I think it's fair to say that RFK would have walked away with it had he not been assassinated, and almost certainly would have beat Nixon, despite the Vietnam war. We'll never know, of course. But history could have been so much different. I truly despised Nixon, for many good reasons, not the least being that he was a head henchman for senator McCarthy's persecutions during his HUA crusade.
I think it's fair to say that RFK would have walked away with it had he not been assassinated, and almost certainly would have beat Nixon, despite the Vietnam war. We'll never know, of course. But history could have been so much different. I truly despised Nixon, for many good reasons, not the least being that he was a head henchman for senator McCarthy's persecutions during his HUA crusade.
Nixon was truly embittered man with a very dark/mean streak. But . . . he was competent. Sometimes, his instincts were spot-on. At least on foreign policy. Because of his anti-communist bona fides, he truly was the only one, or maybe one of only a few, who could have gone to China as part of the overall "detente" policy.
Even if one does not see Nixon as a tragic figure, compared to Trump, man . . . they're almost night & day. Again, Nixon was competent. Nixon was intelligent. Nixon cared about our allies. Nixon would be a "moderate" Republican today. It's insane. In the late 60s, he was hardly the only "Law & Order" candidate, you know? But what do we have today? A convicted felon, 2x impeached, dumb-as-shit, bigoted, sex predator . . . who--oh, by the way--incited a riot that beat up cops and led to the death of one! Very "Law and Order!"
Don't get me wrong, I love alternative history, but its always impossible to "prove" anything. RFK vs Nixon? Wow. Nixon would be so emotionally invested in beating a Kennedy in his second go-around. How would Bobby have been on foreign policy? Could he have executed a more graceful exit from Vietnam? Would the Soviets & Chinese take him seriously? Could he have healed some wounds at home that, frankly, are still with us today? On the last point, I think it's possible. He, too, condemned rioting, lawlessness, etc. so perhaps he could have assuaged the fears of older, largely white Americans while also bringing the left-leaning youth & the civil rights community to the table.
Let's not forget that Nixon expanded the war by bombing Cambodia. I would hardly describe the exit from Vietnam as "graceful." It was anything but. We sponsored a refugee boat family in its wake. He did manage to begin relations with China, I'll give you that. And he also founded the EPA, something Republicans have been desperately trying to dismantle ever since. But I don't consider him a foreign policy maestro or anything even close.
Anyway, my friend, interesting exchange. I look forward to future engagement.
I wrote that a graceful exit from Vietnam might have been possible under a theoretical President RFK.
I knew one of us would bring up the EPA. Nixon at one point also implemented price controls amidst worsening inflation--not that I'm advocating price controls, necessarily--something no Republican would ever think of today. And, again, perhaps it's great to write them off for good, but it shows the state of today's GOP. One can look at a few different ways--one, as seeing Nixon as a moderate or two, instead turning the microscope on today's GOP . . . if today's GOP makes Nixon look even remotely reasonable . . . that's sayin' something , , ,
Keeping in mind that I'd support any animal from the DC Zoo over Trump, I know I'm going to be in a battle with myself to stop looking for flaws with a Harris ticket or "evidence" that she's too "Californian" for good ol' Middle America (no offense to the great state of California, just acknowledging reality here). She's not a "Squad" member, she's not a radical. If she's really on the ball, she will *highlight* her prosecutorial record . . . not walk away from it. Our prisons are overcrowded in part because the wrong people are being locked up. A lot of non-violent drug offenders. But most of the rest truly deserve to be in prison. My unsolicited advice to her would be to harp that.
The Bulwark Podcast played part of an old of hers where she *brilliantly* contrasts her role as a prosecutor with Trump's "role" as a criminal. Golden!
You can't do whatever good you plan to do in politics if you don't get elected in the first place. I sense (could be wrong) that many contemporary Dems don't quite get this yet. The GOP sure does.
It would be great if a Democratic presidency looked like the old "West Wing" show. I used to LOVE that show. One constant theme was that in order to do some of the idealistic work he dreams of, the President still had to play hardball.
