That also is an important consideration. At least he has to keep people guessing if he hopes to be effective through 1975.
Fear, Loathing and Gumbo on the Campaign Trail '72
- Thread starter Drew
- Start date
- Status
That also is an important consideration. At least he has to keep people guessing if he hopes to be effective through 1975.
I'm Canadian, so my system is actually the Westminster model largely unreformed since the 1930's. It is quite prone to abuse by those who have a mind to do so, and all of our recent PMs have seemed inclined to do so.
It is actually an interesting hybrid, and in a way I think it has more checks and balances than either the U.S. or the Westminster system, because it splits the executive in terms of accountability and has the President as an arbiter of sorts, but a government not totally under his control either. The US President appoints his Cabinet members, so they are accountable only to him. In the French system it seems there's a wider accountability for your ministers to the people directly. I also, personally, think the French method for electing a President is more democratic and less inclined to problems that come from the Electoral College.
None is. Never will be. Enough that people work together and don't shoot their way into power.
Minority government is the closest we get to that, coalition government seems to be an anathema in Canadian politics. It will interesting to see how it works out in the UK.
There seems a good possibility that the US is headed for another period of divided government, and the system seems to work best that way. It forces people to work together, and it may be the cure for some of polarizing nonsense which has dominated US politics for the past decade. When Clinton and the Republicans came to blows in the 1990's, both sides were forced to re-appraise their approach. That might be useful again.
Le Grand Gachis v. 2.0
Retconing the TL a little, let’s say President Mitterand dissolved the National Assembly shortly after taking office, forcing new elections. He did this despite objections from the Right majority and UDR Prime Minister Pierre Messmer (the caretaker left over from before Mitterand’s inauguration).
The country went to the polls still as closely divided as it was in May, reflected in the results of the recent second round vote in the Presidential election. The Socialists ran on a platform of reasonable governance and incremental change to improve the conditions of French working people. The Communists (generally) stood behind their 1972 accord with the PS.
The UDR and other right parties largely ran on a campaign of keeping the reds from the rampart and being the last best hope to save France from radicalism, inflation, oppression and humiliation. They may have also tried to infuse a degree of nationalism over the President’s pledge to withdraw from Syria (“look at what he has already done to France’s standing in the international community” etc. etc.).
The polls are close up until just before the first round (large number of undecided voters), then just before voting a leading Socialist or Communist says something really dumb that scares some undecided voters and plays into the Right narrative (praising collectivizing agriculture or suggesting children receive leftist political indoctrination in school, something like that). Mitterand pounces on it and denies it; the offender is forced to eat his/her words, but the damage is done.
The election result then reflects a combination of the close division that already was present during the Presidential election, plus a slight turn right by undecided voters from the PS and the PCF due to the pre-election controversy.
The Results of the French National Assembly Elections, June 30 and July 7, 1974
488 seats; 245 required for a majority.
Right Alliance: 246 (50.4%)
Union of Democrats for the Republic (UDR) 144
Independent Republicans (NFIR) 77
Other Right Parties 25
Left Alliance: 242 (49.6%)
Socialist Party (PS) 151
Communist Party (PCF) 84
Other Left parties 7
Le Grand Gachis thus refers to the mood of the electorate during the election as well as the post election situation.
As I understand it, Mitterand couldn’t dissolve the National Assembly again until June 1975. The French would have divided government (or co-habitation) for the first year of Mitterand’s term (unless the National Assembly dissolves itself, or the right alliance falls apart and the government loses confidence).
Olivier Guichard is chosen as PM and he leads a shaky government that gets into a test of wills with Mitterand as described in the Economist article (which I've updated to reflect this change)
This becomes the first experience at co-habitation in the Fifth Republic and there are some initial stumbles on both sides. The PCF also tries to make things difficult at the Right’s expense, which backfires, forcing the President to put the screws to his allies to get things back in order (which could also be a test of wills between the President and the PCF General Secretary Georges Marchais over who is in the driver’s seat). Long about October cooler heads prevail and things begin to settle down as negotiations take place to shape the co-habitation more peacefully.
The PS and the UDR might even be forced to work together to keep the PCF out in the cold.
How does that work?
Retconing the TL a little, let’s say President Mitterand dissolved the National Assembly shortly after taking office, forcing new elections. He did this despite objections from the Right majority and UDR Prime Minister Pierre Messmer (the caretaker left over from before Mitterand’s inauguration).
The country went to the polls still as closely divided as it was in May, reflected in the results of the recent second round vote in the Presidential election. The Socialists ran on a platform of reasonable governance and incremental change to improve the conditions of French working people. The Communists (generally) stood behind their 1972 accord with the PS.
The UDR and other right parties largely ran on a campaign of keeping the reds from the rampart and being the last best hope to save France from radicalism, inflation, oppression and humiliation. They may have also tried to infuse a degree of nationalism over the President’s pledge to withdraw from Syria (“look at what he has already done to France’s standing in the international community” etc. etc.).
The polls are close up until just before the first round (large number of undecided voters), then just before voting a leading Socialist or Communist says something really dumb that scares some undecided voters and plays into the Right narrative (praising collectivizing agriculture or suggesting children receive leftist political indoctrination in school, something like that). Mitterand pounces on it and denies it; the offender is forced to eat his/her words, but the damage is done.
The election result then reflects a combination of the close division that already was present during the Presidential election, plus a slight turn right by undecided voters from the PS and the PCF due to the pre-election controversy.
The Results of the French National Assembly Elections, June 30 and July 7, 1974
488 seats; 245 required for a majority.
Right Alliance: 246 (50.4%)
Union of Democrats for the Republic (UDR) 144
Independent Republicans (NFIR) 77
Other Right Parties 25
Left Alliance: 242 (49.6%)
Socialist Party (PS) 151
Communist Party (PCF) 84
Other Left parties 7
Le Grand Gachis thus refers to the mood of the electorate during the election as well as the post election situation.
As I understand it, Mitterand couldn’t dissolve the National Assembly again until June 1975. The French would have divided government (or co-habitation) for the first year of Mitterand’s term (unless the National Assembly dissolves itself, or the right alliance falls apart and the government loses confidence).
Olivier Guichard is chosen as PM and he leads a shaky government that gets into a test of wills with Mitterand as described in the Economist article (which I've updated to reflect this change)
This becomes the first experience at co-habitation in the Fifth Republic and there are some initial stumbles on both sides. The PCF also tries to make things difficult at the Right’s expense, which backfires, forcing the President to put the screws to his allies to get things back in order (which could also be a test of wills between the President and the PCF General Secretary Georges Marchais over who is in the driver’s seat). Long about October cooler heads prevail and things begin to settle down as negotiations take place to shape the co-habitation more peacefully.
The PS and the UDR might even be forced to work together to keep the PCF out in the cold.
How does that work?
I'm OK with it - taking into account that for your narrative you need a cohabitation in France (I still think that the left would have won!)
A detail: Messmer would have resigned as Prime Minister, between Mitterrand's election and his official installation as President, and Mitterrand would have appointed a Socialist PM (Gaston Defferre, most probably). That's what happened in 81: Barre gave Giscard his resignation and was asked to deal with the current affairs; Mitterrand took office on May 21 and on the same day nominated Pierre Mauroy as PM.
Please note that in the situation you describe, Mitterrand would be under a lot of pressure to resign. The right would say that he did provoque an election and lost it, and lost his legitimity at the same time. I'm sure that he would not resign, though.
A detail: Messmer would have resigned as Prime Minister, between Mitterrand's election and his official installation as President, and Mitterrand would have appointed a Socialist PM (Gaston Defferre, most probably). That's what happened in 81: Barre gave Giscard his resignation and was asked to deal with the current affairs; Mitterrand took office on May 21 and on the same day nominated Pierre Mauroy as PM.
Please note that in the situation you describe, Mitterrand would be under a lot of pressure to resign. The right would say that he did provoque an election and lost it, and lost his legitimity at the same time. I'm sure that he would not resign, though.
I guess you and I will have to agree to co-habit on the subject.
Seriously John, thanks for your contributions on this. They were both helpful and educational.
Crime and Punishment in America - Autumn 1974
September 21, 1974
NYSE Massacre: 28 Hostages, 2 Police Dead in armed attack on Stock Exchange
At ten thirty yesterday morning a group of armed gunmen attacked the New York Stock Exchange on Wall Street, killing a total of twenty-three commercial exchange traders and NYSE employees, including nine security guards, and seriously wounding at least nineteen others in their initial attack. The exact number of attackers involved remains unclear; NYPD and FBI sources have placed the number between seven and nine heavily armed individuals. Their weapons included an M14 military issue rifle, two shotguns, at least three machine guns which had been modified for automatic fire, and an unknown quantity of hand grenades.
The attackers approached the NYSE building in at least two groups, entering through the main entrance off of Wall Street, and a second service entrance located to the side of the building. Once inside the men opened fire indiscriminately, killing security guards and floor traders in a fusillade of gunfire. At least one hand grenade was detonated during the attack. The armed group then took the surviving traders and exchange employees hostage. One witness reported that the gunmen shot at least two wounded traders to silence their cries for help.
New York Police responded quickly to the attack, surrounding the building and summoning tactical squad officers to the scene. Mayor Abraham Beame rushed to an undisclosed location near the scene to direct hostage negotiations and police efforts. The FBI was also summoned at some point during the crisis.
The gunmen wore black kerchiefs and sunglasses to disguise their features. During the first minutes of the siege they sought out any members of the press among their hostages, and identified James Kelvin of the Wall Street Journal in the group. One of their number then read a statement to a Kelvin, in which he identified their group as “the People’s Armed Resistance” and demanded “the dismantling of the oppressive capitalist system which enslaves the poor and downtrodden and perpetuates the condition of slavery for all people of color.” The gunmen’s demands included the dissolution of all corporations and the division of their assets among “all members of the oppressed proletariat.” In addition they demanded that “all capitalists exploiters and their political lackeys be put on trial in people’s courts for their crimes of enslavement and genocide against the oppressed.” The attackers then released Kelvin, along with a written manifesto. He was immediately taken into custody by police and FBI agents and questioned for several hours by authorities before being released.
