Hashpipe's Great Biotimeline

[Hash]

June 23, 1959
Sam Rayburn's office

Garrett's rural development omnibus bill remained stuck in committee throughout June as both supporters and opponents of the bill in its current state remained adamant on their positions. Southern Democrats were determined to prevent the bill in its current state from passing, while supporters led by Garrett and McGovern were determined to prevent any significant amendment. The developing deadlock and division of the Democratic majority led to intense media coverage of the situation, and alerted Speaker Sam Rayburn (D-TX) about the situation. Garrett was called to the Speaker's office in late June.

Rayburn: Take a seat over there, please.
Garrett: Sure. Good morning, mister Speaker.
Rayburn: G'day. Look, Chris, this bill ain't going anywhere unless one of the sides changes positions and you sure as hell know that it ain't gonna be the Southerners who are gonna do that. Ball's in your court, Chris.
Garrett: I'm determined to make sure that this legislation is not hijacked by the pork-barrel spending Dixiecrats who seek to turn this into another of their pork-barrel spending feasts.
Rayburn: Lookie here, Chris. It's maybe not pleasing to me and you, but pork-barrel spending is how it gets done here and if you want to do somethin' you better get used to it or else naught will get done...
Garrett: I understand, but...
Rayburn: Plus, if you fancy winnin' a second term for yourself in Yankee Vermont you better do it, cause I can tell you for sure that the Republicans sure as hell will attack you for not bringin' enough pork home...
Garrett: I understand, but there must be a way to find some sort of middle ground on this issue here. If we turn this over to the states, all states are going to go their different ways and we'll have 50 different kinds of rural development and we'll have places like Alabama using this as pork-barrel spending...
Rayburn: Lookie, I'm sure you have a point here son, but the Southern Democrats are a tough gang and they're gonna need to be fed something they like the taste of if they're gonna allow this legislation to go anywhere if it even gets out of committee...
Garrett: Do they need to be fed pork or...?
Rayburn: I don't know all their specific qualms with this bill here son, but they sure as hell gonna need to be fed something they like, maybe pork, if they're gonna vote for this...
Garrett: So, mister Speaker, you're saying I should be open to compromising on this?
Rayburn: Yeah, you should. If you remain stuck on your opposition to any change, you're going to keep the Southerners in their opposition and you'll further alienate those on the fence about this. Open yourself to amendments, reform and you'll win yourself the moderates and a few Southerners. Look, Chris, you're a newbie here, so you need to learn that this ain't a perfect place and you ain't gonna get your utopia every day on every bill... far from it... this is a diverse country with a diverse bunch of congressmen of diverse opinions... so we need to work together and stubbornness won't cut it.
Garrett: If stubbornness doesn't work, why are the Dixiecrats stubborn?
Rayburn: Because they're a big bunch and they can afford to be stubborn as such... others can't...
Garrett: Ugh, I suppose so.
Rayburn: Good luck, Chris and take heed of my advice... and my door's open if you need anything, Chris.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've read though this TL and I must say that's an amazing work. This story very interesting and I'm waiting for the following.

[Hash]

July 13, 1959
Ag Committee debate on Garrett-McGovern rural development bill

REP. CHRISTOPHER A. GARRETT (D-VT):
I am determined to make sure that this legislation is successful and that it has the desired effect on rural communities across America once it is passed. I realize that a lot of you and other colleagues have major concerns about the current bill and would not vote for it in its current state even if you agree with it. That comes, obviously, to my disappointment but I cannot adopt a position of stubbornness towards constructive dialog and amendment on this legislation if I am determined to make sure that it passes. I am open to amendments and constructive dialog in committee, and hopefully in the House, on the nature of this bill and more importantly on its details and various clauses. I believe that there is a majority in this House which shares our idea as to the impact of this legislation on our communities but which may not necessarily share our views on how to best achieve that positive impact on our communities. That is why, if this is to be successful and if this is to have a positive impact on rural America, we need to work together to bridge our differences.

We must realize that it will be hard, impossible even, for one bill to reflect entirely the views of one member. I've understood that as a novice to the world of Congress, and I hope all my other colleagues have too. Therefore, let us work together to achieve compromise here.

I understand the concerns of many surrounding the potential overstep of the federal government in state governance as planned by this legislation. I am attached to giving the federal government, in particular the FmHA or another federal government agency for rural development and farmers' assistance, a key role in ensuring the smooth workings of this plan and overseeing the granting of loans and distribution of federal funding to the states and communities. I am attached to this because it is the best way to ensure that all our communities, whether they be in Vermont, Alabama or South Dakota, get their fair share and that all farmers and communities can have access to the same resources if need be. I fear that decentralizing responsibility for overseeing implementation of this plan's provisions to the states will lead to a two-tier or perhaps fifty-tier system whereby every state works its own way and as a result create fifty communities which don't have access to equivalent resources. Should the states play a role? Yes, obviously. I think we can find compromise acceptable to all in this field, and I will say that even in its current state the legislation does involve our state governments in that the grants, loans and funding is in large part transfered by the federal government to the respective states for their use, though with strings attached to ensure, in my eyes, fairness in distribution of resources.

I declare my willingness to work together on bridging gaps in our views of how to best achieve equitable rural development, and I intend to seek out the views of my colleagues on this legislation. I hope that we can work together to find common ground without compromising our convictions and the goal of this bill.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Jefferson Dent wants a cameo!!!

[Hash]

September 9, 1959
Interview with the Burlington Free Press

Our exclusive interview with Rep. Christopher A. Garrett (D-Burlington) after his first nine months in office.

