Bad news at the ranch?

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark wrote:

If you care to examine JFK's trend line from the time of his inauguration in 1961, you'll find it points upwards not downwards. Just place all polls taken during his Presidency on a graph then draw a line connecting them all, and see whether it slopes up or down.

Mark, are you just talking off the top of your head?

If you have the numbers to support your statement, please post them.  Otherwise, please do not make unsupported statements of "fact".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

Rather than respond to your contemptuous demand that I supply numbers and not make "unsupported statements of fact", I'll note that you don't have the numbers to support your contention that Kennedy was in trouble electorally in '63. The only numbers your "other source" supplies are 55-39 for JFK--which supports MY argument.

JFK won in 1960 with the narrowest majority, up to that time, in US history. The starting point for any polling concerning his chances in '64 is the percentage of the vote he recieved in 1960. I don't know what it was but I'm guessing it was around 50%. I can undertake to post the actual numbers--I don't expect they'll be hard to find. But don't try using smoke and mirrors here to bolster a false premise. Don't try to argue that because he was polling 69% on inauguration day, it was all downhill after that. That's rubbish, and another example of selective quotation which you use regularly to support nonsense. Kennedy's trend line begins with the percentage he recieved in the 1960 election. The 1960 election. Clear? If, as your "other source" claims, JFK was polling 55% when he died, the journey from 50% to 55% is one of electoral approval, not impending doom. Talk about making "unsupported statements of fact".

I know what you're up to, young Tim. You're trying to assert that Kennedy's electoral fortunes were in decline, hence there was no reason for those in the MIC and Government to whack him--they could just wait for him to lose, or phone the Chicago Tribune or some other rubbish. Every book, news article and expert comment I've ever read on the matter has always said the same thing--JFK was looking very good to win in '64. That's why the conspirators had to act with alacrity. Don't try to rewrite history here. I'll die at this keyboard before I let you get away with it.

[Dawn Meredith]

EGGSZACTLY Mark!

Charlie Black

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

____________________________

Tim I see you have lots of time to debate whether or not JFK would have won in 64 (there is no question he would have!) but are still avoiding direct questions.

Perhaps you're hoping that your opposition here will just go away, like Shanet.

Won't happen, there are way too many of us.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

Mark wrote:

If you care to examine JFK's trend line from the time of his inauguration in 1961, you'll find it points upwards not downwards. Just place all polls taken during his Presidency on a graph then draw a line connecting them all, and see whether it slopes up or down.

Mark, are you just talking off the top of your head?

If you have the numbers to support your statement, please post them.  Otherwise, please do not make unsupported statements of "fact".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

Rather than respond to your contemptuous demand that I supply numbers and not make "unsupported statements of fact", I'll note that you don't have the numbers to support your contention that Kennedy was in trouble electorally in '63. The only numbers your "other source" supplies are 55-39 for JFK--which supports MY argument.

JFK won in 1960 with the narrowest majority, up to that time, in US history. The starting point for any polling concerning his chances in '64 is the percentage of the vote he recieved in 1960. I don't know what it was but I'm guessing it was around 50%. I can undertake to post the actual numbers--I don't expect they'll be hard to find. But don't try using smoke and mirrors here to bolster a false premise. Don't try to argue that because he was polling 69% on inauguration day, it was all downhill after that. That's rubbish, and another example of selective quotation which you use regularly to support nonsense. Kennedy's trend line begins with the percentage he recieved in the 1960 election. The 1960 election. Clear? If, as your "other source" claims, JFK was polling 55% when he died, the journey from 50% to 55% is one of electoral approval, not impending doom. Talk about making "unsupported statements of fact".

