A Second Chance - CONCLUSION

[Jerseyrules]

And Mansfield too

[Niemeyerite]

Oh, I hadn't read this! Great, as usual. But, now I want you to answer this

What about Harry F. Byrd, Jr.?  What's he doing?  (I'm a hipster when it comes to politicians, sorry )

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What about Harry F. Byrd, Jr.?  What's he doing?  (I'm a hipster when it comes to politicians, sorry )

Byrd is still an indpendent Senator from Virginia, caucusing with the Dems as one of their most Conservative members.

And Mansfield too

Mansfield served as Senate Majority Whip for a number of years, from 1957-1971, Senate Minority Whip 1971-1973, Senate Minority Leader 1973-1975, and Senate Majority Leader 1975-1977. During his days as a Whip he served under Lyndon Johnson (1957-1971) and Hubert H. Humphrey (1971-1973). In 1974, the Democrats came roaring back following four years in the Minority in the Senate and two years without the Presidency, a foreshadow of how four years of a Republican Presidency would itself end two years from then. He served as Majority for only two years before his retirement in 1976, when Robert Byrd took over. Right now he's working as the US Ambassador to Japan.

Anyone else?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

"Come January, 1981, George McGovern and I both found ourselves in the same boat: unemployed. I had been a two term Senator from Alaska who had foregone re-election--and likely would have lost re-election--to run for Vice-President of the United States. George was the Vice-President I was running against and, like me, he had lost. To pay my bills and the divorce proceedings I found myself going through, I took a job working for a land-scaping company. George went the other path, that of senior statesman. He had spent well over two decades in politics and by the time January 1982 rolled around, once could tell that he had grown restless. As if the Vice-Presidency had not been enough to make him want to do more, he was now completely out of office and it was this restlessness I assume that prompted him to announce that he would be writing his memoirs. I called him and told him that I'd be glad to read them and was hoping that when the publishing was done I'd be able to get one of the first copies. However, it was his secretary who picked up and I never received a call back.

I could tell he was also preparing for something else. I had heard through the grapevine that McGovern was meeting with people, people who had supported him and Kennedy. Most notably, it was the progressive voices of the party that had stuck by him even as Gene broke off. Among them were peopel like Mondale, Congressman Tom Daschle of his own South Dakota, Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine, and Senator Harold Hughes of Iowa. He had even met with Mo Udall who had supported Gene in 1980 but was now seemingly back among the establishment. It was becoming obvious to insiders--and I was lucky enough to know some of them--that these were people that could support him if he chose to run in 1984. Watching this play out from newspaper articles, TV spots, and news I got from friends got me thinking as to where I should head next. The landscaping business was paying well, sure, but I wasn't enthused by it, and nowhere near as excited as I'd been on the Senate floor rallying against things like nuclear wasted, un-needed American intervention in foreign countries, and America's march towards World War Three.

Looking around, the most obvious target was the Alaska Governor's Mansion. Currently occupied by the fiscally conservative Republican Jay Hammond, it would soon be completely open as Hammond wasn't running for another term. However, I wasn't loved by the Alaska Democratic party and I doubted I could even win the nomination. However, Hammond wasn't popular and I was the most prominent Democrat in the state, having most recently served two terms as its junior Senator, run for the Democratic nomination for President in 1972, and won a plurality of votes for Vice-President in 1980. There was a power gap and I could fill it. Thus, I vigorously began contacting many of the more progressive Democrats in the state to try to line up support. I had gone for a year in retirement and this was my chance to maintain political longevity for a potential Presidential run in 1984 or 1988. It soon became clear to me that it would be an uphill battle for the nomination, which didn't surprise me. What did surprise me was the newspaper articles I soon began reading about myself. "Washed-Up Gravel Looking for Comeback", "Gravel Looking For Impossible Once More", and so on. However, had my career not been built on going against the odds, going against the establishment? My election in 1968 had been an uphill battle, my re-nomination in 1974 had been just as tough. Many of my proposals in the Senate had failed, but not without me winning the public relations battle or learning something important about how the Senate functioned. One thing I had to my advantage was the open primary system which is practically unique among the other 49 states. It allowed me to rally bi-partisan support from the state's more moderate Republicans, consolidate as may Democrats as possible, and hopefully win the votes of a number of Libertarians. I officially declared my candidacy for Governor of Alaska on February 4th, 1982."

