If JFK Lives, How Does the Election of 1964 Look?

Sure -- AFTER Kennedy, not before. I lived through that era, worked for Johnson in the '64 election. It took an LBJ presidency to get the Civil Rights Act passed -- that was the Nixon-going-to-China moment. Kennedy could no more have gotten that bill passed than he could have sprouted wings and flown to the moon. And to say that the Democratic Party "was no more hardline against communism than the GOP" pretty much proves my point concerning the party's political positions then versus now.
Roosevelt's New Deal Coalition dominated the Democratic party which was a solidly pro-Liberal group in the North and a Dixiecrat haven in the South (who could be pulled along by the nose on certain things they'd otherwise oppose by the Yankees). Johnson had been outspokenly pro-Civil Rights, so it was not Nixon-Goes-to-China save that he was a Southerner (compared to Nixon who was a hardline anti-Communist). Likewise, Johnson is going to exist regardless, and it wasn't just Johnson who got that bill passed since there were a heck of a lot of political powerhouses on board, though LBJ was the primary.

And being anti-Communist is not moving anywhere away from being a Left wing group politically and to think so is misguided.

Absolutely not. Reagan may have moved political sensibilities BACK to the right, but to say that the whole political system of the early-mid-60s "was further left than today" is laughable. The Democratic Party of today has moved so far to the left from that era that it would not recognize Kennedy as a member, as much as it lionizes his memory.
The Democrats are about as far left today as Nixon due to Reagan; the idea that they are so far left today from what it was in the 1960's is what is laughable. A group that would fear the tenets of the New Deal Coalition as being too radical for the American voter were it proposed to them today is not any where further left than they were in 1960. Likewise, JFK still equates relatively to everything the Democrats support today. The only way the Democratic party has moved left relatively is with the loss of the Conservative Dixiecrats who had always been somewhat of an anchor.

Again, I have to ask: Are you serious or just trolling? Political and cultural conservatism are inevitably intertwined. You almost never see one without the other. It took a freaking Supreme Court opinion to allow freedom of expression in schools. Or doesn't Abe Fortas's phrase about students not "shed[ding] their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse door" ring a bell? The Maine Supreme Court had to rule on a case at the high school in Belfast before boys were allowed to wear long hair and mustashes.
Political and cultural standards are never fully intertwined and only intertwined in the way that one can influence certain areas of the other (IE, anything political that involves cultural issues). IE, you can think that black people are unequal and support the New Deal as many did. Hell, Goldwater was for black equality but didn't support Civil Rights legislation.

Again, simply laughable. You're confusing the youth and antiwar movement of the '60s and early '70s, which never involved more than a small but very noticeable percentage of that group, with the society at large.
I'm not confusing anything. The "Leave it to Beaver" picture of reality for those days is BS. Folks had sex rather than sleeping in separate beds and having the stork bring a baby; people swore, and so on. It's simply that the picture of what was opportune was different and people weren't supposed to talk about anything "untoward" in civil society and try their best to avoid it or hide it away otherwise, but people frequently broke the rules or did naughty things through the cracks of those guidelines. It was like a mask over a face underneath.

Only in his obituaries. It haunted him throughout his term while he was alive. As I said, I lived through that era. If Kennedy had remained alive, the Republican nominee in 1964 (there's no assurance that it would have been Goldwater if Kennedy had lived) would have sliced him to ribbons over Bay of Pigs. I can see it now, the ads with one-armed Bay of Pigs veterans blaming JFK.
It did haunt him; however, public sentiment by and large was forgiving on the issue, and largely because he took the blame for it.

