Kennedy stole 1960.Bush Stole 2000. Which party is better?

I noticed a lot of imbalance and partisan politics here. If you criticize bush for stealing 2000,(which pisses me off cause a lot of minority votes were thrown out) then you must speak ill of kennedy for doing the same in 1960. In fact It was equally as bad in both cases. Corrupt judges, corrupt election officials. It's almost karma. Look at both parties through the same glass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

There were 68 million votes cast in the 1960 election. The margin between the Republicans and the Democrats (Nixon and Kennedy) was a trifling 113,000 (less than 2/10 of one percent!) in favor of Kennedy.

A subsequent investigation of vote fraud in Illinois and Texas revealed the following:

Fannin County, Texas had only 4,895 registered voters. BUT 6,138 votes were cast, 75% of which went to Kennedy.

Angelina County, Texas: In one precinct, only 86 people voted yet the final tally was 147 for Kennedy, 24 for Nixon.

But Texas refused to conduct a recount. The Texas Election Board consisted entirely of Democrats, and the Board certified John Kennedy the winner in Texas.

Illinois: News reporters witnessed so much voter fraud by the Democrats that the Chicago Tribune stated "the election of November 8 was characterized by such gross and palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that was deprived of victory." (As quoted by the Washington Post.)

The Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit challenging the Chicago results. Not coincidentally, the lawsuit was assigned to the courtroom of a judge known to be friendly to Daley and the Democratic party, Circuit Court Judge Thomas Kluczynski. After predictably dismissing the Republican suit, Kluczynski was rewarded by "President" John F. Kennedy with an appointment to the federal bench.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

this has nothing to do with anything, imo

...apples and oranges. Have there been corrupt democrats who have made heinous errors? YES. Same goes for republicans.

However, which Party is better? Read the platforms and you find the democrats stand more for the common people. That's far better, even if our best ideals don't always translate, at least we have them and can work toward them.

Both Vietnam and Bay of Pigs was left-over from Eisenhower's administration.

It was Eisenhower who accepted Vietnam from the French after they withdrew in defeat & disgrace.

Don't ever forget that.

Poppy himself supervised the Bay of Pigs fiasco, as evidenced by the names of the boats used in the operation.

The Houston - Poppy's "hometown"

The Zapata - His oil company

The Barbara - Mother of the Beast

Let's not start down this road...

..."advisors" in Vietnam in 1954 which led to the first U. S. combat deaths in 1956.

And I guess you really don't want to talk about the fact that VP Nixon was one of the early planners of the Anti-Castro activities, which included preparation for the Bay of Pigs, in 1959.

The only person you're making look bad is yourself. Why don't you quit while you're way behind?

The party of the Kennedys, MLK, Carter, Civil Rights, Unions, Social Security. Yeah, the pukes helped out with a lot of Environmental gains (for a while) but what other good things have they done? Nada.

No question, the better party is the Democratic Party. Do you really need to ask?

</sarcasm off>

They are the good present days. The Daily machine still runs Chicago and has for the last ten years or so.

RC

Didn't Giancanna take credit for Chicago?

:boring:

I'm not at all sure why, but the words "protective coloration" just came to mind.

...equals the intentional malfeasance in Florida in 2000. Fake GOP mobs, the hiring of a Texas firm to purge voter rolls, the Supreme Court.

It was the most rigged election in history.

I'm more interested in the 2000 election right now because it is directly impacting my life.

Are you suggesting that because Democrats stole an election forty-four years ago we should just be quiet and support Bush and everything he's doing?

like ignoring the fact that democrats were the party of slavery. It's dishonest to accuse one party no matter how dispicable of the same thing your party did, and then claim that was the past. Well soon the iraq war will be the past, do the rethugs get a free pass?

Who says I ever ignored slavery? You don't know anything at all about me. Get off your high horse.

into purchasing voting machines made and programed by Republicans in order to steal future elections via the "chad phenomena", which was a set-up. The SCALE of the theft is what is important.
Don't you dare do the GOP minimization thing. They do it too therefore it's alright. Bullshit!

Who knows, by then they could be the good party. You see, people die, new people come into power, and so Party's change. The Democratic Party of today is the Party of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act. We ended poll taxes, lynching, and overt segregation. We did this despite the fact that we knew it would fracture the Party because it was the right thing to do. Thurmond, Lott, and most of the other rethug elite come from the former Democratic Party, we lost their votes and the votes of millions of other racists in the South by standing up for justice. If you don't want to be part of the solution fine, but don't even try to tell me there's no difference between the 2 Partys right now.

