The liberal Republic
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2024, 03:51:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs? (Moderator: Dereich)
  The liberal Republic
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 35
Author Topic: The liberal Republic  (Read 106760 times)
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #225 on: March 20, 2018, 03:14:30 PM »
« edited: March 24, 2018, 06:23:05 AM by President Johnson »

April 21, 1973

BREAKING: NORTH VIETNAM LAUNCHES MASSIVE SPRING OFFENSIVE

Forces of the North Vietnamese Liberation Front, in a violation to the Paris Peace Accords, launched a massive military offensive against the South. President Rockefeller to summon with advisors: First major test for the new administration.






It was not entirely unexpected as the news on April 21 broke: Communist forces of the North Vietnamese Liberation Front (NLF) begun to launch a massive military offensive against South Vietnam and the Thieu government. The offensive is a clear violation of the 1971 Paris Peace Accords. On the morning of this April 21, not even 100 days into the Rockefeller presidency, approximately 50,000 troops of the North crossed the demilitarized zone that separates the two Vietnamese countries. The invasion, supported by artillery, is aimed to force South Vietnam to finally give up and let the communist North take over the whole country. The two year period since the Paris Accords gave the North Vietnamese the opportunity to recover from the heavy loses of the preceding years. Meanwhile, the U.S. allied South Vietnam fell short of gaining own economic strength and heavily depends on American aid. Despite having almost a million man under arms, the Thieu regime struggled to beat off the offensive. Some American experts already estimated that the whole South could be “overrun” within a single month if the United States does not jump in. The question was: How determined was the Rockefeller Administration to respond?


President Rockefeller holds crisis meeting at the White House and weighs in various options



President Nelson Rockefeller quickly summoned his inner circle to evaluate the situation in Vietnam: In the Oval Office, he is joined by Vice President Gerald Ford and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger

91 days into his presidency, Rocky faced the first major foreign policy crisis. Almost immediately after being briefed, the president cancelled all his meetings and public appearances for the next 48 hours to return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He assembled Vice President Ford, National Security Advisor Kissinger, Defense Secretary Romney and military leaders to the Oval Office for a crisis meeting. Secretary of State Nixon, for political talks in Israel, promptly went on board his airplane heading back to DC, what underlined the seriousness of the situation to the public.

Hawks in congress, especially the conservative wing of the Republican Party, already demanded a “forceful answer to communist aggression”, as Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) remarked. The right GOP faction as well as some hawkish Democrats like Senator Scoop Jackson (D-WA), who opposed the treaty from the beginning on, saw their positions confirmed that the Paris Accords “weren’t worth the paper written on.” Governor Ronald Reagan, during a radio interview, even demanded to terminate the agreement. “The United States has shown goodwill under the previous administration, and what we have gotten in return is communist hostility and continuing violation of international law […] We must now send a signal, that the free world stands up to tyranny. It is obvious that communist regimes around the globe only understand force and bold action. I have full confidence in the administration to recognize this. We ought not to repeat the mistakes of the two previous administrations.”

For President Rockefeller, who said communist aggression would be retaliated with force during his campaign, it was critical long-term decision. On the one hand, he could hardly allow the South be overrun early in his tenure. On the other hand, a take-over could likely only be delayed and not prevented (sources claimed, that Henry Kissinger long before Rocky came into office privately expected South Vietnam to collapse by the middle of this decade) unless he was willing to commit American ground troops again. That was hardly an option anyway: Neither the congress was willing to approve enough funds for a ground war that failed already under Lyndon Johnson’s watch, nor was the American public ready for a larger U.S. involvement that would lead to thousands of deaths again.

Later the day, the White House confirmed that President Rockefeller would announce his response soon to the public.


Reports: U.S. Intelligence "severely underestimated threat"

Even before President Rockefeller was on air to announce what steps would be taken from his administration, various reports claimed that U.S. intelligence agencies hardly anticipated the spring offensive and its strength. As a result, the administration was obviously not prepared for any such military action of this magnitude what could further complicate an effective American response.
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #226 on: March 24, 2018, 05:50:48 AM »

Late April 1973

President Rockefeller orders massive air strikes against NLF



South Vietnamese troops on a battlefield after the Vietcong withdrew from the place; May 5, 1973

Finally, on May 5, it was reported that the communist offensive came to a halt in Da Nang, South Vietnam. American air bombardments and troops from Saigon, supported by a small number of U.S. Special Forces, were able to stop the invaders, who lost at least 5,000 fighters within just two weeks. South Vietnamese President Thieu said forces under his command would now begin to push back and liberate those areas in the northern part of his country currently under NLF rule.

The success gives the United States and its ally at least some relief. Nevertheless, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger reportedly told President Rockefeller and members of his cabinet in private conversations, that South Vietnam is not likely to survive the next 24 months. Especially the poor economic condition of the country was a major concern of Kissinger and his team. And apparantly a key factor why Hanoi felt another offensive would be worth fighting for, as they never abandoned their ultimate goal of a unified Vietnam under communist rule.


May 9, 1973: Congress approves aid package as president requests



The passage of South Vietnamese aid through an increasingly skeptical congress is mainly the success of Vice President Gerald Ford, who was in charge of the talks on the administration's behalf

On May 9, 1973, congress approved a 250 million dollar package of aid for South Vietnam. The passage wasn’t as easy as some members of the administration anticipated. It took Vice President Ford to take a major role to resolve the issue with increasingly skeptical lawmakers. Nevertheless, the package was just a temporary measure until the year’s end until it had be renegotiated. President Rockefeller announced consultations with Saigon and talks with congress to evaluate how much South Vietnam actually needs for the coming years.
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #227 on: March 25, 2018, 05:24:48 AM »

May 29, 1973: President Rockefeller announces dramatic cuts in Space Program



President Nelson Rockefeller, at a dinner, said the American Space Program was a huge success, but announced its funding would be cut due to other priorities in the coming years.

As negotiations for the 1973/74 federal budget are going on, President Nelson Rockefeller announced that funding for the U.S. Space program would be cut by about half. Funding was already decreased during the last two fiscal years of the Johnson Administration, but LBJ rejected further cuts in the program he oversaw since the early 1960s. Now that the Rockefeller Administration plans spending increases in infrastructure, housing and the environment, other areas needed to save money in order to keep the federal budget somewhat in line. The president initially seemed open to break from his pledge not to cut defense spending, but Secretaries Nixon and Romney strongly urged to keep the defense budget as it was since such an attempt would alienate the conservative Republican faction.

On May 29, President Rockefeller and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Hubert Humphrey together announced that they came to a far-reaching overall agreement over the budget. Media observers wrote, that Rocky and HHH would get along very well behind the scenes.


May 31, 1973: New Gallup-poll

President Rockefeller's numbers dropped a little, but he remains overall very popular early into his administration.

President Rockefeller job approval
Approve: 71%
Disapprove: 22%


June 4 – 7, 1973: Ronald Reagan assigned to lead U.S. delegation to Vietnam



Governor Ronald Reagan during his visit in Saigon; he was put in charge to lead an American delegation

Ronald Reagan was not appointed Secretary of State, but Nelson Rockefeller is aware that he has still a significant base of support within the GOP. The California governor remained visible during the first moths of the Rockefeller presidency, but largely supported the commander-in-chief. Especially Rocky’s response to the Communist Spring offensive received praise from Reagan. Now the Gipper gets his involvement in foreign policies: He was appointed head of an American delegation to visit South Vietnam for political consultations. The delegation’s task was also to evaluate South Vietnam’s condition and make recommendations with regard to American aid. On his way back to America, Reagan also made a stop in Japan, with the president’s approval, for talks about Japanese investments in California.

Once returned home, the Reagan delegation recommended over a billion dollars in aid to South Vietnam for the year 1974. Senators like Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said this sum was “ridiculous” and would never pass congress. Although the issue seemed to be settled until December 31, Vietnam continued to be a concern for the Rockefeller Administration.


June 10, 1973: President Rockefeller signs Anti-Drug Laws



Back in April, the president announced a tougher stance on drug policy. A group of lawmakers around Senators Bob Dole (R-KS) and Birch Bayh (D-IN) subsequently worked out a package of bills to fight drug abuse. Since criminal law is mainly a state issue, the federal government could only implement measures within its authority. The military was a major factor here since several Republicans complained about drug abuse within the armed forces for a few years now. The bills include:

- The cornerstone of the entire package was the “Armed Forces Drug Responsibility Act”. This legislation allowed commanders immediate firing of drug consuming members of the armed forces. Furthermore, soldiers and commanders were required to report drug abuse immediately and could be imprisoned up to five years if they fail to do so.
- Drug Abuse and dealing within the District of Columbia, where the federal government has the power to legislate such matters, would be severely punished in the “D.C. Drug Abuse Reorganization Act of 1973”.
- The “Drug Prevention and Awareness Act” was a concession to moderates and liberals that authorized funds for a national anti-drug campaign. It also created a prevention program within the armed forces.

At the signing ceremony, Attorney General Spiro Agnew said his department would “forcefully implement” the new laws and spoke of a “zero tolerance policy”.

After the laws passed, several states announced to enact tougher statutes. Ronald Reagan called for it in California, while Nelson Rockefeller’s successor as governor, Malcolm Wilson, just signed the so-called “Wilson Drug Laws” the previous month.


June 15, 1973: At administration's pressure, U.N. Security Council condemns NLF offensive



UN Ambassador William Scranton played a key role in the resolution's passage

Two months after the NLF begun invading South Vietnam, the UN Security Council formally condemned the military operation as violation of international laws. In most recent weeks, President Rockefeller publically declared that such a resolution would be a pre-condition for the start of arms reduction talks with the USSR and potential negotiations with Red China. With this stance, he followed Secretary Nixon’s recommendation after the Soviets declined to stop arms delivery to Hanoi. Afterwards, UN Ambassador William Scranton was highly praised for his leadership within the UN and the process. Even Barry Goldwater spoke of "bold American leadership provided by the administration."

As of mid-June, the South Vietnamese ground forces where able to push back the invadors. Already earlier that month, President Rockefeller ordered the suspension of most air strikes.


June 24, 1973: President Rockefeller signs “Compensation Act of 1973” for Japanese Americans



On June 24, 1973, President Nelson Rockefeller just returned from a three-day trip to Japan. During his absence, congress passed the “Compensation Act of 1973” that appropriated compensation payments for Japanese Americans and their relatives who were de-facto imprisoned during World War II. In the years following 1942, at the order President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Japanese Americans living in the coastal areas of California where deported to certain camps due to the government’s fear of traitors and collaborators of the Japanese Empire. Rocky did not campaign on the issue, but a group of civil groups and organizations brought it to national attention in recent months. Back in February, President Rockefeller expressed his sympathy for legislation and called the internment a “deep injustice.” After the president signed the bill, he also issued a proclamation that formally revoked FDR’s Executive Order 9066 from February 19, 1942.


