JFK Assassination: LBJ Knew He Was About To Be Dropped! Dick Morris

[BOZ]

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

Caro gives a slightly different account. He says LBJ believed by late 1963
that his career was over despite JFK's assurances he wasn't going to drop
him from the ticket. But Caro says that his reporting indicated that JFK
hadn't made a final decision. However, LBJ believed that even IF he had
been on the ticket in 1964 his future in politics was over.

Here's his account in part:

"He [LBJ] had been saying for some time—had apparently convinced
himself—that that [i.e., being dropped from the '64 ticket] was
the probability. In recent months, he had begun advising aides he would
have wanted to keep with him were he to run for or become President to
leave his staff. "My future is behind me,” he told one staffer.
“Go,” he said to another. “I’m
finished.” That belief—that fear—may or may not
have been justified before Bobby Baker appeared on magazine cover after
magazine cover, before Don Reynolds entered the picture, and before this
trip to Texas. Given what the President was seeing for himself in
Texas—that Johnson was no longer a viable mediator between
factions of his party in his own state—and what was happening at
that very moment in the Old Senate Office Building, the
President’s assurances that he would be on the ticket might start
to have a hollow ring. “Finished ”: whether or not he was
given another term as Vice-President, it was beginning to seem, more and
more, as if there might be some justification for the adjective that he
had been applying to his prospects."

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

Not quite. Some Kennedy aides thought so and hoped so, but it was too
late to make a change and JFK needed Texas.

[claviger]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

Not quite. Some Kennedy aides thought so and hoped so, but it was too
late to make a change and JFK needed Texas.

Not only that J. Edger Hoover was LBJ's neighbor and knew all
the shenanigans and escapades by the young and horny JFK,
who had a College Guy libido and Randy Tar port city attitude
after surviving terrifying Naval Combat.

Navy and Marine Pilots who survived combat in Viet Nam came
home sex maniacs until they could readjust to normal conditions,
the flipside of combat fatigue. No doubt JFK had a dose of the
same Survivors Thrill Syndrome after his combat ordeal.

It is the psychosexual balance to the combo terror+exhilaration
combat experience and having survived. JFK subconsciously
acted like everyday might be his last so go for it every chance
you get. In so doing he became the Randy Tar Admiral-in-Chief
of US Military Forces.

Doesn't make him a bad guy and the ladies loved the attention.
Sex became a drug to him and better than reliance on another
pil. He was already taking pain medication so his sex therapy
worked out as "élan vital" Naturopathy. He was actually ahead
of the now popular Natural Healing Nature Knows Best field of
modern medicine. So he was a pioneer of Happiness Therapy.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

Not quite. Some Kennedy aides thought so and hoped so, but it was too
late to make a change and JFK needed Texas.

Not only that J. Edger Hoover was LBJ's neighbor and knew all
the shenanigans and escapades by the young and horny JFK,
who had a College Guy libido and Randy Tar port city attitude
after surviving terrifying Naval Combat.

Your rants have nothing to do with reality. A lot of people in
Washington knew all about JFK's sex life. Hoover hinted at it, but not
explicitly blackmail JFK.

Post by claviger
Navy and Marine Pilots who survived combat in Viet Nam came
home sex maniacs until they could readjust to normal conditions,
the flipside of combat fatigue. No doubt JFK had a dose of the
same Survivors Thrill Syndrome after his combat ordeal.

I never heard that before. Are you trying to slander John McCain how
that he's dead?

Post by claviger
It is the psychosexual balance to the combo terror+exhilaration
combat experience and having survived. JFK subconsciously
acted like everyday might be his last so go for it every chance
you get. In so doing he became the Randy Tar Admiral-in-Chief
of US Military Forces.
Doesn't make him a bad guy and the ladies loved the attention.
Sex became a drug to him and better than reliance on another
pil. He was already taking pain medication so his sex therapy
worked out as "élan vital" Naturopathy. He was actually ahead
of the now popular Natural Healing Nature Knows Best field of
modern medicine. So he was a pioneer of Happiness Therapy.

You claim to know a lot about medicine. I doubt you know anything.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by claviger

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

Not quite. Some Kennedy aides thought so and hoped so, but it was too
late to make a change and JFK needed Texas.

Not only that J. Edger Hoover was LBJ's neighbor and knew all
the shenanigans and escapades by the young and horny JFK,

So did almost everyone else in Washington. Hoover did not try to save
LBJ. JFK needed Texas.

Post by claviger
who had a College Guy libido and Randy Tar port city attitude
after surviving terrifying Naval Combat.
Navy and Marine Pilots who survived combat in Viet Nam came
home sex maniacs until they could readjust to normal conditions,
the flipside of combat fatigue. No doubt JFK had a dose of the
same Survivors Thrill Syndrome after his combat ordeal.
It is the psychosexual balance to the combo terror+exhilaration
combat experience and having survived. JFK subconsciously
acted like everyday might be his last so go for it every chance
you get. In so doing he became the Randy Tar Admiral-in-Chief
of US Military Forces.
Doesn't make him a bad guy and the ladies loved the attention.
Sex became a drug to him and better than reliance on another
pil. He was already taking pain medication so his sex therapy
worked out as "élan vital" Naturopathy. He was actually ahead
of the now popular Natural Healing Nature Knows Best field of
modern medicine. So he was a pioneer of Happiness Therapy.

[bigdog]

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

[19efppp]

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

[bigdog]

Post by 19efppp

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

Dumping LBJ would have amounted to dumping Texas. I believe at the time it
was the third most populous state behind California and New York. It
wouldn't matter what his reasons were for dropping LBJ. It wouldn't have
sat well with voters in Texas and almost certainly would have cost JFK the
state in 1964. Winning Texas was the main reason JFK tapped LBJ to begin
with an why he would have been unlikely to dump him.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Post by bigdog

Post by 19efppp

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

Dumping LBJ would have amounted to dumping Texas. I believe at the time it
was the third most populous state behind California and New York. It
wouldn't matter what his reasons were for dropping LBJ. It wouldn't have
sat well with voters in Texas and almost certainly would have cost JFK the
state in 1964. Winning Texas was the main reason JFK tapped LBJ to begin
with an why he would have been unlikely to dump him.

You're assuming that in a race against Goldwater that JFK would need Texas
as he did against Nixon. I don't know what the national polling showed in
a head-to-head matchup with Goldwater or even in Texas but as you know LBJ
got over 60% of the vote and 486 electors against him in a landslide.
Sure, some of that may have been due to the assassination; people not
wanting to make a change.

As we know, it's very difficult to defeat an incumbent president; and
Goldwater was a weak candidate, weaker than Nixon who had name
recognition. The question for JFK in 1960 was whether he had the maturity
to lead the country. I think he could say in 1964 that the four years
showed he could.

[bigdog]

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by 19efppp

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

Dumping LBJ would have amounted to dumping Texas. I believe at the time it
was the third most populous state behind California and New York. It
wouldn't matter what his reasons were for dropping LBJ. It wouldn't have
sat well with voters in Texas and almost certainly would have cost JFK the
state in 1964. Winning Texas was the main reason JFK tapped LBJ to begin
with an why he would have been unlikely to dump him.

