A Second Chance

[ChairmanSanchez]

I think my favorite part of this timeline is the alternate careers so many have taken. Secretary of Defense Goldwater, Dubya in Congress, there are so many good examples in this amazing timeline!

[CathKhan]

Just finished reading this all, it's fascinating! I exhort you to keep going!

Wow. I honestly can't imagine having to actually read all forty pages of this stuff, especially looking back on how I let some things play out and just how I did things back in the earlier days of this tl with all the time warps. Thanks, and I intend to when I find out how I'm gonna get the rest of 1979 done.

I think my favorite part of this timeline is the alternate careers so many have taken. Secretary of Defense Goldwater, Dubya in Congress, there are so many good examples in this amazing timeline!

Well expect some more alternate careers, and they may even concern some of your favorite politicians. You'll just have to wait and see though.

[CathKhan]

May 10th, 1979
"With dishonesty in the Kennedy Administration becoming clearer and clearer by the day, with Kennedy having abandoned what he called two of his greatest goals, those of helping the poor and bringing our nation under fiscal restraint, and with this economy further sinking into the ground due to Kennedy's policy of abandoning the issue, I declare my run for the Presidency of the United States of America!"

-Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development John Lindsay

May 28th, 1979
"The war must end because it is not morally justified. It is not morally justified for one country to dictate what another shall do. It is not morally justified to send off American children to die in the dessert in the name of one man. one man, who they themselves never knew and never met. It is not morally justified to bomb civillians in the name of Liberty and not morally justified to uproot an entire country in the name of Justice. That is why I am running. The Kennedy Adminstration has only done things morally unjustifiable, such as attempted espionage on a man who is trying to cut waste in the military. Such as attempting to over throw foreign leaders and put in place American friendly dictators. All these are why I'm running for President of the United States."

-Former Senator Eugene McCarthy

June 23rd, 1979
"The Whitehouse seems to be void of certain necessary things to governance. Common sense. An ability to actually work with Congress. A connection to the governed. That is why I am announcing my campaign for the Republican nomination for PResident of the United States. In Washington I have been a voice of reson and compromise these last twelve and a half years and I will continue that tradition in the Whitehouse!"

-Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker

[CathKhan]

November 13th, 1979
"I'm here tonight to announce my intention to seek the nomination for President of the United States. I'm sure each of us has seen our country from a number of viewpoints, depending on where we've lived and what we've done. For me it's been as a boy growing up in several small towns in Illinois, as a young man in Iowa trying to get a start in the years of the Great Depression, and, later in California for most of my adult life. I've seen America from the stadium press box as a sportscaster. As an actor, office of my labor union. Soldier. Officeholder. And, as both Democrat and Republican. I've lived in an America where those who often had too little to eat outnumbered those who had enough. There've been five wars in my lifetime. And I've seen my country face financial ruin in the Depression. I've also seen the great strength of this nation, as it pulled itself up from that ruin to become the dominant force in the world. To me, our country is a living, breathing presence, unimpressed by what others say is impossible. Proud of its own success. Generous. Yes, and naive. Sometimes wrong, never mean. And always impatient to provide a better life for its people in a framework of basic fairness and freedom.

You know someone once said the difference between an American and any other kind of person is that an American lives in anticipation of the future because he knows it'll be a great place. Other people fear the future as just a repetition of past failures. Well there's a lot of truth to that. If there's one thing that we're sure of, it's that history need not be re-lived. That nothing is impossible. And that man is capable of improving his circumstances beyond what we're told is fact. Now there are those in our land today however, that would have us believe that the United States, like other great civilizations of the past, has reached the zenith of its power. That we're weak and fearful, reduced to bickering with each other, and no longer possess the will and moral suredness to cope with out problems. Much of this talk has come from leaders who claim that our power is too difficult to handle. We're supposed to meagerly accept their failures as the most which can be humanly done. They tell us we must learn to accept American defeats overseas, and teach our children that America is no longer capable of beating threatening forces in foreign lands. That the America of the coming years will be a place where, because of our past military expenditures, it will be impossible to defend America or the world abroad anymore. They also tell us that we shouldn’t expect the best from our public servants. That scandal, whether it involves money or inappropriate use of our nation’s intelligence institutions, is now something to be expected. I don't believe that. And I don't believe you do either. That's why I'm seeking the Presidency. I can not and will not stand by and see this great country destroy itself. Our leaders attempt to blame their failures and moral shortcomings on circumstances beyond their control.

The crisis we face is not the result of any failure of the American spirit, it's a failure of our leaders, to be morally upright and honest and to give our people something to order their lives by. If I am elected I shall regard my election as proof that the people of the United States have decided to set a new agenda, and have recognized that this nation can no longer stand the overwhelming burden of the state and the moral corruption of its leaders."