June 30, 1973: New Gallup-poll

President Rockefeller job approval
Approve: 73%
Disapprove: 21%
Logged
America Needs R'hllor
Parrotguy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,423
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #228 on: March 25, 2018, 09:41:58 AM »

I like Romney and Scranton in this TL. Still RFK '80, but wouldn't terribly mind Romney either. I just hope Reagan's and Goldwater's wings are crushed for good, making it "Liberal Republicans vs Labour Democrats". Also, you write administration events very, very well! Good job!
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #229 on: March 25, 2018, 03:07:31 PM »

I like Romney and Scranton in this TL. Still RFK '80, but wouldn't terribly mind Romney either. I just hope Reagan's and Goldwater's wings are crushed for good, making it "Liberal Republicans vs Labour Democrats". Also, you write administration events very, very well! Good job!

Thanks! I think in any case a conservative wing of the Republican Party would certainly continue to exist and even be dominating in some states and maybe also get a candidate nominated under the right circumstances. For 1980, if the Republican nominee was to be a moderate or liberal, Romney would not be the most likely one in my opinion since he's even a year older than Rocky (four years with Reagan). Mark Hatfield, Richard Schweiker or Bill Scranton sound more plausible, possibly even John Anderson depending on how his career goes on. Ford to a lesser extent, since he never had presidential ambitions until he got into the Oval Office by succession.
Logged
_
Not_Madigan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,103
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: -7.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #230 on: March 26, 2018, 02:35:45 PM »

Overall great TL, bit saddened by the Space Program cuts tbh but that was gonna happen anyway.  Keep it up!
Logged
TheBeardedOne
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 284
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #231 on: March 26, 2018, 05:00:36 PM »

In this timeline where Nixon becomes Sec. of State in ‘72, does he ever become Governor in 62 for California? I am too lazy to go read through all 10 pages
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #232 on: March 27, 2018, 12:48:47 PM »

In this timeline where Nixon becomes Sec. of State in ‘72, does he ever become Governor in 62 for California? I am too lazy to go read through all 10 pages

No, everything up to 1968 remains the same, but LBJ runs for another term and defeats Nixon with RFK, who survived the assassination attempt, as his running mate. In 1972, Nelson Rockefeller was elected president following a tough battle with Ronald Reagan over the Republican nomination and a close win over Bobby Kennedy in the general.
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #233 on: March 27, 2018, 01:38:31 PM »
« Edited: April 15, 2018, 03:17:53 AM by President Johnson »

July 2, 1973: South Vietnam declares victory in spring offensive



Going into July, Saigon officially declared victory over the NLF in the most recent spring offensive. The Vietcong reportedly lost more than 15,000 troops since April, with at least 2,000 more missing. South Vietnamese casualties are about 900, while just three Americans were killed in action. The largest number of NLF soldiers retreated back to North Vietnamese territory, while U.S. intelligence believes that at least 3,000 fighters remain undercover on South Vietnamese soil and pose a danger with regard to potential sabotage acts. However, approximately 750 Vietcong members officially switched sides to escape the regime in Hanoi. While President Nguyen Van Thieu was skeptical in the beginning, Secretary of State Richard Nixon personally got involved and called upon Saigon to grant these deserters asylum or a legal status and not send them back. Originally, prisoners of war were exchanged in the 1971 Peace Accords, but that doesn’t apply to most recent cases.


July 5, 1973: Unpleased with CIA over Vietnam, President Rockefeller replaces Director Richard Helms


CIA Director Richard Helms (l) was forced out of office over his handling of Vietnam by President Rockefeller, who subsequently appointed Kenneth Rush to the post

“The CIA underestimated the threat of a North Vietnamese offensive in spring. Even when signals were strongly pointing in that direction, the agency acted too slow and too little, what put the Rockefeller Administration under heavy pressure once the invasion begun. Only the quick response of the administration, independent preparations by Secretary Romney and his team for a hypothetical offensive and a better than expected performance by Saigon prevented the NLF from much larger gains”, reads a recent New York Times article, citing a secret Pentagon report. Newspapers across America wrote already back in May, that the U.S. intelligence severely underestimated the threat. Now the Pentagon itself confirmed these allegations after George Romney ordered to study the issue.

According to insiders, pressure from the White House and Capitol Hill on CIA Director Richard Helms mounted during the month of June. On July 5, his immediate resignation from office was made public. President Rockefeller was reportedly very unpleased with the entire situation and ultimately forced Helms out of office. Although the director officially resigned, it was well known that the president wanted him go. Chief of Staff Anderson, Secretaries Nixon and Romney also recommended to replace him with a loyalist of their own. Shortly after the ouster, the White House announced that Deputy Secretary of State Kenneth Rush would be nominated as new director of the CIA. Rush, a Republican, has experience in foreign affairs since briefly served as Ambassador to West Germany under President Johnson before becoming Richard Nixon’s Deputy at the State Department.


July 14, 1973: President Rockefeller signs historic American Urban Development Act of 1973 into law





Above: The city of Detroit, ca. 1973; Below: President Nelson Rockefeller (r) in the midst of a crowd during the signing ceremony, with First Lady Happy Rockefeller (m) and Vice President Gerald Ford (l)

What sounded like an unspectacular legislation was in fact one of the most significant bills enacted in most recent years: The American Urban Development Act of 1973 creates a far-reaching urban (re)development program, worth ten billion dollars in just two years. Its goal is to build thousands of housing units for middle-class and low-income Americans, especially African Americans. “This legislation is also intended to eliminate slums as we know them and give hope to these communities”, remarked Housing Secretary Ivan Allen. Although many congressional Democrats, including Majority Leader Hubert Humphrey, favored a pure public option, the Rockefeller Administration and most Republicans favored a mixed public-private program. Ultimately, the Democrats agreed to a compromise presented by Vice President Ford, Secretary Allen and co-sponsoring senators Jacob Javits (R-NY) and Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX). As President Rockefeller said, the program may result into 20 billion dollars of investment into the economy and create new affordable living spaces for the average American “of all backgrounds”. HUD Secretary Ivan Allen and his department will oversee the implementation.

Neither the signing location nor date were selected by accident: July 14 was Vice President Gerald Ford’s 60th birthday and Detroit, a city with social problems and a large black community, was in his homestate of Michigan. With the signing ceremony, the president rewarded his second-in-command for the leading role he played in the legislative process in working with both Secretary Allen and lawmakers on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post wrote on Ford: “His selection for the vice presidency proved to be very useful for Rocky. Indeed, a major factor was the intention to help with legislation after his long congressional service and the high respect he obtained from both parties. In a certain way, Ford fills a similar role like RFK before him, who was also actively engaged the policy making.” And as various sources from the White House indicated, Rockefeller and Ford developed a close personal relationship following their inauguration since they barely knew each other before the successful 1972 campaign.


July 31, 1973: New Gallup-poll

President Rockefeller job approval
Approve: 70%
Disapprove: 22%
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #234 on: March 28, 2018, 08:54:04 AM »

Nice updates. Rockefeller is doing a good job except for the horrible drug policy.
Logged
TheBeardedOne
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 284
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #235 on: March 28, 2018, 08:59:38 AM »

In this timeline where Nixon becomes Sec. of State in ‘72, does he ever become Governor in 62 for California? I am too lazy to go read through all 10 pages

No, everything up to 1968 remains the same, but LBJ runs for another term and defeats Nixon with RFK, who survived the assassination attempt, as his running mate. In 1972, Nelson Rockefeller was elected president following a tough battle with Ronald Reagan over the Republican nomination and a close win over Bobby Kennedy in the general.

Wow! The story is crazy so far. I predict Nixon running again - and winning
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #236 on: March 28, 2018, 09:08:58 AM »

In this timeline where Nixon becomes Sec. of State in ‘72, does he ever become Governor in 62 for California? I am too lazy to go read through all 10 pages

No, everything up to 1968 remains the same, but LBJ runs for another term and defeats Nixon with RFK, who survived the assassination attempt, as his running mate. In 1972, Nelson Rockefeller was elected president following a tough battle with Ronald Reagan over the Republican nomination and a close win over Bobby Kennedy in the general.

Wow! The story is crazy so far. I predict Nixon running again - and winning

A third time, polling a William J. Bryan? Seems doubtful to me, especially since Rockefeller is a first termer now. I would hope for RFK to be elected in '80.
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #237 on: March 31, 2018, 06:00:23 AM »
« Edited: March 31, 2018, 06:15:55 AM by President Johnson »

Early August 1973: As Justice Department implements anti-drug policies, the Agnew?McGovern feud gets personal


During a congressional hearing, Senator George McGovern and Attorney General Spiro Agnew couldn't hold back their mutual dislike for each other anymore

An August 4 report confirmed that, a month after the anti-drug laws went into effect, the Agnew Justice Department had already issued thousands of indictments against members of the Armed Forces and went after over 1,000 residents of Washington DC for drug abuse. During a congressional hearing, Attorney General Spiro Agnew defended his policies and emphasized the need for a ?zero tolerance approach on drugs?. In contrast, the Agnew Justice Department did not seem enthusiastic about the prevention programs the bill package included as well. Senator George McGovern (D-SD), a liberal icon, slammed the Justice Department for exaggerating the execution of the new law and its punishment elements. As Agnew was interviewed by the senate judiciary committee, the exchange between Agnew and McGovern went personal following a question by the senator:

SENATOR McGOVERN: Attorney General Agnew: Your department has been assigned to oversee the entire implementation of the drug laws President Rockefeller signed in June. How do you explain, that your department has already issued countless indictments against members of the Armed Forces and DC residents, but not even requested half of the appropriated sum for drug prevention programs?

HON. AGNEW: Senator, as you are well aware, my department is primarily responsible for upholding federal law in this country. And as I have outlined earlier, I am an advocate of a zero tolerance policy towards drugs. I am following the president's instructions and my own convictions on the issue of the horrific drug epedemic, that the last Democratic administration badly neglected. You are also well aware, that the prevention program for the military is managed by the Pentagon. The fact that you constantly keep pressing myself on the issue while you haven?t requested Secretary Romney to testify leads me to the conclusion that you are abusing your oversight role for ideological purposes. I reject that kind of approach. This is not the role of senate, Sir.

SENATOR McGOVERN: Mr. Agnew, I don?t need any lessons from you about the role of this congressional body. You ought to?

[interrupts] HON. AGNEW: But obviously about the rule of law in this country. You are well aware that Secretary Romney?

[Interrupts] SENATOR McGOVERN: With all due respect, Mr. Agnew! I strongly reject your unkind interruption and your attitude here. What do you think who you are? I tell you one thing: As senator, I am determining the questions here and you have an obligation to answer them properly! Now, again: Why didn?t you use the funds?

HON. AGNEW: I repeat, senator: Secretary Romney is responsible for the anti-drug campaign within the Armed Forces.

