Is there any doubt that the Kennedys would have done what the Bushes did if not assassinated?

[dpbrown]

John would have been a two-term President followed by Robert.

Instead we George Herbert Weasel Bush followed by George Weasel Bush. Machia followed by Vellian.

Right wing slime ended the potential Kennedy dynasty with violence, but our politicians won't even hold the Bush dynasty accountable.

That's seriously messed up.

[book_worm]

1. possibly.

[EFerrari]

2. Why the hell are you sliming the Kennedys?

Geezus Christ. Ted Kennedy has been one of our most dedicated public servants for decades.

Really, get a grip.

[dpbrown]

4. I don't know how you can equate musing about 16 or more years of the Kennedys "sliming"

We would be in a radically different and better world now had we had a Kennedy dynasty instead of a Bush dynasty.

I think you're the one lacking a grip.

[EFerrari]

29. No.

"Is there any doubt that the Kennedys would have done what the Bushes did if not assassinated?"

[dpbrown]

36. Had a "dynasty"

Thanks for assuming, though.

[EFerrari]

38. There's no assumption in quoting your own words back to you.

It's possible you didn't mean what you wrote but, it is what you wrote.

[dpbrown]

45. "John would have been a two-term President followed by Robert."

Them's the words.

Followed by:

Instead we George Herbert Weasel Bush followed by George Weasel Bush. Machia followed by Vellian.

Right wing slime ended the potential Kennedy dynasty with violence, but our politicians won't even hold the Bush dynasty accountable.

That's seriously messed up.

I still don't see the potential for confusion here.

[EFerrari]

46. No, there is no potential for confusion. I agree. n/t

[TwilightZone]

6. I think the OP is being misinterpreted.

I think the intent was to point out that JFK and RFK would have been part of a two-presidency family like the Bushes, not that their presidencies would have been similar to Bush and Bush.

[dpbrown]

8. Correct - which means sometimes you have to look into the Twilight Zone to see the truth

:thumbsup:

[TwilightZone]

10. Try reading it again.

It's pretty obvious.

Edit: I may have just misinterpreted *your* response. If so, never mind! :)

My sarcasm meter is on the fritz.

[EFerrari]

33. That's not what the writing said. If that was the intent, that's another matter. n/t

[TwilightZone]

40. Paraphrasing the OP:

John would have been a two-term President followed by Robert.

Instead, we got the Bushes, who were both weasels.

The intent (comparing one potential two-president family to another) seemed pretty clear to me, but maybe that's just because I've spent too much time in the "dynasty" threads of late.

[EFerrari]

42. Without commenting on the intentions of the Kennedy clan

which I have no way of knowing, the comparison to BushCo is like comparing apples to grenades.

[TwilightZone]

51. To me, that was actually the point of the OP.

In the poster's opinion, we could have had apples (two Kennedys in the WH) and we ended up with grenades. It's not clear, of course, but that's where I ended up with it. I can see why it might be interpreted differently, as well.

I read the "would have done the same" to mean two presidents from one family, same as the Bushes, not some kind of policy reference.

I discounted the interpretation that I think you saw (that the OP was saying that the Kennedys were the same as the Bushes, policywise) simply because it didn't really make sense in the context of the OP.

But, as I mentioned, I probably read more into the family side of it simply because I realized that the OP was indirectly addressing the "dynasty" meme.

[dpbrown]

52. Just about the dynasty, not the policy - Kennedys would have been better, obviously

I thought the post made that clear. Maybe some people only read the subject line, and then launch.

[Hart2008]

3. Buffalo Chips! How would RFK have muscled out LBJ?

You hypothetical is really offensive, and ignorant.

[TwilightZone]

5. LBJ didn't run in 1968.

"I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President."

I also think the OP's intent is being misunderstood. I think the intent is that JFK and RFK would have been part of a two-presidency family like the Bushes, not that their presidencies would have been similar to Bush and Bush.

[democrat2thecore]

11. Yes, actually, he DID run

He was given a wake-up call by Gene McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary and all things were pointing to a heated nomination fight that he felt he couldn't win in the long run. So, his surprise announcement that he would not seek - or accept - the nomination of the party (from that point forward) was in actuality - a shocking withdrawal after New Hampshire.

[TwilightZone]

16. True. I should have been clearer.

The assertion made was that RFK wouldn't have beaten LBJ. RFK didn't enter the race until after LBJ dropped out, thanks to the NH result you described, so obviously, LBJ wasn't going to "outmuscle" RFK when he wasn't even in the race.

[Hart2008]

22. But LBJ would have been first in line had JFK not been killed and served a 2nd term.

LBJ had his own ambitions for the Presidency.

One of the leading theories on why the MIC killed JFK is that he was drawing down the U.S. forces in South Vietnam. de Gaulle told him we couldn't win there, and Kennedy believed him.

