Sz8vTnB.png


"Never offend an enemy in a small way."

-Gore Vidal in Julian
 
'I have half-a-mind to get in myself'
'I have half-a-mind to get in myself'

Robert Francis Kennedy was the heir apparent of the Kennedy dynasty. After the death of his brother on 22 November 1963, Kennedy was faced with the burden of carrying on Camelot. Upon his return to the Justice Department, the Attorney General realized that the job was not the same without Jack in the White House. He and the new president, Lyndon B. Johnson, did not get along. It was never going to work as long as Kennedy stayed in the cabinet. So, he decided not to. Instead, he would run for the United States Senate in New York, challenging incumbent Republican Kenneth Keating. Though Keating was thought to be unbeatable prior to Kennedy's entrance, anyone is beatable when up against a Kennedy.

One man knew this, and he was a man who deeply hated Bobby Kennedy. One night, at a cocktail gathering, a friend asked Gore Vidal what he thought of Bobby Kennedy's Senate bid. Vidal scoffed, "Why, I have half-a-mind to get in myself."

Meanwhile, Kennedy's campaign was struggling. One New York Times article made note of Kennedy's carpetbagger nature: "The former Attorney General was nearly impaled as he boarded, or attempted to board, the subway. Kennedy tried to pass through a locked turnstile. Apparently, the candidate did not know a token was required for admission." [1] His speeches were often described as needing more to them - much like the speeches his brother gave during his first Congressional campaign. Bobby Kennedy looked weak, and Gore Vidal knew it.

Vidal convened a press conference at which he announced his candidacy for the United States Senate. "I am, today, officially declaring my candidacy for the United States Senate. It is an institution for which I have great respect," he said. "My grandfather was a senator, and I remember fondly my days as a youth in the Senate chamber. Now, I seek to return to it so that I may do the honorable work of the people." During the question and answer period, Vidal launched into a scathing attack on the former Attorney General.

"Bobby Kennedy says he's for civil rights, but the reality is he quit his job as Attorney General before the implementation of the Civil Rights Act. He had a chance to make a meaningful difference in the lives of Black Americans, and he chose not to. He simply chose not to. It's because Mr. Kennedy is, I'm afraid, not running for any reason other than to advance his own self-interest." The attack was one often levied by Senator Keating, but Vidal's tone brought a whole new level of passion to the subject. The photographers flashed their cameras as Vidal tore him apart. He then criticized the state of American politics: "Today’s public officials can no longer write their own speeches or books," he lamented, "and there is some evidence they can’t read them either." Within the attack was also a reminder that Kennedy had promised not to run for the Senate in 1964 and yet proceeded with a campaign nevertheless.

Vidal's entry into the Senate contest was on the front page of the New York Times the next day under the headline "Family Brawl: Vidal to Take on Kennedy in Senate Bid." The playwright and author laughed at the insinuation that he and the former Attorney General were "family." In truth, Vidal and Jacqueline Kennedy were friends and shared a stepfather, and through it was through Jackie that Vidal was introduced to one John Fitzgerald Kennedy. In 1960, when Vidal ran for the U.S. Congress, Kennedy stumped for him in the district. Vidal took pride in the fact that he out-performed Kennedy in the district. He and Jack had spoken once over the telephone before the president was shot dead in Dallas. [2] He and Bobby Kennedy had even less of a relationship.

In November 1961, Gore Vidal attended a function at the White House. When he became unsteady from drink, he balanced himself on the First Lady's shoulder. The Attorney General approached Vidal and removed his hand from Jackie's shoulder. Vidal was angry. "Don't ever do that again," he told Bobby, before Bobby insulted Vidal. [3] Gore added, "I've always thought you were a god-damned impertinent son of a bitch." The Attorney General told Vidal to "fuck off." Vidal left that evening, but not before telling the president, "I'd like to wring your brother's neck." Jackie determined never again to invite Vidal to the White House. [4] The situation was all the more frustrating for Vidal as he quite liked Jackie Kennedy, but Bobby made the continuation of the friendship impossible, even if Mrs. Kennedy blamed Vidal for the situation.

It would be wrong to assume that Vidal's frustration with Bobby Kennedy stemmed from one alcohol-induced argument. Vidal resented Kennedy's strict Catholicism. While he could trade sexual gossip with President Kennedy, the Attorney General would have no part in such dalliances. In fact, Kennedy suspected Vidal of being homosexual. While Vidal denied he was "a homosexual" (on the basis that homosexual described a sexual act, not a person), he was certainly gay, and his sexuality (and Kennedy's opposition) was an inherent tension between the two. [5]

With Vidal's entry, New York seemed certain to reelect Senator Kenneth Keating. Vidal was expected to take somewhere around 10% of the vote - mostly from Kennedy's share. Few doubted that Kennedy could defeat Keating by more than a 10-point spread and thus Keating would return to Washington. However, just as Kennedy's entrance into the race compelled Vidal to get involved, Vidal's entrance brought another prominent New Yorker into the mix.