-Governor Ronald Reagan

[ChairmanSanchez]

Out of curiosity, the war in Palestine..Thats a very small area. Is the fighting all in the West Bank?

[CathKhan]

Out of curiosity, the war in Palestine..Thats a very small area. Is the fighting all in the West Bank?

The war was a war against the government which was discovered to be funding terrorist actions including the assassination of Henry M Jackson. Therefore, it's mostly a nation-wide fight and as in Iraw IRL, they're fighting geurilla insurgents and results are mixed. Despite victory in Vietnam, we still won the using brute force so it's gone down in history much like WWII. Therefore, despite victory in Vietnam, forces are still untrained for fighting geurillas. All in all, the fighting isn't just in one area. (after more research, you may get a better answer than this)

[CathKhan]

November 14th, 1979
The office of the President of the United States...
    Cadell: McCarthy's up in Iowa-
    Kennedy: What?
    Cadell: He's very popular among the youth there, not to mention his being from a neighboring, agricultural state.
    Kennedy: And New Hampshire?
    Cadell: As long as you can keep the imports from Massachusetts going and warn the rural New Englander's about McCarthy's radicalism, you should be in for a 50% or more victory.
    Kennedy: Good. How're Republicans polling against themselves?
    Cadell: Well, since Reagan's entry yesterday, it's a strange map that's coming forward.

Each candidate has their areas of strength. Reagan, who is represented by orange, is doing well in the South-West, and pieces of the Mid-West, even getting a plurality in the North-East. Following behind is Baker, who is red. He is the obvious Southern candidate and is making roads towards the North. Hatfield, who is green, has his obvious strength in the Pacific West and is slowly gaining supporters in the Northern areas of the plains and the Rockies. Rumsfeld, in blue, was once the front-runner of the announce candidates. Now, he's in fifth out of the announced, but is still hanging in, winning pluralities in his home state and Michigan. Finally, Lindsay, who is the Light Blue in the North-East, is getting the traditional Liberal Republicans. He fails, however, to even capture his home state, which even Rumsfeld did. Pollsters are citing the fact that the main primary votes come from upstate and that even downstate in New York City, he isn't that popular due to his tenure as Mayor.
    Kennedy: How are we doing against any of them?
    Cadell: I'm going to be frank with you. Not good. Scenario one, with Reagan winning the nomination, is only the beginning.

-Blue-Governor Ronald Reagan of California
-Red-President Robert F Kennedy of Massachusetts
-Green-tossup

Against Hatfield, the upper West is solid, but you make up for it in the South, but nothing is guaranteed as Texas is a toss-up.

Blue-Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon (294)
Red-President Robert F Kennedy of Massachusetts (176)
Green-Tossup (68)
Heck, even your lead in Hawaii is threatened. He's getting forty-five percent of the vote over there. At the some time, however, your vote among the white working class goes up, making New Jersey and Michigan solid territory again, at least for now.

Looking at Baker, he's probably the biggest threat at this stage. Despite drawing a solid south, he threatens part of his own base in the South with his pro-choice views and while he can swing moderates and Independents, the white working class is nearly as dis-satisfied with him as they are with Hatfield.

Blue-Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee (314)
Red-President Robert F Kennedy of Massachusets (176)
Green-Tossup (50)
Baker and Hatfield both present interesting scenarios. On one hand, both can draw moderates and independents. On the other hand, they are both not as popular with working class whites than Reagan is. Blue collar workers prefer Reagan who, while being more Conservative, has some very Populist under-tones and is overall more charismatic than his opponents. Hatfield is perceived as the "hippie Republican" like how McCarthy is perceived as a "hippie Democrat". This means that Hatfield and and Baker are actually attracting more Liberal Democrats than Reagan, who is attracting Conservative Democrats. The only case where either Baker or Hatfield is attracting more self-described Conservative Democrats is Baker in the South.

As for the last two who we bothered to do polling on, there is also some intersting analysis that one can undertake.

Blue-Congressman Donald Rumsfeld of Illinois (294)
President Robert F Kennedy (180)
Green-Tossup (64)
Rumsfeld apparently has a lot of strength in the suburbs and is second in line with the youth behind Hatfield, incidentally. At the same time, one can't under-estimate that he is no great poverty fighter and that despite all this talk of scandal, the big cities are still with you no matter what.
As for Lindsay, let's just say he'll have problems.

