Only a Southern Democrat can pass UHC! 
Sad UHC doesn't pass. Elvis. Hmmm... dunno about him yet...
Sad UHC doesn't pass. Elvis. Hmmm... dunno about him yet...
Country Roads
Deleted member 92121
Country Roads
The death of Mao Zedong in July 24th, 1970 would send ripples throughout China and the East. Mao's second in command and named successor, Vice Chairman of the Communist Party and Marshal of China Lin Biao would move to take command of the country. He would quickly ally with Mao's wife, Jiang Quing, better known in the west as Madame Mao, to establish complete control over China. Purges would soon commence, and would include former allies of Mao such as Hua Guofeng, and Deng Xiaoping. Biao would delcare his "continuous support for Mao's Cultural Revolution, and preservation of his dream of China".
Chairman Lin Biao was one of the most vigorous supporters of the Cultural Revolution. His believe in the superiority of Maoism over Marxism-Leninism was shared among many in the years before Mao's death, and had contributed greatly to the split between China and the USSR. In 1969 the two countries had almost gone to war, and Biao ascension seemed only to make the situation more dangerous.
The government of the United States did not recognize the People's Republic of China as the legitimate chinese government. This, of course, put a great limitation on Sino-American relations. PResident Kennedy would, notheless, send messages to Chairman Biao regarding his stances concerning a number of topics, including the USSR. The responses were often short and direct, and rarely positive. Biao was clearly no friend of Soviet Russia, but his positions towards the west were much more hostile.
Chairman Lin Biao, Paramount Leader of China
China Alone- A history of the Cultural Revolution, Anne Long
............
November 1970 marked a very interesting Midterm election cycle. The Democratic party was showing fractures, the Republicans were focusing on a more progressive stance and seemed to have abandoned(if only for the moment) what they perceived as Nixon's flawed Southern Strategy, and the American Independent Party was gaining popularity fast in the Deep South.
Regardless of the ideological fracture in the Democratic household, they would fare remarcably well on the elections for the House, taking 15 seats in total. The Republicans would lose 20 seats in the election, placing the minority party further in the minority. The American Independent Party would achieve 8 seats in the house, a historical victory. This in total ammount to 263 seats for the Democrats, 172 seats for the Republicans, and 8 seats for the American Independents.
In the senate the democrats would not have the same luck, losing 5 chairs, while the republicans would win 3. New York Conservative James L. Buckley would take a seat from the republicans and Independent Harry F. Byrd Jr would take one from the democrats in Virginia. The total take would ammount to 53 Democrats, 45 republicans 1 New York Conservative and 1 Independent.
When it comes to governors seats, the democrats would gain major victories, taking no less then 11 new states while the republicans lost 12. Two elections in particular were, and that's using the definition of the term lightly, historic.
George Wallace, former American Independent Party candidate in 1968, and famous figure for segregation in the south would take Alabama. With 65% of the vote over democrat Albert Brewer, his landslide victory can be easly traced to the discontent of the south with the current Democratic policies. Wallace would proclaim his victory a great step foward for the "Southern american ideals". He would not get a lot of press coverage, however, considering the outcome in neighboring Tennessee.
Elvis Presley, once the world most famous singer, was now a Governor. Beating republican Winfield Dunn with over 78% of the vote, Presley would receive more news attention then any other governor combined. In his innaugural speech, Elvis would proclaim that:
"We need better Schools in Tennessee. We need better Hospitals, better law enforcement, better transportation and better leadership. I believe i can easly provide the later, and with your help, i will provide the rest. It's time for the state to look foward. In full cooperation with the federal government, i do believe we can make Tennessee a symbol for the rest of the country."
Shortly after his election Presley would fly to Washington were he would meet the President and discuss the future of his state. Today it's easy to see that President Kennedy wanted to be seen with Elvis, and most certaily vice-versa. The meeting would be heavily followed by reporters from great newspapers and TV networks to tabloids. These were, after all, two of the most popular figures in U.S. politics.
In the end, the elections proved to be a major victory for the Democratic Party. With gains in both, the House and The states, and minor losses in the Senate, things were looking up. Kennedy would try to take advantage of these victories in the incoming year to pass his Guaranteed Minimal Income Bill and increase funds for multiple programs and organisations that varied from social welfare to NASA. The Southern Democrats stubborn stance against his administration would also have to stop, and Kennedy would quickly learn that negotiating was not optional if he was to keep the party whole and stop the growth of the AIP.
But of course, the southerners were not against all of RFK's policies. Welfare was something many southern democrats supported. Even so, they had proven paramount in deadlocking Kennedy's Healthcare Bill in 1970, even as such bill was popular among many in the south. By early 1971 they were realising that RFK stance would not change, and that fighting the man non stop would only hurt them in the long run. If Kennedy negotiated, they could stop the deadlock.
President Robert F. Kennedy in 1971
Governor Presley and his wife Priscilla, 1971
History of the Democratic Party, from Jackson to Clinton, Michael A. Cormack
.............
And those were the midterms, and a little extra with China. Next weekend i will finnaly talk about 1971. Kennedy's policies, some world events, and the beggining of the 1972 race. Who will run? Who will not? Stay tuned to find out.
The death of Mao Zedong in July 24th, 1970 would send ripples throughout China and the East. Mao's second in command and named successor, Vice Chairman of the Communist Party and Marshal of China Lin Biao would move to take command of the country. He would quickly ally with Mao's wife, Jiang Quing, better known in the west as Madame Mao, to establish complete control over China. Purges would soon commence, and would include former allies of Mao such as Hua Guofeng, and Deng Xiaoping. Biao would delcare his "continuous support for Mao's Cultural Revolution, and preservation of his dream of China".
Chairman Lin Biao was one of the most vigorous supporters of the Cultural Revolution. His believe in the superiority of Maoism over Marxism-Leninism was shared among many in the years before Mao's death, and had contributed greatly to the split between China and the USSR. In 1969 the two countries had almost gone to war, and Biao ascension seemed only to make the situation more dangerous.
The government of the United States did not recognize the People's Republic of China as the legitimate chinese government. This, of course, put a great limitation on Sino-American relations. PResident Kennedy would, notheless, send messages to Chairman Biao regarding his stances concerning a number of topics, including the USSR. The responses were often short and direct, and rarely positive. Biao was clearly no friend of Soviet Russia, but his positions towards the west were much more hostile.
Chairman Lin Biao, Paramount Leader of China
China Alone- A history of the Cultural Revolution, Anne Long
............
November 1970 marked a very interesting Midterm election cycle. The Democratic party was showing fractures, the Republicans were focusing on a more progressive stance and seemed to have abandoned(if only for the moment) what they perceived as Nixon's flawed Southern Strategy, and the American Independent Party was gaining popularity fast in the Deep South.
Regardless of the ideological fracture in the Democratic household, they would fare remarcably well on the elections for the House, taking 15 seats in total. The Republicans would lose 20 seats in the election, placing the minority party further in the minority. The American Independent Party would achieve 8 seats in the house, a historical victory. This in total ammount to 263 seats for the Democrats, 172 seats for the Republicans, and 8 seats for the American Independents.
In the senate the democrats would not have the same luck, losing 5 chairs, while the republicans would win 3. New York Conservative James L. Buckley would take a seat from the republicans and Independent Harry F. Byrd Jr would take one from the democrats in Virginia. The total take would ammount to 53 Democrats, 45 republicans 1 New York Conservative and 1 Independent.
When it comes to governors seats, the democrats would gain major victories, taking no less then 11 new states while the republicans lost 12. Two elections in particular were, and that's using the definition of the term lightly, historic.
George Wallace, former American Independent Party candidate in 1968, and famous figure for segregation in the south would take Alabama. With 65% of the vote over democrat Albert Brewer, his landslide victory can be easly traced to the discontent of the south with the current Democratic policies. Wallace would proclaim his victory a great step foward for the "Southern american ideals". He would not get a lot of press coverage, however, considering the outcome in neighboring Tennessee.
Elvis Presley, once the world most famous singer, was now a Governor. Beating republican Winfield Dunn with over 78% of the vote, Presley would receive more news attention then any other governor combined. In his innaugural speech, Elvis would proclaim that:
"We need better Schools in Tennessee. We need better Hospitals, better law enforcement, better transportation and better leadership. I believe i can easly provide the later, and with your help, i will provide the rest. It's time for the state to look foward. In full cooperation with the federal government, i do believe we can make Tennessee a symbol for the rest of the country."
Shortly after his election Presley would fly to Washington were he would meet the President and discuss the future of his state. Today it's easy to see that President Kennedy wanted to be seen with Elvis, and most certaily vice-versa. The meeting would be heavily followed by reporters from great newspapers and TV networks to tabloids. These were, after all, two of the most popular figures in U.S. politics.
In the end, the elections proved to be a major victory for the Democratic Party. With gains in both, the House and The states, and minor losses in the Senate, things were looking up. Kennedy would try to take advantage of these victories in the incoming year to pass his Guaranteed Minimal Income Bill and increase funds for multiple programs and organisations that varied from social welfare to NASA. The Southern Democrats stubborn stance against his administration would also have to stop, and Kennedy would quickly learn that negotiating was not optional if he was to keep the party whole and stop the growth of the AIP.
But of course, the southerners were not against all of RFK's policies. Welfare was something many southern democrats supported. Even so, they had proven paramount in deadlocking Kennedy's Healthcare Bill in 1970, even as such bill was popular among many in the south. By early 1971 they were realising that RFK stance would not change, and that fighting the man non stop would only hurt them in the long run. If Kennedy negotiated, they could stop the deadlock.
President Robert F. Kennedy in 1971
Governor Presley and his wife Priscilla, 1971
History of the Democratic Party, from Jackson to Clinton, Michael A. Cormack
.............
And those were the midterms, and a little extra with China. Next weekend i will finnaly talk about 1971. Kennedy's policies, some world events, and the beggining of the 1972 race. Who will run? Who will not? Stay tuned to find out.
Attachments
-
upload_2017-6-25_19-46-54.png -
upload_2017-6-25_19-51-29.png -
upload_2017-6-25_19-51-50.png
Hope GMI and UHC still passes just in time for the 1970s stagflation...
Great update! GMI will have a lot to give. As a believer of the Moynihan Report, it can prevent a lot of bad stuff in OTL from happening.
Great update! GMI will have a lot to give. As a believer of the Moynihan Report, it can prevent a lot of bad stuff in OTL from happening.
That was mostly fueled by the slump in his career and life in general. I imagine a successful political career would ease him out of that.
Deleted member 92121
Indeed, the fact that Elvis return to the music world in the late 1960's didn't bring back the same level of success as his previous years was the main factor behind him falling in a deep drug addiction. ITTL his drug issues would probably not happen.
Still, he's still Elvis isn't he? Will he put all his money, that of it left over anyway, in a blind trust and learn to live on a relatively frugal Governor's salary? If so he can't go on shooting TVs and giving new cars to random waitresses--or can he?
