TLIAW: The Reluctant Republican

Johnson saw his blood pressure spike over the next few months, and had greatly increased flatulence.
Not cool Emperor Norton I, not cool at all. :rolleyes: :p However, is that an Airplane! reference in the quote? :eek: If so, I love that movie, but it WAS made in the 80s...so :p
 
Last edited:
Not cool Emperor Norton I, not cool at all. :rolleyes: :p However, is that an Airplane! reference in the quote? :eek: If so, I love that movie, but it WAS made in the 80s...so :p

It actually really happened to Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower was so sure Nixon was going to win, he held off on a lot of things until Nixon could take them on and do them himself. He could not stand Kennedy. When Kennedy won, Eisenhower all but had a panic attack. Until he left office, he had high blood pressure and flatulence. And his doctor blamed Kennedy for it.
 
I almost forgot to mention to those of you who may not know, but the "Ringo For President" thing in 1964 was totally real. It wasn't serious, but there were fans who walked around with signs and there were campaign buttons and a lot of other cultural ephemera. So that is where that came from.:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIgWj3y4aaU

I rather enjoyed that. That was written in one sit down outburst, and I haven't had that creative vigor on the timeline in a bit. I'm debating what I could do next April if the timeline is around another year. Maybe I'll continue the Ringo story, or maybe I could do a bunch of other people as the reluctant Republican of 1964. I also apologize for not getting you all a proper update beforehand. I tried the last few days of March but I just hit a mental wall.
 
Concerning formatting, I don't have that issue with my computer. (Link to my computer). Does anyone else have that issue?


Yes. My display is 1024x768 and the title bar image is 1030 pixels wide.

A lot of posts with wide images have this problem. It forces the text to be that wide too. Normally, text flows to fit the screen.

Also - as regards Humphrey. Tom Roeser had something to say about LBJ's VP selection. (Roeser was a legendary political observer/liaison for Quaker Oats. He started out as a reporter covering Humphrey's first Senate campaign, attended every national convention for decades. Though a Republican, he knew everybody and was very attuned to everything going on in the back rooms.) Johnson had no preference for Humphrey in particular in 1964. He decided he needed a northern liberal to balance his ticket, and that Humphrey and McCarthy were the two best alternatives. He then let them compete for his choice, in what was basically a grovelling contest - Humphrey won.

So I don't see Johnson spontaneously deciding to back Humphrey or reaching out to him first.
 
Last edited:
Yes. My display is 1024x768 and the title bar image is 1030 pixels wide.

A lot of posts with wide images have this problem. It forces the text to be that wide too. Normally, text flows to fit the screen.

It's going to have to stay the way it is. I can't edit the posts now given the time limit to edit.

Also - as regards Humphrey. Tom Roeser had something to say about LBJ's VP selection. (Roeser was a legendary political observer/liaison for Quaker Oats. He started out as a reporter covering Humphrey's first Senate campaign, attended every national convention for decades. Though a Republican, he knew everybody and was very attuned to everything going on in the back rooms.) Johnson had no preference for Humphrey in particular in 1964. He decided he needed a northern liberal to balance his ticket, and that Humphrey and McCarthy were the two best alternatives. He then let them compete for his choice, in what was basically a grovelling contest - Humphrey won.

So I don't see Johnson spontaneously deciding to back Humphrey or reaching out to him first.
Hubert Humphrey was the strongest candidate outside of Johnson or Kennedy in 1960, he's really the name going into 1964 other than Robert Kennedy, and he is an easy sell to the Liberals, and has great potential in 1964. He can also be manipulated by Johnson if he so pleases. Hence, LBJ picked him for vice president. Hence why here, LBJ picks him to be his successor who will bear the burden of the presidency, but whom Johnson could act as adviser to since Humphrey would -in Johnson's mind- feel in debt to him for the presidency. That's why Johnson doesn't just wait for Humphrey to enter the primaries, which Humphrey could have done. There's also debate on the issue of the vice presidency. I tend to agree with Robert Dallek on this; Johnson appears to have always really preferred Humphrey, but had a list of other possible vice presidents and acted like he was comparing Humphrey to the other candidates to intimidate Humphrey and do all the other Johnson treatment mind/power games.
 
