Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

1972: What if Ted Kennedy had run against Nixon?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
CMT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 04:49 PM
Original message
1972: What if Ted Kennedy had run against Nixon?
There is no doubt in my mind that if Ted Kennedy had sought the Democratic nomination in 1972 he would have won the nomination--given the opposition: Hubert Humphrey (kind of old hat), Scoop Jackson (very old hat and the Lieberman of that year), George McGovern (the favorite of anti-war activists, but with EMK running many anti-war dems would have gone to him) George Wallace (never would have gotten Dem nomination)--and the whole Kennedy mystique--remember this was prior to all the scandal-ridden stories regarding JFK and RFK--and they were still fresh in the memories of the electorate.

The Nixon tapes indicate that Nixon was very paranoid regarding a possible EMK run as he polled better than any other democrat against RN.

But Chappequidick occured in 1969--only three years earlier, while EMK could have received the Democratic nomination I'm not sure if he could have beaten Nixon. In 1980, EMK challenged a sitting Democratic president, Jimmy Carter and so the party was split and the kennedy mystique was not what it once was. Chappequidick certainly hurt him in 1980.

Your thoughts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mndemocrat_29 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. President Edward Kennedy
I think he could've pulled it out. It would not have been a landslide, but given the mystique, Teddy would've been seen as picking up Bobby's torch and would've had a much larger base than George McGovern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. He never would have beat Nixon then.
It was way too close after all the post RFK assassination stuff went down. Teddy lost his marbles after that, did a lot of stupid stuff. He basically humiliated himself, although people understood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pmbryant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. He would have lost
He may well not even have won the nomination, in my opinion. Chappequidick was way too recent. That's why he didn't even bother to run.

--Peter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Agree
Ted would have lost the 1972 election, Chappaquiddick or not. There was serious backlash going on then against "hippies" and the left in general. Ted Kennedy would have done no better than McGovern in that election.

Remember, folks, Lyndon Johnson was identified as the culprit for perpetuating the war then. And don't forget that LBJ was also vilified for having supported Medicare, the War on Poverty (the last good war) and the Civil Rights Act by right-wing whities..

Nixon supported the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and opening trade with China around that time. That got him the "Silent Majority", those in the middle. Whatever happened to that middle, anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. I Disagree
Sans Chappaquidick I think Ted Kennedy could have give Nixon the run of his life in 72 and definitely beat him in 68 if he was drafted....

Chappaquiddick changed everything....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
25. 1968
That's a whole other matter, Bobby was running. After Bobby was killed, Teddy got lost for a while.

I stand by what I said about '72.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. Chappaquiddick probably saved Teddy's life
Here's what would have happened if Teddy had run against Nixon.

The Busheviks would have Kennedied him. Probably not after election -- they saw what a mistake that was with JFK, but rest assured that if Teddy had gotten within sniffing distance of the Presidency, the Bushevik Wing of the CIA would have gotten their orders, perhaps straight from Poppy.

I don't know, though, he might have gotten Wellstoned as the Busheviks had seen the "martyrdom backlash" created when they were so direct in their actions or the actions of thei pawns and patsies...

No, Chappaquiddick was the best thing that every happened to Teddy in that it made it impossible for him to ever become President, and thus saved him fromhis brothers' fate and the fate of many Bush enemies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. once again, tom_paine,
I find myself in total agreement with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Agreed. Poppy would've had him iced.
just like his brothers.

The puzzling thing to me is, WHY does little Shrub fear assassination so much? He goes NOWHERE without legions of bodyguards.

Doesn't he know that his Poppy is the one who caps presidents and presidential hopefuls in this country?

Oh....Maybe he DOES!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Oh, take a look at Hitler's pathological fear of assassination...
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/osssection5pt2.htm

Very much the same thing for very much the same type of people.

Sure he knows that Bush's don't get killed because they are the ones ordering the killing.

But a tyrannized people as the Imperial Subjects of Amerika are becoming, produces crazy people and rage and turn merchants, farmers and workers into assassins or revolutionaries.