You're assuming that in a race against Goldwater that JFK would need Texas
as he did against Nixon. I don't know what the national polling showed in
a head-to-head matchup with Goldwater or even in Texas but as you know LBJ
got over 60% of the vote and 486 electors against him in a landslide.
Sure, some of that may have been due to the assassination; people not
wanting to make a change.

There is no reason to think that JFK would have cruised to a landslide
with the magnitude of LBJ's. Part of the reason for LBJ's massive victory
is that he was seen as the continuation of the Kennedy administration.
Goldwater later observed that the country wasn't ready to change
presidents again so soon after the assassination.

In any case, JFK would not have taken anything for granted regarding his
reelection. Texas was a crucial state then as it is now. He barely won it
in 1960 even with LBJ on the ticket and would have had no chance in 1964
without LBJ. Apparently he thought Texas was crucial to his reelection
which is why he felt it was important to make the trip there to try to
heel the fracture within the state party between the Connally and
Yarborough wings. Why bother doing that if he planned to dump LBJ.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As we know, it's very difficult to defeat an incumbent president; and
Goldwater was a weak candidate, weaker than Nixon who had name
recognition. The question for JFK in 1960 was whether he had the maturity
to lead the country. I think he could say in 1964 that the four years
showed he could.

Difficult does not equate to impossible. Had it not been for the
assassination, Goldwater would have been a much more formidable candidate.
He and JFK were friends and it was widely believed he would be JFK's
opponent in 1964. He had discussions with JFK about flying around the
country together in AF1 to hold a series of debates. JFK would have been
the favorite to win such a race but it wasn't going to be a slam dunk. The
Kennedys were politically shrewd enough to know how important winning
Texas would be and how important LBJ was to doing that.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by 19efppp

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

Dumping LBJ would have amounted to dumping Texas. I believe at the time it
was the third most populous state behind California and New York. It
wouldn't matter what his reasons were for dropping LBJ. It wouldn't have
sat well with voters in Texas and almost certainly would have cost JFK the
state in 1964. Winning Texas was the main reason JFK tapped LBJ to begin
with an why he would have been unlikely to dump him.

You're assuming that in a race against Goldwater that JFK would need Texas
as he did against Nixon. I don't know what the national polling showed in
a head-to-head matchup with Goldwater or even in Texas but as you know LBJ
got over 60% of the vote and 486 electors against him in a landslide.
Sure, some of that may have been due to the assassination; people not
wanting to make a change.

There is no reason to think that JFK would have cruised to a landslide
with the magnitude of LBJ's. Part of the reason for LBJ's massive victory
is that he was seen as the continuation of the Kennedy administration.
Goldwater later observed that the country wasn't ready to change
presidents again so soon after the assassination.
In any case, JFK would not have taken anything for granted regarding his
reelection. Texas was a crucial state then as it is now. He barely won it
in 1960 even with LBJ on the ticket and would have had no chance in 1964
without LBJ. Apparently he thought Texas was crucial to his reelection
which is why he felt it was important to make the trip there to try to
heel the fracture within the state party between the Connally and
Yarborough wings. Why bother doing that if he planned to dump LBJ.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As we know, it's very difficult to defeat an incumbent president; and
Goldwater was a weak candidate, weaker than Nixon who had name
recognition. The question for JFK in 1960 was whether he had the maturity
to lead the country. I think he could say in 1964 that the four years
showed he could.

Difficult does not equate to impossible. Had it not been for the
assassination, Goldwater would have been a much more formidable candidate.
He and JFK were friends and it was widely believed he would be JFK's
opponent in 1964. He had discussions with JFK about flying around the
country together in AF1 to hold a series of debates. JFK would have been
the favorite to win such a race but it wasn't going to be a slam dunk. The
Kennedys were politically shrewd enough to know how important winning
Texas would be and how important LBJ was to doing that.

The problem with your arguments is that the evidence shows that JFK was,
at best, undecided as to whether have LBJ on the ticket in '64. LBJ
himself, as Caro's account shows, thought he would be dropped. And LBJ was
on the sidelines during that Texas trip; JFK didn't use him at all in
trying to bring together the various Texas Democratic factions that were
at odds.

If JFK so needed to win Texas and so needed to have LBJ to do so I don't
think LBJ would have had such thoughts about being dropped; AND I think
JFK would have used LBJ more in working out those party disputes.

[bigdog]

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by 19efppp

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

Dumping LBJ would have amounted to dumping Texas. I believe at the time it
was the third most populous state behind California and New York. It
wouldn't matter what his reasons were for dropping LBJ. It wouldn't have
sat well with voters in Texas and almost certainly would have cost JFK the
state in 1964. Winning Texas was the main reason JFK tapped LBJ to begin
with an why he would have been unlikely to dump him.

You're assuming that in a race against Goldwater that JFK would need Texas
as he did against Nixon. I don't know what the national polling showed in
a head-to-head matchup with Goldwater or even in Texas but as you know LBJ
got over 60% of the vote and 486 electors against him in a landslide.
Sure, some of that may have been due to the assassination; people not
wanting to make a change.

There is no reason to think that JFK would have cruised to a landslide
with the magnitude of LBJ's. Part of the reason for LBJ's massive victory
is that he was seen as the continuation of the Kennedy administration.
Goldwater later observed that the country wasn't ready to change
presidents again so soon after the assassination.
In any case, JFK would not have taken anything for granted regarding his
reelection. Texas was a crucial state then as it is now. He barely won it
in 1960 even with LBJ on the ticket and would have had no chance in 1964
without LBJ. Apparently he thought Texas was crucial to his reelection
which is why he felt it was important to make the trip there to try to
heel the fracture within the state party between the Connally and
Yarborough wings. Why bother doing that if he planned to dump LBJ.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As we know, it's very difficult to defeat an incumbent president; and
Goldwater was a weak candidate, weaker than Nixon who had name
recognition. The question for JFK in 1960 was whether he had the maturity
to lead the country. I think he could say in 1964 that the four years
showed he could.

Difficult does not equate to impossible. Had it not been for the
assassination, Goldwater would have been a much more formidable candidate.
He and JFK were friends and it was widely believed he would be JFK's
opponent in 1964. He had discussions with JFK about flying around the
country together in AF1 to hold a series of debates. JFK would have been
the favorite to win such a race but it wasn't going to be a slam dunk. The
Kennedys were politically shrewd enough to know how important winning
Texas would be and how important LBJ was to doing that.

The problem with your arguments is that the evidence shows that JFK was,
at best, undecided as to whether have LBJ on the ticket in '64. LBJ
himself, as Caro's account shows, thought he would be dropped. And LBJ was
on the sidelines during that Texas trip; JFK didn't use him at all in
trying to bring together the various Texas Democratic factions that were
at odds.

I hardly think LBJ was on the sidelines. He was at the breakfast that
morning. He was two cars behind JFK in the motorcade. I'm sure he would
have been at the Trade Mart. As I recall he was at the stops the previous
day as well. He had been instrumental in getting NASA to locate their
mission control in Houston which is why it bears the name the Johnson
Space Center. As far as bringing the factions of the party together, LBJ
was allied with Connally so he could hardly be expected to broker a peace
treaty.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
If JFK so needed to win Texas and so needed to have LBJ to do so I don't
think LBJ would have had such thoughts about being dropped; AND I think
JFK would have used LBJ more in working out those party disputes.

