Subject: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: 03 Aug 2001 18:01:08 GMT From: radhobbes@aol.com (RadHobbes) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if It's mainly forgotten that for a time the Iranian hostage crisis HELPED President Carter in 1980. This invoked feelings of patriotism and a "stand by the President" consensus in the primaries when Ted Kennedy had an early lead over Carter. So, let's suppose there's no hostage crisis. No, better yet, the seizure of the embassy doesn't occur until AFTER the Democratic convention and Kennedy is nominated. So what would President Carter do differently to get the hostages home with out worrying about re-election? And besides that, who would win? Reagan or Kennedy? Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:09:49 -0500 From: "Mark R. Whittington" Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 In that instance, Reagan would have buried Teddu Kennedy. Why? One word: Chappaquidick. Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: 03 Aug 2001 20:27:41 +0200 From: Steve Holland Organization: UNI-C Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "Mark R. Whittington" writes: > In that instance, Reagan would have buried Teddu Kennedy. Why? One > word: Chappaquidick. I doubt that that would have made much difference. At the time Ted Kennedy was seen as a viable politician who had a real shot at becoming president of the the U.S. if he didn't get shot first. Kennedy would have been free of most of the baggage that dragged Carter down in 1980, and might have been able to make a good run at Reagan. I suspect that Reagan would have still won, but I doubt that Chippaquidick would have been much of a factor. Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:54:45 -0600 From: Keith Morrison Organization: Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Steve Holland wrote: > > In that instance, Reagan would have buried Teddu Kennedy. Why? One > > word: Chappaquidick. > > I doubt that that would have made much difference. At the time > Ted Kennedy was seen as a viable politician who had a real shot at > becoming president of the the U.S. if he didn't get shot first. > Kennedy would have been free of most of the baggage that dragged > Carter down in 1980, and might have been able to make a good run at > Reagan. I suspect that Reagan would have still won, but I doubt that > Chippaquidick would have been much of a factor. If anything, it might have finally revealed what really happened (which the most likely theory is that Kennedy wasn't in the car when the accident happened). There's an idea. Say that the story comes out earlier... For those who who don't know, the theory that has the most credence is that Kennedy and Kopechne left the party they were at in Kennedy's car in order to do some horizontal aerobics. While they were parked on a remote rode, a police cruiser pulled up. Kennedy, scared at being caught in the act, pulled away (the cop was the last person to see Kennedy that night). Once he got down the road, common sense took over. He told Kopechne to drive the car back while he hiked it. That way there was no chance of them being seen together. She took off, probably with the adrenaline pumping after the close call and alcohol in her system and proceeded to have the accident. Kennedy snuck back into town and went to sleep. He didn't find out about the accident until the next morning when his two friends (who in his version he went to get and tried to help in the second failed rescue) who had discovered the car and dove in thinking he was trapped inside arrived at his hotel, soaking wet, to tell him the bad news. He and his personal advisors and friends then come up with the failed rescue story. A failed rescuer is better than a philanderer who was indirectly and unintentionally responsible for a death, after all. Say that instead of lying about the accident, Kennedy is upfront about it. Yes, he was drinking and was going to have sex, and yes, he allowed her to drive the car when he probably shouldn't. But that's it. Is Teddy's career ambitions over or, without the conspiracy theory hanging over his head (at least as much), does he go on to bigger things? -- Keith Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: 03 Aug 2001 19:25:58 GMT From: mwstone@aol.com (mike stone) Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >From: Keith Morrison keithm@polarnet.ca >Say that instead of lying about the accident, Kennedy is upfront >about it. Yes, he was drinking and was going to have sex, and yes, >he allowed her to drive the car when he probably shouldn't. But >that's it. > >Is Teddy's career ambitions over or, without the conspiracy theory >hanging over his head (at least as much), does he go on to bigger >things? He's already as high as he'll get Ted Kennedy is an unapologetic liberal and the voters aren't likely to send one of those to the White House. Chappaquiddick is just an excuse (for those who need an excuse) to reject him. Coming a bit cleaner about it won't help. -- Mike Stone - Peterborough England Last words of King Edward II. "I always said that Roger Mortimer was a pain in the - - - AAARGHH!!!" Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: 04 Aug 2001 13:01:56 GMT From: john0714@aol.com (John0714) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy >From: mwstone@aol.com (mike stone) >Date: 8/3/01 2:25 PM Central Daylight Time >Message-id: <20010803152558.18339.00002590@ng-bg1.aol.com> > >>From: Keith Morrison keithm@polarnet.ca > >>Say that instead of lying about the accident, Kennedy is upfront >>about it. Yes, he was drinking and was going to have sex, and yes, >>he allowed her to drive the car when he probably shouldn't. But >>that's it. >> >>Is Teddy's career ambitions over or, without the conspiracy theory >>hanging over his head (at least as much), does he go on to bigger >>things? > >He's already as high as he'll get > >Ted Kennedy is an unapologetic liberal and the voters aren't likely to send >one >of those to the White House. Chappaquiddick is just an excuse (for those who >need an excuse) to reject him. Coming a bit cleaner about it won't help. >-- >Mike Stone - Peterborough England > >Last words of King Edward II. > >"I always said that Roger Mortimer was a pain in the - - - AAARGHH!!!" > In 1980 a little luck would have put him in the White House, such as a smashing success in the Roger Mudd interview. (Use your Google;)) Believe me, I was here and paying attention, very much so. Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 17:45:08 GMT From: dtenner@ameritech.net (David Tenner) Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 John0714 wrote in <20010804090156.25018.00004624@ng -fo1.aol.com>: >In 1980 a little luck would have put him in the White House, such as a >smashing success in the Roger Mudd interview. (Use your Google;)) >Believe me, I was here and paying attention, very much so. Well, so was I. With a little better luck (a better performance in the Mudd interview and a hostage crisis that had erupted either earlier--so that the initial "rally around the president" reaction would have worn out--or later) he might have won the Democratic nomination. He did well in some of the later primaries, especially on the coasts--above all in New York, where Jewish voters were very upset over the US voting for anti-Israel resolutions in the UN. But primaries are very different from general elections. In the general election, Kennedy would just have too much working against him: (1) The main reason Kennedy would have lost would be that after four years of a Democratic president (and a Democratic Congress), most people thought the economy and (even apart from the hostage crisis) foreign policy were in bad shape. Generally, when the public is dissatisfied with how the president has been doing his job, it takes it out on the presidential candidate of the incumbent president's party. It doesn't matter that the candidate may be quite different from the incumbent president and that the two might have a low opinion of each other or even be bitter rivals. Woodrow Wilson in 1920 didn't like Governor Cox of Ohio and said Cox's candidacy would be a "joke"--yet that didn't prevent Cox from paying the price for Wilson's unpopularity. No two Democrats could have been more different than Cleveland and Bryan--yet the depression of the 1890's meant that *any* Democratic candidate for president was probably doomed in 1896. (2) I don't agree that Chappaquiddick was just an excuse for people who wouldn't have voted for Kennedy anyway. In some cases, of course, it was that, but I recall the Carter campaign effectively bringing it up (without mentioning it explicitly) through their ads emphasizing the importance of "character" in the presidency. (Bringing the Chappaquiddick issue up through innuendo rather than openly seems to me an indication of character failure on *Carter's* part, but that's another matter.) I'm not saying it would have cost Kennedy a huge number of votes in the general election, but given the problems he would already face (especially a deeply divided party, with even many Democrats seeing him as too liberal, and even some who did not much object to him ideologically thinking that it was disloyal of him to challenge Carter), losing *any* more votes is not something he could afford. (3) Then, too, Kennedy like Carter would have the problem that Reagan, unlike many other conservatives, was hard to demonize. His personal affability made it hard to portray him as an "extremist." And the Republicans would be much more united than the Democrats--Reagan's choosing Bush as a running mate helped appease moderates. (4) I will concede one thing: Kennedy would have done better than Carter in the Electoral College. (See http://www.iosphere.net.au/~lance/pres/1980 for the results in OTL.) He would have carried New York and Massachusetts and perhaps a few other northeastern states Carter lost--and losing southern states by huge margins instead of narrow ones like Carter's wouldn't make any difference in electoral votes. (Though he would almost certainly have lost the 12 votes Carter won in Georgia.) But you can't win with the Northeast alone and I don't see where else Kennedy is going to win. California? I don't say Reagan will beat him there quite as overwhelmingly as he beat Carter--52.7-35.9!