I wonder if he'd switch over to conservative business suits, or if he will show up at serious gubernatorial functions dressed flashy. It is the early Seventies; he can probably get away with that anyway!
Anyway if he hits on a governing style that sort of works, he'd be on a serious track for the Presidency himself--and almost certainly as a populist liberal!
I liked the offhand remark about more money for NASA, and wonder what that means exactly. OTL, LBJ already put Saturn rocket production on hold before the '68 elections, and reviving the production of either Saturn V or Saturn 1B might be something that can't be done quietly or cheaply. Vice versa if a decision is made to order more Saturn V, they can easily and at almost no extra cost be made "Saturn VB"--substituting F-1A engines for the old F-1, and J-2S for the original J-2, will raise performance notably without need of any really substantial changes in the design otherwise. There were several more Apollo moon landings planned than were carried out OTL, and I suppose one thing the NASA decision means is all of them go forward, taking us to Apollo 20 or so. Unless more Saturn V rockets of some kind are ordered though, this might prevent Skylab.
NASA did not plan on devoting the 1970s to developing some kind of Space Shuttle; they did investigate alternative rocket configurations in the hope of hitting upon more standardized, modular designs that could accomplish a range of launch weights with the same parts, so they could order large numbers of the latter and arrange them differently to get cheaper but above all higher mass launch capability. Higher mass overall--plans to use the Saturn V as designed were scarce I think, the philosophy being it was too big for most missions but not big enough for something really grandiose like missions to Mars, so it fell between stools. Still, a cheap and by-the-way budget increase for NASA in 1971 could hardly buy development of a new launch system, and so for the time being more Saturn V, possibly in the VB form with the more developed engines, would seem to be what it must translate into. And an open question whether more Saturn 1B would be acquired as well, whether in fact their production lines had been shut down more definitively and earlier (this is an OTL factual question I should know but don't) or whether someone would propose an alternative form such as Eyes Turned Skyward's Saturn 1C--which replaced the 9-tube 1B first stage with a two-tank monoblock type like a scaled down Saturn V first stage, and the 8 H-1 engines with a single F-1A. Given an order for more Saturn V, and those presumably using the more advanced engine, a case could be made for reengining the Saturn 1 first stage anyway--it would surely be possible to use the F-1A with the old "Cluster's Last Stand" kludged 9-tube stage structure made by Chrysler. Rationally speaking the tubes had their merits actually, for structural reasons; they looked quaint, and existed as an expedient based on the fortunate coincidence that exactly 8 Redstone diameter tubes could be tightly wrapped around one Juno diameter tube, and in turn that using just 4 of the outer tubes for kerosene and the remaining 5 tubes for liquid oxygen stored about exactly the right balance of fuel to oxidant the engines would need. So people might not be entirely rational and figure the old design was a hangover from pioneering days and had to go, and grumble if penny pinchers in Congress forced NASA to stick with the old tank structure. Though it actually had a pretty good strength/weight ratio, did provide a mass-symmetrical way of loading in the necessary propellants, and the production crews and facilities might be easy to revive at Chrysler. So a lot might depend on the political standing of Chrysler in Congress and at the White House.
It is then a very interesting question--will the extra funding for NASA just boil down to a couple more years of Lunar Apollo, or will there be procurement of rocket stages pretty much compelling either yet more Lunar missions, perhaps this time with much longer stays, using the higher launch capability the new engines would allow (an extra 5-10 tonnes launched toward the Moon, which translates into a fraction of that more going down to the Moon on LMs) or development of some kind of space station? The latter makes no sense unless there is a vehicle that can shuttle human crew to it--so there had better be some rockets in the Saturn 1B range, of whatever design. And Lunar Apollo spacecraft are overkill for LEO missions, although the LM could be adapted to play other roles, and the Service Module could simply be given less maneuvering fuel to lighten the load to orbit and perhaps allow more mass elsewhere, as in a LM derived vehicle.
But each proposal put forth is like an iceberg in that much of its mass lies hidden! A new space station with modified Apollo craft to carry crew to it implies a redesign of Apollo: it requires some sort of small size booster. Whereas ordering more Saturn V stages puts an obligation on NASA to make up missions to use them in and on Congress to fund not only the rockets but also their prospective payloads. Whereas designing specialized rockets and vehicles for each mission costs even more, and violates the principle that rockets crew ride on should be tested first, unless we double, triple or quadruple the cost of the new rocket by building several test items before the one real one.
I wonder if he'd switch over to conservative business suits, or if he will show up at serious gubernatorial functions dressed flashy. It is the early Seventies; he can probably get away with that anyway!
Anyway if he hits on a governing style that sort of works, he'd be on a serious track for the Presidency himself--and almost certainly as a populist liberal!
I liked the offhand remark about more money for NASA, and wonder what that means exactly. OTL, LBJ already put Saturn rocket production on hold before the '68 elections, and reviving the production of either Saturn V or Saturn 1B might be something that can't be done quietly or cheaply. Vice versa if a decision is made to order more Saturn V, they can easily and at almost no extra cost be made "Saturn VB"--substituting F-1A engines for the old F-1, and J-2S for the original J-2, will raise performance notably without need of any really substantial changes in the design otherwise. There were several more Apollo moon landings planned than were carried out OTL, and I suppose one thing the NASA decision means is all of them go forward, taking us to Apollo 20 or so. Unless more Saturn V rockets of some kind are ordered though, this might prevent Skylab.
NASA did not plan on devoting the 1970s to developing some kind of Space Shuttle; they did investigate alternative rocket configurations in the hope of hitting upon more standardized, modular designs that could accomplish a range of launch weights with the same parts, so they could order large numbers of the latter and arrange them differently to get cheaper but above all higher mass launch capability. Higher mass overall--plans to use the Saturn V as designed were scarce I think, the philosophy being it was too big for most missions but not big enough for something really grandiose like missions to Mars, so it fell between stools. Still, a cheap and by-the-way budget increase for NASA in 1971 could hardly buy development of a new launch system, and so for the time being more Saturn V, possibly in the VB form with the more developed engines, would seem to be what it must translate into. And an open question whether more Saturn 1B would be acquired as well, whether in fact their production lines had been shut down more definitively and earlier (this is an OTL factual question I should know but don't) or whether someone would propose an alternative form such as Eyes Turned Skyward's Saturn 1C--which replaced the 9-tube 1B first stage with a two-tank monoblock type like a scaled down Saturn V first stage, and the 8 H-1 engines with a single F-1A. Given an order for more Saturn V, and those presumably using the more advanced engine, a case could be made for reengining the Saturn 1 first stage anyway--it would surely be possible to use the F-1A with the old "Cluster's Last Stand" kludged 9-tube stage structure made by Chrysler. Rationally speaking the tubes had their merits actually, for structural reasons; they looked quaint, and existed as an expedient based on the fortunate coincidence that exactly 8 Redstone diameter tubes could be tightly wrapped around one Juno diameter tube, and in turn that using just 4 of the outer tubes for kerosene and the remaining 5 tubes for liquid oxygen stored about exactly the right balance of fuel to oxidant the engines would need. So people might not be entirely rational and figure the old design was a hangover from pioneering days and had to go, and grumble if penny pinchers in Congress forced NASA to stick with the old tank structure. Though it actually had a pretty good strength/weight ratio, did provide a mass-symmetrical way of loading in the necessary propellants, and the production crews and facilities might be easy to revive at Chrysler. So a lot might depend on the political standing of Chrysler in Congress and at the White House.
It is then a very interesting question--will the extra funding for NASA just boil down to a couple more years of Lunar Apollo, or will there be procurement of rocket stages pretty much compelling either yet more Lunar missions, perhaps this time with much longer stays, using the higher launch capability the new engines would allow (an extra 5-10 tonnes launched toward the Moon, which translates into a fraction of that more going down to the Moon on LMs) or development of some kind of space station? The latter makes no sense unless there is a vehicle that can shuttle human crew to it--so there had better be some rockets in the Saturn 1B range, of whatever design. And Lunar Apollo spacecraft are overkill for LEO missions, although the LM could be adapted to play other roles, and the Service Module could simply be given less maneuvering fuel to lighten the load to orbit and perhaps allow more mass elsewhere, as in a LM derived vehicle.
But each proposal put forth is like an iceberg in that much of its mass lies hidden! A new space station with modified Apollo craft to carry crew to it implies a redesign of Apollo: it requires some sort of small size booster. Whereas ordering more Saturn V stages puts an obligation on NASA to make up missions to use them in and on Congress to fund not only the rockets but also their prospective payloads. Whereas designing specialized rockets and vehicles for each mission costs even more, and violates the principle that rockets crew ride on should be tested first, unless we double, triple or quadruple the cost of the new rocket by building several test items before the one real one.
Deleted member 92121
By Jules Verne moustache we have a Rocketeer over here!
Very impressed and intrigued with the ammount of data. You sure knows much more then i when it comes to Rocket engeneering.
You did give some ideas now. RFK is a very big supporter of the space program and (if he can) he will give it a lot of support. I doubt there will be a Mars program anytime soon, but probably more of Apollo, Skylab and who knows earlier Voyager? All that will take support from the public and the press. Kennedy however is still very popular with the people (even inf 1970 was a slower year) and he knows how to appeal to his family image, and a big part of such image is the support for tbe space race.
And to awnser the Elvis question, his approach will be more Reagan style ( adapt to the political world). But it's still the king, and he sure can appeal to style if he wants.
Last edited by a moderator:
A Grand Tour deep space probe that needs an entire Saturn V to launch it would be a sight to see!
We have on the site trained rocket engineers and other aerospace types who know a lot more than I do. If we polled them, most would, based on my past raising these questions anyway, dismiss the idea of such a giant probe. "What do you need all that mass for?" they generally ask. (To give an idea how much mass I am talking about--Saturn V sent about 45 metric tons, plus somewhat over 10 tons in the form of the spent mass of the third stage, on a trajectory to the Moon. The thing is even a minimum energy orbit from low Earth orbit to the Moon's orbit is already very close to Earth escape velocity,a and Apollo used a still more energetic orbit that required just slightly more injection velocity. They did this to save some time, but mainly to enable a "free return orbit." This orbit was still just under escape energy and, were it not aimed to encounter the Moon, would the the Apollo far out past the Moon's orbit and eventually return to LEO--since it did encounter the Moon it would loop around Luna and come back much sooner. For reasons too technical for me to get into here, you can't do that with a minimum energy Hohmann transfer orbit--but the differences between such a minimal transfer orbit, the faster ones Apollo used instead, and an escape parabola orbit were quite small compared to the just under 3 km/sec addition to the LEO parking orbit speed the Saturn V upper stage would achieve on its second burn. They could easily have sent Apollo on an actual escape orbit, had there been any sane reason to do so, with very minor trimming of its mass. Now, for an interplanetary mission, you need more velocity than just Earth escape, you need to put it in a hyperbolic faster trajectory that gives the probe significant speed versus Earth's orbit around the Sun--although for close targets like Venus and Mars, that extra boost is modest. I'd have to either look up the actual trajectories of OTL Pioneers and Voyagers to figure out just how much extra delta-V a Grand Tour launched in the early Seventies windows would require. It would require the probe to be a lot smaller than 45 tonnes, to be sure; proposed manned flyby missions of Venus and Mars projected something like 30 tonnes, and at a guess the deep space probe would be somewhere between 10 and 20.