The siege continued for another six hours, during which one of the wounded hostages died. The gunmen repeatedly refused to get medical treatment for their hostages, whom they termed “oppressors” and “overseers of the capitalist plantation.” Several hostages endured torture at the hands of the attackers as they were pistol whipped and otherwise mistreated. At one point a terrorist apparently engaged in Russian roulette with one hostage. This involves removing all but one bullet from a revolver, spinning the barrel and then pulling the trigger while the gun is aimed at the victim.
“These aren’t legitimate revolutionaries, not even close!” Mayor Beame said in sharply worded remarks. “They are animals -criminal scum- and we will treat them as such.”
Trained hostage negotiators from both the NYPD and the FBI tried to defuse the tense situation, but were unsuccessful. In addition to demanding the publication of their political manifesto, the attackers insisted that they be given one hundred million dollars and be allowed to fly to Africa aboard Air Force One. They demanded that a list of prisoners be freed and allowed to accompany them, including Herman Bell and Anthony Bottom (aka Jalil Muntaqim), convicted of the murder of two New York City police officers in 1971. Bell and Bottom are members of the Black Liberation Army, classified by the FBI as a terrorist group. Witnesses later reported that while a number of the gunmen were black, at least two appeared to be Hispanic.
Louis Farakhan, Minister at the Harlem Mosque, attempted to interpose himself into the negotiations, arguing that he might have better success. Mayor Beame and New York City Police Commissioner Michael Codd briefly spoke with Farakhan, but the Minister was turned away and not allowed to speak with the gunmen.
“We could end this peacefully,” Farakhan told reporters after his meeting with the Mayor and Police Commissioner. “But these men are being stubborn. They are going to end this with a blood bath just so that they can appear tough.”
At four p.m. a second grenade was exploded in the entrance of the stock exchange. It is not clear if this was in reaction to a provocation by the police or an act of frustration by the hostage takers. At four-forty the NYPD decided to storm the building, which took place between five and five fifteen.
After an intense exchange of gunfire, and the explosion of at least one more grenade, the police subdued the gunmen, reportedly killing seven. Two additional hostages were killed during the police assault, while two NYPD officers were reported dead and five seriously wounded. Initial accounts by some hostages indicate that at least one, and perhaps as many as two of the attackers might have escaped during the confusion caused by the police raid.
Civil rights groups have been quick to condemn the police action. William Kunsler, noted civil rights attorney commented, “the police decided to end this with a bloodbath; the death of the hostages killed during the raid are the result of the lack of patience by the Mayor and Police Commissioner.”
Marvin Younger of Hartford, Connecticut, the brother of Citibank trader John Younger, one of the two hostages killed during the police attack, told The Hartford Times that he will sue the New York Police and the FBI for the wrongful death of his brother.
“We had no choice,” Commissioner Codd told reporters. “They (the attackers) were getting frustrated, and that could have meant all of the hostages might have been killed. These people were unwilling to negotiate. Don’t forget, they shot a wounded man for sport!”
“I stand behind the police,” Mayor Beame said. “They acted to end a dangerous situation. My heart goes out to the families of the hostages killed by these terrorists, and to the families of the two brave NYPD officers killed in the line of duty.”
New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, currently seeking a fifth term, commented during a campaign stop in Schenectady, New York. “Mayor Beame called these people animals, and I agree with that. We have to be tough on people who think they can use violence to achieve their goals. The minute they picked-up a gun they became the enemy of all law abiding citizens. That’s why I am campaigning to tighten our laws so that we can lock-up these kinds of thugs for good.” The Governor cut short his swing through upstate New York to fly to New York City for a first hand assessment of the situation.
Polls currently show Governor Rockefeller trailing his Democratic challenger, U.S. Representative Hugh L. Carey Jr. of Brooklyn, by nine to eleven points.
“This is an outrage, a vicious crime” Representative Carey commented at a campaign event in Elmira. “I support Mayor Beame and Commissioner Codd in dealing with this threat to the peace of our community. There’s no question that we have to be tough with criminals like these.”
The New York Stock Exchange will remain closed until at least Monday as police conduct their investigation. NYSE officials have already announced that a moment of silence will be observed when the Exchange reopens to honor the murdered hostages and New York Police officers.
The identities of the dead attackers are currently being withheld while authorities conduct their investigation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA): We have to be tough on crime. When a criminal decides to pick-up a gun, he is declaring war on all the rules of society. He is a self-professed enemy of society and has to be treated as such. What happened in New York last week could have been prevented if the police had had the tools to get tough with these criminals before now. At least two of these animals had long criminal records – records of despicable, violent crimes. They should have been stopped before they caused this tragedy, and could have been if the police had had the power to do it.
Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr (R-CA): When a criminal picks-up a gun, he becomes our enemy. No different than an enemy on the battlefield. The police are our protection, our soldiers in the battle, and we have to give them the laws that will allow them to deal with this kind of attack forcefully. It’s not just about an abstract idea called law-and-order. It’s about your safety, and your family’s safety. Stop crime dead in its tracks!
Jerry Brown (D-CA): There’s no question that the thugs who attacked the New York Stock Exchange committed a very serious crime, and they should have been stopped before that happened. I am genuinely saddened by what the victims’ families have had to endure as a result of this horrible crime. We have to be tough on criminals, but at the same time we can’t be so tough that we lose sight of our responsibility to maintain a free society. Tough laws can only go so far, unless you want to stop crime dead in its tracks by creating a police state. I certainly don’t want to do that. I know Senator Goldwater, when he ran for President ten years ago, was outspoken on the point of preventing excessive intrusion by the state into people’s lives. We have to be tough on crime, but that doesn’t include trading away our liberty in the process. Instead, let’s be tough on the causes of crime – poverty, alienation, racism – as well. Then we’ll be building a safer community.
Sen. Barry Goldwater Sr (R-AZ): I don’t need Jerry Brown or anyone else putting words in my mouth. The best way to deal with a violent criminal is to put him down for good. You hear a lot of talk from liberals about trying to prevent recidivisms with this social program or that educational program, most of which don’t work. But I’ll tell you, I never heard of a dead criminal re-offending.
President Gavin (speaking at Gracie Mansion [New York Mayor’s residence], surrounded by the families of a number of the NYSE massacre victims; Mayor Beame and Governor Rockefeller standing close by): This is a tragedy beyond words. What these men have done is evil. No grudge, no past injustice, no feeling of oppression, can justify the mass murder of innocents. To those who call these thugs revolutionaries, I say, look at men like Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton. These were men who believed in a cause and took-up arms for it. But their cause was liberty, and they never attacked the innocent or made sport of violence in the name of revolution. They sooner took-up the pen in their cause, or forsake it altogether, rather than resort to indiscriminate violence and terror. No cause, no objective of redressing of wrongs, can disguise naked terrorism, which is what this crime was. To the families of the innocent gathered here, I pledge every effort of the Federal government to tracking down any who knew of this crime before it happened, and any who gave assistance or support to these thugs. I am especially concerned that we bring to justice anyone who was involved in providing the weapons to these killers. We will not rest until the guilty are brought to justice. Americans will not be terrorized by criminals, but with the just and certain belief in our laws and with the determination of our hard working and brave police and law enforcement personnel, we will win out and end the plague of violence which has recently gripped our cities.
Margaret Thatcher (during a BBC interview): All you have to do is look at what happened in New York to understand why preventive laws are necessary. We shall not allow such a thing to happen in Britain, and I venture if America had such laws, then they too could have prevented this evil act.
William Kunsler: I noticed that the President evoked the founding Fathers as his kind of revolutionaries. Never mind that Washington and Jefferson were slave owners and that Alexander Hamilton made his money from the slave trade. What happened at the stock exchange was tragic for the victims and their families, but it is the result of a long history of racism, violence and oppression in this country. When you keep a people down with force, the time will come when some among their number will explode against the injustice and intolerance that makes victims of them and their families. You want to prevent these kinds of events from happening? Then change what really caused them. You do that by addressing the real cause, injustice and racism. Let’s see President Gavin take that one on.
Sign seen along the I-5: “Stop’em dead in their tracks Barry!”
Rep. Ron Dellums (D-CA): This is nothing but an attempt to turn our streets into a wild west shoot-out. They want increased police powers, why? To turn the police loose on those they don’t like – minorities, the poor, anyone who makes puts up a fuss against the system or makes a cry for justice. I don’t support what these criminals did in New York – that was a crime, no doubt about it. But I don’t support overreacting by turning every cop into a Marshall Dillon and turning the police force into the Gestapo or the KGB. That’s the wrong way to go.
California Bumper Sticker: “Republicans stink but Barry’s ok!”
California Bumper Sticker: “Stop Barry in his tracks!”
Goldwater for Governor campaign television ad: (image; thug wearing a kerchief and sunglasses, holding a gun – switches with photos of the Patricia Hearst murder scene): Narrator: Criminals want you to be scared. They want you to run and hide while they use violence to get their way. They don’t care about a peaceful community; all they want is terror. Some liberals - like Jerry Brown - want to treat them and cure them, as if they were the victims. Barry Goldwater doesn’t want to coddle criminals. He wants to give police the power to stop them and protect your family. (image: Goldwater addressing a large crowd): “It’s a choice between law and chaos, and I’m for law and order every time. I promise to stop this liberal nonsense of coddling violent criminals. My administration will stop crime dead in its tracks!” Narrator: Vote Goldwater for Governor on November fifth, and we’ll take the fight back to the criminals.