SENATOR McGOVERN: That is false. Under the law and an executive order by President Rockefeller, your department is coordinating the efforts. The Pentagon has only been assigned to reach out to members of the armed forces. To setup the program, your department is responsible and you neglected that part of the package. I conclude that this is for political reasons, as you solely seek to punish drug abusers instead of preventing them to get there in the first place or give them a second chance.

HON. AGNEW: Again, this is false and an outrageous accusation that vehemently reject.

SENATOR McGOVERN: You don?t accuse me of false accusations. Remember this. So, you basically admit to undermine the law and the president?s executive order?

HON. AGNEW: [laughs] This is ridiculous, senator. Will all due respect, your behavior today is unworthy of the senate.

SENATOR McGOVERN: Thank you. I don?t have any further questions. Instead, I will call upon President Rockefeller to relive you from duty.

HON. AGNEW: Good luck with that.

SENATOR McGOVERN: Thank you. I neither need your lessons about the rule of law and neither do I need any wishes.


As already expected, the personal feud at the hearing made national news. Although Senator McGovern publically called for Agnew?s firing, most members of the Democratic caucus didn?t follow him. Senate Majority Leader Humphrey also had harsh words for the attorney general, but said he was not in favor of his ouster. On the other hand, most Republicans in congress and out backed Agnew in public and accused McGovern of being ?weak on crime.? Governor Reagan even called him a "joke senator."

The next day, the White House issued a brief statement that President Rockefeller continues to have confidence in his attorney general after a private meeting with him and the vice president. The Justice Department subsequently announced that the full anti-drug campaign was being prepared for implementation, including the ?prevention programs.? Obviously, as the press wrote, the president was determined to calm down the emotions on the issue on both sides.


August 17, 1973: SALT II talks begin in Geneva



Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko and Secretary of State Richard Nixon at the Geneva opening conference for SALT II; August 17, 1973

After months of preparations, the SALT II talks between the United States and Soviet Union finally begun in Geneva, Switzerland. On behalf of the United States, Secretary of State Richard Nixon traveled to the negotiating site and met with his Soviet counterpart, Andrei Gromyko, for the opening convention. SALT II seeks to curtail the manufacture of strategic nuclear weapons. It was a continuation of the SALT I, which was signed in early 1972 at Camp David by President Lyndon B. Johnson and Secretary General Leonid Brezhnev for a reduction in conventional weapons. The negotiations now begun are the first nuclear arms treaty aimed real reductions in strategic forces and are expected to last about three years, scheduled for signing just before the 1976 presidential election.

At the conference, Nixon and Gromyko also announced that President Nelson Rockefeller and Secretary General Leonid Brezhnev intend to meet personally for the first time by fall or winter. President Rockefeller is also expected to meet with Soviet Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin at the UN General Assembly in New York in late September.


August 31, 1973: New Gallup polls

President Rockefeller job approval
Approve: 68%
Disapprove: 24%


September 1973: Chile ? the next foreign policy crisis

?An explosive atmosphere? and secret reports leaked



Chile's Socialist President Salvador Allende was never liked in Washington; as September began, his country was on the brink of a coup or civil war... and the Rockefeller Administration confronted with a new crisis

?An explosive atmosphere?, that?s how the new CIA Director Kenneth Rush described the situation in Chile. Over the past few months, tensions between the Socialist president Salvador Allende and the pro-Western conservative opposition, including parts of the armed forces, increased and caused a major rift within the South American country. Like the Johnson Administration before, the Rockefeller Administration largely ignored Allende in public. As secret reports revealed in August confirmed, then-President Johnson approved a secret CIA operation to prevent Salvador Allende from assuming power in the autumn of 1970. The operation led to the killing of General Schneider, but didn?t stop the socialist president from assuming power. And leaked reports further read: During a meeting on January 31, 1973, eleven days after taking office, President Rockefeller decided to isolate Chile from the world community and study possibilities to destabilize the Allende Government. However, the president said he wouldn?t be in favor of anything that provokes a civil war and even raised the possibility to tolerate Allende if he withdraws from his plans to put American businesses under governmental control.

The most recent upraise in Chile in these early days of September made the issue more pressing than ever. Most political observers expressed their assumption, that the turmoil was not solely a product of American interference, as the Cuban regime claimed, but the result of increasing tensions within Chile, that was now on the brink of either a coup d??tat or even a civil war. With Vietnam still being a concern, the Rockefeller Administration had to be prepared for a second front on another continent.


Attorney General Spiro Agnew: "I'm sick of government leakers"



Attorney General Spiro Agnew is back in the national spotlight: He sharply criticized government leakers and the role of the press. This time, leaked reports on Chile caused his most recent attacks

His feud with Senator McGovern was just out of the news, especially with the emerging crisis in Chile, when Attorney General Spiro Agnew again sought national attention. This time, it was on the issue of Chile itself, where he slammed government leaks. On September 1, the Attorney General told the press: ?Why I am reading classified reports about secret operations President Johnson ordered in 1970? Why do I permanently read what President Rockefeller, Vice President Ford, Secretaries Nixon and Romney or Doctor Kissinger said behind closed doors? Members of the administration talk about an issue of national security, and the next day I read protocols of these very discussions in the newspapers. This leaking is disgraceful and has to stop. I?m sick of these leakers. We ought to do something about it. And I will do something.? When asked what he meant, Agnew replied: ?You will find out soon. We have to go after these unpatriotic bums. What they are doing is against the law and against morality.? And he continued by attacking the press: ?But it is not just the leakers. Various newspapers in this country are more interested in top-headlines and profits rather than our national security. I expect the press to return classified information to the government instead of publishing them. Unfortunately, these papers and their managing directors have lost that kind decency in their war against the American government.? Agnew also added that he considers to issue lawsuits against newspapers printing secret reports. ?I will go to the Supreme Court if necessary?, he remarked.


Chile: Different opinions within the administration, President Rockefeller to decide soon



On September 3, 1973, President Nelson Rockefeller (center) sits down with Secretaries Richard Nixon (l) and George Romney to discuss Chile. As Nixon and Romney favored different approaches, it was on the president to decide how to proceed for the American part

On September 3, President Rockefeller assembled all his major advisors on foreign policy matters and discussed various options. White House leaks revealed that Secretary of State Richard Nixon was in favor of either allowing Allende to be ousted with violence or even contribute to his downfall through secret operations. ?That S.O.B. has to be gone?, he reportedly said. Others like Vice President Gerald Ford and Defense Secretary George Romney warned about a bloody coup and urged the president to try to resolve the matter through diplomacy since Allende still had a lot of support from the people of Chile. ?Allende has either to step down voluntarily because he can?t effectively govern anymore, or form a unity government?, Romney is quoted. National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger favored some middle road: A unity government without Allende. The question was now: Which of these options presented to him, if any, would President Nelson Rockefeller chose?
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #238 on: March 31, 2018, 09:04:54 AM »

Loving the Agnew/McGovern feud. Despite the fact that I have a feeling this isn't the direction of the timeline, it'd be great to see this elevate McGovern's stature, leading to a landslide loss to Rockefeller in '76, just in time for a conservative Democrat (Askew!?) to beat Ford in 1980. Smiley Also, I think it's interesting that it appears Rockefeller is moving to the right on Latin America even after rejecting Reagan as State Secretary over such a policy difference. I hope Agnew can survive the year!
Logged
America Needs R'hllor
Parrotguy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,423
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #239 on: March 31, 2018, 09:47:19 AM »

Agnew: You're using the Senate for ideology!
Also Agnew: As Attorney General I'm guided by my ideology

Lol, I'm definitely with McGovern here Tongue This is great so far! McGovern is definitely going to play a role in 1976.
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #240 on: April 05, 2018, 02:18:42 PM »

September 5, 1973: President Rockefeller calls for “unity government in Chile”, offers to send Kissinger for talks



President Nelson Rockefeller during his remarks on Chile

On September 5, 1973, at the White House and following intense consultations with key players of his administration and members of congress, President Nelson Rockefeller personally gave a press statement:

PRESIDENT ROCKEFELLER: Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen, my fellow Americans: With regard to recent developments in Chile, I want to outline the policies of my administration upon which I have decided after careful consideration. […]
Looking at the situation that emerged in Chile over past few days, on the behalf of the United States of America, I call for a government of national unity in Chile. That requires a participation of all major political forces, who are engaged in one form or another in this conflict. It is obvious that the Socialist government led by President Salvador Allende has lost its ability to effectively govern. On the other hand, we do not a have a succeeding government which is capable to take over the nation’s business or has enough public support. The United States government, in the interest of stability in the Western Hemisphere, regards it as essential that the explosive situation currently exists gets resolved peacefully. A potential bloody coup or a civil war must be avoided to prevent political turmoil and the loss of innocent lives. The most recent development made it inevitable that a government of national unity is being formed that is able to garner enough support among the people of Chile.
I hereby offer all political players in Chile to send a delegation led by my National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger to Chile for talks to form a national unity government. I also phoned with the president of Mexico, who is also ready to send diplomats to Chile, as Mexico has vital interest in stability on the American continents as well. Now, I want to conclude by expressing my hope that this urgent situation can be resolved peacefully. Thank you very much.


REPORTER: Mr. President, does that mean President Allende has to go?

PRESIDENT ROCKEFELLER: That question has to be determined by the people of Chile and their representatives. It is no secret that we have vast differences of opinion with Mr. Allende, but his future is not ours to decide. Our main goal is stability and the safety of American citizens in Chile, including a protection of U.S. businesses from confiscation, as Mr. Allende intended to do so far. Thank you.


Following his announcement, the journalists remarked that Rocky basically followed George Romney’s advice to handle the Chilean conflict through a diplomacy. Or at least attempting to do so. He reportedly rejected Richard Nixon’s call for a harsher stance, like ousting Allende through covered action, for the moment. However, the president largely left open whether he wanted Allende to be removed from office at any price. According to insiders, Rocky’s main goal is a change in policy – with or without Allende. And he hopes to archive that by allowing the Christian Democrats of Chile to join the government – a move that Allende rejected before. As it was reported, members of the Rockefeller Administration and Kissinger’s team already reached out to the center-right democratic opposition. What came as surprise is the alliance with Mexico, whose government agreed to participate in potential talks within Chile. As White House Chief of Staff John B. Anderson told to a reporter in private, this move is embedded a new Latin America policy Nelson Rockefeller intends to implement. As Anderson said, the president is scheduled to give a major foreign policy speech within the next months to announce what’s called the “Rockefeller Doctrine”.