Again, you're looking at the early-mid-1960s from a 2009 perspective, and that is inaccurate. The American public was acutely aware of South Vietnam, a sensibility that had been sharpened by the loss of North Vietnam in the 1950s and Dr. Tom Dooley's very popular 1956 book about the evacuation of the north, Deliver Us From Evil.
There was a relative knowledge of Vietnam, but nowhere near what it would become. I'm not ignorant of Vietnam gaining media and public focus as Kennedy began to make it a larger issue. However, focus was increased by the Johnson administration to a far more massive degree than anything before. It was essentially like, say, Afghanistan. There is minimalist knowledge and focus before any issue, growing and focus knowledge as it became an issue, and massive knowledge and focus when it became a major issue. However, there was a key difference between growing and limited knowledge and focus and the latter massive focus. And, save for spanking the Ruskies somehow, the country could care about most of Vietnam.

Norton, I think you seriously misread both Kennedy and the general tenor of the times. You're conflating the political, social, and cultural landscape of the first half of the sixties with the latter part of the decade. Fighting communism was THE overriding public concern in the early and mid-1960s. The post-Missile Crisis American public wanted communism stopped and conquered. McNamara was a true-blue hawk on the issue. The doubts and accommodation about Vietnam didn't come along until '68 and later, both politically and in the larger social culture. Kennedy's withdrawl of less than 1,000 troops from Vietnam was less than 10 percent of the US force on the ground there, and it was done more to send a message to the Vietnamese government than to signal any larger policy change on his part.
There was a belief in fighting Communism (every Cold war President including Kennedy had that and to say otherwise would be ridiculous given his track record), but that did not entail a bunch of "Vietnam's" across the globe. It entailed containment via support to nations struggling against the Red Menace. And bad feelings about Vietnam were already present, though obviously not the overriding smack in the face you get when you have half a million troops in the nation, constant death, and no sign of more than stalemate. The United States had already faced Korea, which had gained rather unpopular sentiment among the public under Truman and which we won by only a hair in and of itself, and did not want to face another Korea with Southeast Asia. Likewise, the withdrawal was not wholly to show any frustration with South Vietnam's government, though it was an initial intention (Diem was already dead when it was still on the books). And there was further discussion about withdrawal beyond that which Kennedy discussed with McNamara and those near him, which was out of a belief that the US needed a way to get out and largely because many feared another Korea. And withdrawal of a combat would have entailed continued support per Containment policy, but Containment never necessarily entailed war.

***

Anyway, who'd be VPs in 1968 in a Terry Sanford/George Romney contest.

EDIT: Somehow half this post got deleted so some revisions may be missing.
 
Last edited:

HJ Tulp

Donor
A simple question with a likely complex answer. If JFK were to survive the OTL assassination, how would the election of 1964 look? Firstly, I recall talk of dropping Johnson from the Democratic ticket, but don't know if that would actually pan out. Secondly, you have the issue of the GOP candidate, and who would get the nomination and who would get the VP slot. Secondly, you have the talking points and issues that would come up (Vietnam, relations with the Soviets -of whom Kennedy was beginning to get a bit friendly with in 1963 which may irk hardliners-, etc.). And Thirdly, popularity of the candidates and so forth. So how would the election of 1964 pan out?


Dystopic...
 
I seriously recommend a guy on youtube named capitalistholocaust. He uses the declassified record and he can tell you JFK was a hawk.

Norton, let me ask you something: have you been influenced by Oliver Stone.
 
I seriously recommend a guy on youtube named capitalistholocaust. He uses the declassified record and he can tell you JFK was a hawk.

Kennedy was not a hawk. A Cold Warrior, yes. Not a hawk. Had he been one, Cuba would have been an invasion, Vietnam would have been another Korea off of the bat, and relations with the Soviets would have been massively hostile, which they weren't, among other things. JFK's actions were that of an anti-Communist and a Cold Warrior, but not a warhawk.

Norton, let me ask you something: have you been influenced by Oliver Stone.
No. I am a large critic of that film's accuracy.

I believe someone said once "Your presumptions of me do not define me."
 
