Bobby Kennedy

[Cordelier]

Ive made no error- all youve proven is you dont know what youre talking about. You think by having the last reply that you somehow can win, but you dont. All you do is make yourself look foolish.

Way to go, Pos... No better way to dispel any notions about your compulsions like answering a post 4 months later. *LOL*

 

[Cordelier]

My stab at it if it was RFK vs. Nixon that Wallace wouldn't have run giving the southern states to Nixon. I agree, Texas probably would have gone to Nixon. Humphrey squeak past Nixon in Texas, I figure most of the Wallace vote would have gone to him. There's a couple of other states Nixon would have flipped without Wallace in the race. But I'm basing that on the assumption that Wallace's animosity toward the Kennedy's would have caused him to drop out of the race. But who knows.

I don't get that, Perotista... the only reason Wallace was in the race was to force it to get decided in the House and then have both sides have to deal with him for his support. If Kennedy getting into the race made that outcome more likely, wouldn't that have played into Wallace's plan?

 

[Cordelier]

I do not think that Cordelier has made himself look foolish. It is only your opinion that he did. By the way, the supporters of Eugene McCarthy started to support him earlier than the supporters of Bobby Kennedy. We were very preppy and "clean". The hippy era was not, yet, upon us. We still dressed more like the teenagers and young people of the 1950's. I think of the group "The Lettermen". At least where I lived we did when McCarthy first ran. That's why Bobby Kennedy's supporters were different. He came along a couple of years later when everything had changed...due to the Beatles.

Thanks NewfieMom... but I've got to ask... townie or bayman?

 

[Perotista]

I don't get that, Perotista... the only reason Wallace was in the race was to force it to get decided in the House and then have both sides have to deal with him for his support. If Kennedy getting into the race made that outcome more likely, wouldn't that have played into Wallace's plan?

Anything is possible.

 

[Cordelier]

Anything is possible.

Including George Wallace willingly giving up his spotlight?

 

[Perotista]

Including George Wallace willingly giving up his spotlight?

Exactly, all things are possible, just some things are more probable than others. You may be correct and I wrong on this. I don't remember Wallace stating that he wanted to throw the election into the house in order to become king maker. Now that is very possible, perhaps even probable. I was just going on his hatred of the Kennedy's. That was a long time ago.

 

[PoS]

Way to go, Pos... No better way to dispel any notions about your compulsions like answering a post 4 months later. *LOL*

I reply to many threads, and I dont have the time to indulge your ego.

I do not think that Cordelier has made himself look foolish. It is only your opinion that he did. By the way, the supporters of Eugene McCarthy started to support him earlier than the supporters of Bobby Kennedy. We were very preppy and "clean". The hippy era was not, yet, upon us. We still dressed more like the teenagers and young people of the 1950's. I think of the group "The Lettermen". At least where I lived we did when McCarthy first ran. That's why Bobby Kennedy's supporters were different. He came along a couple of years later when everything had changed...due to the Beatles.

Whatever it is youre smoking, please keep it to yourself.

 

[Cordelier]

I reply to many threads, and I dont have the time to indulge your ego.

Ego? You took issue with my providing you with facts of which you were seemingly unaware (ie, Operation Freedom Deal). I figure in any conversation among rational adults with a mutual respect for truth, that would have met with a beneficial response and an appreciation for the knowledge gained thereby.

 

[Cordelier]

Exactly, all things are possible, just some things are more probable than others. You may be correct and I wrong on this. I don't remember Wallace stating that he wanted to throw the election into the house in order to become king maker. Now that is very possible, perhaps even probable. I was just going on his hatred of the Kennedy's. That was a long time ago.

Why else would Wallace have even run, though? He had to have known going in as a regional third-party candidate that he wasn't going to win. I agree with you that he absolutely despised Kennedy, but that didn't mean he had any great love for Nixon, either. I don't think he trusted Nixon half as far as he could throw him (and who could blame him for that?).

Looking at it from Wallace's point of view... I'd say his endgame had to have been throwing the election into the House - and if that was his goal, having Kennedy win the nomination would have only strengthened his hand... for instance, I think an anti-Kennedy reaction among Southern Democrats would have put Tennessee in play (Nixon beat Wallace by 3.8% there), so Wallace would have probably increased his electoral vote and with it, his eventual leverage in the House vote.

 

[PoS]

Ego? You took issue with my providing you with facts of which you were seemingly unaware (ie, Operation Freedom Deal). I figure in any conversation among rational adults with a mutual respect for truth, that would have met with a beneficial response and an appreciation for the knowledge gained thereby.

I am fully aware of that operation, and I already told you that happened after Sihanouk was ousted so your silly revisionism is wrong, wrong, wrong. The bombing of Cambodia was a war crime, and you defend it. In the end it shows you have no idea what youre talking about.

