Given the long and often drawn out process in 2008 and 2012 of the primary horse race, the Republican National Committee is hoping to condense their primary calendar to give the eventual nominee more time campaigning and less time fighting other Republican contenders.

Report from Politico:

The Republican National Committee is taking steps at its winter meeting this week to try condensing the 2016 presidential nominating calendar, with the goal of starting later and ending earlier than in 2012.

Chairman Reince Priebus wants the party’s 2016 convention to happen between June 27 and July 18 – compared to the week of August 27 in 2012. The official date will be announced this spring, and the location will be selected at a summer meeting.

The party’s rules committee approved a handful of significant changes Thursday, which are likely to be adopted by the full 168-member governing body on Friday.

Among them: Stiffer penalties for states that schedule primaries before March 1; a requirement that states award delegates proportionally, rather than on a winner-take-all basis, before March 15; and a rule that delegates be selected 45 days before the national convention, as opposed to the current 35 days, to encourage states to wrap up as earlier.

Only four “early states” are allowed to hold elections before March 1: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. At the convention in Tampa, the committee voted to award just 12 delegates to any states that ignore this rule. The committee voted Thursday to make the penalty even stricter for smaller states, to dissuade them from attempting to move up.

Republican leaders in the four earliest-voting states express confidence they will now be able to hold off on voting until February of 2016, compared to January in 2012.

During the 2012 cycle, every state that voted in March awarded delegates proportionally based on the share of the vote each candidate received. That extended the nominating fight into late April and frustrated Mitt Romney’s campaign. So, at the convention, rules were changed to allow a “winner-take-all” system, in which any state could award every one of its delegates to whoever won the primary.

There are a few theories as to who this helps the most. The first theory says that an “electable” nominee, perhaps like a Mitt Romney, would be able to avoid staking out very conservative positions to win this lengthy primary process. On the other hand, perhaps without and extended vetting, the more moderate candidates won’t be able to convince voters they truly will carry the conservative mantle.

The major advantage this calendar change would provide the eventual nominee is the ability to begin campaigning and spending general election funds much earlier than they could in 2012. During the last cycle, with President Obama as the incumbent, his campaign was not held back by campaign finance laws regarding the primary process.

On the other hand, does this jibe with the centralization of power to the RNC which began in 2012 at the convention which sought to limit grassroots influence over the candidates and platform?


  1. I realize this is a “state regulated issue” but no mention of eliminating “OPEN PRIMARIES”? Does anyone know how many states participate in this primary exercise?


      • Nate — why are my posts being “moderated”… all the time?

        I’ve never used foul language, and only defended myself from Goethe’s attacks with humor…so why are you singling me out ?!

        • Because you have multiple identities on this site which is deceptive. (Surfisher, Gulag1972, obvious).

          Beyond that, much of your content in the past has been spam and unrelated to the topic at hand so I’m simply checking, for the quality of the discussion, to make sure the content is pertinent.

            • Oblivious: That’s rich. We can tell that it’s you posting under other names. You have never denied that you are both Surfisher and Oblivious. But the really despicable one was the Gulag trick, which made fools of all of us–while desecrating the memory of the people who really DID suffer under Stalin. I don’t know of a more disgusting ruse ever committed on here.

              You should be falling all over yourself, thanking the Nate-Man for not banning you altogether.

  2. This RNC winter meet should have been focused on a party platform and how to keep the U.S.A. the U.S.A. in the future and Pub candidates not destroy each other vs the “other parties”.

  3. “The RNC passed a resolution renouncing the unconstitutional NSA surveillance programs and called on the republican lawmakers to immediately take action to halt unconstitutional surveillance programs and provide full accounting of NSA data collecting programs.”