Reporter: Mr. Garrett, thank you for accepting our offer for an interview. How would you rate your first session in Congress?
Garrett: Thanks. I'd say that I'm happy with what I've done, what we've done, in this first session... I've had the honour of working with distinguished colleagues on a bill which is a bit bogged down but which I'm nonetheless proud of. We've been able to go far on that bill since June, and I'm happy with that and I'm sure it will be passed in the new session.
Reporter: Your bill, the so-called Garrett-McGovern Rural Development bill, has spilled lots of ink all over the country and here in particular. What is your view on your legislation?
Garrett: Well, it's a bill intended to deal with underdevelopment, poverty and lack of infrastructure in our rural areas. I see it as a pressing concern, and this legislation would work to alleviate such problems through the appropriation of more federal funding and an easier granting of loans and tax credits  to farmers and to communities.
Reporter: Some opponents have gone to lengths to criticize what they see as the hypercentralism of this bill, which concentrates much power for rural development in the hands of a central agency. What is your response to that?
Garrett: I'm sure that a lot of opponents have perfectly reasonable views, and we're working to bridge gaps in our views on the issue of state involvement to forge some sort of compromise. As I've said in the past, I personally support a major role for the federal government and for a central agency, like the FmHA, in the workings of this bill. To me, this would ensure that all communities, whether they're in the Prairies or here in Vermont, get access to the same resources. Federal participation is, to me, the best way to ensure that. I'm wary of devolving all powers of rural development to the states like certain conservatives wish, because I fear we'd end up with a fifty-tier system rather than a single-tier system or level of rural development... and that isn't fair to our communities and our farmers... all of whom should have access to equivalent resources and funds...
Reporter: What, to you, would be a fair compromise on this?
Garrett: I have no problem with decentralizing some power in a way that states are transferred funds from a central agency and the feds to spend on rural development or for loans and tax credits to rural communities... I think that's a perfectly reasonable view, and I know that Representative McGovern is supportive of that idea... and I think a lot of my colleagues are too...
Reporter: Some conservatives have decried this as the equivalent to the Soviet Union's agricultural plans and have derided you as the "commissar for agriculture". What do you think of those criticisms?
Garrett: (laughs) Frankly... it's ridiculous, a huge overstatement... and a very poor argument. I don't see what in this perfectly reasonable plan supported by lots of folks is reminiscent of Moscow's heavy-handed collectivist agricultural policy. Look, we aren't creating kolkhozy here... nor are we setting production standards or levels or anything like that. It's ridiculous, preposterous, to think that this bill is in any way 'socialist' or against our capitalist free-market values. I'd wager that those who say such inanities haven't read the bill, which is a pity.
Reporter: Could you explain to us a bit how your bill would work in practice for our communities?
Garrett: Sure. This is a broad, omnibus, legislation which seeks to cover almost all aspects of rural development and to deal with the broad range of problems facing communities. At a basic level, the federal government would make available even more funds for states and communities to spend on things such as road upgrades and construction, building better schools and clinics or water systems upgrade. As I mentioned earlier, I'm perfectly fine with these funds being transferred - with strings attached - to the states and towns though with oversight from the FmHA or a similar agency. At another level, this bill expands the scope of the FmHA to provide tax credits to farmers on the purchase of better, modern farm equipment such as tractors but also granting of other loans or grants to farmers or communities for them to work on local infrastructure projects or other things to better help those in need.
Reporter: How will this help rural communities or how will it change the current system?
Garrett: Well, first off we'd increase funding and second we'd get a central agency to oversee projects and recommend projects in order to better help our communities. As we see it, the current system is way too bureaucratic but also way too narrow... as we saw last year or in '57 with the recession, the current system really isn't fit for recessions and subscribes to an outdated doctrine rooted in the 1800s of letting farms be... whereas the changes in agriculture and industry in America since the 1900s has totally changed the reality while the system hasn't kept up with it. That's why we need strong rural development and support for our communities.
Reporter: Moving on to another topic, in February during your speech defending Hawaiian statehood, you said that there was an "unreasonable fear of communism". Could you clarify what you meant?
Garrett: First, to place it in context, I was saying that the arguments of some against Hawaiian statehood were motivated by an unreasonable fear of communism, and I stand by that. I didn't say that our government or our foreign policy is influenced by an unreasonable fear of communism. Looking in the context of Hawaii, as I said then, there really was no evidence that Hawaii was or would be a communist haven... and furthermore the Hawaiian Communist Party is dead today. So when I heard some crying out in fear of communism in Hawaii and so forth, that was an unreasonable fear of communism. Such unreasonable fear is a dangerous throwback to the McCarthyist days which we just passed.
Reporter: Some have accused you of being 'soft on reds' or 'soft on communism'. Is that true?
Garrett: Not even remotely... again, some folks have got a really huge fear of communism which is slightly unrealistic and which leads them to see red everywhere. I'm certainly not a communist and obviously not 'soft on reds'. I favour a realistic approach, a peaceful approach to prevent hostilities with the Soviets... but I have no affinity whatsoever with communism and never have had. Communism is a failed system, and it is an authoritarian system and, internationally, a threat to democracy and liberties. We've seen the true nature of Soviet communism in Budapest in 1956, and I don't think that anybody attached to our democratic model can support communism.
Reporter: Do you favour opening diplomatic ties with Red China?
Garrett: I don't favour open diplomatic ties, especially not when we consider their recent invasion of Tibet and their general belligerent attitude towards our partners in the region. But I think we must accept that they're there to stay, and certainly in the long term, conditional on some sort of opening or détente on their part, we could consider going further in relations with them... while not for that matter dropping ties with our friends in Taipei. But as long as they continue their authoritarian, belligerent and murderous stance in their foreign and internal relations, we've no reason to cozy up to them.

[Hash]

Interview, part two.