September 7 – 10, 1973: Before official Chilean response, situation gets out hand: President Allende disappeared, General Pinochet killed



The presidential place in Santiago was under attack by the Chilean military, but President Allende was no longer in town. During the operation, General Pinochet was killed by an Allende supporter

Before President Salvador Allende officially responded to President Nelson Rockefeller’s offer, the situation in Chile got out of control: Military leaders under the command of General Augusto Pinochet decided to oust the socialist president with force and started an offensive against the presidential palace. “That is the last thing we need, these goddamn generals!”, an angry President Rockefeller reportedly said when he learned about the situation. Following September 8, complete chaos broke out; confusing and contradicting news came out of Chile. On September 9, General Pinochet, a leader of the opposition who was a potential replacement for Allende, was fatally shot by an Allende-supporting officer. Although many of his supporters were engaged in – often violent – protests, the situation calmed down by September 10. Allende himself had his last public appearance on September 7, when he urged workers to fight for the socialist cause. Afterwards he disappeared and even American intelligence was unable to say what happened to him. American journalists wrote that he was either killed, or – more likely – hided somewhere.

While the Rockefeller Administration seemed extremely worried about the situation, Senator Scoop Jackson (D-WA), a hawk, was the first on Capitol Hill to call for a U.S. intervention to restore public order. Defense Secretary Romney immediately rejected such “premature action”.


September 11/12, 1973: Allende in Cuban exile, Chilean military forms interim government



Chilean President Salvador Allende escaped to Cuba, where Fidel Castro granted him asylum. Both Socialist leaders accused the U.S. of a coup in Chile

On September 11, Cuba’s Fidel Castro confirmed that Salvador Allende went into Cuban exile. It was unclear whether he planned to return and what would happen to his supporters and government officials in Chile.

The next day, the Chilean military formed an interim government of various generals and issued a nationwide curfew to further calm down protests. President Rockefeller publically welcomed the move, but emphasized the need for a quick democratic legitimation for any new government.


September 13, 1973: Henry Kissinger goes to Chile




National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, joined by Senators Mark Hatfield (R-OR) and Frank Church (D-ID), was sent to Chile for political consulatations

On September 13, the White House announced a delegation led by National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger is heading to Chile for political consultations and resolve the crisis. The U.S. delegation is also joined by Senators Mark Hatfield (R-OR) and Frank Church (D-ID), with whom the president consulted recently. “I sincerely hope we can play a productive role here”, Senator Church commented upon his departure. Both senators are known for a more dowish foreign policy.

Once arrived in Santiago de Chile, talks between Chilean officials, the U.S. delegation, joined by a group of Mexican diplomats, begun and lasted for three days. First, it seemed as the negotiations would fail since Allende’s supporters and his Socialist Party refused to participate. From his Cuban exile, Allende accused the U.S. government of a coup, saying President Rockefeller had ordered his ouster. The White House responded by rejecting these claims and stated that Allende put his country into chaos. Nevertheless, on September 16, 1973, Kissinger was able to present an agreement with the interim military government and the center-right democratic opposition: A regular election was scheduled to take place in January 1974 to legitimize a new government. Both the parliament, where the opposition to Allende had a majority, and a new president would be elected under the agreement. Immediately after, the socialist party called upon their supporters to boycott the new election. In Cuba, Allende stated such an election would be illegitimate and influenced by the United States. Nevertheless, the situation in Chile itself further calmed down by mid-September, despite large demonstrations by members of the Socialist Party against Kissinger’s visit.

When he returned home, Henry Kissinger and the congressional delegation were praised for their leadership. President Rockefeller thanked them as well as the Mexican government for their cooperation. At least for the moment, the crisis in Chile was somewhat resolved, as a socialist president was de facto removed from power and the center-right parties had a decent chance to take power in Chile, causing the nation to become a more reliable partner for the United States as President Rockefeller was preparing for a great speech on Latin America policy by early next year.


September 26, 1973: President Rockefeller meets with Soviet Premier Kosygin in New York


At the UN General Assembly, Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin and President Nelson Rockefeller met for a personal exchange

On September 26, 1973, President Nelson Rockefeller for the first time addressed the UN General Assembly on behalf of his nation as head of state. During his speech, Rocky welcomed the world community to his hometown of New York and underlined his commitment to a strong transatlantic relationship, détente with the USSR and a new approach towards Latin and South America. Afterwards, he met for a private conversation with Primer Alexei Kosygin of the Soviet Union. Not much was made public afterwards, only that the two leaders reportedly had a “productive discussion with mutual respect for each other”. It was also confirmed that a date when the president is expected to meet with Secretary General Brezhnev would soon be announced.


September 30, 1973: New Gallup polls

After a little more than eight months in office, President Rockefeller remains at a high popularity level. Americans gave him credit for his handling of foreign policy in particular.

President Rockefeller job approval
Approve: 70%
Disapprove: 23%
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #241 on: April 08, 2018, 05:00:57 AM »

October 6, 1973 – BREAKING: WAR OUTBREAK IN THE MIDDLE EAST!



On October 6, Arab forces started a massive offensive against Israel

Breaking News: On Jewish Yom Kippur, Arab Forces launched a preemptive offensive against Israel in order to regain territories lost in the 1967 six-day war. Despite rising tensions over the year, the attack by Syrian and Egyptian combat troops surprised American ally of Israel, who was not prepared for such a massive invasion. Egyptian and Syrian forces crossed ceasefire lines to enter the Sinai Peninsula as well as the Golan Heights respectively. This development will dramatically affect world policies including the American-Soviet relations.


President Rockefeller condemns offensive and threatens harsh response



In an immediate reaction, President Rockefeller expressed his support for Israel, called upon an end of the invasion and threatened the Arab Forces to respond with force

Vietnam, Chile and now the Middle East: Within just ten months, the Rockefeller Administration was confronted with a third international crisis since taking office. Only hours after the news of the war outbreak came, President Nelson Rockefeller publically condemned the “hostile action” by Arab powers. He also called upon Moscow to condemn hostility and call for an immediate ceasefire. The president added that the United States was prepared to assist its ally of Israel if necessary with ground and air force. The president also instructed the Pentagon to assist Israel with military equipment immediately. When asked whether the US was already engaged with Special Forces, he declined to answer but said that any attack against an American would be answered forcefully. “If the invaders question my determination, they should ask Hanoi what happened after they chose to invade South Vietnam”, he bluntly added. “Are air strikes on the table?”, asked a reporter when the chief executive spoke to the press. And he replied: “That you will find out. I hope this situation can be resolved peacefully. We are open for talks, but we don’t accept unjustified military action against our allies or ourselves. The Rockefeller/Ford Administration is determined to defend freedom wherever it is under siege and we're called upon to help.”

UN Ambassador William Scranton immediately called for a resolution of the Security Council to condemn the invasion. However, the USSR so far showed little interest to join such an effort against their Arab allies in the region. According to reports from October 8, President Rockefeller used the so-called Red Telephone to talk to Secretary General Brezhnev. Even though no details of the conversation went public, the Politburo called for a ceasefire on October 9 and negotiations about the territories Israel gained following the six-day war in 1967.


Course of the War and Richard Nixon’s peace mission



Israeli forces during their counter attack in mid-October 1973

After three days, Israel had mobilized most of its forces and halted the Arab invasion, supported by an American Special Forces. According to press reports, the U.S. involvement was secret operation President Rockefeller authorized on October 7. Neither the White House nor the Pentagon gave any official information on the mission. Soon after Israel began to counter the invasion, a military stalemate emerged. The Syrian attacks focused on the Golan Heights were also beaten off within less than a week. Afterwards, the Israeli forces went into the offensive and moved miles into Syria. After ten days, the U.S. ally came close to the Syrian capital Damascus and both the Egyptians and Syrians were under heavy pressure. The Israelis also counter-attacked the Egyptian forces and moved into the neighbor’s territory close to Suez. The USSR, on October 18, strongly condemned the Israeli counter-offensive and called upon President Rockefeller to intervene. However, the White House declined.



Secretary of State Richard Nixon played a key role in the negotiations with Moscow on a UN Resolution

Meanwhile, on October 19, Secretary of State Richard Nixon met with his Soviet counterpart Alexei Gromyko in Bonn, Germany (a meeting that West German Chancellor Willy Brandt set up). Over the course of the conversation, both chief diplomats agreed upon a UN Security Council Resolution to request an end to hostile actions on both sides. As it was reported, both President Rockefeller and Secretary General Brezhnev, who would make the ultimate decisions, finally approved the paper their two cabinet members worked out. After the White House assured Moscow to influence Israel to withdraw to its own territory, the Politburo promised to urge its Arab allies to end all hostile actions and support the resolution. On October 20, Secretary Nixon directly flew to Jerusalem and met with members of the Israeli government to persuade them of the planned resolution.

Ultimately, on October 22, the Security Council passed the resolution with Ambassador Bill Scranton at the forefront of the efforts on behalf of the United States. In the paper, both sides agreed on a ceasefire effective October 24. Nevertheless, both sides blamed each other for causing the crisis. Richard Nixon remarked that the "status-quo before the invasion must quickly be restored" and that "negotiations on a long-term settlement" are necessary to prevent future conflicts like the Yom-Kippur-War. "It's very urgent that a lasting peace comes along, because the Middle East could be the starter point for a third world war", the secretary warned.

However, even though the invasion failed badly and Israel was able to maintain its territory, the war’s political consequences have to be seen. Especially the Arab world was eager to hurt Israel and the United States at another front.


Late October 1973: OPEC imposes oil embargo on US, reduces oil production causing rising prices – is an economic meltdown looming?



On October 25, a day after the Yom-Kippur-War formally came to an end, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar raise posted prices by 17% to $3.65 per barrel and announced production cuts. In addition, an embargo was imposed on the United States and some if its allies like South Africa. This was also a response to President Nelson Rockefeller’s most recent request to congress, to grant Israel additional two billion dollars in aid.

The most recent developments could result into major impacts for the economy, both in the United States and worldwide. As autumn progressed and a new winter was to come within a month or two, the new administration may be confronted with a new and far-reaching crisis. “If a recession emerges, all the successes with détente will be nothing more than sideline notes”, a New York Times reporter wrote, “if gas prices go up, unemployment rises and inflation unveils, President Rockefeller’s greatest concern might not be the Soviet, Chinese or Vietnamese communists. It may be a looming economic downturn, linked to foreign policy issues. This has the potential to become the greatest challenge of Nelson Rockefeller's presidency, but at least, assuming he gets his mandate renewed in 1976, of his first four year term in the Oval Office.”
Logged
America Needs R'hllor
Parrotguy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,423
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #242 on: April 09, 2018, 09:39:45 AM »

This was an awesome update! A couple of thoughts:

1. I'm glad the invasion was beaten so hard! However, looking at the current situation, it'd be interesting if Israel and the U.S. have the foresight to "hit the iron while it's hot" and return most of the West Bank to Jordan in exchange for a peace agreement (and at the same time returning Sinai to Egypt for peace), while retaining Jerusalem. By retaining the West Bank, we've basically created the Palestinian problem from today, a problem that has huge consequences like radicalizing the Israeli population to the right and creating major divides in our society. If I could change history, I'd just let Jordan handle this (while, again, retaining most of Jerusalem)- we'd be a much better country today, with a healthy political system where the left, center and right are relatively balanced.

