I have been reading a book I found buried in my bookshelf entitled "What If's Of American History."
![[Image: 220px-WhatIfsOfAmericanHistory.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a1/WhatIfsOfAmericanHistory.jpg/220px-WhatIfsOfAmericanHistory.jpg)
An intruiguing hypothetical is a world in which Watergate never happened. I will probably do a writeup this month about Watergate & Nixon and what it is like to have paranoid personality disorder.
Back on point, if Watergate never happened, then Nixon's second term, in which he stomped Democrat George McGovern, he would have had quite the mandate. America would probably have some form of national health insurance. Idealistic liberals tried to kill from the left, and small business owners tried to drown it from the right. Still, with Nixon untainted by the Watergate scandal, he most likely would have been able to get some national health insurance through. Instead of the abortion of Obamacare in 2009, we would have had Nixoncare in 1973 or 1974.
Also consider the pessimism that Americans experienced after Watergate and the vacillating Presidency of Jimmy Carter. This led Americans to be far more cynical about their country and greatly undermined national unity and trust in government. With no Watergate, there is no media-frenzy over a paranoid President.
Considering the 1976 election, Carter would not have been able to play up his "aw-shucks" honest man game. He would have faced Ronald Reagan and Reagan's charisma, political acumen and sunny disposition would have led to Carter's solid defeat in 1976. Further, a Democrat close to Nixon, John Connally from Texas, would have most likely been the VP, helping Reagan with the South, siphoning votes away from the Georgian Carter.
Reagan's perverted supply-side Keynesian economics have been better than the haphazard approaches of Ford and Carter. Reagan wouldn't have botched the Iranian hostage crisis and would most likely been reelected, again, in a landslide. Edward Kennedy would have possibly been his opponent. That would mean 16 years of solid Republican rule, possibly more in 1984. That probably mean no George H. W. Bush as President, which also suggests no George W. Bush.
This may be a bridge too far, but we could have been looking at a McCain Presidency in 2000 and possibly a Kerry victory in 2004 as McCain was not the politician that Bush would have been. Still, this is speculation. It also could have meant a Clinton Presidency in 1984, being the youngest President ever at 38.
Still, assuming a Clinton Presidency in 1992, Clinton gets no health care fiasco as the nation would have had national health insurance for 20 years. The independent prosecutor - Kenneth Starr - would not have existed as that position was created in reaction to Watergate. Odds are, there is a good chance Clinton never gets tripped up by the Lewinsky imbroglio.
Still, character counts here. Nixon was a paranoid fool and Clinton was a narcissistic skirt chaser. There is still a good chance - without Watergate - that both men would still have their issues trip them up.
That one is in the book. Let me offer two of my own:
![[Image: war-on-women.jpg]](http://radiopatriot.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/war-on-women.jpg)
What if Sandra Fluke never gives her testimony and Todd Akin doesn't make his boneheaded remark about rape? Would the "War on Women" have gotten legs?
I strongly believe Obama would not have won if not for his manipulation of the American women to vote for him. The economy is still shit, young people in particular are getting shafted the system simultaneously by student loans and horrid job outlooks. Obama was often weak, vacillating and often disinterested in his first term. Occasionally, he turned on the charm and intelligence that got people hooked on him in the first place, but he didn't have the drive or engine that Clinton, Reagan or W. Bush had to keep that image up perpetually.
Without the drumbeat of the "War on Women," Romney could have pushed mercilessly about the weak economy. To be sure, Romney was a flawed candidate who also lacked the aggression and political thirst that has characterized successful Presidential campaigns. Think Clinton in 1992 and Bush in 2004. Both were masterstrokes of campaigns, Bush's in particular.
That being said, Romney wouldn't worry about qualifying himself about his relationship with women. He could have put Obama under the magnifying glass about his failed economic policies. Since Obama was successful marrying Romney to a "War on Women," Romney had to waste time defending himself against sexist accusations that also revealed Romney to be weak, as such defenses are inherently qualifying.
![[Image: obama-iowa_2099191b.jpg]](http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02099/obama-iowa_2099191b.jpg)
Considering Obama, what if Hillary had taken Iowa in 2008? That almost assures Obama loses the nomination.
As a Republican, I thought it was great, as Hillary was and is so reviled in Republican circles, even a more liberal Obama was welcome. At the time, I was McCain supporter, even though he was a long-shot. I kept telling my Republican friends he was the best candidate in the wake of the Bush Presidency, not just because more moderate status, but his ability to highlight he opposed Bush in 2000 in the primary. Remember that rumor that McCain had a black love child that was spread to South Carolina primary voters before the SC primary? That was most likely Bush operatives playing off Southern racism.