Kennedy is killed by the assassins, and one of LBJ's first decisions is to increase the U.S. presence in South Vietnam. (He is quoted as saying that he wasn't going to be accused of "losing" Vietnam to the Communists the way that Truman was accused of "losing" China.)

LBJ's decision not to seek the nomination came after Sen. Eugene McCarthy came within a whisker of defeating the incumbent LBJ in New Hampshire. This was back in the day when the party didn't require a declared candidacy to enter primaries. So even though LBJ had yet to declare his intention to seek re-election, it was only after he saw how unpopular he was in New Hampshire. He knew by then he was damaged goods.

Unlike the current occupant of the White House, LBJ lost sleep over the war in Vietnam. He wanted people to like him. When he saw the protesters, he would ask, "Why don't they like me." He used his considerable political skills and connections to pass legislation that the Kennedy's never could. He twisted arms with great force to get Civil Rights laws passed.

To believe that Bobby Kennedy could have gone from Attorney General to winning the Dem nomination for President and "leap-frog" a very powerful sitting V.P. is a fairy tale. Without the baggage of Vietnam, LBJ would have wanted to be President in '68, and I very much doubt that RFK would have even tried to stop him then.

[TwilightZone]

23. It's impossible to tell.

The OP situation is entirely a hypothetical, so there really is no "right" answer.

You could certainly be right in that he would have still pursued the presidency, but it's impossible to know, of course.

Edit: made a completely inaccurate assertion, thanks to confusing dates. Never mind.

[Hart2008]

34. It is very hard to deny the sitting V.P. of a popular President the party's nomination, e.g., Nixon,

, Humphrey, Bush, and Gore.

Mondale also used his power as the former V.P. to secure the nomination in what was an unfair competition in '84.

The V.P.'s don't always win, Nixon in '60, Humphrey in '68, (according to SCOTUS) Gore 2000, and Mondale, of course.

The point is it would have been almost impossible to stop LBJ from getting the nomination if he had wanted it.

[dpbrown]

37. And he was dead by 1973, so never would have seen a second term

A successful and good looking Attorney General following a successful and good looking President would have been a cakewalk.

[democrat2thecore]

43. Do you remember the '72 field? There would have been formidable competition for Kennedy -nt

[dpbrown]

54. That would have changed had Kennedy had two successful terms

The assassinations in the 1960s really changed the landscape and left a huge gap.

[Hart2008]

47. A lot of assumptions here, but who did LBJ name as his VP? HHH not RFK!

If in your hypothetical, the Dem's kept winning elections, which is no small feat, how would RFK have out muscled Johnson's VP?

(Who would have become President in '73 under your hypothetical.)

:think:

[dpbrown]

53. I don't think the Kennedys were particularly close to Johnson

Couldn't the choice of Johnson have been a VP choice made of political expediency?

[TwilightZone]

44. I understand your reasoning.

It's sound, though I also believe that the continuation of the JFK presidency would have been a factor. Tough to tell what another five years would have meant.

That being said, who knows? Had JFK not died, the public might have still balked at electing another Kennedy right away, even if JFK's presidency had proved successful.

[dpbrown]

7. LBJ would have been jettisoned after one term, or wouldn't have run because he was old and sick

In any case, he wouldn't have run in 1968 at the end of Kennedy's second term anyway. And he died in 1973 so he wouldn't have run for re-election in 1972 anyway. If he had run and won in 1968 after John's two terms, Robert would have been elected in 1972 and the result would have been the same - a glorious Kennedy dynasty.

Instead we got the Bushes.

[democrat2thecore]

18. A lot of hypotheticals there

If President Kennedy had not been assassinated, would Bobby have had the support to be a viable candidate for president? Most historians I have read think not. He was a very beloved figure only AFTER the assassination of his brother. Before JFK's killing, he was not very well thought of by the majority of the populace. In fact, he was seen as a brash bully. That's not my opinion - that's just history - as it was. You're forgetting that even in 1968, there was much opposition to his entering the race late and there were still many ways for him to not receive the nomination in '68. It wasn't a "done deal," after California by any stretch.

[dpbrown]

25. John didn't even get to finish one term

Clinton lost Congress during his first term but left a very popular President. I don't think it's very hypothetical to project that John wouldn't have had a successful second term.

[democrat2thecore]

28. That doesn't extrapolate into support for his brother -nt

[dpbrown]

41. George W. Bush is an alcoholic dry drunk misanthropic sociopath, and HE got elected on dad's tails

Robert would have had a much easier time that the AntiChrist did getting elected President a first time.

[Hart2008]

27. Right! RFK was known as "Ruthless Robert" to his detractors.

RFK wasn't very much loved by Eugene McCarthy's followers. They saw him as an opportunist trying to steal McCarthy's thunder about ending the war. They had those buttons with R.F.K. in big letters as as an acronym for "Rat FinK".