The easily deluded are over there, WAY on the right.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/about_tna.htm

(from their website)

About THE NEW AMERICAN

THE NEW AMERICAN was formed in 1985 with the merging of American Opinion and The Review of The News. THE NEW AMERICAN's premier issue (Volume I, Number I) was dated September 30, 1985. Initially published as a weekly magazine, THE NEW AMERICAN changed to bi-weekly to provide more in-depth reporting.

THE NEW AMERICAN magazine is a valuable tool in confronting the liberal, mainstream media. Stories in the news are often used to appeal to our emotions and convince us to gradually surrender our freedoms. For example, another shooting occurs in the nation. Are more gun control measures the best solution to this all-too-common occurrence? You would think so if your only source of information was the nightly news. But what about our Constitution? What exactly was the Founding Fathers' intent when they recognized our right to bear arms?

Presenting truthful, well-researched answers to issues like these is the heartbeat of THE NEW AMERICAN. With founding principles as guides, issues are covered from a conservative, non-partisan perspective.

About THE NEW AMERICAN

THE NEW AMERICAN was formed in 1985 with the merging of American Opinion and The Review of The News. THE NEW AMERICAN's premier issue (Volume I, Number I) was dated September 30, 1985. Initially published as a weekly magazine, THE NEW AMERICAN changed to bi-weekly to provide more in-depth reporting.

THE NEW AMERICAN magazine is a valuable tool in confronting the liberal, mainstream media. Stories in the news are often used to appeal to our emotions and convince us to gradually surrender our freedoms. For example, another shooting occurs in the nation. Are more gun control measures the best solution to this all-too-common occurrence? You would think so if your only source of information was the nightly news. But what about our Constitution? What exactly was the Founding Fathers' intent when they recognized our right to bear arms?

Presenting truthful, well-researched answers to issues like these is the heartbeat of THE NEW AMERICAN. With founding principles as guides, issues are covered from a conservative, non-partisan perspective.

CURRENT ISSUES

Gun control. Taxes. Abortion. Congress. The Constitution. Foreign Trade. The United Nations. Economics. Family Values. The Presidency. NATO. Communism. Education. Immigration. Property Rights. Military. Environmentalism. Terrorism. Health Care.

THE NEW AMERICAN delivers unparalleled coverage of national issues. The research and insight of THE NEW AMERICAN provides valuable, reliable information about the people and events affecting the nation and you.

The Insider Report, a popular feature of THE NEW AMERICAN, supplies short but powerful pieces on the inside moves of America's self-appointed elite in business, government, and the large public policy organizations headquartered in Washington, DC.

As decisions are made at the local, state, and national level, readers of THE NEW AMERICAN are often at the forefront of the issue and hit the ground running because they had already been informed of the long-range plans by those in positions of power and influence.

FACTS YOU CAN TRUST

The credibility of THE NEW AMERICAN is second to none due to an experienced research department staff that looks past the spin of the story to reveal the facts behind the headlines. To provide information you can trust, the research and writing staff:

Monitors more than 150 publications as well as major television news programs

Tracks reports from Congress and government agencies, as well as books published by Establishment think tanks and foundations

Has access to the most extensive collection of files and books of its kind in private hands

Browses the internet for late-breaking news and other information useful to our readers

IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS

THE NEW AMERICAN is a reality check for readers who are surrounded by the hype and bias of the mainstream press. Each issue's cover story and other features offer a unique perspective on the topics affecting the lives of all Americans.

THE NEW AMERICAN also publishes special issues on occasion to give our readers even more insight and analysis of significant national issues. Past special issues have documented the real story behind America's education system, the UN, immigration, and more.

INFORMATION FOR ACTION

Experience shows information alone is seldom enough for readers of THE NEW AMERICAN magazine. That is why THE NEW AMERICAN provides it readers with information designed for action.

Armed with information from the pages of THE NEW AMERICAN, citizens across the country write letters to local newspaper editors, help their family and friends become better informed, attend town meetings, and take advantage of numerous other opportunities to reverse the dangerous trend of a naïve public being led by managed news.

Twice per year THE NEW AMERICAN publishes the Conservative Index, which rates every member of the Senate and House of Representatives on key issues from abortion, property rights and taxes, to education, welfare, and the Constitution. Contact information is given right on the page for readers to communicate with their Congressmen on their voting records.

