I doubt there is any truth to a claim that there was a literal quid pro quo between Republican and Democrats regarding the 1960 and 2000 presidential elections. I don't think that the 1960 corruption (i.e. evidence Louis just provided) would be adequate leverage to effect Democrat behavior forty years later in 2000. I think the Gore/Democrat campaign just caved - probably for social stability and 'the good of the country.' The Democrats did put their loss to good use by blaming the Nader/Green Party campaign and fortifying the capitalists' two-party political system. That Nader cost Gore the 2000 election has become one of those major false "facts" (i.e. U.S. intervened in Vietnam to protect democracy in South Vietnam) regularly reported in the 'news' media.
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 9:09 AM Ken Hiebert <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 08:57 PM, Dayne Goodwin wrote: > An alarming part of that whole episode is that Gore and the Democrats > basically surrendered to the Republican use of force, apparently choosing > 'stability' over democratic process. > > Is there any truth to the claim that this was a quid pro quo for the > Republican acceptance of the election of Kennedy in 1960? It was widely > claimed that voter fraud in Illinois swung the election for Kennedy. > I do not recall where I read these claims. > ken h -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1757): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/1757 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/76881060/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