Reporter: Civil rights legislation is likely to come up on the agenda again in the next session. What are you thoughts on civil rights legislation?
Garrett: Obviously, I'm the staunchest supporter of full civil rights, full voting rights and all that. We need real legislation that isn't a mere show, we need something which goes further than that and ensures, forcibly if need be, that all Americans, regardless of race, are treated equally - and not separately - and that they all have the same right to vote and to participate in our democratic process. The current 'system', if I can call it as such, which prevails in certain parts of the country, goes against the principles of our Founding Fathers and of our democratic system which we make a point of defending. Unless we want the Soviets to be able to take the moral high ground and criticize our own internal workings - albeit in blatant hypocrisy, we must act and we must act in a way which makes sure that all Americans, regardless of race, are treated equally and have the same rights.
Reporter: Would you vote for legislation which you feel does not go far enough even if it's a first step?
Garrett: It would depend on the details of the legislation, but I'm reticent of voicing my support through a positive vote if I feel that the legislation doesn't go far enough to further ensure civil rights and voting rights for all Americans. Yet, at the same time, if I were to vote against I don't fancy having my name joined in with the names of race-baiters, segregationists and racists.
Reporter: Critics have said that you have poor relations with Southern members and other more conservative members. Is that true?
Garrett: Look, I have nothing against Southerners as a whole, obviously, and I've got some great colleagues from the South. What I don't like are people, be they from North or South, who are reactionaries and who stand by the archaic racist segregationist order which has got to go. It's not a secret that I'm not a fan of these types, and I'm a person who has a hard time working with people who hold views which I despise. But I have no problems with a group of persons from one region or of a different ideology, and as I said I've got some great friends who are conservatives or Southerners.
Reporter: If you intend to run for reelection, how would you rate your chances?
Garrett: I'm focused on ensuring the passage of our rural development bill for now, so I don't speculate much on elections or future political matters. But I think that I've got a clear record, one which will be even stronger if this bill is passed, and I think I've stood up for the people of Vermont and have gotten our voice heard.
Reporter: Do you think that Governor Stafford would make a good congressman?
Garrett: I'm not going to judge the political talent and skills of a man who I haven't had the chance to work with and I'm not going to entertain speculative questions about the next election.
Reporter: Thanks for your time.
Garrett: Thanks again for the chance to talk with you.

[Hash]

The Garrett-McGovern Rural Development Act: September 1959 - January 1960

Garrett spent the quasi-entirety of the Congressional recess working on revamping his landmark omnibus rural development bill to make it acceptable to a majority of Congress. Garrett spent most of his days sealed into his office along with his aide, Michael Peterson, who had moved to Burlington for the recess. He was almost constantly working the phones, in touch with co-sponsor George McGovern or trying to get in touch with prominent congressmen in an attempt to gain their support for his legislation. By the start of the new session, Garrett could introduce a new revamped piece of legislation.

His second attempt was a monumental project. It dissolved the FmHA into the Rural Communities Development Administration (RCDA), a federal central agency attached to the Department of Agriculture. The RCDA would be responsible for the oversight and administration of the bill's landmark rural development projects. In this, the RCDA would receive federal funds which it would distribute to the various state and local governments on certain conditions of use and would oversee the fair use of these funds for their intended end. The RCDA would also be responsible for administering the granting of tax credits on purchase of modern, more efficient farm equipment as well as the oversight in the granting of loans and grants (which would be administered by the states). The RCDA would be administered by the Department of Agriculture and a RCDA Board of Development Projects would decide whether or not to authorize the transfer of funds to state and local governments for a certain project after having been lobbied by individuals or governments.

The new bill was considerably less centralist than its predecessor, which served to mollify the objections of moderate conservatives while the bill was designed with enough loopholes to allow pork-barrel legislators to be able to use the RCDA to their needs. Most conservatives remained opposed to the legislation, more often than not because of disagreement with the bill's basic objective, but it secured sufficient support from Southern Democrats and some rural Northern Republicans to allow a smoother passage. In the Agriculture Committee, in addition to Garrett and McGovern's convincing lobbying in favour, the support of Chairman Howard Cooley allowed it to be passed with only minor modifications. In general session, it soon became clear that the bill had the support of a majority of Democrats and a sizable Republican minority to assure its passage. On February 27, the House voted 290-140 in favour.

In the Senate, the Southern Democrats came around in support. In addition, the support of Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, who liked the idea of rural development and recognized the political benefits of a fund-dispensing agency proved crucial in guiding the bill through. Furthermore, since most of the focus there was already on the Civil Rights Act, the Garrett-McGovern bill went through relatively smoothly. The Senate passed the bill on March 19. President Eisenhower, with the two co-sponsors at his side, signed the bill into law on March 22. Garrett, despite being a freshman, had already managed to push through a bill of importance. However, the support of the Democratic majority for its objective as well as the support of Democratic leaders such as Cooley, Rayburn and Johnson were crucial and lack of such support would likely have prevented its passage.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No sex and alcohol in this story

[Hash]

April 3, 1960
Speech on Civil Rights

CHRISTOPHER A. GARRETT (D-VT)

This legislation is to me more than just another civil rights bill and more than just another piece of legislation which we pass on a regular basis. It is to me, I hope, a small step forward in the much broader field of civil rights for all Americans. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was a step forward and it was of symbolic value, yet it was in reality nothing more than a nice piece of paper with so many loopholes that you drive a pickup through it. The Civil Rights Act we are considering today is another step forward, and it represents a small buildup since 1957. Yet it is certainly not the ultimate act and it remains merely one of the first steps in a tall ladder which we must climb. The Civil Rights Act which we are considering suffers from serious loopholes which means that in practice it would still be little more than show which would do nothing to eliminate the serious problems facing Americans.

Full civil and voting rights is not a recommendation, it is not something we should do. It is an absolute necessity and it something which we must do. And we must do it now. It is unbecoming of a nation which takes pride in being the bulwark of democracy, the leader of liberal democracy around the world to prevent a sizable chunk of its population the basic right of choosing its leader or depriving them of basic human rights. It goes against the democratic tradition of popular sovereignty. It goes against liberal tradition of human rights. It is unacceptable, it is disgusting and it despicable that such racism and bigotry be allowed to continue in our day and age in the United States.

Election Day is the day where we are prouder than ever to be American. For it is the day that the ultimate recourse - the American people - exercise their sovereignty and their right to choose. It is a day where all Americans are equal, be they poor farmers struggling to provide food to their families or be they the richest executives. It is a day which we can be proud of, and we are proud of it because we defend the concept with which it is associate - democracy- around the world against those who pervert the principles of liberal democracy. Yet, I ask everybody, is it fair, is it fair that we exclude people from exercising that basic right - because of the color of their skin? Is that a 'value' on which this country was founded, is it a value of democracy which we are so eager to defend?

In the broader context, this doesn't boil down only to an issue of giving one man the vote. It is an issue which is about our society, but also about our place in the world. As we fight to contain the advance of communism and as we fight to prevent Moscow from taking up quarters in the capitals of new nations in Africa and Asia, segregation and institutionalized racism is not only a black eye on our face but a huge roadblock in our foreign policy. No matter how hypocritical it might be on their part, you all know how happy the Soviets are happy to wave this in the face of the world at the UN and to wave it in the face of the new nations springing up in Africa and Asia. For every black person who is shot, attacked by vicious police dogs or subjected to all forms of brutality; I fear that we are simultaneously losing a potential ally. How do you think potential allies in Africa and Asia respond when the Soviets wave in their face these disgusting pictures of black protesters yanked to the ground by clubs and attack dogs? I don't know about you, but my gut tells me that these folks getting into power in Conakry, Yaoundé and Dakar aren't going to be on our side.