    From the article entitled :” RNC Slams Unconstitutional NSA Spying”


  4. I say, “Let the GOP candidates talk!” Their tongues are the ropes that hang them.. Years ago the radio serial character, the Shadow said, “No one knows what evil lurks in the minds of men, but the Shadow knows…” Well, even I have been amazed to discover the evil lurking in the minds of the Tea Party Republicans, and especially as relates to women–and O, their hate for the President is palatable.

  5. All hail Reince Priebus! At the moment, he is in control of the “old guard”. Chairman Priebus wants the party’s 2016 convention to happen between June 27 and July 18. Stiff penalties are in place for states that schedule primaries before March 1, with the exceptions being Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. The convention rules were changed to allow a “winner-take-all” system, in which any state could award every one of its delegates to whoever won the primary. Historically, Republicans have not been able to make these kinds of changes at party meetings. The Romney campaign succeeded in 2012 in getting such tweaks acceptable between elections.

    One of the Resolutions of the The Republican National Committee is to see that the U.S. Congress repeal FATCA, This law, not yet in effect, emerges as a global standard for countries seeking information on their own citizens’ hidden offshore money. “FATCA makes it easier to crack down on these tax evaders. Senator Rand Paul (isn’t he the busy one) proposed legislation in May that would repeal the anti-privacy provisions of the law, saying Congress should consider “less onerous” means of enforcing tax laws. It’s one of those “let George pay the taxes”.

    The RNC has told Republicans lawmakers to “amend Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, the state secrets privilege, and the FISA Amendments Act to make it clear that blanket surveillance of the Internet activity, phone records and correspondence — electronic, physical, and otherwise — of any person residing in the U.S. is prohibited by law and that violations can be reviewed in adversarial proceedings before a public court.” Rep. James Sensenbrenner , author of the Patriot Act, said in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that he is “extremely troubled” by the National Security Agency’s seizure of the phone records of millions of Verizon customers through a secret court ruling. It took Sensenbrenner thirteen years years to evaluate the law he wrote which allowed the Bush Administration to tap or seize phone records without a court order, secret or otherwise. Does it not come to his mind that He was at the drawing board designing the blueprint that created all the spying and the secrecy? This sudden burst of conscience from the RNC surely evolves from the strong, vocal displeasure of big corporate donors such as Verizon, Bill Gates (Microsoft), Facebook, AOL, Yahoo, Google, Apple and LinkedIn , to name a few.

  6. nothing but a gimmick to stop the grassroots movement….
    tea party candidates must call this bluff and stand strong in 2014 — or another rhino, an obamanite clone, will be selected by the RNC dictators come 2016…!

    some food for thought — Doug Wead on Rand Paul’s foreign policy:

    Superb quotation:
    “Nietzsche once said that “In individuals insanity is rare. But in nations it is the rule.”

    • p.s. some great quotes:

      “Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans are locked into a fiscal death embrace, Democrats spending programs to reward their political constituencies and Republican spending money to reward their pals in the military industrial complex. Both sides are eating at the pig trough of public money while the rest of us are taxed to death, handing over our hard earned money to government favorites.”

      “Today, with the added impetus of the war on terror, America accounts for 42% of the world’s military expenditures. We have 50,000 jets, while our nearest rival, China, has 5,000 jets. We borrow money from China to put boots on the ground in Australia to defend Australia from China. Feeling safe? And, ironically, the strategy we used to bring down communism is destroying us as well. Our arms race bankrupted the Soviet Union and now we are close to bankruptcy ourselves.”

      “The deadly solution? The insidious hidden tax? “Quantitative easing.” It has wiped out the wealth of a whole generation and made a tiny oligarchy of rich and powerful.”

      “The Senator [Rand Paul] began by defining the current foreign policy crisis. The enemy, he said, was not terrorism, which is after all a tactic, but rather radical Islam, something that many politicians have been reluctant to acknowledge.”

      “He [Rand Paul] compared this crisis to the challenge of the Cold War. And called for a modern version of Cold War containment, a policy that is not entirely military but not all diplomatic either. Countering radical Islam, the Senator declared, demands a worldwide strategy. When there is war, we should go in to win it and we should not go in alone.”

