Discussion:
1968: Billy Graham elected POTUS
Add Reply
john0714
2011-05-19 01:33:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I was talking to a preacher friend of mine today about various
scandals polticians have gotten into.
He asked me who would make a better POTUS, one of those politicians or
Billy Graham in his prime? I said Billy Graham. He disagreed claiming
one of those politicians, due to experience and soforth, woul make a
better POTUS.

So let me ask you, considering Watergate and all that, how good or bad
would it have been if Billy Graham were elected POTUS in 1968 instead
of Nixon, and why?
The Old Man
2011-05-19 11:27:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john0714
I was talking to a preacher friend of mine today about various
scandals polticians have gotten into.
He asked me who would make a better POTUS, one of those politicians or
Billy Graham in his prime? I said Billy Graham. He disagreed claiming
one of those politicians, due to experience and soforth, woul make a
better POTUS.
So let me ask you, considering Watergate and all that, how good or bad
would it have been if Billy Graham were elected POTUS in 1968 instead
of Nixon, and why?
I tend to agree with your preacher. It takes a certain mindset to be a
successful politican. Look at some of the presidents that we've had.
Carter was and is a very good man and a fine Christian, but he was a
terrible president. I wouldn't walk across the street to shake
Clinton's hand, and yet, his presidency was very successful. As a
president, Nixon was the one; too bad he was so damned paranoid.

Regards,
John Braungart
Stan Boleslawski
2011-05-21 21:56:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john0714
I was talking to a preacher friend of mine today about various
scandals polticians have gotten into.
He asked me who would make a better POTUS, one of those politicians or
Billy Graham in his prime? I said Billy Graham. He disagreed claiming
one of those politicians, due to experience and soforth, woul make a
better POTUS.
So let me ask you, considering Watergate and all that, how good or bad
would it have been if Billy Graham were elected POTUS in 1968 instead
of Nixon, and why?
You do know that Billy Graham is a Democrat, although
he supported Nixon and was very close to Nixon.

There was no room for a Dem candidate to challenge
Humphrey from the right, mainly due to Wallace's
independent campaign siphoning away some
conservative Southern Democrats. And given
Graham's support of the civil rights movement and
being a friend of MLK, there's no way in hell he'd
be on a ticket with Wallace. While Curtis LeMay
didn't share Wallace's opposition to civil rights,
he was not associated with support for the civil
rights movement like Graham was. Graham
would flat out refuse any offer from Wallace to
be on the ticket.

So Graham as a presidential candidate in '68
is a non-starter.

ObWI: Graham runs for US Senate in NC
as the Dem candidate against Jesse Helms in
1972 to replace retiring Senator B. Everett
Jordan (one of the few examples of an
anti-Vietnam War Dixiecrat).

Best
Stan B.
The Horny Goat
2011-05-22 10:10:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 21 May 2011 14:56:08 -0700 (PDT), Stan Boleslawski
Post by Stan Boleslawski
Post by john0714
I was talking to a preacher friend of mine today about various
scandals polticians have gotten into.
He asked me who would make a better POTUS, one of those politicians or
Billy Graham in his prime? I said Billy Graham. He disagreed claiming
one of those politicians, due to experience and soforth, woul make a
better POTUS.
So let me ask you, considering Watergate and all that, how good or bad
would it have been if Billy Graham were elected POTUS in 1968 instead
of Nixon, and why?
You do know that Billy Graham is a Democrat, although
he supported Nixon and was very close to Nixon.
Is this based on anything specific like being from North Carolina or a
good personal friend of Jimmy Carter?
Stan Boleslawski
2011-05-23 04:27:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 21 May 2011 14:56:08 -0700 (PDT), Stan Boleslawski
Post by Stan Boleslawski
You do know that Billy Graham is a Democrat, although
he supported Nixon and was very close to Nixon.
Is this based on anything specific like being from North Carolina or a
good personal friend of Jimmy Carter?
Graham himself: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/8326362

While Graham in politics is ASB, the idea of a Dem
candidate in 1968 running against Humphrey from the
right (and getting a substantial number of votes) is
an interesting one. George Smathers and Roger
Branigan were to the right of Humphrey, but both
ran as Humphrey proxies (and the campaign of
Branigan was unsuccessful, as he lost his own
state, Indiana, to Bobby Kennedy).

