He (RFK) would have been 86 years old today, November 20, 2006.
R.I.P.
Duggo
R.I.P.
Duggo
Had Bobby lived...
- Thread starter Duggo
- Start date
Would have been president, too.
- Thread starter
- #3
Ok, I don't remember it, but, it aired on TV, and Sir David Frost was interviewing RFK in the basement of hotel in Oregon in May? of 68. Probably the last interview he gave.
In that interview, it was a total given, Frost conceded the point, something to the effect of: When you're inaugurated next January....
From another program on TV: A detective investigating the murder of RFK was absolutely certain he was going to win, and he was a Republican!
The crowds in California, treated Bobby "like he was a rock star," said George Plimpton, who kept a picture of Bobby on his desk.
Just as a side note: When I saw the headline in the Washington Post that George W. Bush was attracting very large crowds, I knew then, who was going to win the 2004 election....I digress.
I heard Frank Mankewitz (sp?), RFK's press secretary at the time, say he thought it was going to be a very tough campaign. In other words, He didn't think that Bobby was a shoe in to win.
The following might have been from "Nixon": I remember Nixon saying, "Two people had to die, before I could become President." I don't know if that was really said by Dick Nixon, or not. But, it indicates to me that with Bobby now out of the way, he felt a lot better about his chances.
I think he would have won, just on his name alone, and the type of campaign he ran.
But you have to wonder, Had he made it to Chicago, Would the convention have been so fractured and disastrous?
Had he won the election:
Would the Democrats have held on to the south? Now a Republican stronghold.
And of course, the ultimate question:
You know how things turned out. But, Had RFK been the 37th President, How do you think things would be different today? How do you think he would have effected policy? How do you think things would have turned out?
Therein lies the tragedy of it all. What if? What if? It's a question that really has no answers, but fosters the legend, and that's fine by me.
Duggo
We need Bobby now, more than ever.
Two of the most powerful words in the English language are "if" and "why". They are good for conversation, but in a situation like this, they don't equate to reality. What if JFK had not been killed. It's like the accident I was involved in last year. What "if" I had left a few minutes earlier, or later? Or taken a different route? I've reached the point I don't dwell on things like this. The new "Bobby" movie sounds interesting, and I'll probably watch it once it is on DVD. I do remember when he was killed. I was young enough that I didn't totally understand it, but I do remember watching the t.v. reports. The Kennedy family has been struck with much tragedy. So, what "if" I had been born a Kennedy?
Randy
Randy
Not necessarily. When Kennedy was killed, he was actually behind Humphrey in the polls as far as the Democratic nomination went, and McCarthy was a close third. In the final election, Nixon won by a fairly commanding majority of both the popular and the electoral votes. I think there is a romantic view of Bobby Kennedy now that was not so prevalent at the time -- while he was young and charismatic, and largely admired, he was not really the nation's choice for a president. JFK and Johnson were seen as having gotten the U.S. into a nightmare of a war in Vietnam, and Nixon was seen as the most likely candidate to put an end to it. Moreover, the Democratic party was badly splintered and dysfunctional (Wallace voters were southern Democrats, not Republicans, and the rest of the party was divided over the war, union and labor issues, and social issues). It is actually extremely unlikely that RFK would have won the presidency in 1968. Had he won the nomination, he probably would have fared only slightly better than Humphrey did.
I am inclined to thing that Zach is right on this one. Hard to say for sure though. And, as Randy points out, there is not much point to what ifs. But it is interesting to think about this one. Personally, I suspect that not a lot would have been different had RFK been elected, even. Nixon had a mandate to get us the heck out of Vietnam. But at that point, RFK would have to. There just wasn't any way an elected official could have taken any other path.
The important laws of the civil rights movement had already been passed. The key laws of the environmental movement were signed by Nixon, and obviously would have been by RFK too. Honestly, on the whole, I just don't think there would have been a huge difference.