      The key point is that “Part of Rand Paul’s new foreign policy was a list of liberty movement basics, although couched in language that Rinos, who now dominate the Heritage Foundation, can swallow. ” — as such, he has displayed his ability to encompass and convince nearly all in the Republican party.

      Unless the RNC wants to shoot themselves in the foot, by doing a hatchet job on Rand Paul (like they did to his father in 2012) and thus lose the 2016 election again — they must embrace Rand Paul as the only viable Republican candidate that can easily defeat Hitlery Clinton (like he did on the Benghazi hearings — stating she is unfit to hold office!).

      Rand Paul destroys Hillary Clinton…FOREVER…on the Benghazi deaths of Americans:

      Watch the killer-bitch-of-Benghazi LAUGH…and that sicko wants to run for president..?!?!

      • Oblivious;

        When you refer to people with derogatory names your argument loses any credibility and makes you sound like the “You Decide” version of Martin Bashir.

        You obviously have an intelligent head on your shoulders why hide it by keeping it up your ass.

      • p.s. anyone with a modicum of interrogation techniques, can tell when John Kerry is lying by reading his body language:

        watch his arm movements trying to cover up his lies; then him staring upwards to avoid eye contact, while trying to come up with his next lies; pausing, mumbling, gesticulating without cause…amazingly transparent liar!

        one would think such high level trained politicians would be less obvious betraying themselves as simple liars!

        so many obvious lies by John Kerry under Oath — and he is now what…?!

        AMAZING how Obama picks his staff — the bigger the liar, the higher the position!

  7. Senator Rand Paul has never served his country in military service of any kind. Not even in the ROTC in high school or college. He did not get a PhD in Political Science. He has had no foreign service duty. As a teenager, he did study Austrian Economics and Ayn Rand in his home. His rambling rhetoric challenging Secretary of State John Kerry on his dedication to the U.S. Constitution was most unusual.(There are no two people that interpret the Constitution exactly the same). One has to remember that a member of Congress cannot be held legally responsible for any insult,character assassination, or lies they choose to heap upon another while in the hallowed halls of Congress. Just the appearing witness is sworn to tell the truth.

    On the possibility that Bashar al-Assad could use chemical weapons again, Kerry asked, “If the United States of America doesn’t do this, Senator, is it more or less likely that Assad does it again? You want to answer that question?”
    Paul said the answer was “unknown.” Kerry said “Senator, it is not unknown. If the United States of America doesn’t hold him accountable on this, with our allies and friends, it is a guarantee Assad will do it again–a guarantee–and I urge you to go to the classified briefing and learn that.”

    Kerry then moved on to Paul’s questions on whether Americans “want” to go to war. Speaking for himself, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey, along with Sen. John McCain, who have all been to war (unlike Paul), Kerry said, “not one of us that doesn’t understand what going to war means and we don’t want to go to war.”He added that he, Hagel and Dempsey don’t consider the proposed “limited action” the same as “going to war.”

    • Tess – Paul is as qualified as any Democratic Candidate who is thinking of running – and if you believe that John Kerry is in the same class as Hagel, Dempsey and McCain take a closer look at and study his ‘Nam and River Rat time and what the up and down men who served him have to say . and run immediately to Congress about what was Happening to him in ‘Nam. – in civilian clothes no less while still on active duty.

      And your precious savior, his military time and military strategies that presently put our men and women in harms way.

      Kerry is like Biden – brays around like a cheap politician and makes the same bad decisions.

      I’m surprised you are not in the Wendy Davis’ campaign – maybe condoning “walk a mile in my shoes” slogan and “stand up for Wendy” – those are lower than whale shit at the bottom of the Marianas Channel —- but that all cool, cause SHE’S A DEMOCRAT.

