Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., : 2004 Election Stolen

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

A few points.

First, you misconstrue my reference to West Virginia, which was important NOT so much in the general election, but in the primary against Hubert Humphrey. If Catholic Kennedy had not beaten Humphrey in this most Protestant of states, Kennedy would never have gotten the Democratic nomination.

Given all the chicanery involved in the 1960 primaries and the Democratic convention, it is hard to say precisely what might have happened in any number of scenarios, but I appreciate your clarification.

Second, Illinois alone would not have been enough, but how would anyone stuffing the ballot boxes in Cook County with Major Daley's & perhaps others' help have known that when they were stuffing them? They wouldn't have, of course, and implicit in your point is the notion that vote stealing is objectionable only when outcome determinative.

I implied nothing of the kind. Voter fraud is a crime against democracy, and is no more noble when pulled by Democrats than when Republicans resort to it to achieve a distorted end.

Moreover, what I responded to was your contention "...the 1960 election too may well have been stolen in Illinois with the assistance of - yes - the Mob."

A literal reading of that sentence is that the theft of the federal election was made possible by fraud in Illinois alone. I was merely pointing out that even if such a fraud had transpired in Illinois, despite ample reason to believe it didn't, it wasn't enough to alter the outcome of the federal election.

Third and finally, Texas and Illlinois WOULD have been enough. And if you think the voting was on the up-and-up in the Lone Star state with LBJ on the ticket, think again. LBJ had raised election stealing in Texas to an art form.

By adding Texas into the equation in this subsequent post, you have conceded my initial point, that if the 1960 election was stolen, it wasn't through the purported Illinois fraud alone. Thank you for that.

Anyone who has read J. Evetts Haley's "A Texan Looks at Lyndon" - or any of a dozen other similarly damning books - would know better than to argue against your characterization of Johnson.

However, do you have specific information about the Texas election results, or is Johnson's demonstrated lack of character enough to simply assume that there must have been Democratic fraud there too?

There is no shortage of anecdotal data, all generated by Republicans, to suggest that this occurred, but few hard details emerged. There were counties with voting irregularities, as there almost always are in US politics, but when granted an opportunity to make their case, the Republicans came up well short of the threshold.

Texas Republicans attempted to have the votes recounted and were granted a federal court injunction against the vote results being certified. But their suit in federal court was tossed out when the judge ruled correctly that in the absence of a civil rights violation, the only basis on which a federal court could interfere with states' voting cases, there was no case. Had the Republicans been able to prove that ballot boxes were illegally stuffed, and hence the will of the voters stifled, there would have been such a civil rights basis to proceed. In short, the only court to hear the evidence in the case decided the Republicans didn't have anything persuasive. If you have reason to believe the court's verdict was incorrect, I'd be most intrigued to hear it.

More pertinent, perhaps, is that even if we do throw Illinois and Texas into the equation, we don't necessarily end up with a Nixon victory. That year, there were 537 Electoral College votes, meaning that a candidate had to score a minimum of 269 votes to win. While adding the Illinois votes [27] and the Texas votes [24] onto Nixon's 219 would have given him 270, and a bare victory, it fails to take into account "free" electors and "faithless" electors, whose votes may have changed considerably in any other circumstance.

For example, "free" and "unpledged" Democratic electors in Alabama and Mississippi cast their votes for the bizarre third slate of Harry Byrd and Barry Goldwater, a tactic they may have otherwise eschewed in the face of a certain Nixon win, particularly since Kennedy trounced Nixon in the popular vote in those two states. That surely would have made the Electoral College result much closer, in the region of 270-266, Nixon over Kennedy. However, that assumes that in the light of the outcome, there wouldn't have been any "faithless" electors who cast their votes for Kennedy despite Nixon having allegedly carried their state.

Stranger things have happened, most notably in the past two federal election cycles.

[Mark Knight]

I'd like to once again point out that Mr. Slattery's all-too-brief biography on this forum states that he works in "public relations." Makes me wonder who is the client whose interest Mr. Slattery is representing on this forum.

Folks, I'd tend to believe that someone on this forum must have uncovered an "inconvenient" truth or so, for a PR man to have been assigned to the forum. Now, if we could just figure out whose research it was, and what the "inconvenient" truth was, we might suddenly find ourselves closer to solving the ultimate mystery of MY lifetime.