-The Death of the Democrats, Mike Gravel, ©1996

[Jerseyrules]

Great update!  What about Wally Hickel?  (Sorry about all my requests )

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

"Following the appointment of Church in January of 1982, I undertook my first full statement on how foreign policy would proceed during the next three (hopefully seven) years. "We seek a better environment for our children. And this does not relate only to policies on the debt, deficit, or environment. As a generation we can not say with a clear conscience that we allowed the Cold War to continue despite having at our disposal a number of options for de-escalation. During my administration, we will push for continual reduction in the nuclear capacties of both nations, our own and that of the Soviet Union. We can not afford to wait for one of our two nations to come crumbling down to declare an end to the war and peace at last. Instead, we, America, shall take the initiative to make this world a safer place, not through war and extensive military campaigns, but through meaningful diplomatic action." This was a marked difference from the confrontational tone Reagan had so often liked to use and a difference from the un-revealing tone I had used that last year. When questioned on whether I might be "betraying the death and legacy of Ronald Reagan", I responded that Reagan had chosen me for Vice-President and had trusted me to carry on presiding over the country in case of his death or resigantion. Therefore, I felt secure in making my judgements.

The first step would be to arrange a tour for Frank Church where-in he would be meeting with Great Britain, with NATO, and with the USSR over the next many months and bring about a much more conciliatory tone across the globe. Church left for the UK on March 1st, marking the beginning. Throughout my foreign policy deliberations during December, January, and February, a much larger domestic issue was also taking place, the annual budget. According to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, a budget had to be submitted to Congress between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. Throughout November through to the beginning of January, various budget proposals had been put forward and finally a budget was put together. When its passage went through, I found myself sitting on a $120 billion deficit. I was not proud of this and neither was Treasury Secretary Cap Weinberger. However, that was a steep reduction in the rate of deficit growth, capping off at nearly no increase at all. "This is something we're going to be working hard on" I told Cap and he agreed.

Submitting it to Congress ignited a firestorm among fiscal liberals and military hawks. "This budget is in no way able to fund America's current military needs" cried Democrat Jesse Helms from the floor of the Senate. With fiscal liberals determined to champion their programs, a number of appropriations bills were added onto it, and new freshman Senator John McCain seemingly had a ball coming up with his own proposals that included significant increases in the numbers my team had put forward. However, at the end of the battle man months later, I found myself signing a $120 billion deficit. So ended my first budget battle, of which there would be many more to come. This segued into what would become the prime motive of my domestic policy: streamlining and making the government more efficient, reducing costs greatly, increasing revenue, and getting rid of un-needed programs while still preserving the social safety net. I like to think I was able to pull it off."

-Against the Grain, Mark Hatfield, ©2000

Senator Jesse Helms (D-NC) denouncing the FY1983 budget

"One of my biggest problems with Hatfield's budget was the cut to military spending. Yes, we could be fiscally realistic. You had to be. But the amount of cutting he had done, and I'm sure the amount of cutting he intended to do later on, was far too much for me, and that applies to the domestic cuts the budget had packed in. I stated firmly with a number of others behind me, despite myself being a freshman Senator, that I could not rightly vote for this budget but with revenue increases and modifications to the proposal. "Where do you intend to get these revenue increases?" The Vice-President and President of the Senate Barry Goldwater asked, staring down at me. I was looking into an age old politician who had seen it all and in fact preceded me in my seat. "Why from of course raising taxes on the top income earners. Helping them out certainly hasn't given anything to the economy." "And you're aware that the President has repeatedly gone against the idea of raising them from where they are? He has state that their current level at 55% is quite enough." I really had no response to that except "Well he's wrong!" which I resisted. It was to be one of my many losing battles--a number of which I faced during Hatfield's Presidency--until I eventually gained enough clout and a sympathetic Administration to finally have some winning battles. I eventually found myself voting for the budget proposal at the end of the debate which was in itself near the end of the year."