In this context, this bill is a pleasing tiny step forward but in reality we need more, far more than what this bill en-globes. We need strict enforcement of voter registration for all Americans everywhere, we need to strike down the institutionalized racism which perverts our society, we need to strike down the countless discriminatory clauses. Until this comes, nobody who fights for civil rights will be happy and until this comes, the fight for civil rights will continue. It cannot be stopped by mere symbolism and show, it can be ended only with full civil and voting rights for all Americans. I will vote in favour of this bill, if only because I do not wish to associate my name to those of race-baiters in voting against. But my vote in favour will not be an endorsement of this bill, it will be a recognition of its symbolism and of the necessity to continue moving forward to build a truly pluralistic and democratic America which we can all be proud of and which we can, without shame or hypocrisy, show to the world with pride and optimism.

[Hash]

April 29, 1960
Chris Garrett's house
Silver Spring, Maryland

Garrett is talking prior to dinner with Stephen Thomas, the former VT Democratic boss and by now Garrett's right-hand man.

Garrett: Hope you had a good trip, Steve. Care for some brandy or some of my vintage whiskey?
Thomas: Sure, I'll have some of your vintage whiskey.
Garrett: You know, Steve, that whiskey was a real friend to me this year when I had all those Southern assholes on my back over that stupid bill.
Thomas: I figured as much. But don't let it become friendly come September and October, Chris.
Garrett: Damn straight. On that note, how's stuff in the Vermont political circles?
Thomas: Well, I gather that you all know that Stafford is running against you in November and is gonna breeze through the primaries in September.
Garrett: That I had seen coming in November '58. Stafford wants to end up in the Senate some day, so I figured as much that he wouldn't kick around in Montpelier too long. At any rate, how are our chances for November?
Thomas: It's an uphill race, the natural cards are stacked against us and chances are Nixon's gonna be having coattails.
Garrett: But if Kennedy's our nominee, he could be driving turnout up for us and do better than Stevenson, for sure.
Thomas: I'd suppose, yeah, but thing is that Nixon's gonna carry the state in November.
Garrett: Figured as much. I've also lost what stacked up for me against Arthur in '58, you know, his retirement and conservatism... Now I'm running against a popular sitting governor of the liberal GOP establishment...
Thomas: But he isn't unbeatable, Chris. He almost lost in '58, and sure he's popular as governor but he isn't invincible. You've got a huge record.
Garrett: Thanks, but as much as folks might like rural dev, they ain't gonna see the fruits of it before next year and we still don't have the Republican warchest like Stafford has.
Thomas: Sure, but you fundraised well in '58 and faced up well to the GOP warchest.
Garrett: You know, Steve, the GOP didn't pull out jack in '58 for old man Arthur. They're gonna pull out the goddamn tanks and nukes against me in November 'cause they sure as hell learned the '58 lesson.
Thomas: It's uphill, but we can get you a forceful message...
Garrett: Such as?
Thomas: Hammer home on rural dev and all you got on that, on your legislative experience, on civil rights and how you're a good advocate for Vermont...
Garrett: That's some nice stuff, but sure as hell the people don't give us victories when we tell them we're experienced and got some bill passed. It's harder to get bullsh**t and fluff when you're an incumbent. And the big 'end 100 years' of GOP domination is dead now, at least as far as DC's concerned.
Thomas: But you got the 'GOP elite' moving up the 'traditional ladder' without caring for 'the people'; and Bob is the perfect example of that thing. You know, from AG to LG then to Guv' and now House then Senate... Just hammer home on the fact that he's in it for himself, and you've got yourself some nice good ol' bullsh**t.
Garrett: You're right. But Steve, I won marginally in 58 against some retired old geezer so look lucidly at what I stand in 60 against a popular governor.
Thomas: I recommend you make use of the RCDA.
Garrett: How?
Thomas: I don't know how, you know how; but you give the folks back home some grants, loans, tax credits and build a road or two and a schoolhouse or two in Lamoille, Orange and Essex and it'll be working wonders for your rural networks.
Garrett: When abouts should I head back to Burlington?
Thomas: Sooner the better. The big stuff is pretty much done for you here, so head on to Burlington as soon as you possibly can to get the machine back in place...
Garrett: Talking about that machine... how's the local base?
Thomas: The offices we've got are doing great, and we feel the folks are happy with constituent service. We've got a bunch of young staffers and I'll try to get some more out of stater folks from the Kennedy folks in Boston to help out by November.
Garrett: Good stuff, Steve.

(Lucie walks in)

Lucie: Good evening, dear men. How are you keeping Steve?
Thomas: I'm doing great Lucie. How are the kids?
Lucie: the 'lil Ethan Lawrence is riding up just fine in primary school and lil Samantha is just lovely. How'd you think Chris is up for in November?
Thomas: Uphill, but I think it's winnable...
Garrett: (sigh)
Lucie: Oh, Chris. Always so damn pessimistic. Listen to Steve and listen to me, you'll do just fine and you'll kick Bob's ass just like you kicked old man Arthur's ass. And I'll call on my dad for him to flush some donations to your reelection fund and I'll get the social circles to do likewise. Anyway, dear men, dinner is served.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

So far so good..Whats going on with the Presidential election? It sounds like Kennedy will run.

[Hash]

May 11, 1960
Sam Rayburn's office
Washington D.C.