Articles from THE NEW AMERICAN are occasionally reprinted when a topic deserves widespread attention among the American public. These reprints are valuable tools for reader activists to spread the word and educate fellow citizens on an important issue.

"For victims of reverse discrimination"

:eyes:

Dems are the lesser of two evils. i've given up on the world ever becoming a "good" place. I'm just hoping to ease the slide into global fascism and third-worldness.

i don't even think i'm going to dignify that with a response. Repubs suck, dems suck less.


Maybe you can pull your head out of your butt and look over the average voting record along party lines and tell me who is BETTER, on the following issues.


environment
labor
social safety nets
health care
education
sep. of church and state
crime
foriegn policy


and the list goes on and on.


i'm not some automaton that thinks the dems can do no wrong, and i actually have a low opinion of virtually all of them, with a few notable exceptions. But to think they aren't the lesser of evils compared to republicans is just stupid, no other word for it.

I hear ya, though.

:puke:

So I don't think that argument holds a whole lot of water except in freeper circles...

I'm wondering where that guy got his "information." No links I see.

n/t

outside of Chicago in the more conservative areas of Illinois.

which is why there was no big cry for an investigation because the Repunks knew they would get found out for what they did too. Kennedy won by 84 electoral votes - even if Nixon had got the electoral votes for both IL and TX - Kennedy still would have won. If Bush had not received the stolen electoral votes from FL he would not have become pResident.

Illinois so he didn't protest...

Because he realized and accepted how close the outcome was. The monster in the white house has completed disregarded the fact he lost the popular vote and runs the most corrupt, secretive, arrogant regime in our nations history. No comparison. :eyes:

What was the margin in Illinois? In Texas?

in order to post that sort of thing.

and....he could actually speak a complete sentence coherently.

He told the American people he got bad intelligence when he invaded Cuba, but he said "It is my fault! I am the Commander in Chief and I appologize to you. It was my mistake!"

He didn't lie to take the country to war.

When the intelligence proved to be wrong, he fired the head of the CIA.

Need I go on?

it correct to judge one party for being corrupt when your party was also.

it's like looking at the speck in your neighbors eye and not your own.

is just being disruptive.

right-wing sources given as links.....

I see a pattern here.....

If by corrupt, the Democrats used their power to further the political interests of their constituents, namely the middle class....then I will accept that corruptness, as compared to the corruptness inherent in the Republic Party today.

This is a straw man argument anyway. Not much we can do about things past, and whatever sins the Democrats may be guilty of then, pales in comparison to what the Republicans are doing to this country today.

I see you've drank the whole drum of Ralph kool-aid, though.

It worked for Nixon.....

You probbably don't belong here...

In Florida. Irregularities happen in voting. What happened in Florida was beyond the pale. Bush's brother Jeb and Katherine Harris fucked Al Gore.

Al Gore and Joe Lieberman *won* the election in 2000. Al Gore kicked Shrub's pants off in Florida by ~46,000 votes. He beat Shrub nationwide be more than half a million votes. Had Florida been awarded to Al Gore as the voters in Florida wanted then Al Gore would have won by 45 (46 without the abstention) electoral votes.

“More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/recount/12VOTE.html

~46,000 is the margin that Al Gore *actually* won Florida by. *That* was the intent of the voters. Not some measly ~200 votes. Also, *without* those ~46K votes Al Gore still won according to Florida law (had SCOTUS not *unconstitutionally* interfered).
Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/yourvote.html
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2058793
http://www.geocities.com/dearkandb/supremeqanda.html
http://www.the-rule-of-law.com/
http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

Also, Al Gore got more popular votes that any other presidential candidate in the history of the United States, except for the time that Reagan won 49 out of 50 states' electoral votes. This was done while fending off an attack from the left *and* while fighting against a heavily biased media.
Sources:
http://www.mediachannel.org/views/whistleblower/palast.shtml
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=181&row=1
http://www.dailyhowler.com/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=90&forum=DCForumID45
http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/

Count ballot as a vote if vote is indicated, but marked incorrectly. Example
Vote is indicated and marked correctly, but the candidate's name is also written in. Example
Ballot condition is agreed upon by at least two judges.
Count ballot as a vote if the chad is at least dimpled. Example
Final Tally: Gore won Florida by 107 votes.