I couldn't disagree more. Texas was vital in any electoral college
strategy. It was a state he couldn't afford to lose. Losing Texas probably
would have required him to win almost all the other toss up states. I
don't think he would have wanted to bank on doing that. Winning Texas
would give him a cushion.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by 19efppp

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

Dumping LBJ would have amounted to dumping Texas. I believe at the time it
was the third most populous state behind California and New York. It
wouldn't matter what his reasons were for dropping LBJ. It wouldn't have
sat well with voters in Texas and almost certainly would have cost JFK the
state in 1964. Winning Texas was the main reason JFK tapped LBJ to begin
with an why he would have been unlikely to dump him.

You're assuming that in a race against Goldwater that JFK would need Texas
as he did against Nixon. I don't know what the national polling showed in
a head-to-head matchup with Goldwater or even in Texas but as you know LBJ
got over 60% of the vote and 486 electors against him in a landslide.
Sure, some of that may have been due to the assassination; people not
wanting to make a change.

There is no reason to think that JFK would have cruised to a landslide
with the magnitude of LBJ's. Part of the reason for LBJ's massive victory
is that he was seen as the continuation of the Kennedy administration.
Goldwater later observed that the country wasn't ready to change
presidents again so soon after the assassination.
In any case, JFK would not have taken anything for granted regarding his
reelection. Texas was a crucial state then as it is now. He barely won it
in 1960 even with LBJ on the ticket and would have had no chance in 1964
without LBJ. Apparently he thought Texas was crucial to his reelection
which is why he felt it was important to make the trip there to try to
heel the fracture within the state party between the Connally and
Yarborough wings. Why bother doing that if he planned to dump LBJ.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As we know, it's very difficult to defeat an incumbent president; and
Goldwater was a weak candidate, weaker than Nixon who had name
recognition. The question for JFK in 1960 was whether he had the maturity
to lead the country. I think he could say in 1964 that the four years
showed he could.

Difficult does not equate to impossible. Had it not been for the
assassination, Goldwater would have been a much more formidable candidate.
He and JFK were friends and it was widely believed he would be JFK's
opponent in 1964. He had discussions with JFK about flying around the
country together in AF1 to hold a series of debates. JFK would have been
the favorite to win such a race but it wasn't going to be a slam dunk. The
Kennedys were politically shrewd enough to know how important winning
Texas would be and how important LBJ was to doing that.

The problem with your arguments is that the evidence shows that JFK was,
at best, undecided as to whether have LBJ on the ticket in '64. LBJ
himself, as Caro's account shows, thought he would be dropped. And LBJ was
on the sidelines during that Texas trip; JFK didn't use him at all in
trying to bring together the various Texas Democratic factions that were
at odds.

I hardly think LBJ was on the sidelines. He was at the breakfast that
morning. He was two cars behind JFK in the motorcade. I'm sure he would
have been at the Trade Mart. As I recall he was at the stops the previous
day as well. He had been instrumental in getting NASA to locate their
mission control in Houston which is why it bears the name the Johnson
Space Center. As far as bringing the factions of the party together, LBJ

After getting rid of JFK. I used to drive through Kendall Square every day
and looking at all that empty space wonder what the Space Center would
have looked like.

Another contribution came from the Space Race by a decidedly indirect
route. When President John F. Kennedy made his bold claim that the United
States would be the first nation on the Moon, he maneuvered to have
several of the area's older industrial manufacturing and other dirty
businesses removed by eminent domain. Kennedy's idea was to make Kendall
Square the headquarters for the NASA mission control center, but his then
Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson had this proposed project moved to
Houston, Texas. In 1964, Kendall Square got a much smaller NASA Electronic
Research Center instead, but President Richard M. Nixon would shut it down
only five years later.[8]

Post by bigdog
was allied with Connally so he could hardly be expected to broker a peace
treaty.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
If JFK so needed to win Texas and so needed to have LBJ to do so I don't
think LBJ would have had such thoughts about being dropped; AND I think
JFK would have used LBJ more in working out those party disputes.

I couldn't disagree more. Texas was vital in any electoral college
strategy. It was a state he couldn't afford to lose. Losing Texas probably
would have required him to win almost all the other toss up states. I
don't think he would have wanted to bank on doing that. Winning Texas
would give him a cushion.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by 19efppp

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

Dumping LBJ would have amounted to dumping Texas. I believe at the time it
was the third most populous state behind California and New York. It
wouldn't matter what his reasons were for dropping LBJ. It wouldn't have
sat well with voters in Texas and almost certainly would have cost JFK the
state in 1964. Winning Texas was the main reason JFK tapped LBJ to begin
with an why he would have been unlikely to dump him.

You're assuming that in a race against Goldwater that JFK would need Texas
as he did against Nixon. I don't know what the national polling showed in
a head-to-head matchup with Goldwater or even in Texas but as you know LBJ
got over 60% of the vote and 486 electors against him in a landslide.
Sure, some of that may have been due to the assassination; people not
wanting to make a change.

There is no reason to think that JFK would have cruised to a landslide
with the magnitude of LBJ's. Part of the reason for LBJ's massive victory
is that he was seen as the continuation of the Kennedy administration.
Goldwater later observed that the country wasn't ready to change
presidents again so soon after the assassination.
In any case, JFK would not have taken anything for granted regarding his
reelection. Texas was a crucial state then as it is now. He barely won it
in 1960 even with LBJ on the ticket and would have had no chance in 1964
without LBJ. Apparently he thought Texas was crucial to his reelection
which is why he felt it was important to make the trip there to try to
heel the fracture within the state party between the Connally and
Yarborough wings. Why bother doing that if he planned to dump LBJ.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As we know, it's very difficult to defeat an incumbent president; and
Goldwater was a weak candidate, weaker than Nixon who had name
recognition. The question for JFK in 1960 was whether he had the maturity
to lead the country. I think he could say in 1964 that the four years
showed he could.

Difficult does not equate to impossible. Had it not been for the
assassination, Goldwater would have been a much more formidable candidate.
He and JFK were friends and it was widely believed he would be JFK's
opponent in 1964. He had discussions with JFK about flying around the
country together in AF1 to hold a series of debates. JFK would have been
the favorite to win such a race but it wasn't going to be a slam dunk. The
Kennedys were politically shrewd enough to know how important winning
Texas would be and how important LBJ was to doing that.

The problem with your arguments is that the evidence shows that JFK was,
at best, undecided as to whether have LBJ on the ticket in '64. LBJ
himself, as Caro's account shows, thought he would be dropped. And LBJ was
on the sidelines during that Texas trip; JFK didn't use him at all in
trying to bring together the various Texas Democratic factions that were
at odds.

I hardly think LBJ was on the sidelines. He was at the breakfast that
morning. He was two cars behind JFK in the motorcade. I'm sure he would
have been at the Trade Mart. As I recall he was at the stops the previous
day as well. He had been instrumental in getting NASA to locate their
mission control in Houston which is why it bears the name the Johnson
Space Center. As far as bringing the factions of the party together, LBJ
was allied with Connally so he could hardly be expected to broker a peace
treaty.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
If JFK so needed to win Texas and so needed to have LBJ to do so I don't
think LBJ would have had such thoughts about being dropped; AND I think
JFK would have used LBJ more in working out those party disputes.

I couldn't disagree more. Texas was vital in any electoral college
strategy. It was a state he couldn't afford to lose. Losing Texas probably
would have required him to win almost all the other toss up states. I
don't think he would have wanted to bank on doing that. Winning Texas
would give him a cushion.