At least in what did happen, and what he would have done as president. The biggest impact, I am quite sure, would have been what DID NOT happen. Yes. That. The white house scandals, if anything, would likely have been more Clintonesque, I suspect. The White House has been plagued by scandal and occasional corruption for 200 years. But Watergate had a significant impact on the modern presidency. It would be interesting to know whether the President would have noticeably more power and credibility now if that had not happened.
-Mo
The important laws of the civil rights movement had already been passed. The key laws of the environmental movement were signed by Nixon, and obviously would have been by RFK too. Honestly, on the whole, I just don't think there would have been a huge difference.
At least in what did happen, and what he would have done as president. The biggest impact, I am quite sure, would have been what DID NOT happen. Yes. That. The white house scandals, if anything, would likely have been more Clintonesque, I suspect. The White House has been plagued by scandal and occasional corruption for 200 years. But Watergate had a significant impact on the modern presidency. It would be interesting to know whether the President would have noticeably more power and credibility now if that had not happened.
-Mo
- Thread starter
- #7
Hiya,
You're saying, regardless, where we are, is where we are, is where we are. And sometimes I really wish I felt like that. Good for you, Good for you.
Unfortunately, more often than not, I left wondering what might have been. And like I said, therein lies the tragedy of it all. From my perspective, Just like the assinasstion of JFK five years earlier, we're left with more questions than answers.
Duggo
You're saying, regardless, where we are, is where we are, is where we are. And sometimes I really wish I felt like that. Good for you, Good for you.
Unfortunately, more often than not, I left wondering what might have been. And like I said, therein lies the tragedy of it all. From my perspective, Just like the assinasstion of JFK five years earlier, we're left with more questions than answers.
Duggo
Yes. Hank Williams, Jr. has a good song called, "If The South Woulda Won".
- Thread starter
- #9
Not necessarily. When Kennedy was killed, he was actually behind Humphrey in the polls as far as the Democratic nomination went, and McCarthy was a close third.
Well in the end Humphrey did get the nomination, and we all know how that turned out, and it was a disasterous convention.
I think there is a romantic view of Bobby Kennedy now that was not so prevalent at the time -- while he was young and charismatic, and largely admired, he was not really the nation's choice for a president.
I can relate to the funeral of a former president, quite popular I should say. They absolutely rewrote history. It can happen.
Who was the nations choice for president, Humphrey?
JFK and Johnson were seen as having gotten the U.S. into a nightmare of a war in Vietnam, and Nixon was seen as the most likely candidate to put an end to it.
I don't know if it's true or not, but a television program said that Bobby stood up in the U.S. Senate and took Full Responsibility for the war in Vietnam, because he was the only one that could. The same show also said that this was at a time when 2/3rds of the American people still supported the war. I think the speech was in '66. His popularity fell 20% overnight, according to the program.
It can't be proven one way or the other, but I heard on the newsgroup (usenet) that after Jack returned from Dallas they, Bobby and Jack, were going to re-examine the Vietnam issue.
I have a vague recollection of Nixon saying in 1968, Anyone who can't end the war in four years dosen't deserve to be re-elected to another 4 years. Isn't that right? Didn't he say he also had a plan?
Moreover, the Democratic party was badly splintered and dysfunctional (Wallace voters were southern Democrats, not Republicans, and the rest of the party was divided over the war, union and labor issues, and social issues). It is actually extremely unlikely that RFK would have won the presidency in 1968. Had he won the nomination, he probably would have fared only slightly better than Humphrey did
The Chicago convention was probably the worst convention on record. Thanks for the insight of the fractures of the party. I didn't know that. I just knew they were badly divided. But I have to wonder, if Bobby could have united the party. I wonder.
It's extremely unlikely that Bobby would have won the Nomination from the party because???
To your last point, Frank Mankewitz, RFK's press secretary at the time, did say (during a panel disscussion?) that it was going to be a very tough campaign. And according to another TV program, RFK made a lot of enemies in Washington, including LBJ, during the time he was campaign manager for his brother, and might have aquired a few more over the years???
Maybe your analysis is dead on. In that case, you don't have to wonder about the twists and turns that the course of events may have taken.