2. The Arabs can't keep up their embargo. They'll be forced to sell oil to the U.S., and presumably the rest of the western world which Rocky would try to pressure into refusing to buy oil from these countries, because these are their biggest partners. The USSR produces its own oil for the most part, and China probably doesn't use that much yet, so it's a huge blow to Arabic and Persian oil producers. They'll have to bend.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #243 on: April 09, 2018, 09:49:50 AM »

This was an awesome update! A couple of thoughts:

1. I'm glad the invasion was beaten so hard! However, looking at the current situation, it'd be interesting if Israel and the U.S. have the foresight to "hit the iron while it's hot" and return most of the West Bank to Jordan in exchange for a peace agreement (and at the same time returning Sinai to Egypt for peace), while retaining Jerusalem. By retaining the West Bank, we've basically created the Palestinian problem from today, a problem that has huge consequences like radicalizing the Israeli population to the right and creating major divides in our society. If I could change history, I'd just let Jordan handle this (while, again, retaining most of Jerusalem)- we'd be a much better country today, with a healthy political system where the left, center and right are relatively balanced.

2. The Arabs can't keep up their embargo. They'll be forced to sell oil to the U.S., and presumably the rest of the western world which Rocky would try to pressure into refusing to buy oil from these countries, because these are their biggest partners. The USSR produces its own oil for the most part, and China probably doesn't use that much yet, so it's a huge blow to Arabic and Persian oil producers. They'll have to bend.

Agreed. The United States could also have bought oil from Norway or, referring to the TL, South America, which has in fact large oil reserves. Rockefeller seems determined, and that's somewhat likely given his obvious Latin America passion, to improve relations. That may result into some trade agreements. Shipping ways are also much shorter.
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #244 on: April 10, 2018, 02:50:02 PM »
« Edited: April 10, 2018, 02:56:25 PM by President Johnson »

October 30, 1973: As Stock Market crashes following OPEC announcement, Rockefeller Administration urges for calm



Immediately after the OPEC announcement, the Stock Market lost over 35% within 24 hours, resulting into the loss of billions of dollars in value. Some observers already spoke of a “Second Black Thursday”, referring to the 1929 crash that became the starting point for the Great Depression. However, the markets recovered faster than expected the days after. Consumer confidence only took a slight hit. While most high-ranking administration officials were unavailable (President Rockefeller was on a trip to Mexico, Vice President Ford toured Europe), a White House spokeswoman said the president would carefully evaluate the next steps after consultations with his cabinet and advisors. “A steady hand is required to handle this. We will be coming up with bold and smart response within a short period of time”, remarked Treasury Secretary Joseph Barr on October 28 in an effort to calm down citizens and markets alike. White House Chief of Staff John B. Anderson, the same day, said the administration would push for a “new energy policy” and speed up existing efforts.


October 31, 1973: New Gallup polls

President Rockefeller job approval
Approve: 64%
Disapprove: 26%


November 1, 1973: President Rockefeller responds to OPEC: New energy policy, trade agreements and retaliation



Back from his trip to Mexico, President Nelson Rockefeller announced his administration’s policies in reaction to the recent OPEC decision for an embargo and production cuts. During a press statement, he sharply criticized OPEC members and blamed Egypt and Syria for the war outbreak in October. Meanwhile, the chief-executive strongly reaffirmed support for Israel but also underlined America’s the openness for productive talks. Rocky then went on to announce a series of decisions he made to deal with the situation. Some are short-term moves – that could theoretically be taken back if necessary – as well as measures embattled in a broader political strategy. President Rockefeller announced the following steps:

- A cornerstone and long-term issue was a new energy policy, aiming more independence from foreign markets. Under an Executive Order the president just signed, a commission was established to make specific proposals. In addition, the White House intends to ask congress the creation of a new Energy Department at the cabinet level.
- On a short term basis, the Administration wants to increase US oil production and imports from Canada; an energy bill currently in the making intends to deregulate the energy market.
- As President Rockefeller is about to establish a new Latin America policy, trade negotiations may include oil purchases from South America as well in exchange for U.S. technology. Secretary of Commerce John Connally has been directed to explore such options.
- At the president’s order, certain trade sanctions on OPEC members were imposed.

The president received praise from both parties for the measures he presented to the public, though conservatives expressed skepticism about a new Energy Department. Governor Paul Laxalt (R-NV), who just announced his bid for the senate, said it would have “little effect” but lead to “a lot of bureaucracy.” Many Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Hubert Humphrey, were open for the creation of such a department, but oppose planned deregulations of the energy market.

The press was reluctant about oil purchases from South America and described that part of Rocky’s plan primarily as an instrument to pressure the Arab world, which also depended on oil sales.


November 15, 1973: Unimpressed by OPEC, congress passes and President Rockefeller signs Aid for Israel



As requested by the Rockefeller Administration, congress passed an almost two billion dollar aid package for Israel following the Yom-Kippur War. The bill received support from an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans alike and was subsequently signed into law by Nelson Rockefeller. The main part of the gigantic sum is for a military buildup and border security measures.

The next day, OPEC announced a further 5% cut in oil production as a direct response to the new program for Israel. Secretary of State Richard Nixon immediately slammed the move and said that the United States wouldn’t let OPEC dictate American foreign policy.


Aid Package also includes South Vietnam, victory for administration

Back in spring, Ronald Reagan – at the president’s request – presented plans for a post-war aid program to South Vietnam that found Rocky’s strong support. South Vietnam and its military and economic strength became an even more urgent priority following the North’s spring offensive earlier this year if America wanted to preserve its sovereignty. Although congressional passage of the Reagan plan, worth more than a billion dollars a year, seemed doubtful from the beginning on, President Rockefeller saw the program for Israel as an opportunity to hammer this one through as well: He insisted to pass a joint aid package that includes aid for both countries in a single legislation. Democratic House Speaker Carl Albert and Senate Leader Hubert Humphrey ultimately agreed in an exchange for an extension of humanitarian aid for South Vietnam following a meeting with the president, the vice president and the White House Chief of Staff. Governor Ronald Reagan himself continued to lobby for the plan in Washington and testified before congress. The media subsequently described the aid package as a great victory for Rocky, especially on Vietnam. Right afterwards, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger said the administration would now focus on a long-term strategy to stabilize Saigon for making a permanent two-state solution possible.


Closing days of November 1973: President Nelson Rockefeller and Secretary General Leonid Brezhnev meet in Alaska


Sooner than anticipated this announcement was being made: On November 21, 1973, the White House and the Kremlin confirmed that a first personal meeting between President Nelson Rockefeller and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev is scheduled for November 27 and 28. Alaska, where Mr. Brezhnev only had to cross the Bering Street, was chosen as location for the bilateral talks; absence from the two capitals but at a site where both superpowers were extremely close geographically.

On the afternoon of November 27, the two leaders met for the first time in a mansion outside of Anchorage and were joined by a relatively small group of government and staff members. Secretaries and Nixon and Romney were also present and had talks with their Soviet counterparts. In addition, dozens of international journalists covered the event and were granted wide access to the delegations. The first face-to-face meeting between the president and the secretary general, only joined by translators, lasted for over two hours. Later, Secretary Nixon and Foreign Minister Gromyko participated with their respective bosses. Later at the evening, the two leaders and their delegations enjoyed dinner and a small concert together. It was even time for some jokes, when Mr. Brezhnev remarked that “selling beautiful Alaska with all its natural resources in 1867 was the dumbest thing Russia has ever done.”

On November 28, the two leaders continued their discussions and later came together with all notable representative of their delegations. At the afternoon, President Rockefeller and Secretary General Brezhnev, joined by Secretary Nixon and Gromyko, gave a joint press statement to the world by reaffirming their support for détente and the ongoing SALT II talks. “Our dialogue these two days took place in a spirit of cooperation, mutual respect and the awareness of our responsibility for world peace”, President Rockefeller remarked. “Nevertheless, we also identified a vast number of difference between our two countries. That includes aspects of the Middle East, Chile and Eastern Europe. Especially in the latter, I expressed my dissatisfaction with human rights, freedom of speech and the press as well as the treatment of political opponents”, he continued. Mr. Brezhnev spoke of “sovereign nations with a strong relation to the USSR, who should handle their inner problems without US influence”. He also reaffirmed Soviet support for their Arab Allies in the Yom-Kippur-War, but pointed out his support for negotiations between the regional powers and that he hoped to play – together with the Rockefeller Administration – a productive role in the Middle East. The secretary general further remarked that he would favor OPEC to withdraw from their embargo against the United States. But he also brought up Chile by demanding the return of Salvador Allende to power. President Rockefeller concluded by announcing that his administration intends to increase grain deliveries to the Soviet Union, where famines frequently occurred over the past decades. At the end, both heads of state emphasized their intention to meet again sooner or later.

According to insiders, some conservatives within the GOP were unhappy about Rocky’s not too harsh tone towards Moscow and the fact that the additional grain sales, although beneficial for American farmers, to the USSR were made unconditional (the president was quoted that he sees them as an act of humanity). However, the press covered the Alaska meetings in a positive light and the president’s approval ratings went up again. Especially his foreign policy was overwhelmingly supported by the American public.


November 30, 1973: New Gallup polls

President Rockefeller job approval
Approve: 67%
Disapprove: 25%


Questions

Q: Do you support increased American aid to Israel?
Yes: 76%
No: 14%
Undecided: 10%

Q: Do you support increased American aid for South Vietnam?
Yes: 55%
No: 24%
Undecided: 21%

Q: Do you approve or disapprove President Rockefeller's foreign policy in general?
Approve: 71%
Disapprove: 21%
Undecided: 8%

Q: Do you feel more or less safe in the world since President Rockefeller took office?
More safe: 33%
No change: 46%
Less safe: 10%
Undecided: 11%

Q: Do you approve or disapprove President Rockefeller's economic policy?
Approve: 53%
Disapprove: 24%
Undecided: 23%

Q: Do you approve or disapprove President Rockefeller's tougher drug policy?
Approve: 64%
Disapprove: 22%
Undecided: 14%
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #245 on: April 14, 2018, 05:26:07 AM »
« Edited: April 23, 2018, 02:00:48 PM by President Johnson »

December 9, 1973: OPEC decides to freeze prices, cancelling further production cuts

Originally, OPEC discussed a further five percent oil production cut. At a minister?s conference, the planned move was now officially cancelled. Nothing was confirmed publically, but reports indicated the decision was a result of direct pressure from Moscow to its Arab Allies in the aftermath of the Rockefeller-Brezhnev meeting. The Kremlin declined to comment. Secretary of State Richard Nixon in a written statement welcomed the move and reaffirmed that the United States is ready to ?discuss the Middle East at any time with anyone interested in a lasting peace agreement.?