Count ballot as a vote if vote is indicated, but marked incorrectly. Example
Vote is indicated and marked correctly, but the candidate's name is also written in. Example
Ballot condition is agreed upon by at least two judges.
Count ballot as a vote if the chad is detached from one or more corners. Example
Final Tally: Gore won Florida by 72 votes.

Count ballot as a vote if vote is indicated, but marked incorrectly. Example
Vote is indicated and marked correctly, but the candidate's name is also written in. Example
Ballot condition is agreed upon by at least two judges.
Count ballot as a vote if the chad is fully detached from ballot.
Final Tally: Gore won Florida by 430 votes.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections2000/recount/yourvote.html

For the count we've been keeping since Election Day, these are now the final numbers for a state-wide cumulative media recount.
http://www.unknownnews.net/election2000.html#count

would be like citing fair and balanced Faux today.

And something for victims of "reverse discrimination".

Poorly supported polemics. Though that is hardly surprising.

That's a myth promoted by the right. Nixon had his lawyers look into all the irregularities. Nothing sufficient to change the outcome was found.

Especially the first one--sheesh.

:eyes:

:wtf:

Edit: apologies for the CAPS--just wanted everyone's attention.

Are those what DUers are citing as evidence.

Here's how they describe themselves:

"THE NEW AMERICAN magazine is a valuable tool in confronting the liberal, mainstream media."

if the facts are there, they are there. Don't expect salon to be pro republican, and don't expect fox to be pro dem. There is no balanced news. Which is a problem in my opinion.

You're going to have to find a mainstream source for your story, not some article from a right-wing magazine.

Sheesh...you may as well post an article from newsmax to back up your story!!!

And can get you tombstones.

I'd alert, but you're kinda fun, actually!

:evilgrin:

election was stolen by Kennedy - In Illinois there was vote stealing on both sides - and Kennedy would have won without Illinois. In Texas, there was no evidence that voting irregularities accounted for the Dem margin of error. OTOH - there is really no dispute that thousands of blacks were wrongly disenfranchised in Florida. The election in Florida was stolen by Katherine Harris before any votes were cast. It may have been stolen a second time when Katherine Harris approved the butterfly ballot which was designed to confuse voters in a heavily democratic county. It may have been stolen a third time when during the first "recount" the day after the election a number of counties did not conduct a recount after it became apparent that the recount was favoring Gore. And finally there was the failure to count all of the "hanging chad" ballots and the optical scan undervotes and overvotes Then there were the military ballots counted even though they were mailed AFTER election day, the thousands of black voter ballots thrown out state wide because there were no optical scanners in black precincts so voters could "check" their ballots, etc. All of this has been documented by Greg Palast if anyone cares or wants to argue about it. There was no comparable documention of enough fraud to swing the election in 1960. Repeating the 1960 fraud claim which the pubs like to do does not make it true.

"fair and balanced?" I didn't think so.:shrug:

.... is that Kennedy would have won without Illinois!

bush? <nt>

...though they came damn close. At least the old man refused the PNAC agenda. And JFK refused Operation Northwoods, where as Junior clearly did NOT refuse PNAC's "new PERLE Harbor"

Watergate" by John Dean.

You want corrupt?

John Dean kinna knows from corrupt.

Then wake me up when Junior goes to Dallas and we get our fucking country back:boring:

Seriously. Justify your presence on Democratic Underground in 300 words or less.

Forum Acceptable Use Policy

MESSAGE BOARD RULES (SHORT VERSION)

1. This is a message board for Democrats and other progressives.



Sorry im not apart of group think or consensus.

when they're trying to make a point. Plus, it's against DU rules to do so.

in addition how many right wing magazines admit bush stole 2000?
I'm only intrested in history and facts, i could care less about a source as long as it isn't outrageous. besides drudge gets posted here so much as well as posts from fr.

arguments.

I KNEW that would be coming within minutes!

Yes, Nixon/Kennedy was tight...but I'll bet that the precinct gaming going on, was happening on both sides...so it was pretty well canceled out. And there's been voting fraud since the 1st votes were recorded.

However, Bush and RNC-controlled BBV threat of a centralized proccess that allows a few people to potentially rig the outcome of a national election could end our democracy permanently. Big difference.

What?!? Partisan politics at DU?! People who don't buy some conservative media b.s. propaganda about Kennedy "stealing" the election and "karma" for the 2000 election. You don't say!?

how on earth did I find myself here?