But the Voyager probes mass 773 kg, just over 3/4 of a tonne! Pioneer 10 was 258.8 kg. The Voyagers used a Titan IIIE/Centaur, and using the Silverbird launch calculator, I infer that the "C3" of the escape hyperbola was 17 (km/sec)^2. (C3 is a parameter from hyperbolic geometry as applied to orbital dynamics with an inverse square central force, in this case relative to Earth, and is proportional to the orbital energy). Plugging the same target C3 into the calculator's Saturn V data, I get a 35 tonne payload! I'm not at all sure I did that right, but even at half that, clearly a probe built to be launched by a Saturn V would be some 20 times more massive than the Voyagers.
Hence the "sticker shock." To be sure, a deep space probe is cheap compared to human spaceflight, but if we take the cost of the Voyager program and multiply by 25, let alone by 50, we are going to be quoting some serious money for Congress to spend. Now I'm sure that if you handed a specification like that to JPL or the scientific community in general, after a number of tenure positions open up due to scientists dying of heart attacks or strokes at the vast generosity of it all, they'd scramble to figure out ways to use the tremendous mass to accomplish great capability--but I suppose that if we were able to get the results we got from a 3/4 ton probe, it seems fair to guess that we won't get 50 times the data value from 50 times the mass, whereas the price tag would assuredly be 50 times as much. Maybe we'd save some money since such a huge bus allows for some engineering savings, perhaps.
I've never had much luck getting a sensible dollar breakdown, year by year, of any NASA program. Obviously you have to pick a base year and adjust for inflation. NASA reports the two-probe Voyager program has cumulatively cost under $900 million, in recent dollars I presume, but that includes a share of the deep space telemetry costs and data processing costs during encounters, which though modest per year obviously adds up over the decades. Clearly the cost as of launch and successful injection onto its interplanetary trajectory was lower, in modern dollars, and lower still in dollars at the time of launch bearing in mind the large amount of inflation since then. (Inflation has been at a modest and mostly stable rate, but it adds up exponentially).
If we multiply that by 50, I'm pretty sure Congress will balk at the cost, even though the pre-launch costs can be spread out over half a decade--the window used by Voyager opened in the late 70s, which gives the probe designers some time. (I think that the very best window opened earlier, and it would have been hard to meet it, certainly with such a grandiose thing as a Saturn V sized probe--maybe with generous funding, a good probe launched on a Titan derivative, or Saturn 1B type rocket, massing around a tonne or less, could be launched earlier).
You should look at the OTL NASA budget. This Popular Science article shows that in 2014 dollars the budget zoomed up to nearly $45 billion/yr around 1968, but then plummeted down to the current level averaging around 18 billion where it has been pretty stable, give or take $5 billion or so, since.
Now then, this could be blamed on Nixon, but actually Nixon was reasonably supportive of space; LBJ undertook some of the decisions to cut costs (such as mothballing the Saturn production lines) and it was bipartisan opposition in Congress that led to the fall. Note that indeed from the mid-Seventies to mid-80s it was down to around $15 billion, not much over 1/3 the peak, and it was later in the late Reagan, Bush the First, and early Clinton years that it reached a higher plateau over $20 billion, falling again to hold at typical $18 billion until late in Bush the Second's years, held higher for a while in the early Obama years and falling again to $18 billion now.
I suppose if RK can engineer major savings of Vietnam costs by getting out fast, and if his liberal/progressive approach results in a stronger economy, he may be able to reduce the rate of fall and hold NASA funding at say 2/3 the peak level, say $30 billion/yr--but realistically, he is going to face some very stiff opposition on this no matter how much he invokes the sacred name of his brother. $25 billion a year, more realistically an average of a 30 billion level held for a couple of years declining down to $20 billion, and holding at that level--some 10 percent more than the overall average, and considerably more by a factor of 4/3 than the decade of '75-85 OTL--may be the more realistic achievement.
Now relative to OTL that is a lot of money kept for NASA, but relative to the timeline's own past, it is a drastic decline, by more than 50 percent by 1975. From our point of view, he is increasing NASA relative to OTL, but ITTL he is merely resisting a drastic decline that he can't stop. He won't look like a winner.
For him to actually increase the budget would involve tripling it relative to OTL. I'd like to see it, but I don't see how he does it.
Anyway there has to be some sort of program all this money pays for. Extending Apollo to some medium-term temporary Moon bases is something that was planned (more honestly, wished for in detail by NASA planners, but not approved by Congress). Some sort of program to develop cheaper launch capability is definitely in the cards, and ate up most of that measly $15 bill a year in the '75-'85 decade.
If RK backs off from extending the Moon missions beyond Apollo 20, what he is left with for manned space is some combination of something along the lines of achieving the Shuttle's goals OTL, and having a space station program. A few Saturn V type vehicles can certainly launch a few Skylabs, but then we'd also need a parallel crew vehicle to get crews to them. Of course Apollo exists, but this is where we need smaller launchers such as Saturn 1B, and 1B as it was had to lighten the Apollo loads by skimping on Service Module fuel--not that the fuel it omitted would be needed for an orbital mission! Still making more Apollos means overkill for orbital missions, and yet having a vehicle that is only good for 3 crew. Actually there were plans to cram 5 astronauts into an only slightly modified Apollo CM, but they would be very crowded unless there were an additional space for them to occupy, and providing that space would involve some costly and long-term engineering. I trust you are familiar with Eyes Turned Skyward which developed some very exciting modifications of Saturn and Apollo tech, but it took time. To take a different approach, I might suggest that since the Apollo Service Module does not need the massive propellant load required for Lunar missions for mere orbital missions, instead of developing a smaller SM as done in ETS, we could convert a portion of its volume to habitable space, accessed by a hatch in the heat shield of the CM. But that too is a major redesign that, if planned in 1969, might not become available until well after 1972--and that is a fast development time I suppose. On budgets around $25 billion instead of falling to 15, the work might be done quickly perhaps, but it will need to be tested out. And a different medium launcher than Saturn 1B would take some years to develop as well--continuing with new build 1Bs as well as Saturn Vs would be the only way RK is going to see new post-Lunar missions in his first term, and it is hardly clear yet he even gets a second term.
Besides something like OTL Shuttle, there would be many possibilities for somewhat cheaper costs to launch to low Earth orbit. One is to simply soldier on with already developed vehicles like Saturn 1B, and hope that extensive use of them brings down the unit costs through shaking down the tech and economies of scale in production. But this would not be very popular in 1969! In fact the fashion was that NASA ought to develop some kind of reusable Shuttle, and most proposals floating around were considerably more grandiose and optimistic than the OTL approach chosen, which was a compromise between the sort of development budget anticipated for a "proper" and fully reusable Shuttle, and the even deeper budget cuts Nixon's Budget office wanted to recommend. If Kennedy is grandstanding for NASA to get what it wants, a more grandiose Shuttle design could easily eat up all the extra $5-10 billon Kennedy might win for the agency, and leave it desperately thirsty for yet more funding--for in hindsight, the modern consensus is that anything more ambitious than OTL's version of the Shuttle would have broken the bank and yet failed to be a success.
There are yet other approaches though. Yet another timeline by one of ETS's authors (e of pi) and Polish Eagle, currently on hiatus but running within the past year, called "Right Side Up," points to one of the mistakes OTL Shuttle suffered from in hindsight, which is the perspective, not so clear then, that the expensive part of a launch vehicle is the massive first stage. The OTL Shuttle used the solid boosters for this and these were supposed to save money by being reused, but in fact the cost of trying to recover and refurbish them is said to equal the cost of simply making new ones for each launch and disposing of them. Everyone was focused on the upper stage being the thing to make reusable, but in fact upper stages on rockets are generally a small fraction of their launch mass, whereas if one could recover and reuse the massive first stage, very large cost reductions might result even if everything else is expendable.
Trying to approach this problem as a clean sheet, with the benefit of hindsight, I suspect a sensible plan would have been to develop a standardized strap-on liquid fuel booster rocket, attached in varying numbers to a disposable hydrogen-oxygen central stage using the J-2S engine. Unlike the OTL Shuttle, the plan would be for this central stage not to burn its engine(s) until it reached a great height on the boosters. The J engines were excellent in vacuum but poor at sea level and much of the high cost of developing and maintaining OTL Shuttle Main Engines was to enable them to be lit on the ground. So, I envision developing a kerosene-oxygen, or even (in my wilder dreams) kerosene-hydrogen peroxide, standard strap on booster engine, designed so that two of them are about right for boosting a central stage very similar to Saturn V's upper stage with a single J-2S engine, for a payload in the ballpark of 20 tonnes. The two liquid booster engines would parachute to a splashdown in the ocean, be recovered, checked out, refurbished and reused; the upper, central stage would be disposed of and burn up in the atmosphere after putting its payload into orbit.
Optimistically I'd think if Kennedy approved that, he could see it operational before his first term ends. I suspect the trained engineers would deny that though. Anyway if it were developed, on whatever time scale, the outcome is a flexible launch system that can be expanded to Saturn V sizes or beyond by using more boosters and bigger central stages with more J engines.
But such a thing would not have any champions I fear.
One cool idea for repurposing Saturn V tech was to modify the massive first stage so that the outer 4 of the 5 F engines, here a further evolved version than the F-1A, would be mounted on a droppable ring. The rocket would launch on all 5 F engines, and after a lot of propellant were burned up, the outer 4 engines would drop off, to parachute to a spashdown and to be recovered and refurbished for reuse, while the largely depleted stage goes on supplying the 5th engine with propellant. It was said this could put a lot of mass into orbit without using any upper stages at all, or upper stages could be used for more payload. With 4 of 5 engines and their mounting ring recovered, costs might well come down, and again the system is flexible--use no upper stages for modest payloads, and various sizes of upper stages for bigger ones, up to something in the same 120 tonne ballpark as Saturn V.
There were loads of other Saturn derivative ideas OTL.