And any comparisons between Mr. Slattery and Mr. Gratz are totally unfair...to Mr. Gratz. While Mr. Gratz and I have political views nearly 180 degrees apart, at least Mr. Gratz could put forth an argument light on the venom and heavy on the research. Mr. Slattery has, to this point, shown no inclination to do likewise.

Edited June 4, 2006 by Mark Knight

[Pat Speer]

A few points.

First, you misconstrue my reference to West Virginia, which was important NOT so much in the general election, but in the primary against Hubert Humphrey. If Catholic Kennedy had not beaten Humphrey in this most Protestant of states, Kennedy would never have gotten the Democratic nomination.

Given all the chicanery involved in the 1960 primaries and the Democratic convention, it is hard to say precisely what might have happened in any number of scenarios, but I appreciate your clarification.

Second, Illinois alone would not have been enough, but how would anyone stuffing the ballot boxes in Cook County with Major Daley's & perhaps others' help have known that when they were stuffing them? They wouldn't have, of course, and implicit in your point is the notion that vote stealing is objectionable only when outcome determinative.

I implied nothing of the kind. Voter fraud is a crime against democracy, and is no more noble when pulled by Democrats than when Republicans resort to it to achieve a distorted end.

Moreover, what I responded to was your contention "...the 1960 election too may well have been stolen in Illinois with the assistance of - yes - the Mob."

A literal reading of that sentence is that the theft of the federal election was made possible by fraud in Illinois alone. I was merely pointing out that even if such a fraud had transpired in Illinois, despite ample reason to believe it didn't, it wasn't enough to alter the outcome of the federal election.

Third and finally, Texas and Illlinois WOULD have been enough. And if you think the voting was on the up-and-up in the Lone Star state with LBJ on the ticket, think again. LBJ had raised election stealing in Texas to an art form.

By adding Texas into the equation in this subsequent post, you have conceded my initial point, that if the 1960 election was stolen, it wasn't through the purported Illinois fraud alone. Thank you for that.

Anyone who has read J. Evetts Haley's "A Texan Looks at Lyndon" - or any of a dozen other similarly damning books - would know better than to argue against your characterization of Johnson.

However, do you have specific information about the Texas election results, or is Johnson's demonstrated lack of character enough to simply assume that there must have been Democratic fraud there too?

There is no shortage of anecdotal data, all generated by Republicans, to suggest that this occurred, but few hard details emerged. There were counties with voting irregularities, as there almost always are in US politics, but when granted an opportunity to make their case, the Republicans came up well short of the threshold.

Texas Republicans attempted to have the votes recounted and were granted a federal court injunction against the vote results being certified. But their suit in federal court was tossed out when the judge ruled correctly that in the absence of a civil rights violation, the only basis on which a federal court could interfere with states' voting cases, there was no case. Had the Republicans been able to prove that ballot boxes were illegally stuffed, and hence the will of the voters stifled, there would have been such a civil rights basis to proceed. In short, the only court to hear the evidence in the case decided the Republicans didn't have anything persuasive. If you have reason to believe the court's verdict was incorrect, I'd be most intrigued to hear it.

More pertinent, perhaps, is that even if we do throw Illinois and Texas into the equation, we don't necessarily end up with a Nixon victory. That year, there were 537 Electoral College votes, meaning that a candidate had to score a minimum of 269 votes to win. While adding the Illinois votes [27] and the Texas votes [24] onto Nixon's 219 would have given him 270, and a bare victory, it fails to take into account "free" electors and "faithless" electors, whose votes may have changed considerably in any other circumstance.

For example, "free" and "unpledged" Democratic electors in Alabama and Mississippi cast their votes for the bizarre third slate of Harry Byrd and Barry Goldwater, a tactic they may have otherwise eschewed in the face of a certain Nixon win, particularly since Kennedy trounced Nixon in the popular vote in those two states. That surely would have made the Electoral College result much closer, in the region of 270-266, Nixon over Kennedy. However, that assumes that in the light of the outcome, there wouldn't have been any "faithless" electors who cast their votes for Kennedy despite Nixon having allegedly carried their state.

Stranger things have happened, most notably in the past two federal election cycles.

