LBJ blows the lid off Nixon

In recent elections there have been 3 cases of electoral skulduggery and shenanigans. We know about the allegations about Trump colluding with Putin but there was also the secret deal between Reagan and the Ayatollah to not release the American hostages till after the 80' election. And finally the secret deal between Nixon and Thieu of South Vietnam to kill negotiations with the North until after a Nixon win.

The difference between the 3 is the President at the time, LBJ was well aware of this secret deal and for whatever reasons choose not to expose Nixon. I'm sure such level of magnanimity would never be considered today. Given how close the election turned out, within a razor's edge, would exposure of this deal have ensured Nixon's defeat?
 
The difference between the 3 is the President at the time, LBJ was well aware of this secret deal and for whatever reasons choose not to expose Nixon. I'm sure such level of magnanimity would never be considered today. Given how close the election turned out, within a razor's edge, would exposure of this deal have ensured Nixon's defeat?
Given how close the election was, absolutely.
 
. . there was also the secret deal between Reagan and the Ayatollah to not release the American hostages till after the 80' election. .
On this one, I think the evidence falls on the other side. The Reagan team didn't do this. The Iranians kept the hostages just because they wanted to embarrass Carter.

We can still ask, what if the shit really hit the fan as far as perceptions of the Reagan team doing this.
 
Now, in fairness, H. W. Brands in his biography of Reagan, thinks Reagan’s team, in particular campaign manager and later CIA director Bill Casey, did ask the Iranians to continue to hold the hostages. Reagan himself suspected but didn’t ask questions and pursue it.

I just disagree with Brands on this point.
 
. . . secret deal between Nixon and Thieu of South Vietnam . . .
Yes, back to Nixon sabotaging the peace talks, for which the evidence is overwhelming,

Let’s say LBJ skillfully underplays the hand. Let’s say he says, Why did Nixon campaign manager John Mitchell meet with the South Vietnamese ambassador?

And he lets the votes come to their own conclusions (which are likely to be negative toward Nixon!)
 
Yes, back to Nixon sabotaging the peace talks, for which the evidence is overwhelming,

Let’s say LBJ skillfully underplays the hand. Let’s say he says, Why did Nixon campaign manager John Mitchell meet with the South Vietnamese ambassador?

And he lets the votes come to their own conclusions (which are likely to be negative toward Nixon!)

However he does it, this will most certainly cripple Nixon's hopes of an outright election victory. Either Humphrey wins, or the election goes to the House in 1969 and HHH wins there.

The effects of a Humphrey Presidency, especially one where he wins in a contingent election, are very intriguing. I'm inclined to think that either way there's a strong chance Humphrey would end up a one termer. He would be more likely to end the war in 1969, saving many lives in East Asia. But if Saigon falls before the 1972 election this would seriously hurt Humphrey's re-election chances. The economy was beginning to falter by 1970, depending on how Humphrey handles that the 1972 election could swing towards the Republicans. Rockefeller and Reagan would be the frontrunners on the Republican side, and butterflies may lead to a second Wallace independent candidacy. (For example, Arthur Bremer tried shooting Nixon in Canada in 1972 but couldn't get to his motorcade because of war protestors. Under different circumstances Bremer may try to shoot Humphrey, only to fail and this paves the way for Wallace). Humphrey didn't seem to be pushing for any major sweeping reforms in 1968; if by 1972 he can't be pointing to any major domestic accomplishments that will also hurt him. IMO, Humphrey/Muskie will be facing Rockefeller/Reagan in 1972 - and no matter the outcome the results will be relatively close.
 
Top