The obvious POD is Wallace not deciding to run as an
independent, or at least only going independent after
running for the Dem nomination- in which case Wallace
would be the most likely right wing challenger to
Humphrey. If Wallace decides to run for the Dem
nomination in '68 first, before going independent,
will he get backing from those Southern conservative
Democrats who backed Humphrey in '68 (there
were quite a few)?

Best
Stan B.
The Horny Goat
2011-05-23 20:20:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 22 May 2011 21:27:02 -0700 (PDT), Stan Boleslawski
Post by Stan Boleslawski
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 21 May 2011 14:56:08 -0700 (PDT), Stan Boleslawski
Post by Stan Boleslawski
You do know that Billy Graham is a Democrat, although
he supported Nixon and was very close to Nixon.
Is this based on anything specific like being from North Carolina or a
good personal friend of Jimmy Carter?
Graham himself: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/8326362
Thank you for the reference - though I will point out in passing that
in my opinion that a Democrat who will say "Locally, I'll vote one way
and nationally, maybe another." is not my idea of a hard core
Democrat. One might reasonably speculate whether such a person had
voted Democrat his whole life.

As opposed to someone like Molly Ivins (she's the one that said that
Pat Buchanan's speeches sounded better in the original German)...
Post by Stan Boleslawski
While Graham in politics is ASB, the idea of a Dem
candidate in 1968 running against Humphrey from the
right (and getting a substantial number of votes) is
an interesting one. George Smathers and Roger
Branigan were to the right of Humphrey, but both
ran as Humphrey proxies (and the campaign of
Branigan was unsuccessful, as he lost his own
state, Indiana, to Bobby Kennedy).
At one point there was discussion of Mark Hatfield going to the
Democrats and he certainly would have been quite acceptable to
evangelicals such as Graham and his ilk. Certainly he was probably the
candidate most acceptable to evangelicals before Carter.

Not sure whether he would have been a credible candidate for president
in 1968 - he only entered the Senate in 1967 and probably would have
been more credible as former Governor of Oregon. Later on for sure but
in 1968?
Stan Boleslawski
2011-05-24 03:06:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 22 May 2011 21:27:02 -0700 (PDT), Stan Boleslawski
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 21 May 2011 14:56:08 -0700 (PDT), Stan Boleslawski
Post by Stan Boleslawski
You do know that Billy Graham is a Democrat, although
he supported Nixon and was very close to Nixon.
Is this based on anything specific like being from North Carolina or a
good personal friend of Jimmy Carter?
Graham himself:http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/8326362
Thank you for the reference - though I will point out in passing that
in my opinion that a Democrat who will say "Locally, I'll vote one way
and nationally, maybe another." is not my idea of a hard core
Democrat. One might reasonably speculate whether such a person had
voted Democrat his whole life.
He didn't vote Democratic in the 1960, 1968 or 1972
presidential elections.
Post by The Horny Goat
As opposed to someone like Molly Ivins (she's the one that said that
Pat Buchanan's speeches sounded better in the original German)...
While Graham in politics is ASB, the idea of a Dem
candidate in 1968 running against Humphrey from the
right (and getting a substantial number of votes) is
an interesting one. George Smathers and Roger
Branigan were to the right of Humphrey, but both
ran as Humphrey proxies (and the campaign of
Branigan was unsuccessful, as he lost his own
state, Indiana, to Bobby Kennedy).
At one point there was discussion of Mark Hatfield going to the
Democrats and he certainly would have been quite acceptable to
evangelicals such as Graham and his ilk. Certainly he was probably the
candidate most acceptable to evangelicals before Carter.
When?
The GOP establishment on Oregon didn't
support his run in the primaries for governor
in 1958 - however, considering the attacks
on Hatfield from Wayne Morse, his major
political enemy, I don't see him switching
parties as of that early.