Red-President Robert F Kennedy of Massachusetts (281)
Blue-Former HUD Secretary John Lindsay (130)
Green-Tossup (127)
In Republican leaning state, Lindsay had the highest number of voters voting "undecided" or "other", and is in trouble not only in the South, but in the West, and isn't very popular in the cities. He can do well in suburbs, but isn't the best candidate to appeal to them either. Among Liberal Republicans, he is the highest favored while among Conservative Democrats he is the least favored. Most Democrats the voted for him mention only recent scandal as the reason for voting against you.

Now, I've compiled a map of all the states that went, a majority of the times, either Democrat, Republican, or undecided, and that can give you the lay of the land.

Blue-Generic Republican (323)
Red-President Robert F Kennedy of Massachusetts (211)
Green-Tossup (4)
As you can see, this is not good news.

    Kennedy: Not good at all. Not good at all.
    Cadell: Now, if we can ta-
    Kennedy: Dammit! The economy has improved! We are going to get out of Palestine! Energy price will go down! Not that any of this matters to the voting public! Dammit!
    Cadell: Uh...
    Kennedy: Look, just get out of here. Go.
Cadell leaves the room, leaving one map behind. The map contains swing states going for President Kennedy. In the map, it shows a scenario where all swing states go his way.

Blue-Generic Republican minus swing states (275)
Red-President Robert F Kennedy plus swing states (263)

[CathKhan]

On May 28th, 1979, I was glad to see Gene step up to the podium and announce his bid for President of the United States. Someone had finally done what we all knew had to be done. Battle lines were being drawn and throughout the halls of the Senate, the question was being asked to Western Democrats "who are you supporting?" Frank Church didn't know who to side with. Mondale gave his lukewarm support to President Kennedy. However, there were some willing to openly support Gene, even when his run was still nothing more than a long shot. Ralph Nader, a man I had worked with several times before, gladly endorsed McCarthy against Kennedy, his former boss! I too was willing to stick my neck out to support Gene against the bastard Kennedy. That dynasty had gone on long enough. I'm sure had George McGovern had the freedom and the will to, had he stayed in the Senate, he would have lined up with us. Had he not chosen the wrong path three years ago he would've been there right besides Gene, cheering him on. Instead, we ended up with a strange set of predicaments, with a hero of the New Left having resigned himself to merely being a yes man for the establishment.

My endorsement came on May 30th, Ralph Nader's came on April 3rd. Looking around, we wondered "Where are our allies?". With Church staying out of the fray and Mondale choosing to be a member of the establishment, we weren't sure where our support would come from. As for my friend Mo Udall in the House, my guess is the only reason he didn't joine was that his brother at that moment was working for Kennedy. Again. Stewart Udall, Mo's predecessor in the House, had worked as the Interior Secretary for John F Kennedy for eight years and had now returned to his old position.

Gene received a few more key endorsements after that. One from a charismatic Senator and a rising star on the West Coast, Senator Jerry Brown whose father had in fact worked for John F Kennedy for four years. Another coming from former Senator and ardent Progressive, former Senator Fred Harris of Oklahoma. Actor Warren Beatty, a glad supporter of my 1972 campaign and a supporter of Gene's 1976 campaig, enthusiastically signed onto Gene's campaign after Gene called him. While famed Civil Rights lead John Lewis was unsure about stepping onto Gene's campaign, former Georgia State Senator Julian Bond hesitantly supported Gene, having a good friendship with him from the mid to late sixties, when it seemed the New Left was much more united. With that mere bundle of endorsements, Gene marched forward with the zeal of a preacher attempting to save the world from Hell itself. There was no guarantee of success, but there was the hope of spreading the message that people like Gene, me, and others had been hoping to spread since the late sixties.

-The Death of the Democrats, Mike Gravel, (c) 1996

[CathKhan]

Domestic Policy
Kennedy self-identified as a "New Democrat" in the sense that he was beyond continued expansion of government and was more focused on government reform, effectiveness, and basing domestic policy more on education and opportunity as opposed to hand-outs. His first major piece of legislation to be passed was a stimulus package containing both government pumping money into the economy as well as tax cuts for the middle class.

In social policy, Kennedy was, as in most things, a moderate. His Catholic background played a huge part in dictating his opposition to abortion, having described it as murder. Also, despite Kennedy having remained silent on the issue of gay marriage, he was publicly a strong supporter of equality, fighting for legislation opposing job discrimination based on sexual orientation. This would eventually come to fruition in the Equal Opportunity Act of 1978.

Following the Three Mile Island accident, there was a major push for energy regulation, reform, and a re-fueling of past attempts to battle rising oil and gas prices. In order to be able to fund research, policy formation, and explore and expand new alternatives such as solar energy, the United States Department of Energy was created

Following political fallout from the trials in April and May and the forth-coming drop in approvals and loss of Congressional support, there was very little legislation passed. The major piece of legislation to be passed between May of 1979 and January of 1980 was the Airline Deregulation Act which was signed in July. It phased out the Civil Aeronautics Board. Kennedy had accomplished many other goals, such as consumer protection, deregulation of the rail and trucking industry, and new Wall Stree regulation, before then.