--but I don't see Reagan losing there in 1980, either. Illinois? Carter defeated Kennedy in the Democratic primary there by an incredible 65-30 in spite of (or because of!) Chicago Mayor Jane Byrne's support for Kennedy. A margin like that suggests a deeper problem than a badly-handled interview. Ohio? Never a very Kennedy-friendly state. JFK lost it in 1960 and Carter defeated Teddy by 51-44 in the Democratic primary in 1980. (True, that was a relatively narrow margin, but the Ohio primary was one of the latest--in June--and by then Carter's popularity was way down.) In the general election, Reagan defeated Carter by 51.5-40.9--and while Kennedy might have done better than Carter in some areas of the state, he would almost certainly have done worse in others, especially in southern Ohio, where there were a lot of conservative Democrats. (Carter's strong showing among these voters, who had not supported a national Democrat for some time, was largely responsible for his carrying the state in 1976. He did not do as well among them in 1980, but Kennedy, who represents just about eveything these people dislike about the national Democratic party, would have done still worse.) 1980 just does not look like a Democratic year to me. -- David Tenner dtenner@ameritech.net Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 15:56:29 -0500 From: Rich Rostrom Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Keith Morrison wrote: >Steve Holland wrote: > >> > In that instance, Reagan would have buried Teddu Kennedy. Why? One >> > word: Chappaquidick. >> >> I doubt that that would have made much difference. At the time >> Ted Kennedy was seen as a viable politician who had a real shot at >> becoming president of the the U.S. if he didn't get shot first. >> Kennedy would have been free of most of the baggage that dragged >> Carter down in 1980, and might have been able to make a good run at >> Reagan. I suspect that Reagan would have still won, but I doubt that >> Chippaquidick would have been much of a factor. > >If anything, it might have finally revealed what really happened >(which the most likely theory is that Kennedy wasn't in the car >when the accident happened). > >There's an idea. Say that the story comes out earlier... > >For those who who don't know, the theory that has the most credence >is that Kennedy and Kopechne left the party they were at in Kennedy's >car in order to do some horizontal aerobics... The most credible theory that _I_ have seen is that Kopechne became drunk, and crawled into the back seat of the car to sleep it off. Later, Teddy and another woman (whose purse was found in the car) left the party to drive to the beach and fornicate. Teddy was drunk, the car went off the bridge and into the water, but Teddy and the second woman got out safely. They wandered back to the party to work out a cover story. Then, several hours later, someone finally noticed that Kopechne was missing. By that time she had drowned (or suffocated). Of course the Kennedy machine had to bury these details, but the extra purse was never explained - officially. -- Never consume legumes before transacting whatsoever | Rich Rostrom even in the outermost courtyard of a descendant of | Timur the Terrible. | rrostrom@dummy --- Avram Davidson, _Dr. Bhumbo Singh_ | 21stcentury.net Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: 04 Aug 2001 09:04:20 GMT From: jsbassior@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Keith Morrison said: >For those who who don't know, the theory that has the most credence >is that Kennedy and Kopechne left the party they were at in Kennedy's >car in order to do some horizontal aerobics. While they were parked >on a remote rode, a police cruiser pulled up. Kennedy, scared at >being caught in the act, pulled away (the cop was the last person to >see Kennedy that night). Once he got down the road, common sense >took over. He told Kopechne to drive the car back while he hiked it. >That way there was no chance of them being seen together. She took >off, probably with the adrenaline pumping after the close call and >alcohol in her system and proceeded to have the accident. Kennedy >snuck back into town and went to sleep. He didn't find out about >the accident until the next morning when his two friends (who in his >version he went to get and tried to help in the second failed rescue) >who had discovered the car and dove in thinking he was trapped inside >arrived at his hotel, soaking wet, to tell him the bad news. > >He and his personal advisors and friends then come up with the failed >rescue story. A failed rescuer is better than a philanderer who was >indirectly and unintentionally responsible for a death, after all. This is actually the _first_ time I've heard this theory. When was it advanced, or is this one you just came up with? -- Sincerely Yours, Jordan -- "To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too late." (Churchill, 1934) -- Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 14:31:33 -0600 From: Keith Morrison Organization: Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "Jordan S. Bassior" wrote: > >He and his personal advisors and friends then come up with the failed > >rescue story. A failed rescuer is better than a philanderer who was > >indirectly and unintentionally responsible for a death, after all. > > This is actually the _first_ time I've heard this theory. When was it advanced, > or is this one you just came up with? Yes, Jordan, I spend my free time delving into 30 year old auto accidents involving Democrats. I heard about it on one the main US network hour long news programs a few weeks back. I can't recall which network. -- Keith Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: 05 Aug 2001 03:26:50 GMT From: docplexus@aol.comspamthis (Doc plexus) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 jsbassior@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote >Keith Morrison said: > >>For those who who don't know, the theory that has the most credence >>is that Kennedy and Kopechne left the party they were at in Kennedy's >>car in order to do some horizontal aerobics. While they were parked >>on a remote rode, a police cruiser pulled up. Kennedy, scared at >>being caught in the act, pulled away (the cop was the last person to >>see Kennedy that night). Once he got down the road, common sense >>took over. He told Kopechne to drive the car back while he hiked it. >>That way there was no chance of them being seen together. She took >>off, probably with the adrenaline pumping after the close call and >>alcohol in her system and proceeded to have the accident. Kennedy >>snuck back into town and went to sleep. He didn't find out about >>the accident until the next morning when his two friends (who in his >>version he went to get and tried to help in the second failed rescue) >>who had discovered the car and dove in thinking he was trapped inside >>arrived at his hotel, soaking wet, to tell him the bad news. >> >>He and his personal advisors and friends then come up with the failed >>rescue story. A failed rescuer is better than a philanderer who was >>indirectly and unintentionally responsible for a death, after all. > >This is actually the _first_ time I've heard this theory. When was it >advanced, >or is this one you just came up with? The first time I heard this theory was few years back on Investigative Reports on the cable network A&E. "That's not a MP, that's a YP - Your Problem" ------- Boogie Nights Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: 06 Aug 2001 19:26:34 +0200 From: Steve Holland Organization: UNI-C Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 jsbassior@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) writes: > Keith Morrison said: > >For those who who don't know, the theory that has the most credence > >is that Kennedy and Kopechne left the party they were at in Kennedy's > >car in order to do some horizontal aerobics. While they were parked > >on a remote rode, a police cruiser pulled up. Kennedy, scared at > >being caught in the act, pulled away (the cop was the last person to > >see Kennedy that night). Once he got down the road, common sense > >took over. He told Kopechne to drive the car back while he hiked it. > >That way there was no chance of them being seen together. She took > >off, probably with the adrenaline pumping after the close call and > >alcohol in her system and proceeded to have the accident. Kennedy > >snuck back into town and went to sleep. He didn't find out about > >the accident until the next morning when his two friends (who in his > >version he went to get and tried to help in the second failed rescue) > >who had discovered the car and dove in thinking he was trapped inside > >arrived at his hotel, soaking wet, to tell him the bad news. > >He and his personal advisors and friends then come up with the failed > >rescue story. A failed rescuer is better than a philanderer who was > >indirectly and unintentionally responsible for a death, after all. > This is actually the _first_ time I've heard this theory. When was > it advanced, or is this one you just came up with? I've heard this before, and my interest in RFK is only slightly greater than my interest in N'Sync... So, I suspect that it is fairly common knowledge. ===================================================================== To find out who and where I am look at: http://www.nd.edu/~sholland/index.html Spammers: Please send spam to: abuse@aol.com and abuse@yahoo.com ===================================================================== Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: 04 Aug 2001 12:57:16 GMT From: john0714@aol.com (John0714) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 >Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy >From: Keith Morrison keithm@polarnet.ca >Date: 8/3/01 1:54 PM Central Daylight Time >Message-id: <3B6AF375.73D2BD4B@polarnet.ca> > >Steve