------------------------------------
Elvis Presley as a politician would resemble Reagan in a number of ways, but was Elvis nearly as right-wing as Reagan was? I suppose he might come down as a bit of a cultural conservative, perhaps, more of a hard hat than a hippie to be sure-but I doubt he would embrace Reagan's hard-core positions along the lines of "the magic of the marketplace will solve our problems, therefore stop taxing the rich" and "government is the problem." I'm pretty sure he'd be much more of a pragmatic New Dealer type, and out of step with the fashion of the late 70s and 1980s to believe deregulation and privatization was always the way to go. Mind, I can easily see him being swept along by those currents, and embracing them perhaps, but he seems more like a Reagan Democrat than a Reagan--and I bet he would run as a Democrat. I don't believe he'd acquire nearly the level of right wing support Reagan did, but would capture a broad swathe of lower-class moderates. Much depends on decisions he makes, whether he comes across as culturally progressive enough not to be seen as an enemy of African-Americans or gay rights or feminism, but conservative enough to reassure people who are alarmed at the rate of the progress of these movements but not deeply committed to stopping them cold. I think he'd get a fair amount of evangelical support--again not the hard right of the Moral Majority perhaps, but lots of grass-roots Born Again types who might not be roped into the right wing in the ATL. His biggest negative, aside from any possible actual buffoonery he might perform as governor (I am assuming he grows into the office of governor of Tennessee and performs credibly, any flakiness being offset by outside the box thinking that works) is that people will think it is silly for a crooner to run for President--not having the OTL experience of Reagan, at least as much of an intellectual lightweight, becoming the beloved icon of millions.
In many ways his career if successful would be reminiscent of Reagan's, and if elected America will be something of a global laughingstock for a while--unless he turns out to be an effective President!
I'm not his biggest fan at all, but by golly, could he possibly be worse than Reagan? If he is, it will be because his campaign gets captured by the same people who backed Reagan OTL. And actually I think they will miss the Elvis bus, because they will be backing Ronnie.
We have on the site trained rocket engineers and other aerospace types who know a lot more than I do. If we polled them, most would, based on my past raising these questions anyway, dismiss the idea of such a giant probe. "What do you need all that mass for?" they generally ask. (To give an idea how much mass I am talking about--Saturn V sent about 45 metric tons, plus somewhat over 10 tons in the form of the spent mass of the third stage, on a trajectory to the Moon. The thing is even a minimum energy orbit from low Earth orbit to the Moon's orbit is already very close to Earth escape velocity,a and Apollo used a still more energetic orbit that required just slightly more injection velocity. They did this to save some time, but mainly to enable a "free return orbit." This orbit was still just under escape energy and, were it not aimed to encounter the Moon, would the the Apollo far out past the Moon's orbit and eventually return to LEO--since it did encounter the Moon it would loop around Luna and come back much sooner. For reasons too technical for me to get into here, you can't do that with a minimum energy Hohmann transfer orbit--but the differences between such a minimal transfer orbit, the faster ones Apollo used instead, and an escape parabola orbit were quite small compared to the just under 3 km/sec addition to the LEO parking orbit speed the Saturn V upper stage would achieve on its second burn. They could easily have sent Apollo on an actual escape orbit, had there been any sane reason to do so, with very minor trimming of its mass. Now, for an interplanetary mission, you need more velocity than just Earth escape, you need to put it in a hyperbolic faster trajectory that gives the probe significant speed versus Earth's orbit around the Sun--although for close targets like Venus and Mars, that extra boost is modest. I'd have to either look up the actual trajectories of OTL Pioneers and Voyagers to figure out just how much extra delta-V a Grand Tour launched in the early Seventies windows would require. It would require the probe to be a lot smaller than 45 tonnes, to be sure; proposed manned flyby missions of Venus and Mars projected something like 30 tonnes, and at a guess the deep space probe would be somewhere between 10 and 20.
But the Voyager probes mass 773 kg, just over 3/4 of a tonne! Pioneer 10 was 258.8 kg. The Voyagers used a Titan IIIE/Centaur, and using the Silverbird launch calculator, I infer that the "C3" of the escape hyperbola was 17 (km/sec)^2. (C3 is a parameter from hyperbolic geometry as applied to orbital dynamics with an inverse square central force, in this case relative to Earth, and is proportional to the orbital energy). Plugging the same target C3 into the calculator's Saturn V data, I get a 35 tonne payload! I'm not at all sure I did that right, but even at half that, clearly a probe built to be launched by a Saturn V would be some 20 times more massive than the Voyagers.
Hence the "sticker shock." To be sure, a deep space probe is cheap compared to human spaceflight, but if we take the cost of the Voyager program and multiply by 25, let alone by 50, we are going to be quoting some serious money for Congress to spend. Now I'm sure that if you handed a specification like that to JPL or the scientific community in general, after a number of tenure positions open up due to scientists dying of heart attacks or strokes at the vast generosity of it all, they'd scramble to figure out ways to use the tremendous mass to accomplish great capability--but I suppose that if we were able to get the results we got from a 3/4 ton probe, it seems fair to guess that we won't get 50 times the data value from 50 times the mass, whereas the price tag would assuredly be 50 times as much. Maybe we'd save some money since such a huge bus allows for some engineering savings, perhaps.
I've never had much luck getting a sensible dollar breakdown, year by year, of any NASA program. Obviously you have to pick a base year and adjust for inflation. NASA reports the two-probe Voyager program has cumulatively cost under $900 million, in recent dollars I presume, but that includes a share of the deep space telemetry costs and data processing costs during encounters, which though modest per year obviously adds up over the decades. Clearly the cost as of launch and successful injection onto its interplanetary trajectory was lower, in modern dollars, and lower still in dollars at the time of launch bearing in mind the large amount of inflation since then. (Inflation has been at a modest and mostly stable rate, but it adds up exponentially).
If we multiply that by 50, I'm pretty sure Congress will balk at the cost, even though the pre-launch costs can be spread out over half a decade--the window used by Voyager opened in the late 70s, which gives the probe designers some time. (I think that the very best window opened earlier, and it would have been hard to meet it, certainly with such a grandiose thing as a Saturn V sized probe--maybe with generous funding, a good probe launched on a Titan derivative, or Saturn 1B type rocket, massing around a tonne or less, could be launched earlier).
You should look at the OTL NASA budget. This Popular Science article shows that in 2014 dollars the budget zoomed up to nearly $45 billion/yr around 1968, but then plummeted down to the current level averaging around 18 billion where it has been pretty stable, give or take $5 billion or so, since.
Now then, this could be blamed on Nixon, but actually Nixon was reasonably supportive of space; LBJ undertook some of the decisions to cut costs (such as mothballing the Saturn production lines) and it was bipartisan opposition in Congress that led to the fall. Note that indeed from the mid-Seventies to mid-80s it was down to around $15 billion, not much over 1/3 the peak, and it was later in the late Reagan, Bush the First, and early Clinton years that it reached a higher plateau over $20 billion, falling again to hold at typical $18 billion until late in Bush the Second's years, held higher for a while in the early Obama years and falling again to $18 billion now.
I suppose if RK can engineer major savings of Vietnam costs by getting out fast, and if his liberal/progressive approach results in a stronger economy, he may be able to reduce the rate of fall and hold NASA funding at say 2/3 the peak level, say $30 billion/yr--but realistically, he is going to face some very stiff opposition on this no matter how much he invokes the sacred name of his brother. $25 billion a year, more realistically an average of a 30 billion level held for a couple of years declining down to $20 billion, and holding at that level--some 10 percent more than the overall average, and considerably more by a factor of 4/3 than the decade of '75-85 OTL--may be the more realistic achievement.
Now relative to OTL that is a lot of money kept for NASA, but relative to the timeline's own past, it is a drastic decline, by more than 50 percent by 1975. From our point of view, he is increasing NASA relative to OTL, but ITTL he is merely resisting a drastic decline that he can't stop. He won't look like a winner.
For him to actually increase the budget would involve tripling it relative to OTL. I'd like to see it, but I don't see how he does it.
Anyway there has to be some sort of program all this money pays for. Extending Apollo to some medium-term temporary Moon bases is something that was planned (more honestly, wished for in detail by NASA planners, but not approved by Congress). Some sort of program to develop cheaper launch capability is definitely in the cards, and ate up most of that measly $15 bill a year in the '75-'85 decade.
If RK backs off from extending the Moon missions beyond Apollo 20, what he is left with for manned space is some combination of something along the lines of achieving the Shuttle's goals OTL, and having a space station program. A few Saturn V type vehicles can certainly launch a few Skylabs, but then we'd also need a parallel crew vehicle to get crews to them. Of course Apollo exists, but this is where we need smaller launchers such as Saturn 1B, and 1B as it was had to lighten the Apollo loads by skimping on Service Module fuel--not that the fuel it omitted would be needed for an orbital mission! Still making more Apollos means overkill for orbital missions, and yet having a vehicle that is only good for 3 crew. Actually there were plans to cram 5 astronauts into an only slightly modified Apollo CM, but they would be very crowded unless there were an additional space for them to occupy, and providing that space would involve some costly and long-term engineering. I trust you are familiar with Eyes Turned Skyward which developed some very exciting modifications of Saturn and Apollo tech, but it took time. To take a different approach, I might suggest that since the Apollo Service Module does not need the massive propellant load required for Lunar missions for mere orbital missions, instead of developing a smaller SM as done in ETS, we could convert a portion of its volume to habitable space, accessed by a hatch in the heat shield of the CM. But that too is a major redesign that, if planned in 1969, might not become available until well after 1972--and that is a fast development time I suppose. On budgets around $25 billion instead of falling to 15, the work might be done quickly perhaps, but it will need to be tested out. And a different medium launcher than Saturn 1B would take some years to develop as well--continuing with new build 1Bs as well as Saturn Vs would be the only way RK is going to see new post-Lunar missions in his first term, and it is hardly clear yet he even gets a second term.
Besides something like OTL Shuttle, there would be many possibilities for somewhat cheaper costs to launch to low Earth orbit. One is to simply soldier on with already developed vehicles like Saturn 1B, and hope that extensive use of them brings down the unit costs through shaking down the tech and economies of scale in production. But this would not be very popular in 1969! In fact the fashion was that NASA ought to develop some kind of reusable Shuttle, and most proposals floating around were considerably more grandiose and optimistic than the OTL approach chosen, which was a compromise between the sort of development budget anticipated for a "proper" and fully reusable Shuttle, and the even deeper budget cuts Nixon's Budget office wanted to recommend. If Kennedy is grandstanding for NASA to get what it wants, a more grandiose Shuttle design could easily eat up all the extra $5-10 billon Kennedy might win for the agency, and leave it desperately thirsty for yet more funding--for in hindsight, the modern consensus is that anything more ambitious than OTL's version of the Shuttle would have broken the bank and yet failed to be a success.
