DBWI: Should Kennedy be Given a Chance in '68?

oh rummy is going to have a field day once he gets the nominations. Ladbrokes say N. Rockefeller is going to be VP.

Rumsfeld won't get the nomination unless the GOP erupts into an even more hectic division. And I doubt the rumors of the Conservative Rumsfeld running with the Liberal Rockefeller are true. Even the rumors of Reagan running with Rockefeller as VP if Nelson throws his supporter behind him are a stretch, let alone a black horse like Rummie.

At best, a ticket would Rumsfeld would have him as VP.
 
I am generally apathetic with politics however kennedy is riddled with sex scandals.

I still would say RFK. Besides I think than Marilyn Kennedy-Monroe would make a great first lady (teeheehee, yet another scandal). She has the charm to do it, a lot more than Jackie.

BTW how old is Arabella now, 12? She would make such a cute first kid though.
 
I am generally apathetic with politics however kennedy is riddled with sex scandals.

Those "Sex Scandals" are only baseless tabloid fodder. There has been no evidence to support them outside of the circumstantial and here say.

I still would say RFK. Besides I think than Marilyn Kennedy-Monroe would make a great first lady (teeheehee, yet another scandal). She has the charm to do it, a lot more than Jackie.

BTW how old is Arabella now, 12? She would make such a cute first kid though.
OOC: I take it Monroe is Robert's wife then?
 
with the gutter press publishing all this sticky mud about Kennedy (particularly the scandal about his fling with a University student), the GOP is gonna have a field day, whether it is Rummy, Reagan or Rockefeller.

Civil rights are going to be a major issue. On the cards for a VP slot are MLK and Bush Snr.

From what i hear, Rumsfeld has Managed to secure Idaho and is in a neck and neck race with Rockefeller slightly ahead and reagan in 3rd. Unless there is a party unity ticket, the GOP will split in this one.
 
with the gutter press publishing all this sticky mud about Kennedy (particularly the scandal about his fling with a University student), the GOP is gonna have a field day, whether it is Rummy, Reagan or Rockefeller.

The tabloids also say Lodge has a black love child and MLK cheats on his wife. I wouldn't invest much into how much people actually follow that type of press for accuracy.

Civil rights are going to be a major issue. On the cards for a VP slot are MLK and Bush Snr.
King has -since '64- been a Democratic supporter who hasn't supported the Republicans since Goldwater and the conservatives became a force in the party, and I don't see a coalition ticket in whatever case. I doubt King even wants to go into politics. And Kennedy has a very strong Civil rights record comparatively to the Republicans (and he was one of the major Democrats, along with Johnson, that got Lodge to sign the Civil Rights acts of '64 and '68)

From what i hear, Rumsfeld has Managed to secure Idaho and is in a neck and neck race with Rockefeller slightly ahead and reagan in 3rd. Unless there is a party unity ticket, the GOP will split in this one.
Rumsfeld will fall pretty quick. He's Reagan without the charm and the only thing that has given him a lead over Reagan so far (which is slim, by the way) is luck and the quality of being a dark horse when change is sought.
 
Last edited:
i don't know. He is very close to the nomination stage. All he needs is 30 more delegates. I hear the Illinois and Dakotas primaries will settle the issue (he has quite a few friends in the Indian lobby as well as his homestate. So he has the Indian vote secured, for now.)

Then again, he may pull out.

It's very tense in the GOP, and rightly so. All the candidates promise victory in 'nam, and according to recent intel, the VC terrorists are on the ropes.

With Che down, i feel that rollback is possible.

But who is going to deliver their promises?

And i also got this in from an unkown source that JFK is addicted to painkillers, big time. He has also been alleged to smoke Marijuana and snort a few lines of "charlie", but not those terrorists in Vietnam.

OOC: how did the Bay of pigs go ATL and the Cuban crisis?
 
It's very tense in the GOP, and rightly so. All the candidates promise victory in 'nam, and according to recent intel, the VC terrorists are on the ropes.
They said that in '64, '65, '66,and '67. Its not intel so much as its what Lodge is telling you to try to stop you from protesting. And if it is based on intel, there's the issue with America in Vietnam right there since it'll be proven wrong again.

And i also got this in from an unkown source that JFK is addicted to painkillers, big time. He has also been alleged to smoke Marijuana and snort a few lines of "charlie", but not those terrorists in Vietnam.
And that's the most radical of the myths the tabloids are trying to whip up. And if there is something to be certain of on the falseness of information, that is it.

OOC: how did the Bay of pigs go ATL and the Cuban crisis?
OOC: Both are up to the posters and what they want the universe to be or think it would be (preferrably the latter). However, I fear the noob twists on them and someone f***ing up the timeline because of what they say of them. I'd say from how I'd do it, the Bay of Pigs would happen, but be supported with Marines, but turn into a quagmire and the US would be kicked back by Cuban forces. Then the Cuban missile crisis would happen, and Nixon would launch another (more enforced) invasion of Cuba as Kennedy's advisors had told him to do. How that would turn out, I don't know. But I would say the US would either pull out or face a Vietnam like occupation of the island.
 
If you are talking about the funds he donated to the cities of Honolulu, Chicago and Springfield, those were acts of good will (albeit a campaign tactic to make him look good). Not, as the Republicans claim, bribes to officials.

No, I'm talking about the fact that a whole lot of dead people apparently went to the polls in '60, and seemingly were staunchly for Kennedy. If it wasn't for some intrigued bureaucrat, that crook would have been President.
 
No, I'm talking about the fact that a whole lot of dead people apparently went to the polls in '60, and seemingly were staunchly for Kennedy. If it wasn't for some intrigued bureaucrat, that crook would have been President.

Me-thinks you've been listening to Governor Reagan's radio address too much.

OOC: BTW, experienced people, who do you think would get the nomination between Rockefeller, Romney, Reagan, Rumsfeld (all those R's are pretty dang coincidental come to think of it), etc.? And is there any possibility of, if Rockefeller gets the nomination, the Conservatives breaking off and forming their own ticket like Wallace did with the Dems, and who would lead that ticket (IE, Reagan?).
 
Last edited:
But still, Omaha is going to be a very messy affair.

OOC: let's evaluate the nominees' chances...

1: Donald Rumsfeld: very politically cunning, ambitious. Could use his youth as an advantage like JFK and Obama otl, but inexperienced. A truly dark horse, with his "1776 in 1968" slogan being popular among the youth

2: Ronald Reagan: very charismatic with his oratory skills. Give reagan a computer (preferably a dell), an ipod, the know how on podcasts, and he'd win the 08 election easily. His main disadvantage is his marital status (div.), and his brief stint as governor of California

3: Nelson Rockefeller: very experienced with close family ties. But that could hurt him.

4: George Romney: only been in office as governor for 5 years. mainly experienced in Corporate but not in political atmospheres.
 
Top