I know what you're up to, young Tim. You're trying to assert that Kennedy's electoral fortunes were in decline, hence there was no reason for those in the MIC and Government to whack him--they could just wait for him to lose, or phone the Chicago Tribune or some other rubbish. Every book, news article and expert comment I've ever read on the matter has always said the same thing--JFK was looking very good to win in '64. That's why the conspirators had to act with alacrity. Don't try to rewrite history here. I'll die at this keyboard before I let you get away with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

_________________________________

BRAVO, Mark!!!

[Tim Gratz]

Bravo for Mark conceding he does not have the data to support his contention.

Should that surprise anyone?

The facts are Kennedy's popularity was declining in large part because of his support for civil rights. Granted he needed some pressure from his associates and Bobby but he did the right thing and paid the political price for it.

Would he have been re-elected? I say yes because his plans were to eliminate Castro between August and October of 1964. Had that plan succeeded, he would have won big.

But Mark please don't make factual representations unless you have the basis for them. Even if you don't have the actual numbers, a reference to what you said reported in a history book would suffice. But if you don't have the facts, don't guess. This is a history forum after all.

[John Dolva]

............

The facts are Kennedy's popularity was declining in large part because of his support for civil rights.  Granted he needed some pressure from his associates and Bobby but he did the right thing and paid the political price for it.

Would he have been re-elected?  I say yes because his plans were to eliminate Castro between August and October of 1964.  Had that plan succeeded, he would have won big.

..............

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, would it be correct to assume that it is necessary to have Kennedy as an implacable enemy of Castro in order to support a theory that Castro would respond "in kind" by killing Kennedy?

If so there are indications that such is not the case (just as there are indications of a shift in approach to Vietnam, and the more overt shift towards civil rights)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/

All this supports a view that Kennedy was a President engaged in a large scale transformation of American consciousness. Naturally in such an endeavour entrenched interests would react to percieved losses. For some elements these 'losses' could induce sufficient 'pain' to make them lash out. Castro on the other hand had been involved in a long struggle dating back to his childhood, so any move towards normalising relations could be a welcome 'breather'.

Most politicians in Australia would regard 55 per cent as a very healthy margin. That which we call a victory by any other name would smell as sweet. JohnD

[Mark Stapleton]

Bravo for Mark conceding he does not have the data to support his contention.

Should that surprise anyone?

The facts are Kennedy's popularity was declining in large part because of his support for civil rights.  Granted he needed some pressure from his associates and Bobby but he did the right thing and paid the political price for it.

Would he have been re-elected?  I say yes because his plans were to eliminate Castro between August and October of 1964.  Had that plan succeeded, he would have won big.

But Mark please don't make factual representations unless you have the basis for them.  Even if you don't have the actual numbers, a reference to what you said reported in a history book would suffice.  But if you don't have the facts, don't guess.  This is a history forum after all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

"The facts are Kennedy's popularity was declining in large part because of his support for civil rights". Prove this unsupported fact (and not with quotes from unknown sources). I want poll numbers, dates and names of polling agencies who conducted the polls. You're the one trying to turn history on its' head, so forward the evidence. Then when you've made a fool of yourself on that, get over to the YAF thread and answer the questions John and others have been trying to get you to address for days, you cowardly charlatan.

[Tim Gratz]

I just love people who call names. They are usually of the highest intelligence, I have found.

So Mark, why do YOU think Kennedy's popularity was declining?

[Tim Gratz]

Mark Stapleton wrote:

I know what you're up to, young Tim.

Ya know, I think that is the nicest thing anyone here has said about me!

[Tim Gratz]

Here is the rest of Mark's paragraph:

I know what you're up to, young Tim. You're trying to assert that Kennedy's electoral fortunes were in decline, hence there was no reason for those in the MIC and Government to whack him--they could just wait for him to lose, or phone the Chicago Tribune or some other rubbish. Every book, news article and expert comment I've ever read on the matter has always said the same thing--JFK was looking very good to win in '64. That's why the conspirators had to act with alacrity. Don't try to rewrite history here.

Mark, I was not trying to make an argument that the assassins could have simply waited until the 1964 election. My correction of your post had nothing to do with any such argument. I do not see that his poll results had anything to do with the assassination.