      • dear Sam…let me take you back…when your ship was part of the fleet that sent the Russians slinking back home from Cuba, you were a hero to the American public. Strangers wanted tp pick up your tab, to shake your hand or just say thanks. Jump a few years and remember the men returning from Vietnam. The American public turned their backs on battle scarred men…there was no parades,,no thank you’s…just disparaging remarks. They wore their hair long, many did do drugs, started through courtesy of the American government during wartime, and most became the outcasts of society. John Kerry became a spokesman for this lost generation. I assume the book you speak of is Unfit for Command. Some of the men quoted in the book were in the same unit as John Kerry but none were under his command. It is well known the book was financed in Texas and used to promote the Bush presidential campaign. Regardless, of their sentiments, John Kerry was wounded on three different encounters, was awarded the Silver Star, the Gold Star and three purple hearts for bravery in action. Not bad for a little River Rat time.

        You really need to go back and read John Kerry’s words to Congress, There is no complaint about what happened to him as a person. It is of factual happenings during the war in Vietnam to and of American troops. Many of the things he proposes today are similar to what he told Congress then, such as: “Therefore, I think it is ridiculous to assume we have to play this power game based on total warfare. I think there will be guerrilla wars and I think we must have a capability to fight those. And we may have to fight them somewhere based on legitimate threats, but we must learn, in this country, how to define those threats and that is what I would say to the question of world peace. I think it is bogus, totally artificial. There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands”.

        Chapter 7 Sec 2 Civilian Clothes for Naval Personnel: Naval personnel shall ensure that their dress and personal appearance are ap-
        propriate for the occasion and will not discredit the Navy.

        One more time, Sam, I am an independent voter. Usually I am voting for the lesser of two evils as I see it. I am surprised you find Wendy Davis so offensive. She is very, very Libertarian in most of her views.

        • Tess —

          Again, you are guilty of googeling only for pieces and parts that will fit your preconceived conclusion; NEVER for what is the actual truth (those you disregard)!

          What a sad little sciolist you are.

          Most people “Google” to learn, while you do it ONLY to find idiotic info that floats out there unverified, in order to concoct misrepresentations, that fit your dead dogma.

          Karl Marx would be proud of you….

  8. Sam/Tess:

    Being a Vietnam veteran I salute and have the utmost respect for what Senator McCain went through over there but find the military record of Senator McCain and Secretary Kerry irreverent to base my decision on whether to vote for either since neither one has shown a degree of compatibility to any of my political views. My views of how the government should use the military have changed over the years as I’m sure it has for others that have served. Unfortunately in these times when few members of Congress served we must base our voting decisions on other aspects than simply military experience….even when it comes to national defense.

    • Bob – I’m with you – I was active duty from from ’59 to ’69, on a Tin Can for 4 of ’em and in Saigon in ’60.Then an active Reservist for 20 more. I thoroughly respect McCain and can’t even imagine what he went through. There were too much Politics and dis-information (both sides) on Kerry, but I do respect he was a River Rat in the Delta. Like you, i know longer respect the Politics of McCain and never have Kerry’s, especially back in ’69 and even less now.

      As I said before Tess – while Paul no longer has my support, he is as qualified as any Demo surfaced candidate and more qualified than the present failed POTUS.

  9. Upon Further Review:


    If memory serves me correct I believe the purpose behind John Kerry appearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 1971 is he represented an organization called “Vietnam Veterans Against The War”. He was a civilian wearing his fatigue shirt with long hair protesting against the war and was addressed as Mr. Kerry.

    He may have been a “spokesmen” for a portion of his generation but the atrocities that he said was committed by the American G.I. was condemned at the time as lies by a major portion of the U.S. military both enlisted and officers who served over there. I also take offense of your remark in regard to “most became the outcast of society”. I don’t deny we had our lost brothers but MOST went on to finish college become doctors, lawyers, teachers and respectable citizens of the community. Your casual use of a broad paint brush to make a point may work when talking to others to young to know better but I suggest you think twice before lecturing two veterans.