-Faith of my Fathers, John S. McCain III, ©1999

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Great update!  What about Wally Hickel?  (Sorry about all my requests )

Served a full two terms as Alaska's Governor (1966-1974) and now, as can be seen on the update on Reagan's (and later Hatfield's) cabinet back on page 54, he's Interior Secretary.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

...And we made it to page sixty!

FYI: The Gravel button is just a touched up 2008 one worked on with MS paint.

[Jerseyrules]

...And we made it to page sixty!

FYI: The Gravel button is just a touched up 2008 one worked on with MS paint.

Yeah I thought as much.  I'm really liking this, and hope you can continue this while juggling everything else

[morgieb]

This is great. Interesting to see the Democrats as the party of the establishment, and the party of hawks.

[Jerseyrules]

This is great. Interesting to see the Democrats as the party of the establishment, and the party of hawks.

And the GOP as the party of classical liberalism.

[Niemeyerite]

Yes, this is great! Thanks, Cathcon

[Jerseyrules]

Who's the pope right now?  Still John Paul II?

[Jerseyrules]

And can I get a shout-out to Barry Jr.?  . Thanks

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Who's the pope right now?  Still John Paul II?

I'm a Catholic, and I'm not inclined to use alternate history to change anything going on in the selection of a Pope.

And can I get a shout-out to Barry Jr.?  . Thanks

He got one back in 1981, and he'll have his time in the limelight when the government turns its efforts towards handling the War on Drugs (which Agnew started back in like early 1974 or late 1973).

[Jerseyrules]

Who's the pope right now?  Still John Paul II?

I'm a Catholic, and I'm not inclined to use alternate history to change anything going on in the selection of a Pope.

And can I get a shout-out to Barry Jr.?  . Thanks

I know, but I like him and James Buckley .  Also, I know this is a primarily American tl, but I'm
an altar boy, but I still like to change things up a bit with the pope
He got one back in 1981, and he'll have his time in the limelight when the government turns its efforts towards handling the War on Drugs (which Agnew started back in like early 1974 or late 1973).
[/quote]

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Now let's see, where was I going with this?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

“It was no grand foreign policy meeting that I found myself in on the morning of February 22nd. There was no Frank Church, no John Warner, not even John Eisenhower. There was one man of great stature in the foreign policy field, and that was George Bush, seated to my left as I looked down the table in the darkened room of what was for me the interim NSC. Instead of people heading large departments, I found myself among what were probably some of the better U.S. experts on the subject of Afghanistan and the Middle East. Seated to my left was Nicholas A. Veliotes, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs. Included in that lengthy title was the responsibility for Middle Eastern affairs. Farther down the table was the dubiously named Archer Blood, a Foreign Service Officer who had worked as America’s Ambassador to Afghanistan. Across from him was William Howard Taft IV, one of the Assistant Secretaries of Defense and distant cousin to Attorney General Robert Taft Jr. Lastly, seated at the very end of the table looking back at me across one row of empty seats and the rest of the de facto Security Council was Paul Wolfowitz.

   Wolfowitz had spent the mid-seventies working for then-Secretary of State and later National Security Adviser Henry M. Jackson from 1972 until his death in 1974. Becoming a foreign policy advisor to New York Governor Daniel Patrick Moynihan the way Henry Kissinger had been for Nelson Rockefeller during the 1960’s, he served in that position and as a worker for the International Council on Foreign Relations from 1975 to late 1976, when he signed on to work for incoming Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski. Considered one of the greatest liberal--in the modern definition--minds on the subject of foreign policy, it is still a mystery how he worked his way into a position where he was kicked out neither by Buckley nor by Church. Nevertheless, there he was as a State Department Official and proclaimed expert by his peers and colleagues.

   Congressman Charles Wilson of Texas, the essential leader in Congress for action in Afghanistan, was late. However, we saw him rush in with whiskey on his breath. Had it not been for his efforts, the Kennedy Administration might have completely ignored the situation. “Well I got another twenty million appropriated toward the fund”, he said in his Texas twang. “Well that’s good” muttered Wolfowitz unemotionally. I realized I was not exactly among friends at this meeting. The vast majority, led by Wolfowitz of course, seemed to be Cold War Democrats, or at least associated with the policies of the Kennedy brothers. George was a neutral voice and Taft IV didn’t seem to have much of an opinion one way or the other. The lower level state department officials, however, seemed to think that the strategy in Afghanistan should be part of a larger strategy against the Soviets. Wilson--himself a moderate on foreign policy--and I basically held the line that this was a human rights mission and intended to help Democracy, not escalate the arms race. Wilson of course had the backing of a number of Cold Warriors, but wasn’t necessarily interested in pressuring me to do anything beyond what we were doing, which was funding the mujahideen to drive out the Soviet tanks and helicopters which were gunning down innocent civilians.