I am not rewriting history. I just think the facts here posted on this Forum should be correct. If you think I am wrong, do you then think Stone's "JFK" was wrong re this issue as well? It was "JFK" that said that Kennedy's popularity was declining because of his support for civil rights. My previous post so noted that. Apparently you missed it.

Edited July 20, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

I just love people who call names.  They are usually of the highest intelligence, I have found.

So Mark, why do YOU think Kennedy's popularity was declining?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

Who's using sarcasm now? Are you implying I have low intelligence?

Regarding your question, I don't believe JFK's popularity was declining. I've never heard this argument before, except from right wing loonies. His tenure was marked by several controversies, the biggest being the CMC, which he successfully navigated. Do you think he was seriously worried by the prospect of facing Goldwater? An issue like civil rights was always going to be tough, but Kennedy relished the prospect of putting his case to the American people, especially since the other side had no alternative but to side with racism and intolerance. Who would have won this debate, Tim, considering Kennedy was articulate and persuasive, hadn't broken his trust with the people and already had the Republicans painted into a corner? How stupid are you asserting your countrymen were? You constantly insult the intelligence of your own people. Disgraceful.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, as Ron Ecker once wrote, had the American public have found out about JFK's serial adulteries, and particulary with Cambell, he would NOT have been re-elected, and rightly so (paraphrasing Ron's words).

Absent such disclosures, do I think JFK would have won re-election? Yes, and even if he had not succeded in regime change in Cuba. I do not think I ever said anything to the contrary.

I suggest we are just "spinning our wheels" here. Let's get on to more important issues.

[Tim Gratz]

John Dalva wrote:

Tim, would it be correct to assume that it is necessary to have Kennedy as an implacable enemy of Castro in order to support a theory that Castro would respond "in kind" by killing Kennedy?

No, like many things what counts is not the reality but rather the perception of reality, in this case Fidel's perception of it.

John you must remember that at the same time these peace talks were in progress the CIA was working with a member of Castro's cabinet to launch another murder plot against Castro. Many people think the Cuban, Rolando Cubela, may have been an agent provocateur for Castro.

A high-ranking CIA officer even assured Cubela that he was the "personal emissary" of RFK and that RFK personally supported his plan to kill Castro.

Castro had every reason to conclude that JFK was his implacable enemy.

It is possible both JFK and RFK were witting of the Cubela operation, but it is also possible they were not. Some have even argued that the CIA was proceeding with Cubela to sabotage the peace talks.

But the reality of Kennedys' intentions toward Castro matters not. What matters is Castro's perception of those intentions. Castro had reason to believe (rightly or not) that the Kennedys were still planning to murder him.

[John Dolva]

John Dalva wrote:

Tim, would it be correct to assume that it is necessary to have Kennedy as an implacable enemy of Castro in order to support a theory that Castro would respond "in kind" by killing Kennedy?

No, like many things what counts is not the reality but rather the perception of reality, in this case Fidel's perception of it.

John you must remember that at the same time these peace talks were in progress the CIA was working with a member of Castro's cabinet to launch another murder plot against Castro.  Many people think the Cuban, Rolando Cubela, may have been an agent provocateur for Castro.

A high-ranking CIA officer even assured Cubela that he was the "personal emissary" of RFK and that RFK personally supported his plan to kill Castro.

Castro had every reason to conclude that JFK was his implacable enemy.

It is possible both JFK and RFK were witting of the Cubela operation, but it is also possible they were not.  Some have even argued that the CIA was proceeding with Cubela to sabotage the peace talks.