    • Bob…my post was to Sam and it was not a lecture. If you take offense at “most became outcasts of society”…so be it. This does not say Vietnam veterans did not find employment…what it does say is that Americans never embraced returning Vietnam veterans and that is an unrefuted fact. Why the Senate Chairman Fullbright referred to Lt.John Kerry as Mr Kerry could have some meaning that I am not aware of but John Kerry was not a civilian. He was still an officer in the Reserves. Time and history have given proof to the majority of John Kerry’s remarks to Congress as factual.

      Veterans are not the only people qualified to speak about war. Families of veterans, wives, parents, and children have felt and heard the agonies of war enough to fully qualify .

      • Tess – Kerry may have still been a Navy Reservist but was inactive and had requested before & granted USNR-S2 status a few months after the Congressional appearance. His FitRep had declared him “unfit for Command” but was still automatically promoted to LT after 2 years as a LTJG. He had been rebuked by his fellow Officers and back then the Brotherhood came before politics. He disgraced the Navy and his fellow Navymen by appearing in an unkept manner, wearing a non-uniform fatigue shirt with medals on it. We all knew that the Vietnam conflict had run it’s course by the ’68 Tet and we didn’t belong there losing lives fighting under the enemy rules. But a derelict like Kerry appearing and all for show did not help convince LBJ what to do – Shit or get off the pot. Kerry not only disgraced his Navy kin but hundreds of thousands of honorable military who served in the Theater or supported the Theater.

        We did nothing to our enemy in ‘Nam that wasn’t done to the South Vietnamese or the US forces.

        • samreusser — you are 100% correct.

          But you are not speaking to a normal person. Tess has a pernicious anti-American agenda, and will post any crap just to have it published here (hoping her sciolisms would sway others to her sick agenda).

          One cannot reason with such. However, you are correct that they must be exposed for what they are — Liberty and Truth haters!

        • Sam…

          “”We did nothing to our enemy in ‘Nam that wasn’t done to the South Vietnamese or the US forces.”

          Are you talking about the My Lai massacre? In 1967, 100,000 Americans protested the war in Washington DC. In 1971, 300,000 protested in an anti-war demonstration, again in Washington DC. This particular protest involved many veterans from the war, where they publicly threw away their medals and medal ribbons on the steps of the Capitol building. These were the days of so called”draft dodgers”, many young men of wealth found safe haven in Canada. The Flower Children protested the War any and everywhere. There was massive protests on campuses throughout the country. At Kent State University in Ohio, national guardsmen opened fire on student war protesters, killing four and wounding nine. Ten days later,, at Jackson State University, in Mississippi, during a student war protest, police and state highway patrolmen fired automatic weapons into a dormitory, killing two students and wounding nine others. These people were not derelicts. Neither was John Kerry. They had the right to speak their thoughts on the war, just as the same right allows you to condemn and make unsavory remarks about them.

          President Lyndon Johnson believed it was his duty to abide by the 1955, SEATO treaty signed by John Foster Dulles (Eisenhower Administration) to defend South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia from communist aggression.
          He did escalate the war, and had he been allowed by Congress to continue, there may have been a different outcome.

          • I am flummoxed on how you can equate talking about atrocities committed at My Lai to shootings here in the states during anti-war protest?

            No !…. Sam was talking about atrocities committed by the enemy namely the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army when he stated “We did nothing to our enemy in Nam that wasn’t done to the South Vietnamese or U.S. forces.” You know things that the American public NEVER HEARD ABOUT BY THE ANTI-WAR MSM like the Dak Son massacre where the Viet Cong killed 252 civilians. Or the Chau Dot massacre where 17 South Vietnamese government officials were murdered. BUT THE ONE THE ANTI-WAR LEFT REALLY WANTS TO IGNORE IS THE MASSACRE AT HUE WHERE THE VIET CONG AND THE NORTH VIETNAMESE ARMY KILLED BETWEEN 2800 AND 6000 CIVILIANS AND P.O.W.’s.