Holland wrote: > >> > In that instance, Reagan would have buried Teddu Kennedy. Why? One >> > word: Chappaquidick. >> >> I doubt that that would have made much difference. At the time >> Ted Kennedy was seen as a viable politician who had a real shot at >> becoming president of the the U.S. if he didn't get shot first. >> Kennedy would have been free of most of the baggage that dragged >> Carter down in 1980, and might have been able to make a good run at >> Reagan. I suspect that Reagan would have still won, but I doubt that >> Chippaquidick would have been much of a factor. > >If anything, it might have finally revealed what really happened >(which the most likely theory is that Kennedy wasn't in the car >when the accident happened). > >There's an idea. Say that the story comes out earlier... > >For those who who don't know, the theory that has the most credence >is that Kennedy and Kopechne left the party they were at in Kennedy's >car in order to do some horizontal aerobics. While they were parked >on a remote rode, a police cruiser pulled up. Kennedy, scared at >being caught in the act, pulled away (the cop was the last person to >see Kennedy that night). Once he got down the road, common sense >took over. He told Kopechne to drive the car back while he hiked it. >That way there was no chance of them being seen together. She took >off, probably with the adrenaline pumping after the close call and >alcohol in her system and proceeded to have the accident. Kennedy >snuck back into town and went to sleep. He didn't find out about >the accident until the next morning when his two friends (who in his >version he went to get and tried to help in the second failed rescue) >who had discovered the car and dove in thinking he was trapped inside >arrived at his hotel, soaking wet, to tell him the bad news. > >He and his personal advisors and friends then come up with the failed >rescue story. A failed rescuer is better than a philanderer who was >indirectly and unintentionally responsible for a death, after all. > >Say that instead of lying about the accident, Kennedy is upfront >about it. Yes, he was drinking and was going to have sex, and yes, >he allowed her to drive the car when he probably shouldn't. But >that's it. I have never been married, and do not know personally any husband who has been outed for adultery and whose marriage is ongoing, but I suspect for most men, they better deny it, even if the wife tolerates it or the marriage is dead, even for a politician. > >Is Teddy's career ambitions over or, without the conspiracy theory >hanging over his head (at least as much), does he go on to bigger >things? > >-- >Keith > > Just goes to show you, when the accident happened I thought the "badness" was that Teddy had probably been porking Kopechne. The rest did not matter. Now its that Kennedy might have been drivnig very drunk, and did not try, perhaps, to help Kopechne, and tried to cover things up. I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend until YOUR DEATH your right to say it! --Austin 3:17 JOHN A. MONTGOMERY Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 09:11:47 +1200 From: Gareth Wilson Organization: University of Canterbury Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 "Mark R. Whittington" wrote: > In that instance, Reagan would have buried Teddu Kennedy. Why? One word: > Chappaquidick. > Chappaquidick hurt him, sure. But there are other problems. Teddy Kennedy has a terrible secret that's more damaging than any possible drug, sex, or corruption scandal, the same problem that Barry Goldwater had. He doesn't want to be president. Think about it. His brother becomes president, and they blow his head off. His other brother tries to be president and he gets shot too, taking hours to die while Ted sits by his bedside, utterly helpless. In 1980 he's directly asked "why do you want to be president?" by a reporter and gives a rambling, incoherent answer. He has never really wanted to be president and all his attempts have been half-hearted. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gareth Wilson Christchurch New Zealand ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: 03 Aug 2001 23:10:44 +0200 From: Steve Holland Organization: UNI-C Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 Gareth Wilson writes: > "Mark R. Whittington" wrote: > > In that instance, Reagan would have buried Teddu Kennedy. Why? One word: > > Chappaquidick. > Chappaquidick hurt him, sure. But there are other problems. Teddy Kennedy has a > terrible secret that's more damaging than any possible drug, sex, or corruption > scandal, the same problem that Barry Goldwater had. > He doesn't want to be president. > Think about it. His brother becomes president, and they blow his > head off. His other brother tries to be president and he gets shot > too, taking hours to die while Ted sits by his bedside, utterly > helpless. I vaguely recall that there was an assasination attempt against Ted Kennedy in the late 1970s or early 1980s. However, I can't find any thing about in