Just waiting for the "no free speech on DU" rant--any moment now...

I apply my criticism to both sides. In fact even to my own positions. i just find it odd, that people from the party of slavery and the party opposed to the civil rights act, and the party that takes the black vote for granted, criticizes the right as racist. An outlook is not the same as hypocrisy

I have a leftist outlook

but an objective outlook. If i did't i would be a typical idotic american like most are (70% of people have made up there mind for whome they are voting for without the first debate or hearing the issues).

The dems vote with just as lack of brains as the right. And it seems like the dems and liebrals who admit it are somehow looked down upon.

and "party of slavery" and "party opposed to the civil rights act"?

Buh-Bye!

What's next, are you going to call the Republicans the "party of the civil rights movement"?

and it means something to me. This is not the old Dixiecrat party -- a past brought up by Republicans at every opportunity that more closely resembles their party today than mine.

It's funny you consider it "idiotic" to know where the parties stand, yet somehow smart to be a "leftist" who quotes rightwing propaganda as fact. That's not being objective, it's being unaware, as I see it.

i don't toe the party line. And what is the party platform? I'm intrested to know. Let's see today we are calling for rumsfield to reign, give it a month and lets see where the energy is. I'm curious to know, what it is. Because even some moderates here admit the dlc and dnc are shit. a kucinich is different from say a liberman.

First of all, you have the distinct problem of posting with questionable sources or none at all.

Second, you have a poor grasp of history if you think that the Democratic party today is the same party it was during th 19th century or even the mid-20th century. If you bothered reading anything, you might be surprised to learn that Southern Democrats who opposed Civil Rights bolted the party in the 1960s and that the Civil Rights act was implemented by Johnson even though he knew that the party would lose the South for a long time after that. The Democratic Party as it exists today is not the same as the Democratic Party of the 19th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrats
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party

Third, calling citizens of this country "idiotic Americans" because they do not agree with your point of view is not going to win you any friends. If you and your associates on the radical fringe of the left wing want to effect real change, you might start by refraining from insulting those you wish to convert. This sort of elitist intellectualism is not winning you any friends on this board, nor will it win you any in the real world.

then the neo cons aren't republicans, and the religious right are not republicans. (Which according to the rockafeller repubs i talk to they find that to be accurate.)

I'm saying as a whole. If you encomapass history who comes out better Dems or Repubs?

back to the old south and the Dixiecrats, I won't be one.

when Ann likes to remind her readers that she is right and superior because she is from "the party that freed the slaves."

nor the republian party.

but i find her physically irresistable. Politics vile and disgusting, apperance good. I don't mind her as long as she isn't thinking, writing or talking.

Neither side is representative of what they were in the 19th century. You can't make history black and white, but you consistently try.

are quite well informed. /sarcasm

good?

There is a subtle difference there. /sarcasm

Who the f**k are YOU, anyway?? Dems the party of slavery? MY BIG RED (well, actually white ...) ASS! Had it not been for JFK and LBJ, there would have been NO Civil Rights Act.

I see you have an old man in your avatar, but I suspect you weren't really AROUND in the 60s.

Bake

Dude, your slip is showing.

Keep up the good work.

:thumbsup:

Neither party is a sparkling pillar of popular democracy and integrity. I am extremely interested in how the Democratic Party will change itself once it regains power, b/c the Republicans are beyond the pale. It goddamned better, otherwise the monicker "It has to get worse before it gets better" might prove very true.

here is a good quote.

Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule--and both commonly succeed, and are right.


-H.L Mencken

Preaching to the choir. I'd like to vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST someone at least once in my life.

Damn them Whigs!!!!

Damn Whigs.

But the Whigs actually lost the election of 1844 by 38,000 votes. Which was not necessarily a good thing, considering who was victorious.

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/scores.html#1844

historically accurate. Then I thought, "eh....they'll get
the point".

My point is that the past is the past and what we are dealing
with right now is a lot more nefarious than shenanigans during
the Kennedy era.

Remember that the Republcians had control of the executive branch for the previous 8 years and Nixon had more resources at his disposal than Kennedy.

======

The Republicans obtained recounts, involved U.S. Attorneys and the FBI, and even impaneled grand juries in their quest to get a different election result. A slew of lawsuits were filed by Republicans, and unsuccessful appeals to state election commissions routinely followed. However, all their efforts failed to uncover any significant wrongdoing.