It was Eugene McCarthy who showed the "profile in courage" to take on LBJ and the party establishment about the war, not RFK.

[democrat2thecore]

30. Absolutely. -mt

[dpbrown]

55. And that all would have been different if John ended US involvement in Vietnam

So Robert would have had a successful two term President to follow to more peace and prosperity, and we never would have had Nixon's "comeback."

[Faygo Kid]

9. Nice speculation. All we need do is overlook two assassinations.

Sorry, but this post doesn't pass the smell test. To assume 16 years straight of JFK and RFK is not only ridiculous, it's offensive. And to even mention them in the same breath as the Bushes is doubly offensive.

[dpbrown]

13. The Kennedys would have been a dynasty if they hadn't been assassinated

To opine otherwise doesn't meet the "smell test."

[Faygo Kid]

19. Absurd. You assume no other historical surprises.

I don't understand the point of all this, but to present wild speculation as a fait accompli simply doesn't work. If you want to believe with absolute certainty that the Kennedys "would" have been a dynasty and that JFK and RFK "would" have served 16 straight years, be my guest.

You will find few takers for your fantasy (apparently that's the case here).

[dpbrown]

26. George W. Bush is an alcoholic dry drunk misanthropic sociopath, and HE got elected on dad's tails

Against that backdrop, it's impossible to believe that Robert would not have succeeded John, if not immediately, after one Johnson term.

[Faygo Kid]

31. And if Joe Jr. had survived WWII, would that have meant 24 straight years?

I think I will have a glass of wine. This makes my head spin, and reminds me of the old TV show "Time Tunnel."

Or maybe some Star Trek episodes.

[dpbrown]

48. Yeah, and then maybe we wouldn't have "God" on our money and in our Pledge then, either

At least they talked openly about keeping religion out of politics because they had to address anti-Catholic sentiment.

Joe probably would have been a good President, too.

[Jamastiene]

21. Yes, the Kennedys would have been a dynasty if they had not

been assassinated, but they would have taken the country in a starkly different direction than the BFEE has. I assume I am reading your OP correctly.

[dpbrown]

49. "And" they would have taken the country in a starkly different direction

And we'd be better off.

"Dynasties" aren't always bad.

[aquart]

12. Just wondering, what is the matter with you?

Did you check the legislation JFK was trying, and failing, to get through Congress? Did ANY of it look like the Patriot Act?

You swallowed the dynasty meme whole and now it's messing up your whole internal system. America has NEVER had more than two of any family in the presidency. We don't do dynasties.

dynasty n. , pl. -ties . A succession of rulers from the same family or line. A family or group that maintains power for several generations:

several adj 1: (used with count nouns) of an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many; "several letters came in the mail";

A dynasty definition requires MORE THAN TWO.

[dpbrown]

14. I know you are but what am I?

:rofl:

The Kennedy dynasty (which would have been good for the nation and the world) was ended by violence. The Bush dynasty (which has resulted in a Machiavellian fear-mongering takeover of our government) isn't even challenged by the Congress we elected to oppose it!

So I'm just wondering, what is the matter with you?

[SheilaT]

15. While JFK would most likely

have been re-elected, it's beyond ludicrous to assume that his brother Robert would necessarily have been elected in 1968. There are simply too many unknowns as to how events, and most specifically the Vietnam War, would have played out had JFK not been assassinated. And yeah, I'm quite aware of the theory that the CIA had him offed because he was planning on pulling out of Vietnam, but not only is that not proven, but (to repeat myself) we simply have no idea how things would have played out.

Oh, and the reason LBJ chose not to run in '68 was because he'd gotten so mired in the war over there in Southeast Asia that his popularity was plummeting, and (most importantly) Eugene McCarthy showed that LBJ was vulnerable to being defeated for the nomination that year. So LBJ decided he wasn't going to run for re-election. Then, and only then did Bobby Kennedy declare himself a candidate and the rest, as we all like to say, is history.

[dpbrown]

17. By the end of a second Kennedy term, the public would have lunged at electing the Attorney General

Robert Kennedy would have won in a landslide.

[democrat2thecore]

20. Wrong. See my post above. RFK was beloved only AFTER his brother's death -nt

[dpbrown]

24. Wrong - this presumes John wouldn't have been more popular after a second term

So there.

[democrat2thecore]

32. Wrong - Bobby was no John Kennedy - or thought of as such until after 11-22-63 -nt

[dpbrown]

35. 1968 is a long time after November of 1963, and 1972 even further out

Just because Robert got a bump from John's death, doesn't mean that John would not have had a successful second term that would have put the shine on Robert anyway.

[democrat2thecore]

39. Interesting - but senseless - speculation

I happen to be one that believes had President Kennedy lived, Bobby would have always lived in his shadow. I have a feeling there's maybe a couple of generations between us.

[dpbrown]

50. Well, speculation it is

There probably are a couple of generations there.