Was JFK going to drop LBJ from the 64 Ticket ?

[John Iacoletti]

The oath of the office for the President of the United States is included in Article Two of the U. S. Constitution. It is inconceivable that the President, and his advisors would not carry copies of the Constitution with them wherever they may go. Some coincidence indeed.

Then why did LBJ call Bobby to get the oath?  Just to rub it in?

[Jack Trojan]

The oath of the office for the President of the United States is included in Article Two of the U. S. Constitution. It is inconceivable that the President, and his advisors would not carry copies of the Constitution with them wherever they may go. Some coincidence indeed.

Give me a break, no one carried around the oath of office with them back in 63. When Sarah Hughes said to LBJ, "Sorry but I don't have the Oath of Office on me.", he handed her his copy and turned to the small crowd aboard AF1 and said jokingly, "If any of you speak of this, I'll deny it.",  then he turned to his long-time friend, Texas congressman Albert Thomas and smiled, and Thomas returned a wink.

And if LBJ's 1st thought after the assassination was that it might have been a commie plot, then why didn't he have the nuclear football with him on AF1? Ans: because he knew the rooskies had nothing to do with it.

[Richard Smith]

Questions:

Does Robert Caro explain why Kennedy is campaigning in Texas in November in 1963 while he is planning to undo this work by dropping Johnson from the ticket?

Does Robert Caro even address this issue?

Does Robert Caro explicitly state that as of November 1963, JFK was still planning on dropping LBJ?




Regardless of how eminent a historian Robert Caro is, I can?t buy his arguments if he does not address this issue.



If JFK was considering dropping LBJ from the ticket, he must have decided not to by the time of the November 1963 trip to Texas.


Presidential candidates campaign in states that are important, that can go either way. They like to campaign in larger states, but what is even more important, they chose states that can go either way. That is why candidates largely avoid campaigning in California or Texas today, because, in all but a landslide election, California will vote Democratic and Texas Republican.

Candidates who campaign in states don?t do stuff that will alienate that state. A candidate won?t campaign in Texas if he is planning on dropping a Texan as his running mate. A candidate won?t campaign in Texas if he is planning, let?s say, not installing the NASA headquarters in Texas but in some other state. If either of these actions are necessary, he needs to write off Texas and campaign in a different state that may go either way.

Before I read Caro's "Passage of Power," I would have agreed there was little or no chance that JFK would drop LBJ.  But Caro makes a decent case.  He notes that by 1963 LBJ had lost most of his political influence from his Senate days, was not well liked in the South due to his promotion of Civil Rights, and had legal trouble.  He was also hated by RFK.  It would have been a big gamble to dump him which is not in character for JFK, but there were some good reasons to do so.  Of course no one will ever know though.  I highly recommend "Passage of Power" to anyone interested in the topic.  A great book.

[Joe Elliott]

Give me a break, no one carried around the oath of office with them back in 63. When Sarah Hughes said to LBJ, "Sorry but I don't have the Oath of Office on me.", he handed her his copy and turned to the small crowd aboard AF1 and said jokingly, "If any of you speak of this, I'll deny it.",  then he turned to his long-time friend, Texas congressman Albert Thomas and smiled, and Thomas returned a wink.

Are you claiming we can?t expect the advisors to the President to always have a copy of the Constitution with them?



There are two statements you could have chosen to make:

Statement 1:

How come when LBJ asked Judge Sarah T. Hughes to administer the oath of office on Air Force One, he happened to have a copy of the oath on hand? Imagine that.

Statement 2:

How come when LBJ asked Judge Sarah T. Hughes to administer the oath of office on Air Force One, he happened to have a copy of the Constitution which contained the oath on hand? Imagine that.

It is clear that Statement 1 is much more effective than Statement 2, which contains more information. From Statement 1, a reader could conclude that this was very suspicious. From Statement 2, such suspicions would not take hold so readily.

Why do CTers spend so much time thinking about what information to reveal and what to conceal, to make the strongest possible point? Is this the tactic of the side with the truth on their side?

And if LBJ's 1st thought after the assassination was that it might have been a commie plot, then why didn't he have the nuclear football with him on AF1? Ans: because he knew the rooskies had nothing to do with it.

I can?t believe the aids who carried the nuclear football would have not accompanied the new President on the afternoon of the assassination as he flew back to Washington D. C.

Question:

Do you have any reference to this claim that President Kennedy did have this but the new President Johnson did not? Can you back this claim up?

[Joe Elliott]

Before I read Caro's "Passage of Power," I would have agreed there was little or no chance that JFK would drop LBJ.  But Caro makes a decent case.  He notes that by 1963 LBJ had lost most of his political influence from his Senate days, was not well liked in the South due to his promotion of Civil Rights, and had legal trouble.  He was also hated by RFK.  It would have been a big gamble to dump him which is not in character for JFK, but there were some good reasons to do so.  Of course no one will ever know though.  I highly recommend "Passage of Power" to anyone interested in the topic.  A great book.

There are a lot of books I could read. Could you provide, in a nutshell, the arguments Caro used to explain why JFK was campaigning in Texas while he was planning on dropping LBJ? Wouldn?t campaigning in a state he wasn?t about to do something negative to be more productive?

Can you provide a Chapter and page reference?

Since different versions of a book may come with different page numbers, something like ?Chapter 4?, which runs from pages 129 through 157, on page 154 contains this . . .? would be helpful.



If Caro failed to address this issue, it would cause me to suspect his judgment. Even if he is right. A good historian should anticipate and deal with any obvious flaws with his theory.

[John Iacoletti]

Are you claiming we can?t expect the advisors to the President to always have a copy of the Constitution with them?

Since when do government officials care what the Constitution says?

Why do CTers spend so much time thinking about what information to reveal and what to conceal, to make the strongest possible point? Is this the tactic of the side with the truth on their side?

If you mean LNers, then yes, this is absolutely the tactic that they use.

[John Iacoletti]

There are a lot of books I could read. Could you provide, in a nutshell, the arguments Caro used to explain why JFK was campaigning in Texas while he was planning on dropping LBJ? Wouldn?t campaigning in a state he wasn?t about to do something negative to be more productive?

There was a schism in Texas between the conservative "Connally" Democrats and the liberal "Yarborough" Democrats.  He was hoping to help unify them so that they wouldn't split the vote.