Muhammad Ali: When they draft a brother and put a government gun in his hands, and point him at the some poor farmer in Vietnam they call the enemy, and say shoot him, then he’s doing his patriotic duty. Killing for Uncle Sam is okay. But when that brother cries out “enough man; I ain’t takin’ anymore of your bull, I’m standing up to you” then he’s a criminal. I’m a Muslim, I don’t believe in violence, and what happened to the money traders was wrong, but I say, you let the violence loose, and it comes back at you.
Sen. Birch Bayh (D-IN): There are a lot of people who want to politicize this, they want to turn a tragedy into a crusade for all kinds of tough measures to stop crime – to stop crime dead in its tracks, as one irresponsible campaign would have it. This was a horrendous crime, about that no reasonable person can argue. But do we do the victims any justice by making it into a political football? They say that two of these thugs had long criminal records, and should have been stopped before this. They don’t add that three were veterans of the war in Vietnam, and that another had been in the National Guard. Violence surrounds us, and you don’t learn its skills just in the underworld or on the mean streets of New York or any other city. Let’s stop and think about that for a second. Two of these criminals learned violence on the streets, four did so in the service of our government, of you and me. Does this mean we should ban the military? Of course not, because their military experience didn’t cause these men do this horrible crime. They did it because they had a grudge, a sense that they could achieve something with mindless violence that they couldn’t through peaceful means. They were wrong. But why did they believe this? I don’t have an answer for that today, but I believe we have to find that answer. We have to look at why four men who served our country in uniform took to violence against our citizens. Then we can begin to stop this violence for good, not dead in its tracks, but gone for good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 1, 1974
Farakhan warns US of Muslim backlash to Syria Operation
Louis Farakhan, the controversial Minister of the Harlem Mosque in New York City, has warned the Gavin Administration that the current military operation in Syria may “raise anger among the Ummah (the world community of Muslims) for their trespass in an (Islamic) homeland.” Farakhan added that what he called “the armed incursion of non-believers” into Syria has “deeply enraged” the Muslim community, and turned many Muslims against the United States.
In an address before the National Urban League – to which he had been invited to address issues of urban poverty relief and unemployment- the Muslim community leader compared the multi-national incursion into Syria to the crusades of the Middle Ages. “Our brothers throughout the world see in this invasion by outside powers a resumption of an old injustice against all followers of Islam. Non-believers seek to make laws and governments for their interests in a land that belongs to brothers in Islam, and this is an insult to all the Ummah that cannot be tolerated.”
“While most of the Ummah are peaceful in their faith, there are always those whose righteous anger at this injustice will be so roused as to lash out at their oppressors. They will see the need to resort to violence to restore Allah’s divine and merciful law in the lands of believers. I say this not as a threat, but as a warning for western leaders to heed, or ignore at their peril.”
Farakhan said that the only solution was for a complete withdrawal of all foreign forces from the Middle East. He also called on the United States government to pay reparations to the Syrian people for the damage caused by “an unjust war against the innocent.” He said that “while brothers of good will are struggling to prevent violence, there is no guarantee of their success.” He added, ominously, “the anger is building, and not the United States nor any combination of earthly powers can withstand the tide of an aroused Islam. You need only look to the Romans and their fate to understand this.”
He was referring to the Byzantine, or Eastern Roman Empire, which was defeated by Islamic forces in 1453. The capital city of Constantinople, named for the Roman Emperor who first embraced Christianity, was renamed Istanbul and became an important center in the Islamic world. Istanbul is today the largest city in the Muslim nation of Turkey.
“I warn all leaders, stay out of Islamic lands, or the peace will be broken, and what happens after that will be on your heads.”
The State Department, Defense Department and the White House refused to comment on Farakhan’s remarks.
Vernon Jordan, the President of the National Urban League, said, “we encourage dialogue between many points of view,” which was why “Minister Louis Farakhan was invited to address our members.” Jordan said that while his group was interested in Minister Farakhan’s comments, the National Urban League “in no way endorses his remarks on U.S. foreign policy. These are not our views.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 10, 1974
Nixon: “Absolutely not guilty, so help me God.”
“Absolutely not guilty, so help me God,” were the words spoken by Former President Richard Nixon when asked to enter a plea on a seventeen count federal indictment against him. DC Federal Judge John J. Sirica accepted the former President’s plea without comment and released him on his own recognizance, provided that he surrender his passport. A date for preliminary hearings has yet to be set.
Richard Nixon was indicted for charges including charges of obstructing justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, tax evasion, perjury and other counts by a Grand Jury on February 5th of this year; however procedural manoeuvring between Mr. Nixon’s lawyers and the U.S. Attorney’s office have delayed the arraignment for eight months. After denying a motion by Nixon’s legal team that their client could not receive a fair trial in the District of Columbia, Judge Sirica ordered that a formal arraignment go forward.
The offences charged in the indictment occurred largely between September 1971 and July 1972, when Nixon was serving as the 37th President of the United States. Crucial to the US Attorney’s case are the transcripts of meetings recorded in the White House between President Nixon and various members of his staff, including then Attorneys General John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst, and chief prosecution witness John Dean. Dean was the White House Counsel during this period, and has been expected to corroborate much of the allegedly incriminating material heard on the tapes. According to informed sources the conversations on these tapes make Nixon’s guilt “quite evident.” A special master had been appointed by the Court last year to transcribe the tapes and hold them secure while Mr. Nixon challenged their use as evidence under the fifth amendment. The Supreme Court, in United States v. Nixon, ruled that the tapes were admissible as evidence, though the Supreme Court also held that their contents remain sealed from public disclosure until Mr. Nixon had a chance to defend himself at trial.
The so-called Oval Office tapes became controversial again last summer when portions of the transcripts were published in The Manchester Guardian. Since the transcripts were to be held under guard by the special master, their publication meant that someone on the special master’s staff had given the protected documents to the British newspaper. The FBI has been investigating the leak, but thus far has not made public any detailed information about who might have leaked this information. Anyone involved in leaking the transcript to The Guardian would be guilty of a federal crime. In the meantime the special master and his staff have been replaced by the DC Court.
Nixon’s attorneys had argued before Judge Sirica that the illegal release of the transcripts and their publication undermined their client’s ability to receive a fair trial, as reporting of the tapes contents would prejudice any potential jury pool. At first they argued that this was sufficient to quash the indictment. When Judge Sirica ruled against this argument, Nixon had asked for a change of venue, which was also denied. Nixon’s attorneys had intended to argue at trial that a jury should not hear the tapes in their entirety as they involve conversations of “national importance”, including “matters of national security.” The publication of transcripts of their contents, they claim, has undermined their ability to present a defense for their client.
A publication ban issued by the DC Federal District Court prevents the publication of the transcripts anywhere in the United States, although there has been substantial reporting of their being published in Europe, and contraband copies of these European publications are readily available throughout the United States. They can also be purchased legally in Canada and Mexico.
Citing the publication ban, Judge Sirica dismissed this argument and ruled that the arraignment and pre-trial motions proceed. “I’m sure we can find twelve people who haven’t read smuggled newspapers or been to Canada recently,” he said in his ruling.
Richard Nixon was grimfaced as he left the Federal Court house flanked by his attorneys, Edward Bennett Williams and Leonard Garment, and two Secret Service bodyguards. The former President had no comment for the press.
Senator Robert Dole (R-KS) meanwhile questioned the timing of this proceeding. “It seems awfully convenient that this was brought forward so soon before the election. It makes you think that the Democrats have been contriving to get this out there just before the election, to confuse voters about what the real issues are.”
“That’s absurd,” rebutted Democratic National Committee Chair Robert Strauss. “The U.S. Attorney prosecuting this case is a Republican – one appointed by President Nixon I might add - and Judge Sirica was appointed by President Eisenhower. If anything, we should be asking if there is too much bias on Mr. Nixon’s behalf in this court; after all Judge Sirica let him go without imposing bail. If it was you or me, we’d have to mortgage our house to get the privilege of walking out of “Maximum John’s” courtroom.”
One ironic aspect of the case is that Nixon’s prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Richard Scholl, was originally appointed to his post by then President Nixon in 1971. President Eisenhower appointed Judge Sirica to the DC District Federal Court in 1957. At the time Richard Nixon was serving as the Vice President of the United States. Judge Sirica has been nicknamed “Maximum John” in reflection of his stringent sentencing practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 21, 1974
NYSE Massacre: 28 Hostages, 2 Police Dead in armed attack on Stock Exchange
At ten thirty yesterday morning a group of armed gunmen attacked the New York Stock Exchange on Wall Street, killing a total of twenty-three commercial exchange traders and NYSE employees, including nine security guards, and seriously wounding at least nineteen others in their initial attack. The exact number of attackers involved remains unclear; NYPD and FBI sources have placed the number between seven and nine heavily armed individuals. Their weapons included an M14 military issue rifle, two shotguns, at least three machine guns which had been modified for automatic fire, and an unknown quantity of hand grenades.
The attackers approached the NYSE building in at least two groups, entering through the main entrance off of Wall Street, and a second service entrance located to the side of the building. Once inside the men opened fire indiscriminately, killing security guards and floor traders in a fusillade of gunfire. At least one hand grenade was detonated during the attack. The armed group then took the surviving traders and exchange employees hostage. One witness reported that the gunmen shot at least two wounded traders to silence their cries for help.
New York Police responded quickly to the attack, surrounding the building and summoning tactical squad officers to the scene. Mayor Abraham Beame rushed to an undisclosed location near the scene to direct hostage negotiations and police efforts. The FBI was also summoned at some point during the crisis.
The gunmen wore black kerchiefs and sunglasses to disguise their features. During the first minutes of the siege they sought out any members of the press among their hostages, and identified James Kelvin of the Wall Street Journal in the group. One of their number then read a statement to a Kelvin, in which he identified their group as “the People’s Armed Resistance” and demanded “the dismantling of the oppressive capitalist system which enslaves the poor and downtrodden and perpetuates the condition of slavery for all people of color.” The gunmen’s demands included the dissolution of all corporations and the division of their assets among “all members of the oppressed proletariat.” In addition they demanded that “all capitalists exploiters and their political lackeys be put on trial in people’s courts for their crimes of enslavement and genocide against the oppressed.” The attackers then released Kelvin, along with a written manifesto. He was immediately taken into custody by police and FBI agents and questioned for several hours by authorities before being released.