 

[Emily L]

I hope I'm not interrupting anything, but I would like to say that all I know about the Kennedys is what I've read in books, and I've found it to be a fascinating subject. But I can tell you that no book can compare to hearing and reading from people who were actually alive back then. What I am reading in this thread--the candid, unfiltered opinions and viewpoints of those who were actually there--is priceless.

If you haven't already, please, PLEASE record your memories in some medium--audio or video--or have one of your relatives interview you. It's the kind of thing that's too easy to put off, but it will mean the world to your great- and great-great grandchildren.

Again, I didn't mean to interrupt, so please continue, as I am really enjoying this thread.

 

[Cordelier]

I am fully aware of that operation, and I already told you that happened after Sihanouk was ousted so your silly revisionism is wrong, wrong, wrong. The bombing of Cambodia was a war crime, and you defend it. In the end it shows you have no idea what youre talking about.

I disagree with you, and that shows I have no idea what I'm talking about? *LOL* And you say I'm the one with the ego problem??

All war is a crime, PoS. That has to be accepted going in. But once you are in, then the only way forward is to take the fight to the enemy... and the enemy was using Cambodia as a staging ground to infiltrate men and supplies into South Vietnam. And not just down the Ho Chi Minh Trail, either... a lot of them were being off-loaded from ships docked in Sihanoukville... at least before Sihanouk was overthrown, anyway. Are you suggesting we should have turned a blind eye to those facts?

 

[PoS]

I disagree with you, and that shows I have no idea what I'm talking about? *LOL* And you say I'm the one with the ego problem??

All war is a crime, PoS. That has to be accepted going in. But once you are in, then the only way forward is to take the fight to the enemy... and the enemy was using Cambodia as a staging ground to infiltrate men and supplies into South Vietnam. And not just down the Ho Chi Minh Trail, either... a lot of them were being off-loaded from ships docked in Sihanoukville... at least before Sihanouk was overthrown, anyway. Are you suggesting we should have turned a blind eye to those facts?

If war to you is supposed to be going "all in," then why did Nixon abandon Cambodia?

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

I remember when RFK, and JFK were killed. Except for the music, the 60's for the most part wasn't much fun..

Anyway, yeah I believe RFK would have won both the Dem nomination and the presidency.. He was young, had a lot of energy, he was seen as a person who would fight for civil rights, and most of all seen as a man who would have got us out of Vietnam.

And I'm sure he would have got some, what's the best word to use? Sympathy votes? His brother didn't get to finish his term(s), so let Bobby finish it for him...

 

[Cordelier]

If war to you is supposed to be going "all in," then why did Nixon abandon Cambodia?

I didn't say it was about going "all in" - what I said is that the fight has to be taken to the enemy, which is what Nixon was doing. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with his bombing policy - I can see both the pros and cons of it - but I don't blame him for engaging in it. If I were in his shoes, it probably would have been a coin toss for me as well. I don't agree with him trying to keep it a secret initially - if you're going to go down that road, you've got an obligation as President to do it openly - but I don't disagree with him on the objectives.

Anyway, all of that being said, my short answer to your question is the Case-Church Amendment.

 

[haymarket]

I don't get that, Perotista... the only reason Wallace was in the race was to force it to get decided in the House and then have both sides have to deal with him for his support. If Kennedy getting into the race made that outcome more likely, wouldn't that have played into Wallace's plan?

George Wallace and Donald Trump have much in common with the SEINFELD skit about the self created winter holiday of Festivus with its emphasis on the "airing of grievances". Both candidates campaigns are mostly about individual grievances that make the whole thing mean and caustic and very unattractive to people outside those movements.

The special thing about Bobby Kennedy was his ability and appeal to many of those blue collar people who went over to Wallace but with his death that role was never filled.

Wallace ran for Wallace and would have done so just to puff himself up and give himself some power. That I think is true no matter who else was in the race.

 

[Cordelier]

George Wallace and Donald Trump have much in common with the SEINFELD skit about the self created winter holiday of Festivus with its emphasis on the "airing of grievances". Both candidates campaigns are mostly about individual grievances that make the whole thing mean and caustic and very unattractive to people outside those movements.

The special thing about Bobby Kennedy was his ability and appeal to many of those blue collar people who went over to Wallace but with his death that role was never filled.

Wallace ran for Wallace and would have done so just to puff himself up and give himself some power. That I think is true no matter who else was in the race.

I agree with this 100% - there are a lot of similarities between Wallace and Trump. I think if Wallace ever was somehow elected President, his administration would have turned out a lot like Trump's has. Same way with Huey Long back in the 30's. Demagogues are always the biggest threat to any democracy.

