Posted on 09/03/2007 5:36:49 PM PDT by SJackson
What a crock. The rat party is the racist party.
You are probably correct in your assumption that Bremer was the typical loser who just wanted to shoot someone famous to give his own pathetic life a sense of importance.
However, you are probably incorrect that Cermak was a second choice in place of FDR. Cermak was shot while near FDR. The assumption has always been that the shooter aimed for FDR, but missed. Other thories suggest that Cermak was the intended target because he was tough on Chicago mobsters. In any, case, Cermak could not have been chosen because he was an easier target than FDR when he was shot while shaking hands with FDR.
“Before you dismiss the idea as preposterous, remember that the president of the United States in 1972 was Richard Nixon.”
I still remember the day I learned Wallace had been shot. My first thought was “Why?” Who would want to kill a candidate who was polling only 3%? I thought the guy who told me was pulling my leg.
ditto's!
The biggest threat to Nixon was Senator Henry M. Jackson who was on his infamous "enemies list." Instead of Jackson the public got the choice of George McGovern vs. Nixon which is exactly what Nixon needed to win every state but Massachusetts. The DemocRAT party has been nutzoid ever since that fateful year...
It's like people who insist on a conspiracy in the Florida election results in 2000. You ask, "Well, how do you know?" and they invariably come back with "Look, the governor was his brother." And they say it as if this logically proved their argument.
He went on to tell why Nixon didn't demand a recount. He didn't feel Kennedy had anything to do with the voting in Chicago or the mix up in Texas.
Chris even said that Nixon didn,t want the country to go through the trouble that would result. — It is what Gore did and Nixon wouldn't do!!!
He went on to tell why Nixon didn't demand a recount. He didn't feel Kennedy had anything to do with the voting in Chicago or the mix up in Texas.
Chris even said that Nixon didn,t want the country to go through the trouble that would result. — It is what Gore did and Nixon wouldn't do!!!
Look for every right wing conspiracy theory ever conceived to be paraded around before next Friday. The Rats want as much dust in the air as possible when Hillary goes on the stand.
JFK won 303 electoral votes, 35 more than needed (268), so Texas by itself (24 electoral votes) or Illinois by itself (27 EV) wouldn't have made the difference. I guess it's impossible to say what the impact of LBJ not being on the ticket would have been in the states that were very close in 1960, such as South Carolina and Hawaii. Without Texas, SC, and Hawaii, JFK would have had the bare minimum needed to win...but because there were some votes cast for Harry F. Byrd, that would have thrown the decision into the House of Representatives. If Nixon had carried both Texas and Illinois, he would have had enough EVs to win.
I remember telling my friend this in 2000. I told her, if Gore was a class act and accepted defeat graciously he could run again in the future and win the Presidency just like Nixon did 8 years after his defeat. But because Gore was such a sore loser infant, he completely blew THAT chance.
That's exactly what I was waiting for; and in the absence of such a morsel I am forced to give this article an F-minus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.