December 13, 1973: President Rockefeller approves grain deliveries for USSR



Soon after President Rockefeller approved grain shipments to the USSR, the first ships in American harbours were already loaded

Four days after OPEC cancelled another production cut, allegedly from Leonid Brezhnev?s pressure, President Nelson Rockefeller approved large grain deliveries to the USSR. The White House declined to say whether the decision was in direct relation to the OPEC developments, but the public widely assumed so. Agriculture Secretary John Anderson commented the move would be beneficial for American farmers in the Great Plains, as the US enjoyed a large overproduction in grain. On the other hand, the Soviet Union needed additional food imports since the communist economy was struggling under the large defense budget.


December 30, 1973

New York Times: Rocky?s remarkable successful first year





As the year 1973 was coming to a close, the New York Times wrote an editorial on Nelson Rockefeller?s performance as president in his first twelve months in office. The article?s highlights summarized:

Although domestic policy was paid less attention to than anticipated after his election victory, President Rockefeller?s first year record is not free of achievement at the domestic front. First, his administration passed a bold environmental protection bill, setting up an own agency (EPA) for overseeing and coordinating federal efforts. In this area, Rocky is following into the footsteps of another Republican and former New York governor who pursued an extraordinary progressive environmental policy: Teddy Roosevelt. During his administration, President Lyndon Johnson made the environment a priority again and President Rockefeller, already engaged in this field as governor of the Empire State, now continued and expanded these efforts. Next, the Rockefeller Administration reorganized the war on poverty and federal aid to education, resulting into leaner processes, less cost and a record number of enrollments in the Head Start Program. And despite the fact that its effects remain to be seen, a historic urban development program has been enacted this summer that is designed to improve life conditions in cities and eliminate slums.

What the president should concern, though, are the rising costs of these programs. The 1973/74 federal budget is running a 14 billion dollar deficit, not included an infrastructure package and tax cuts the administration plans to implement in the months to follow. Inflation is on its way up, hitting 6% last quarter. The overall economy under Nelson Rockefeller?s presidency has done well, but underperformed expectations so far. Especially November and December 1973 growth slowed down as a result of the oil crisis. With the effects of the oil crisis still not entirely foreseeable, the government must be prepared for an economic downturn in 1974.

In foreign policy, the first year of the Rockefeller presidency was truly remarkable. Not only was the administration confronted with three major crisis abroad, of whom only Vietnam was somewhat foreseeable by last January, it also opened a new chapter in negotiations with the USSR on a SALT II treaty. That treaty, if approved after the talks finish, would certainly be an important step towards a more stable and safe world, despite the fact that conflicts in the Middle East, South East Asia, Africa and Latin America as well as other hotspots around the globe remain a source of turmoil.

But the past year proved President Rockefeller?s team is actually well prepared for these challenges: After his election, Nelson Rockefeller assembled rational and competent men around him. Richard Nixon at the State Department proved to be an effective chief-diplomat, remaining visible while carrying out the president?s policies. Additionally, it allows Mr. Nixon to shape history after his two failed White House bids in an area, he was always very interested in: Foreign policy. Mr. Kissinger reshaped the role of National Security advisor, becoming an influential advisor to his boss and even conducting important trips abroad, negotiating on America?s behalf. His previous contacts to foreign leaders are certainly an asset in his role. And despite their lack of experience in foreign policy, George Romney and William Scranton did in fact gain stature in their posts as Defense Secretary and UN Ambassador respectively. Both advised the president on key decisions and were able to translate their own ideas into action. Mr. Romney in being a voice for diplomacy and reorganizing the Pentagon and Mr. Scranton as power broker at the UN.

Other members of the Rockefeller Administration also held a high public profile such as Vice President Gerald Ford, who played an important role in administration?s efforts to pass measureable items at Capitol Hill. Additionally, he contributed with own ideas on areas he was assigned to work on. Mr. Ford?s performance shows that the role of vice president has altered since Robert Kennedy held to job in the previous term. However, the most controversial figure of this executive branch is undoubtedly Attorney General Spiro Agnew, who not just put forward a series of contentious policies, he also lambasted at lawmakers such as his favorite opponent George McGovern. But no matter whether we have to agree with Mr. Agnew?s approach or not, he?s certainly an individual who stands for his principals, ready to take any fight with politicians of contradicting ideals. The president is not likely, and would be ill advised, to abandon his former rival, giving the fact that he received strong support from law-and-order advocates. President Rockefeller is well-aware that the coalition of pragmatists, both from the liberal and conservative corners, must be glued somehow together. If he moves too far to the left or right, he could quickly get into more unfriendly territory. So far, he prevailed due to his political skills and the able team he put together. How that all turns in 1974, remains to be seen.



December 31, 1973: New polls, including the first ones for 1976!

Going into 1974, President Nelson Rockefeller's approval rating remains at a high level. A very early look into 1976 shows that he's polling well among Republicans as well, while Bobby Kennedy is still the Democrat's favorite. Without RFK, the crowd of potential contenders is without a clear favorite. Meanwhile, President Rockefeller beats all challengers in a hypothetical match-up.

President Rockefeller job approval
Approve: 65%
Disapprove: 28%


1976 Republican Party presidential nomination

President Nelson Rockefeller: 87%
Someone else/undecided: 13%



1976 Democratic Party presidential nomination

Former Vice President Robert F. Kennedy: 27%
Senator George McGovern: 13%
Governor Jimmy Carter: 10%
Senator Edmund Muskie: 10% 60
Governor Albert Brewer: 9%
Senator Scoop Jackson: 5%
Senator Lloyd Bentsen: 4%
Governor Reubin Askew: 4%
Former Secretary of State Nicholas Katzenbach: 3%
Representative Mo Udall: 3%
Governor Milton Shapp: 2%
Senator Frank Church: 2%
Senator Robert Byrd: 2%
Someone else/undecided: 6%



1976 Democratic Party presidential nomination (without Robert Kennedy)

Governor Jimmy Carter: 18%
Senator George McGovern: 17%
Governor Albert Brewer: 14%
Senator Edmund Muskie: 12%
Senator Scoop Jackson: 8%
Senator Lloyd Bentsen: 5%
Governor Reubin Askew: 5%
Former Secretary of State Nicholas Katzenbach: 3%
Representative Mo Udall: 3%
Governor Milton Shapp: 2%
Senator Frank Church: 2%
Senator Robert Byrd: 2%
Someone else/undecided: 9%



1976 hypothetical general election match-ups

Nelson Rockefeller (R, inc.): 51%
Robert F. Kennedy (D): 44%

Nelson Rockefeller (R, inc.): 54%
George McGovern (D): 38%

Nelson Rockefeller (R, inc.): 51%
Jimmy Carter (D): 42%

Nelson Rockefeller (R, inc.): 52%
Edmund Muskie (D): 41%

Nelson Rockefeller (R, inc.): 51%
Albert Brewer (D): 43%

Nelson Rockefeller (R, inc.): 51%
Scoop Jackson (D): 41%

Nelson Rockefeller (R, inc.): 52%
Lloyd Bentsen (D): 40%

Nelson Rockefeller (R, inc.): 51%
Reubin Askew (D): 42%

Nelson Rockefeller (R, inc.): 52%
Nicholas Katzenbach (D): 42%

Nelson Rockefeller (R, inc.): 53%
Mo Udall (D): 38%

Nelson Rockefeller (R, inc.): 52%
Milton Shapp (D): 39%

Nelson Rockefeller (R, inc.): 54%
Frank Church (D): 40%

Nelson Rockefeller (R, inc.): 54%
Robert Byrd (D): 38%


Late December 1973: What?s the road ahead for Bobby Kennedy?



What's Bobby Kennedy's role in the time ahead?

It?s been remarkably quiet around former Vice President Bobby Kennedy since his narrow loss to Nelson Rockefeller in the 1972 election. He rarely commented political developments and kept a low-profile in few public appearances in New York, where he stayed for the most time after leaving office in January 1973. But what?s to road ahead for RFK, who just turned 48 this November? Various sources now claim that the former vice president conducted a series of meetings with Democratic Party officials in the closing days of this year. Although his office declined for comment, speculation quickly arose he might be eying a new political involvement. Something, he didn?t rule out after stepping down from the vice presidency despite emphasizing that it was not on his immediate mind. But has that changed now? Polls indicate, that he is still very popular among the Democratic base and its liberal wing. A plurality of Democrats has him as their favorite presidential candidate; and it wouldn?t be a surprise to try again after narrowly losing the presidency (see Richard Nixon, even though he failed in 1968). Nevertheless, media observers described it as unlikely that he would challenge President Rockefeller in what is now a little less than three years.


RFK for governor?

So far, if he runs for elected office again, there are three major options: Challenging incumbent Republican Jacob Javits for the senate this coming fall election. However, that may result into a 1970 situation: Javits, one of the most liberal Republicans in Washington and a Rockefeller ally, is likely to face a challenge from New York?s Conservative Party (a split from the state?s Republican Party, whose members were unsatisfied with then-Governor Rockefeller?s policies). Kennedy and Javits might just split the liberal vote and allow a conservative to get elected as James Buckley did in 1970 when he beat incumbent liberal Republican Charles Goodell and another Democrat for RFK?s old senate seat. From that prospective, it might be more useful to run against Buckley in 1976 if he?s running as the candidate for the Republicans and the conservatives. Another option for Bobby that has been raised is a run for New York governor, challenging incumbent Republican and Rockefeller successor Malcolm Wilson, a personal friend of the president, who is running for a full term in 1974. RFK obviously enjoyed being in the executive branch as Attorney General and later vice president. So this might be more attractive for Bobby Kennedy, since he has already been in the senate. Being governor of the second largest state in the nation next to California wouldn?t be a small thing either. It would him to be a national leader in politics again and being the key policy maker as chief executive in a state of 18 million. Looking ahead to the next open election for president in 1980 ? assuming Rocky wins a second term, what is currently more likely than not ? Bobby Kennedy would have a very broad range of experience in federal and state offices, making him one of the best prepared contenders in history. Whether he wanted to run for office just two years after a close defeat was another question. Although RFK himself didn?t comment, his brother Ted, the senator from Massachusetts, said he would like to see his brother in the arena again, and former President Johnson publically remarked that Bobby?s career is ?certainly not over.?
Logged
America Needs R'hllor
Parrotguy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,423
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #246 on: April 14, 2018, 11:48:13 PM »

Great update. I do hope RFK wins the NY Governorship in 1974 and the Presidency in 1980, though I'm not sure things will go so smoothly for him Tongue
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #247 on: April 18, 2018, 02:25:41 PM »

January 21, 1974: President Nelson Rockefeller’s State of the Union Address



President Nelson Rockefeller during his first State of the Union Address on January 21, 1974

One year and one day into his presidency, President Nelson Rockefeller was about the deliver his first regular State of the Union Address to congress. Welcomed by an applauding House chamber, Speaker Carl Albert (D-OK) welcomed the president to speak to lawmakers and the nation. In his address, President Rockefeller reflected on the past year and praised both his cabinet and the congress for their cooperation. Especially Senate Majority Leader Hubert Humphrey was thanked for the role he played to get major things – such as the housing and environmental bills – done. Furthermore, the chief executive defended his Vietnam decisions in the past year and strongly urged congress to continue aid for Saigon. “I am well aware that we need more efforts to ensure South Vietnam can develop a strong economy and survive on its own, but the road ahead was never easy. But let me be honest: After all we have done in the defense of freedom, we ought not to turn our back to an ally. That would send a devastating message to world and invite other hostile powers to invade sovereign and free nations. Progress in Saigon is already measureable. Slow, but steady”, he remarked, knowing that congress gets increasingly impatient with the Thieu government.