Garrett: Mister speaker?
Rayburn: Have a seat, Chris. What's bringing you?
Garrett: I meant to ask uh, sir... I need some pork
Rayburn: Ahhh, I was wondering when you'd come around for that...
Garrett: It's that I'm facing, uh, some... tough reelection challenge in November... the Republican candidate is naturally favoured...
Rayburn: Ain't easy being a Democrat up in Yankee Republican Kingdom, ain't it?
Garrett: Sure isn't... which is why... I need the pork
Rayburn: Only way out?
Garrett: I'd wager so... I can't win on platitudes and bullsh**t anymore...
Rayburn: The bad thing with bullsh**t in elections... is that it only works once... when you're not the incumbent... So, pork you say...
Garrett: I basically need to get something to show the folks what I've done and that I can get stuff done... I can say that on the stump a billion times and boast constituent outreach, but it won't cut the deal... I need some real hard sh**t to show.
Rayburn: Yeah, you do... But we all do, and it's hard to satisfy the pork needs of 400 folks...
Garrett: And I guess the DCCC doesn't care about Vermont...
Rayburn: Screw the DCCC, they don't do sh**t. What you need is some rider... let's see if I can talk to Lyndon or something about getting some rider on some education bill they've been working on...
Garrett: It's that easy?
Rayburn: You see, son, the thing with congressional procedure is that anybody with half a brain can get legislation to suit his exact needs... you just need some roads and schools and other stuff, we'll get a little rider for that. Where you want your roads, son?
Garrett: Chittenden, Rutland, Franklin, Lamoille, Orleans counties...
Rayburn: Lemme write that down... here we go. We'll get you some nice road or two for November... By the way, Chris, are you going down to LA for the convention?
Garrett: Yes, I'll lead the delegation... Seems like Kennedy's gonna be it.
Rayburn: I s'ppose so. Have fun down there, Chris.
Garrett: Thanks, mister Speaker.

If I've got the pork and I can give the folks a few roads and give them some nice speeches... I might actually stand a chance in November. But the debates are gonna decide it all... Garrett thought as he left Rayburn's office.

Garrett effectively returned to Vermont by the end of May, coming back to Congress only for important votes.

[Hash]

So far so good..Whats going on with the Presidential election? It sounds like Kennedy will run.

Garrett being a minor character thus far, he has limited butterflies and as such major political events and figures will go as in otl between 1960 and 1968.

[homelycooking]

I like this multifaceted Garrett: a damn-the-torpedoes populist crusader, an irrepressibly pessimistic strategist, a fine thinker and orator, and now, as I see it, an opportunistic little twerp grubbing for pork for fear of losing his job. He might not be the ultimate "freedom fighter", but his type is the best we can get. Well done.

I think Garrett's going to need to put an eight-lane superhighway in some of the rural areas to win even the consideration of voters there, however.

[Hash]

Garrett's campaign team and his political squad centred around two main figures. On one hand, Steve Thomas, the experienced cunning advisor and effective right-hand man and Michael Peterson, the young number-crunching aide.

Steve Thomas was in his mid-50s, older than Garrett, and had a lifetime of experience in back-room party politics and in the gritty reality of politics. A wily calculator, he had served at the Bureau of Budget under Truman, where he had gained a reputation as a dry, cunning and unemotional bureaucrat who didn't care much about people but who knew the rough and gritty of appropriations and understood what a little aside to a politician could do for his political life in his town, district or state. In 1952, he headed back to assume the reins of the pathetic shell which was the Vermont Democratic Party. However, from the empty shell which was the butte of many jokes, he managed to turn the party into a decent organization with fundraising powers and a base in Vermont politics. He first encountered Garrett, then a young but depressed state representative who had just won his second term in a tough reelection fight. In Garrett he saw what he had seen in no other Vermont Democrat: a fighting spirit despite irrepressible pessimism, skillful use of rhetoric in campaigning and above all dogged determination to do something out of his life. He hadn't pushed Garrett to run for LG in 1956 because he still didn't know Garrett much, but after he witnessed Garrett's stunning last-minute turnaround from a train-wreck of a campaign in October '56, he had gotten to know Garrett better. He had pushed a reluctant and pessimistic Garrett into running for Congress in 1958 and had gotten the whole machinery he had built behind Garrett. By 1960, though Thomas was no longer the official boss of the party, it was well known that he held significant sway through his relations and jealous defense of the party's small purse. He had by then moved up to become Garrett's right-hand man, advising him on the political aspects of policy and especially on electoral matters. His good relations with prominent national Democrats, notably Senator John F. Kennedy, allowed him to have an attentive hear from the national party which was surprisingly generous in its channeling of funds.

Michael Peterson was 28, fresh out of Yale with a masters in Public Administration, and bustling with energy. Peterson was at heart one of those young, educated number crunchers with an encyclopedic knowledge of public policy, statistics and all of that. Fresh out of university, he had been able to get into newly elected congressman Garrett's office as Garrett's top aide through a professor's relations with Lucie's father (a prominent Burlington lawyer). In that role, he had contributed extensively to the construction of both versions of the rural development legislation and had been responsible for all the dirty work and talks leading up to the compromise with hostile conservative Democrats. Being young, Peterson's optimistic and Utopian view of the world contrasted with Garrett's pessimism and Thomas' realism. But Peterson's policy ideas provided Garrett with inspiration for themes to use in his campaign. As Thomas remarked, "Michael does the themes and the bullsh**t; I take care of the stuff that matters, the hard and gritty stuff you don't see; and basically Michael sees intelligent rational beings in voters, I see fools who can be molded whatever way and at the heart of elections, undecided fools who can be bought over by feeding them bullsh**t."

[Hash]

August 19, 1960
Garrett campaign headquarters
Burlington, Vermont

Garrett had led the Vermont Democratic delegation to the July Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, where Vermont's delegation had cast its votes entirely for John F. Kennedy under his and Thomas' leadership. Despite reservations about the pick of Lyndon B. Johnson as running mate, Garrett had been convinced that Johnson brought, on balance, more than he took away. By early August, however, it had been time to kick off the fall campaign - ahead of schedule.

Garrett met with Thomas, his right-hand man and chief strategist; and Peterson, his political advisor and closest aide.