But the reality of Kennedys' intentions toward Castro matters not.  What matters is Castro's perception of those intentions.  Castro had reason to believe (rightly or not) that the Kennedys were still planning to murder him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, the reality of Kennedy's intentions appear to have been known by Castro right at the time of the assassination. For Castro to kill kennedy would seem pretty stupid. Why risk apparently improving relations? It is well known I think that the CIA and Kennedy did not see eye to eye on some things, *I've even read of rumours that the CIA or elements of it may have been involved in Kennedys assassination.

from above post::

"On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the eve of the broadcast of a new documentary film on Kennedy and Castro, the National Security Archive today posted an audio tape of the President and his national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy, discussing the possibility of a secret meeting in Havana with Castro. The tape, dated only seventeen days before Kennedy was shot in Dallas, records a briefing from Bundy on Castro's invitation to a U.S. official at the United Nations, William Attwood, to come to Havana for secret talks on improving relations with Washington. The tape captures President Kennedy's approval if official U.S. involvement could be plausibly denied.

The possibility of a meeting in Havana evolved from a shift in the President's thinking on the possibility of what declassified White House records called "an accommodation with Castro" in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Proposals from Bundy's office in the spring of 1963 called for pursuing "the sweet approach…enticing Castro over to us," as a potentially more successful policy than CIA covert efforts to overthrow his regime. Top Secret White House memos record Kennedy's position that "we should start thinking along more flexible lines" and that "the president, himself, is very interested in [the prospect for negotiations]." Castro, too, appeared interested. In a May 1963 ABC News special on Cuba, Castro told correspondent Lisa Howard that he considered a rapprochement with Washington "possible if the United States government wishes it. In that case," he said, "we would be agreed to seek and find a basis" for improved relations."

JohnD

edit::hmm on second reading that snyde remark of mine is perhaps not so thoughtful, it just seems sometimes, Tim, that you make careless statements, however as that is something that I also do perhaps I could have said 'remember the CIA or elements of it may have been involved in Kennedys assassination.' One way of such an involvement could have been to work to undermine efforts at appeasement.

Edited July 20, 2005 by John Dolva

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Tim, the reality of Kennedy's intentions appear to have been known by Castro right at the time of the assassination

John, what is your basis for this conclusion? How does it comport with the representations Fitzgerald made to Cubela on October 29, 1963?

[Pat Speer]

Tim, I think you're losing this skirmish. You want to believe Kennedy might have lost and was desperate to attack Cuba in order to win, when the facts show just the opposite. Attacking Cuba is the LAST thing Kennedy would have done. READ Shackley's memoirs. There was NO second invasion! It was a fraud designed to incite a rebellion in Cuba. No way would Kennedy risk a second Bay of Pigs. No way!

Secondly, just WHO do you think could have beaten Kennedy in 64? Rocky didn't have the support of his own party. Nixon had decided to sit this one out. And Goldwater was considered unelectable even by most Republicans. It was a shoo-in. JFK was no George Bush I, who found a way to lose a sure thing by refusing to lead. Kennedy would have been re-elected, Cuba invasion or no.

Thirdly, the Republican party in 64 was in the beginning stages of its Southern Plan. You know this. While the Democratic Party was the traditional party of the old South, the Republican party was the party of abolitionists. In 64, however, with men like Buckley, Goldwater and Tower in the lead, the Republican party became the states' rights party, actively fighting against civil rights. Motivated by an unquenchable lust for power, the Republican Party decided to court hate groups across the country, particularly the Birchers, Klan, etc. In 64 the plan failed, but in 68 Tricky Dick reworked the campaign as a campaign against violence, won over the so-called silent majority and squeaked out a victory. By 72, he was scared the divisiveness and anger HE'D created with his policies and behavior might backfire and send votes to someone whose policies were even more cynical and hateful than his own, George Wallace. Nixon was scared Wallace might pull just enough votes from him to give McGovern the victory. But then Wallace was shot.

Will you at least admit the "southern plan" was real, and quit talking about the Repubs as the party of Lincoln? Bush I was a states-rights candidate in 64. Will you at least admit your saintly elephant party were the bad-guys, if only once upon a time?