What if Arnold Rowland got a better look?

On November 22, 1963, Arnold Rowland looked up at a window in the sixth floor of Texas School Book Depository and saw a silhouette with a rifle. He told his wife look there is a Secret Service Agent. What if he could see that Oswald was wearing a white t shirt and he knew that Secret Service agents wear suits. He could have told a nearby police officer. The motorcade would have been diverted and Kennedy' life would have been saved. There is a police raid on the School Book Depository and Oswald dies in a shoot out. Kennedy does not have LBJ's talent in dealing with Congress. So I doubt there is a 1964 Civil Rights Act. There is nothing ITTL that stops Goldwater from winning the nomination. So Kennedy Johnson, LBJ stays on the ticket, is reelected by a wide margin. Not as wide as OTL. In 1965 the Congress is friendlier but not as friendly as OTL. Maybe Medicare passes, but I am not sure how much of the OTL Great Society passes. After Selma, there an omnibus civil rights bill covering voting rights, employment and public accommodations passes. The big mystery of the surviving Kennedy is Vietnam. I once talked to someone who doing a dissertation on Kennedy's Vietnam policy. He had no clue what he was going to do. I think he was not inclined to send in combat troops. He would have been obligated to send in troops if things were going badly for South Vietnam. So there could very well be a Vietnam War during Kennedy's second term. This of course makes the 1968 election a mystery. Although I am confident that Humphrey is the Democratic candidate and Richard Nixon is the Republican nominee. So what does everyone else think?
 
OK, which is it: combat troops or not? You say you believe he wouldn't be inclined to send in such troops in one sentence and nearly contradict yourself by saying he was obligated to do so in the next. Are you saying he would have gone against his own convictions in the face of a perceived obligation? Doesn't say much for holding true to one's principles if he held a conviction to not send in such troops and was willing to subordinate those principles to a perceived obligation.

Never, NEVER lose sight that Kennedy was a thorough Cold Warrior, and a macho type to boot. If he thought he could have kicked butt and evened the score for missiles in Cuba (never mind getting Khrushchev to back down), he would have done so by committing US combat troops to Viet Nam. And it would have resulted in an evolution of that situation very similar to what happened IOTL.

I think you're correct at the identity of the 1968 candidates. And presumably with no Wallace in the picture (you don't mention him specifically), the more conservative vote would go largely to Nixon, yielding a more decisive GOP victory in that year.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Kennedy will probably struggle to pass jack of what Johnson did, though winning over Goldwater, whilst a challenge, is something he'll more than likely win. On a side note, with Kennedy around, the Vice Presidency is about to get a whole bunch more power.

Whilst I personally believe that Kennedy's administration will be tarred during his second term by revelations of his EXTRAORDINARILY MASSIVE infidelity (no matter how you cut it, he had cheated on Jackie a few dozen times, which would dwarf most political sex scandals, and given his Catholic heritage would severely harm his support base and any image of him being a moral individual. Also, this is the '60s, so its kinda a big deal) or Vietnam, which would undoubtedly explode under him, or his Health, which might just kill him before January '69, Humphrey's would be free of any and all scandals and controversy of the administration, allowing him to appear as a 'Clean Democrat' during the '68 Election. Though he might not win against Nixon.
 
OK, which is it: combat troops or not? You say you believe he wouldn't be inclined to send in such troops in one sentence and nearly contradict yourself by saying he was obligated to do so in the next. Are you saying he would have gone against his own convictions in the face of a perceived obligation? Doesn't say much for holding true to one's principles if he held a conviction to not send in such troops and was willing to subordinate those principles to a perceived obligation.

If it looks like the South Vietnamese are going to lose, there would political pressure to send in the troops.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
He couldn't shot at Kennedy, because Kennedy does not drive by the Grassy Knoll ITTL. Of course, he can't shoot at all because the Grassy Knoll Shooter is imaginary.

Clearly this is a conspiracy to deny the existence of the CIA's secret 'Imaginary Agent' who went rouge and shot Kennedy from an imaginary position with imaginary bullets
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
I always like it when agents become French Communists. And/or makeup.

Clearly we are also dealing with Communist Mimes from Quebec.

But yeah, I actually want to note that even if Rowland reported this, I do doubt it'll have little impact outside Oswald being caught immediately.
 
Vietnam or no Vietnam

Nixon is elected in 1968, due to shift to Republicans.

Vietnam ?????? Kennedy does not want to lose it on his watch. He already has observers there. It is 50/50 if he commits troops. 50 / 50 for Gulf of Tonkin incident.

The best case, no troops. He does lend air support, but carrier based planes only for limited air strikes. No B-52's, no ground troops. Continues massive aid and training to South Vietnam. Doubtful that South Vietnam can hold on.

He does strengthen other ties in Asia.

Space program will be big hit. With no big Vietnam, might be a couple more moon landings.
 
Whilst I personally believe that Kennedy's administration will be tarred during his second term by revelations of his EXTRAORDINARILY MASSIVE infidelity (no matter how you cut it, he had cheated on Jackie a few dozen times, which would dwarf most political sex scandals, and given his Catholic heritage would severely harm his support base and any image of him being a moral individual.

Why does the press stop minding their own business?
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Whilst I personally believe that Kennedy's administration will be tarred during his second term by revelations of his EXTRAORDINARILY MASSIVE infidelity (no matter how you cut it, he had cheated on Jackie a few dozen times, which would dwarf most political sex scandals, and given his Catholic heritage would severely harm his support base and any image of him being a moral individual.

Why does the press stop minding their own business?

The moment it becomes their interest to report the fact the President is having sex with hundreds of women who aren't his wife, with one or two being Soviet Agents, ergo, threatening national security. Yeah, right up to Reagan President's had mistress' or someone on the side, but Kennedy simply dwarfs them in comparison- eventually, someone is going to blow the whistle on him, especially if he starts pissing on the wrongs legs during his second term.
 
Yeah, right up to Reagan President's had mistress' or someone on the side,

There is no evidence that Nixon, Ford or Carter had someone on the side.
 
Top