Garrett: Okay, people. What do we need to win this thing. Steve, you first.
Thomas: The reality is quite simple. Basically, you've got at least 45% of Vermonters are who are gonna be voting like sheep for the GOP candidate.
Garrett: If not 50%...
Thomas: Well, not in '58 and we'll make sure as hell not in '60. At any rate, they're outta reach and we can go ignoring them because they wouldn't vote for a Democratic Jesus. What we need are the swingy folks who won it for us in '58.
Garrett: How many of those are liberal Republicans who voted for me over old man Arthur but are gonna go for Bob?
Thomas: It's hard to say, but I'd wager you still are left with a decisive swingy block even if you take out a few of 'em.
Peterson: How about new voters since 1958?
Garrett: Especially considering how you had a good number of liberal yellow dog Republicans who stayed home in '58 rather than Arthur or a Democrat.
Thomas: My work tells me we're eying between 30 and 40 grand new voters for November.
Peterson: Then for Pete's sake go after those new guys all out. We need them to win.
Garrett: But who are the new voters? Are they folks who didn't vote in '58, new guys or what?
Thomas: It's hard to say, really.
Garrett: Jesus, Steve, give me something concrete about them. I need them, I don't care who they are, but I need their freaking votes.
Thomas: We'd need to wait for the GOP primaries to see how many guys turnout there and where they're coming from.
Garrett: Okay, but I need to go after them right now. I'm not gonna wait on Bob to kick this thing off. Mike, your turn. What do I go after them on?
Peterson: Rural development, rural development, rural development. Make sure every single one of them knows that you're behind major legislation which passed both Houses and got the President - a Republican - to sign it. It boosts your experience, leadership and competence numbers a whole lot. It shows you as a legislator, unlike Stafford.
Garrett: How do I go after Bob?
Thomas: Tell 'em he's a career politician, only in it for the best job and not for 'em. They just love hearing that type of stuff, it stimulates 'em.
Peterson: And that he's not a legislator and that he doesn't know the world of DC politics and Congress.
Thomas: Chris, just use some old fashioned populist junk. That stuff rarely goes wrong.
Peterson: You can't win solely on attacking the other from a populist vintage point.
Thomas: Maybe, maybe not but that's why Chris is gonna use the experience card and the rural dev card on Bob.
Garrett: What am I vulnerable on?
Thomas: My gut says foreign policy and economics. Arthur nearly killed you on your economic gaffe in '58, and he had a swell time going after your academic career and your alleged soft views on the reds.
Peterson: Stafford doesn't know foreign policy, he knows economics and law. He might concede law to you, but he's not conceding economics. He's running as an incumbent governor of a state with a good budget picture and competent economic management under his hand. He can afford to attack you as a reckless spender and all that.
Thomas: Also, watch out for him attacking you on those centralist aspects of rural dev. That stuff could hurt you.
Garrett: How do I dig out?
Peterson: Don't go after him on economics and basically concede his good economic management. But go after him on rural development and public spending needed for education and so forth.
Thomas: And say about rural dev's centralism what you said to Rayburn and all those southern racists about the risk for pork and all that. It worked for them, it can work here.
Garrett: Thanks, guys.
Thomas: By the way, Chris; my sources say Gallup is polling Vermont again and they should get a poll out by October.
Garrett: Brace.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'll boycott this thread until Chris Garrett finally bang someone, or take some drugs.

[homelycooking]

I'll boycott this thread until Chris Garrett finally bang someone, or take some drugs.

But he's married with kids, Kal! And his intermittent alcoholism isn't enough for you? Sorry, but I don't think Hash is going to turn Chris Garrett into Tony Montana.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'll boycott this thread until Chris Garrett finally bang someone, or take some drugs.

But he's married with kids, Kal!

Jefferson John C. Breckinridge Woodrow Menelaus FitzAllan-Dent, IV does not approve of that.

[Hash]

Campaign Launch: August - September 1960

Garrett's reelection campaign officially kicked off in late August, though Garrett and his surrogates had been organizing various fundraisers since the spring. For his third statewide campaign, Garrett re-inaugurated his always successful whirlwind tour of Vermont towns. He crisscrossed the state, attending a ton of county fairs or town events but more importantly showing off what he'd won for rural towns: roads, infrastructure projects and so forth.

Garrett focused his campaign heavily on his congressional experience and his ability to be a good representative for Vermont interests as well as an agent of change. He gave his rural development act a big role in his campaign, flaunting it as an example of his ability to fight for Vermont interests and maneuver through the tough world of D.C. politics.

Garrett used his constituency offices and constituent outreach services throughout the state for his campaign, to the point of transforming them into local campaign offices. In Burlington and the whole of Chittenden County, Garrett and Thomas had maintained their strong GOTV network which had helped him win in 1958. In rural areas, Garrett still had contacts and cultivated even more networks with local notables and and allies. Thomas, as campaign manager, played a major role in the campaign's outreach to new voters - between 30 and 40 grand new voters were expected to turn out in November. Thomas summarized Garrett's campaign message as "Chris has got what it takes, he has the know-how and the knowledge of Congress. Let's stick with him". The campaign dropped talks of grandiose projects or ideas for new legislation which had played a prominent role in the 1958 campaign.

Turnout in the September 6 primary was heavy on the Republican sign, while Democratic turnout remained low. Stafford won the primary in a breeze, winning over 60% against lesser opponents including former conservative Governor Lee E. Emerson (by now a perennial candidate in primaries) who finished a very distant second. Stafford had, unlike Arthur in 1958, been campaigning for the general election since at least the spring and had behind him a big warchest which outnumbered Garrett's campaign funds more than 2:1.

Both campaigns knew much would be decided in the September 23 debate.

[Hash]

September 23, 1960
Champlain College
Burlington, Vermont

With the debate an hour away, Garrett is locked into intensive debate prep with Steve Thomas.