            Derelicts ?…No they were mindless little pawns for the Communist and were against the war for their own private benefits. They attempt to re-write history by preaching today they weren’t against the guys in the military but treated us like shit when we came home.

            • LBJ could care less about a SEATO treaty. He didn’t want to look weak against Communism and spent most of his 5 years in office negotiating or bombing halts looking for an honorable way out of the war. He referred to Vietnam as that “Bastard War” that distracts from my “Great Society Programs”.

          • Tess – i repeat! “We did nothing to ‘Charlie’ in ‘Nam that wasn’t done to the South Vietnamese or the US forces.”

            And yes, i almost decked a liberal Prof for “underwater basket weaving” CUDC evening classes, three vets and my self stood up and i was closest. He left the classroom and didn’t come back. A friend and I, in uniform, had four political derelict kids jump the curb and tried to run us down near another campus. All the protests were driven by the liberal left of their own POTUS’s party. The S. Vietnamese didn’t want their freedom as much as the VC wanted Communism. I have know idea whose the Vets were other than disgracing their comrades.

            LBJ should never had let us get to the ’65 levels and screw the treaty – we could have supplied them with armament and long range bombs but not Boots

            And yes again, Kerry is a political derelict !!!! what he did was political gain and show – that’s the reason he asked to be released from active duty before the end of his commitment, so he could run for political office..

            • Sam: Maybe this is the ‘Nam discussion you were referring to, wondering why I didn’t participate.

              I guess I read the description in the heading and planned to go back to it. That’s one problem with the “opt-in” system. If you don’t jump in AND opt in, you miss out.

              But I seldom post regarding Vietnam, since I did not go, and thus, feel that I have less standing to speak.

              But here is my basic overview:
              1) We supported the French, who were trying to maintain their colonial empire after WWII, totally against our ideals.
              2) After Dien Bien Phu, in 1954 (France’s modern-day Waterloo), the country was divided,between the colony in the south, and the Marxist north.
              3) We continued to support the south, partly due to the Domino Theory.
              4) When Kennedy came into office, he wanted to re-evaluate our stands, both domestic and foreign. At one point, he said, “In the final analysis, it’s their war.” JFK might have pulled us out. In 1963, we were apparently involved in the removal of Diem, whom JFK did not respect, but then, JFK was killed.
              5) LBJ came to office, dedicated to honoring JFK–and did not want to lose the war JFK had escalated. He seemed to think we could build up the south, in the way we built up Iraq in the past decade. The goal was to prove our power, and then get out.
              6) Nixon had the same idea, but he had the nuanced approach of detente with both China and the USSR, hoping to settle the war, in the way JFK worked with Kruchev to end the Cuban Missile Crisis (which undermined Castro). Without major power support, the north would not have the resources to continue.
              7) After RMN resigned, Ford wanted to end “the long national nightmare” by removing sources of internal strife here, which included Vietnam, and so, he just allowed the south to fall.
              8) Now Vietnam is one of our trading partners, and has moved to a more capitalist economy.

              I agree that we did not give the military the green light to “win” the war. But I believe that’s because it was clear that China and the USSR would not allow it. If we had gone into the north, I think we would have had a replay of Korea, but with BOTH China and the USSR confronting us this time–all nuclear powered.

              It is important to look at the rising conditions of “North” Vietnam, where we “lost,” as opposed to North Korea, where we “won.”

              That’s how I see it, by cracky.

            • Goethe – I agree with your points. i have a couple of alternatives, tho – I believe USSR & China didn’t think we would drop another bomb after we only wasted boots in stopping N.Korea – we lost a ton of international respect between ’54 & ’61. However they were afraid of Kennedy. When LBJ took the Conn and it was obvious we would fight according to someone else’s rules and not to “win” – screw any treaty, By 64 we should have been out of there. LBJ was incapable of making the U.S. a warrior again like JFK did. It was apparent when we were overseas after JFK took over, our mantra was “the Eagle screams again” but after LBJ took over, we begin dipping our colors simultaneously with USSR ships.