In Illinois, for instance, the final recount showed that Nixon's votes had been undercounted by 943 -- yet, in 40 percent of the rechecked precincts, it turned out that Nixon's vote had been overcounted. (Contrast this with Gore, whose vote total steadily climbed during the Florida recount.) Unhappy with those results, Republicans went to federal court, where their case was dismissed. They then appealed to the State Board of Elections, which also rejected their claims. It was not until Dec. 19 -- over a month after the election -- that the national Republican Party backed off its Illinois claims.

In Hawaii, Republican efforts had the unintended result of reversing the state's electoral votes from Nixon to Kennedy.

====

Many accounts I've read alleged both parties tried to steal the election, with circumstancial evidence supporting such a claim.

in fact i consider them to be both corrupt.

Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule--and both commonly succeed, and are right.

-H.L Mencken

:)

are legend.

I think much of the extreme bitterness has to do with the role the Supreme Court played.

There were precincts in Texas and Illinois in 1960. Florida, as a whole, in 2000.

I don't disagree on the longer view of corruption, but in the here and now, looking at campaign contributions from corporations to Republicans and their penchant for secrecy, it's self-evident where the majority of corruption (and the protection thereof) lies.

Are one of those Naderites trying to claim both parties are the same?

There is no moral equivalency. True, there are corrupt democrats, but the corruption of the 1960 election and this one are not comparable.

And don't even try to compare the Kennedy administration with Bush.

John F. Kennedy: Served his country honorably in WW2
George W. Bush: AWOL from his "champagne unit" during Vietnam war

JFK: won a hardfought and underhanded election against Nixon by ~80 electoral votes
GWB: stole a rigged and fraudulent election with the help of the SCOTUS by 5 electoral votes

JFK: sought major advances in US space program
GWB: in process of destroying US space program

JFK: continued to advance civil rights legislation
GWB: determined to repeal civil rights legislation

JFK: took responsibility for disaster at the Bay of Pigs
GWB: avoids responsibility for disaster at Abu Ghraib prison

JFK: committed America to a lengthy quagmire in Vietnam
GWB: instigated a lengthy quagmire in Iraq

JFK: assasinated in the third year of his presidency
GWB: murdered thousands of innocents during the third year of his presidency

See? It's easy!

it was Johnson who really got the ball rolling with the phony Tonkin Gulf "incident"

The real story of 1960 was never the National Election. There were discrepancies in Chicago, but there are always discrepancies in Chicago. And the Republicans were cheating like mad in the rest of the state. It was probably all a wash.

But the WV Primary is fascinating in how Joe Kennedy got the mob to get the unions to back Jack. And then gave them nothing in return.

THAT'S why he didn't challenge the results in Chicago. The Republicans had a significant vote stealing operation in downstate Illinois, and it wasn't particularly well-hidden.

Nixon felt it better to lick his wounds and run again later, rather than destroy his reputation in a torrent of voting irregularities.

-MR

:party: :toast: :thumbsup:



Socialist my ass. The masquerade's over, pal.

In fact, attending the funeral in a red dress & dancing on the grave are often quite tasteful.

THE REPUBS CHEATING WOULD HAVE BEEN UNCOVERED. DON'T YOU THINK NIXON WOULD HAVE CALLED FOR AN INVESTIGATION IF HE THOUGHT HE WAS CHEATED? BUT HE KNEW THAT HIS OWN CORRUPTION WOULD HAVE BEEN REVEALED.

JFK got 3O3EV to Nixon's 219

YOU ARE PARTIALLY CORRECT. DALEY STOLE VOTES FOR JFK. BUT THE GOP STOLE AT LEAST AS MANY VOTES FOR NIXON.

....Illinois that Nixon was funding with Mafia cash in 1960, do you?

You're not the only one that notices "a lot of imbalance and partisan politics here". You've done a pretty good job yourself.

649 posts here. Some moles lay low, then spring into action.

what lie it was. Read kevin Phillips. It was the GOP actually stealing another election (Tilman Hayes) about 100 years ago - in a way eerily similar to the 2000. You like being confused as your handle shows? Fine, Don't spread stupid in here - won't work. Sheesh!

The Republicans were the party of Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon. The Democrats were still the party of institutionalized racism. (Most nut religious types were also Dems back then)

Since 1960 the Republicans have retained their book-burners and witch hunters while adding all the southern bigots and fundamentalist lunatics, so they are now the working coalition of backward bigots and morons.