The one major piece of legislation that President Kennedy had pushed for throughout his Presidency but had never been able to pass was welfare reform. Congress had been unable to formulate a bill containing everything that Kennedy wanted plus was passable. Critics on the Right and the Left lambasted attempts at welfare reform for being, in the words of Senator Barry Goldwater, "ideologically incoherent". Different attempts contained a mix of tax cuts, tas raise, cutting of certain New Deal and Great Society programs, and creation of new programs which resulted in Congress not knowing quite what to make of the drafts. Eventually a final draft was pushed through and failed in sub-committee in late 1979.

[CathKhan]

July 4th, 1979
At a July 4th campaign rally in Missouri City, Texas...
    Paul: Now, I'd like to introduce you to a man that's been working very hard these last three years to make sure we can return to being a nation of freedom, equality, and limited government. I'ld like to introduce you to Senator Robert Taft Jr.!
    Taft: Thanks Ron! Now, as some of you probably have heard, I'm running for President. I've had a lot of political experience, I've worked in politics since 1955 when I entered into the Ohio House of Representatives, and on every level of my political career, from the Ohio House of Representatives to the US House of Representatives, to the United States Senate, there are consistencies. Those consistencies are simple: we've got to stop spending, stop taxing, and restore the American way of life!
(The crowd applauses)
Now, I served in Congress during the Vietnam War and I can tell you that the spending was outrageous! Per day, at its peak, our little so-called police action was costing over one billion dollars! When you take into account every penny we spent there since the fifties, and not just military, but costs of food, housing, and the cost of the re-construction of Vietnam, a project which still continues to this day under the guise of foreign aid, we have spent, eh we have spent, well, eh, it's preposterous! Economists across the country agree that deficits cause inflation and just look at the numbers! The budgets from fiscal years 1969 to 1972 contain the largest amount of annual domestic and military spending since World War II and the Roosevelt years! Considering that, it's no wonder how we were hit with the horrible inflation from 1970 to now!
    Taking that, let's look at Palestine. Despite Bobby's so-called withdrawal plan, we are going to have money going there for decades and decades ahead of where we are now and we'll call it "foreign aid" just like we do now with Vietnam. And money for reconstruction is only a part of it as we will most likely be training their military. We'll be supplying their military with American made weapons. Factoring in this spending, the inflation we find ourselves in now is only going to continue and expand in the near future. A cloud looms over the 1980's, and it is the shadow of the last twenty years paying back their respects.

While Senator Hatfield, also a candidate for the Presidency, vocally opposed the Vietnam War, he does not seem to touch on that issue, instead focusing on America's current conflict. Senator Robert Taft Jr. has taken the opposite route. Instead of trying to say that it's no longer an issue, Vietnam now being popular due to America's victory there, Taft is hitting on that. In a war that no longer goes on, in a time where President John F Kennedy is popular, Senator Taft is still able to draw lines to that time, and someway, somehow, he's making his point.

[CathKhan]

Anybody reading?

[ChairmanSanchez]

I read the last few updates, but it was one of those situations where I couldn't figure out what to say, because I had no questions. I figure that's a good thing, because this is one of the longest, yet least confusing timeline. The subplots build on each other, and it follows a genuine chronicle order (accept for the beginning). I'm excited for the rest!

[CathKhan]

I read the last few updates, but it was one of those situations where I couldn't figure out what to say, because I had no questions. I figure that's a good thing, because this is one of the longest, yet least confusing timeline. The subplots build on each other, and it follows a genuine chronicle order (accept for the beginning). I'm excited for the rest!

Thanks! Is there any candidate you or anybody else is rooting for?

[ChairmanSanchez]

I read the last few updates, but it was one of those situations where I couldn't figure out what to say, because I had no questions. I figure that's a good thing, because this is one of the longest, yet least confusing timeline. The subplots build on each other, and it follows a genuine chronicle order (accept for the beginning). I'm excited for the rest!

Thanks! Is there any candidate you or anybody else is rooting for?

I like Taft alot. I want to see where Ron Paul goes as well. Just out of curiosity, how are 3rd parties doing. Do the Libertarians exist? Is the Conservative Party still a force?

[CathKhan]

I read the last few updates, but it was one of those situations where I couldn't figure out what to say, because I had no questions. I figure that's a good thing, because this is one of the longest, yet least confusing timeline. The subplots build on each other, and it follows a genuine chronicle order (accept for the beginning). I'm excited for the rest!

