Bobby Kennedy

[PoS]

Come on, PoS.... Nixon only went into Cambodia because the North Vietnamese were already there.... so if anyone brought the war to Cambodia, it was Hanoi. I'm no Nixon fan, but I can't blame the man for at least being a realist about the situation there.

Thats a very naive viewpoint. He bombed Cambodia for the sole purpose of bringing Hanoi to the negotiating table. He had no interest in stopping communism in Cambodia or winning the Vietnam war- the secret bombing was purely for political purposes.

 

[Moonglow]

I am watching a new documentary about him on Netflix, and I have learned stuff I didnt know before. I wasnt even born when he died, but to the ones around back then, did he really have a chance to win the POTUS against Nixon if he lived?

Possibly, we will never know.

 

[Cordelier]

I do NOT believe Daley had announced any support in the 68 race.

Having the convention in Chicago is a testament of one thing - the party influence of Daley.

Daley kept his cards close to his chest and always made a point of keeping his options open. I'm just pointing out that President Johnson - arguably the consummate deal-maker of all time where it came to US politics - had 4+ years to work on him. And Humphrey was no slouch himself. For those facts alone, I'd have to give Humphrey the inside edge on winning his support. Now if Kennedy were willing to call out the anti-war demonstrators and stand with Daley, that might have changed things. But I can't see that happening... I can actually see the opposite of that happening. And you saw what Daley's reaction was to Senator Ribicoff's speech... I imagine Kennedy saying the same things would have made him just as red-faced - if not more so.

 

[Cordelier]

Thats a very naive viewpoint. He bombed Cambodia for the sole purpose of bringing Hanoi to the negotiating table. He had no interest in stopping communism in Cambodia or winning the Vietnam war- the secret bombing was purely for political purposes.

I don't think Nixon did anything for one reason alone. In negotiations, you're either dealing from a position of strength or you're dealing from a position of weakness - are you going to blame the man for trying to strengthen his hand?

 

[Cordelier]

Possibly, we will never know.

Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty strong possibility.

 

[haymarket]

Daley kept his cards close to his chest and always made a point of keeping his options open. I'm just pointing out that President Johnson - arguably the consummate deal-maker of all time where it came to US politics - had 4+ years to work on him. And Humphrey was no slouch himself. For those facts alone, I'd have to give Humphrey the inside edge on winning his support. Now if Kennedy were willing to call out the anti-war demonstrators and stand with Daley, that might have changed things. But I can't see that happening... I can actually see the opposite of that happening. And you saw what Daley's reaction was to Senator Ribicoff's speech... I imagine Kennedy saying the same things would have made him just as red-faced - if not more so.

No RFK death may have meant very small protests in Chicago with Daley behind RFK. Thus there would have possibly been no police riots and no Ribicoff speech.

 

[rhinefire]

Bobby was a loud mouth, bigoted, egotistical fool responsible in part for JFK's murder. He went after the mob after KFK failed to support the anti-Castro rebellion that failed as soon as it started. As a result the mob lost millions in their Cuban businesses. The CIA failed several times to try to assassinate Castro. Sammy Giancana grew to hate JFK as a result. He buddied up with the mob boss of New Orleans who then contacted Jack Ruby to set up Oswald as the patsy. The rest is history.

 

[Cordelier]

No RFK death may have meant very small protests in Chicago with Daley behind RFK. Thus there would have possibly been no police riots and no Ribicoff speech.

Really? Because I would have figured most of the protesters in Chicago would have been on McCarthy's wavelength, not Kennedy's. Hell, I'm thinking most of them would have been to the left of McCarthy. So I've got to wonder how much sway Kennedy had over them.

 

[Cordelier]

Bobby was a loud mouth, bigoted, egotistical fool responsible in part for JFK's murder. He went after the mob after KFK failed to support the anti-Castro rebellion that failed as soon as it started. As a result the mob lost millions in their Cuban businesses. The CIA failed several times to try to assassinate Castro. Sammy Giancana grew to hate JFK as a result. He buddied up with the mob boss of New Orleans who then contacted Jack Ruby to set up Oswald as the patsy. The rest is history.

Or Oswald could have just been a lone nut acting by himself.

 

[PoS]

I don't think Nixon did anything for one reason alone. In negotiations, you're either dealing from a position of strength or you're dealing from a position of weakness - are you going to blame the man for trying to strengthen his hand?