   The subject of the meeting that day was largely about what a post-Soviet Afghanistan would look like. The Soviets by that point were recognized by a majority of the foreign policy field as a falling power. They were still incredibly dangerous, as was nuclear armaggedon, but by the measurements that I was given, bargaining with them would grow continually easier over the next couple of years, thus making my job easier as well. Therefore, it was decided, that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan too was weak and would likely end before the end of 1984 given the Soviet recession and their continued economic and military failures. “The Soviets are on the run and here, now, we have the chance to crush them outright, and to expand that fight. Iran is in a prime position to whip Iraq in any dispute they get into, Communist presence in Southeast Asia is ready to completely topple, and China can be used against them the way we’ve done since 1974.” explained Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz himself had been an opponent of Bush’s visit to China in 1974, but his viewpoint was in terms of world power and he was then looking at the best path to making America an unquestionable military superstate. “The prime domestic concern”, I started out, “is the debt and deficit, even beyond the economy. This action in Afghanistan is an isolated human rights mission and it is going to be kept that way. We don’t have the money to press us once again into war, this time in Iraq or in Eastern Europe, or in Asia. We’ve been through two Hells with these strategies in the past sixteen years and we were just lucky enough to emerge alive from both. I have no interest in re-launching America into war in what I am planning will be a decade of peace.”

   Wolfowitz obviously found my answer un-satisfactory. However, he knew what to expect by coming to this meeting and he laid back in his chair with an look somewhere between disappointment and contempt. He did, however, offer one last peace agreement between the two of us. “I think we can agree, though, that Democracy must be set up in post-Soviet Afghanistan.” “Agreed” We would eventually come to a disagreement on that as well as Wolfowitz wanted it spearheaded by America alone and with the aid of large corporations whose job it would be to provide basic services with funding from the U.S. government. I, however, and this was supported by George Bush, proposed that the cause be taken up by N.A.T.O. After all, we had been the primary opponent of international communism since it was first deemed a threat. France had pulled out of Vietnam early on, leaving us to fight that. The coalition going into Palestine had fallen apart. In Afghanistan we received no help whatsoever.

   This and meetings like this would reflect the tenseness of the foreign policy debate in those days. While little there would be accomplished, it was a clear shift in viewpoint as now we were focused more and more on what would happen once the Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan than on the proper means of fighting them. This had been the debate to dominate 1981, and, according to Wilson, 1979 and 1980. We had finally gotten that right and we were in business. With that in mind, we were intent on answering the question of “What next?””