On domestic policy, President Rockefeller mainly focused on economic issues in light of the most recent slowdown following the unsolved oil crisis. On top of his priority list was a modest tax cut for middle-class Americans and businesses, something that campaigned on in 1972 but, because of other projects, decided not to prioritize in 1973. In response to the energy crisis, the president furthermore urged congress for enactment of a bill to deregulate the energy market, a measure that is currently opposed by a lot of Democrats. The president, however, argued that deregulating the energy market would benefit the consumer through lower costs. Furthermore, Rocky asked lawmakers to approve the creation of a federal department of energy with cabinet status. This proposal is actually likely to pass because a vast number of Democrats and some Republicans expressed their support for a department to coordinate energy policy. A number of Republicans, especially from the conservative wing, aren’t favorable to the idea, citing it would create “too much bureaucracy and have little effect.”

As the 1974 State of the Union market the tenth year after President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a War on Poverty in 1964, President Nelson Rockefeller reflected on the progress that was being made. He pointed out that while some programs were a success, others were with either a mixed record or a failure. “We will fully fund and support working programs, improve those that need to do better and eliminate the ones, which proved to be ineffective, costly and bureaucratic. That’s what we’ve done in the past twelve months and what we are going to continue. This permanent improvement of all government operations need a pragmatic and realistic approach and neither a pure left or right solution. Ideology should not get in the way of sound results”, the president remarked, again underlining his pragmatic approach in governing, “I urge each and every one of you, the elected representatives of the people, to join forces in finding common-sense solutions.”

Also notable was Rocky’s call upon the states to quickly ratify the Equal Rights Amendment that congress passed in March. He also emphasized the need for additional steps to protect voting rights and promote more participation of minorities in society. “We need more women and more blacks in elected office from the city council to the congress and more of the said groups in law enforcement. Especially the black community ought to have a better representation in police departments across America”, he said. The War on Drugs was just briefly mentioned. In this context, the president again expressed his full confidence in Attorney General Agnew.


The Democratic Response



Alabama Governor Albert Brewer gave the Democratic response to President Nelson Rockefeller's 1974 State of the Union Address

In advance, the press was confident that Senator George McGovern (D-SD), who has been the Democrats’ attack dog in recent months, would give the Democratic response to President Rockefeller’s State of the Union Address, but instead Alabama Governor Albert Brewer was selected. In his rebuttal, the governor criticized the Republican proposal to deregulate the energy market. “Make no mistake about it, this is not going to lead to lower prices. Instead, greedy corporations, including Rockefeller businesses, would the beneficiaries of such a measure”, he remarked. He also found harsh words on Attorney General Agnew, who was “busier with punishing people and attacking senators rather than actual crime prevention.” In contrast to Senator McGovern, the Alabama governor made it clear that he was supportive of the War on Drugs in general, but emphasized the need to invest more in prevention programs, treatment and early education about the danger of drugs. Finally, Governor Brewer also demanded an increase of the federal minimum wage and urged to increase federal aid to education.

Governor Brewer’s seat is up for election this coming fall and he is not eligible to run for a third – or second full – term. Instead, there are strong signs out from Alabama that he is going to run for the senate by challenging incumbent John B. Allen in the Democratic primary. His selection was seen as a victory of the liberal wing, now in charge of the Democratic Party, since it gave the liberal Brewer a national stage. Additionally, Mr. Brewer is also considered a potential presidential candidate for 1976 or beyond.  


January 27, 1974: Ronald Reagan declines to run for a third term as California governor in interview

Almost a year before his second gubernatorial term expires, Ronald Reagan sat down with Walter Cronkite for an interview. He talked about his political and personal future and reflected on President Rockefeller’s performance in office during the past twelve months. Just that morning, the leader of the conservative Republican wing issued a written statement in which he declined to seek a third term as governor this fall. In his conversation with CBS frontman Walter Cronkite, the Gipper explained his decision.




WALTER CRONKITE: Hello, and thank you very much for having me, governor.

GOVERNOR REAGAN: Thank you, Walter, always good to see you. My pleasure.

WALTER CRONKITE: Governor Reagan, we have just entered another midterm election year. How do you assess the situation of your party, the Republicans, going into this year, both at the national level as well in California?

GOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, Walter, although it is still early in the year, I think the party has a real chance to perform well. Whether that results into additional governorships or a power shift in congress has to be seen. It mainly depends on developments in the coming months. We are certainly in a strong position, despite the fact that were are going into a midterm with a Republican president. If President Rockefeller can keep his approval rating at a net positive level, I think that combined with strong GOP candidates could give our party a fairly good performance. Especially when we consider that the other party has nothing to offer except for high taxes, more regulation, bureaucracy and a weak foreign policy.

WALTER CRONKITE: You already mentioned President Rockefeller. How to do you think the president has done over the past twelve months?

GOVERNOR REAGAN: I believe the president has done very well at the world stage by providing strong American leadership in Vietnam, Chile and the Middle East. The administration has made it abundantly clear, that freedom is not for sale and that America will defend its allies and its core values: Democracy, freedom and free enterprise. The actions by our government sent a strong signal to communist capitals around the world. Something, if you ask me, we would not have under a Kennedy Administration. At home, President Rockefeller and Attorney General Spiro Agnew have shown bold action on law and order and the drug epidemic. For sure, there also things that I disagree with, at least with the approach to fix certain problems, such as the environmental law. But we will see how that turns out. I don’t want to go down a long list of issues now where I agree or disagree with the president. My problem with the federal government is that the Democrats are in charge of congress and continue to pursue these high spend and high tax policies. Overall, I believe the Rockefeller Administration had a successful first year and I am optimistic about the next year. I sincerely hope the president is able to get these tax cuts he talked about as well as energy market deregulation. Both things should have priority and I will do everything I can to help with these causes. At least from the outside.

WALTER CRONKITE: Coming back to foreign affairs, over the course of the 1972 Republican primaries, you have been critical of certain elements of the Rockefeller/Nixon/Kissinger foreign policy. Has that changed or why have you been relatively quiet on that issue over the past months?

GOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, I haven’t been silent on world affairs at all. I praised the Rockefeller Administration on various occasions and I was also put in charge for a mission to South Vietnam that resulted into the passage of an aid program. But you are right, Walter, that I expressed my doubts on the policy of détente and parts of Latin America policy the president has proposed. But I don’t want to judge them right now, we have to see what the final agreement – if there is one – contains. I was never categorially against these talks, but think Moscow has done way too little to prove their seriousness. For example, they should have intervened with diplomacy in the Middle East much earlier than they did. The same in Vietnam and Africa. I sincerely hope the Rockefeller Administration can get something good out of it.

WALTER CRONKITE: Is there any bitterness that you were not named Secretary of State? Do you believe you could do a better job than Richard Nixon?

GOVERNOR REAGAN: No, there is no bitterness. I never anticipated to be asked whether I would like to take the position after, in the summer of ‘72, making clear that I am not available for either the vice presidency or another cabinet position. During the transition, I played a role in the process – at Mr. Rockefeller’s request – and consulted with him several times. He asked me about any involvement in foreign policy, but I told him that my focus was on California. However, I told him that I was available for any advice or other duties he wanted me to perform on an informal basis. When it comes to Mr. Nixon, I think he has been a loyal servant to his country and his president and represents America with great compassion.

WALTER CRONKITE: Mr. Reagan, you issued a public statement this morning that you won’t seek a third term as governor. Why don’t you run for your position again, despite the California Republican Party encouraged you to do so? And what do you leave behind in Sacramento?

GOVERNOR REAGAN: Well, Walter, as you said I am not a candidate for a third term as governor. I have been leading this awesome state for eight years, but by the end of this term and believe it is time for new leaders to take over the Golden State. I long though about this and spoke with Nancy until we ultimately decided it was time to go. I am proud of my record in Sacramento. Among other things, we turned a deficit into a surplus, created millions of new jobs, rolled back regulation and made the government more efficient. I believe we are going to find a Republican to build on this and keep California with its strong economy that special place it ought to be.

WALTER CRONKITE: Well, that means you are going to be out of office by January next year. What are your plans beyond that date? Republicans, including confidants of President Rockefeller, raised the possibility of a challenge to Senator Cranston in this year’s senate election. Are you considering?

GOVERNOR REAGAN: Obviously, leaving the governor’s chair means I will be unemployed in January 1975. [laughs] I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing, Walter. I mean, there are many members of congress who are staying in office forever and have never done something different in their life. I believe we need more exchanges in public office. When it comes to this 1974 midterm elections, I have no intention to run for any office, and if I had done, it would have been for governor. Instead, I shall be focused on getting Republican candidates elected to federal, state and local posts. And I shall continue to be available for my party for any duty they want me to perform. After departing from Sacramento, I will continue to speak out for the causes I believe in. You won’t miss me.

WALTER CRONKITE: Does that mean you consider another presidential run in 1976 or later?

GOVERNOR REAGAN: [laughs] I knew you were going to ask that question. It is not on my mind for now. We have a Republican president who has just been inaugurated a year ago.

WALTER CRONKITE: So, you’re ruling it out?

GOVERNOR REAGAN: I don’t see a scenario that has me running the next time. Do I rule out ever running for elected office, including the presidency, again? No, although I do not have any plans in the near future.

WALTER CRONKITE: All right. So, maybe we are going to see President Reagan in 1980. Thank you very much for your time, governor.

GOVERNOR REAGAN: Thank you, Walter, and have a great day.
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #248 on: April 21, 2018, 04:23:53 AM »
« Edited: April 21, 2018, 04:41:22 AM by President Johnson »

January 30, 1974: Center-right parties win in Chilean elections



Rodmiro Tomic, a member of the Christian Democratc Party, has been elected president of Chile

The results of the Chilean election were now official: The pro-western Christian Democrats officially won a sound victory. The new president will be Radomiro Tomic, who already ran against Salvador Allende in 1970. Tomic belongs to the progressive wing of his party. While a defender of national sovereignty, he emphasized to normalize relations with the US. Meanwhile, the socialist opposition largely boycotted the election after Salvador Allende urged his supporters to do so. The ousted president in Cuban exile described the election as “illegitimate” and accused the US government of a coup. However, the expected riots by the socialist supporters were much smaller than expected. Ahead of President Rockefeller’s Latin America speech, scheduled for March 1, the election outcome sends a sign for improvements of US-Latin America relations. After the election, Henry Kissinger, who played a major role in the settlement of last year’s crisis, stated that the Rockefeller Administration was ready to grant aide to Chile for economic development.

