.  What is hilarious about all of this is that the Democratic Party is just as elitist as the Republican Party.  It's just easier to disguise your elitism when you can portray the opposition as an oppressive majority.  The only real difference between the Democratic elitists and the Republican elitists is that the Democratic elitists drink Poitin instead of Du Voir and eat Drisheen instead of Grey Poupon.
The Democratic Elitist might be as Irish as Soda Bread but cut him and he still bleeds like the atypical Republican WASP elitist: blue.
People talk about the Rockefellers, people talk about the Cabots, people talk about the Adams family.  They talk about the wealth, the prestige, the recognition.  But let's backtrack there a minute.  You wanna know which families are of more wealth?  Of more recognition?  Of more prestige?  How about the Kennedys of Hyannis Port, Massachusetts?  How about the Donnellys of Fairfield, Connecticut?  What about the Costellos of Palo Alto, California?  All Irish, all Catholic, all Democratic.......all of exponentially more wealth than the typical Republican WASP elitist.  These families control international business empires that go far beyond anything even the Rockefeller family was able to do.  Yet, we are supposed to believe that these Hibernian elites, whose blood is as blue as the sky, suddenly are more qualified to identify with the common man than their Grey Poupon eating contemporaries in the Republican Party?  These overlords don't even want to live in the same area, the same ZIP code as the oppressed lower class public they say they are defending!!!

Noah K. Fitzgerald
Socialist Union Party Activist and Author
Excerpt from "The Shadow Government: How the Elites Destroyed the Working Class"

It's good that wasn't about Lawrence Watson, the Scottish lapsed Methodist

It was mostly a criticism of how the lower class flocks to the Democratic Party come election time due to the perception of the Democrats being the party that's against elitism.  This portion from the book "The Shadow Government" reflects the failure of the Roosevelt Coalition in doing away with Tammany Hall and other political machine influences.  As a result the Democratic Party comes mostly under the control of excessively rich mostly Irish Catholic businessmen in the Northeast and California.  While the party does open up to urban minorities (especially Jews) power rests mostly in the hands of a few billionaires (namely the Kennedys, the Donnellys, the Costellos, and the Deringer families) who have the most influence on the national platform come election day.  As a result a lot of left wing and labor union activists take great umbrage and attack the "Hibernian Elite" of the Democratic Party, calling it "just as blueblooded and corrupt" as the WASP elitists who run the GOP establishment.

[Dr. Cynic]

Oh, I kinda knew where you were going with that, I was just making a bit of a joke.