 

[haymarket]

I agree with this 100% - there are a lot of similarities between Wallace and Trump. I think if Wallace ever was somehow elected President, his administration would have turned out a lot like Trump's has. Same way with Huey Long back in the 30's. Demagogues are always the biggest threat to any democracy.

Exactly. Long and Wallace and Trump are pretty much the same hate filled bigot with an oversized ego.

 

[PoS]

I didn't say it was about going "all in" - what I said is that the fight has to be taken to the enemy, which is what Nixon was doing. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with his bombing policy - I can see both the pros and cons of it - but I don't blame him for engaging in it. If I were in his shoes, it probably would have been a coin toss for me as well. I don't agree with him trying to keep it a secret initially - if you're going to go down that road, you've got an obligation as President to do it openly - but I don't disagree with him on the objectives.

Anyway, all of that being said, my short answer to your question is the Case-Church Amendment.

In the end, it only proves one thing: Nixon didnt care about Cambodia- it was a sideshow to him. He was going to pull the troops out of Vietnam the moment he got elected too- so all his actions did was destabilize that region further.

He only did all of that because he didnt want the world to think the US was running away with its tail between its legs, but guess what- the world did know that was the case anyway.

 

[NewfieMom]

I hope I'm not interrupting anything, but I would like to say that all I know about the Kennedys is what I've read in books, and I've found it to be a fascinating subject. But I can tell you that no book can compare to hearing and reading from people who were actually alive back then. What I am reading in this thread--the candid, unfiltered opinions and viewpoints of those who were actually there--is priceless.

If you haven't already, please, PLEASE record your memories in some medium--audio or video--or have one of your relatives interview you. It's the kind of thing that's too easy to put off, but it will mean the world to your great- and great-great grandchildren.

Again, I didn't mean to interrupt, so please continue, as I am really enjoying this thread.

Responding to your posting, all I can say is that from living it, it was a turning point in protests against the war in Vietnam. I will link an article on the facts, but from the inside, it just blew us young people away. We couldn't believe that Nixon had done it: expanded the war everyone hated, invaded Cambodia while calling it an "incursion". It made college campuses explode in rage. I went to school one day and no one was going to class. Everyone was picketing outside the building. This was before the Kent State killings. But the result of the strikes was the killing of college students by the National Guard at Kent State and then at Jackson State. Then all the universities and all the public went wild.

The picture below was taken before the National Guard killed the Kent State students on May 4.

How Nixon’s Invasion of Cambodia Triggered a Check on Presidential Power | HISTORY

Following months of secret U.S. bombings on Communist bases, American ground troops were deployed to northern Cambodia on April 28, 1970.

www.history.com

 

[Emily L]

Thanks, Newfie!

That picture on the paper with the bayonets is incredible! Can you imagine what would happen if a picture like that were to happen today? Holy cow!

Thanks again, Newfie!

 

[Cordelier]

In the end, it only proves one thing: Nixon didnt care about Cambodia- it was a sideshow to him. He was going to pull the troops out of Vietnam the moment he got elected too- so all his actions did was destabilize that region further.

He only did all of that because he didnt want the world to think the US was running away with its tail between its legs, but guess what- the world did know that was the case anyway.

Seriously, PoS... How much was Nixon supposed to care about Cambodia?? Was he supposed to care more than the North Vietnamese did when they moved in there in the first place?

 

[watsup]

Bobby was electric. No other politician has been so loved by the blacks and the Latinos of the time. When he went into a black area of a city, he was greeted like the Second Coming. The blacks couldn't get enough of him. Who know how the race situation could have turned out so much for the better if he had been elected.
He was loved by many different types of people. I saw him at a mall in Sacramento. Surrounding me were Latinos, blacks, young people, old people, he had great support all across the board.
And I continue to believe that it was a far right rogue element within the CIA that arranged the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK. None of the assassinations made any sense. It was like they were all brainwashed into doing what they did. I think that this rogue element were afraid that the country was going too far to the left and the way to stop it was to rid it of its charismatic liberal heroes. It was rumored that JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam if he was reelected, and the right-wingers considered that soft on communism and an existential threat to the country. RFK and MLK were leading a PEACEFUL transition of blacks into the mainstream, and the rogues didn't like that the n----rs were gaining too much power. Who knows how much better our country would be today if those three had been allowed to live and to implement reasoned liberal policies regarding Vietnam and race.

 

[PoS]

Seriously, PoS... How much was Nixon supposed to care about Cambodia?? Was he supposed to care more than the North Vietnamese did when they moved in there in the first place?

Because it ended in genocide? Because it didnt change anything on the ground in Vietnam? You sure love to defend the indefensible.

 

[Cordelier]

Because it ended in genocide? Because it didnt change anything on the ground in Vietnam? You sure love to defend the indefensible.

Hindsight is 20/20. Are you going to blame Nixon for not being able to see into the future now?