There are yet other approaches though. Yet another timeline by one of ETS's authors (e of pi) and Polish Eagle, currently on hiatus but running within the past year, called "Right Side Up," points to one of the mistakes OTL Shuttle suffered from in hindsight, which is the perspective, not so clear then, that the expensive part of a launch vehicle is the massive first stage. The OTL Shuttle used the solid boosters for this and these were supposed to save money by being reused, but in fact the cost of trying to recover and refurbish them is said to equal the cost of simply making new ones for each launch and disposing of them. Everyone was focused on the upper stage being the thing to make reusable, but in fact upper stages on rockets are generally a small fraction of their launch mass, whereas if one could recover and reuse the massive first stage, very large cost reductions might result even if everything else is expendable.
Trying to approach this problem as a clean sheet, with the benefit of hindsight, I suspect a sensible plan would have been to develop a standardized strap-on liquid fuel booster rocket, attached in varying numbers to a disposable hydrogen-oxygen central stage using the J-2S engine. Unlike the OTL Shuttle, the plan would be for this central stage not to burn its engine(s) until it reached a great height on the boosters. The J engines were excellent in vacuum but poor at sea level and much of the high cost of developing and maintaining OTL Shuttle Main Engines was to enable them to be lit on the ground. So, I envision developing a kerosene-oxygen, or even (in my wilder dreams) kerosene-hydrogen peroxide, standard strap on booster engine, designed so that two of them are about right for boosting a central stage very similar to Saturn V's upper stage with a single J-2S engine, for a payload in the ballpark of 20 tonnes. The two liquid booster engines would parachute to a splashdown in the ocean, be recovered, checked out, refurbished and reused; the upper, central stage would be disposed of and burn up in the atmosphere after putting its payload into orbit.
Optimistically I'd think if Kennedy approved that, he could see it operational before his first term ends. I suspect the trained engineers would deny that though. Anyway if it were developed, on whatever time scale, the outcome is a flexible launch system that can be expanded to Saturn V sizes or beyond by using more boosters and bigger central stages with more J engines.
But such a thing would not have any champions I fear.
One cool idea for repurposing Saturn V tech was to modify the massive first stage so that the outer 4 of the 5 F engines, here a further evolved version than the F-1A, would be mounted on a droppable ring. The rocket would launch on all 5 F engines, and after a lot of propellant were burned up, the outer 4 engines would drop off, to parachute to a spashdown and to be recovered and refurbished for reuse, while the largely depleted stage goes on supplying the 5th engine with propellant. It was said this could put a lot of mass into orbit without using any upper stages at all, or upper stages could be used for more payload. With 4 of 5 engines and their mounting ring recovered, costs might well come down, and again the system is flexible--use no upper stages for modest payloads, and various sizes of upper stages for bigger ones, up to something in the same 120 tonne ballpark as Saturn V.
There were loads of other Saturn derivative ideas OTL.
------------------------------------
Elvis Presley as a politician would resemble Reagan in a number of ways, but was Elvis nearly as right-wing as Reagan was? I suppose he might come down as a bit of a cultural conservative, perhaps, more of a hard hat than a hippie to be sure-but I doubt he would embrace Reagan's hard-core positions along the lines of "the magic of the marketplace will solve our problems, therefore stop taxing the rich" and "government is the problem." I'm pretty sure he'd be much more of a pragmatic New Dealer type, and out of step with the fashion of the late 70s and 1980s to believe deregulation and privatization was always the way to go. Mind, I can easily see him being swept along by those currents, and embracing them perhaps, but he seems more like a Reagan Democrat than a Reagan--and I bet he would run as a Democrat. I don't believe he'd acquire nearly the level of right wing support Reagan did, but would capture a broad swathe of lower-class moderates. Much depends on decisions he makes, whether he comes across as culturally progressive enough not to be seen as an enemy of African-Americans or gay rights or feminism, but conservative enough to reassure people who are alarmed at the rate of the progress of these movements but not deeply committed to stopping them cold. I think he'd get a fair amount of evangelical support--again not the hard right of the Moral Majority perhaps, but lots of grass-roots Born Again types who might not be roped into the right wing in the ATL. His biggest negative, aside from any possible actual buffoonery he might perform as governor (I am assuming he grows into the office of governor of Tennessee and performs credibly, any flakiness being offset by outside the box thinking that works) is that people will think it is silly for a crooner to run for President--not having the OTL experience of Reagan, at least as much of an intellectual lightweight, becoming the beloved icon of millions.
In many ways his career if successful would be reminiscent of Reagan's, and if elected America will be something of a global laughingstock for a while--unless he turns out to be an effective President!
I'm not his biggest fan at all, but by golly, could he possibly be worse than Reagan? If he is, it will be because his campaign gets captured by the same people who backed Reagan OTL. And actually I think they will miss the Elvis bus, because they will be backing Ronnie.
Deleted member 92121
When i said Elvis would be similar to Reagan i meant only on his way of behaving. He will act and dress more as a politician then as a musician, but still, he's now a governor without any prior expferience, so it should be fun. When it comes to ideology, Elvis has mirrowed himself on Kennedy's policies and style. He's a left leaning democrat, VERY far from Reagan in the spectrum.
How can you mend a broken heart
Deleted member 92121
How can you mend a broken heart
Harry Byrd Jr. named Secretary of Commerce
The White House has announced today that recently elected Independent Senator Harry F. Byrd Jr. has been made Secretary of Commerce. The Virginian politician, although a independent, is very closely associated with the Democratic Party. Byrd is the third southern politician to be named to a Cabinet position in the last 2 months, at what many analysts are calling a "necessary reshuffle" of the Cabinet if the Party is to remain strong.
Presindent Kennedy has proclaimed that "the Democratic Party had a great victory last year, and, if we all try too cooperate, this could turn out a great victory to the american people".
If President Kennedy's attempt at obtaining the Southern democrats cooperation after the deadlocks of 1970 is to succeed, only time will tell.
Senator Harry F. Byrd Jr. of Virginia
The Washington Post, March 2nd, 1971
.............
By all accounts, Kennedy was not very happy in early 1971. Having to fire three of his cabinet members and replace then with southern democrats was a blow to his morale. He also worried about how it would play out with the Media. "Kennedy betrays his progressive views in favor of political power". In the end, the reshuffle was a necessary move.
His administration had the Guaranteed Minimal Income Bill in place, besides the Schools of Tomorrow, the Affordable Healthcare proposal, and the increase in funding for a number of different agencies. It would be a couple of busy years, but the realities of politics would continually get in Kennedy's way. Each of this proposals were a grand endeavour on their own. The hope was that each would be passed before elections in 1972.
The GMI Bill would go through numerous drafts. What started as a radical welfare proposal, called a socialist endeavor by many, ended up as a more moderate, if yet quite left-leaning bill. The Bill would ensure that every unemployed citizen that matched a number of criteria such as proof that he seeked a job on a monthly basis, or that had children enrolled on a public school, would receive basic government support.
The Schools of Tomorrow Bill would increase public spending on education, and seek to captivate children's interest on science, through a number of different programs.
The Affordable Healthcare Act was a toned down version of the Kennedy's failed Healthcare bill of 1970. Kennedy still desired a victory on Healthcare. And he would continue to fight for one until he got it.
And besides all of the above, the president still desired to increase funding for a number of agencies, most notoriously, NASA.
Created in 1958, and gaining fame during the administration of his brother, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had accomplished in little more than a decade, a monumental feat for all of mankind. Everyone remembered the moon landing two years earlier and Kennedy's speech at that historical occasion. Since then the space race had slowed down, but the public interest continued. The so called "Space Age" was a very popular concept in popular culture, present in everything, from tv shows to literature and movies. The near tragedy of Apollo 13 resulted in the famous quote from the president:
"We cannot let the events of the previous days hamper our resolve when it comes to space. The safe return of our three astrounauts from their mission is proof that, when Americans put theirs mind together, they can accomplish anything. We must continue to invest in the exploration of the space if we're to move foward as a society."
As a result, the Kennedy administration would not budge a single inch when it came to NASA.
All of these proposals, of course, would depend on the administration capacity to gain the support of the southern democrats. If it worked, then a large majority in the House and Senate would ensure a easy ride for the bills. If it worked.
And it certainly did.
By the end of midterms, many southern democrats were arleady going back to the fold. Many that did not completly sever their links and moved to the American Independent Party, would come to see Kennedy's more moderate image as acceptable enough. The president proposals were attractive to many, and having southerners in his cabinet proved that the bostonian could play ball. And so, the GMI got passed by May, with relative easy, and the Schools of tomorrow by July. The second one had a much greater support, with public education being a primary concern for many democrats, regardless if they were northern or southern.
Kennedy would face much greater resistance on his Healthcare Bill once again, and the proposal would be delayed to the following year.
Kennedy's victory in securing funding for NASA, ensured that the Agency would continue to operate and advance a number of it's projects. the Apollo Program would continue, along with plans for the first space station.
All considered, if 1970 was a disapointing year for the administration, 1971 was one of considerable success. Groundbreaking legislature had been passed, and by the years end, he was confident that his reelection campaign was going to go quite well.
History of the Democratic Party, from Jackson to Clinton, Michael A. Cormack
................
The schism in the party that had taken shape in 1970, by the end of the following year was far from totally healed. Even if many had gone back to supporting the administration's bills, Kennedy was still far from ideal to many. And so, by November 20th 1971, John Connaly would proclaim he was running for President. The Texan had been serving on private practice since leaving the governors mansion in 1969. He had hoped for a Cabinet position, but had not been chosen. Now he was aiming for the White House, much for the presidents distaste.
Fmr. Governor John Connaly of Texas, 1971.
The American Independent Party would once again support George Wallace, now governor of Alabama. The southerner segregationist announced his Candidature by august of 1971, completely unoposed in the Party. The AIP had grown considerably after the midterms, with representatives on the House and a governorship. Now Wallace seeked to capitalize on the precarious democratic standing on the Southern states. He had taken most of them by 1968, and now he would take all. At least that's what he wished for.
Governor George Wallace of Alabama, 1971
As for the Republicans, there wasn't a doubt about who the frontrunner was. After the debacle of 1968, and the failed Nixon campaign, Nelson Rockefeller and his progressive faction had grown to have a massive support within the party. The governor of New York had announced he would run again in September, and there were very few seriously oposing him. At least, by late 1971.
Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, 1971
History of the Republican Party, from Lincoln to Cheney, Michael A. Cormack
...........
Sorry for the delay. Here's 1971 on the political scene. Also i apologize to the states of Maine and Pennsylvania for leaving them blank on the midterm elections. They both went for the democrats just like IOTL. next update will come probably wednesday and won't be about U.S. politics. And next weekend i'l focus on the primaries. Suggestions, praise, critiques, all welcome below.
Harry Byrd Jr. named Secretary of Commerce
The White House has announced today that recently elected Independent Senator Harry F. Byrd Jr. has been made Secretary of Commerce. The Virginian politician, although a independent, is very closely associated with the Democratic Party. Byrd is the third southern politician to be named to a Cabinet position in the last 2 months, at what many analysts are calling a "necessary reshuffle" of the Cabinet if the Party is to remain strong.