              LBJ’s “Domino” theory was and is correct – but he won in ’64 by implying Goldwater would use Atomic solutions and America was afraid of a nuclear war. However had they known that LBJ would have sacrificed almost 60,000 Sons instead of warning China to “make their lackeys stay north of the Ben Hai River or we will make Hanoi flat, black, and glow in the dark and maybe work on Beijing after that” – there never would have been a Vietnam War. (no nuclear either)

              Matter of fact, that would have worked for the Taliban Stronghold in 2001 – no warning, just a medium sized nuke – then tell Saddam, “you’re next if you don’t sit up and pay attention” – I think all three wars would have been avoided. And i don’t think any other nation would have gone against us.

              War may build economies but it don’t do a lot for saving Sons and Daughters – and even grown job producers.

              Also Vietnam is really now a burgeoning nation, with respect to South Korea, huh? 🙂

            • Sam: I hesitate to argue with a military man, and I wish all the chicken-haws in Washington felt the same way.

              That being said, I had a different impression of our standing at the time. Nobody messed with Truman, since he was the only man in history who was ultimately (“buck stops here”) responsible for dropping the big one. And I thought the world gave the same reverence to the General (Ike). I think the world saw JFK as a playboy and a kid, and it wasn’t until the Missile Crisis that they realized the steel he was made of.

              Regarding war and the economy, I remember some punk came to the door in 1970, laughing that Vietnam was no big deal, and the best thing that could happen to the economy. I tossed him out on his ass. (Well, ok, so I actually just told him to get out–NOW.)

              And, yeah, I purposely compared NORTH Vietnam and NORTH Korea. You can’t really compare South Korea, which we had a vested interest in nurturing and building up–like West Germany and Japan.

              Remember “The Mouse that Roared”?

            • Sam/Goethe:

              Below is a link to an interview Bobby Kennedy had at the JFK Library on 30th April 1964 (5 months after the assassination)where he states that his brother had no intentions of pulling out of Vietnam. If JFK couldn’t confide in Bobby then who could we believe?

            • Bob: Yeah, but Kennedy was careful to choose his words. Nobody wanted to “pull out” (as we eventually did under Ford). But that doesn’t mean that he wanted to stay.

              From the Kennedy library:

              “A few weeks later, on November 1, 1963, the South Vietnamese government was overthrown. The coup had the tacit approval of the Kennedy administration. President Diem was assassinated, after refusing an American offer of safety if he agreed to resign. . . .

              In the final weeks of his life, President Kennedy wrestled with the future of the United States’ commitment in Vietnam. Whether he would have increased military involvement or negotiated a withdrawal of military personnel still remains hotly debated among historians and officials who served in the administrations of President Kennedy and President Lyndon B. Johnson.”


              Kennedy was, as my dad used to say,a “piss or get off the pot” kinda guy. He would not have allowed us to be bled dry in Vietnam, or in Afghanistan, for that matter.

              I think when JFK’s CIA got rid of Diem, we also intended to find what Nixon later called “peace with honor.” Maybe it’s time for the CIA to pay Karzai a midnight visit now?

            • Goethe – You are correct – from the time Ike drove D-day till he died he was very respected everywhere in the world. But Ike following Truman, believed in the “Domino effect” but also made Korea limited and didn’t aggress into China – so internationally the “enemy” knew they could push us around.

              And Bob, yes I was still on the Gurke when Kennedy said we were gonna stay in ‘Nam. And that got an “Oh,F**k, here we go again” (sic).Just after the Blockade.

              However, as Goethe said, had JFK lived, JFK was a “I’m gonna piss on you if don’t stay out of S.’Nam!” I don’t think he would have put many Boots on the ground there, But taken stronger steps or just walked away.