Garrett: So, what is Bob gonna attack me on?
Thomas: A good number of things, but probably the economy and foreign policy.
Garrett: Dear Lord.
Thomas: You've basically conceded economic management to him for better or worse, but you can't compete with him on the economy.
Garrett: Yeah, but if I concede too much on economy to him, I'll end up looking like an idiot.
Thomas: I don't know... Jesus, just go rehash what the hell they say in the Democratic platform for November and keep on that. Don't screw anything up, keep to the Democratic talking points and don't stray from there. Bob knows more than you about economic stuff, and he could sink you if you stray from what.
Garrett: What does the platform say?
Thomas: Let's see (shuffling a 20 page booklet). Ok, rehash this stuff, this is good sh**t: "put an end to the present high-interest, tight-money policy..." and then we have this stuff "It has given us two recessions within five years, bankrupted many of our farmers, produced a record number of business failures, and added billions of dollars in unnecessary higher interest charges to Government budgets and the cost of living."
Garrett: That's some good stuff. I'll rehash that at him. Will he got after rural dev and RCDA?
Thomas: He probably will, but won't insist on it. RCDA and rural dev is your strong suit, so he probably won't risk it. He could, however, link it to fiscal stuff somehow.
Garrett: How about foreign policy?
Thomas: I don't know how much Bob knows about such stuff, but Cuba and China will probably come up and you're always kinda fragile on foreign policy.
Garrett: Jesus Christ, how often do I have to repeat that I'm not soft on communism?
Thomas: People are stupid, so until you die. At any rate, about Cuba just rehash what everybody's been saying about how Castro's bad and stuff on democracy and how Castro is locking up folks. About China, now...
Garrett: Look, I don't give a sh**t about China, but...
Thomas: Say that Mao is a raving maniac...
Garrett: ... but we can't sit around for decades supporting that bastard Chiang Kai-Shek, since God knows he ain't moving his ass from Formosa and God also knows Mao may be a genocidal bastard but he isn't moving either... but we'll go with the traditional line of no UN admission for Red China until they stop acting like dicks.
Thomas: Now, don't call Chiang a bastard up there...
Garrett: Of course, but someday we'll need to stop feeding he myth that he's some sort of saviour when in reality he's a corrupt authoritarian son of a bitch.
Thomas: Yeah. Now, make use of your legislative experience and contrast it with Bob's executive experience and all that stuff.
Garrett: Yeah, that's pretty easy. Just the old stuff on experience in Congress, legislative background and so forth. And on top of that, I'll talk about being an advocate for Vermont interests and how I can get and have gotten stuff done for Vermont. It's straightforward.
Thomas: Now, Chris, be calm up there and smooth. Make use of your sarcasm and remarks like you did with Arthur in the first debate, and hopefully Bob won't be an idiot and talk about you teaching Marxist theory.
Garrett: Last thing - civil rights? Can Bob go after that?
Thomas: He can, but it's your strong suit and he'd be foolish to attack you on that unless he fancies the idiotic attacks linking you to dicks like Faubus and Patterson. Which I don't think he does, given that he's tougher and brighter than Arthur was.
Garrett: Let's go, let's go kick some ass.
Thomas: You go kick ass and take names, you go boy.

[Hash]

Random question to readers: in covering the campaigns, which type of posts do you prefer. Those, like in '58, with lots of speeches, official rhetoric and debates or ones which are focused more on private discussions, back-room stuff and strategic planning?

[homelycooking]

Hash, I much prefer the dialogue-ish ones, like the debate prep you posted today. You're good at the official political rhetoric, and it's worth including a few bits of those, but the back'n'forths with aides and politicos are much more interesting.

Also, this:

rehash this stuff, this is good sh**t

You clever bastard. With a little punctuation, we get:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

which is exactly how I feel about the TL.

[Hash]

Thanks to my loyal fan homelycooking for his input and appreciation

September 23, 1960
Garrett-Stafford debate at Champlain College
Burlington, Vermont

Moderator: We shall open by opening remarks from both candidates.
Garrett: Thank you, and thanks to all in the audience. I have had the honour of representing the people of Vermont for the past two years in Washington, and I am seeking reelection humbly asking the people of Vermont to renew their trust in me to be their representative... As everybody knows, the world of Congress is a tough world, it's like an insiders' club which doesn't like outsiders much and works on its own rules. It is a hard world to circulate, especially as a first-term representative from one of the Union's smallest states. Seniority and power win you influence, but I have fought my way up, alongside others, through committees to win the best deal for the people of Vermont. [...] My proudest achievement is the Garrett-McGovern Rural Development Act, which beyond the direct impact on our farmers - which I'm sure we'll come back to tonight - is a representation of the work I've been able to do. I am not perfect, and I'm not invited to the million parties of DC social life, but I humbly believe that I have proven myself as being able to maneuver the levers of power and win a better deal for the people of Vermont.
Stafford: I believe that there is a significant difference in the policies of governance of Mr. Garrett and myself. While I will admit that Mr. Garrett has given the people of Vermont adequate representation, his entire strategy and style is rooted in political opportunism and a thirst for power. One cannot fail to appreciate how the Rural Development Act can, has and will provide many congressmen, Mr. Garrett included, to use the RCDA as a method to bribe their constituents into voting for them. The question we should ask ourselves is whether Mr. Garrett is in this for the people, or if he's in it for himself. Because, from what I've seen - what we've seen - it seems as if he's in this for himself.

[...]

Moderator: We turn to the issue of rural development. Congressman Garrett was the driving force behind the Garrett-McGovern Rural Development Act and the creation of the RCDA. What do the candidates have to say on this issue?
Stafford: I will reserve myself from judgement on the specifics of the Garrett-McGovern Rural Development Act and on its specific applications until we can better see what it has done and hasn't done. But I disagree with the objectives behind Mr. Garrett's work. Mr. Garrett, and the Democratic Party, conform to the outdated - archaic - idea that all problems can be fixed by just showering a problem with more money and the generous granting of loans of grants and all that - while ignoring the roots of the problem and by refusing to give the problem a real solution. I doubt this act will be able to solve major issues facing our farmers. For example, what does it do about surpluses which are ruining our farmers? What does it do about chronic poverty in rural areas and the lack of opportunities offered to our youth?
Garrett: As I have said countless times, I undoubtedly count the Garrett-McGovern Rural Development Act as one of my proudest achievements in Congress. The RCDA will help our farmers by giving them to means to improve their farms, the means to modernize their farms and will give our communities the means to overcome poverty and the lack of opportunities. This legislation can and, I hope, will cater to rural youth and rural communities by offering federal funding to communities which seek to expand vocational opportunities or to revitalize their environment. A strong government, including a strong RCDA and rural development program, is needed to help our farmers and communities. They are the ones who are asking for federal aid to meet the challenges of today. It is not an outdated strategy to offer loans, grants and funding to our farmers and small towns. It is in fact a much better strategy than the Republican Party's approach which would do nothing for our farmers. The current Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Benson, has declared war on our farmers and on our communities and prefers to watch rural America die. I shall not stand for this.

[...]