Somewhere in time I read a detailed analysis of the 1960 election, which raised the possibility that Nixon didn't bitch too much about Illinois and Texas because 1) it would make him look unmanly and hurt his chances for future office, and 2) a detailed investigation into election fraud in ALL states, not just Illinois and Texas, would have revealed that his man Chotiner had been as successful at stealing votes in California, where Nixon emerged victorious by .5 percent, as the Kennedy ticket had been elsewhere. Such a revelation in Nixon's home state would have damaged his chances for future office. As it was, he ran for California Governor and LOST big time, setting the stage for the rise of Ronald Reagan.

[Mark Knight]

Mr. Slattery wrote:

Funny how the Dems never, you know, LOSE elections. They're always the victims of those dastardly, underhanded Republicans, this time masquerading as ordinary Ohio voters who didn't succumb to Corporal Kerry's bullxxxx.

That's not totally untrue. Of course, it compares to Republican claims that ROSS PEROT, and NOT Bill Clinton, actually defeated George H. W. Bush in 1992. Now, before Mr. Slattery roars back claiming that I must be a Clinton supporter--which, by the way I'm not--had the voters actually been LISTENING to what the candidates said in 1992, Mr. Perot would've occupied the White House, and NOT Mr. Clinton. Despite the success of Operation Desert Storm, Mr. Bush had a serious credibility problem, beginning with "Read my lips--NO NEW TAXES."

In other words, Ross Perot did to Mr. Bush in 1992 what Nixon feared that George Wallace would do to him in 1972...which, of course, explains the shooting of Wallace. I just don't understand how the Republicans let that happen, and THEN decided in 1996 that Perot was a 'fruitcake,' four years after the damage had been done. Of course, in light of what happened to Wallace, I'm surprised Perot remained healthy until the 1992 election. But the fact that he did, and the resulting defeat of Bush in 1992, only serve to further convince me that the Wallace shooting was a bit CREEP-y.

Edited June 4, 2006 by Mark Knight

[Brendan Slattery]

It is obvious that, Like Tim Gratz, Mr. Slattery has not the slightest interest in seeking the truth about the JFK assassination.

Time to loosen the tinfoil hat, Ray. Sorry to spoil your pro-conspiracy echo chamber, but I'm here to stay.

Well I don't know if you are a betting man, Brendan, but I would not bet the ranch on that if I were you. My time is valuable, and I refuse to waste it on a forum that allows the likes of you to waste it. This forum was established for the express purpose of genuine inquiry into the JFK assassination, something you have no interest in, quite obviously.

Either you go, or I go. I will leave it to John Simkin to decide.

Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

J. Raymond Carroll: "To hell with free speech and dissent. I'm taking my ball and going home."

Don't let the door ...

[Mark Knight]

And this advances the discussion of the JFK assassination in exactly WHAT way? That YOU have managed to silence someone else [albeit by his own choice]?

My point, in case you missed it, Mr. Slattery, is that I believe the purpose of your presence here is to STIFLE, rather than ENCOURAGE, discussion.

Some of us are less easily intimidated...I'm not going anywhere.

Edited June 4, 2006 by Mark Knight

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ray, as much as I admire your posts and detest those of Brendan, I am unwilling to restrict his right to post.

Flattery will get you everywhere, John. Actually it is so much fun demonstrating what an idiot Mr. Slattery is that I decided to come out of retirement.

Mr. Slattery is such an idiot that he cannot even do a simple thing like quote Voltaire accurately. What Voltaire actually said was:

"Not only is it extremely cruel to persecute in this brief life those who do not think the way we do, but I do not know if it might be too presumptuous to declare their eternal damnation."

Perhaps Mr. Slattery feels he is being persecuted on this forum. I hope he doesn't develop a complex.

[Brendan Slattery]

Ray, as much as I admire your posts and detest those of Brendan, I am unwilling to restrict his right to post.

Flattery will get you everywhere, John. Actually it is so much fun demonstrating what an idiot Mr. Slattery is that I decided to come out of retirement.

Mr. Slattery is such an idiot that he cannot even do a simple thing like quote Voltaire accurately. What Voltaire actually said was:

"Not only is it extremely cruel to persecute in this brief life those who do not think the way we do, but I do not know if it might be too presumptuous to declare their eternal damnation."

Perhaps Mr. Slattery feels he is being persecuted on this forum. I hope he doesn't develop a complex.