              That “Domino effect” is what has been the driving factor for our fight against Communism and kept us interfering in Mid-East affairs (But i believe Kuwait was valid) instead of staying home. And I still believe that after 9/11, immediately with no warning, a strong retaliation at the Taliban with a medium nuke would have saved a lot of men and women and maybe even the end of jihad for a few decades.

              And every country in the world have thought twice before aggression, especially if the US was involved.

      • Tess — what a sad little sciolist you are.

        Most people “Google” to learn, while you do it ONLY to find idiotic info that floats out there unverified, in order to concoct misrepresentations, that fit your dead dogma.

        Karl Marx would be proud of you….

      • Tess:

        You state in your 29th January @12;36AM post “Veterans are not the only people qualified to speak about war.”

        Isn’t that the exact thing Sam is saying in regard to Senator Paul being qualified to become Commander in Chief? You originally showed concern that he didn’t have any experience in your 27th of January @ 10:47PM post.

        Which way is it ?

        • Bob: I think I’d have to agree with you on this one. I don’t see where Rand has tried to speak AS a military man, or FOR the military. So it doesn’t matter that he didn’t serve.

          It is, however, interesting that the Doug Wead article about Rand points out that Libertarians promote the IDEAL, but that if a Libertarian would ever get elected, he’d have to compromise his principles. (It’s easy to be perfect on the sidelines.)

          In this case, Rand was threading the needle, saying we need a “third way” between the hair-trigger use of the military since Reagan, and extreme isolationism.

          The thing that continues to bother me, however, is that in his speech, Rand continues to say that war is just fine if it is to defend Israel AND the U.S., as if the U.S. were his second consideration.

          It is one of many areas in which Rand is NOT “his father’s Paul.” Ron Paul warned AGAINST letting our military be a pawn for Israel.

          Ron Paul is/was principled. Rand Paul is a politician seeking power–threading the needle any way he has to in order to get what he wants.

        • Bob…Thanks for reading my post.but you are prone to misinterpret. It read : “Veterans are not the only people qualified to speak about war. Families of veterans, wives, parents, and children have felt and heard the agonies of war enough to fully qualify” No where in that post was there a reference of Rand Paul’s qualifications.

          The Vietnam war affected many families, mine included, with unnnecessary suffering and grief. You do not have to wear a uniform to be able to speak on the subject of unjust wars.

  10. Lets not airbrush history. John Kerry was a prop and useful idiot that the anti-war left in Congress used in their attempt to end the war. What could be more high profile than “Veterans Against the War”. In addition Congress had no qualms about de-funding the war in order to end it as the Progressives were recently when the Tea Party attempted it with Obamacare. This move literally cut the legs out of any defense the South could mount when the North invaded. Mr.Kerry in turn saw his opportunity and used it to further his ambitions in public life.

    We may not have been welcome home back in the 60’s and 70’s but judging by how I’m now treated Vietnam Vet’s are held in high regard.

  11. On-topic: I don’t think the new rules are bad. It would be a good experiment to see what a condensed schedule will do.

    I’m not so sure it will help a moderate in the primary, but it will make it less likely that the nominee will shoot him/herself in the foot, since a long primary season gives a lot more time to say something stupid.

    I did think they would outlaw caucuses, where the grassroots seem to have more influence.

    I expected something more creative, such as “regional” ganged votes–with all states in the south, west, northeast, and midwest voting as a bloc. But that would probably confuse things, as each has a different constituency, and could produce four, competing “frontrunners,” who would fight royally.

    A better idea would be to have states in different areas to vote together. After all, the first four–NH, SC, Iowa, and Nevada are a pretty good sampling of the different areas. Maybe there should be six or eight consecutive “Super Tuesdays” with states from different areas voting at once–completed n two months.

    I’d like to see that.

Comments are closed.