Caro's account indicates that LBJ thought he was going to be dropped. He
was telling his staff and others to find other jobs, that working with him
was a dead end. And again, his account is that JFK was, at that point,
undecided as to whether to keep him on the ticket. I've read that in other
histories too: that is, JFK at that stage was unsure. I would imagine some
of that had to do with the Bobby Baker/corruption investigation.

If JFK was so worried about winning Texas and needed LBJ to do so then why
all of this hemming and hawing and indecisiveness?

And LBJ wasn't used at all in trying to mend those Texas factions. And
where was he during the trip? In the background. For a guy they needed to
win the state they sure didn't put him up front.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by 19efppp

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

Dumping LBJ would have amounted to dumping Texas. I believe at the time it
was the third most populous state behind California and New York. It
wouldn't matter what his reasons were for dropping LBJ. It wouldn't have
sat well with voters in Texas and almost certainly would have cost JFK the
state in 1964. Winning Texas was the main reason JFK tapped LBJ to begin
with an why he would have been unlikely to dump him.

You're assuming that in a race against Goldwater that JFK would need Texas
as he did against Nixon. I don't know what the national polling showed in
a head-to-head matchup with Goldwater or even in Texas but as you know LBJ
got over 60% of the vote and 486 electors against him in a landslide.
Sure, some of that may have been due to the assassination; people not
wanting to make a change.

There is no reason to think that JFK would have cruised to a landslide
with the magnitude of LBJ's. Part of the reason for LBJ's massive victory
is that he was seen as the continuation of the Kennedy administration.
Goldwater later observed that the country wasn't ready to change
presidents again so soon after the assassination.
In any case, JFK would not have taken anything for granted regarding his
reelection. Texas was a crucial state then as it is now. He barely won it
in 1960 even with LBJ on the ticket and would have had no chance in 1964
without LBJ. Apparently he thought Texas was crucial to his reelection
which is why he felt it was important to make the trip there to try to
heel the fracture within the state party between the Connally and
Yarborough wings. Why bother doing that if he planned to dump LBJ.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As we know, it's very difficult to defeat an incumbent president; and
Goldwater was a weak candidate, weaker than Nixon who had name
recognition. The question for JFK in 1960 was whether he had the maturity
to lead the country. I think he could say in 1964 that the four years
showed he could.

Difficult does not equate to impossible. Had it not been for the
assassination, Goldwater would have been a much more formidable candidate.
He and JFK were friends and it was widely believed he would be JFK's
opponent in 1964. He had discussions with JFK about flying around the
country together in AF1 to hold a series of debates. JFK would have been
the favorite to win such a race but it wasn't going to be a slam dunk. The
Kennedys were politically shrewd enough to know how important winning
Texas would be and how important LBJ was to doing that.

The problem with your arguments is that the evidence shows that JFK was,
at best, undecided as to whether have LBJ on the ticket in '64. LBJ
himself, as Caro's account shows, thought he would be dropped. And LBJ was
on the sidelines during that Texas trip; JFK didn't use him at all in
trying to bring together the various Texas Democratic factions that were
at odds.

I hardly think LBJ was on the sidelines. He was at the breakfast that
morning. He was two cars behind JFK in the motorcade. I'm sure he would
have been at the Trade Mart. As I recall he was at the stops the previous
day as well. He had been instrumental in getting NASA to locate their
mission control in Houston which is why it bears the name the Johnson
Space Center. As far as bringing the factions of the party together, LBJ
was allied with Connally so he could hardly be expected to broker a peace
treaty.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
If JFK so needed to win Texas and so needed to have LBJ to do so I don't
think LBJ would have had such thoughts about being dropped; AND I think
JFK would have used LBJ more in working out those party disputes.

I couldn't disagree more. Texas was vital in any electoral college
strategy. It was a state he couldn't afford to lose. Losing Texas probably
would have required him to win almost all the other toss up states. I
don't think he would have wanted to bank on doing that. Winning Texas
would give him a cushion.

Caro's account indicates that LBJ thought he was going to be dropped. He
was telling his staff and others to find other jobs, that working with him
was a dead end. And again, his account is that JFK was, at that point,
undecided as to whether to keep him on the ticket. I've read that in other
histories too: that is, JFK at that stage was unsure. I would imagine some
of that had to do with the Bobby Baker/corruption investigation.
If JFK was so worried about winning Texas and needed LBJ to do so then why
all of this hemming and hawing and indecisiveness?
And LBJ wasn't used at all in trying to mend those Texas factions. And
where was he during the trip? In the background. For a guy they needed to
win the state they sure didn't put him up front.

I don't think that LBJ should have even been in that motorcade. His
military aide advised him that if the Soviets assassinated the President
when launching an attack, he would also be assassinated to thwart a timely
counter-attack.

[bigdog]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by 19efppp

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

Dumping LBJ would have amounted to dumping Texas. I believe at the time it
was the third most populous state behind California and New York. It
wouldn't matter what his reasons were for dropping LBJ. It wouldn't have
sat well with voters in Texas and almost certainly would have cost JFK the
state in 1964. Winning Texas was the main reason JFK tapped LBJ to begin
with an why he would have been unlikely to dump him.

You're assuming that in a race against Goldwater that JFK would need Texas
as he did against Nixon. I don't know what the national polling showed in
a head-to-head matchup with Goldwater or even in Texas but as you know LBJ
got over 60% of the vote and 486 electors against him in a landslide.
Sure, some of that may have been due to the assassination; people not
wanting to make a change.

There is no reason to think that JFK would have cruised to a landslide
with the magnitude of LBJ's. Part of the reason for LBJ's massive victory
is that he was seen as the continuation of the Kennedy administration.
Goldwater later observed that the country wasn't ready to change
presidents again so soon after the assassination.
In any case, JFK would not have taken anything for granted regarding his
reelection. Texas was a crucial state then as it is now. He barely won it
in 1960 even with LBJ on the ticket and would have had no chance in 1964
without LBJ. Apparently he thought Texas was crucial to his reelection
which is why he felt it was important to make the trip there to try to
heel the fracture within the state party between the Connally and
Yarborough wings. Why bother doing that if he planned to dump LBJ.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As we know, it's very difficult to defeat an incumbent president; and
Goldwater was a weak candidate, weaker than Nixon who had name
recognition. The question for JFK in 1960 was whether he had the maturity
to lead the country. I think he could say in 1964 that the four years
showed he could.

Difficult does not equate to impossible. Had it not been for the
assassination, Goldwater would have been a much more formidable candidate.
He and JFK were friends and it was widely believed he would be JFK's
opponent in 1964. He had discussions with JFK about flying around the
country together in AF1 to hold a series of debates. JFK would have been
the favorite to win such a race but it wasn't going to be a slam dunk. The
Kennedys were politically shrewd enough to know how important winning
Texas would be and how important LBJ was to doing that.

The problem with your arguments is that the evidence shows that JFK was,
at best, undecided as to whether have LBJ on the ticket in '64. LBJ
himself, as Caro's account shows, thought he would be dropped. And LBJ was
on the sidelines during that Texas trip; JFK didn't use him at all in
trying to bring together the various Texas Democratic factions that were
at odds.