Hell, look at the founding of the Old American Republic and you can see what Tyranny does to you. They don't talk about all the Brits and Tory Loyalists who got whacked or just tarred and feathered, but you can bet damned sure there were a lot of them. Particularly if you look at the Revolutionary War in the South in 1778-81. Murderous brutality that we now only associate with Third World Cuntries.

Bush and Hitler both knew in their hearts how hated they were and are. Bush knows that he dares not appear before an open gathering of the public because he is so hated, far worse than any American President ever was. And Bush fears that...just as Hitler did.

EXACTLY as Hitler did and for EXACTLY the same reasons, even though of course Bush cannot (yet) exercise supreme power he is getting closer every day.

But he is Amerika's first Emperor, and I suspect that those Emperors that follow (if the Busheviks are not stopped): Jeb, Ahnold, George P. Caligula, will be hated worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #4
21. Ted Kennedy had a near fatal plane crash after JFK's death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. Like his brother, he would have been murdered before he got nominated
Despite Teddy's well earned rep as a drinker, it's always possible the Chappaquidick incident might have involved some cut brake lines or other form of sabotage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. It's the Chappequidick factor...
I think it was still too fresh. And as you say, it hurt him in 1980. He could have won the nomination, but I don't think he'd have defeated Nixon. Though he'd have made it closer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Even NOW, Chappaquidick is a factor..
His chances were..O V E R .. when that happened.. He handled it poorly, and his family and his position allowed for the facts to be covered up.. He got a pass by not being charged with a crime, and his congressional jobs were way better than an ordinary person in his position could have hoped for.. He really should never have run at all..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Actually, He Handled It As Well As He CouldHave...
It's too painful and sad to discuss.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. That's why he should never have run..
Any vulnerability is magnified.. It must have been hell for his family..No wonder Joan drank :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
14. Do you think Robert was killed by the Nixon camp and
Sirhan Sirhan was only a scapegoat? :tinfoilhat: Could it be possible that the Nixon spies discovered that Sirhan was plotting this and just made it convenient for him to get close to Kennedy. It could be they maybe had various nutcases scoped out and hoped that they would strike paydirt with one of them. Since Nixon was once a Vice President, he would have had access to the FBI and CIA in ways no ordinary candidate could.

I mean how did Sirhan get into the hotel kitchen unless security was really lax. Who made sure it was lax? I don't think this was ever investigated as thoroughly as it should have been. Many corrupt politicians in history have taken advantage of someone who said they wanted to kill an opponent and made it convenient for them to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mlawson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I never understood that assassination.
There was little attention paid, if I remember correctly, as to WHY that bastard shot Bobby. Once or twice, it was mentioned that he opposed Bobby because of 'Israel'. It has been a long time, but I do not remember Bobby getting terribly involved in the ME problem.

So, maybe it was Nixon agents. Maybe it was Poppy. There is NO WAY Nixon would have defeated Bobby in 1968.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. RFK's assassination was positively diabolical
Sirhan was firing several feet directly in front of him, yet he was killed point blank from the rear, by shots fired at an upright trajectory. He had powderburns behind his ear, for God's sake.

Security guard Thane Eugene Cesar was standing at RFK's side and slightly to his rear, at the location of the shots. He admits drawing his weapon when Sirhan fired, but denies firing. He claimed to have sold a gun of the type which killed Kennedy before the shooting, but a receipt found later proved it had been sold afterwards. Cesar's politics are far right, and his security work involved partner corporations of the CIA.

In the uncropped shot of RFK on the floor with the busboy next to him, there's a clip-on tie lying on the floor by his outstretched right hand. That's Cesar's tie, which RFK evidently pulled off as he fell. One of his wounds was a contact wound on his right armpit. How could Sirhan have done that?

The only sequence of photos shot during the assassination were confiscated at the scene. After 35 years, and despite his attempts and repeated assurance that they would be returned, the photographer has not seen them. Nor has anyone else. Recently the FBI told him they had been destroyed.