Moderator: What are your views, gentlemen, on the general fiscal and economic climate of America today?
Stafford: My friends, we've never had it this good. This Republican administration has presided over a growth in the relative wealth of all families and under President Eisenhower, our families have grown and our society has been transformed into a broadly middle-class society with opportunities open to all, and with housing of good quality accessible to all families. It is a policy of fiscal stability and economic growth which I shall seek to uphold with my fellow Republicans. It is a policy which I have already upheld as Governor, as Vermont has seen a budgetary surplus under my administration and Vermont families have been able to prosper like never before. Easy-money and low-interest policies promoted by Democrats will only serve to speed up inflation, which must absolutely be controlled, and lead to more wasteful spending and economic mismanagement. If I am chosen to represent Vermont in Washington, it is these values which I will uphold and I will seek to bring our administration's record of fiscal discipline and economic growth to Congress.
Garrett: Mr. Stafford presents to us an erroneous vision of America. I cannot deny that we're well off as a nation, but when we analyze the record of this administration in more detail, what we see is that it has given us two recessions within five years, bankrupted many of our farmers, produced a record number of business failures, and added billions of dollars in higher interest charges to government budgets and the cost of living. What we Democrats are fighting for are for policies which really help our families. The high-interest and tight-money policies have only served the interests of few, and have prevented middle-class America from gaining access to the homes Mr. Stafford would like to make us think are open to all. High-interest policies have extracted a costly toll on all American families who has financed a home, a fridge or a television set. Tight-money policies have forced our governments, state and local, to hunt to borrow money to finance our schools and public services. We seek to end, today, the high-interest and tight-money policies which have hurt our fiscal balance sheet but most importantly our families.

[...]

Moderator: We turn now to foreign policy, which is playing a major role in the presidential campaign due to events in Cuba, Africa and Asia. Where do the candidates stand on this issue?
Garrett: The guiding principle in my foreign policy view is that we should build a committed alliance of democratic nations which fights communism on every front, but which prefers to fight without having to use weapons. We should support democratic nations, as part of our timeless commitment to the values of liberty, democracy and human rights. We should further seek to aid those nations in need, as President Truman set out to do. I am encouraged by the policies of our Latin American allies, such as Kubitschek and Frondizi, who are developing their countries in a non-communist manner while maintaining strong democratic institutions. If our allies can develop within a democratic system, we will truly be able to offer a model of economic development working hand-in-hand with democracy which will truly challenge the offer of Moscow. We need to realize that, in the long term, propping up authoritarian dictators won't pay dividends. As we welcome new nations in Africa, we must offer them with a vision of the future which defeats the hypocritical vision of Moscow based on half-truths or outright lies. That includes, as I have said, strong civil rights at home to prove that we really mean democracy when we say democracy. As to China, I don't believe that UN recognition should be on the table as long as Mao's regime continues its murderous rampage and its belligerent attitude which threatens regional stability. But perhaps in the long term, if China opens up and make overtures to a strategy of peaceful coexistence, then we might consider it.
Stafford: We must be tough, be it with Moscow, Havana or Peking. If the communists wish to compete with us, we accept their challenge on all fronts, backed up when necessary by military strength. We seek peace, but if challenged we must respond in an unambiguous way, by force if needed but not be definition.

[...]

Moderator: Please make your closing statements.
Garrett: Thank you. I am humbly asking you to place your trust in me for another term as your representative. In the past two years during which I have had the honour to represent Vermont, I have fought with the interests of Vermont in mind. I have won a better deal for the people of Vermont. I have maneuvered through the congressional labyrinth in order to do that. If reelected, I vow to fight for our farmers to ensure that their farms are profitable and that their communities are forward-looking, optimistic and strong. I vow to fight for our families and against the unfair fiscal policies of the Republican Party which hurt our families trying to finance homes, cars or appliances. I vow to fight for our love, as Americans, of liberty, democracy and human rights be it by continuing to fight for full civil and voting rights for all Americans or be it by seeking to build constructive, democratic governments in Latin America, Africa and Asia. My fellow Vermonters, I am asking for your support to continue the fight for your values and interests.
Stafford: Thank you. My friends, this election is about our views of governance. Mr. Garrett subscribes to the traditional Democratic view that all problems can be solved by legislating and by showering funds on them. Mr. Garrett seeks such solutions and uses populist rhetoric partly as a bid to maintain himself in power. I offer pragmatic solutions, a forward-thinking mentality which fights the problems of 1960 with the solutions of 1960 - not of 1930. I offer you a vision of a prosperous America, with strong middle-class families, an America backed by a strong economy and sound fiscal measures. Instead of molding the future using the archaic solutions of the past decades, let us instead seize the future and mold the future using new ways and methods.

[Hash]

September 24, 1960
Garrett campaign headquarters
Burlington, Vermont

Garrett unwinds with his campaign manager Steve Thomas after the previous evening's debate.

Garrett: Hoy..... that went badly, no?
Thomas: Hey, I think you did pretty damn well. You went for him point-by-point and you really did well...
Garrett: I wish, but he pretty clearly beat the hell outta me. He's a formidable debater, that Stafford. He had already gotten the life of me in 56.
Thomas: Hey, don't be so damn pessimistic. You did well. You kept him on his guard. You definitely won.
Garrett: Look, I had no idea how forcefully he'd go after rural dev *hic* and the way he did it took me off guard... and goddamn it, with all his sh**t about me an opportunist and power-hungry scum. Who saw that coming?
Thomas: Look, on the economy you did pretty damn well. You really stung him, even though you basically recited talking points.
Garrett: Really?
Thomas: My sources tell me you won on economy and foreign affairs, though he won on rural dev.
Garrett: Damn, that's quite the world upside down. Where do we go from now?
Thomas: A poll will come out soon, that will give us something. We've got no more debates...
Garrett: Praise the Lord.
Thomas: ... and till November it's pretty much straight out campaigning. You've got some fundraising dinners planned, and a whole ton of stump speeches.
Garrett: I like stump speeches.
Thomas: That's good, since you're gonna be giving a whole lot of them.
Garrett: Any in Essex County?
Thomas: Uh... let's see... uh, one, yeah.
Garrett: F**ck... do I really need to go there?
Thomas: They voted for you in '58.
Garrett: Oh, my. That's a scar on my resume.
Thomas: Did you drink, Chris?
Garrett: How can I not drink after a day like that?
Thomas: sigh