Thanks! Is there any candidate you or anybody else is rooting for?

I like Taft alot. I want to see where Ron Paul goes as well. Just out of curiosity, how are 3rd parties doing. Do the Libertarians exist? Is the Conservative Party still a force?

The Libertarians exist, but they're still just a small party. As for the Conservative party, James L Buckley won re-election in 1970 and there may be a victory or two in 1980 or 1981 (there's a certain Mayor's race in 1981 that'd be cool to have a Conservative victory in). Due to how I'm planning on having things end up, there'll be a larger appeal of certain third parties in the future.

[CathKhan]

The amount of issues in the campaign were determined by the number of candidates. Certain candidates, such as Hatfield and Taft, had made the war in Palestine an issue where, without them, the main issues would be the economy and Kennedy's bugging scandal. Ultimately, the presence of two seriously anti-war candidates turned it into a three issue race: The Economy, The War, and The Scandal. Each candidate had their own take on the issues. Reagan and Rumsfeld led the pro-war wing of the party while at the same time not necessarily promising to do much as a dead-line had already been drawn. Hatfield and Taft led the anti-war wing of the party, though they themselves admitted that it would be hard to move a troop withdrawal dead-line up. Meanwhile, Baker represented the Centrist line about the war, basically summed up in: I accept the troop withdrawal deadline and there's nothing I can do about it. Each candidate had their own different subtleties to the issues as well. Reagan was a clear supporter of more military spending, Rumsfeld called for efficiency and effectiveness, Taft made a big deal about the deficit, and Hatfield supported a nuclear freeze and international control of the arms flow to Palestine. It would be interesting to see which side won out.

On the other end, with 1979 drawing to a close and a virtual halt in important, the only issue for the Whitehouse was the Presidential race. In that context, he was at that point facing a battle for re-nomination with former Senator Eugene McCarthy. McCarthy himself focused on two of the three major issues, The War and The Scandal. While Kennedy could easily repel attacks on the war, his major offense on the scandal was making it a non-issue. Despite a large amount of publicity, the public's eye could wander quickly and without completely incredible pieces of news such as the resignation of a President, which was what happened five years before that. Kennedy's campaign team, headed once again by Sargent Shriver, would use all possible media contacts to attempt to drown out stories of McCarthy speaking about the scandal, news of any follow-ups to the scandal, and anything in such a category. And it worked. At least on a national scale. However, down in Iowa, McCarthy's polls were rising as he stumped before live audiences and had the near the full backing of the youth, the doves, the Liberals, the New Left, and the conspiracy theorists. With November ending, the final month before the campaign season began was left.

-Republicans in Revolution, Bob Woodward, (c) 2007

[ChairmanSanchez]

Is Palestine todays Palestine, or is it Jordan? I remeber reading earlier that Jordan had a revolution, but I cant remeber what page.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Go Gene!

[CathKhan]

Is Palestine todays Palestine, or is it Jordan? I remeber reading earlier that Jordan had a revolution, but I cant remeber what page.

In this timeline, the only revolution I mentioned is a failed Iranian Revolution in 1978 or 1979. In real life, that revolution was successful, but ittl failed.

[ChairmanSanchez]

Is Palestine todays Palestine, or is it Jordan? I remeber reading earlier that Jordan had a revolution, but I cant remeber what page.

In this timeline, the only revolution I mentioned is a failed Iranian Revolution in 1978 or 1979. In real life, that revolution was successful, but ittl failed.

So the war in Palestine is only being fought in the West Bank and Gaza? Sounds like a tight area for alot of fighting.

[CathKhan]

Is Palestine todays Palestine, or is it Jordan? I remeber reading earlier that Jordan had a revolution, but I cant remeber what page.

In this timeline, the only revolution I mentioned is a failed Iranian Revolution in 1978 or 1979. In real life, that revolution was successful, but ittl failed.

So the war in Palestine is only being fought in the West Bank and Gaza? Sounds like a tight area for alot of fighting.

In short answer, yes, however, (and I'm pretty much making this up on the spot) the American invasion has resulted in an Intifada, occuring earlier than ITTL. While terrorist organizations are being forced to use more resources, they are also gaining more resources as a part of the population is being militarized towards American presence. Another large chunk of the population is for the most part neutral towards it, having greeted Americans as liberators from the reign of the PLO and Yasser Arafat. It's much like Iraq has been with a section of the population mobilized and a section grateful. The mobilized section, however, is having a much greater impact in the war itself, with them actually fighting. While Yasser Arafat is deposed and the PLO does not have any official control over Palestine, they are working to spread mass confusion and violence and part of this has resulted in Intafada against both American forces and Israel with Israel, despite closed borders (due to fear of violence spreading across the border), receiving terrorist attacks as well. This has resulted also in American soldiers aiding Israeli forces along the border. In Vietnam, America won through brute force, as opposed to adapting to guerilla techniques. Therefore, while America has one more notch on its belt, it is very ill-suited to fight not just in the condensed space of Palestine, but in the more urban environment. They can no longer drive to Hanoi and demand surrender, instead, they're very much in an Iraq-type situation. Some generals are calling Palestine a "death trap" due to the small space for fighting and military action while terrorists have pretty much free range.