-Against the Grain, Mark Hatfield, ©2000

March 2nd, 1981
The office of New York Governor Daniel Patrick Moynihan. State Department Official and former Moynihan Advisor Paul Wolfowitz is shown into the office and take his seat at a chair in front of the desk where Moynihan sits.
   Moynihan: Now what brings you up here from Washington. Complaints about your current job? I thought you’d worked hard to make sure you kept your position despite the changes.
   Wolfowitz: Well I was wrong to think I could somehow keep this administration sane. Hatfield hasn’t got any idea on how to handle the Soviets.
   Moynihan: Well I’ll give you credit on that. Why are you here? Do you want your old job back? Maybe some slot inside the U.N.?
   Wolfowitz: A job outside of Washington would be good. Since Church took over in January, all hope’s been lost. I hear Hatfield’s end game with Church’s worldwide tour is talks with the Soviets on a God damned nuclear freeze.
   Moynihan: Is that so? Mark’s a good man, but never the man to trust with any foreign policy assignment. Inside Jack’s Administration he was always known as the hippie Republican and he wasn’t treated that kindly by the Agnew or Bush Administrations either, let alone Bobby’s. He was always viewed as a radical who’d never be elected and in the end John Hinckley’s bullet put him in there. That and Reagan’s poor decision on choosing a Vice President.
   Wolfowitz: The main reason I came down here though was to talk of something more important than just my complaints as a representative of the State Department. What I’m asking for isn’t for a job, but for a candidate that can beat Hatfield.
   Moynihan: And you think I’m the one? I’ll tell you I have no business getting involved in Presidential politics. I intend on retiring for good this year and going back to looking over statistics for some government department. Maybe writing a book. We’ll see about that anyhow. But President? My kind is no longer electable in the age of having a candidate you’d like to sit down and have a beer with. I’d be easily electable around one hundred years ago, or more likely some machine boss. But in today’s world? I’m not geared to appeal to the common man.
   Wolfowitz:You’ve worked in the urban scene as our first H.U.D. Secretary and as a Labor Department official. You’ve been Ambassador to NATO during two Presidencies. You’ve served as Governor of New York the past seven years or so and as a popular and effective one. You’re a Hell of a lot better than the current crop of candidates popping up. Who will they nominate? Mondale? McGovern? Maybe a nice Southerner to return to their roots? This is a pathetic field the party’s looking at and honestly you’re one of the few credible men left in power after 1980.
   Moynihan: ...until Mario Cuomo comes riding in here on his golden horse. That Liberal Party is getting to be about as big a thorn in this state’s side as the Conservative Party.
   Wolfowitz: Getting back to subject, if not you, then who? What men are left that can actually stand up to Hatfield and not come off as some fringe communist or a fringe reactionary? You know every facet of this system and you’re unwilling to discuss the possibility of a candidacy.
   Moynihan: I’ve no idea and it’s none of my business until the New York primary comes up over two years away. One of the reasons I’m refusing is that I still haven’t decided whether I’ll even stand for re-election or not. Come 1983, you can come-a-knocking again. You can have your old position back, sure. Schedule a second appointment. However, it looks like my next meeting is with some lawyer named Rudolph Guiliani. Former candidate for mayor and someone you probably should have met from your days in Bobby’s Administration. I’ll see you soon though.

[Jerseyrules]

Hatfield.  Ugh he's not even a fun libertarian.  He's the bad kind. .  Might there be a primary challenge, or a conservative uprising in the Democratic Party?  A certain Dixie bulldog from North Carolina, perhaps?  . Also, sorry for all the comments, but I was wondering what my favorite New York Senator is doing, and the one who lost, sadly, ITTL.  (Buckley and D'Amato! ).  Also, great update!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Hatfield.  Ugh he's not even a fun libertarian.  He's the bad kind. .  Might there be a primary challenge, or a conservative uprising in the Democratic Party?  A certain Dixie bulldog from North Carolina, perhaps?  .

Whadday mean he's not fun!?!? 'Kay so he's moderate. Afghanistan isn't even figuring big in the big picture right now. Assuming you want balanced budgets, expanded civil liberties, and dovishness on foreign policy, trust me, as 1982 and 1983 roll by, you'll be seeing that.

And as for the Democrats, Helms does have aspirations though I don't plan on letting him near the executive branch. Right now the poll frontrunners for the nomination include Mondale and McGovern from the party's left, Helms is the champion of Dixie and oen of Hatfield's worst enemies. Also, there may be two reverends making their political debuts in 1984. As for Northern labor populists, Senator Phillip W. Noel (i think that's the name) is a potential candidate. As you've seen, Moynihan is mentioned and is the best candidate to combine labor and foreign policy realists/hawks despite not really being suited for today's more direct democracy. Then of course there's Senator Jerry Brown out West, probably one of the last libertarian Democrats in the party who'll be running as the party's centrist candidate. Like with all real life elections, I plan on having 1984 be chock-full of candidates. As for challenging Hatfield, I plan on him being popular, plus the last four incumbent Presidents (Nixon, JFK, Bush, RFK) have been challenged for re-nomination and now the country would like to feel more united, especially after the sh**t storm of the 1970's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not much of an update on that. Buckley may be proposing a human life amendment soon as he did in RL back in '74. Both Agnew and Bush were pro-choice, and now there's a pro-life Republican with a Senate majority in office. Still, it's not the best environment for that sort of thing with the pro-choice Baker leading the party. A coalition of social conservatives across the board could lead to some success, but right now the economy's the major focus and tensions are running high inside the higher chamber. Not sure what D'Amoto's doing as I'm not familiar with his career.