I hardly think LBJ was on the sidelines. He was at the breakfast that
morning. He was two cars behind JFK in the motorcade. I'm sure he would
have been at the Trade Mart. As I recall he was at the stops the previous
day as well. He had been instrumental in getting NASA to locate their
mission control in Houston which is why it bears the name the Johnson
Space Center. As far as bringing the factions of the party together, LBJ
was allied with Connally so he could hardly be expected to broker a peace
treaty.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
If JFK so needed to win Texas and so needed to have LBJ to do so I don't
think LBJ would have had such thoughts about being dropped; AND I think
JFK would have used LBJ more in working out those party disputes.

I couldn't disagree more. Texas was vital in any electoral college
strategy. It was a state he couldn't afford to lose. Losing Texas probably
would have required him to win almost all the other toss up states. I
don't think he would have wanted to bank on doing that. Winning Texas
would give him a cushion.

Caro's account indicates that LBJ thought he was going to be dropped. He
was telling his staff and others to find other jobs, that working with him
was a dead end. And again, his account is that JFK was, at that point,
undecided as to whether to keep him on the ticket. I've read that in other
histories too: that is, JFK at that stage was unsure. I would imagine some
of that had to do with the Bobby Baker/corruption investigation.
If JFK was so worried about winning Texas and needed LBJ to do so then why
all of this hemming and hawing and indecisiveness?
And LBJ wasn't used at all in trying to mend those Texas factions. And
where was he during the trip? In the background. For a guy they needed to
win the state they sure didn't put him up front.

I don't think that LBJ should have even been in that motorcade. His
military aide advised him that if the Soviets assassinated the President
when launching an attack, he would also be assassinated to thwart a timely
counter-attack.

I've been told that it is standard military practice not to have senior
officers flying in the same plane although I've been unable to confirm
that. I did find a website that indicates many companies have rules
against all their senior executives flying together.

Of course the most obvious example of this kind of precaution is the State
of the Union address where most of the people from all three branches of
he federal government are all together in the capital building, making an
inviting target for terrorists. A low level cabinet member is chosen to
stay away as the designated survivor which was the basis for the Kiefer
Sutherland TV series of that name.

One really interesting example of throwing such caution to the wind was
when President Obama and VP Biden joined Speaker John Boehner and John
Kasich for a round of golf in 2011. That was the top three men in the line
of presidential succession. Fourth in line is the President Pro Tempore of
the Senate who at the time was 87 year old Daniel Inouye. He was one
lightning bolt away from becoming POTUS.

Of course he was a spring chicken compared to Strom Thurmond who held that
post at the age of 98. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate has become
largely a ceremonial post and is customarily awarded to the most senior
member of the majority party which means he's usually a really old guy.
Maybe we should rethink whether that position should be in the
presidential line of succession.

[bigdog]

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by 19efppp

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

Dumping LBJ would have amounted to dumping Texas. I believe at the time it
was the third most populous state behind California and New York. It
wouldn't matter what his reasons were for dropping LBJ. It wouldn't have
sat well with voters in Texas and almost certainly would have cost JFK the
state in 1964. Winning Texas was the main reason JFK tapped LBJ to begin
with an why he would have been unlikely to dump him.

You're assuming that in a race against Goldwater that JFK would need Texas
as he did against Nixon. I don't know what the national polling showed in
a head-to-head matchup with Goldwater or even in Texas but as you know LBJ
got over 60% of the vote and 486 electors against him in a landslide.
Sure, some of that may have been due to the assassination; people not
wanting to make a change.

There is no reason to think that JFK would have cruised to a landslide
with the magnitude of LBJ's. Part of the reason for LBJ's massive victory
is that he was seen as the continuation of the Kennedy administration.
Goldwater later observed that the country wasn't ready to change
presidents again so soon after the assassination.
In any case, JFK would not have taken anything for granted regarding his
reelection. Texas was a crucial state then as it is now. He barely won it
in 1960 even with LBJ on the ticket and would have had no chance in 1964
without LBJ. Apparently he thought Texas was crucial to his reelection
which is why he felt it was important to make the trip there to try to
heel the fracture within the state party between the Connally and
Yarborough wings. Why bother doing that if he planned to dump LBJ.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As we know, it's very difficult to defeat an incumbent president; and
Goldwater was a weak candidate, weaker than Nixon who had name
recognition. The question for JFK in 1960 was whether he had the maturity
to lead the country. I think he could say in 1964 that the four years
showed he could.

Difficult does not equate to impossible. Had it not been for the
assassination, Goldwater would have been a much more formidable candidate.
He and JFK were friends and it was widely believed he would be JFK's
opponent in 1964. He had discussions with JFK about flying around the
country together in AF1 to hold a series of debates. JFK would have been
the favorite to win such a race but it wasn't going to be a slam dunk. The
Kennedys were politically shrewd enough to know how important winning
Texas would be and how important LBJ was to doing that.

The problem with your arguments is that the evidence shows that JFK was,
at best, undecided as to whether have LBJ on the ticket in '64. LBJ
himself, as Caro's account shows, thought he would be dropped. And LBJ was
on the sidelines during that Texas trip; JFK didn't use him at all in
trying to bring together the various Texas Democratic factions that were
at odds.

I hardly think LBJ was on the sidelines. He was at the breakfast that
morning. He was two cars behind JFK in the motorcade. I'm sure he would
have been at the Trade Mart. As I recall he was at the stops the previous
day as well. He had been instrumental in getting NASA to locate their
mission control in Houston which is why it bears the name the Johnson
Space Center. As far as bringing the factions of the party together, LBJ
was allied with Connally so he could hardly be expected to broker a peace
treaty.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
If JFK so needed to win Texas and so needed to have LBJ to do so I don't
think LBJ would have had such thoughts about being dropped; AND I think
JFK would have used LBJ more in working out those party disputes.

I couldn't disagree more. Texas was vital in any electoral college
strategy. It was a state he couldn't afford to lose. Losing Texas probably
would have required him to win almost all the other toss up states. I
don't think he would have wanted to bank on doing that. Winning Texas
would give him a cushion.

Caro's account indicates that LBJ thought he was going to be dropped. He
was telling his staff and others to find other jobs, that working with him
was a dead end. And again, his account is that JFK was, at that point,
undecided as to whether to keep him on the ticket. I've read that in other
histories too: that is, JFK at that stage was unsure. I would imagine some
of that had to do with the Bobby Baker/corruption investigation.

LBJ may have been insecure in his feelings but I doubt JFK had any
intention of dropping him for reasons stated. As for him being at a dead
end, that was pretty much the case for Veeps. It's only been in recent
years that the Veep spot was seen as a stepping stone to the presidency.
Bush41 was the first sitting Veep to be elected president since Martin Van
Buren. Nixon was the first ex-Veep to be elected president. Humphrey,
Mondale, and Gore all failed in their bids for the presidency. Now we have
Biden. Who knows how that will turn out? All other Veeps who became
president did so through succession.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
If JFK was so worried about winning Texas and needed LBJ to do so then why
all of this hemming and hawing and indecisiveness?

It sounds to me that LBJ was the one in doubt. I see no indication that
JFK had any intention of dropping him.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
And LBJ wasn't used at all in trying to mend those Texas factions.

How could he be. He was a leader of one of the factions. He and Connally
were allies. It's not as if he could have played mediator.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
And where was he during the trip? In the background.