Does that answer your question?

[ChairmanSanchez]

Is Palestine todays Palestine, or is it Jordan? I remeber reading earlier that Jordan had a revolution, but I cant remeber what page.

In this timeline, the only revolution I mentioned is a failed Iranian Revolution in 1978 or 1979. In real life, that revolution was successful, but ittl failed.

So the war in Palestine is only being fought in the West Bank and Gaza? Sounds like a tight area for alot of fighting.

In short answer, yes, however, (and I'm pretty much making this up on the spot) the American invasion has resulted in an Intifada, occuring earlier than ITTL. While terrorist organizations are being forced to use more resources, they are also gaining more resources as a part of the population is being militarized towards American presence. Another large chunk of the population is for the most part neutral towards it, having greeted Americans as liberators from the reign of the PLO and Yasser Arafat. It's much like Iraq has been with a section of the population mobilized and a section grateful. The mobilized section, however, is having a much greater impact in the war itself, with them actually fighting. While Yasser Arafat is deposed and the PLO does not have any official control over Palestine, they are working to spread mass confusion and violence and part of this has resulted in Intafada against both American forces and Israel with Israel, despite closed borders (due to fear of violence spreading across the border), receiving terrorist attacks as well. This has resulted also in American soldiers aiding Israeli forces along the border. In Vietnam, America won through brute force, as opposed to adapting to guerilla techniques. Therefore, while America has one more notch on its belt, it is very ill-suited to fight not just in the condensed space of Palestine, but in the more urban environment. They can no longer drive to Hanoi and demand surrender, instead, they're very much in an Iraq-type situation. Some generals are calling Palestine a "death trap" due to the small space for fighting and military action while terrorists have pretty much free range.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, it does. I understand how this is oing down now.

[CathKhan]

I'm thinking of skipping right to January, 1980. The only thing I have left to cover is endorsements, and that can be done with the showing of all the candidates and who endorsed them.

[CathKhan]

December 31st, 1979
...Today is the last day of the year, and tomorrow, the year of 1980 begins. It has been a rough year. The President has faced scandal, the Republicans seem energized to take back the Whitehouse, troops continue to die in Palestine and Israel, the CIA has been proven unscrupulous, the President is challenged from within his own party, and nuclear power has faced a serious trial. Several of these will come to a culmination in the Presidential Race of 1980. Here is a look at the men who are running for the Presidency. Keep in mind that one of them will be inaugurated as President in 1981. Whether it be President Kennedy being re-inaugurated or if it is a new face, we shall see.

The Republicans

Howard H Baker Jr. of Tennessee

Ideology:
Centrist, Moderate
Experience:
United States Senator from Tennessee: January 3rd, 1967-Present
United States Senate Minority Leader: January 3rd, 1977-Present
Endorsements:
Former President Richard M Nixon of California
Former Vice-President Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. of Massachusetts
Former Vice-President Gerald Ford of Michigan
Former Senator Majority Leader Hugh D Scott Jr. of Pennsylvania
Senate Minority Whip Ted Stevens of Alaska
Former United States Secretary of the Interior Robert Finch of California
Senator Bob Dole of Kansas
Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania
Former Governor Daniel J Evans of Washington
Senator John Chaffee of Rhode Island
Senator Charles Percy of Illinois
Senate Alan K Simpson of Wyoming
Summary:
The Senate Minority Leader, Baker appears to be the obvious establishment choice of 1980. With the backing of a former President, two former Vice-Presidents, and his friends in the Senate, Baker looks well-positioned, especially with his message about being a voice of reason and compromise his past years in the Senate. However, of the "Big Three" of the candidates going into Iowa, Baker is the least well received by the base and will have to fight hard in order to become a major presence in the early primaries.

