Challenge: elect POTUS Robert McNamara (R-CA)

Now, has anyone done any studies as to how the Line would turn out? I'm not a military expert, so looking to those who are for advice. Politically, I know this was rubbished in a few quarters.
 
A line of fortifications? How exactly does that work? :confused: IMO the only way to tackle the Trail is for the ARVN and USAF to cut it by turning it into a massacre zone ala the Somme, except this time with 1960s tech. But yes, LBJ didn't listen regarding Vietnamization, with fatal political consequences to come. Keep in mind that after 1966 LBJ was very suspicious (correctly) of McNamara's loyalties and disregarded much of his advice in fear he was 'going soft'. If he'd known that PDB-level Vietnam documents were ending up in unauthorized hands, grab your earmuffs.


He wanted to put 500 MILLION mines on that border... it would make the DMZ in Korea look like Kindergarden. Plus these mines have no fuses... they where just shock sensitive and look like lumps of dirt... imagine trying to clean that shit up
 
BW: So the plan *works* then? :confused: RAND estimates said that completion of the whole system would cost today's equivalent of $13 billion per year. But yeah, detoxing after the war ends will be a pain in the ass, to say nothing of civilian casualties...
 
BW: So the plan *works* then? :confused: RAND estimates said that completion of the whole system would cost today's equivalent of $13 billion per year. But yeah, detoxing after the war ends will be a pain in the ass, to say nothing of civilian casualties...

Detoxing would be IMPOSSIBLE. RB the atlantic wall from Belgium to Brest had 6.5 million mines (on a front of several hundred miles)... you are talking about 530 MILLION mines that where designed to be impossible to clean up or disarm

it looks like a lump of dirt so you can never ever know you are safe. the only thing you could hope for is to clear marked paths with something like the miclic and then surround said paths with concrete barriers so the mines don't blow on to the road during the rainy season

I don't know if it would work necessarily... the NVA was pretty indifferent to casualties, and they could stamped paths if they where narrow, and it would be hard to tell they had cleared an area other than the large amounts of dead bodies
 
Moving on to domestic policy, standard Rocky Republicanism IMO.
Agree, he was of the same strain as George Romney. Speaking of which, would he have chosen George Romney as his Vice President? Or would he have been forced to choose a Democrat by the overwhelmingly Democratic Senate?
 
Moving on to domestic policy, standard Rocky Republicanism IMO.

This is the problem with your challenge: niether party will nominate him. The Democrats do not need a Rockefeller Republican and the Republicans have moved beyond the Rockefeller version of the party. (Unless you see a way for Mcnamara to grab the GOP nomination in 1960)
 
He might pick Romney as VP, but control over non-fiscal domestic policy will be firmly in the hands of Robert Kennedy if he remains in Cabinet, with McNamara's 100% support.

BW: not that much, because Rocky Republicans are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. GWB is not a social liberal. Hell, one could make the argument that Rocky's economic policies were equivalent to the Kennedy brothers', if not slightly to their right or left. But that's for another thread.
 
This is the problem with your challenge: niether party will nominate him. The Democrats do not need a Rockefeller Republican and the Republicans have moved beyond the Rockefeller version of the party. (Unless you see a way for Mcnamara to grab the GOP nomination in 1960)

If Russell Long and Lyndon Johnson push hard enough for him at the Democratic Party National Convention, they may be able to get him through. The Convention would be divided, though not enough to produce any split (Even McNamara is better than the duo of Goldwater and Miller in their opinion, and it just means more support from the Republican Party for Johnson.) All things considered, McNamara as VP would have been a plus rather than a negative.
 
I agree with Ariosto. The closest modern-day parallel would be McCain trying to ram Lieberman through as his VP: very tough but doable. But here's a problem: if LBJ's presidency goes anything like OTL, once 1968 rolls around and if Johnson withdraws, there will be no administration candidate. Thus he just handed Bobby Kennedy the Democratic nomination without much opposition. Cue LBJ exploding. :D Given their close friendship IOTL, and his endorsement of RFK, McNamara will not contest this at the convention. He'll be dumped as VP, replaced with a Southerner and go to the Treasury.
 
He might pick Romney as VP, but control over non-fiscal domestic policy will be firmly in the hands of Robert Kennedy if he remains in Cabinet, with McNamara's 100% support.

BW: not that much, because Rocky Republicans are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. GWB is not a social liberal. Hell, one could make the argument that Rocky's economic policies were equivalent to the Kennedy brothers', if not slightly to their right or left. But that's for another thread.

Rockefeller Republicanism is not fiscal conservatism; Rockefeller and his wing of the party believed in government, big government and social spending. Rockefeller's Republican Party was just "Me-too" New Deal and "we can administer it better"; Rockefeller and Nixon were not very different on fiscal matters.
 
I agree with Ariosto. The closest modern-day parallel would be McCain trying to ram Lieberman through as his VP: very tough but doable. But here's a problem: if LBJ's presidency goes anything like OTL, once 1968 rolls around and if Johnson withdraws, there will be no administration candidate. Thus he just handed Bobby Kennedy the Democratic nomination without much opposition. Cue LBJ exploding. :D Given their close friendship IOTL, and his endorsement of RFK, McNamara will not contest this at the convention. He'll be dumped as VP, replaced with a Southerner and go to the Treasury.

I am sorry, but you are incorrect in this assumption. McCain did not have the ability to "ram Lieberman" through the 2008 Republican Convention. That could not have happened.
 
I said the "closest parallel", namely nominating someone from another party as VPOTUS. Of course the GOP would have been split and things might've turned out worse than OTL, but that was the only time in recent history where a presidential nominee seriously considered someone from another party as their running mate, to the point of floating a test bubble in the media.
 
I agree with Ariosto. The closest modern-day parallel would be McCain trying to ram Lieberman through as his VP: very tough but doable. But here's a problem: if LBJ's presidency goes anything like OTL, once 1968 rolls around and if Johnson withdraws, there will be no administration candidate. Thus he just handed Bobby Kennedy the Democratic nomination without much opposition. Cue LBJ exploding. :D Given their close friendship IOTL, and his endorsement of RFK, McNamara will not contest this at the convention. He'll be dumped as VP, replaced with a Southerner and go to the Treasury.

Well, he could push for his protege John Connally. He would not have won many primaries (that is if he contested them) and would likely receive the support of the party bosses. This would be even if Kennedy is or isn't shot. Both were noted for their oratory skills. Therefore I am not sure who would win at the convention if Kennedy remained alive; McCarthy would not withdraw in support of Kennedy and therefore divide the anti-war segments of the party.
 
I said the "closest parallel", namely nominating someone from another party as VPOTUS. Of course the GOP would have been split and things might've turned out worse than OTL, but that was the only time in recent history where a presidential nominee seriously considered someone from another party as their running mate, to the point of floating a test bubble in the media.

Exactly and that shows how dangerous and impossible it is in American politics. In 1964 with JFK assassinated and sainted, the Dems do not need any Republican.
 

Teleology

Banned
This "liberal Republicans as technocrats" trend I'm detecting in the boards' discussions of the old LibRep wing lately is interesting.

Could one perhaps generalize that Liberal Republicans were not motivated by the concerns of disadvantaged groups as much as Liberal Democrats but instead by a belief that certain progressive reforms would make society run more smoothly?
 
Top