Yeah, the West Wing. If only things operated like that . . .
I think it's fair to say that RFK would have walked away with it had he not been assassinated, and almost certainly would have beat Nixon, despite the Vietnam war. We'll never know, of course. But history could have been so much different. I truly despised Nixon, for many good reasons, not the least being that he was a head henchman for senator McCarthy's persecutions during his HUA crusade.
Nixon was truly embittered man with a very dark/mean streak. But . . . he was competent. Sometimes, his instincts were spot-on. At least on foreign policy. Because of his anti-communist bona fides, he truly was the only one, or maybe one of only a few, who could have gone to China as part of the overall "detente" policy.
Even if one does not see Nixon as a tragic figure, compared to Trump, man . . . they're almost night & day. Again, Nixon was competent. Nixon was intelligent. Nixon cared about our allies. Nixon would be a "moderate" Republican today. It's insane. In the late 60s, he was hardly the only "Law & Order" candidate, you know? But what do we have today? A convicted felon, 2x impeached, dumb-as-shit, bigoted, sex predator . . . who--oh, by the way--incited a riot that beat up cops and led to the death of one! Very "Law and Order!"
Don't get me wrong, I love alternative history, but its always impossible to "prove" anything. RFK vs Nixon? Wow. Nixon would be so emotionally invested in beating a Kennedy in his second go-around. How would Bobby have been on foreign policy? Could he have executed a more graceful exit from Vietnam? Would the Soviets & Chinese take him seriously? Could he have healed some wounds at home that, frankly, are still with us today? On the last point, I think it's possible. He, too, condemned rioting, lawlessness, etc. so perhaps he could have assuaged the fears of older, largely white Americans while also bringing the left-leaning youth & the civil rights community to the table.
Sadly, we'll never know!
Let's not forget that Nixon expanded the war by bombing Cambodia. I would hardly describe the exit from Vietnam as "graceful." It was anything but. We sponsored a refugee boat family in its wake. He did manage to begin relations with China, I'll give you that. And he also founded the EPA, something Republicans have been desperately trying to dismantle ever since. But I don't consider him a foreign policy maestro or anything even close.
Anyway, my friend, interesting exchange. I look forward to future engagement.
I wrote that a graceful exit from Vietnam might have been possible under a theoretical President RFK.
I knew one of us would bring up the EPA. Nixon at one point also implemented price controls amidst worsening inflation--not that I'm advocating price controls, necessarily--something no Republican would ever think of today. And, again, perhaps it's great to write them off for good, but it shows the state of today's GOP. One can look at a few different ways--one, as seeing Nixon as a moderate or two, instead turning the microscope on today's GOP . . . if today's GOP makes Nixon look even remotely reasonable . . . that's sayin' something , , ,
Keeping in mind that I'd support any animal from the DC Zoo over Trump, I know I'm going to be in a battle with myself to stop looking for flaws with a Harris ticket or "evidence" that she's too "Californian" for good ol' Middle America (no offense to the great state of California, just acknowledging reality here). She's not a "Squad" member, she's not a radical. If she's really on the ball, she will *highlight* her prosecutorial record . . . not walk away from it. Our prisons are overcrowded in part because the wrong people are being locked up. A lot of non-violent drug offenders. But most of the rest truly deserve to be in prison. My unsolicited advice to her would be to harp that.
The Bulwark Podcast played part of an old of hers where she *brilliantly* contrasts her role as a prosecutor with Trump's "role" as a criminal. Golden!
You can't do whatever good you plan to do in politics if you don't get elected in the first place. I sense (could be wrong) that many contemporary Dems don't quite get this yet. The GOP sure does.
It would be great if a Democratic presidency looked like the old "West Wing" show. I used to LOVE that show. One constant theme was that in order to do some of the idealistic work he dreams of, the President still had to play hardball.
Yeah, the West Wing. If only things operated like that . . .