Pretty much SOP for Veeps.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
For a guy they needed to win the state they sure didn't put him up front.

Can you think of any Veep who ever was put out front? FDR's first Veep (he
had 3) was John C. Garner who once told LBJ the vice-presidency wasn't
worth a bucket of warm piss.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by 19efppp

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

Dumping LBJ would have amounted to dumping Texas. I believe at the time it
was the third most populous state behind California and New York. It
wouldn't matter what his reasons were for dropping LBJ. It wouldn't have
sat well with voters in Texas and almost certainly would have cost JFK the
state in 1964. Winning Texas was the main reason JFK tapped LBJ to begin
with an why he would have been unlikely to dump him.

You're assuming that in a race against Goldwater that JFK would need Texas
as he did against Nixon. I don't know what the national polling showed in
a head-to-head matchup with Goldwater or even in Texas but as you know LBJ
got over 60% of the vote and 486 electors against him in a landslide.
Sure, some of that may have been due to the assassination; people not
wanting to make a change.

There is no reason to think that JFK would have cruised to a landslide
with the magnitude of LBJ's. Part of the reason for LBJ's massive victory
is that he was seen as the continuation of the Kennedy administration.
Goldwater later observed that the country wasn't ready to change
presidents again so soon after the assassination.
In any case, JFK would not have taken anything for granted regarding his
reelection. Texas was a crucial state then as it is now. He barely won it
in 1960 even with LBJ on the ticket and would have had no chance in 1964
without LBJ. Apparently he thought Texas was crucial to his reelection
which is why he felt it was important to make the trip there to try to
heel the fracture within the state party between the Connally and
Yarborough wings. Why bother doing that if he planned to dump LBJ.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As we know, it's very difficult to defeat an incumbent president; and
Goldwater was a weak candidate, weaker than Nixon who had name
recognition. The question for JFK in 1960 was whether he had the maturity
to lead the country. I think he could say in 1964 that the four years
showed he could.

Difficult does not equate to impossible. Had it not been for the
assassination, Goldwater would have been a much more formidable candidate.
He and JFK were friends and it was widely believed he would be JFK's
opponent in 1964. He had discussions with JFK about flying around the
country together in AF1 to hold a series of debates. JFK would have been
the favorite to win such a race but it wasn't going to be a slam dunk. The
Kennedys were politically shrewd enough to know how important winning
Texas would be and how important LBJ was to doing that.

The problem with your arguments is that the evidence shows that JFK was,
at best, undecided as to whether have LBJ on the ticket in '64. LBJ
himself, as Caro's account shows, thought he would be dropped. And LBJ was
on the sidelines during that Texas trip; JFK didn't use him at all in
trying to bring together the various Texas Democratic factions that were
at odds.

I hardly think LBJ was on the sidelines. He was at the breakfast that
morning. He was two cars behind JFK in the motorcade. I'm sure he would
have been at the Trade Mart. As I recall he was at the stops the previous
day as well. He had been instrumental in getting NASA to locate their
mission control in Houston which is why it bears the name the Johnson
Space Center. As far as bringing the factions of the party together, LBJ
was allied with Connally so he could hardly be expected to broker a peace
treaty.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
If JFK so needed to win Texas and so needed to have LBJ to do so I don't
think LBJ would have had such thoughts about being dropped; AND I think
JFK would have used LBJ more in working out those party disputes.

I couldn't disagree more. Texas was vital in any electoral college
strategy. It was a state he couldn't afford to lose. Losing Texas probably
would have required him to win almost all the other toss up states. I
don't think he would have wanted to bank on doing that. Winning Texas
would give him a cushion.

Caro's account indicates that LBJ thought he was going to be dropped. He
was telling his staff and others to find other jobs, that working with him
was a dead end. And again, his account is that JFK was, at that point,
undecided as to whether to keep him on the ticket. I've read that in other
histories too: that is, JFK at that stage was unsure. I would imagine some
of that had to do with the Bobby Baker/corruption investigation.

LBJ may have been insecure in his feelings but I doubt JFK had any
intention of dropping him for reasons stated. As for him being at a dead
end, that was pretty much the case for Veeps. It's only been in recent
years that the Veep spot was seen as a stepping stone to the presidency.
Bush41 was the first sitting Veep to be elected president since Martin Van
Buren. Nixon was the first ex-Veep to be elected president. Humphrey,
Mondale, and Gore all failed in their bids for the presidency. Now we have
Biden. Who knows how that will turn out? All other Veeps who became
president did so through succession.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
If JFK was so worried about winning Texas and needed LBJ to do so then why
all of this hemming and hawing and indecisiveness?

It sounds to me that LBJ was the one in doubt. I see no indication that
JFK had any intention of dropping him.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
And LBJ wasn't used at all in trying to mend those Texas factions.

How could he be. He was a leader of one of the factions. He and Connally
were allies. It's not as if he could have played mediator.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
And where was he during the trip? In the background.

Pretty much SOP for Veeps.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
For a guy they needed to win the state they sure didn't put him up front.

Can you think of any Veep who ever was put out front? FDR's first Veep (he
had 3) was John C. Garner who once told LBJ the vice-presidency wasn't
worth a bucket of warm piss.

I'll go back to the Caro account and leave it there: he said LBJ was
telling his people to move on, not to join up with him because his future
was over. If they wanted to advance their careers it was smart to leave
him and go with someone else.

That's more than insecurity. Besides, he knew that even IF he stayed on
that the successor to JFK was going to be RFK. JFK wasn't going to anoint
him as his successor over Bobby. So four more miserable years as the VP -
with Bobby's people screwing him over - and then RFK taking over the
party.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by 19efppp

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

Dumping LBJ would have amounted to dumping Texas. I believe at the time it
was the third most populous state behind California and New York. It
wouldn't matter what his reasons were for dropping LBJ. It wouldn't have
sat well with voters in Texas and almost certainly would have cost JFK the
state in 1964. Winning Texas was the main reason JFK tapped LBJ to begin
with an why he would have been unlikely to dump him.

You're assuming that in a race against Goldwater that JFK would need Texas
as he did against Nixon. I don't know what the national polling showed in
a head-to-head matchup with Goldwater or even in Texas but as you know LBJ
got over 60% of the vote and 486 electors against him in a landslide.
Sure, some of that may have been due to the assassination; people not
wanting to make a change.

There is no reason to think that JFK would have cruised to a landslide
with the magnitude of LBJ's. Part of the reason for LBJ's massive victory
is that he was seen as the continuation of the Kennedy administration.
Goldwater later observed that the country wasn't ready to change
presidents again so soon after the assassination.
In any case, JFK would not have taken anything for granted regarding his
reelection. Texas was a crucial state then as it is now. He barely won it
in 1960 even with LBJ on the ticket and would have had no chance in 1964
without LBJ. Apparently he thought Texas was crucial to his reelection
which is why he felt it was important to make the trip there to try to
heel the fracture within the state party between the Connally and
Yarborough wings. Why bother doing that if he planned to dump LBJ.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As we know, it's very difficult to defeat an incumbent president; and
Goldwater was a weak candidate, weaker than Nixon who had name
recognition. The question for JFK in 1960 was whether he had the maturity
to lead the country. I think he could say in 1964 that the four years
showed he could.