---

[1] I did not find this in a Times article, but the anecdote is real. (Evan Thomas, Robert Kennedy: His Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 297.)

[2] Gore Vidal, "Coached by Camelot," The New Yorker, December 1, 1997, 85.

[3] Evan Thomas, Robert Kennedy: His Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 191.

[4] Sally Bedel Smith, Grace and Power (New York: Random House, 2004), 239.

[5] ibid, 239.
 
'Well if that son-of-a-bitch can get in the race, I sure as hell can'
'Well if that son-of-a-bitch can get in the race, I sure as hell can'

Kenneth Keating left much to be desired among the conservatives of New York. He was bland. He was moderate. No one disliked him, but few seemed eager to hit the streets and knock on doors for the statesman. For precisely this reason, Robert F. Kennedy was hesitant to attack his opponent. If Kennedy was going to win, he would need to do so by getting voters to like him more, but he could not do that by making them like Keating less. However, the entry of Gore Vidal changed the dynamic of the race. It seemed as though Vidal would siphon enough votes away from Kennedy to give Keating the election. While the Kennedy campaign contemplated going negative, they were given a blessing: Everyone seemed to forget that the right disliked Keating and that one member of the right, in particular, had an even larger issue with Mr. Gore Vidal.

At his New York home, William F. Buckley turned to his brothers and father and told them he had decided to run for the U.S. Senate under the Conservative Party banner. His brother James, in particular, was elated. "If that son-of-a-bitch [Vidal] can get in the race, I sure as hell can," he told his family. James and the others agreed. Buckley saw a path to victory for himself, he was not merely running to give Vidal a hard time. Keating and Kennedy would split the moderates, Vidal would split enough of the liberals off to hurt Kennedy even further, and left alone would be conservatives who'd unify behind Buckley. He also gambled that enough establishment Republicans would see that Keating was the wrong horse to back and join behind Buckley in order to prevent Kennedy from entering the Senate (and thereby prevent him from winning the 1968 presidential election).

Buckley convened a press conference in which he announced his campaign to "defend American values." Vidal, he said, was a threat to America's status in the world. Keating was an ineffectual senator bound for defeat. "Bobby Kennedy" was an empty suit running for his own political aspirations. "It became clear to me," he said, "that the far-left has a candidate, the Kennedy family has a candidate, and Washington, D.C. has a candidate, but the good people of New York are simply unrepresented in this campaign. I've decided to run in order to change that," Buckley said.

Gore Vidal responded with amusement rather than rage. "Well I can't say I'm surprised," Vidal told the Times. "William F. Buckley sees a parade and wants to be at the center of it. I knew he’d get into this thing. Between Kennedy and me, there’s enough publicity in this damn election to save dying careers – even Mr. Buckley's!" In private, Vidal called Buckley "an attention whore" who stood no chance of winning the election.

The Keating Campaign had the strongest reaction to Buckley's entrance. While the senator knew he would not win the Conservative Party's nomination, he did not expect them to find so good a candidate. With four candidates in the race, there was no way to know who was going to come out on top. Two weeks after Buckley entered the race, Keating's campaign conducted an internal poll that showed him leading. Kennedy followed behind in second. Keating was in third. Vidal finished fourth. The campaign entered panic mode. However, Kennedy's internal numbers showed something different: Kennedy in first, Keating in second, Buckley in third, and Vidal in fourth. While Keating feared his career was over, the Kennedys became complacent - sure that Buckley's entrance had cost Keating the election.

One candidate who did not have the luxury of internal polling was Gore Vidal, who became particularly motivated in his campaign after his nemesis, Buckley, entered. Vidal sought to campaign by connecting with the average American and promising them a different kind of government. The country, he feared, was "marinating in falsity" - and he told the voters as much. In a meet and greet with Vidal in Albany, many a fan came to have a book signed while the author spoke about what was wrong in Washington. "The politicians have forgotten about all of you. They lie to all of us," he said. "It doesn't matter if they're Republican or Democrat - they are all dangerously close to one another. Too close, one might say. I, however, am running to change things up and bring a new perspective." The voters were impressed by his talk of challenging the system.