Roosevelt's New Deal Coalition dominated the Democratic party which was a solidly pro-Liberal group in the North and a Dixiecrat haven in the South (who could be pulled along by the nose on certain things they'd otherwise oppose by the Yankees). Johnson had been outspokenly pro-Civil Rights, so it was not Nixon-Goes-to-China save that he was a Southerner (compared to Nixon who was a hardline anti-Communist). Likewise, Johnson is going to exist regardless, and it wasn't just Johnson who got that bill passed since there were a heck of a lot of political powerhouses on board, though LBJ was the primary.

Many of FDR's New Dealers had been run out of the party or marginalized as suspected communists by 1960, and the Cold War had pushed the party solidly to the right. As for Johnson being "outspokenly pro-Civil Rights," is this the same Johnson who voted against civil rights measures such as banning lynching, eliminating poll taxes, and denying federal funding to segregated schools? The same Johnson who routinely referred to blacks as ni**ers until he ran for Vice President? The same Johnson whose opposition to Truman's milquetoast civil rights program disgusted Texas blacks? THAT Johnson?

And being anti-Communist is not moving anywhere away from being a Left wing group politically and to think so is misguided.
Where in the world did you get that idea in the context of this discussion? Perhaps that's true in 2009. It certainly wasn't true in 1964.

The Democrats are about as far left today as Nixon due to Reagan; the idea that they are so far left today from what it was in the 1960's is what is laughable. A group that would fear the tenets of the New Deal Coalition as being too radical for the American voter were it proposed to them today is not any where further left than they were in 1960. Likewise, JFK still equates relatively to everything the Democrats support today. The only way the Democratic party has moved left relatively is with the loss of the Conservative Dixiecrats who had always been somewhat of an anchor.
I'm sorry, but that shows such an ignorance of political history and current political positions that I barely know where to start. I have to assume you're trolling now. You're giving Reagan far too much credit for influencing the Dems. Are you saying that the Democratic Party of 1963 would support single-payer health care, gay marriage, and establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba? Are you saying that NIXON would be welcome in today's Democratic Party?

I'm not confusing anything. The "Leave it to Beaver" picture of reality for those days is BS. Folks had sex rather than sleeping in separate beds and having the stork bring a baby; people swore, and so on. It's simply that the picture of what was opportune was different and people weren't supposed to talk about anything "untoward" in civil society and try their best to avoid it or hide it away otherwise, but people frequently broke the rules or did naughty things through the cracks of those guidelines. It was like a mask over a face underneath.
Norton, you have this strange fascination with sexual practices that mystifies me.

It did haunt him; however, public sentiment by and large was forgiving on the issue, and largely because he took the blame for it. [emphasis mine]
I don't know what your source is for this continued position of yours, but it simply isn't true.

It's easy to see that you've been reading a lot of revisionist history that bears little if any resemblance to the facts on the ground in 1963. If you want to continue to believe in that alternate reality, please do; this is the right place for it. But bear in mind that there are still people around who lived through that era and who remember what really happened. There are still microfilm copies of newspapers and magazines from that era in libraries, still old recordings of radio and tv commentaries in network vaults and historic archives. You won't find them on the Internet, more's the pity. So the Memory Hole doesn't quite work for those years yet. Good luck trying, though.
 
I don't know what your source is for this continued position of yours, but it simply isn't true.

A source for a lot of your own stuff would be good, or at least some kind of analysis. Because saying 'I was there at the time therefore I am right' is not a spectacularly convincing argument.

Incidentally, I would hope Norton starts producing sources as well, as the discussion is already beginning to skirt arounds the edges of name-calling.
 