He didnt strengthen anything- North Vietnam won anyway. All he did was bomb a country teetering on the edge and sent it over the cliff, without Congressional authorization or even consultation, and it ended in genocide. And you admire him for that? Jesus. :doh

 

[Cordelier]

He didnt strengthen anything- North Vietnam won anyway. All he did was bomb a country teetering on the edge and sent it over the cliff, without Congressional authorization or even consultation, and it ended in genocide. And you admire him for that? Jesus. :doh

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave him all of the authorization he needed. The North Vietnamese were the ones who violated Cambodian neutrality and deployed their forces there.... if you want to blame someone for the consequences of that, shouldn't it be them? The way I figure it, Nixon ordered the bombing of legitimate military targets. End of story. Like I've said, I'm not a Nixon admirer - I'm more a Johnson man myself - but when I look at the situation objectively, I have to be honest with myself and say that I can't think of a better alternative than what Nixon did. Obviously, I think the Cambodian genocide was a terrible thing... but I can't see how Nixon could have anticipated that'd be the result. I'm not going to blame the man for not being able to tell the future.

 

[Integrityrespec]

I'll have to watch that.

His brother was the most popular president ever so that would've helped.

JFK started as very popular for a number of reasons, one of which was television. He was younger, good looking and women voted for him in high numbers. That changed somewhat during his presidency and partially because of he Bay of Pigs disaster and partially because after being in office for a while he was no longer an unknown quantity. In 1963 his approval rating was at it's lowest of his presidency and still falling at the time of his assassination. His trip to Dallas was part of his attempt to rekindle his favorability ratings. Another factor in his favorable ratings was voters didn't know about JFK's womanizing until after his death. Here's a pretty good article about JFK. As for Bobby, he had his enemies as well not the least of which was LBJ.
JFK's Approval Ratings During his Presidency >> Polls and Graphs

 

[Glitch]

I am watching a new documentary about him on Netflix, and I have learned stuff I didnt know before. I wasnt even born when he died, but to the ones around back then, did he really have a chance to win the POTUS against Nixon if he lived?

I had just turned 14 years old at the time Robert Kennedy was assassinated, however, there was no possible way he would have gotten the DNC nomination, much less defeated Nixon. The DNC nomination was VP Hubert Humphrey's since LBJ did not run for reelection. Even Democrat Governor George Wallace understood this, which is why he ran as an Independent. There was no way Robert Kennedy would have been nominated by the DNC.

 

[haymarket]

Really? Because I would have figured most of the protesters in Chicago would have been on McCarthy's wavelength, not Kennedy's. Hell, I'm thinking most of them would have been to the left of McCarthy. So I've got to wonder how much sway Kennedy had over them.

I do not think that assumption is entirely true.. Bobby had much support among people who opposed the war - myself included. The point is that if Bobby had looked like the Dem nominee, then the protests would not be what they turned out to be.

 

[Glitch]

I saw that documentary too - it's a good one. Like you, I wasn't born until after he died either... but I don't think he would have gotten the nomination. In '68, the majority of delegates were chosen by State conventions instead of primaries, and Humphrey pretty much had them sewn up by the time RFK was assassinated.

Incorrect. The DNC Chicago primary in 1968 was infamous for its rioting, and other acts of terrorism by Democrats. Including Mayor Daley calling in the National Guard to quell the violence. The media would later coin the phrase the "Battle of Michigan Avenue" as their reason for not filming the rest of the DNC. They were too busy filming all the violence by Democrat terrorists.

State primaries only determine the nominee for a given State. The national primary is what determines the national candidates.

 

[Cordelier]

I do not think that assumption is entirely true.. Bobby had much support among people who opposed the war - myself included. The point is that if Bobby had looked like the Dem nominee, then the protests would not be what they turned out to be.

Were you a protester? I don't mean at Chicago, per se... I mean anywhere - did you go out and protest the war, burn your draft card, anything like that?

 

[Glitch]

I'll have to watch that.

His brother was the most popular president ever so that would've helped.

No, he wasn't. Not by a long-shot.

JFK was responsible for increasing US involvement in Vietnam. There were 2,000 US troops in Vietnam by 1960. By Nov. 1963 there were 20,000 US troops in Vietnam. It was also JFK's utter incompetence that put us on the brink of nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis. I seriously doubt that JFK would have been reelected, had he not been assassinated. He was not popular at all. Democrats made him popular after his assassination by revising history, like they always do, but that was not reality.

 

[Cordelier]

Incorrect. The DNC Chicago primary in 1968 was infamous for its rioting, and other acts of terrorism by Democrats. Including Mayor Daley calling in the National Guard to quell the violence. The media would later coin the phrase the "Battle of Michigan Avenue" as their reason for not filming the rest of the DNC. They were too busy filming all the violence by Democrat terrorists.

State primaries only determine the nominee for a given State. The national primary is what determines the national candidates.

I was referring to the delegates to the National Convention. Nowadays the majority of them are chosen in primaries... back in '68, though, the majority were chosen by the State party machinery, which Humphrey had a lock on. So did Nixon, for that matter... I don't think it was ever in a whole lot of doubt that Nixon was the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination... and he got the overwhelming majority of delegate votes at the convention... but if you look at only the primary results, Reagan actually got more votes. On the Democratic side, McCarthy actually got the most primary votes.