Presindent Kennedy has proclaimed that "the Democratic Party had a great victory last year, and, if we all try too cooperate, this could turn out a great victory to the american people".
If President Kennedy's attempt at obtaining the Southern democrats cooperation after the deadlocks of 1970 is to succeed, only time will tell.
Senator Harry F. Byrd Jr. of Virginia
The Washington Post, March 2nd, 1971
.............
By all accounts, Kennedy was not very happy in early 1971. Having to fire three of his cabinet members and replace then with southern democrats was a blow to his morale. He also worried about how it would play out with the Media. "Kennedy betrays his progressive views in favor of political power". In the end, the reshuffle was a necessary move.
His administration had the Guaranteed Minimal Income Bill in place, besides the Schools of Tomorrow, the Affordable Healthcare proposal, and the increase in funding for a number of different agencies. It would be a couple of busy years, but the realities of politics would continually get in Kennedy's way. Each of this proposals were a grand endeavour on their own. The hope was that each would be passed before elections in 1972.
The GMI Bill would go through numerous drafts. What started as a radical welfare proposal, called a socialist endeavor by many, ended up as a more moderate, if yet quite left-leaning bill. The Bill would ensure that every unemployed citizen that matched a number of criteria such as proof that he seeked a job on a monthly basis, or that had children enrolled on a public school, would receive basic government support.
The Schools of Tomorrow Bill would increase public spending on education, and seek to captivate children's interest on science, through a number of different programs.
The Affordable Healthcare Act was a toned down version of the Kennedy's failed Healthcare bill of 1970. Kennedy still desired a victory on Healthcare. And he would continue to fight for one until he got it.
And besides all of the above, the president still desired to increase funding for a number of agencies, most notoriously, NASA.
Created in 1958, and gaining fame during the administration of his brother, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had accomplished in little more than a decade, a monumental feat for all of mankind. Everyone remembered the moon landing two years earlier and Kennedy's speech at that historical occasion. Since then the space race had slowed down, but the public interest continued. The so called "Space Age" was a very popular concept in popular culture, present in everything, from tv shows to literature and movies. The near tragedy of Apollo 13 resulted in the famous quote from the president:
"We cannot let the events of the previous days hamper our resolve when it comes to space. The safe return of our three astrounauts from their mission is proof that, when Americans put theirs mind together, they can accomplish anything. We must continue to invest in the exploration of the space if we're to move foward as a society."
As a result, the Kennedy administration would not budge a single inch when it came to NASA.
All of these proposals, of course, would depend on the administration capacity to gain the support of the southern democrats. If it worked, then a large majority in the House and Senate would ensure a easy ride for the bills. If it worked.
And it certainly did.
By the end of midterms, many southern democrats were arleady going back to the fold. Many that did not completly sever their links and moved to the American Independent Party, would come to see Kennedy's more moderate image as acceptable enough. The president proposals were attractive to many, and having southerners in his cabinet proved that the bostonian could play ball. And so, the GMI got passed by May, with relative easy, and the Schools of tomorrow by July. The second one had a much greater support, with public education being a primary concern for many democrats, regardless if they were northern or southern.
Kennedy would face much greater resistance on his Healthcare Bill once again, and the proposal would be delayed to the following year.
Kennedy's victory in securing funding for NASA, ensured that the Agency would continue to operate and advance a number of it's projects. the Apollo Program would continue, along with plans for the first space station.
All considered, if 1970 was a disapointing year for the administration, 1971 was one of considerable success. Groundbreaking legislature had been passed, and by the years end, he was confident that his reelection campaign was going to go quite well.
History of the Democratic Party, from Jackson to Clinton, Michael A. Cormack
................
The schism in the party that had taken shape in 1970, by the end of the following year was far from totally healed. Even if many had gone back to supporting the administration's bills, Kennedy was still far from ideal to many. And so, by November 20th 1971, John Connaly would proclaim he was running for President. The Texan had been serving on private practice since leaving the governors mansion in 1969. He had hoped for a Cabinet position, but had not been chosen. Now he was aiming for the White House, much for the presidents distaste.
Fmr. Governor John Connaly of Texas, 1971.
The American Independent Party would once again support George Wallace, now governor of Alabama. The southerner segregationist announced his Candidature by august of 1971, completely unoposed in the Party. The AIP had grown considerably after the midterms, with representatives on the House and a governorship. Now Wallace seeked to capitalize on the precarious democratic standing on the Southern states. He had taken most of them by 1968, and now he would take all. At least that's what he wished for.
Governor George Wallace of Alabama, 1971
As for the Republicans, there wasn't a doubt about who the frontrunner was. After the debacle of 1968, and the failed Nixon campaign, Nelson Rockefeller and his progressive faction had grown to have a massive support within the party. The governor of New York had announced he would run again in September, and there were very few seriously oposing him. At least, by late 1971.
Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, 1971
History of the Republican Party, from Lincoln to Cheney, Michael A. Cormack
...........
Sorry for the delay. Here's 1971 on the political scene. Also i apologize to the states of Maine and Pennsylvania for leaving them blank on the midterm elections. They both went for the democrats just like IOTL. next update will come probably wednesday and won't be about U.S. politics. And next weekend i'l focus on the primaries. Suggestions, praise, critiques, all welcome below.
Attachments
-
upload_2017-7-9_16-24-39.png
Last edited by a moderator:
News, News and more News
Deleted member 92121
News, News and more News
Star Trek: The Motion Picture faces serious creative problems
For the last 3 months, production on the movie version of the popular ongoing TV show Star Trek has been halted. Many claim that creative differences between writer Gene Rodenberry and Director Stanley Kubrik are the reasons behind the delays. shooting conflicts between the movie and the tv series are also causing problems for the production that arleady well over-budget.
According to a crew member who prefers to remain anonymous, Roddenberry ranted on set about how: "Kubrik makes a sci-fi movie in the sixties and suddenly he believes he can make a better version of Star Trek then me. I'm the creator, and thing will go my way!"
Director Stanley Kubrik, who passed on the offer of directing the new adaptation of Mario Puzzo's Mobster movie to do this project, has repeatedly threatened to quit.
If the two creative minds will come to a agreement, or if the major motion picture will crash into the atmosphere, remains to be seen.
New York Times, August 3rd, 1971
...............
Relations between China and Soviet Union continue to worsen
Yesterday, Chairman Lin Biao, ruler of communist China, announced a increase in forces around the Mongolian and Manchurian borders. Biao, who since his ascencion less then two years ago has been quite hostile to the USSR, announced that: "The Soviets, traitors to the revolution, continue to threaten the security and well being of the People's Republic of China. We must not tolerate this russian autocrats, that put in risk the very survival of communism in Asia. The plans set foward by our great leader, Mao Zedong, will remain in motion. China will continue to be the bastion of true socialism in the globe."
Since he took power, Chairman Biao has continued to purge officers and burocrats in the Chinese government that he consider's traitors to the "Great Proletaritat Cultural Revolution". according to sources, the violence has been intense in population centres such as Beijing and Shanghai, with mass executions becoming common place. Sentences for those deemed traitorous to the revolution range from compulsory work on the fields to execution.
Biao's policies have been praised by his supporters, among these is Madame Mao, former wife of the late Chairman, and a very influential figure on the Biao regime.
Chiang Kai-Chiek, president of the Republic of China, the legitimate chinese government, has condemmed the violence and repression in continental China: "This level of violence and opression shows the true colors of communism. Be it Stalin, Mao or Biao, the tyranny of communists cannot be accepted by democratic governments!"
The Kennedy administration has also criticized Biao's action's, declaring that such a move only hurt his government reputation, and that the United States would continue to fight for democracy around the Globe.
Los Angeles Times, October 20th, 1971
..............
Protests in Brazil end in violence
Yesterday, a new series of protests took place in Rio de Janeiro against the military dictatorship that has been ruling the nation since 1964. Thousands gathered on the streets to demmand a end to political and imperialist american practices in the country, and call for democratic elections.
The protesters were met with police violence that resulted in the deaths of over 20 protesters and many more injured. This degree of violence has set new levels to wich the U.S. backed Military dictatorship will do to mantain order.
Similar protests have taken place in multiple countries around South America, such as Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay. All of these currently under military dictatorships.
Le Monde Diplomatique, February 3rd, 1972
.............
He could hear the commotion outside. He didn't expect so many supporters there, but he sure liked it. The people new who was the right voice for the party, and it was him. He couldn't avoid feeling a bit humbled by the whole thing. He had fought for his country before he went into politics. His work with entertainment had made a diference on morale, he was sure of that. And now he served his nation in a different way, behind a desk.
- Mr. Governor, they are ready for you. That was Mr. wilcox, a pencil pusher and one of his many campaign heads. A bright young kid, if a bit stiff.
- Thank you son. He got up and headed for the door. as the mayor announced him the commotion grew considerably.
-...And next president of the United States! The Mayor said cheerfully for the crowd, as the candidate walked into the stage. It was very bright outiside, blindlinly so.
- Thank you Mr. Mayor, and thank you Florida! That last part got a very big cheer from the crowd. As a Nation, we've faced many trials these past few years. Now i believe it's time for us to turn a new page in our countrie's history. To return it to it's original greatness! The crowd was making quite a ruckus now. Damm, he was really good at this.
- We'l fight to make our country great again, and in November, we will show that to Washington!
As he finished his speech, he couldn't help but wonder about 1968. He refused Nixon's offer back then, and that might have been a mistake. He had divided many republican's back them. But he showed his strength. He was popular and he knew it. Now Nixon wasn't running. With te man's endorsement he could bring the Conservative republicans together and beat Rockefeller and his so called progressives. And then he would smash that son of a bitch Kennedy come November. Surely Nixon would not hold a grudge, and would do what's right for the Party.
As Ronald Reagan left the stage, he couldnt help but admire what a beatiful morning it was.
...............
Star Trek: The Motion Picture faces serious creative problems
For the last 3 months, production on the movie version of the popular ongoing TV show Star Trek has been halted. Many claim that creative differences between writer Gene Rodenberry and Director Stanley Kubrik are the reasons behind the delays. shooting conflicts between the movie and the tv series are also causing problems for the production that arleady well over-budget.
According to a crew member who prefers to remain anonymous, Roddenberry ranted on set about how: "Kubrik makes a sci-fi movie in the sixties and suddenly he believes he can make a better version of Star Trek then me. I'm the creator, and thing will go my way!"
Director Stanley Kubrik, who passed on the offer of directing the new adaptation of Mario Puzzo's Mobster movie to do this project, has repeatedly threatened to quit.
If the two creative minds will come to a agreement, or if the major motion picture will crash into the atmosphere, remains to be seen.
New York Times, August 3rd, 1971
...............