Last edited:
Many of FDR's New Dealers had been run out of the party or marginalized as suspected communists by 1960, and the Cold War had pushed the party solidly to the right. As for Johnson being "outspokenly pro-Civil Rights," is this the same Johnson who voted against civil rights measures such as banning lynching, eliminating poll taxes, and denying federal funding to segregated schools? The same Johnson who routinely referred to blacks as ni**ers until he ran for Vice President? The same Johnson whose opposition to Truman's milquetoast civil rights program disgusted Texas blacks? THAT Johnson?
Any belief that the New Deal coalition had been run out of the party or far sweepingly marginalized is far, far, far too overestimated if not largely specious. The New Deal Coalition dominated the Democratic party, and assured that politics for 40 years to come were framed along the left (let's say roughly 1940-1980). Any belief that the Democrats were right wing (save for the Dixiecrats) during the era is outright wrong or prescribing acts that were politically ambiguous to the right wing.

That Johnson did that to get elected and keep power (Johnson was a notorious arm twister and told people what they wanted to hear while doing whatever the hell he thought he should, but that would have been suicide, and he knew that if something wasn't gonna pass and it would hurt a career, there was no reason in supporting it), but that Johnson supported aiding the black community, worked behind the scenes to help the oppressed minorities, and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957. That Johnson had come to be rather outspokenly for Civil rights within the 1950's, altering from a position of being supportive of the black community but fearing Civil Rights as going to lead to violence by whites and hurting his career.

Where in the world did you get that idea in the context of this discussion? Perhaps that's true in 2009. It certainly wasn't true in 1964.
Where in the world did you get the idea that it was? Its a politically ambiguous position. It's like having to be Left wing to oppose Fascism.

I'm sorry, but that shows such an ignorance of political history and current political positions that I barely know where to start. I have to assume you're trolling now. You're giving Reagan far too much credit for influencing the Dems. Are you saying that the Democratic Party of 1963 would support single-payer health care, gay marriage, and establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba? Are you saying that NIXON would be welcome in today's Democratic Party?
Reagan radically changed American politics for some 30 years to move rightward which is only beginning now to shift leftward. As a result, to stay alive and with beliefs changed to the right, the Democrats thus moved to the right. Clinton would have made the Democrats of 1960 smack him for being an Eisenhower knockoff. The Democratic party, were it in the modern day and seeing modern issues, would have supported Universal Healthcare, homosexuality is a cultural issue which makes head in politics, not a political issue, and were it 30 years after the Cold war was over and 50 since Fidel took power, yes. However, that is all relative. And Nixon would epitomize every position of the modern Democratic party, I am assured.

Norton, you have this strange fascination with sexual practices that mystifies me.
That's the most blunt example of the liberalism of a culture, isn't it? The number of businessmen screwing their secretaries and politicians visiting the local brothels in the day would make Clinton blush.

I don't know what your source is for this continued position of yours, but it simply isn't true.
A slew of documentaries and first hand accounts by people close to Kennedy talking about Bay of Pigs over God knows how many years of running across such things.

It's easy to see that you've been reading a lot of revisionist history that bears little if any resemblance to the facts on the ground in 1963. If you want to continue to believe in that alternate reality, please do; this is the right place for it. But bear in mind that there are still people around who lived through that era and who remember what really happened. There are still microfilm copies of newspapers and magazines from that era in libraries, still old recordings of radio and tv commentaries in network vaults and historic archives. You won't find them on the Internet, more's the pity. So the Memory Hole doesn't quite work for those years yet. Good luck trying, though.
It isn't revisionist history (and I rather think you recall things from a rather biased position), it is history plain and simple. I suggest you watch "Fog of War", btw.
 
Last edited:
Emperor Norton I;2640908 Anyway said:
The Republican Party would never nominate George Romney in any TL. 1. Controversy as to whether he was really qualified to be president - he was born in Mexico. 2. His religion - no one was elect a Mormon as president in 1968. [/FONT]
Governor Terry Sandford of North Carolina being the Dem presidential nominee, that's possible.
 
What's the viability of the then-dream ticket of Rocky-Reagan, if we have Nixon killed somehow? Unless you kill Nixon, he'll run and probably win.
 
A source for a lot of your own stuff would be good, or at least some kind of analysis. Because saying 'I was there at the time therefore I am right' is not a spectacularly convincing argument.