The siege continued for another six hours, during which one of the wounded hostages died. The gunmen repeatedly refused to get medical treatment for their hostages, whom they termed “oppressors” and “overseers of the capitalist plantation.” Several hostages endured torture at the hands of the attackers as they were pistol whipped and otherwise mistreated. At one point a terrorist apparently engaged in Russian roulette with one hostage. This involves removing all but one bullet from a revolver, spinning the barrel and then pulling the trigger while the gun is aimed at the victim.
“These aren’t legitimate revolutionaries, not even close!” Mayor Beame said in sharply worded remarks. “They are animals -criminal scum- and we will treat them as such.”
Trained hostage negotiators from both the NYPD and the FBI tried to defuse the tense situation, but were unsuccessful. In addition to demanding the publication of their political manifesto, the attackers insisted that they be given one hundred million dollars and be allowed to fly to Africa aboard Air Force One. They demanded that a list of prisoners be freed and allowed to accompany them, including Herman Bell and Anthony Bottom (aka Jalil Muntaqim), convicted of the murder of two New York City police officers in 1971. Bell and Bottom are members of the Black Liberation Army, classified by the FBI as a terrorist group. Witnesses later reported that while a number of the gunmen were black, at least two appeared to be Hispanic.
Louis Farakhan, Minister at the Harlem Mosque, attempted to interpose himself into the negotiations, arguing that he might have better success. Mayor Beame and New York City Police Commissioner Michael Codd briefly spoke with Farakhan, but the Minister was turned away and not allowed to speak with the gunmen.
“We could end this peacefully,” Farakhan told reporters after his meeting with the Mayor and Police Commissioner. “But these men are being stubborn. They are going to end this with a blood bath just so that they can appear tough.”
At four p.m. a second grenade was exploded in the entrance of the stock exchange. It is not clear if this was in reaction to a provocation by the police or an act of frustration by the hostage takers. At four-forty the NYPD decided to storm the building, which took place between five and five fifteen.
After an intense exchange of gunfire, and the explosion of at least one more grenade, the police subdued the gunmen, reportedly killing seven. Two additional hostages were killed during the police assault, while two NYPD officers were reported dead and five seriously wounded. Initial accounts by some hostages indicate that at least one, and perhaps as many as two of the attackers might have escaped during the confusion caused by the police raid.
Civil rights groups have been quick to condemn the police action. William Kunsler, noted civil rights attorney commented, “the police decided to end this with a bloodbath; the death of the hostages killed during the raid are the result of the lack of patience by the Mayor and Police Commissioner.”
Marvin Younger of Hartford, Connecticut, the brother of Citibank trader John Younger, one of the two hostages killed during the police attack, told The Hartford Times that he will sue the New York Police and the FBI for the wrongful death of his brother.
“We had no choice,” Commissioner Codd told reporters. “They (the attackers) were getting frustrated, and that could have meant all of the hostages might have been killed. These people were unwilling to negotiate. Don’t forget, they shot a wounded man for sport!”
“I stand behind the police,” Mayor Beame said. “They acted to end a dangerous situation. My heart goes out to the families of the hostages killed by these terrorists, and to the families of the two brave NYPD officers killed in the line of duty.”
New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, currently seeking a fifth term, commented during a campaign stop in Schenectady, New York. “Mayor Beame called these people animals, and I agree with that. We have to be tough on people who think they can use violence to achieve their goals. The minute they picked-up a gun they became the enemy of all law abiding citizens. That’s why I am campaigning to tighten our laws so that we can lock-up these kinds of thugs for good.” The Governor cut short his swing through upstate New York to fly to New York City for a first hand assessment of the situation.
Polls currently show Governor Rockefeller trailing his Democratic challenger, U.S. Representative Hugh L. Carey Jr. of Brooklyn, by nine to eleven points.
“This is an outrage, a vicious crime” Representative Carey commented at a campaign event in Elmira. “I support Mayor Beame and Commissioner Codd in dealing with this threat to the peace of our community. There’s no question that we have to be tough with criminals like these.”
The New York Stock Exchange will remain closed until at least Monday as police conduct their investigation. NYSE officials have already announced that a moment of silence will be observed when the Exchange reopens to honor the murdered hostages and New York Police officers.
The identities of the dead attackers are currently being withheld while authorities conduct their investigation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA): We have to be tough on crime. When a criminal decides to pick-up a gun, he is declaring war on all the rules of society. He is a self-professed enemy of society and has to be treated as such. What happened in New York last week could have been prevented if the police had had the tools to get tough with these criminals before now. At least two of these animals had long criminal records – records of despicable, violent crimes. They should have been stopped before they caused this tragedy, and could have been if the police had had the power to do it.
Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr (R-CA): When a criminal picks-up a gun, he becomes our enemy. No different than an enemy on the battlefield. The police are our protection, our soldiers in the battle, and we have to give them the laws that will allow them to deal with this kind of attack forcefully. It’s not just about an abstract idea called law-and-order. It’s about your safety, and your family’s safety. Stop crime dead in its tracks!
Jerry Brown (D-CA): There’s no question that the thugs who attacked the New York Stock Exchange committed a very serious crime, and they should have been stopped before that happened. I am genuinely saddened by what the victims’ families have had to endure as a result of this horrible crime. We have to be tough on criminals, but at the same time we can’t be so tough that we lose sight of our responsibility to maintain a free society. Tough laws can only go so far, unless you want to stop crime dead in its tracks by creating a police state. I certainly don’t want to do that. I know Senator Goldwater, when he ran for President ten years ago, was outspoken on the point of preventing excessive intrusion by the state into people’s lives. We have to be tough on crime, but that doesn’t include trading away our liberty in the process. Instead, let’s be tough on the causes of crime – poverty, alienation, racism – as well. Then we’ll be building a safer community.
Sen. Barry Goldwater Sr (R-AZ): I don’t need Jerry Brown or anyone else putting words in my mouth. The best way to deal with a violent criminal is to put him down for good. You hear a lot of talk from liberals about trying to prevent recidivisms with this social program or that educational program, most of which don’t work. But I’ll tell you, I never heard of a dead criminal re-offending.
President Gavin (speaking at Gracie Mansion [New York Mayor’s residence], surrounded by the families of a number of the NYSE massacre victims; Mayor Beame and Governor Rockefeller standing close by): This is a tragedy beyond words. What these men have done is evil. No grudge, no past injustice, no feeling of oppression, can justify the mass murder of innocents. To those who call these thugs revolutionaries, I say, look at men like Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton. These were men who believed in a cause and took-up arms for it. But their cause was liberty, and they never attacked the innocent or made sport of violence in the name of revolution. They sooner took-up the pen in their cause, or forsake it altogether, rather than resort to indiscriminate violence and terror. No cause, no objective of redressing of wrongs, can disguise naked terrorism, which is what this crime was. To the families of the innocent gathered here, I pledge every effort of the Federal government to tracking down any who knew of this crime before it happened, and any who gave assistance or support to these thugs. I am especially concerned that we bring to justice anyone who was involved in providing the weapons to these killers. We will not rest until the guilty are brought to justice. Americans will not be terrorized by criminals, but with the just and certain belief in our laws and with the determination of our hard working and brave police and law enforcement personnel, we will win out and end the plague of violence which has recently gripped our cities.
Margaret Thatcher (during a BBC interview): All you have to do is look at what happened in New York to understand why preventive laws are necessary. We shall not allow such a thing to happen in Britain, and I venture if America had such laws, then they too could have prevented this evil act.
William Kunsler: I noticed that the President evoked the founding Fathers as his kind of revolutionaries. Never mind that Washington and Jefferson were slave owners and that Alexander Hamilton made his money from the slave trade. What happened at the stock exchange was tragic for the victims and their families, but it is the result of a long history of racism, violence and oppression in this country. When you keep a people down with force, the time will come when some among their number will explode against the injustice and intolerance that makes victims of them and their families. You want to prevent these kinds of events from happening? Then change what really caused them. You do that by addressing the real cause, injustice and racism. Let’s see President Gavin take that one on.
Sign seen along the I-5: “Stop’em dead in their tracks Barry!”
Rep. Ron Dellums (D-CA): This is nothing but an attempt to turn our streets into a wild west shoot-out. They want increased police powers, why? To turn the police loose on those they don’t like – minorities, the poor, anyone who makes puts up a fuss against the system or makes a cry for justice. I don’t support what these criminals did in New York – that was a crime, no doubt about it. But I don’t support overreacting by turning every cop into a Marshall Dillon and turning the police force into the Gestapo or the KGB. That’s the wrong way to go.
California Bumper Sticker: “Republicans stink but Barry’s ok!”
California Bumper Sticker: “Stop Barry in his tracks!”
Goldwater for Governor campaign television ad: (image; thug wearing a kerchief and sunglasses, holding a gun – switches with photos of the Patricia Hearst murder scene): Narrator: Criminals want you to be scared. They want you to run and hide while they use violence to get their way. They don’t care about a peaceful community; all they want is terror. Some liberals - like Jerry Brown - want to treat them and cure them, as if they were the victims. Barry Goldwater doesn’t want to coddle criminals. He wants to give police the power to stop them and protect your family. (image: Goldwater addressing a large crowd): “It’s a choice between law and chaos, and I’m for law and order every time. I promise to stop this liberal nonsense of coddling violent criminals. My administration will stop crime dead in its tracks!” Narrator: Vote Goldwater for Governor on November fifth, and we’ll take the fight back to the criminals.