When one voter asked where Vidal was on the issue of civil rights, Vidal said he would support federal civil rights legislation - and quickly diverted to attacking Bobby Kennedy. "My opponent, Mr. Kennedy - err, Bobby as we like to call him - he had a chance to fight on this issue, and he decided to run for office. That's exactly what New York doesn't need." New Yorkers were impressed by Vidal's sharp words, and while Keating was levying the same attacks, they did not carry the same punch.

Buckley, on the other hand, was worried that his moment was slipping. Only weeks after announcing his candidacy, his momentum seemed to be drying up. New York was just a bit more liberal than he had thought. So, he reached out to Kenneth Keating with an idea: What about a debate?
 
Last edited:
I'm intrigued, keep going!

Thank you. The goal is a timeline that touches on multiple aspects of the American experience, and not simply a list of names - people who sit in the Oval, win Senate races, etc. I hope to touch on parts of culture - which Vidal had a huge effect on in my view, while also telling the stories of some pretty large characters from history (Vidal and Buckley, of course, the Kennedys, Reagan...)
 
There will be an update or two before Easter. Excited to share what I've been working on. Currently planning some plot arcs out to make sure it's well-developed/not sloppy!! Stay tuned!
 
'I think it worth noting who is conspicuously absent tonight’
'I think it worth noting who is conspicuously absent tonight’

“William Buckley is doing what he must do. He is a nobody. And nobodies must associate themselves with people who really are famous,” Vidal told his campaign staff ahead of the first televised debate among the candidates. Keating had wanted the debate most of all. He believed that a debate would show New Yorkers he was the most serious candidate of the four and that he most understood New York values. He also believed a televised debate would show Vidal’s intention for running (simply to irritate Kennedy) and also Buckley’s intention for running (simply to irritate Vidal). Keating, the statesman, would prevail and take the Senate seat with him. Vidal and Buckley immediately agreed to the debate, knowing that their candidacies would gain legitimacy as soon as they were placed on stage with the incumbent senator and the former U.S. Attorney General, brother of the late president. Vidal prepped for the meeting of the candidates as much as he possibly could, taking considerable time off of the campaign trail, much to the disappointment of his campaign staff and supporters. Vidal insisted that a win on the debate stage was crucial to his victory. William F. Buckley believed the debate his to lose. He was an intellectual and known for being articulate. Rather than prep on policy or style, he continued to cross the state campaigning. [1]

The Kennedy campaign was nervous about the debate. They feared that Keating would be able to expose Kennedy’s carpet-bagging candidacy and that elevating Vidal could hurt the campaign from the left. The former Attorney General decided that the best thing he could do was skip the debate, telling reporters he intended to meet the voters face-to-face. [2] The Vidal campaign was positively giddy over Kennedy’s announcement. With Kennedy out of the picture, Keating would be forced to consider Vidal his chief opponent while he was hit from Buckley on the right. Either Keating would get dragged to the right and alienate mainstream voters (and thereby make Vidal seem more sensible) or he would maintain his positions and face Buckley from the right. With Buckley and Keating going after one another, it would be Vidal who appeared the most statesman-like. Keating, too, was thrilled. He did not view Vidal or Buckley to be serious threats and so without Kennedy on stage, Keating would attack Kennedy for not showing up and win the night.

On the night of the debate, the candidates gathered in the studio. An empty chair was put out for the former Attorney General – at the urging of all three candidates. Kennedy dismissed the debate as a “made-for-television event” that would not truly serve the voters of New York. “Entertaining Mr. Vidal and Mr. Buckley is not worthy of the people of the Empire State,” Kennedy’s spokesman said. The comment served to enrage the far-left and the far-right as well as many New Yorkers who felt Kennedy was simply running to use them for his political gain.

The lights came up, the cameras came on, and the candidates began. Vidal had the first opening statement: “Good evening, and thank you for watching tonight. My name is Gore Vidal – you probably know me as an author and playwright, but I am also someone who cares deeply about the United States of America. I am here tonight because of a genuine concern for the future of our nation. I am running as an independent candidate – not associated with either of the two major parties. As I see it, they serve the same interests – themselves.” As Vidal came to an end, Buckley was surprised that he had not yet made a snide remark. The moderator thanked Vidal for his statement, and Vidal responded, “Oh one more thing, if I may quickly: I think it worth noting who is conspicuously absent tonight.” Game on.