Maybe the voting public would have seen him as the peace candidate. And you can't say we'd be worse off with RFK in the White house (back then) because, he was against LBJ's policies and thought the country need to move in a new direction. Wouldn't the public view RFK as an alternative to LBJ's failed policies?
Duggo
- Thread starter
- #10
Why do you think the Democrats lost the South? That's another tragedy? 
Who was the nations choice for president, Humphrey?
Nixon! He won with 56% of the electoral vote. Humphrey received only 35%, with the rest going to Wallace.
I don't know if it's true or not, but a television program said that Bobby stood up in the U.S. Senate and took Full Responsibility for the war in Vietnam, because he was the only one that could. The same show also said that this was at a time when 2/3rds of the American people still supported the war. I think the speech was in '66. His popularity fell 20% overnight, according to the program.
Why would Bobby Kennedy be the only one responsible for the Vietnam war? He had nothing to do with it, and by '66 Johnson had everything to do with it.
It's extremely unlikely that Bobby would have won the Nomination from the party because???
I didn't say that. I said it is unlikely he would have won the presidency, regardless of whether he was nominated. The electoral votes speak for themselves -- Wallace's constituency were disenfranchised Southern Democrats who felt that JFK's and LBJ's social policies had left the working man out of the picture -- there's no way in hell that Bobby Kennedy would make them feel better about voting Democratic. And there's no reason to think that states which voted overwhelmingly Republican would have swung the other way for Bobby -- the 1968 election was largely seen as a "law and order" election, and a mandate on the policies of JFK and LBJ (more the latter than the former). Bobby would have just represented more of the same.
To your last point, Frank Mankewitz, RFK's press secretary at the time, did say (during a panel disscussion?) that it was going to be a very tough campaign. And according to another TV program, RFK made a lot of enemies in Washington, including LBJ, during the time he was campaign manager for his brother, and might have aquired a few more over the years???
Big time! The Kennedys were not popular with the Democratic "machine" politicians. The party back then was not as it is now -- its interests lay largely with the labor unions -- the same unions that Bobby claimed were overrun with the Mafia, and was intent on prosecuting!
Maybe the voting public would have seen him as the peace candidate. And you can't say we'd be worse off with RFK in the White house (back then) because, he was against LBJ's policies and thought the country need to move in a new direction. Wouldn't the public view RFK as an alternative to LBJ's failed policies?
The Great Society hadn't failed yet. There are still a lot of people who won't admit those policies have failed, even today. It was LBJ's progressiveness that brought the party down back then, not his conservatism.
Nixon! He won with 56% of the electoral vote. Humphrey received only 35%, with the rest going to Wallace.
I don't know if it's true or not, but a television program said that Bobby stood up in the U.S. Senate and took Full Responsibility for the war in Vietnam, because he was the only one that could. The same show also said that this was at a time when 2/3rds of the American people still supported the war. I think the speech was in '66. His popularity fell 20% overnight, according to the program.
Why would Bobby Kennedy be the only one responsible for the Vietnam war? He had nothing to do with it, and by '66 Johnson had everything to do with it.
It's extremely unlikely that Bobby would have won the Nomination from the party because???
I didn't say that. I said it is unlikely he would have won the presidency, regardless of whether he was nominated. The electoral votes speak for themselves -- Wallace's constituency were disenfranchised Southern Democrats who felt that JFK's and LBJ's social policies had left the working man out of the picture -- there's no way in hell that Bobby Kennedy would make them feel better about voting Democratic. And there's no reason to think that states which voted overwhelmingly Republican would have swung the other way for Bobby -- the 1968 election was largely seen as a "law and order" election, and a mandate on the policies of JFK and LBJ (more the latter than the former). Bobby would have just represented more of the same.
To your last point, Frank Mankewitz, RFK's press secretary at the time, did say (during a panel disscussion?) that it was going to be a very tough campaign. And according to another TV program, RFK made a lot of enemies in Washington, including LBJ, during the time he was campaign manager for his brother, and might have aquired a few more over the years???