Difficult does not equate to impossible. Had it not been for the
assassination, Goldwater would have been a much more formidable candidate.
He and JFK were friends and it was widely believed he would be JFK's
opponent in 1964. He had discussions with JFK about flying around the
country together in AF1 to hold a series of debates. JFK would have been
the favorite to win such a race but it wasn't going to be a slam dunk. The
Kennedys were politically shrewd enough to know how important winning
Texas would be and how important LBJ was to doing that.

The problem with your arguments is that the evidence shows that JFK was,
at best, undecided as to whether have LBJ on the ticket in '64. LBJ
himself, as Caro's account shows, thought he would be dropped. And LBJ was
on the sidelines during that Texas trip; JFK didn't use him at all in
trying to bring together the various Texas Democratic factions that were
at odds.

I hardly think LBJ was on the sidelines. He was at the breakfast that
morning. He was two cars behind JFK in the motorcade. I'm sure he would
have been at the Trade Mart. As I recall he was at the stops the previous
day as well. He had been instrumental in getting NASA to locate their
mission control in Houston which is why it bears the name the Johnson
Space Center. As far as bringing the factions of the party together, LBJ
was allied with Connally so he could hardly be expected to broker a peace
treaty.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
If JFK so needed to win Texas and so needed to have LBJ to do so I don't
think LBJ would have had such thoughts about being dropped; AND I think
JFK would have used LBJ more in working out those party disputes.

I couldn't disagree more. Texas was vital in any electoral college
strategy. It was a state he couldn't afford to lose. Losing Texas probably
would have required him to win almost all the other toss up states. I
don't think he would have wanted to bank on doing that. Winning Texas
would give him a cushion.

Caro's account indicates that LBJ thought he was going to be dropped. He
was telling his staff and others to find other jobs, that working with him
was a dead end. And again, his account is that JFK was, at that point,
undecided as to whether to keep him on the ticket. I've read that in other
histories too: that is, JFK at that stage was unsure. I would imagine some
of that had to do with the Bobby Baker/corruption investigation.

LBJ may have been insecure in his feelings but I doubt JFK had any
intention of dropping him for reasons stated. As for him being at a dead
end, that was pretty much the case for Veeps. It's only been in recent
years that the Veep spot was seen as a stepping stone to the presidency.
Bush41 was the first sitting Veep to be elected president since Martin Van
Buren. Nixon was the first ex-Veep to be elected president. Humphrey,
Mondale, and Gore all failed in their bids for the presidency. Now we have
Biden. Who knows how that will turn out? All other Veeps who became
president did so through succession.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
If JFK was so worried about winning Texas and needed LBJ to do so then why
all of this hemming and hawing and indecisiveness?

It sounds to me that LBJ was the one in doubt. I see no indication that
JFK had any intention of dropping him.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
And LBJ wasn't used at all in trying to mend those Texas factions.

How could he be. He was a leader of one of the factions. He and Connally
were allies. It's not as if he could have played mediator.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
And where was he during the trip? In the background.

Pretty much SOP for Veeps.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
For a guy they needed to win the state they sure didn't put him up front.

Can you think of any Veep who ever was put out front? FDR's first Veep (he
had 3) was John C. Garner who once told LBJ the vice-presidency wasn't
worth a bucket of warm piss.

I'll go back to the Caro account and leave it there: he said LBJ was
telling his people to move on, not to join up with him because his future
was over. If they wanted to advance their careers it was smart to leave
him and go with someone else.
That's more than insecurity. Besides, he knew that even IF he stayed on
that the successor to JFK was going to be RFK. JFK wasn't going to anoint
him as his successor over Bobby. So four more miserable years as the VP -
with Bobby's people screwing him over - and then RFK taking over the
party.

Most politicians see the V-P slot as the highest they will go unless the
President dies in office.
Nixon certainly felt that way when he ran for the Presidency and lost.
He said, "well, you won't have Nixon to kick around any more."

Then when LBJ dropped out he saw an opportunity.
Few V-Ps become President except when they take over when the President
dies.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by 19efppp

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

Dumping LBJ would have amounted to dumping Texas. I believe at the time it
was the third most populous state behind California and New York. It
wouldn't matter what his reasons were for dropping LBJ. It wouldn't have
sat well with voters in Texas and almost certainly would have cost JFK the
state in 1964. Winning Texas was the main reason JFK tapped LBJ to begin
with an why he would have been unlikely to dump him.

You're assuming that in a race against Goldwater that JFK would need Texas
as he did against Nixon. I don't know what the national polling showed in
a head-to-head matchup with Goldwater or even in Texas but as you know LBJ
got over 60% of the vote and 486 electors against him in a landslide.
Sure, some of that may have been due to the assassination; people not
wanting to make a change.

There is no reason to think that JFK would have cruised to a landslide
with the magnitude of LBJ's. Part of the reason for LBJ's massive victory
is that he was seen as the continuation of the Kennedy administration.
Goldwater later observed that the country wasn't ready to change
presidents again so soon after the assassination.

Part of it was to honor the legacy of JFK, but part of it was the old
adage of not changing horses in midstream. We were in the middle of a real
war and many people feared that Goldwater would use atomic bombs.

Post by bigdog
In any case, JFK would not have taken anything for granted regarding his
reelection. Texas was a crucial state then as it is now. He barely won it
in 1960 even with LBJ on the ticket and would have had no chance in 1964
without LBJ. Apparently he thought Texas was crucial to his reelection
which is why he felt it was important to make the trip there to try to
heel the fracture within the state party between the Connally and
Yarborough wings. Why bother doing that if he planned to dump LBJ.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As we know, it's very difficult to defeat an incumbent president; and
Goldwater was a weak candidate, weaker than Nixon who had name
recognition. The question for JFK in 1960 was whether he had the maturity
to lead the country. I think he could say in 1964 that the four years
showed he could.

Difficult does not equate to impossible. Had it not been for the
assassination, Goldwater would have been a much more formidable candidate.
He and JFK were friends and it was widely believed he would be JFK's
opponent in 1964. He had discussions with JFK about flying around the
country together in AF1 to hold a series of debates. JFK would have been
the favorite to win such a race but it wasn't going to be a slam dunk. The
Kennedys were politically shrewd enough to know how important winning
Texas would be and how important LBJ was to doing that.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by 19efppp

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

Dumping LBJ would have amounted to dumping Texas. I believe at the time it
was the third most populous state behind California and New York. It
wouldn't matter what his reasons were for dropping LBJ. It wouldn't have
sat well with voters in Texas and almost certainly would have cost JFK the
state in 1964. Winning Texas was the main reason JFK tapped LBJ to begin
with an why he would have been unlikely to dump him.

You're assuming that in a race against Goldwater that JFK would need Texas
as he did against Nixon. I don't know what the national polling showed in
a head-to-head matchup with Goldwater or even in Texas but as you know LBJ
got over 60% of the vote and 486 electors against him in a landslide.
Sure, some of that may have been due to the assassination; people not
wanting to make a change.