Buckley was next to deliver an opening statement, in which he outlined and defended his conservative ideology: “I have met with and talked to a great many New Yorkers and, uh, it is very clear to me that something is wrong in New York. Something is critically wrong in New York. There is, I believe, a general dissatisfaction with those who have boasted their traditional – their professional qualifications. Senator Keating, I have great respect for him, but we cannot seriously expect the kind of new thinking New York, and our country needs. On the other hand, there is Mr. Vidal – a man for whom I have very little respect, but I do agree with him that Washington does not need another senator or another Kennedy, but rather a new voice. I just happen to believe Mr. Vidal’s is not the voice it should here, but rather one that emphasizes the people over some large and bureaucratic regime.” [3]

Keating boasted of his record of accomplishment as a senator and made great mention of the fact Kennedy had skipped the debate. He called the former Attorney General “a coward” (to which Vidal interrupted to say, “The senator is being far too kind to Mr. Kennedy, but I’ll allow it.”).

There was little controversy for much of the debate. While Keating was certainly the most versed in policy issues, Vidal and Buckley’s sophisticated rhetoric compensated for any discrepancy in policy minutiae. Each candidate reminded the voter subtly (and sometimes not subtly) that Robert F. Kennedy was too good for the people of New York to participate in the debate. Yet, the headline the next day would not be solely about Kennedy’s absence, instead the heated tempers of two candidates got the better of them. When the debate turned to the Great Society initiatives of President Johnson, Buckley delivered a principled “no government” message, much akin to the one Barry Goldwater was making around the country. Gore Vidal took his bait.

When asked to respond the playwright offered only a terse retort, “Well the heartless Mr. Buckley seems content to let the homeless starve.” Senator Keating shook his head, feeling where the debate was headed. Buckley was frustrated. “Oh, please! That’s hardly fair, Mr. Vidal –” But the man who had spent weeks prepping for the debate was unwilling to lose. He went in to land a final blow: “ At the very least I might suggest you let them eat cake, Mr. Buckley!” The moderator repressed a smile, but Buckley was enraged. Reaching over the table to get close to Mr. Vidal he jabbed his pointed finger at the man’s face, “Now listen here you queer –” Vidal let out a deep laugh while Senator Keating put his arm around Buckley to sit him down. The moderator raised his voice, interrupted, and brought the debate to closing statements.

It was a telling moment. It was the first mention of Vidal’s homosexuality on the campaign trail. Neither the Kennedy nor Keating campaigns had figured out a tactful way to bring the matter up in conversation without coming across as mean-spirited. Vidal himself rejected the very question. He was, by this time, living with his partner, Howard Austen. For the duration of the campaign, Austen stayed in their home in Italy while Vidal campaigned, hoping to avoid questions about his sexuality. Now, Buckley had opened the floodgates, but he had done so in a most vitriolic way. The image of him sneering at Vidal with his finger pointed was on the front page of the New York Times the next morning under the headline: SENATE DEBATE GETS UGLY AS CANDIDATE LOSES TEMPER. When Vidal saw, he was most amused. He wrote in a correspondence to Austen (that became public after his death), “It is ironic how the Times had a problem with me detailing two men having sex in [The City and the Pillar] and yet decided to be outraged about such ignorance now.” [4]

---

[1] The fact that Vidal prepped immensely and Buckley did not is consistent with their debates in 1968, according to the 2015 documentary Best of Enemies. Vidal is said to have spent a lot of time preparing while Buckley did not feel the need. While it could be argued that Buckley would be more particular with a Senate seat at stake, his self-confidence would likely not change and therefore, I conclude, produce the same result.

[2] This is based off of real life. Keating invited Kennedy to debate him and Kennedy refused. In real life, Kennedy was able to win the day. He returned to the CBS studio, demanding he be included (after initially refusing the invitation). Photographers captured him trying to get into the locked studio. Keating then fled the set, looking afraid to debate his opponent. (Evan Thomas, Robert Kennedy: His Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 301.)

[3] Partially based off of comments Buckley made on Meet the Press during his 1965 mayoral campaign. You can view that clip here:
.

[4] Vidal had a notorious feud with the Times, and they refused to review his books – except, as Vidal wrote, “always badly in the Sunday supplement.” (Gore Vidal, Palimpsest (New York: Penguin Books, 1995), 89.)
 
‘What if I lose this thing?’
‘What if I lose this thing?’

Bobby Kennedy never considered that he might lose the election in New York. From the beginning, his campaign staff was quick to remind him that Senator Keating was popular and that for all intents and purposes, Bobby Kennedy was an outsider. But when the Times editorial page blasted Kennedy for refusing to debate his three opponents, the former Attorney General realized victory was not assured. The next evening, he called his sister-in-law, Jackie, to talk about the state of the race. Much of the call was spent blasting Vidal. At the conclusion of one particularly lengthy diatribe against the playwright, Kennedy went silent. His voice cracked, “What if I lose this thing?” he asked. Jackie Kennedy had asked herself the same question earlier that day when reading the paper, but she worded it differently in her mind: What is Bobby going to do when he loses?