Incidentally, I would hope Norton starts producing sources as well, as the discussion is already beginning to skirt arounds the edges of name-calling.

V-J, most of the best sources simply aren't on the Internet, as I noted in my post. All the really good commentary and first-hand observations of the Kennedy era were written pre-Web. And don't worry about the name calling. I'm closing down my participation in this discussion. I've fed the troll enough.
 
The Republican Party would never nominate George Romney in any TL. 1. Controversy as to whether he was really qualified to be president - he was born in Mexico. 2. His religion - no one was elect a Mormon as president in 1968.
1.Romney was born to American parents outside of the US, and American parents who never gave up their citizenship. That counts as natural citizenship. Sure, there may be a premature "Birther" movement or something, but aside from minor controversy or controversy with a select group, I don't see it becoming something to necessarily derail any electoral dreams.
2. They elected a Roman Catholic a few years before. Romney's religion wasn't as big an issue as you may think. The aforementioned issue of whether or not he was a natural born citizen was far and away the bigger thing, with his religion being only slightly focused on. Now, maybe his religion could have been a bigger issue had the campaign gone on to the nomination phase, but I don't think it'd have been so massively horrendous to lose him the election.

Romney had popularity, bipartisanship, and cross-cultural appeal. He could get both the labor and black vote, which few if any Republicans could. And, he did almost get the election in 1968 and the GOP almost did nominate him.

Governor Terry Sandford of North Carolina being the Dem presidential nominee, that's possible.
Terry Sanford would be sorta like JFK's hand picked successor (if not the VP for the 1964 election too) which is why I do think its one of the more plausible Democratic nominations. However, I think he'd need a Northern Democrat to balance out the ticket. Who that'd be in 1968, I don't know, and I'm not sure if Humphrey or any of those others you saw run in the 1968 election of the OTL would be too cliche or right on the money. Though if he loses to the GOP candidate (who I do think would be Romney) and makes another go in 1976, I do think you could see him choose RFK. It might be fun drama wise for 1968 to choose Scoop Jackson for VP since I think that could be a very shaky relationship.

What's the viability of the then-dream ticket of Rocky-Reagan, if we have Nixon killed somehow?

Rockefeller and Reagan is like running Taft Jr. and Dewey on the same ticket. Oil and water don't mix. Now, if you have a moderate leading the ticket (ala Gerald Ford with Rockefeller, though not Ford and Rockefeller in this case),
a VP of either the Conservative or Liberal faction is possible. Essentially, and I hate to be a broken record, but I do think if you have Romney, Reagan is a possible VP pick. Romney is a relative moderate who has sway with the Northeast, labor, and the black vote, and Reagan is a moderate-Conservative who holds sway over the Conservative faction's haven in the west.

Unless you kill Nixon, he'll run and probably win.
Nixon was never a shoe in. Firstly, he was a dark horse who had been politically dead and washed up since 1960. Secondly, the reason he managed to get the nomination and win is he had a "Return to Normalcy" factor going on since he represented the Eisenhower era and, in the minds of many, happier days. However, if Kennedy lives, I do think you'd see a far cooler sixties (he may not have totally withdrawn from Vietnam, but Kennedy saw the primary function of a President as avoiding war for the nation if possible, so I don't think he would have made Vietnam into the US war it would become; likewise, due to that there's no political upheaval. Although, Civil Rights would make things a bit shaky for a while all the same, though I don't think it'd cause the same long term white backlash it did). And without to promise a return to, Nixon wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on.
 
Last edited:
1.Romney was born to American parents outside of the US, and American parents who never gave up their citizenship. That counts as natural citizenship. Sure, there may be a premature "Birther" movement or something, but aside from minor controversy or controversy with a select group, I don't see it becoming something to necessarily derail any electoral dreams.
2. They elected a Roman Catholic a few years before. Romney's religion wasn't as big an issue as you may think. The aforementioned issue of whether or not he was a natural born citizen was far and away the bigger thing, with his religion being only slightly focused on. Now, maybe his religion could have been a bigger issue had the campaign gone on to the nomination phase, but I don't think it'd have been so massively horrendous to lose him the election.