Major domestic legislation, especially on social issues, will be debuting in 1982 and 1983. YOu may like or dis-like it as you please.

[Jerseyrules]

Hatfield.  Ugh he's not even a fun libertarian.  He's the bad kind. .  Might there be a primary challenge, or a conservative uprising in the Democratic Party?  A certain Dixie bulldog from North Carolina, perhaps?  .

Whadday mean he's not fun!?!? 'Kay so he's moderate. Afghanistan isn't even figuring big in the big picture right now. Assuming you want balanced budgets, expanded civil liberties, and dovishness on foreign policy, trust me, as 1982 and 1983 roll by, you'll be seeing that.

And as for the Democrats, Helms does have aspirations though I don't plan on letting him near the executive branch. Right now the poll frontrunners for the nomination include Mondale and McGovern from the party's left, Helms is the champion of Dixie and oen of Hatfield's worst enemies. Also, there may be two reverends making their political debuts in 1984. As for Northern labor populists, Senator Phillip W. Noel (i think that's the name) is a potential candidate. As you've seen, Moynihan is mentioned and is the best candidate to combine labor and foreign policy realists/hawks despite not really being suited for today's more direct democracy. Then of course there's Senator Jerry Brown out West, probably one of the last libertarian Democrats in the party who'll be running as the party's centrist candidate. Like with all real life elections, I plan on having 1984 be chock-full of candidates. As for challenging Hatfield, I plan on him being popular, plus the last four incumbent Presidents (Nixon, JFK, Bush, RFK) have been challenged for re-nomination and now the country would like to feel more united, especially after the sh**t storm of the 1970's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not much of an update on that. Buckley may be proposing a human life amendment soon as he did in RL back in '74. Both Agnew and Bush were pro-choice, and now there's a pro-life Republican with a Senate majority in office. Still, it's not the best environment for that sort of thing with the pro-choice Baker leading the party. A coalition of social conservatives across the board could lead to some success, but right now the economy's the major focus and tensions are running high inside the higher chamber. Not sure what D'Amoto's doing as I'm not familiar with his career.

Major domestic legislation, especially on social issues, will be debuting in 1982 and 1983. YOu may like or dis-like it as you please.

NO REVERANDS!  Only Liberal Catholic Popes!  Who run for Pope!  Who don't like Alter Boys!

Now for D'Amato, according to Wikipedia, "His political career started with the Nassau County Republican Party, and he held the appointive position of Public Administrator of Nassau County, where he was responsible for managing the assets of county residents who died without wills. He was first appointed and then elected Receiver of Taxes of Hempstead, New York. He left this office to become a town supervisor in Hempstead and in 1977 he was elected presiding supervisor. He was also vice chairman of the Nassau County Board of Supervisors from 1977 to 1980.[2]
Despite being a rather obscure candidate, he defeated incumbent Sen. Jacob Javits by 56% to 44% in the 1980 Republican primary election, after Javits' 1979 diagnosis of generally fatal amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Javits nevertheless pursued the seat on the Liberal Party ticket, splitting the left-wing vote in ordinarily liberal New York with Democratic Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman and leading to D'Amato's 45% plurality victory."

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I guess I'll just say he beat Javits in the 1980 NY primary, only to lose to Javits in the general who was running on the Liberal ticket. From there, he's considered one of the leaders of the state's weak GOP and it's hoped he could beat Moynihan in 1982 as both the Conservative and Republican nominee. But who knows?

[Jerseyrules]

I guess I'll just say he beat Javits in the 1980 NY primary, only to lose to Javits in the general who was running on the Liberal ticket. From there, he's considered one of the leaders of the state's weak GOP and it's hoped he could beat Moynihan in 1982 as both the Conservative and Republican nominee. But who knows?

Neat!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

And Javits is gonna die before his term is up, so who knows?

[Jerseyrules]

And Javits is gonna die before his term is up, so who knows?

You always know what to say