Ronald W Reagan of California

Ideology:
Conservative
Experience:
9th President of the Screen Actors' Guild: 1947-1952
13th President of the Screen Actors' Guild: 1959-1960
15th United States Secretary of Commerce: January 20th, 1961-October 12th, 1963
United States Senator from California: January 1st, 1965-January 2nd, 1977
36th Governor of California: January 8th, 1979-Present
Endorsements:
Former President George HW Bush of Texas
Congressman George W Bush of Texas
Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona
Sentor Barry Goldwater Jr. of California
Senator John Tower of Texas
Governor Meldrim Thomson Jr. of New Hampshire
Former United States Attorney General John Ashbrook of Ohio
Lieutenant Governor Pete Wilson of California
Congressman Jack Kemp of New York
Senator Paul Laxalt of Nevada
Senator James L Buckley of New York
Former Ambassador to the United Nations William F Buckley of New York
Summary:
It seems that with 1980, the power of the nomination lies cleary in the West. If that is true, it lies with one of two men. Those mean are Governor Ronald Reagan of California and Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon. The two rivalling standard-bearers of different wings, each with their own personality cults, both lay claim to the nomination, both having run before and both having been their party's Vice-Presidential nominee in the past (Hatfield in 1968 and Reagan in 1976).

Reagan began his political career when elected President of the Screen Actors' Guild. Testifying before the Senate about Communist activities, he soon became known as a Conservative Democrat, endorsing the Republican nominees Eisenhower and Nixon in 1952, 1956, and 1960. In 1961, due to his work with General Electric as well as a reward for the 1960 endorsement, President-elect Richard Nixon chose him to become the nation's next Commerce Secretary. Therefore, in Marh of 1961, the actor that had once been a Liberal Democrat supporting Franklin D Roosevelt became a Conservative Republican. However, Reagan's friendship with Nixon soon gave way to disagreements over foreign policy, culminating in Reagan's 1963 resignation and 1964 endorsement of Republican challenger to President Nixon, Barry Goldwater. Since then, Reagan has been elected to the Senate from California, serving two terms (1965-1977), been nominated for Vice-President on the 1976 Republican ticket, and elected Governor of California in 1978. Having been the close runner-up in 1972, he is seen by his followers as the obvious choice for the nomination this year, but is he too Conservative to win either the nod or the general?

Mark O Hatfield of Oregon

Ideology:
Libertarian, Moderate
Experience:
Member of the Oregon House of Representatives: January 8th, 1951-January 9th, 1955
Member of the Oregon State Senate: January 9th, 1955-January 7th, 1957
16th Oregon Secretary of State: January 7th, 1957-January 12th, 1959
29th Governor of Oregon: January 12th, 1959-January 3rd, 1967
United States Senator from Oregon January 3rd, 1967-Present
Endorsements:
Reverend Billy Graham of North Carolina
Former United States Secretary of the Treasury George Romney of Michigan
Former United States Attorney General Edward Brooke of Massachusetts
Senator Elliot Richardson of Massachusetts
Governor Pete duPont of Delaware
Congressional Candidate Henry Ross Perot of Texas
Former Secretary of Defense John Eisenhower of Pennsylvania
Former Governor Walter Hickel of Alaska
Senator Larry Pressler of South Dakota
Former Congressman Paul W Cronnin of Massachusetts
Summary:
By far the most politically experienced member of the field with his career beginning in 1950, Hatfield is Reagan's main rival for the nomination, having been the 1968 Vice-Presidential nominee, a candidate for the nomination in 1972, and one of the runner-ups in 1976. With his consumate experience in Oregon politics, the Oregon Governor's mansion, and the US Senate, he has the upper hand when it comes to showing his accomplishments, but the lower hand when it comes to the Republican electorate. Nevertheless, since 1968 he has maintained a personality cult of his own and has a steady following among younger Republicans, independents, and Western moderates.

[CathKhan]

Donald Rumsfeld of Illinois

Ideology:
Conservative
Experience:
Member of the United States House of Representatives: January 3rd, 1963-Present
Endorsements:
Congressman Dick Cheney of Wyoming
Governor James Thompson of Illinois
Summary:
A dark horse for the nomination, Rumsfeld is one of the more enigmatic candidates for the nomination. He has served in the House of Representatives since 1963 and has served on the Joint Economic Committee, the Committee on Science and Aeronautics, and the Government Operations Committee, as well as on the Subcommittees on Military and Foreign Operations. Among his legislative accomplishments are the successful repeal of the draft in 1974 and the Goldwater-Rumsfeld Act which worked to cut military spending and incidentally led to President Robert F Kennedy's currently low approval ratings. Despite Rumsfeld's many obstacles, however, he has managed to maintain a number of supporters due to his early announcement of his candidacy and emergence as a "Conservative Alternative" to Reagan.