Muhammad Ali: When they draft a brother and put a government gun in his hands, and point him at the some poor farmer in Vietnam they call the enemy, and say shoot him, then he’s doing his patriotic duty. Killing for Uncle Sam is okay. But when that brother cries out “enough man; I ain’t takin’ anymore of your bull, I’m standing up to you” then he’s a criminal. I’m a Muslim, I don’t believe in violence, and what happened to the money traders was wrong, but I say, you let the violence loose, and it comes back at you.
Sen. Birch Bayh (D-IN): There are a lot of people who want to politicize this, they want to turn a tragedy into a crusade for all kinds of tough measures to stop crime – to stop crime dead in its tracks, as one irresponsible campaign would have it. This was a horrendous crime, about that no reasonable person can argue. But do we do the victims any justice by making it into a political football? They say that two of these thugs had long criminal records, and should have been stopped before this. They don’t add that three were veterans of the war in Vietnam, and that another had been in the National Guard. Violence surrounds us, and you don’t learn its skills just in the underworld or on the mean streets of New York or any other city. Let’s stop and think about that for a second. Two of these criminals learned violence on the streets, four did so in the service of our government, of you and me. Does this mean we should ban the military? Of course not, because their military experience didn’t cause these men do this horrible crime. They did it because they had a grudge, a sense that they could achieve something with mindless violence that they couldn’t through peaceful means. They were wrong. But why did they believe this? I don’t have an answer for that today, but I believe we have to find that answer. We have to look at why four men who served our country in uniform took to violence against our citizens. Then we can begin to stop this violence for good, not dead in its tracks, but gone for good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 1, 1974
Farakhan warns US of Muslim backlash to Syria Operation
Louis Farakhan, the controversial Minister of the Harlem Mosque in New York City, has warned the Gavin Administration that the current military operation in Syria may “raise anger among the Ummah (the world community of Muslims) for their trespass in an (Islamic) homeland.” Farakhan added that what he called “the armed incursion of non-believers” into Syria has “deeply enraged” the Muslim community, and turned many Muslims against the United States.
In an address before the National Urban League – to which he had been invited to address issues of urban poverty relief and unemployment- the Muslim community leader compared the multi-national incursion into Syria to the crusades of the Middle Ages. “Our brothers throughout the world see in this invasion by outside powers a resumption of an old injustice against all followers of Islam. Non-believers seek to make laws and governments for their interests in a land that belongs to brothers in Islam, and this is an insult to all the Ummah that cannot be tolerated.”
“While most of the Ummah are peaceful in their faith, there are always those whose righteous anger at this injustice will be so roused as to lash out at their oppressors. They will see the need to resort to violence to restore Allah’s divine and merciful law in the lands of believers. I say this not as a threat, but as a warning for western leaders to heed, or ignore at their peril.”
Farakhan said that the only solution was for a complete withdrawal of all foreign forces from the Middle East. He also called on the United States government to pay reparations to the Syrian people for the damage caused by “an unjust war against the innocent.” He said that “while brothers of good will are struggling to prevent violence, there is no guarantee of their success.” He added, ominously, “the anger is building, and not the United States nor any combination of earthly powers can withstand the tide of an aroused Islam. You need only look to the Romans and their fate to understand this.”
He was referring to the Byzantine, or Eastern Roman Empire, which was defeated by Islamic forces in 1453. The capital city of Constantinople, named for the Roman Emperor who first embraced Christianity, was renamed Istanbul and became an important center in the Islamic world. Istanbul is today the largest city in the Muslim nation of Turkey.
“I warn all leaders, stay out of Islamic lands, or the peace will be broken, and what happens after that will be on your heads.”
The State Department, Defense Department and the White House refused to comment on Farakhan’s remarks.
Vernon Jordan, the President of the National Urban League, said, “we encourage dialogue between many points of view,” which was why “Minister Louis Farakhan was invited to address our members.” Jordan said that while his group was interested in Minister Farakhan’s comments, the National Urban League “in no way endorses his remarks on U.S. foreign policy. These are not our views.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 10, 1974
Nixon: “Absolutely not guilty, so help me God.”
“Absolutely not guilty, so help me God,” were the words spoken by Former President Richard Nixon when asked to enter a plea on a seventeen count federal indictment against him. DC Federal Judge John J. Sirica accepted the former President’s plea without comment and released him on his own recognizance, provided that he surrender his passport. A date for preliminary hearings has yet to be set.
Richard Nixon was indicted for charges including charges of obstructing justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, tax evasion, perjury and other counts by a Grand Jury on February 5th of this year; however procedural manoeuvring between Mr. Nixon’s lawyers and the U.S. Attorney’s office have delayed the arraignment for eight months. After denying a motion by Nixon’s legal team that their client could not receive a fair trial in the District of Columbia, Judge Sirica ordered that a formal arraignment go forward.
The offences charged in the indictment occurred largely between September 1971 and July 1972, when Nixon was serving as the 37th President of the United States. Crucial to the US Attorney’s case are the transcripts of meetings recorded in the White House between President Nixon and various members of his staff, including then Attorneys General John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst, and chief prosecution witness John Dean. Dean was the White House Counsel during this period, and has been expected to corroborate much of the allegedly incriminating material heard on the tapes. According to informed sources the conversations on these tapes make Nixon’s guilt “quite evident.” A special master had been appointed by the Court last year to transcribe the tapes and hold them secure while Mr. Nixon challenged their use as evidence under the fifth amendment. The Supreme Court, in United States v. Nixon, ruled that the tapes were admissible as evidence, though the Supreme Court also held that their contents remain sealed from public disclosure until Mr. Nixon had a chance to defend himself at trial.
The so-called Oval Office tapes became controversial again last summer when portions of the transcripts were published in The Manchester Guardian. Since the transcripts were to be held under guard by the special master, their publication meant that someone on the special master’s staff had given the protected documents to the British newspaper. The FBI has been investigating the leak, but thus far has not made public any detailed information about who might have leaked this information. Anyone involved in leaking the transcript to The Guardian would be guilty of a federal crime. In the meantime the special master and his staff have been replaced by the DC Court.
Nixon’s attorneys had argued before Judge Sirica that the illegal release of the transcripts and their publication undermined their client’s ability to receive a fair trial, as reporting of the tapes contents would prejudice any potential jury pool. At first they argued that this was sufficient to quash the indictment. When Judge Sirica ruled against this argument, Nixon had asked for a change of venue, which was also denied. Nixon’s attorneys had intended to argue at trial that a jury should not hear the tapes in their entirety as they involve conversations of “national importance”, including “matters of national security.” The publication of transcripts of their contents, they claim, has undermined their ability to present a defense for their client.
A publication ban issued by the DC Federal District Court prevents the publication of the transcripts anywhere in the United States, although there has been substantial reporting of their being published in Europe, and contraband copies of these European publications are readily available throughout the United States. They can also be purchased legally in Canada and Mexico.
Citing the publication ban, Judge Sirica dismissed this argument and ruled that the arraignment and pre-trial motions proceed. “I’m sure we can find twelve people who haven’t read smuggled newspapers or been to Canada recently,” he said in his ruling.
Richard Nixon was grimfaced as he left the Federal Court house flanked by his attorneys, Edward Bennett Williams and Leonard Garment, and two Secret Service bodyguards. The former President had no comment for the press.
Senator Robert Dole (R-KS) meanwhile questioned the timing of this proceeding. “It seems awfully convenient that this was brought forward so soon before the election. It makes you think that the Democrats have been contriving to get this out there just before the election, to confuse voters about what the real issues are.”
“That’s absurd,” rebutted Democratic National Committee Chair Robert Strauss. “The U.S. Attorney prosecuting this case is a Republican – one appointed by President Nixon I might add - and Judge Sirica was appointed by President Eisenhower. If anything, we should be asking if there is too much bias on Mr. Nixon’s behalf in this court; after all Judge Sirica let him go without imposing bail. If it was you or me, we’d have to mortgage our house to get the privilege of walking out of “Maximum John’s” courtroom.”
One ironic aspect of the case is that Nixon’s prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Richard Scholl, was originally appointed to his post by then President Nixon in 1971. President Eisenhower appointed Judge Sirica to the DC District Federal Court in 1957. At the time Richard Nixon was serving as the Vice President of the United States. Judge Sirica has been nicknamed “Maximum John” in reflection of his stringent sentencing practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Farson
Banned
Good update, though I do have some questions about the NYSE massacre. First, I don't know what kind of security the New York Stock Exchange had in the early 1970s, but considering its importance I doubt the place would have the same kind of security as let's say a shopping mall. Now I'm not saying that there would be post-9/11 level security, but neither would the security guards be armed with just mace and nightsticks. What I'm trying to say here is that I think the guards would have put up more resistance than what you wrote, where it seems the guards were pretty much slaughtered like sheep without taking out any of the gunmen in turn. At the very least, I think the security guards would have fought back if only to buy time for the employees to escape.
Second, the amount of victims. I don't know how many hostages were taken altogether, but I don't think the terrorists would have killed so many (23, I think) in the initial attack, if only because they need all the hostages they can get as leverage. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be deaths, there definitely would be, but I think it'd be more in the level of the Munich massacre, where the Black September terrorists killed 2 of the 11 Israeli athletes and took the rest hostage.
Third, I have my doubts as to whether the NYPD would have even bothered with just closing off the area and laying siege once they got reports that there were gunmen inside basically running amok and shooting and blowing up anything that moved. The powers that be might have very well decided that the terrorists were just trying to kill as many people as possible and simply ordered the police to move in and neutralize the terrorists any way they could.
Now, having read this, you might think that I completely disagree with your scenario. I don't, actually, I just think it might have been a bit like this:
1) Terrorists move in, kill a few people, take the rest (about 40-50) hostage. Rest manage to escape.
2) Police close off area, negotiations begin, terrorists read out their bizarre list of demands.
3) At some point, someone screws up, and all hell breaks loose (like the climax of the Munich massacre or Beslan 2004). Police charge in, kill the terrorists, but another 20 or so die in the process, getting to the total casualty figure of 28 hostages as mentioned in the text. All terrorists die. Or maybe one survives, but he gets the living shit beaten out of him by the police before their superiors can intervene (with maybe someone managing to take a picture and his severely beaten face adorning the cover of the next day's New York Times, further inflaming passions).
Ok, having gotten that out of the way, onto the rest. Considering that this action will no doubt have riled people up, striking at the heart of U.S. commerce and all, could this lead to a flare-up of racial tensions and repercussions towards blacks and latinos? I'm thinking of the U.S. South, though urban violence elsewhere is also a possibility. After all, it was only in the previous year that you had massive riots in Los Angeles. And it's only been ten years or so since the passing of the civil rights acts; there are bound to still be racial tensions lurking beneath the surface, which have been further exacerbated by the Second Depression and America's wars in Vietnam and Syria. Certain groups may very well use all this as an opportunity to scapegoat the usual groups (Blacks/Latinos/Asians/Jews/gays/immigrants/commies/illuminati/take your pick). I believe you mentioned in an earlier post that a lot of Americans are becoming more tribal at this point.
I also take it that this massacre is a reflection of the radicalization of the political underground in the U.S. due to a longer Vietnam War, Syria and the Depression. Such groups might make the SLA and the Black Panthers look like Girl Scouts by comparison.
Again, sorry for the seeming nitpicking. I'm not disagreeing with the attack, I just think it might have gone a bit differently, that's all.
Second, the amount of victims. I don't know how many hostages were taken altogether, but I don't think the terrorists would have killed so many (23, I think) in the initial attack, if only because they need all the hostages they can get as leverage. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be deaths, there definitely would be, but I think it'd be more in the level of the Munich massacre, where the Black September terrorists killed 2 of the 11 Israeli athletes and took the rest hostage.
Third, I have my doubts as to whether the NYPD would have even bothered with just closing off the area and laying siege once they got reports that there were gunmen inside basically running amok and shooting and blowing up anything that moved. The powers that be might have very well decided that the terrorists were just trying to kill as many people as possible and simply ordered the police to move in and neutralize the terrorists any way they could.
Now, having read this, you might think that I completely disagree with your scenario. I don't, actually, I just think it might have been a bit like this:
1) Terrorists move in, kill a few people, take the rest (about 40-50) hostage. Rest manage to escape.
2) Police close off area, negotiations begin, terrorists read out their bizarre list of demands.
3) At some point, someone screws up, and all hell breaks loose (like the climax of the Munich massacre or Beslan 2004). Police charge in, kill the terrorists, but another 20 or so die in the process, getting to the total casualty figure of 28 hostages as mentioned in the text. All terrorists die. Or maybe one survives, but he gets the living shit beaten out of him by the police before their superiors can intervene (with maybe someone managing to take a picture and his severely beaten face adorning the cover of the next day's New York Times, further inflaming passions).
Ok, having gotten that out of the way, onto the rest. Considering that this action will no doubt have riled people up, striking at the heart of U.S. commerce and all, could this lead to a flare-up of racial tensions and repercussions towards blacks and latinos? I'm thinking of the U.S. South, though urban violence elsewhere is also a possibility. After all, it was only in the previous year that you had massive riots in Los Angeles. And it's only been ten years or so since the passing of the civil rights acts; there are bound to still be racial tensions lurking beneath the surface, which have been further exacerbated by the Second Depression and America's wars in Vietnam and Syria. Certain groups may very well use all this as an opportunity to scapegoat the usual groups (Blacks/Latinos/Asians/Jews/gays/immigrants/commies/illuminati/take your pick). I believe you mentioned in an earlier post that a lot of Americans are becoming more tribal at this point.
I also take it that this massacre is a reflection of the radicalization of the political underground in the U.S. due to a longer Vietnam War, Syria and the Depression. Such groups might make the SLA and the Black Panthers look like Girl Scouts by comparison.
Again, sorry for the seeming nitpicking.
I'm not disagreeing with the attack, I just think it might have gone a bit differently, that's all.In 1967 Abbie Hoffman and a group of protesters got in without being challenged. I recall reading that the NYSE was considered highly vulnerable in 1981 because they employed private security firms (I'm trying to find the old reference, but as I recall the controversy was that the guards were ineffective at keeping armed intruders out in a test), who at the time used nothing more exotic than old style revolvers. Airport screening for weapons at US airports had only started in 1972. I'm suggesting that these terrorists took the guards by complete surprise (and by inference - the newspaper hasn't had time to learn about this - that there was an inside person to help: that comes out in the later investigation.).
There were probably around 200 commercial traders and exchange employees, possibly more, on the floor at the time. The initial causalty # may seem high (we could debate the number) but I'm also thinking someone got carried away with one of these (see link) in the adrenaline rush of taking the place over. Some hostages may also have been shot simply to intimidate others, which would be important if only 7-9 men were holding a large group hostage - they would want to have every hostage be in fear of their life so that the hostages don't try and overpower the attackers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Grease_Gun
Setting off a grenade in an enclosed space can also be very messy.
Perhaps, but after the initial round the killing stopped, and they sent the WSJ reporter out with a manifesto and demands, there was a pause for negotiation. There followed a period of indecision, then when one of the attackers set off a grenade, the police decided to rush the place. A later investigation would fault the police for acting too hastily, and getting into a jurisdictional quarrel with the FBI, leading NYPD commanders to want to solve the situation before the FBI got fully involved (the FBI weren't called, they showed-up after hearing news reports of the attack) - the upshot being a recommendation for a trained tactical hostage rescue unit at the federal level (which OTL wasn't formed until 1982) and stronger domestic anti-terrorist co-ordination, including approaches to handling these sorts of situations. But all that is for the future as more information comes out.
Correct on all points. George Wallace (who was himself the focus of a BLA assassination attempt in this TL) is going to have a field day with this. And suddenly, law and order has been injected into the 1974 election as a major issue.
Again, sorry for the seeming nitpicking.
Not at all. Valid points all. But the event is now a catalyst in this TL.
I agree on both points. The right would call his election a statistical accident or a voter mistake, while Mitterand would refute that he was elected and he would govern, or co-govern, as the legitimately elected President of France.
This would make the co-habitation even more unstable.
The new President of South Vietnam
October 14, 1974
Ngô Quang Trưởng Elected President of South Vietnam
Lieutenant General Ngô Quang Trưởng was elected President of the Republic of (South) Vietnam today, winning 63% of the votes cast. His nearest rival, Dr. Cao Vung, a Harvard educated economist and agrarian reformer, won 26% of the votes; the rest were scattered among minor candidates. Although disputes have arisen in some polling districts, the election supervised by the American military administration headed by General Earle Wheeler, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been widely praised as fair and free by international observers.
The election was noted for its relative lack of violence. The North Vietnamese supported National Liberation Front (known more commonly as the Viet Cong) had denounced the election as “an exercise in Imperialism” and “a tool of the criminal colonialist control of the Vietnamese people by the American oppressors.” While the Viet Cong boycotted the vote, and called on the South Vietnamese population not to participate in a “farce”, they did not engage in any operations to sabotage the polling, which took place over six days across the country. Recent American lead military operations, including air strikes, are believed to have undermined the Viet Cong and its North Vietnamese ally’s operational capabilities in the South.
Surprisingly, the government in Hanoi remained silent during the election, suggesting at least a tacit acceptance of the current military situation in the South, according to State Department sources. Negotiations between the United States and North Vietnam over the fate of Vietnam and neighboring Cambodia are said to be showing signs of “incremental progress” according to State Department sources who would only comment off-the-record.
President-elect Truong will assume office on November 1 for a six year term, at which time General Wheeler and his staff will leave South Vietnam, their mission completed. Ngô Quang Trưởng is widely regarded for his competence as a battlefield commander and for his reputation of unyielding integrity. Known as an ascetic who prefers a Spartan lifestyle, General Truong is popular among the troops under his command for sharing the hardships of their life in the jungle and on the front-line, even coming under enemy fire with his men. This sets him apart from other South Vietnamese commanders who are notorious for living in luxury well to the rear of their troops. General Truong’s integrity is illustrated by a story often told about him that he once received a request to transfer his nephew from the frontline to a desk job; he refused to show favortism toward his relative (a common practice in the South Vietnamese Army and government) and the nephew was later killed in action.
According to General William Westmoreland, a former commander of US forces in Vietnam, General Truong “is the best they’ve got. I would have trusted him to command an American division.”
General Creighton Abrams, General Westmoreland’s successor, praised General Truong as “outstanding; the kind of leader any Army would want.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge called General Truong “the best of the best; he’ll be a good leader.”
Whether Truong’s military acumen will translate into capable political leadership of his country remains to be seen. More than one scholar has noted that being President of the country is a far different task than leading troops in the field.
President Gavin telephoned General Truong shortly after his victory was announced to congratulate him and to express the full support of the United States for his new government. The White House announced that the two Presidents will meet shortly after President-elect Truong is inaugurated, although the date and location for that meeting has yet to be set. Vice President Scranton will head a high level US delegation that will attend the inaugural ceremony in Saigon.
As President, Truong will face the challenge of re-establishing civilian rule after the violent coup that lead to the murder of President Thieu last year and the subsequent ouster of the junta which overthrew Thieu by the U.S. military. This action lead to nearly one year of U.S. military administration of the government in Saigon, which became a major sore point in negotiations with North Vietnam. The situation also stirred-up feelings of nationalist resentment in South Vietnam against the United States, even though General Wheeler’s administration made every effort to govern with as light a hand as possible, leaving much of the civilian administration in place rather than replacing it with Americans.