 

[Glitch]

Thats a very naive viewpoint. He bombed Cambodia for the sole purpose of bringing Hanoi to the negotiating table. He had no interest in stopping communism in Cambodia or winning the Vietnam war- the secret bombing was purely for political purposes.

Think about what you just posted. Why would bombing a completely different country bring Hanoi to the negotiating table? Unless Hanoi was using that completely different country to wage its war against the US. Ever hear of the Ho Chi Min Trail? Nixon bombed the crap out of the Ho Chi Min Trail, and even briefly sent US forces into Cambodia. It had absolutely nothing to do with Cambodia and everything to do with the Vietnamese using Cambodia to wage war against the US. Nixon's bombings and deployments in Cambodia were entirely strategic and not political at all. How could anything that is suppose to be secret be political? That would defeat the purpose.

 

[Glitch]

I was referring to the delegates to the National Convention. Nowadays the majority of them are chosen in primaries... back in '68, though, the majority were chosen by the State party machinery, which Humphrey had a lock on. So did Nixon, for that matter... I don't think it was ever in a whole lot of doubt that Nixon was the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination... and he got the overwhelming majority of delegate votes at the convention... but if you look at only the primary results, Reagan actually got more votes. On the Democratic side, McCarthy actually got the most primary votes.

The Republicans still use the national RNC to determine their nominees. Only the Democrats have their undemocratic "Super Delegates" these days.

With regard to the 1968 election, both Humphrey and Nixon definitely had the nominations locked-up. There was no way Robert Kennedy, had he lived, or Eugene McCarthy could have been nominated over Humphrey.

 

[PoS]

Think about what you just posted. Why would bombing a completely different country bring Hanoi to the negotiating table? Unless Hanoi was using that completely different country to wage its war against the US. Ever hear of the Ho Chi Min Trail? Nixon bombed the crap out of the Ho Chi Min Trail, and even briefly sent US forces into Cambodia. It had absolutely nothing to do with Cambodia and everything to do with the Vietnamese using Cambodia to wage war against the US. Nixon's bombings and deployments in Cambodia were entirely strategic and not political at all. How could anything that is suppose to be secret be political? That would defeat the purpose.

Incorrect. In the Watergate tapes, Nixon himself admitted the bombings were simply a political ploy. The moment N Vietnam resumed negotiations, the airstrikes stopped. Proof is in the pudding.

 

[Cordelier]

The Republicans still use the national RNC to determine their nominees. Only the Democrats have their undemocratic "Super Delegates" these days.

With regard to the 1968 election, both Humphrey and Nixon definitely had the nominations locked-up. There was no way Robert Kennedy, had he lived, or Eugene McCarthy could have been nominated over Humphrey.

Say what you will about the old-fashioned smoke-filled rooms and nominations getting decided by party insiders... but I think both parties used to pick better leaders in those days. Nowadays, the primaries just seem to deliver nominees who can cater the extremists.

 

[haymarket]

Were you a protester? I don't mean at Chicago, per se... I mean anywhere - did you go out and protest the war, burn your draft card, anything like that?

Lots of times - I participated in many demonstrations against Viet Nam, burnt my draft card in New York at the United Nations, demonstrated against George Wallace at his Detroit appearances, was the Congressional Director for McGovern in 1972 and a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Miami. And that is the stuff I can still remember.

Interesting story about Chicago. I was 19 at the time and lived in a suburb of Detroit. My brother and two other guys from our neighborhood drove the five hours from Detroit to Chicago and arrived there on Sunday (my brother has insisted to this day it was Monday) afternoon. There was a bad vibe on the streets and we saw many military vehicles and the whole place just reeked of a bad accident waiting to happen. We were going to spend several days there but after couple hours we turned around and went home. It was that bad of a feeling.

btw - in 68 I supported RFK.

 

[Glitch]

Incorrect. In the Watergate tapes, Nixon himself admitted the bombings were simply a political ploy. The moment N Vietnam resumed negotiations, the airstrikes stopped. Proof is in the pudding.

I wasn't referring to the airstrikes over northern Vietnam. I'm refuting your obviously incorrect assertion that the TOP SECRET bombings of the Ho Chi Min trail in Cambodia were done for political purposes. How can anything be done for political purposes when it is classified "Top Secret?" In order to be political it must be public knowledge, like the very public bombings over northern Vietnam.

 

[swing_voter]

No, he wasn't. Not by a long-shot.

JFK was responsible for increasing US involvement in Vietnam. There were 2,000 US troops in Vietnam by 1960. By Nov. 1963 there were 20,000 US troops in Vietnam. It was also JFK's utter incompetence that put us on the brink of nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis. I seriously doubt that JFK would have been reelected, had he not been assassinated. He was not popular at all. Democrats made him popular after his assassination by revising history, like they always do, but that was not reality.

Truman was the first president to send troops to Vietnam. 35 advisors, iirc.

Eisenhower sent more.

Eisenhower was pro conflict in Vietnam and that was a problem since Ike was a highly respected general.