|
So when do we get to drive around the amphibious car?
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
1) How do you approach Harry Byrd in regards to the tax reform bill? B. Cooperate with Byrd by cutting the budget below $100 billion. December 1, 1963  You meet with Harry Byrd, Chair of the Senate Finance Committee to discuss the tax bill and budget. You consider challenging Byrd for control of his Senate committee - it's difficult but possible. But you remember that three Presidents had already tried that. FDR, that giant, had funneled money and support to Byrd's political enemies, but Old Harry had beaten every challenge and come out stronger. He had then shamed the President by engineering the most one-sided vote against a Presidential judicial nominee in Senate history. Later on Truman would take a swing at the venerated Southerner, and Byrd would boast that those attacks helped him get re-elected. Kennedy - never quite understanding how parliamentary politics worked - tried to turn the press against Byrd. His northeastern newspaper friends would complain about the absolute power held by this segregationist but Byrd's control over Virginian politics and his committee never loosened. But you know Harry Byrd. He had been difficult to befriend in you first few years in the Senate. But when his daughter died in a hunting accident, you were one of two Senators to make the two-hour drive to attend the funeral. You can still remember the look he gave you - not knowing exactly what it meant, but knowing that it was important. Soon the distance closed. You would often be invited to his office for conversation, though made sure to be constantly flattering and deferential. More importantly, you figured out what Harry needed. Too aloof for politicking, he was unable to ask other Senators how they'd be voting despite wanting badly to know. You were never above doing just about anything, and you delivered vote counts to him. Soon his office, run on the principles of strict economy and thrift, came to rely on your much larger staff and resources. You praised his wisdom and even kissed his hand in gratitude. Now a near decade of bootlicking was about to pay dividends. You meet with Harry for lunch. Even though you're now the President, you maintain much of your traditional debasement. You give him the tour of the White House, make him feel like the powerful representative of a needed constituency, rather than an obstinate old obstructionist. You take him through the Oval Office to the small office beyond where the two of you will eat. "You're the first person whose ever dined here with me, Harry." You tell him your famous Texan tall tales, do a few impressions of Senators that Harry hates, praise his judgment and wisdom. "I want to get the budget down below one hundred billion. Harry, if I do that, will the tax cut come out of committee?" "In that case maybe we can do some business," he responds in his aristocratic drawl. But you need a firmer commitment, and he's been playing coy like a church-going cheerleader all lunch. You need an approach that will snag him. "Harry, someday you can tell your grandchildren you were the Senator would finally got a President to cut his budget. Without your help this bill isn't going to pass. What we want to do is get those amendments voted on before the legislature goes home, or at least most of them do. What I'm afraid of is if your bill," Your bill you say, "Getting stuck behind civil rights and then why all of our work will be done in vain. We've both been working so hard on this, and you're a good chairman, and I know you want to slow down all this spending and your bill is the best way to do it." He seems more enthusiastic now, the chance to go down in history as a bulwark against financial profligacy is too tempting for him to deny. You let him talk to the press corps, run a little victory lap in the newspapers. In a few days time you'll hear tell that Harry Byrd is denying requests for more amendment's to the tax bill and demanding a vote. You've got him. Now you need to hold up your end of the bargain. The current budget is $101.5, and even that low number only came around through some accounting chicanery. Letting Byrd talk to the press was necessary for his pride and cooperation, but the liberal wing of your party won’t be happy about the budget cuts. Every department claims to already be stretched to the brink, but you have to find fat to trim. Agriculture is trying to add 3,000 employees while the Post Office is trying to add 7,000. You find it difficult to believe there’s no room for adjustment in this budget. 1) Who should bear the brunt of the budget cuts? A. Spread it as thinly as possible across all departments, shooting for a budget just barely under $100 billion. B. Ride your staff day and night to cut their budgets down as much as possible. C. Make McNamara’s Defense Department take the worst of the cuts, letting the other Departments off relatively painlessly. December 5, 1963 Civil Rights. When you were Majority Leader you had pushed two civil rights bills through the Senate. You’d made compromises on their content for the sake of passage, and liberals had never let you forget it. They lumped you in with the segregationists based on your accent, rather than your actions. Now much of the nation is clamoring for something to be done as the marches and protests draw increasingly more attention. But Civil Rights had always been stymied by the Senate - broken against that barrier to social progress. The current bill hasn’t even made it that far. It’s currently stuck in the House of Representatives Rules Committee where the segregationist chairman Howard “Judge” Smith is keeping it there. You could try to remove him from within the committee but you’d need the support of the conservative Republicans on the committee. Few of the Republicans are as vehemently pro-Civil Rights as the liberal wing of your own party, but similarly few are committed to segregation. Former Vice President Nixon had tried to capture the issue for his party but failed. Now keeping the issue alive and the Democratic party split served Republican interests. One of the most likely Republican candidates for 1964 is Senator Barry Goldwater, an opponent of the bill in its current form. If he does end up being the candidate then Republican opposition will crystallize out of the necessity to back their candidate. Alternatively, you could support a Congressional petition for discharging the bill from the Rules Committee control. Judge Smith would probably let the bill through if this looks like a possibility. This was done successfully against him in 1960, but it will make the issue a national one and draw a lot of attention. You’ll be outed as a full-fledged civil rights supporter and will be all-in on the issue. If the bill fails later in the House or Senate it will be your failure. 2) How should you approach moving the civil rights bill out of the Rules Committee? A. Push for watering down the bill somewhat to gain the support of conservative Republicans and work around Judge Smith. B. Support a Congressional petition to discharge the bill from the Rules Committee. C. You have access to considerable funds and support, so begin moving some of that towards Republican Nelson Rockefeller behind the scenes - if he’s the candidate Republicans will be more amenable to civil rights. D. Abandon Civil Rights entirely to focus on other issues. Thanks for waiting ya'll, personal issues plus holidays meant I couldn't commit the time for this but we're back with LBJ 2: Operation Jumbo Drop
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 04:21
|
|
don Jaime posted:If this thread doesn't get moving again in the new year, I might start a new one with a different president. Do it anyway! Abner Cadaver II posted:So when do we get to drive around the amphibious car? Ah the classic LBJ prank of "I've lost control of the vehicle!" before driving the amphicar into a lake.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