Hatfield as governor could have easily been
a Democrat - he shared the same moderate,
infrastructure oriented view of developing his
state that the Dem governors of his neighboring
states, Brown and Rossellini, had. (This
emphasis on infrastructure and development
even crossed borders - e.g. Bennett as BC
premier.) As a US Senator he became more
of a fiscal conservative, and self-described
as a "Taft Republican" - don't know if there'd
be a place for him in the Democratic Party.
Especially considering that Wayne Morse was
as close to an arch-enemy as Hatfield had,
so he wouldn't get an endorsement from
the grand old man of the Oregon Democratic
Party.

In any case, he'd be out of the running for
'68. And even if he somehow manages
to switch before that year, would he
take any votes away from Humphrey?

The problem with a candidate running from
the right against Humphrey on a fiscal
conservative platform is that said types
of Dems generally supported Humphrey
in the first place, e.g. Branigin. Now if
there was some way that Branigin could
break ties with the Johnson Administration
such that he'd turn against Humphrey and
make a serious run of his own, that might
accomplish the desired POD. Unlike
Hatfield, Branigin had a long history in the
Democratic Party, dating from the end of
his service in the JAG during WW2.
However, without the direct ties to LBJ
and Humphrey, is it possible Branigin
could do even worse than OTL? Hard
to think of a POD in which he wins his
own state. Especially because he'll have
alienated party hierarchy and unions by
breaking with the Great Society.
Branigin on social issues wasn't that
different from Hatfield ; could he get
the support of evangelicals, also?

This makes me think: if we're going to
have a fiscal conservative challenger to
Humphrey, is there any way William
Proxmire would run? His combination
of fiscal conservatism and social
liberalism could take votes away from
Gene McCarthy as well as Humphrey.

As for social conservatives, I really don't see
Smathers breaking with Humphrey.

Any way to get Wallace to run in the
'68 primary?
Post by The Horny Goat
Not sure whether he would have been a credible candidate for president
in 1968 - he only entered the Senate in 1967 and probably would have
been more credible as former Governor of Oregon. Later on for sure but
in 1968?
In '68, Graham did urge Nixon to pick Hatfield
as VP, although Nixon ignored Graham's advice.

Best
Stan B.
john0714
2011-05-23 08:10:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stan Boleslawski
Post by john0714
I was talking to a preacher friend of mine today about various
scandals polticians have gotten into.
He asked me who would make a better POTUS, one of those politicians or
Billy Graham in his prime? I said Billy Graham. He disagreed claiming
one of those politicians, due to experience and soforth, woul make a
better POTUS.
So let me ask you, considering Watergate and all that, how good or bad
would it have been if Billy Graham were elected POTUS in 1968 instead
of Nixon, and why?
You do know that Billy Graham is a Democrat, although
he supported Nixon and was very close to Nixon.
There was no room for a Dem candidate to challenge
Humphrey from the right, mainly due to Wallace's
independent campaign siphoning away some
conservative Southern Democrats. And given
Graham's support of the civil rights movement and
being a friend of MLK, there's no way in hell he'd
be on a ticket with Wallace. While Curtis LeMay
didn't share Wallace's opposition to civil rights,
he was not associated with support for the civil
rights movement like Graham was. Graham
would flat out refuse any offer from Wallace to
be on the ticket.
So Graham as a presidential candidate in '68
is a non-starter.
ObWI: Graham runs for US Senate in NC
as the Dem candidate against Jesse Helms in
1972 to replace retiring Senator B. Everett
Jordan (one of the few examples of an
anti-Vietnam War Dixiecrat).
Best
Stan B.
I did not say how, I said what if.
MummyChunk
2025-03-03 18:22:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by john0714
I was talking to a preacher friend of mine today about various
scandals polticians have gotten into.
He asked me who would make a better POTUS, one of those politicians or
Billy Graham in his prime? I said Billy Graham. He disagreed claiming
one of those politicians, due to experience and soforth, woul make a
better POTUS.
So let me ask you, considering Watergate and all that, how good or bad
would it have been if Billy Graham were elected POTUS in 1968 instead
of Nixon, and why?
Not sure about 1968 but we could probably use someone like Billy Graham as POTUS right about now.


This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=98439064#98439064

Loading...