I'm confused. Didn't you leave the forum in a huff? Did you miss me?

xxoo

-B-

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I'm confused. Didn't you leave the forum in a huff? Did you miss me?

xxoo

-B-

Yes I did miss you, and I even said so in my last post, which you were apparently unable to read, the one in which I intimated that you show no signs of having ever read Voltaire either.

I ommitted something from my previous post. I should have said "flattery will get you everywhere, John, but Slattery will get you nowhere."

[Pat Speer]

Mr. Slattery wrote:

Funny how the Dems never, you know, LOSE elections. They're always the victims of those dastardly, underhanded Republicans, this time masquerading as ordinary Ohio voters who didn't succumb to Corporal Kerry's bullxxxx.

That's not totally untrue. Of course, it compares to Republican claims that ROSS PEROT, and NOT Bill Clinton, actually defeated George H. W. Bush in 1992. Now, before Mr. Slattery roars back claiming that I must be a Clinton supporter--which, by the way I'm not--had the voters actually been LISTENING to what the candidates said in 1992, Mr. Perot would've occupied the White House, and NOT Mr. Clinton. Despite the success of Operation Desert Storm, Mr. Bush had a serious credibility problem, beginning with "Read my lips--NO NEW TAXES."

In other words, Ross Perot did to Mr. Bush in 1992 what Nixon feared that George Wallace would do to him in 1972...which, of course, explains the shooting of Wallace. I just don't understand how the Republicans let that happen, and THEN decided in 1996 that Perot was a 'fruitcake,' four years after the damage had been done. Of course, in light of what happened to Wallace, I'm surprised Perot remained healthy until the 1992 election. But the fact that he did, and the resulting defeat of Bush in 1992, only serve to further convince me that the Wallace shooting was a bit CREEP-y.

Actually, Mark, Bush I's approval ratings had dropped to record lows before the election and not just because of Perot and Bush's breaking his pledge about taxes. A number of articles and books had come out revealing how he admittedly had no VISION (the "vision-thing") for the nation, and felt his job was simply to plug leaks. Equally as damaging, perhaps, was the revelation that Bush I's one claim to fame, his "victory" in the Gulf War, was tainted by the fact that he PERSONALLY pushed for billions of dollars in aid to Saddam Hussein, despite warnings from underlings that the money was going to be used for a military build-up. In short, Mark, I think the majority of Perot voters were voting AGAINST Bush, and would have voted for Clinton or almost anyone else.

Edited June 5, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Mark Knight]

Pat, I WAS one of those Perot voters.

With GHW Bush, it wasn't "just" the "vision thing;" it was the fact that he came across as out-of-touch with common Americans. He couldn't tell reporters what a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk sold for! Of course, his servants and housekeepers probably had done all his shopping for years prior to his election, but the PERCEPTION was that he'd "become" out-of-touch with the things that concerned "average" Americans.

Perot made more sense, at least on the subject of the economy, than did EITHER of the major-party candidates. His prediction of a "large sucking sound" as jobs left America due to NAFTA [actually, nowadays due to ALL the free-trade agreements] was correct. And he was pushing to reform Social Security long before Dubya came along.

Clinton came off as a snake-oil salesman to me...and that judgement proved pretty well correct as well.

In my previous post, I was anticipating the arguments from certain pro-Bush parties that Perot "robbed" Bush I of his divine-right second term.

[Norman T. Field]

I am sorry, but there is very strong evidence of massive vote fraud in Chicaqo in the '60 election, much of it in wards that were in fact controlled by the Outfit. This was a time where you often could not get nominated for office without the ok of 'the boys'.

What a lot of people are not aware of; the fraud may have been not in JFKs behalf, but over the local State's Attorney race. Ben Adamowski was running as a Republican, and promised to indict everybody in Daley's party once elected.

Yes I have read the paper about the '60 vote totals being similar to the '56 numbers and therefore no fraud took place. This argument overlooks a couple of important factors: the city lost thousands of voters between '56 and '60 owing to 'white flight', and the vast number of normally Democratic Polish voters who went Republican to vote for Adamowski.. In 1960, excepting Warsaw, there were more Poles in Chicago than any other city in the world. In order to match the '56 totals, mucho vote fraud was necessary.

William Roemer, who headed the FBI's Chicago organized crime squad, has publisher transcripts of bugs where Giancana was selling the boys on Kennedy over Nixon, whom they had already lined up behind. Mooney apparently had a lot to do with organized crime siding with Kennedy.