The Headache that won an election

OOC: Everyone ...

I was watching the Kennedy-Nixon first debate and saw how Nixon was trying to be statesmanlike. That is not a bad thing. But he often sounded weak and overly deferential to JFK in my opinion. In this timeline, I am imagining Nixon feeling a headache coming on, feeling rather pissed off in general, and deciding to throw away his prepared remarks and lay into Kennedy for Kennedy raising up Civil Rights in his opening remarks (Kennedy went first). And so what would then happen??


"I thought, honestly, that I was doomed. I had banged my knee and gotten a terrible infection and had to be hospitalized for two weeks, throwing my campaign for a loop. I was still feeling the effects as I entered the TV studio to meet Jack Kennedy in our first debate. I saw how good he looked and was very conscious of how badly I felt. I still felt sick. I had lost weight. I was tired. I knew I had a tendency to perspire in front of the hot lights of the television studio. I was actually questioning, in my mind, my eagerness to debate Kennedy. God knows, if debates were decided by who looked better on TV, I was going to lose, and could lose the election. But since I was there, I had to go through with it, as awful as I felt. I even felt a headache coming on.

I have to wonder if the flip of a coin decided the whole thing. I was prepared to give a calm, statesmanlike opening statement. Over the years, the press had a lot of fun going after me for being "partisan" and "combative" and so on. They never forgave me for Voorhis, and Hiss, and Helen Gahagan Douglas. So I tried to become the "new Nixon," the statesman, the moderate. And to some degree it seemed to be working. But going up against Jack Kennedy, someone I did like early on, but who was also very much a "Franklin," an aristocrat, someone born to wealth, someone who had it easy in political life compared to me, who had to fight his way up for everything he ever had ... well, it always gnawed at me. And on that night in 1960, well ...

Kennedy spoke first. He spoke well and looked even better (especially compared to me!). I was prepared to speak to agree with his overall sentiments while gently challenging him on the specifics. I was at pains to bury my "hatchet man" reputation that had unfairly plagued me since 1946. But I had a mounting headache, I felt awful, and to be honest I was in a bad mood.

Kennedy's statement was actually quite good, and indeed, I could agree with its overall sentiments. But he said something about civil rights, complaining that he was not satisfied with the progress towards equal opportunity in our country, including in education (!!!). And that was when my father's personality bubbled up to the surface ... my father, the fighter, who never accepted slights and insults and never, ever gave up and gave as good as he got. And combined with that was my mother's personality. She was a saint. And as a saint and a Quaker, she always stressed the equality and dignity of people regardless of race. And I thought of my record, and Ike's record, and the Republicans in Congress, and the Democrats in Congress. And then I tore up my opening remarks in my mind, and decided to lay into Kennedy and the Democrats ..."

From RN, The Autobiography of Richard Nixon
 
A statement like "I'm not satisfied with the progress of civil-rights"(and yes, I realize those weren't Kennedy's literal words) strikes me as a little milquetoast, like something you'd say to appeal to Blacks and liberals, while still trying to fly under the dixiecrats' radar.

And Kennedy might have been correct in assuming that to be the most prudent approach. If so, it might also have been the best approach for Nixon to take when discussing his administration's liberal moves on integration, rather than explicitly portraying himself as the biggest enemy of Jim Crow who ever lived.
 
A statement like "I'm not satisfied with the progress of civil-rights"(and yes, I realize those weren't Kennedy's literal words) strikes me as a little milquetoast, like something you'd say to appeal to Blacks and liberals, while still trying to fly under the dixiecrats' radar.

And Kennedy might have been correct in assuming that to be the most prudent approach. If so, it might also have been the best approach for Nixon to take when discussing his administration's liberal moves on integration, rather than explicitly portraying himself as the biggest enemy of Jim Crow who ever lived.
yeah but thsis way you damage the author strawman but you nailed it
 
"Let me say that I can agree completely with the sentiments expressed by Senator Kennedy tonight.

But that is all that they are .. sentiments.

The Senator is the nominee of a party that says all the right things and promises everything to everyone. More defense. More civil rights. More economic growth. And so on.

But when we consider the actual record of the two parties, and the actual record of the last Democratic Administration and the Eisenhower Administration, of which I am proud to belong to, we see a very different reality ...

... on defense, the Democratic posture has been weakness on the one hand and then a rush to rearm on the other. We saw how that worked out with Korea, where Acheson's comments on a defensive perimeter provoked a bloody invasion of our South Korean ally. Our enemies are very aware that under President Eisenhower, if they dared to do such a thing, the consequences to them would be incalculable. And that's why they have not done so ...

...on civil rights, it was this President who actually advanced civil rights by facing down a disgraceful Democratic Governor, Orval Faubus. And it was this Administration which has pressed for greater civil rights for negro Americans, only to be held back almost entirely by segregationist Democrats in the Senate.

Will Senator Kennedy now, tonight, repudiate the support of the many prominent segregationists who support his campaign?"
 
Top