Still, what if it had been McCain and Hillary facing off? My parents, who both voted for Obama, clearly said they would have voted for McCain. Even my mother who claims to have been a feminist voting against the first credible female candidate for the Presidency! She said Hillary had too much baggage, wasn't the qualified candidate like her husband was and was weak for putting up with Clinton's dalliances.
The Clinton years would be brought up again after eight years. Bill, still rusty, would have more gaffes than his racist comment about Obama. His ego would not have let Hillary just run the campaign herself. While many feminists were in love with Bill, a few would start running their mouths that Bill was a misogynist for not letting Hillary have full autonomy over her candidacy. That would be a welcome distraction for McCain, as liberals will start infighting while McCain gains ground over the summer, in the lead-up to the Republican convention.
Remember that surge McCain got after nominating Palin? It would be even more pronounced, as the media adoration of the Democrats nominating a woman would be blunted. Most likely, the media depiction of Palin would be even worse, most likely with even more catty remarks made by female political commentators. McCain & Palin could craftily spin Democrats as the real sexists for their degrading and insulting portrayal of Palin.
McCain would be able to talk about two outsiders running for the President on the Republican ticket, with the definition of a political insider running in Hillary. If he is adroit enough, he could marry the economic collapse to "tone-deaf" insiders like Hillary and Bush (implicitly, of course).
Still, McCain still has to deal with October and the fact women will be mobilizing to elect the first female President.
As for me, if I was advising McCain, I would consider a nuclear option in October. I would create a video of a black boy dying from grotesque gun shot wounds in a third-world country with using the audio clip of Hillary claiming women and girls are the primary victims of war. Nothing but her words and when she concludes that females are the real victims, it would show nothing but the writhing body of said boy in the terrifying throes of death. I would run where ever it could get played.
Truth is, it wouldn't get airtime most likely. However, dumbasses in the media will think this a great time to highlight McCain's misogyny and sexism and the video will go viral online. What those fools will realize is it will help marry Hillary to the uglier aspects of feminism. There is a good chance she will have to explain her feminism. I would keep going on, drawing on everything she has ever stated on feminism, twisting it and nailing her throat to the wall.
I wouldn't attack her for weakness, vapidity, or capability or intelligence, as feminists and liberals are expecting that. I will just use her words.
If that doesn't work, I would toss up a Hail Mary and I would create a silent commercial with pictures of all the women Bill fucked, closing with the line "Any of these women could have been Hillary. Would you have voted for them to be President?"
I still think Clinton would win, but there would a be silver lining. I think she will make for a shit Presidency and that would allow Romney to win in 2012.
Thoughts on this three hypothetical?
Please, include your own. I find this a fascinating intellectual endeavor.
An intruiguing hypothetical is a world in which Watergate never happened. I will probably do a writeup this month about Watergate & Nixon and what it is like to have paranoid personality disorder.
Back on point, if Watergate never happened, then Nixon's second term, in which he stomped Democrat George McGovern, he would have had quite the mandate. America would probably have some form of national health insurance. Idealistic liberals tried to kill from the left, and small business owners tried to drown it from the right. Still, with Nixon untainted by the Watergate scandal, he most likely would have been able to get some national health insurance through. Instead of the abortion of Obamacare in 2009, we would have had Nixoncare in 1973 or 1974.
Also consider the pessimism that Americans experienced after Watergate and the vacillating Presidency of Jimmy Carter. This led Americans to be far more cynical about their country and greatly undermined national unity and trust in government. With no Watergate, there is no media-frenzy over a paranoid President.
Considering the 1976 election, Carter would not have been able to play up his "aw-shucks" honest man game. He would have faced Ronald Reagan and Reagan's charisma, political acumen and sunny disposition would have led to Carter's solid defeat in 1976. Further, a Democrat close to Nixon, John Connally from Texas, would have most likely been the VP, helping Reagan with the South, siphoning votes away from the Georgian Carter.
Reagan's perverted supply-side Keynesian economics have been better than the haphazard approaches of Ford and Carter. Reagan wouldn't have botched the Iranian hostage crisis and would most likely been reelected, again, in a landslide. Edward Kennedy would have possibly been his opponent. That would mean 16 years of solid Republican rule, possibly more in 1984. That probably mean no George H. W. Bush as President, which also suggests no George W. Bush.
This may be a bridge too far, but we could have been looking at a McCain Presidency in 2000 and possibly a Kerry victory in 2004 as McCain was not the politician that Bush would have been. Still, this is speculation. It also could have meant a Clinton Presidency in 1984, being the youngest President ever at 38.
Still, assuming a Clinton Presidency in 1992, Clinton gets no health care fiasco as the nation would have had national health insurance for 20 years. The independent prosecutor - Kenneth Starr - would not have existed as that position was created in reaction to Watergate. Odds are, there is a good chance Clinton never gets tripped up by the Lewinsky imbroglio.