In hopes of revitalizing his failing campaign, Bobby announced a tour through each borough of New York City. The tour was an unquestionable disaster. Bobby’s attempts at fitting in to New York culture fell flat with longtime New Yorkers, and while Vidal and Buckley were certainly no thorough-blooded New Yorkers, they carefully prevented themselves from the kind of mistakes that Bobby made. In one instance, Bobby began to eat a slice of pizza with a fork and knife – to the literal astonishment of the pizza shop owner. Photographers flashed their cameras as Bobby committed political suicide. The candidate grinned – his smile only accentuating how out of touch he was. His aids attempted to quickly move the pizza debacle from memory by scheduling a massive rally in Queens – one it billed as a “resurgence” of the Attorney General. The use of the word “resurgence” confirmed that they no longer viewed Kennedy as the odds-on favorite to win the election. The event itself was a fine speech by Bobby, but it had nearly 1,000 fewer attendees than a rally held the same night by Buckley – a scheduling mishap that brought about the full rage of the candidate. [1]

President Lyndon B. Johnson was notably absent from New York during the campaign of 1964. The president had decided not to choose Robert F. Kennedy as his running mate, as some thought he might. The two had a rivalry as intense as that between Vidal and Buckley. Now, with the heir apparent floundering in the Empire State, the president was pleased to step aside. “I’ll let the kid drown,” he told one staffer who asked about the Senate race. “Keating is a fine guy. Vidal – well, if he pulls it off, he’s more liberal than me!” The president’s absence was at first perceived as accidental, but by October it was clear that the most popular Democrat in the country was not campaigning for his predecessor’s brother. The Times noted the president’s aversion to New York.

When the article hit, the Kennedy campaign was enraged – sure that Johnson had something to do with himself to cause further embarrassment to Kennedy. Bobby phoned the president directly to berate him, demanding that he come to the state and campaign with him. (He later told Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., “Begging for Lyndon’s help has got to be the worst thing I’ve ever done.”) The president demurred, saying his schedule was “too full” but that he would send his running mate, Senator Hubert Humphrey, to campaign for Bobby. “You’ve got it in the bag!” Johnson told the worried candidate, the sarcasm dripping through the phone line.

Vidal decided to run on Johnson’s popularity, and implied that he had the tacit support of the president. “Well, the president – he’s a fine man. And he’s staying out of this one. He’s loyal to his party, of course, but I respect him for being loyal to his principle first.” While some in the party attacked Johnson for turning his back on Kennedy, the president assured them Bobby had his support, and Humphrey spent many of the closing days of the campaign in New York. Yet, the president was fully aware that he was preserving his political future. A defeated Bobby Kennedy could never pose a serious challenge to the president in 1968. Johnson was fully intent on serving out two more terms in the White House – making him the second-longest serving president in history. He’d be second only to Franklin D. Roosevelt – the president he most admired.

The Johnson distraction was another blow to Kennedy’s fledgling morale. The candidate’s speeches turned dull, uninspiring, and even “screechy.” In fact, an article about one of Kennedy’s rallies reported that one undecided voter made up his mind against the Democratic candidate because “Bobby just didn’t want to be here talking to us.” [2] In his biography of Kennedy, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. declared the campaign “thoroughly disorganized” and was questionable of the campaign’s strategy in the final two months. [3] Gradually, as Election Day approached, the size of Kennedy’s crowds became smaller and smaller. A demoralized Bobby entered the car after one event and said to Ethel, “You’d think I was running to go to Albany, not Washington.”

With the Kennedy campaign falling apart, Senator Keating became complacent with victory. He scaled back his campaigning in favor of a three-day vacation on Long Island. Meanwhile, Gore Vidal, believing victory was within his grasp, planned one final blow to the Kennedy Campaign.
---

[1] Buckley had particularly strong support in Queens and, during his 1965 campaign, attracted 3,000 people to one rally. (Richard Madden, “Buckley Cheered by 3,000 in Queens,”
New York Times (New York, NY), October 31, 1965.)

[2] “Screechy” is used to describe Kennedy’s earlier speeches on the trail. Thomas also writes that the former Attorney General had a certain moodiness about him that was off-putting to voters. (Evan Thomas,
Robert Kennedy: His Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 298.)

[3] This aligns with Schlesinger’s assessment of Kennedy’s 1964 campaign in OTL. (Evan Thomas, Robert Kennedy: His Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 299.)
 
Top