The most surprising move was that the USSR recognized the election outcome. On February 5, Red China did likewise. Cuba, of course, didn't, demanded a return of Salvador Allende and spoke of a US coup.


January 31, 1974: New Gallup polls

President Rockefeller job approval
Approve: 62%
Disapprove: 32%


February 3, 1974: President Rockefeller signs far-reaching Jobs Training Act into law



With the support of the Rockefeller Administration, congress enacted a Jobs Training Bill to train workers and provide them with jobs in public service. The bill was introduced by Senators Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) and Jacob Javits (R-NY) in January. The program was mainly designed to benefit long-time unemployed Americans in general and specifically women. The latter was recommended by President Rockefeller’s Council on Women’s Equality, that he created under an Executive Order from December 1973 and of which First Lady Happy Rockefeller also plays a role. At the signing ceremony, President Rockefeller and Senator Javits announced the upcoming introduction of another jobs training bill for the private sector.


February 14-17, 1974: George McGovern and Edmund Muskie filibuster Energy bill



Senators McGovern (l) and Muskie vehemently oppose an energy deregulation bill that the Rockefeller Administration wants to pass. Both filibustered the measure in the senate

In his State of the Union message, President Rockefeller renewed his call for legislation to deregulate the energy market in an effort to lower consumer prices. However, a vast majority of Democrats were opposed to such a move, arguing it would only benefit large corporations. A comprehensive bill sponsored by Senators John Tower (R-TX) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC) that includes both a market deregulation and the creation of an energy deportment, what most Democrats support, fell victim to a filibuster lead by Senators George McGovern (D-SD) and Edmund Muskie (D-ME). “This bill is nothing but a gift to President Rockefeller’s wealthy buddies and has nothing to do with consumer rights”, said McGovern at the Senate floor, “it seeks to enrich those who don’t need it. Instead, the administration and various members of the Republican caucus try getting us to vote for it by including a provision to establish an energy department. The latter is nothing but a bait. If it’s sincere, Mr. President, introduce a separate bill!”


Both Vice President Ford and Attorney General Agnew attacked McGovern and Muskie for their filibuster. Agnew again had very tough words on McGovern: "We're coming after your seat"

On the administration’s behalf, Vice President Gerald Ford first took aim at the two senators and accused them of ideological obstructionism. That came as a surprise, since Ford usually prefers to stay calm. Even though energy policy is not within his range of responsibilities, Attorney General Spiro Agnew lashed out against McGovern in particular and Muskie as well. During a Republican fundraiser for the midterm-elections, he slammed the South Dakota senator as “a goddamn fool, who represents a very tiny ultra-liberal elite.” He further called on the people of South Dakota to vote McGovern out this year. “Senator McGovern, we’re coming after your seat”, Agnew further remarked.  

Ultimately, Majority Leader Hubert Humphrey told the president that he may have the votes to end the filibuster, but not enough support to pass the bill in its current form since even Southern Democrats said they couldn’t support the measure. The White formally declined to comment, but a Rockefeller spokesman told the press that negotiations would go on. “The president wants this to be done during this session”, he said.


February 28, 1974: New Gallup polls

Although still in the lower 60s, President Nelson Rockefeller has lost some support over the past few months since economic growth was still very weak as a result of the oil crisis. Meanwhile, Hallup published the first polls for the 1974 election season. Republicans on the genric ballot benefit from the president's robust approval rating, giving them a small lead when voters were asked which party's candidate they would vote for. A small number of potential senate and gubernatorial elections were also conducted: Alabama Governor Albert Brewer, who is reportedly about to announce a senate bid, leads incumbent senator James B. Allen among Democratic primary voters (the Democratic candidate is expected to win the general election handily). In New York, where speculations is going on that former vice president Bobby Kennedy runs, incumbent Republican Malcolm Wilson would face a tough reelection battle against RFK. California shows a mixed picture: It's a possible pick-up after Governor Ronald Reagan announced his retirement from office.

President Rockefeller job approval
Approve: 61%
Disapprove: 32%


1974 congressional elections – generic ballot

Republican: 45%
Democratic: 43%


Potential senate and governor's races

Alabama Senate Democratic Primary
Albert Brewer: 49% (undeclared)
James B. Allen (inc.): 41%


California gubernatorial election
Generic Democrat: 45%
Generic Republican: 45%

Ronald Reagan (R, inc.): 50% (declined to run)
Democratic candidate: 42%

New York gubernatorial election
Robert F. Kennedy (D): 50% (undeclared)
Malcolm Wilson (R, inc.): 44%

Malcolm Wilson (R, inc.): 46%
Democratic candidate: 43%
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #249 on: April 22, 2018, 04:39:09 AM »

March 1, 1974: President Rockefeller’s grand speech on Latin America: A second Good Neighbor Policy



President Rockefeller during one of his most important - if not the most important - foreign policy speech of his presidency

President Nelson Rockefeller finally delivered his long awaited foreign policy speech on Latin America at the University of New York. In his address, the president introduced his impulses for new Latin America policy, a region he has been interested since his early days in public service. “It is time that America opens a new chapter in our relation with Latin and South America. This new chapter must again have A Good Neighbor Policy as its headline. But it must remain more than a pure headline. We must develop relations on various levels and areas that both sides benefit from … We must focus on both things where we have broad consensus, but also address differences honestly”, President Rockefeller told the world. During his remarks, the 37th US president presented the following points to strengthen relations:

- Free Trade agreements with various counties in the Western hemisphere to promote growth and prosperity at home and abroad
- American Aid to countries seeking to establish more democracy on open their doors for American businesses
- Various programs to promote intercultural exchange. The president mentioned a volunteer program for students to take a half year off and go to Latin America for work, study or charity. He also spoke of a program to allow more foreign students to come to the US.
- The start of negotiations with Panama to turn over the Panama Canal. An exact date for the start was not given, but “my friend Dick Nixon is engaged in talks”, Rocky added.

The only country that President Rockefeller frequently excluded was Cuba. “The United States won’t change its policies towards a hostile, non-free communist regime”, he said, but also added: “Our doors are open for those refugees that flee Castro’s regime.”

At the end of his speech, President Rockefeller reassured the world and other US allies that this new policy is not to their disadvantage. “America will meet all its commitments around the world and stands ready to defend freedom, democracy and free enterprise. America under my leadership seeks to be engaged around the world. And stands ready to be any free nation’s friend. I am and will always remain a deep believer in a strong transatlantic and transpacific partnership.”


Reactions: Bipartisan praise, but also critical voices from both liberals and conservatives


Both Senators Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) and Majority Leader Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) criticized certain elements of President Rockefeller's new Latin America policy from the right and the left, respectively.

In congress and among other leading politicians, the president received a lot of praise. “It is very important that we’re engaged in the region”, Speaker Carl Albert (D-OK) said. And Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott (R-PA) added that “if implemented rightfully, we can make sure that Chile and Cuba aren’t repeated and we don’t see future takeovers by communists in Latin and South America”.

Nevertheless, there was also critique from both parties. Conservative Republicans such as Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) and James Buckley (Con-NY) expressed their opposition to turn over the Panama Canal. Governor Ronald Reagan in a statement remarked that he would strongly favor free trade agreements, but called the Canal issue “a giveaway.” On the other hand, a decent number of Democrats close to labor unions were very skeptical of free trade agreements the president pushes for. Senate Majority Leader Hubert Humphrey told the press: “While I am supportive of several points the president introduced, including the canal, I have deep reservations about free trade treaties. I believe that this may be harmful for our workers, especially the Mid-West where I’m coming from. Unless I am convinced otherwise, I won’t vote for a free trade agreement in the senate and urge my colleagues to do likewise.”


Washington Post: This is the Rockefeller Doctrine

“After nearly 14 months in office, we can look at the record as well as the proposals of this administration and determine, what the so-called Rockefeller Doctrine is”, the Washington Post opened an Editorial from March 2. Summarized the Post described the Rockefeller Doctrine as follows: “It seeks to promote freedom, democracy and free enterprise through cooperation on various field. Military solutions on the table if necessary. Where not possible, détente begun under the Johnson Administration seeks to ease tension around the world and reduce the risk of a third world war. Today, we can say that the world is far more safe than ten years ago as a result of these policies ... Overall, Nelson Rockefeller’s America seeks to bring countries closer to our land on many levels, with the destination to prevent extremist powers to take over certain nations. In South Vietnam, the Rockefeller Administration stood up to communist aggression, while it rejected both a socialist as well as fascist regime to take over … And while it remains to be seen how far and successful the Good Neighbor policy will be, the Middle East remains the largest source of turmoil.”


March 15/16, 1974: Secretary of State Richard Nixon visits Egypt to ease tensions in the Middle East



Secretary of State Richard Nixon on a peace mission in Egypt: He talked to President Anwar Sadat was invited to visit the pyramids. During his trip, Nixon sought to ease tensions in the region

Announced only days in advance, Secretary of State Richard Nixon headed off for a visit in Egypt. This move came as surprise to many, including political insiders. Nevertheless, the administration tried to keep expectations low rather than high. “The purpose of this visit is to talks about about the situation in the Middle East. We recognize that this region and its conflicts pose a great threat to world peace”, Nixon remarked before going on board his plane.

During his visit, Nixon was granted to have private discussions with the entire leadership including President Anwar Sadat. He was also invited to visit the pyramids and Cairo. The talks lasted for almost two days. At the end, both sides emphasized their willingness to contribute to a lasting peace agreement. Upon his arrival back in Washington, Secretary Nixon testified before the Senate foreign relations committee and announced that negotiations over “unsettled questions in and around Israel” will soon begin. Both members of the senate and press praised Nixon afterwards for his engagement in the region. Just on March 18, President Rockefeller departed Washington for a visit to Jerusalem, to get Israel on board for the upcoming talks.


March 18-20, 1974: President Rockefeller gets Israel to join Middle East peace talks



President Rockefeller answers questions from a reporter before going on board Air Force One for Israel

Just after Richard Nixon returned from Egypt, President Rockefeller, joined by Defense Secretary George Romney and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, flew to Israel, where he stayed for two days. He visited various places including a university and American military base before undergoing intense talks with the government. At the conclusion of the consultations, he and Prime Minister Golda Meir gave a joint statement that Israel was ready to participate in the negotiations with Egypt for a broader peace solution in the region. However, both sides tried to set expectations not too high. "This is going to be a very tough process", President Rockefeller said. But despite all skepticism, the fact that the regional powers agreed to talks was considered a great success just months after the Yom-Kippur-War.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 35  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 1.029 seconds with 12 queries.