Photos of the crime scene show many more bullet holes than can be accounted for by Sirhan’s gun. (The LAPD subsequently removed the wood panels and ceiling tiles and destroyed them.) Five people were shot, one twice, besides Kennedy, who himself was shot four times. To account for Sirhan hitting them all, requires several "magic" bullets with astonishing trajectories.

Bullets fired cannot be matched to each other or to Sirhan's gun, and the chain of evidence shows gross tampering.

Sirhan was found to be extremely suggestible to hypnosis, and exhibited evidence of having been hypnotized previously, with hypnotic blocks still impeding his memory of the events. There's plentiful evidence that he was in an altered state at the time of the killing, only coming out in the police station.

Sirhan's last memory before the shooting is of having coffee with a woman in a polka dot dress. He was seen in her company, with another man, entering the Ambassador hotel. Before the shooting, witnesses saw Sirhan enter the pantry in her company with another man. Immediately afterwards, a number of other witnesses saw a woman in a polka dot dress flee with a man as the woman exclaimed "We shot him! We shot Kennedy!"

Multiple witnesses saw only flashes and paper residue flying from Sirhan's gun, suggesting he was firing blanks. Witnesses who had heard many gunshots said it sounded more like a cap pistol.

Even before Sirhan was identified as a subject, hypnotist William Joseph Bryan said on air in Los Angeles that the assassin was probably mind-controlled, and later bragged to prostitutes about his work for the CIA and having hypnotized Sirhan. They thought nothing of it, because it's a matter of record that he hypnotized the Boston Strangler after his capture. But Bryan had no access to Sirhan after his capture.

Sirhan had gone missing for three months shortly before the assassination. In the mid-70s, a film cannister was discovered labeled "Sirhan Sirhan 1967." It was surveillance footage of Sirhan, apparently shot without his knowledge.

For more on RFK’s murder, I recommend William Turner's The Assassination of Robert F Kennedy, and the recent anthology The Assassinations. There’s much more on "the girl in the polka dot dress," including a very plausible ID (Iranian national, her father worked for the Shah’s secret police and had CIA links.) Portions of two of the books RFK essays are reproduced here:
http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/assassinations/rfk.htm

Also, you may want to go here and download the hour-long "Guns and Butter" episode featuring Sirhan's current lawyer Lawrence Teeter, the only one Sirhan's had who believes his innocence.

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/64634.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mlawson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Thank you for all that!!
As I said, I never really believed that sirhan acted alone, but that part was downplayed so very much. It was almost like, "OMG, another tragedy!!! Oh, yes, that sirhan person shot him. Whatever."

I doubt the story will ever be acknowledged publicly by the gov't, that it was a conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. "There are too many guns between Bobby and the White House."
Harold Weisberg said this on a DC television station June 4, 1968, quoting an intimate of the RFK camp. The guns, he was told, belonged to the CIA. The next day Bobby was dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ldoolin Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
15. I don't think any Dem could have...
...beat Nixon in 72. Nixon's popularity ratings were at an all time high going into the election because he did a number of things right around the time the election was held that made him very popular; pulling the US out of Vietnam, ending the draft, opening up relations with China, launching EPA. All, of course, cynically timed by that power-mad crook to have maximum effect on his re-election chances.

There were also some dirty tricks and smear jobs against all the Democratic candidates, as I recall.

What is not true is the myth that McGovern was too liberal to get elected. McGovern was no more liberal than FDR, Truman, JFK, or LBJ. He was simply the victim of Nixon's dirty tricks and Nixon's massive popularity, as any Dem would have been, Ted Kennedy included. And his campaign made a lot of mis-steps, but they were probably minor in comparison to how much of a scandal the Repugs would have made Chappequidick out to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
20. He would be dead. ....
assassinated. JMCPO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
22. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Jackson4Gore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
23. He would have lost
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-03 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
26. I really doubt he would be considered for nomination
he's never been viable as a candidate for the lone reason you give.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC