You should've given Goldwater a go against Kennedy, that would've been very cool to see.
I actually have two versions of this timeline in my notes - version a) where Kennedy runs for re-election against Goldwater, and version b) where Kennedy runs for re-election against Rockefeller.You should've given Goldwater a go against Kennedy, that would've been very cool to see.
You probably know that Goldwater and JFK were close friends, notwithstanding their diametric political opposition, and at one point at least semi-seriously discussed barnstorming the country together in 1964, holding debates on the spot wherever they went. Kennedy once famously inscribed a photograph of himself that Goldwater (a highly skilled lensman) had taken, "To my friend Barry Goldwater, whom I urge to follow the career for which he has shown so much talent...photography."I actually have two versions of this timeline in my notes - version a) where Kennedy runs for re-election against Goldwater, and version b) where Kennedy runs for re-election against Rockefeller.
That's not to say that Rockefeller is a sure thing - far from it. He's still not popular with many conservatives and the divorce hangs over his head.
<SNIP>
Noted.Two major points....One, Rockefeller was never on the path to winning the Republican nomination. Goldwaterites had essentially overrun the Caucuses that year that nominated the overwhelming majority of the delegates to the Republican Convention, and carrying California is not going to change any of their minds in terms of who they are supporting. Even among favorite sons, there was serious dissension against Rockefeller amongst those delegates that represented the South (virtually nill support), Midwest and Prairie West that would have kept him from attaining the necessary support to cross the threshold.Edit: To be clear I thought that Rockefeller was presented as a.... clear favorite in the narrative. I still don't see a path for Rockefeller's nomination though.
Hm, I'll look into that (happy to be provided resources if you've got them handy) and take a few days to reassess some things and edit the previous update to reflect this information.Two, George Wallace never intended to start a Third Party when he was considering his Independent run in '64. Wallace and his cohorts intended to co-opt the Unpledged Electors movement that was gaining steam at the time, essentially a repeat of the Thurmond Campaign of '48. As an example, in '68 there were plenty of folks who tried to take out papers to run as American Independent candidates for various offices across the country, but Wallace himself made it abundantly clear that this should not be done and actively dissuaded as many as he could from doing so. His aims have always been within the Democratic Party, and it would amount to shooting himself in the foot to bolt considering he was at the time the political boss of the Democratic Party in Alabama. A Wallace-lead Conservative Third Party was simply never considered.
Noted.
Hm, I'll look into that (happy to be provided resources if you've got them handy) and take a few days to reassess some things and edit the previous update to reflect this information.
Thanks for the information.
He sure does.😊
Does LBJ still have his Amphicar in this timeline? That looked like fun.
-- An excerpt of Kennedy’s speech announcing the deployment of US marines to South Vietnam, on June 23rd, 1964“Good evening, my fellow Americans.
6 weeks ago, two of our most dedicated public servants, Ambassador to South Vietnam Roger Hillsman and Secretary of Defence Paul Nitze, were killed in a plot that was orchestrated and carried out by agents representing the Viet Cong, an armed wing of communist North Vietnamese Government.
These two men were killed while serving the interests of the United States government and in protecting our ally, South Vietnam.
They performed their roles expertly, better than I as their President, could have ever asked.
Nothing could justify the act of barbarism perpetrated against then by agents in North Vietnam. This was more than an act of violence – it was an act of terrorism designed to weaken our resolve and force us to abandon the cause of freedom in Southeast Asia.
Make no mistake – we will not back away from our commitment to South Vietnam, nor will we sit by as our public servants are threatened or attacked, anywhere in the world.
That is why, 3 days ago, in response to Viet Cong aggression, the United States Air Force launched a retaliatory strike against key targets in North Vietnam.
Our active military engagement against North Vietnam will not cease until the North agrees to a comprehensive peace treaty with their Southern counterpart, which puts an end to all efforts by the North to impose communism on the free South.
These demands are entirely reasonable – the people of South Vietnam have every right to live in peace and freedom, free from the threat of invasion by the North.
We have no other objective than this – to secure a free, independent South Vietnam.
Yet the North, and its allies in the communist bloc, do not accept this. They seek to impose their way of life on the people of South Vietnam and on all people across Asia.
Thus, our actions of military force will continue until the communist government in the North agrees to a ceasefire that ends all violent acts against South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
Such a peace will be monitored by the international community, through a body such as the UN.
By making this condition for peace clear from the outset, we say to the entire international community – any action we take in Indochina is not one of conquest, but an act of necessity to protect our allies and our people.
Furthermore, on my order, a detachment of United States Marines shall be sent to South Vietnam as part of our mission to aid the South Vietnamese government, and protect our military installations and diplomatic staff.
These American troops are not in Vietnam to win the war on behalf of the South. They must, and will, do that themselves.
Our troops will protect our airfields and help train and defend the local forces and civilian population to defend themselves.”
However, the Chevy II passed over a pothole, jerking the back passenger Howard Sims around in his seat and causing his shotgun to go off.
The gun was pointed at the driver, Cecil Myers, and the resulting gunshot killed him instantly. The car then careened off the a Broad River bridge the men were driving on, killing them all.
There sure is.Is there still a civil war in the Dominican Republic?
No less than scum like that deserves.Talk about hoist by your own petard there with Lemuel Penn's attempted murder...
That sounds like something out of a Coen Brothers movie...