Relations between China and Soviet Union continue to worsen
Yesterday, Chairman Lin Biao, ruler of communist China, announced a increase in forces around the Mongolian and Manchurian borders. Biao, who since his ascencion less then two years ago has been quite hostile to the USSR, announced that: "The Soviets, traitors to the revolution, continue to threaten the security and well being of the People's Republic of China. We must not tolerate this russian autocrats, that put in risk the very survival of communism in Asia. The plans set foward by our great leader, Mao Zedong, will remain in motion. China will continue to be the bastion of true socialism in the globe."
Since he took power, Chairman Biao has continued to purge officers and burocrats in the Chinese government that he consider's traitors to the "Great Proletaritat Cultural Revolution". according to sources, the violence has been intense in population centres such as Beijing and Shanghai, with mass executions becoming common place. Sentences for those deemed traitorous to the revolution range from compulsory work on the fields to execution.
Biao's policies have been praised by his supporters, among these is Madame Mao, former wife of the late Chairman, and a very influential figure on the Biao regime.
Chiang Kai-Chiek, president of the Republic of China, the legitimate chinese government, has condemmed the violence and repression in continental China: "This level of violence and opression shows the true colors of communism. Be it Stalin, Mao or Biao, the tyranny of communists cannot be accepted by democratic governments!"
The Kennedy administration has also criticized Biao's action's, declaring that such a move only hurt his government reputation, and that the United States would continue to fight for democracy around the Globe.
Los Angeles Times, October 20th, 1971
..............
Protests in Brazil end in violence
Yesterday, a new series of protests took place in Rio de Janeiro against the military dictatorship that has been ruling the nation since 1964. Thousands gathered on the streets to demmand a end to political and imperialist american practices in the country, and call for democratic elections.
The protesters were met with police violence that resulted in the deaths of over 20 protesters and many more injured. This degree of violence has set new levels to wich the U.S. backed Military dictatorship will do to mantain order.
Similar protests have taken place in multiple countries around South America, such as Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay. All of these currently under military dictatorships.
Le Monde Diplomatique, February 3rd, 1972
.............
He could hear the commotion outside. He didn't expect so many supporters there, but he sure liked it. The people new who was the right voice for the party, and it was him. He couldn't avoid feeling a bit humbled by the whole thing. He had fought for his country before he went into politics. His work with entertainment had made a diference on morale, he was sure of that. And now he served his nation in a different way, behind a desk.
- Mr. Governor, they are ready for you. That was Mr. wilcox, a pencil pusher and one of his many campaign heads. A bright young kid, if a bit stiff.
- Thank you son. He got up and headed for the door. as the mayor announced him the commotion grew considerably.
-...And next president of the United States! The Mayor said cheerfully for the crowd, as the candidate walked into the stage. It was very bright outiside, blindlinly so.
- Thank you Mr. Mayor, and thank you Florida! That last part got a very big cheer from the crowd. As a Nation, we've faced many trials these past few years. Now i believe it's time for us to turn a new page in our countrie's history. To return it to it's original greatness! The crowd was making quite a ruckus now. Damm, he was really good at this.
- We'l fight to make our country great again, and in November, we will show that to Washington!
As he finished his speech, he couldn't help but wonder about 1968. He refused Nixon's offer back then, and that might have been a mistake. He had divided many republican's back them. But he showed his strength. He was popular and he knew it. Now Nixon wasn't running. With te man's endorsement he could bring the Conservative republicans together and beat Rockefeller and his so called progressives. And then he would smash that son of a bitch Kennedy come November. Surely Nixon would not hold a grudge, and would do what's right for the Party.
As Ronald Reagan left the stage, he couldnt help but admire what a beatiful morning it was.
...............
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted member 92121
Hi everyone, i'm going on vacation for the next two weeks, and so there will be no updates till early August. I'm sorry i didn't get to post the Primaries this weekend, there was just a lot of stuff going on. As soon as i return i'll update the story, with the Republican and Democratic Primaries detailed.
You're so vain
Deleted member 92121
You're so vain
As 1972 dragged around the corner, the election time had arrived once again in America. At first, it seemed that this election would be a much more straight up affair then it's predecessor. The 1968 election had been a historical occasion. With the tumultuous Republican stand-off between Nixon and Rockefeller, the death of Vice-president Humphrey, the birth of the American Independent Party and the ascension of Kennedy to front-runner and later president. It had in many ways shaken the United States in a way few, if any, other election had ever before. There was so many ideologies, beliefs and ideas for what america should become (and for that matter what America was in the first place), that the playing field became blurry.
Now, four years later, the image seemed much clearer.
President Robert F. Kennedy had announced his intentions of seeking re-election for a while now, and kept himself busy on the campaign trail. To many, he was not only the best option, but the only option. It was true that Kennedy had accomplished a great deal during his first term. Major legislation had passed, expanding social welfare, education, the space program among others. The president had successfully ended American military presence in Vietnam, fulfilling his biggest promise, in the meanwhile weakening the Warsaw Pact by negotiating Czechoslovakia exit during the Prague Spring. All that coupled with the moon landing, made his image pristine to many.
The fact that Bobby Kennedy knew how to capitalize on all of his administration successes made him a powerful figures. This was a charismatic man, one that could play to his charm, and his name. By expanding the executive support for the Space Program, civil rights, and welfare, he was not only strenghtening his own beliefs, but tying his image to that of his late brother, and by extension the famous concept of "Camelot".
The Democratic Party was not fully united behind Kennedy, however. The President's liberal stance had alienated many southern democrats. This had fueled George Wallace and his AIP, while leading to a near schism in the Party by early 1970. Since then the President had done much to mend the differences. He had appointed noted southern democrats to his cabinet, and toned down many of his proposals. It had, in large part, succeeded. But not entirely.
John Connaly, former governor of Texas, was, from early on the race, Kennedy's main opponent. The Texan represented to many a more moderate and traditional Democratic Party. Connaly had always been an ambitious figure in the party. As governor, he had been very influential, holding a key electoral state, his support for the party had been very important in previous elections, making sure that Texas remained a democratic powerhouse.
Presidents Kennedy – A time and a place, Jason Petersburg
..............
As the primaries arrived in March, things looked good for the president. He won New Hampshire with great ease. Florida went to Connaly by les then 20 thousand votes, and left many worried. The worry, however, seemed to evaporate as Kennedy swooped a large landslide in Illinois. April followed with more victories for the President. Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania al went to President Kennedy by very large margins. May 2nd proved a very important day, with primaries in Washington D.C., Ohio and Indiana. Connaly managed to win Indiana with a fair margin, but would lose both D.C. and Ohio, much to the Texan dismay.
And so, by early May, things looked quite grim for former governor John Connaly. Tennessee had seemed like a possible vitory for him, but governor Presley, in the height of his popularity made sure that Kennedy would have the Volunteer State. Therefore, by May 17th, after receiving news of his close defeat in Maryland, John Connaly ended his run for president.
There are rumors that the Texan had hoped to use his race to force Kennedy into giving him a cabinet position. Some historians even state that Connaly had eyes on the Vice-presidency. His failure to threaten Kennedy's run, however, led to any possibility of a deal evaporating.
When the Democratic National Convention arrived in July 10, there was not really any competition left for the President. Ed Muskie, Henry Jackson, even Eugene McCarthy. These were all names put forward in the ballots. But none was of any actual threat. Muskie was quite confortable in his position of Secretary of State, and intended to remain there for the forseable future. Jackson was one of Kennedy's greatest supporters, even if a critic of the president's policy on Vietnam. And Eugene McCarthy was a spent force and knew it.
Victory came in the first Ballot.
In his acceptance speech, Robert F. Kennedy promised to continue to fight for equality, and fairness in the United States. Not one of his most remarkable speeches, it was quite short, and to many, not specially inspired. Regardless, Kennedy had secured his position in his Party, and now moved on to secure his position in the white house.
History of the Democratic Party, from Jackson to Clinton, Michael A. Cormack
...............
The Republican Party was, to put it in a word, shaken up. 1968 had done great damage, and now, Lincoln's party struggled to keep up. The so-called "Progressive move" of the early 1970's as it's known today was an attempt of the Party to switch to a more moderate stance. The Republican's had faced defeat repeatedly. It seemed that conservatism was not appealing to many. So, right after their loss in 1968, the GOP would tie itself to the image of Nelson Rockefeller and his "progressives" in a attempt to finnaly gain a edge.
Rockefeller's nomination, to the vast majority of the population, seemed as clear as Kennedy's. No one expected the New Yorker to do so well as he did in 1968. Now he would come blow to blow with Kennedy. That was all quite obvious.
To others, it didn't seem such a certain outcome. The conservatives in the GOP still had a voice, and that voice came in the form of Ronald Reagan.
The Californian would announce his run early on. A big surprise in 1968, Reagan had managed to gain quite a number of votes as a third option, before finally dropping out in support of the other Californian candidate. Now he would try again, placing himself as a defender of the "True Republican party" and of traditional American values.
As the primaries took shape, a question remained in the minds of many political players.
Where was Richard Nixon?
History of the Republican Party, from Lincoln to Cheney, Michael A. Cormack
.................
Tis i!!! Sorry for the long wait, finnaly returned from my trip and have once again access to my PC and a proper keyboard. More coming tomorrow!
As 1972 dragged around the corner, the election time had arrived once again in America. At first, it seemed that this election would be a much more straight up affair then it's predecessor. The 1968 election had been a historical occasion. With the tumultuous Republican stand-off between Nixon and Rockefeller, the death of Vice-president Humphrey, the birth of the American Independent Party and the ascension of Kennedy to front-runner and later president. It had in many ways shaken the United States in a way few, if any, other election had ever before. There was so many ideologies, beliefs and ideas for what america should become (and for that matter what America was in the first place), that the playing field became blurry.
Now, four years later, the image seemed much clearer.
President Robert F. Kennedy had announced his intentions of seeking re-election for a while now, and kept himself busy on the campaign trail. To many, he was not only the best option, but the only option. It was true that Kennedy had accomplished a great deal during his first term. Major legislation had passed, expanding social welfare, education, the space program among others. The president had successfully ended American military presence in Vietnam, fulfilling his biggest promise, in the meanwhile weakening the Warsaw Pact by negotiating Czechoslovakia exit during the Prague Spring. All that coupled with the moon landing, made his image pristine to many.
The fact that Bobby Kennedy knew how to capitalize on all of his administration successes made him a powerful figures. This was a charismatic man, one that could play to his charm, and his name. By expanding the executive support for the Space Program, civil rights, and welfare, he was not only strenghtening his own beliefs, but tying his image to that of his late brother, and by extension the famous concept of "Camelot".
The Democratic Party was not fully united behind Kennedy, however. The President's liberal stance had alienated many southern democrats. This had fueled George Wallace and his AIP, while leading to a near schism in the Party by early 1970. Since then the President had done much to mend the differences. He had appointed noted southern democrats to his cabinet, and toned down many of his proposals. It had, in large part, succeeded. But not entirely.