using Google. ===================================================================== To find out who and where I am look at: http://www.nd.edu/~sholland/index.html Spammers: Please send spam to: abuse@aol.com and abuse@yahoo.com ===================================================================== Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 13:21:26 +1200 From: Gareth Wilson Organization: University of Canterbury Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 Steve Holland wrote: > > I vaguely recall that there was an assasination attempt against > Ted Kennedy in the late 1970s or early 1980s. However, I can't find > any thing about in using Google. John Hinckley tried to meet Ted just before he shot Reagan. Dunno if Hinckley actually wanted to kill him, it probably wouldn't have impressed Jodie Foster much. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gareth Wilson Christchurch New Zealand ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: 04 Aug 2001 09:07:07 GMT From: jsbassior@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Gareth Wilson said: >Chappaquidick hurt him, sure. But there are other problems. Teddy Kennedy has >a terrible secret that's more damaging than any possible drug, sex, or >corruption scandal, the same problem that Barry Goldwater had. > >He doesn't want to be president. That's possible. >Think about it. His brother becomes president, and they blow his head off. Who's "they?" And if there were surviving persons who had conspired to kill JFK, wouldn't Ted want to become President so he could punish them for their crimes? >His other brother tries to be president and he gets shot too, taking hours to die >while Ted sits by his bedside, utterly helpless. For some reason, very few people blame the Palestinians for this, despite Sirhan Sirhan's expressed motive for the crime. >In 1980 he's directly asked >"why do you want to be president?" by a reporter and gives a rambling, >incoherent answer. He has never really wanted to be president and all his >attempts have been half-hearted. You could be right. -- Sincerely Yours, Jordan -- "To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too late." (Churchill, 1934) -- Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 14:30:35 GMT From: "Larry Bernard" Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 > Who's "they?" And if there were surviving persons who had conspired to kill > JFK, wouldn't Ted want to become President so he could punish them for their > crimes? "they" in this case doesn't hav to be a conspiracy "they" are just people eho seem tp assasinate kennedy's its an irrational fear > > For some reason, very few people blame the Palestinians for this, despite > Sirhan Sirhan's expressed motive for the crime. there are some discrepencies between fbi crime scene data and La PD's not to mention some other bullet trajectory issues > > >In 1980 he's directly asked > >"why do you want to be president?" by a reporter and gives a rambling, > >incoherent answer. He has never really wanted to be president and all his > >attempts have been half-hearted. > > You could be right. i think he is honestly he ran in 1980 because he thought its what he should do > -- > Sincerely Yours, > Jordan > -- > "To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On > the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too > late." (Churchill, 1934) > -- Subject: Re: 1980 Election WI: Reagan v. Kennedy Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 10:10:41 -0500 (CDT) From: raystwo@webtv.net (Raymond Speer) Organization: WebTV Subscriber Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 The "Teddy wasn't in the car" theory was first floated in a detective novel some five years after the event. I vaguely recall the book, which was entitled THE INSPECTOR'S OPINION. A bunch of 2D characters gather together on a vacation, reading old newspapers and court transcripts, and a master sleuth decides the True Story. Afterwards, that thesis keeps popping up among people that don't want to believe that Teddy did it. (For people that don't want to believe that OJ did it, there is now a theory that OJ's son killed OJ's ex and the waiter, and OJ took the rap rather than expose his son to ruin.) My difficulty is that the theory flies contrary to common sense. TEDDY: Oh. my God. She doesn't know this island well. Poor Mary Jo must have driven off the pier, thinking it was a bridge. ADVISOR: Well, we'll just tell the truth. You left the car, planning to walk home, and didn't learn about the accident until now. TEDDY: No, I prefer the spin that I'll get if we tell everybody that I was at the wheel when we went into the ocean. ADVISOR: But if you were there, you would have rescued Mary Jo or at least called for help hours earlier. TEDDY: Let's punch up the story then. I fail in trying to rescue her and I do absolutely nothing for the rest of that night and into the next day. I'm inexcusably negligent after the fact, -- yeah that is what I want everybody to think of me. Do innocent men want their reputations smeared forever?