the 1960 illinois election "fix" - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

t walgamuth · #1 04-14-2007, 11:19 PM

I am reading Mike Royko's book "Boss". Royko was a long time columnist for the Chicago Trib. This book was published in 1971.

Regarding the 1960 election, at the time that Kennedy and Nixon were contesting for the presidency, Richard Daley the elder was up to his knees in a sticky situation in Illinois from a State DA (or Attorney General, I am not sure which title applies)....Adamowski. .. A former Daley friend who switched parties and was investigating a lot of folks too close to Daley for his comfort.

When the election for president turned out to be decided by only (I think) about 10K votes in Illinois, the National Republican party instigated a recount.

Daley's machine controlled the pace of the recount and made sure it progressed slowly. As it unfolded, there was found plenty of evidence of voter fraud in the Adamowski race but nothing much in the Kennedy Nixon race. Since the recount was paid for by the party requesting it, the National Republican party decided to drop it.

Adamowski did not have the funds to keep it alive so it died.

I personally like this scenario since it supports my theory that Nixon didn't abandon the recount for the good of the country at all. It just wasn't going his way.

As the story progresses I will add detail if it is of interest.

Tom W.

MS Fowler · #2 04-15-2007, 06:08 AM

What an interesting way to write history. You simply pick the version that agrees with your own preconcieved notions.
Truth is set aside.

t walgamuth · #3 04-15-2007, 08:01 AM

if you think royko liked daley you would be wrong.

so you have alternative facts?

tom w

Botnst · #4 04-15-2007, 02:45 PM

I mourned Mike Royko's death. He was a fine writer of the Mencken tradition. The planet would be better for many more men like him.

Was Royko correct? That depends on who you would have preferred win the election.

The Illinois Kennedy V Nixon, like the Florida Bush V Gore, will be remembered a certain way depending on which side one prefers. A moment of reflection will reveal the truth of that.

B

t walgamuth · #5 04-15-2007, 02:47 PM

BTW

imo daley and nixon were both crooks.

i am non partisan in recognition of crooks.

tom w

Botnst · #6 04-15-2007, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

BTW

imo daley and nixon were both crooks.

i am non partisan in recognition of crooks.

tom w

Talk about setting the bar at the lowest point possible: recognition of non-partisan crookedness of those two. Maybe you could add some convicted politicians like Cunningham, Edwin Edwards, and Bill Clinton. (He-heh!)

B

t walgamuth · #7 04-15-2007, 02:56 PM

i do not consider clinton's conviction for lying about a personal indiscretion to rank with the others.

i consider that to have been the tainted result of a political witch hunt.

tom w

Botnst · #8 04-15-2007, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

i do not consider clinton's conviction for lying about a personal indiscretion to rank with the others.

i consider that to have been the tainted result of a political witch hunt.

tom w

Of course. And that's exactly the point of mentioning it.

Partisans who hate Clinton will tell you until they are foaming spittle in the corners of their mouths that the conviction was about lying, not about a BJ. Clintonistas will say the Anti-Clintonites are a bunch of sex-obsessive prudes and ol' Bill was protecting the honor of the lady in question. Guess what: They are both right. Too bad he didn't keep his pecker zipped and once outted, too bad he didn't keep his mouth zipped. Too bad he didn't do a "private lives" speech. Too bad he spent so many years playing lawyer games with a sex-obsessed freaky former judge and prosecutor. He should have put the good of his country first in his life rather than a pecker-kissing intern. Too bad for him and more importantly, too bad for the country.

There is never going to be an objective view of Cliton's conviction, Bush Vs Gore in FL, or Kennedy Vs Nixon in Illinois.

B

GermanStar · #9 04-15-2007, 03:48 PM

Did Daley have the political machinery in place and the disposition to engage in election fraud? Absolutely. On a local level, it would have been encouraged.

t walgamuth · #10 04-15-2007, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Of course. And that's exactly the point of mentioning it.

Partisans who hate Clinton will tell you until they are foaming spittle in the corners of their mouths that the conviction was about lying, not about a BJ. Clintonistas will say the Anti-Clintonites are a bunch of sex-obsessive prudes and ol' Bill was protecting the honor of the lady in question. Guess what: They are both right. Too bad he didn't keep his pecker zipped and once outted, too bad he didn't keep his mouth zipped. Too bad he didn't do a "private lives" speech. Too bad he spent so many years playing lawyer games with a sex-obsessed freaky former judge and prosecutor. He should have put the good of his country first in his life rather than a pecker-kissing intern. Too bad for him and more importantly, too bad for the country.

There is never going to be an objective view of Cliton's conviction, Bush Vs Gore in FL, or Kennedy Vs Nixon in Illinois.

B

agreed. he should have just said. "that is private and i will not testify about it".

tom w

t walgamuth · #11 04-15-2007, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanStar

Did Daily have the political machinery in place and the disposition to engage in election fraud? Absolutely. On a local level, it would have been encouraged.

no doubt.

to me cheating on the vote is a high crime. it undermines our democratic republic.

tom w

MS Fowler · #12 04-15-2007, 05:19 PM

Tom,
I have no facts, but does that matter?

I was referring to your line."I personally like this scenario since it supports my theory "

Botnst · #13 04-15-2007, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

no doubt.

to me cheating on the vote is a high crime. it undermines our democratic republic.

tom w

Amen.

t walgamuth · #14 04-15-2007, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

What an interesting way to write history. You simply pick the version that agrees with your own preconcieved notions.
Truth is set aside.

i do not write history. i do read it though.

i said i like Royko's description of the events since it does not support the idea that nixon abandoned the recount for the good of the country.

i don't know the truth, since i wasn't there. hell, the folks who were there probably don't know the truth either. and i am pretty sure that Nixon wouldn't now a lie from the truth since he pretty much invented the BIG lie.

am i not allowed to say that i like it when i see an idea that i agree with?

tom w