Romney had popularity, bipartisanship, and cross-cultural appeal. He could get both the labor and black vote, which few if any Republicans could. And, he did almost get the election in 1968 and the GOP almost did nominate him.

I respectfully disagree, the Constition is exacly clear when it comes to those born in foreign countries to American citizens and the Supreme Court never authoritatively ruled on that matter. So the issue is still far from settled. As a mattter of fact, there was a bit of a controversy in 1964 about Barry Goldwater being born in Arizona in 1909 three years before it was admitted as state, even though it was U.S territory since 1848. And of course in the last presidential election there was the controversy of John McCain's place of birth. Yes, a Roman Catholic was elected president in 1960 but to have the first Mormon president eight years later would a very tall order by any measure. The fact is there was much prejudice, bias,ignornace and misconceptions of the Mormon religion in 1968; and there still is to some extent today. And it's not just from protestants but also from Catholics and Jews. I think it would be possble for Mitt Romney to get elected president in 2008 under slightly different circumstances. But even then he still be running up against a good # of voters would not vote for him simply because he was a Mormon. I can say what the % might be but I would think it must 5% give or take. How much harder it would have been 40 years earlier. None of these issues really came to the surface simply because Romney stumbled early on in his presidential bid, but had he did better and it became a tight race between him and Nixon for the nomination you can bet your bottom dollar that Nixon would have employed his dirty tricks against him and certainly woukld have brought his religion. To say that his religion would not be a major issue be very naive
 
I respectfully disagree, the Constition is exacly clear when it comes to those born in foreign countries to American citizens and the Supreme Court never authoritatively ruled on that matter. So the issue is still far from settled. As a mattter of fact, there was a bit of a controversy in 1964 about Barry Goldwater being born in Arizona in 1909 three years before it was admitted as state, even though it was U.S territory since 1848. And of course in the last presidential election there was the controversy of John McCain's place of birth.


Its only an issue with people who don't know the law. If someone is born to American parents of American ancestry overseas or outside of the United States, they count as a natural born citizen of the United States (which is in the areas where it discusses Natural citizenship). And that isn't that large an impediment since Romney can legally obtain the office because he was born to American parents.


Yes, a Roman Catholic was elected president in 1960 but to have the first Mormon president eight years later would a very tall order by any measure. The fact is there was much prejudice, bias,ignornace and misconceptions of the Mormon religion in 1968; and there still is to some extent today. And it's not just from protestants but also from Catholics and Jews. I think it would be possble for Mitt Romney to get elected president in 2008 under slightly different circumstances. But even then he still be running up against a good # of voters would not vote for him simply because he was a Mormon. I can say what the % might be but I would think it must 5% give or take. How much harder it would have been 40 years earlier. None of these issues really came to the surface simply because Romney stumbled early on in his presidential bid, but had he did better and it became a tight race between him and Nixon for the nomination you can bet your bottom dollar that Nixon would have employed his dirty tricks against him and certainly woukld have brought his religion. To say that his religion would not be a major issue be very naive
As Ted Kennedy said, the issue of religion died with his brother (which I don't think would be wholly true, but it is partially). His Mormonism was not really that large an issue in the election, and I doubt it would become derailing if the campaign continued. Somewhat an issue, yes, but not massively destructive. Likewise, its not impossible to overcome, especially as the nation had voted for a non-protestant already which opened the door and would have made it far easier than it would have been otherwise (and there was far more bigotry against Catholicism in American than Mormonism). And Romney was massively popular and those people knew his religion, which says alot.
 