Still, character counts here. Nixon was a paranoid fool and Clinton was a narcissistic skirt chaser. There is still a good chance - without Watergate - that both men would still have their issues trip them up.
That one is in the book. Let me offer two of my own:
What if Sandra Fluke never gives her testimony and Todd Akin doesn't make his boneheaded remark about rape? Would the "War on Women" have gotten legs?
I strongly believe Obama would not have won if not for his manipulation of the American women to vote for him. The economy is still shit, young people in particular are getting shafted the system simultaneously by student loans and horrid job outlooks. Obama was often weak, vacillating and often disinterested in his first term. Occasionally, he turned on the charm and intelligence that got people hooked on him in the first place, but he didn't have the drive or engine that Clinton, Reagan or W. Bush had to keep that image up perpetually.
Without the drumbeat of the "War on Women," Romney could have pushed mercilessly about the weak economy. To be sure, Romney was a flawed candidate who also lacked the aggression and political thirst that has characterized successful Presidential campaigns. Think Clinton in 1992 and Bush in 2004. Both were masterstrokes of campaigns, Bush's in particular.
That being said, Romney wouldn't worry about qualifying himself about his relationship with women. He could have put Obama under the magnifying glass about his failed economic policies. Since Obama was successful marrying Romney to a "War on Women," Romney had to waste time defending himself against sexist accusations that also revealed Romney to be weak, as such defenses are inherently qualifying.
Considering Obama, what if Hillary had taken Iowa in 2008? That almost assures Obama loses the nomination.
As a Republican, I thought it was great, as Hillary was and is so reviled in Republican circles, even a more liberal Obama was welcome. At the time, I was McCain supporter, even though he was a long-shot. I kept telling my Republican friends he was the best candidate in the wake of the Bush Presidency, not just because more moderate status, but his ability to highlight he opposed Bush in 2000 in the primary. Remember that rumor that McCain had a black love child that was spread to South Carolina primary voters before the SC primary? That was most likely Bush operatives playing off Southern racism.
Still, what if it had been McCain and Hillary facing off? My parents, who both voted for Obama, clearly said they would have voted for McCain. Even my mother who claims to have been a feminist voting against the first credible female candidate for the Presidency! She said Hillary had too much baggage, wasn't the qualified candidate like her husband was and was weak for putting up with Clinton's dalliances.
The Clinton years would be brought up again after eight years. Bill, still rusty, would have more gaffes than his racist comment about Obama. His ego would not have let Hillary just run the campaign herself. While many feminists were in love with Bill, a few would start running their mouths that Bill was a misogynist for not letting Hillary have full autonomy over her candidacy. That would be a welcome distraction for McCain, as liberals will start infighting while McCain gains ground over the summer, in the lead-up to the Republican convention.
Remember that surge McCain got after nominating Palin? It would be even more pronounced, as the media adoration of the Democrats nominating a woman would be blunted. Most likely, the media depiction of Palin would be even worse, most likely with even more catty remarks made by female political commentators. McCain & Palin could craftily spin Democrats as the real sexists for their degrading and insulting portrayal of Palin.
McCain would be able to talk about two outsiders running for the President on the Republican ticket, with the definition of a political insider running in Hillary. If he is adroit enough, he could marry the economic collapse to "tone-deaf" insiders like Hillary and Bush (implicitly, of course).
Still, McCain still has to deal with October and the fact women will be mobilizing to elect the first female President.
As for me, if I was advising McCain, I would consider a nuclear option in October. I would create a video of a black boy dying from grotesque gun shot wounds in a third-world country with using the audio clip of Hillary claiming women and girls are the primary victims of war. Nothing but her words and when she concludes that females are the real victims, it would show nothing but the writhing body of said boy in the terrifying throes of death. I would run where ever it could get played.
Truth is, it wouldn't get airtime most likely. However, dumbasses in the media will think this a great time to highlight McCain's misogyny and sexism and the video will go viral online. What those fools will realize is it will help marry Hillary to the uglier aspects of feminism. There is a good chance she will have to explain her feminism. I would keep going on, drawing on everything she has ever stated on feminism, twisting it and nailing her throat to the wall.
I wouldn't attack her for weakness, vapidity, or capability or intelligence, as feminists and liberals are expecting that. I will just use her words.
If that doesn't work, I would toss up a Hail Mary and I would create a silent commercial with pictures of all the women Bill fucked, closing with the line "Any of these women could have been Hillary. Would you have voted for them to be President?"
I still think Clinton would win, but there would a be silver lining. I think she will make for a shit Presidency and that would allow Romney to win in 2012.
Thoughts on this three hypothetical?
Please, include your own. I find this a fascinating intellectual endeavor.
![[Image: biggrin.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