John Connaly, former governor of Texas, was, from early on the race, Kennedy's main opponent. The Texan represented to many a more moderate and traditional Democratic Party. Connaly had always been an ambitious figure in the party. As governor, he had been very influential, holding a key electoral state, his support for the party had been very important in previous elections, making sure that Texas remained a democratic powerhouse.
Presidents Kennedy – A time and a place, Jason Petersburg
..............
As the primaries arrived in March, things looked good for the president. He won New Hampshire with great ease. Florida went to Connaly by les then 20 thousand votes, and left many worried. The worry, however, seemed to evaporate as Kennedy swooped a large landslide in Illinois. April followed with more victories for the President. Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania al went to President Kennedy by very large margins. May 2nd proved a very important day, with primaries in Washington D.C., Ohio and Indiana. Connaly managed to win Indiana with a fair margin, but would lose both D.C. and Ohio, much to the Texan dismay.
And so, by early May, things looked quite grim for former governor John Connaly. Tennessee had seemed like a possible vitory for him, but governor Presley, in the height of his popularity made sure that Kennedy would have the Volunteer State. Therefore, by May 17th, after receiving news of his close defeat in Maryland, John Connaly ended his run for president.
There are rumors that the Texan had hoped to use his race to force Kennedy into giving him a cabinet position. Some historians even state that Connaly had eyes on the Vice-presidency. His failure to threaten Kennedy's run, however, led to any possibility of a deal evaporating.
When the Democratic National Convention arrived in July 10, there was not really any competition left for the President. Ed Muskie, Henry Jackson, even Eugene McCarthy. These were all names put forward in the ballots. But none was of any actual threat. Muskie was quite confortable in his position of Secretary of State, and intended to remain there for the forseable future. Jackson was one of Kennedy's greatest supporters, even if a critic of the president's policy on Vietnam. And Eugene McCarthy was a spent force and knew it.
Victory came in the first Ballot.
In his acceptance speech, Robert F. Kennedy promised to continue to fight for equality, and fairness in the United States. Not one of his most remarkable speeches, it was quite short, and to many, not specially inspired. Regardless, Kennedy had secured his position in his Party, and now moved on to secure his position in the white house.
History of the Democratic Party, from Jackson to Clinton, Michael A. Cormack
...............
The Republican Party was, to put it in a word, shaken up. 1968 had done great damage, and now, Lincoln's party struggled to keep up. The so-called "Progressive move" of the early 1970's as it's known today was an attempt of the Party to switch to a more moderate stance. The Republican's had faced defeat repeatedly. It seemed that conservatism was not appealing to many. So, right after their loss in 1968, the GOP would tie itself to the image of Nelson Rockefeller and his "progressives" in a attempt to finnaly gain a edge.
Rockefeller's nomination, to the vast majority of the population, seemed as clear as Kennedy's. No one expected the New Yorker to do so well as he did in 1968. Now he would come blow to blow with Kennedy. That was all quite obvious.
To others, it didn't seem such a certain outcome. The conservatives in the GOP still had a voice, and that voice came in the form of Ronald Reagan.
The Californian would announce his run early on. A big surprise in 1968, Reagan had managed to gain quite a number of votes as a third option, before finally dropping out in support of the other Californian candidate. Now he would try again, placing himself as a defender of the "True Republican party" and of traditional American values.
As the primaries took shape, a question remained in the minds of many political players.
Where was Richard Nixon?
History of the Republican Party, from Lincoln to Cheney, Michael A. Cormack
.................
Tis i!!! Sorry for the long wait, finnaly returned from my trip and have once again access to my PC and a proper keyboard. More coming tomorrow!
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted member 92121
He was supposed to win Indiana and lose D.C. and Ohio. Will correct. Thanks for pointing it out.
You're so vain - Part 2
Deleted member 92121
You're so vain - Part 2
By 1972 Richard Nixon was a spent force to many. Having lost two elections, twice to a Kennedy. The former Vice-President had spent the last four years on private practice, involved in a series of projects in California.
His voice, however, still caried a lot of weight among many Republicans. He might not have been capable of winning another nomination, or even shown a inclination for trying, but his influence was far from fully diminished. In that context, Ronald Reagan would call him right after winnning the Florida primary on March 15th.
The Nixon-Reagan calls, as they're known today, are quite famous examples of back-door politics that remain part of the political arena to this day.
-Good night Mr. Vice-President. I'm sorry about the time.
-It's not night yet in California Mr. Governor. I heard of your victory there in Florida. I believe congratulations are due.
-Thank you Mr. Vice-President. I believe you know the reason i'm calling you sir.
-Yes Ronald i'm aware. You want my support. My help securing the nomination and getting you to the white house.
-Yes sir, Rockefeller has the support of most of the party, but if we conservatives stick together, we can take it back, from that i'm sure. My victory today proves that there's support for our stance.
-Yes, and you need me to do for you what i did for Goldwater in 64, steal the rug from Rockefeller's feet.
-Your support for Goldwater was paramount for his nomination sir, that's quite clear to everyone. This time we can beat Kennedy and secure the White House for the Party.
- No.
- Sir?
- Four years ago i asked for your support in the primaries. I offered you the chance to be Vice-President, Ronald and you said no.
-Mr. Vice-President i was
-You were proud and ambitious and you led to that stalemate between me and Rockefeller. And now you expect me to support you counting on some grudge i might have against the man. So no Mr. Governor, i will do what's better for the unity of the Party.
-Mr. Vice-President...
Exerpt from the Nixon Recordings - March 15th, 1972
................
The Republican primaries were, in many ways, very similar to the Democratic counterparts. There was a clear front-runner, followed by a contender whom represented a older, more traditional branch of the Party. In this case, Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald Reagan. And much like the democratic primaries, the contender showed little true traction.
Rockefeller would win New Hampshire easily enough. Florida would fall on a landslide to Reagan. But that would prove his only victory. Illinois, Winsconsin, Massachussetts and Pennsylvania would all go to Rockefeller. By late April, with his expected support not materializing, Ronald Reagan ended his campaign.
Many theorize that the reason Reagan decided to end his campaign early was a desire to run again in 1976. The man had arleady been defeated in the 1968 convention, and losing another one might mean wasting his political capital. Better to wait for the right opportunity. It was not until decades later that the Nixon Recordings came to light. The refusal of Richard Nixon to suport Reagan meant that the candidate would have little chance uniting the Party under his views. The GOP would be moving for a more moderate stance after all.
The 1972 Republican National Convention, just like it's Democratic counterpart, would be won before it even took place. Governor of New York, Nelson A. Rockefeller would take the nomination on the first Ballot. For his Vice-President he would choose Michigan Governor George Romney, his choice four years earlier.
His acceptance speech would be, much like his Democratic opponent, fairly unremarkable. There was no place or need for a great rousing speech, however. Rockefeller was not a ideological opponent to Kennedy, like Reagan or Nixon. And the man was popular among many, both in his state as well as around the Country. He could only hope it would be enough to beat Kennedy in the following months.
As the election approached, both candidates would dedicate much of their time to the campaign trail. On one side there was Kennedy, seeking to preserve his seat for another four years, and on the other, Rockefeller hoping that his Party's new stance would deliver it the White house after 12 years of Democratic control.
Time only would tell.
New York Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller, 1972
History of the Republican Party, from Lincoln to Cheney, Michael A. Cormack
...................
By 1972 Richard Nixon was a spent force to many. Having lost two elections, twice to a Kennedy. The former Vice-President had spent the last four years on private practice, involved in a series of projects in California.
His voice, however, still caried a lot of weight among many Republicans. He might not have been capable of winning another nomination, or even shown a inclination for trying, but his influence was far from fully diminished. In that context, Ronald Reagan would call him right after winnning the Florida primary on March 15th.
The Nixon-Reagan calls, as they're known today, are quite famous examples of back-door politics that remain part of the political arena to this day.
-Good night Mr. Vice-President. I'm sorry about the time.
-It's not night yet in California Mr. Governor. I heard of your victory there in Florida. I believe congratulations are due.
-Thank you Mr. Vice-President. I believe you know the reason i'm calling you sir.
-Yes Ronald i'm aware. You want my support. My help securing the nomination and getting you to the white house.
-Yes sir, Rockefeller has the support of most of the party, but if we conservatives stick together, we can take it back, from that i'm sure. My victory today proves that there's support for our stance.
-Yes, and you need me to do for you what i did for Goldwater in 64, steal the rug from Rockefeller's feet.
-Your support for Goldwater was paramount for his nomination sir, that's quite clear to everyone. This time we can beat Kennedy and secure the White House for the Party.
- No.
- Sir?
- Four years ago i asked for your support in the primaries. I offered you the chance to be Vice-President, Ronald and you said no.
-Mr. Vice-President i was
-You were proud and ambitious and you led to that stalemate between me and Rockefeller. And now you expect me to support you counting on some grudge i might have against the man. So no Mr. Governor, i will do what's better for the unity of the Party.
-Mr. Vice-President...
Exerpt from the Nixon Recordings - March 15th, 1972
................
The Republican primaries were, in many ways, very similar to the Democratic counterparts. There was a clear front-runner, followed by a contender whom represented a older, more traditional branch of the Party. In this case, Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald Reagan. And much like the democratic primaries, the contender showed little true traction.
Rockefeller would win New Hampshire easily enough. Florida would fall on a landslide to Reagan. But that would prove his only victory. Illinois, Winsconsin, Massachussetts and Pennsylvania would all go to Rockefeller. By late April, with his expected support not materializing, Ronald Reagan ended his campaign.
Many theorize that the reason Reagan decided to end his campaign early was a desire to run again in 1976. The man had arleady been defeated in the 1968 convention, and losing another one might mean wasting his political capital. Better to wait for the right opportunity. It was not until decades later that the Nixon Recordings came to light. The refusal of Richard Nixon to suport Reagan meant that the candidate would have little chance uniting the Party under his views. The GOP would be moving for a more moderate stance after all.
The 1972 Republican National Convention, just like it's Democratic counterpart, would be won before it even took place. Governor of New York, Nelson A. Rockefeller would take the nomination on the first Ballot. For his Vice-President he would choose Michigan Governor George Romney, his choice four years earlier.
His acceptance speech would be, much like his Democratic opponent, fairly unremarkable. There was no place or need for a great rousing speech, however. Rockefeller was not a ideological opponent to Kennedy, like Reagan or Nixon. And the man was popular among many, both in his state as well as around the Country. He could only hope it would be enough to beat Kennedy in the following months.
As the election approached, both candidates would dedicate much of their time to the campaign trail. On one side there was Kennedy, seeking to preserve his seat for another four years, and on the other, Rockefeller hoping that his Party's new stance would deliver it the White house after 12 years of Democratic control.
Time only would tell.
New York Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller, 1972
History of the Republican Party, from Lincoln to Cheney, Michael A. Cormack
...................