General Truong is a Buddhist, and it is hoped that he will be able to win over Buddhist leaders who have been critical of past governments. In his victory speech General Truong – who, in a gesture designed to reinforce the notion of civilian rule, announced that he will resign from the Army immediately – stated that he would dedicate his term as President to working on reconciliation between the Buddhist leaders and the government on the one hand, and between the Buddhist population and the nation’s important Roman Catholic minority as well. Sectarian strife between the two groups has been a cause for instability in the South Vietnamese government over the last two decades. The murder of the Roman Catholic President Ngo Dinh Diem (no relation to Ngô Quang Trưởng) in 1963 may have aggravated that tension, according to observers of South Vietnamese politics.
“I will be the President for all Vietnamese,” Truong said in his victory speech. “We cannot have a full nation until we come together in our common interest. I do not accept that one religious belief is superior to another; a free nation can tolerate all faiths as long as we approach each other with good will and open hands.”
October 14, 1974
Ngô Quang Trưởng Elected President of South Vietnam
Lieutenant General Ngô Quang Trưởng was elected President of the Republic of (South) Vietnam today, winning 63% of the votes cast. His nearest rival, Dr. Cao Vung, a Harvard educated economist and agrarian reformer, won 26% of the votes; the rest were scattered among minor candidates. Although disputes have arisen in some polling districts, the election supervised by the American military administration headed by General Earle Wheeler, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been widely praised as fair and free by international observers.
The election was noted for its relative lack of violence. The North Vietnamese supported National Liberation Front (known more commonly as the Viet Cong) had denounced the election as “an exercise in Imperialism” and “a tool of the criminal colonialist control of the Vietnamese people by the American oppressors.” While the Viet Cong boycotted the vote, and called on the South Vietnamese population not to participate in a “farce”, they did not engage in any operations to sabotage the polling, which took place over six days across the country. Recent American lead military operations, including air strikes, are believed to have undermined the Viet Cong and its North Vietnamese ally’s operational capabilities in the South.
Surprisingly, the government in Hanoi remained silent during the election, suggesting at least a tacit acceptance of the current military situation in the South, according to State Department sources. Negotiations between the United States and North Vietnam over the fate of Vietnam and neighboring Cambodia are said to be showing signs of “incremental progress” according to State Department sources who would only comment off-the-record.
President-elect Truong will assume office on November 1 for a six year term, at which time General Wheeler and his staff will leave South Vietnam, their mission completed. Ngô Quang Trưởng is widely regarded for his competence as a battlefield commander and for his reputation of unyielding integrity. Known as an ascetic who prefers a Spartan lifestyle, General Truong is popular among the troops under his command for sharing the hardships of their life in the jungle and on the front-line, even coming under enemy fire with his men. This sets him apart from other South Vietnamese commanders who are notorious for living in luxury well to the rear of their troops. General Truong’s integrity is illustrated by a story often told about him that he once received a request to transfer his nephew from the frontline to a desk job; he refused to show favortism toward his relative (a common practice in the South Vietnamese Army and government) and the nephew was later killed in action.
According to General William Westmoreland, a former commander of US forces in Vietnam, General Truong “is the best they’ve got. I would have trusted him to command an American division.”
General Creighton Abrams, General Westmoreland’s successor, praised General Truong as “outstanding; the kind of leader any Army would want.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge called General Truong “the best of the best; he’ll be a good leader.”
Whether Truong’s military acumen will translate into capable political leadership of his country remains to be seen. More than one scholar has noted that being President of the country is a far different task than leading troops in the field.
President Gavin telephoned General Truong shortly after his victory was announced to congratulate him and to express the full support of the United States for his new government. The White House announced that the two Presidents will meet shortly after President-elect Truong is inaugurated, although the date and location for that meeting has yet to be set. Vice President Scranton will head a high level US delegation that will attend the inaugural ceremony in Saigon.
As President, Truong will face the challenge of re-establishing civilian rule after the violent coup that lead to the murder of President Thieu last year and the subsequent ouster of the junta which overthrew Thieu by the U.S. military. This action lead to nearly one year of U.S. military administration of the government in Saigon, which became a major sore point in negotiations with North Vietnam. The situation also stirred-up feelings of nationalist resentment in South Vietnam against the United States, even though General Wheeler’s administration made every effort to govern with as light a hand as possible, leaving much of the civilian administration in place rather than replacing it with Americans.
General Truong is a Buddhist, and it is hoped that he will be able to win over Buddhist leaders who have been critical of past governments. In his victory speech General Truong – who, in a gesture designed to reinforce the notion of civilian rule, announced that he will resign from the Army immediately – stated that he would dedicate his term as President to working on reconciliation between the Buddhist leaders and the government on the one hand, and between the Buddhist population and the nation’s important Roman Catholic minority as well. Sectarian strife between the two groups has been a cause for instability in the South Vietnamese government over the last two decades. The murder of the Roman Catholic President Ngo Dinh Diem (no relation to Ngô Quang Trưởng) in 1963 may have aggravated that tension, according to observers of South Vietnamese politics.
“I will be the President for all Vietnamese,” Truong said in his victory speech. “We cannot have a full nation until we come together in our common interest. I do not accept that one religious belief is superior to another; a free nation can tolerate all faiths as long as we approach each other with good will and open hands.”
America's Grand Gachis
Gallup Poll October 1974
The following represents a poll completed between September 28 and October 5, 1974. 275,000 registered voters, chosen at random from 175 communities across the United States, were polled for this survey. The purpose was to collect a snapshot of political opinion and preference prior to the November 1974 mid-term elections. Every effort was made to balance the sample between the three groups (Democrat, Republican and Independent voters) in order to provide a meaningful basis of comparison. The poll has an error rate of +/- 2%.
1. Rank the following five issues in their order of importance to you when considering how you will vote in the coming election.
National:
Economy: 44%
Crime: 32%
Foreign Affairs: 12%
Education: 7%
Civil Rights: 5%
Republicans:
Economy: 41%
Crime: 42%
Foreign Affairs: 14%
Education: 2%
[FONT="]Civil Rights: 1% [/FONT]
Democrats:
Economy: 46%
Crime: 22%
Foreign Affairs: 11%
Education: 10%
Civil Rights: 11%
Independent
Economy: 45%
Crime: 31%
Foreign Affairs: 10%
Education: 9%
Civil Rights: 5%
2. Who is better at handling the economic crisis?
National:
Democrats 41%
Republicans: 40%
Undecided: 19%
Republicans:
Republicans: 92%
Democrats: 2%
Undecided: 6%
Democrats:
Democrats: 88%
Republicans: 4%
Undecided: 8%
Independent:
Democrats: 33%
Republicans: 26%
Undecided: 41%
3. Do you consider the recent increase in violent crime to be a significant issue in this election?
National:
Yes: 89%
No: 8%
Undecided: 3%
Republicans:
Yes: 95%
No: 1%
Undecided: 4%
Democrats:
Yes: 81%
No: 13%
Undecided: 6%
Independent:
Yes: 90%
No: 8%
Undecided: 2%
4. If you had to choose between candidate A, whose priority was to create more jobs only or Candidate B, whose priority was to get tough on violent criminals only, which would you choose?
National:
A: 50%
B: 44%
Undecided: 6%
Republicans:
A: 42%
B: 49%
Undecided: 9%
Democrats:
A: 58%
B: 36%
Undecided: 6%
Independent:
A: 49%
B: 46%
Undecided: 5%
5. Do you support the U.S. military operation in Syria?
National:
Yes: 35%
No: 63%
Undecided: 2%
Republicans:
Yes: 49%
No: 49%
Undecided: 2%
Democrats:
Yes: 16%
No: 82%
Undecided: 2%
Independent:
Yes: 40%
No: 57%
Undecided: 3%
6. Do you approve of your Senators’ job performance?
National:
Approve: 42%
Disapprove: 49%
Undecided: 9%
Republicans:
Approve: 36%
Disapprove: 50%
Undecided: 14%
Democrats:
Approve: 48%
Disapprove: 46%
Undecided: 8%
Independent:
Approve 40%
Disapprove: 51%
Undecided: 9%
7. Do you approve of your Congressman’s job performance?
National:
Approve: 49%
Disapprove: 46%
Undecided: 5%
Republicans:
Approve: 50%
Disapprove: 44%
Undecided: 6%
Democrats:
Approve: 50%
Disapprove: 46%
Undecided: 6%
Independent:
Approve: 46%
Disapprove: 48%
Undecided: 6%
8. Respondents who identified themselves as registered Republicans were asked to choose their preference for their Party’s 1976 Presidential nomination (no list was provided). The top five names chosen by respondents are listed here:
Ronald Reagan: 40%
Robert Dole: 24%
Howard Baker: 13%
John Connally: 4%
Charles Percy: 4%
Others: 15%
9. Respondents who identified themselves as registered Democrats were asked to choose their preference for their Party’s 1976 Presidential nomination (no list was provided). The top five names chosen by respondents are listed here:
Edward Kennedy: 21%
Birch Bayh: 19%
Hubert Humphrey: 19%
Henry Jackson: 9%
Reubin Askew: 4%
Others: 28%
10. In a follow-up questions respondents who identified themselves as Independent voters were asked to rank the ten candidates chosen from questions 8 and 9 (without regard to party affiliation) to choose their preference for the winner in the 1976 Presidential election.
Edward Kennedy: 18%
Hubert Humphrey: 18%
Robert Dole 16%
Birch Bayh: 16%
Ronald Reagan: 14%
Howard Baker: 11%
Henry Jackson: 3%
Reubin Askew: 2%
Charles Percy: 1%
John Connally: 1%
11: Do you approve of President Gavin’s job performance?
National:
Approve: 46%
Disapprove: 46%
Undecided: 8%
Republicans:
Approve: 54%
Disapprove: 40%
Undecided: 6%
Democrats:
Approve: 33%
Disapprove: 60%
Undecided 7%
Independent:
Approve: 52%
Disapprove: 37%
Undecided: 11%
12: Would you vote for President Gavin if he were a candidate for re-election in 1976? (Here the President is rated against the potential candidates identified in the polling of the three groups – producing a list of six candidates each for the Democrats and the Republicans, and eleven candidates for the independent list).
Republicans
Ronald Reagan: 40%
Robert Dole: 19%
James Gavin: 14%
Howard Baker: 7%
Charles Percy: 4%
John Connally: 4%
Others: 12%
Democrats
Edward Kennedy: 21%
Birch Bayh: 19%
Hubert Humphrey: 18%
Henry Jackson: 8%
James Gavin 6%
Reubin Askew: 4%
Others: 24%
Independent
Edward Kennedy: 19%
James Gavin 15%
Hubert Humphrey: 15%
Birch Bayh: 14%
Ronald Reagan: 13%
Howard Baker: 7%
Robert Dole 6%
Henry Jackson: 2%
Reubin Askew: 2%
Charles Percy: 2%
John Connally: 1%
Others: 4%
13. Do you believe our country is headed in the right direction?
National:
Yes: 4%
No: 89%
Undecided: 7%
Republicans:
Yes: 7%
No: 84%
Undecided: 9%
Democrats:
Yes: 4%
No: 88%
Undecided: 8%
Independent:
Yes: 4%
No: 94%
Undecided: 2%
14. Will you vote in November?
National:
Yes: 60%
No: 33%
Undecided: 7%
Republicans:
Yes: 71%
No: 23%
Undecided: 6%
Democrats:
Yes: 66%
No: 29%
Undecided: 5%
Independent:
Yes: 46%
No: 42%
Undecided: 12%
15: California Gubernatorial Election:
Jerry Brown (Democrat) 45%
Barry Goldwater Jr. (Republican) 43%
Others: 2%
Undecided: 10%
Republicans:
Goldwater: 91%
Brown: 1%
[FONT="]Undecided: 8% [/FONT]
Democrats:
Goldwater: 3%
Brown: 94%
[FONT="]Undecided: 3% [/FONT]
Independent:
Goldwater: 36%
Brown: 41%
Undecided 23%
16. Will you vote in November (California)?
State wide:
Yes: 64%
No: 30%
Undecided: 6%
Republicans:
Yes: 70%
No: 26%
Undecided: 4%
Democrats:
Yes: 68%
No: 24%
Undecided: 8%
Independent:
Yes: 54%
No: 38%
Undecided: 8%
Gallup Poll October 1974
The following represents a poll completed between September 28 and October 5, 1974. 275,000 registered voters, chosen at random from 175 communities across the United States, were polled for this survey. The purpose was to collect a snapshot of political opinion and preference prior to the November 1974 mid-term elections. Every effort was made to balance the sample between the three groups (Democrat, Republican and Independent voters) in order to provide a meaningful basis of comparison. The poll has an error rate of +/- 2%.
1. Rank the following five issues in their order of importance to you when considering how you will vote in the coming election.
National:
Economy: 44%
Crime: 32%
Foreign Affairs: 12%
Education: 7%
Civil Rights: 5%
Republicans:
Economy: 41%
Crime: 42%
Foreign Affairs: 14%
Education: 2%
[FONT="]Civil Rights: 1% [/FONT]
Democrats:
Economy: 46%
Crime: 22%
Foreign Affairs: 11%
Education: 10%
Civil Rights: 11%
Independent
Economy: 45%
Crime: 31%
Foreign Affairs: 10%
Education: 9%
Civil Rights: 5%
2. Who is better at handling the economic crisis?
National:
Democrats 41%
Republicans: 40%
Undecided: 19%
Republicans:
Republicans: 92%
Democrats: 2%
Undecided: 6%
Democrats:
Democrats: 88%
Republicans: 4%
Undecided: 8%
Independent:
Democrats: 33%
Republicans: 26%
Undecided: 41%
3. Do you consider the recent increase in violent crime to be a significant issue in this election?
National:
Yes: 89%
No: 8%
Undecided: 3%
Republicans:
Yes: 95%
No: 1%
Undecided: 4%
Democrats:
Yes: 81%
No: 13%
Undecided: 6%
Independent:
Yes: 90%
No: 8%
Undecided: 2%
4. If you had to choose between candidate A, whose priority was to create more jobs only or Candidate B, whose priority was to get tough on violent criminals only, which would you choose?
National:
A: 50%
B: 44%
Undecided: 6%
Republicans:
A: 42%
B: 49%
Undecided: 9%
Democrats:
A: 58%
B: 36%
Undecided: 6%
Independent:
A: 49%
B: 46%
Undecided: 5%
5. Do you support the U.S. military operation in Syria?
National:
Yes: 35%
No: 63%
Undecided: 2%
Republicans:
Yes: 49%
No: 49%
Undecided: 2%
Democrats:
Yes: 16%
No: 82%
Undecided: 2%
Independent:
Yes: 40%
No: 57%
Undecided: 3%
6. Do you approve of your Senators’ job performance?
National:
Approve: 42%
Disapprove: 49%
Undecided: 9%
Republicans:
Approve: 36%
Disapprove: 50%
Undecided: 14%
Democrats:
Approve: 48%
Disapprove: 46%
Undecided: 8%
Independent:
Approve 40%
Disapprove: 51%
Undecided: 9%
7. Do you approve of your Congressman’s job performance?
National:
Approve: 49%
Disapprove: 46%
Undecided: 5%
Republicans:
Approve: 50%
Disapprove: 44%
Undecided: 6%
Democrats:
Approve: 50%
Disapprove: 46%
Undecided: 6%
Independent:
Approve: 46%
Disapprove: 48%
Undecided: 6%
8. Respondents who identified themselves as registered Republicans were asked to choose their preference for their Party’s 1976 Presidential nomination (no list was provided). The top five names chosen by respondents are listed here:
Ronald Reagan: 40%
Robert Dole: 24%
Howard Baker: 13%
John Connally: 4%
Charles Percy: 4%
Others: 15%
9. Respondents who identified themselves as registered Democrats were asked to choose their preference for their Party’s 1976 Presidential nomination (no list was provided). The top five names chosen by respondents are listed here:
Edward Kennedy: 21%
Birch Bayh: 19%
Hubert Humphrey: 19%
Henry Jackson: 9%
Reubin Askew: 4%
Others: 28%
10. In a follow-up questions respondents who identified themselves as Independent voters were asked to rank the ten candidates chosen from questions 8 and 9 (without regard to party affiliation) to choose their preference for the winner in the 1976 Presidential election.
Edward Kennedy: 18%
Hubert Humphrey: 18%
Robert Dole 16%
Birch Bayh: 16%
Ronald Reagan: 14%
Howard Baker: 11%
Henry Jackson: 3%
Reubin Askew: 2%
Charles Percy: 1%
John Connally: 1%
11: Do you approve of President Gavin’s job performance?
National:
Approve: 46%
Disapprove: 46%
Undecided: 8%
Republicans:
Approve: 54%
Disapprove: 40%
Undecided: 6%
Democrats:
Approve: 33%
Disapprove: 60%
Undecided 7%
Independent:
Approve: 52%
Disapprove: 37%
Undecided: 11%
12: Would you vote for President Gavin if he were a candidate for re-election in 1976? (Here the President is rated against the potential candidates identified in the polling of the three groups – producing a list of six candidates each for the Democrats and the Republicans, and eleven candidates for the independent list).
Republicans
Ronald Reagan: 40%
Robert Dole: 19%
James Gavin: 14%
Howard Baker: 7%
Charles Percy: 4%
John Connally: 4%
Others: 12%
Democrats
Edward Kennedy: 21%
Birch Bayh: 19%
Hubert Humphrey: 18%
Henry Jackson: 8%
James Gavin 6%
Reubin Askew: 4%
Others: 24%
Independent
Edward Kennedy: 19%
James Gavin 15%
Hubert Humphrey: 15%
Birch Bayh: 14%
Ronald Reagan: 13%
Howard Baker: 7%
Robert Dole 6%
Henry Jackson: 2%
Reubin Askew: 2%
Charles Percy: 2%
John Connally: 1%
Others: 4%
13. Do you believe our country is headed in the right direction?
National:
Yes: 4%
No: 89%
Undecided: 7%
Republicans:
Yes: 7%
No: 84%
Undecided: 9%
Democrats:
Yes: 4%
No: 88%
Undecided: 8%
Independent:
Yes: 4%
No: 94%
Undecided: 2%
14. Will you vote in November?
National:
Yes: 60%
No: 33%
Undecided: 7%
Republicans:
Yes: 71%
No: 23%
Undecided: 6%
Democrats:
Yes: 66%
No: 29%
Undecided: 5%
Independent:
Yes: 46%
No: 42%
Undecided: 12%
15: California Gubernatorial Election:
Jerry Brown (Democrat) 45%
Barry Goldwater Jr. (Republican) 43%
Others: 2%
Undecided: 10%
Republicans:
Goldwater: 91%
Brown: 1%
[FONT="]Undecided: 8% [/FONT]
Democrats:
Goldwater: 3%
Brown: 94%
[FONT="]Undecided: 3% [/FONT]
Independent:
Goldwater: 36%
Brown: 41%
Undecided 23%
16. Will you vote in November (California)?
State wide:
Yes: 64%
No: 30%
Undecided: 6%
Republicans:
Yes: 70%
No: 26%
Undecided: 4%
Democrats:
Yes: 68%
No: 24%
Undecided: 8%
Independent:
Yes: 54%
No: 38%
Undecided: 8%
So--the Democrats are in decent shape as a party, but have no clear leader in the Presidential race.
The Republicans are going to nominate Reagan, unless he blows it.
And Gavin is surprisingly popular.
I'd say--either Reagan or Gavin, but then, you've demonstrated a gift for the surprise twist...
The Republicans are going to nominate Reagan, unless he blows it.
And Gavin is surprisingly popular.
I'd say--either Reagan or Gavin, but then, you've demonstrated a gift for the surprise twist...
- Status