Robert Taft Jr. of Ohio

Ideology:
Conservative, Libertarian
Experience:
Member of the Ohio State Senate 1955-1962
Congressman from Ohio's At-Large Congressional District: January 3rd, 1963-January 3rd, 1965; January 3rd, 1967-January 3rd, 1971
United States Senator from Ohio: January 3rd, 1971-Present
Endorsements:
Senator Gordon J Humphrey of New Hampshire
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas
Former Congressman Royce Gross of Iowa
Summary:
The heir to a long political legacy reaching back to the 1870's and culminating in the Presidency of William Howard Taft (1909-1913) and the multiple candidacies of Senator Robert Taft for the Republican nomination, Robert Taft Jr. has a lot on his shoulders. However, for victory, Taft it seems, lacks much. Currently leading only in his home state of Ohio and in a fluctuating amount of Western states, Taft will require either a win in Iowa or New Hampshire, like many other candidates. Iowa is currently shaping up to be a huge battlefield for the nomination, and it appears that Taft may have a fighting chance. However, his chances do not look good.

Taft's platform, however, has attracted its own small personality cult, led by Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Campaigning on the issues of drastically lowering military and domestic spending, a Balanced Budget Amendment, reversing Roe v. Wade, and military non-interventionism, Taft seems to be the candidate of the Old Right and would, should he be elected, most likely bring back the laissez-faire and small government era of the 1920's. However, given the culmination of those policies in October of 1929, this might be just what the Democrats want.

John V Lindsay of New York

Ideology:
Moderate, Liberal
Experience:
Congressman from New York's 17th Congressional District: January 3rd, 1959-January 15th, 1961
64th United States Attorney General: January 20th, 1961-January 20th, 1965
103rd Mayor of New York City: January 1st, 1966-January 12th, 1973
2nd United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: January 20th, 1973-January 20th, 1977
Endorsements:
Former United States Secretary of State Nelson Rockefeller of New York
Former Senator Jacob Javits of New York
Senator Lowell Weicker of Connecticut
Senator Charles "Mac" Matthias of Maryland
Former Senator Charles Goodell of New York
Congressman John Anderson of Illinois
Summary:
The candidate of the North-Eastern "Rockefeller Republicans", John Lindsay has little outside the East Coast. Endorsed by former Secretary of State Nelson Rockefeller and other North-Eastern Liberal Republicans, Lindsay's main flaw seems to be that he is in this race. In a party that is openly Conservative and has been calling for "small government" policies since the beginning of the century, Lindsay, it appears, can not even hold his own coalition of Liberal Republicans together as a number of key endorsees have instead endorsed either Baker or Hatfield.

Paul N "Pete" McCloskey of California

Ideology:
Moderate, Liberal
Experience:
Congressman from California's 11th Congressional District: December 12th, 1967-January 3rd, 1973
Congressman from California's 17th Congressional District: January 3rd, 1973-January 3rd, 1975
Congressman from California's 12th Congressional District: January 3rd, 1975-Present
Endorsements:
Congressman Paul Findley of Illinois
Summary:
One of the less experience candidates in the field, and the only candidate besides Rumsfeld to be coming straight from the House of Representatives, McCloskey's star seems to have already dimmed. Originally campaigning on a Liberal anti-war platform, the anti-war issue was taken over by Taft and Hatfield while the Liberal part was taken by Lindsay. With little following, less than Lindsay, following in the party, it seems only a matter of time before Lindsay drops out due to low numbers or lack of funding.

Alexander Haig of Pennsylvania

Ideology:
Conservative
Experience:
9th United States Permanent Representative to NATO April 24th, 1972-December 5th, 1972
7th Whitehouse Chief of Staff January 20th, 1973-January 20th, 1977[/b][/center]
Endorsements:
General William Westmoreland of South Carolina
Summary:
In what would seem to be a modern-day comparison to the late former Secretary of Defense Douglas MacArthur, Haig, while not having as many controversial statements as MacArthur, also doesn't have the celebrity that MacArthur once held. A veteran of the Vietnam War, a member of the National Security Council, a former aide to then-National Security Advisor Omar Bradley, an Ambassador, and an employee for three Presidents, Haig seems to bring more to the table than meets the eye. However, with Washington, foreign, and military experience, he also brings with him ego, a lack of favor even among the base, and a lack of name recognition. It would seem a cabinet post would suit him best so he could bide his time for some other election years down the road.

Potential Republican Candidates who declined to run:
-Former President George HW Bush of Texas
-Former Vice-President Gerald R Ford of Michigan
-Governor Meldrim Thomson Jr. of New Hampshire
-Former Secretary of State Nelson Rockefeller of New York
-Former Attorney General Edward Brooke of Massachusetts
-Senator James L Buckley of New York
-Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona
-Senator Barry Goldwater Jr. of California
-Senator John G Tower of Texas
-Senator Robert Dole of Kansas
-Senate Minority Whip Ted Stevens of Alaska