There is no reason to think that JFK would have cruised to a landslide
with the magnitude of LBJ's. Part of the reason for LBJ's massive victory
is that he was seen as the continuation of the Kennedy administration.
Goldwater later observed that the country wasn't ready to change
presidents again so soon after the assassination.
In any case, JFK would not have taken anything for granted regarding his
reelection. Texas was a crucial state then as it is now. He barely won it
in 1960 even with LBJ on the ticket and would have had no chance in 1964
without LBJ. Apparently he thought Texas was crucial to his reelection
which is why he felt it was important to make the trip there to try to
heel the fracture within the state party between the Connally and
Yarborough wings. Why bother doing that if he planned to dump LBJ.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As we know, it's very difficult to defeat an incumbent president; and
Goldwater was a weak candidate, weaker than Nixon who had name
recognition. The question for JFK in 1960 was whether he had the maturity
to lead the country. I think he could say in 1964 that the four years
showed he could.

Difficult does not equate to impossible. Had it not been for the
assassination, Goldwater would have been a much more formidable candidate.
He and JFK were friends and it was widely believed he would be JFK's
opponent in 1964. He had discussions with JFK about flying around the
country together in AF1 to hold a series of debates. JFK would have been
the favorite to win such a race but it wasn't going to be a slam dunk. The
Kennedys were politically shrewd enough to know how important winning
Texas would be and how important LBJ was to doing that.

The Kennedy side had an old saying about LBJ back then:
Better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.

[BOZ]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by 19efppp

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

Dumping LBJ would have amounted to dumping Texas. I believe at the time it
was the third most populous state behind California and New York. It
wouldn't matter what his reasons were for dropping LBJ. It wouldn't have
sat well with voters in Texas and almost certainly would have cost JFK the
state in 1964. Winning Texas was the main reason JFK tapped LBJ to begin
with an why he would have been unlikely to dump him.

You're assuming that in a race against Goldwater that JFK would need Texas
as he did against Nixon. I don't know what the national polling showed in
a head-to-head matchup with Goldwater or even in Texas but as you know LBJ
got over 60% of the vote and 486 electors against him in a landslide.
Sure, some of that may have been due to the assassination; people not
wanting to make a change.

There is no reason to think that JFK would have cruised to a landslide
with the magnitude of LBJ's. Part of the reason for LBJ's massive victory
is that he was seen as the continuation of the Kennedy administration.
Goldwater later observed that the country wasn't ready to change
presidents again so soon after the assassination.
In any case, JFK would not have taken anything for granted regarding his
reelection. Texas was a crucial state then as it is now. He barely won it
in 1960 even with LBJ on the ticket and would have had no chance in 1964
without LBJ. Apparently he thought Texas was crucial to his reelection
which is why he felt it was important to make the trip there to try to
heel the fracture within the state party between the Connally and
Yarborough wings. Why bother doing that if he planned to dump LBJ.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As we know, it's very difficult to defeat an incumbent president; and
Goldwater was a weak candidate, weaker than Nixon who had name
recognition. The question for JFK in 1960 was whether he had the maturity
to lead the country. I think he could say in 1964 that the four years
showed he could.

Difficult does not equate to impossible. Had it not been for the
assassination, Goldwater would have been a much more formidable candidate.
He and JFK were friends and it was widely believed he would be JFK's
opponent in 1964. He had discussions with JFK about flying around the
country together in AF1 to hold a series of debates. JFK would have been
the favorite to win such a race but it wasn't going to be a slam dunk. The
Kennedys were politically shrewd enough to know how important winning
Texas would be and how important LBJ was to doing that.

Better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.

VULGAR!

[bigdog]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by bigdog

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Post by bigdog

Post by 19efppp

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

Dumping LBJ would have amounted to dumping Texas. I believe at the time it
was the third most populous state behind California and New York. It
wouldn't matter what his reasons were for dropping LBJ. It wouldn't have
sat well with voters in Texas and almost certainly would have cost JFK the
state in 1964. Winning Texas was the main reason JFK tapped LBJ to begin
with an why he would have been unlikely to dump him.

You're assuming that in a race against Goldwater that JFK would need Texas
as he did against Nixon. I don't know what the national polling showed in
a head-to-head matchup with Goldwater or even in Texas but as you know LBJ
got over 60% of the vote and 486 electors against him in a landslide.
Sure, some of that may have been due to the assassination; people not
wanting to make a change.

There is no reason to think that JFK would have cruised to a landslide
with the magnitude of LBJ's. Part of the reason for LBJ's massive victory
is that he was seen as the continuation of the Kennedy administration.
Goldwater later observed that the country wasn't ready to change
presidents again so soon after the assassination.
In any case, JFK would not have taken anything for granted regarding his
reelection. Texas was a crucial state then as it is now. He barely won it
in 1960 even with LBJ on the ticket and would have had no chance in 1964
without LBJ. Apparently he thought Texas was crucial to his reelection
which is why he felt it was important to make the trip there to try to
heel the fracture within the state party between the Connally and
Yarborough wings. Why bother doing that if he planned to dump LBJ.

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
As we know, it's very difficult to defeat an incumbent president; and
Goldwater was a weak candidate, weaker than Nixon who had name
recognition. The question for JFK in 1960 was whether he had the maturity
to lead the country. I think he could say in 1964 that the four years
showed he could.

Difficult does not equate to impossible. Had it not been for the
assassination, Goldwater would have been a much more formidable candidate.
He and JFK were friends and it was widely believed he would be JFK's
opponent in 1964. He had discussions with JFK about flying around the
country together in AF1 to hold a series of debates. JFK would have been
the favorite to win such a race but it wasn't going to be a slam dunk. The
Kennedys were politically shrewd enough to know how important winning
Texas would be and how important LBJ was to doing that.

Better to have him inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.

One thing people tend to forget is that while LBJ and RFK disliked each
other intensely, that was not the case with LBJ and JFK. I can imagine RFK
advising his brother to drop LBJ but JFK telling RFK that they needed LBJ
to help win Texas.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by 19efppp

Post by bigdog

Post by BOZ
http://youtu.be/IxEyHIxX6Go

I've never bought the argument that JFK intended to drop LBJ from the
ticket. Texas was crucial to his reelection bid and by dropping LBJ, he
would be kissing the state off. It would have made his trip to Texas
pointless. The reason for traveling to Texas was primarily to help mend
fences between the Connally and Yarborough camps of the Texas Democrats.
Why bother if he planned to drop LBJ? I would believe LBJ would dropout
before I would believe JFK would remove him from the ticket.

Supposedly, LBJ's criminality was going to soon be made public, and that
would give JFK enough cover to drop him. As you said, JFK needed Texas, so
that's a good reason for him going there, even if he is going to drop LBJ.
Keeping the support of the Governor would also be worth the trip. I assume
that JFK would have kept LBJ if LBJ still looked squeaky clean to Joe and
Jane Six Pack. But, if Joe and Jane knew LBJ was a crook, then JFK would
have thrown him under the bus. He would have to have done so.

Dumping LBJ would have amounted to dumping Texas. I believe at the time it
was the third most populous state behind California and New York. It
wouldn't matter what his reasons were for dropping LBJ. It wouldn't have
sat well with voters in Texas and almost certainly would have cost JFK the
state in 1964. Winning Texas was the main reason JFK tapped LBJ to begin
with an why he would have been unlikely to dump him.

I'll go a step further. In 1960 JFK BARELY one. And everyone knew it was
only by fraud, with LBJ stuffing the ballots. There is an old joke about
about that.

A man walking down the street sees a little boy crying and asks him what
is wrong. The little boy says that his father did not come to see him,
that they said his father was dead, but he came up to vote for LBJ and
didn't stop to see his own son.