1) I don't think I need to justify C. 2) C
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
1) C 2) B and C are not incompatible, both seem like good ideas. edit: I'm gonna change my vote on (1) to A, because while in hindsight C would be better for the world, it'd end very poorly. Sinestro has issued a correction as of 04:54 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
1. A, our earlier gamble in Vietnam may not pay off and taking less then ten million from 20 different things isn't that big of a deal 2. B, a combo with C is tempting but if we get our hands caught in the cookie jar Goldwater is a sure thing, also he might not be that difficult to beat even if he is the nominee
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Let's keep in mind that we have an election coming up. As nice as it would be to shut down McNamara worst excesses (that Defense Logistics Agency is increasingly becoming a black hole for money), any attempt to cut defense now is going to lead to us getting hammered by the Republicans and a probable loss in 1964. The public is still very much terrified of the Soviet menace. We are less than two years away from the Cuban Missile Crisis. Let's wait until we've secured our own mandate. When we have more time and political capital we can pursue defense reform. As of right now, option C is going to explode in our face. As for choice two, I am conflicted. Both B and C are good options. I do worry about our scheming going nowhere though, so I would rather us directly tackle the issue. A, B
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
1) B If anyone needs to tighten their belts, we better show leadership on this. 2) D Unleashing Jumbo should be the defining moment of our presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
1) C 2) B
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
A A Sheng-Ji Yang has issued a correction as of 06:38 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
A, C
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
A,B. We may lose the south for a generation, but if this Goldwater fellow wants to nail segregation to his masthead, let him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
A, B. Making the Democratic Party the party of civil rights can only cement our legacy as one of America's greatest presidents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
B, C
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
No point cutting vast swathes from anything. A Then B&C seems to be the best route. Make the play, then back it up behind the scenes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
1) A 2) A
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
1) A. Hammering Defense is so tempting and probably the right thing to do, but it's going to blow up in our faces. 2) Can we do B and C?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
A B We've turned one of our greatest enemies into a some-what unwilling ally and now we have made a beach-head with the racists. If we don't use that to give our own base some red meat than we risk ending up with a first term most similar to one Barack Obama. Except we probably don't get the part where he got re-elected.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
1. A 2. B Judge Smith is a piece of poo poo and eventually will be crushed anyway. Perhaps encourage Speaker McCormack to enlarge the Rules Committee like they did in 1961. Congressional Liberals will love LBJ for that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Soup du Jour posted:A, B. Making the Democratic Party the party of civil rights can only cement our legacy as one of America's greatest presidents. This, and get as much leverage on Byrd as we can to tie him down during the civil rights fight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
fronz posted:1) I don't think I need to justify C. I share the sentiment and have nothing to add.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
A B
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
C C
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
C B
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
c b
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
1. A 2. B & C Glad to have you back, rakovsky maybe. (definitely.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
1) A is the no-brainer option here. We said we'd get it under 100 billion, but let's face it, that's a symbolic number. 99.9 billion will do fine. 2) I like the B and C option to hedge our bets, but B is the primary goal here. We can do long lasting, legacy-building good here. nth-ing the "great to be back" sentiments, this game is super fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
1) I'm with A; we're not far from the target number, and slashing defense now in addition to our diplomatic approach in that flyspeck of a jungle country will make us look Weak On Defense. We can't afford that. Spread the pain evenly, and take an even share for our own office. 2) B. We can play politics with money all we want, but this is a matter of morality. Play hardball, and if necessary unleash Jumbo. With Byrd an uneasy ally, hopefully we have the influence to neutralize him in the Senate. If we can do two, I wouldn't be opposed to pulling C also, though discretion is of the utmost importance here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
1. A. No need to cut more than we have to, and cutting defense probably burns too many bridges. 2. B. There's too much risk of C backfiring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
1: A 2: B
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
A and B.rakovsky maybe posted:Do it anyway! I'm having trouble finding a good source to work from. Haynes Johnson ping-pongs all over the place, everyone else writes glurge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
1. A 2. B
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
1.) A - If we are going to be foolish enough to cut taxes for no appreciable reason, we may at least make sure it doesn't derail any major initiatives by spreading the losses out as evenly as possible. Regardless of this minor Indochinese tomfoolery, there is no need to offer up a display of defence reduction that the Soviets can play to their advantage. Treaty commitments and a need to keep options for future containment open mean McNamara needs a robust collection of resources. 2.) B & C - These two offer the best of both worlds while keeping options open. We can pursue C first and keep a firm B in the back pocket if Rockefeller can't pull of some behind the scenes drama. In response to the concerns of getting the proverbial hand caught, we have the great darkness that is J. Edgar on our side. Use it. If Goldwater finds out, Hoover can probably be convinced to destroy him if we tell him that Goldwater said unflattering things about his new sundress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:So when do we get to drive around the amphibious car?  If Jumbo doesn’t get ’em, this will.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
I know a Kennedy who could've used one of those.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Voting we send the amphibious car to the Australian parliament in a desperate attempt to avoid tragedy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
A, B Rockefeller is much more electable than Goldwater.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
1: A 2: B
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
1: A. Defense can get the chop in 1965, we're still on thin ice right now. 2: The B&C combo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 16:20 |
|
|
1. A 2. B
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 01:37
|
|