Big time! The Kennedys were not popular with the Democratic "machine" politicians. The party back then was not as it is now -- its interests lay largely with the labor unions -- the same unions that Bobby claimed were overrun with the Mafia, and was intent on prosecuting!
Maybe the voting public would have seen him as the peace candidate. And you can't say we'd be worse off with RFK in the White house (back then) because, he was against LBJ's policies and thought the country need to move in a new direction. Wouldn't the public view RFK as an alternative to LBJ's failed policies?
The Great Society hadn't failed yet. There are still a lot of people who won't admit those policies have failed, even today. It was LBJ's progressiveness that brought the party down back then, not his conservatism.
- Thread starter
- #12
Had he lived, for all we know he might have gone for a ride with Ted Kennedy or gone hunting with Dick Cheney. Just another couple of examples of what "if" might produce.
Randy
Randy
- Thread starter
- #14
You won't believe this post is coming from me.
I saw in Wikipedia, where after the California Primary, Humphrey had 5xx, Kennedy 393, and everyone else, I don't know what.
Even I don't think (now that I've seen the numbers) he could have overcome a deficit of that magnitude, to clinch the nomination that November. That's quite an admission coming from me.
Good news: I now am able to stop with the but if he lived, such and such would have happened, don't you think?
What I want to know is: how did everyone think that he was a shoe-in for the presidency, with only 393 delegates
to send to the convention?
I saw in Wikipedia, where after the California Primary, Humphrey had 5xx, Kennedy 393, and everyone else, I don't know what.
Even I don't think (now that I've seen the numbers) he could have overcome a deficit of that magnitude, to clinch the nomination that November. That's quite an admission coming from me.
Good news: I now am able to stop with the but if he lived, such and such would have happened, don't you think?
What I want to know is: how did everyone think that he was a shoe-in for the presidency, with only 393 delegates
to send to the convention? You won't believe this post is coming from me.
I saw in Wikipedia, where after the California Primary, Humphrey had 5xx, Kennedy 393, and everyone else, I don't know what.
Even I don't think (now that I've seen the numbers) he could have overcome a deficit of that magnitude, to clinch the nomination that November. That's quite an admission coming from me.
Good news: I now am able to stop with the but if he lived, such and such would have happened, don't you think?
What I want to know is: how did everyone think that he was a shoe-in for the presidency, with only 393 delegates
Daddy was rich. Very rich!
Randy
What I want to know is: how did everyone think that he was a shoe-in for the presidency, with only 393 delegates
Remembrance is more kind than reality. RFK is now remembered as a young idealist, rather than a party-splitting, union busting, son of a bootlegger (after all, in his day, Joseph Kennedy was nothing more than the equivalent of today's drug runners). Same thing with JFK -- I don't think history would have been so kind to him had he lived to win (or more likely, lose) a second term, after his disastrous and incompetent first term. The Kennedys exude a mystique that is thoroughly unwarranted and undeserved. I hate to say it (because, except for Teddy, they really are mostly a likeable lot), but as a nation we are better off without them.
J
Just Mike
If you haven't already done so, and you can manage a visit to D.C., please visit Arlington National Cemetery. The brothers are buried on the top of a hill overlooking the Potomac, White House, Capitol, and the other memorials. JFK has the well known eternal flame, while Bobby's gravesite has a small pool that is bordered by a wall containing inspirational words. The view is breathtaking:
- Thread starter
- #18
Hi Mike,
I was in "The Cradle of Corruption"
back during the Regan Administration. and was able to see Jack and Bobby's grave site as well as the reflection pool dedicated to RFK, a small amount of which, is visible in the left hand side of your photo. Against the back wall of the pool are some quotes from some of his speeches.Zachster
Perhaps when you refer to "union busting" you are making a vague reference to Jimmy Hoffa and RFK's effort to bring him to justice on charges of racketeering?
I strongly disagree with that comment.
However, I do appreciate your analysis of the situation. I learned a lot.
- Thread starter
- #20
I agree with you completely. Well said.