No hopes to be gotten up as of this post. I cannot devote time to an update for the next couple of weeks. Its the end of the college semester. My attention is generally elsewhere outside of some quick or easy posts on the forum. You'll get something at some point. I just don't know when.

In the meanwhile, I have started some presidential election polls in Shared Worlds taking the alternate tangent where Humphrey wins 1964 instead of Romney in this scenario. It's somewhat of a timeline in itself since I'm describing the world as it unfolds from election to election. It's currently on 1972 after eight glorious years of Hubert Humphrey. So if you want to, check it out until the timeline returns.
 
I see Humphrey winning the Democratic nomination. I am giddy about a Humphrey presidency. ( 1965 -1973) A Great Society or whatever his pr people would have called it as well progress in civil rights. Liberal justices replace Clark, Warren, Douglas, Black and Harlan on the Supreme Court and no war in Vietnam. Of course Romney would give HHH some competition. I can see one good thing about a Romney nomination. My high school government teacher said if George Romney had gotten the nomination, there would have been a law suit challenging the Mexican born Romney's eligibility to be president. I think he is right. While politics were more polite in those days, there would have been a zealot. The Supreme Court would have ruled 9-0 that Romney, the child of US citizens was a natural born citizen. If the presidency of Barack Obama is not butterflied away, there would have been an automatic response to the birthers. Notice I suggested the presidency of Barack Obama could have been butterflied away.
 
I see Humphrey winning the Democratic nomination. I am giddy about a Humphrey presidency. ( 1965 -1973) A Great Society or whatever his pr people would have called it as well progress in civil rights. Liberal justices replace Clark, Warren, Douglas, Black and Harlan on the Supreme Court and no war in Vietnam. Of course Romney would give HHH some competition. I can see one good thing about a Romney nomination. My high school government teacher said if George Romney had gotten the nomination, there would have been a law suit challenging the Mexican born Romney's eligibility to be president. I think he is right. While politics were more polite in those days, there would have been a zealot. The Supreme Court would have ruled 9-0 that Romney, the child of US citizens was a natural born citizen. If the presidency of Barack Obama is not butterflied away, there would have been an automatic response to the birthers. Notice I suggested the presidency of Barack Obama could have been butterflied away.

Romney must win. However, the scenario where Humphrey won 1964 has become the basis for the polls I have running in Shared Worlds until I get back to the timeline. It wasn't originally intended to be that, but the polling has taken it that direction. It's become something of an interactive timeline since I do a brief history update description from poll to poll.

I had given thought to doing the Humphrey version of this scenario as a proper timeline at some point but I don't know. The core idea of LBJ dropping out of 1964 does seem to have a lot of possibilities for spinoffs. I wouldn't know what to call it, though. I had thought of The Happy Democrat.

I'll link to the current poll, because why not?

1972 Democrat
1972 Republican

I think it's too late to butterfly Vietnam.

Not necessarily, but it does relate to what really interests me in this topic. It's something of a mixing bowl of different "what if" vibes. Romney 1964 is part "WI:Kennedy Lived", part "WI:Nixon won 1960", part "WI:Eisenhower Had No Term Limit". It's different version of the possible 1960s from each scenario mixed together. What if Vietnam goes forward, but is a more limited war? What if Vietnam is totally avoided, but not by Kennedy's America?
 
Last edited:
Eh...why not. I've always wanted to see a good George Romney TL.

Screen_shot_2012-05-10_at_4.38.30_PM.png
 
I don't know. The response has been more "meh, why not?" rather than great interest. There's quite a lot of research that would still need to be done, and I don't know if it's worth investing in.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
I'm curious in seeing this continue. No one has really done anything with George Romney, and it's always nice to see a different look on the time period.
 
Top