Last edited:

Its only an issue with people who don't know the law. If someone is born to American parents of American ancestry overseas or outside of the United States, they count as a natural born citizen of the United States (which is in the areas where it discusses Natural citizenship). And that isn't that large an impediment since Romney can legally obtain the office because he was born to American parents.
No one here questions George Romney's citizenship, just whether he would have met the qualification for presidency. What is specifically stated in Article II section I of the Constitution with regard to to the qualification for president: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligable to the office of the President."
What it doesn't specically state is whether one born in a foreign country of American citizens wold qualify to be president, and the Supreme Court has never specifically ruled on this matter. As I said, the issue is far from settled.


As Ted Kennedy said, the issue of religion died with his brother (which I don't think would be wholly true, but it is partially). His Mormonism was not really that large an issue in the election, and I doubt it would become derailing if the campaign continued. Somewhat an issue, yes, but not massively destructive. Likewise, its not impossible to overcome, especially as the nation had voted for a non-protestant already which opened the door and would have made it far easier than it would have been otherwise (and there was far more bigotry against Catholicism in American than Mormonism). And Romney was massively popular and those people knew his religion, which says alot.
But it most certainly would have become a major issue if just for the curiousity of what the Mormon religion is about. Time, Life, and Newsweek would have been running cover stories of Mormonism and LDS president David McKay would have been going to bat for Romney and publicly dispelling the wild rumors and misinfornation about Mormonism. Guaranteed! The election of catholic in 1960 may have opened the door but it still would be a very tall order to elect a Mormon president eight years later. If we were going to the 1st Mormon president in any TL it would be Mitt not George. Again to say it would not have been a major issue in 1968 is being very naive.
 
No one here questions George Romney's citizenship, just whether he would have met the qualification for presidency. What is specifically stated in Article II section I of the Constitution with regard to to the qualification for president: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligable to the office of the President."What it doesn't specically state is whether one born in a foreign country of American citizens wold qualify to be president, and the Supreme Court has never specifically ruled on this matter. As I said, the issue is far from settled.
It is also legally stated that if one is born overseas to parent's whose fathers were American (or something of that nature), that they are legally natural born citizens of the United States.

"the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

Romney is therefore a natural born citizen.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen#cite_note-7

But it most certainly would have become a major issue if just for the curiousity of what the Mormon religion is about. Time, Life, and Newsweek would have been running cover stories of Mormonism and LDS president David McKay would have been going to bat for Romney and publicly dispelling the wild rumors and misinfornation about Mormonism. Guaranteed! The election of catholic in 1960 may have opened the door but it still would be a very tall order to elect a Mormon president eight years later. If we were going to the 1st Mormon president in any TL it would be Mitt not George. Again to say it would not have been a major issue in 1968 is being very naive.

JFK suffered major, major flack and suspicion and political fall out for his Catholicism which would have been on par with anything Romney may have face, if not far more. Romney's religion would have come into being an issue. However, I'd postulate less than Kennedy's Catholicism. Mormonism was just as bigottedly treated in America as Catholicism, I'd say, but Kennedy had opened a door for so that I do think Romney's religion would have been far less criticized. Likewise, I don't think it would have destroyed his campaign. And Romney was massively popular, and his religion was known all the while.
 
Norton, you seem pretty well versed on the subject, maybe you should do a JFK Lives Timeline...I know it's been done, but every writer has a different spin on it.
 
Norton, you seem pretty well versed on the subject, maybe you should do a JFK Lives Timeline...I know it's been done, but every writer has a different spin on it.
Thanks. I've actually been considering it for a bit of a while (and using this thread as a source for certain things). But, I'm not sure exactly how to do a TL since it seems rather complex. IE, creating alternate bills and organizations created by an alternate President and all that. Plus, there's a lot of complexities given this TL change, because there is basically the America that came before Kennedy's assassination and one that came after. I also know a lot, but don't know it all at once.:D

So I could do it, but it takes some thinking.

I've actually been keeping some ideas down in a notebook for that sort of thing.
 
Last edited:
Top