One thing I don't understand about the whole political connections is why wouldn't they keep the connections with Vito gone? Sollozzo obviously assumed they would, so one would think connections transferring from Don to Don is somewhat standard protocol. I know the novel states that the title of Don is by no means hereditary, but it also states that Vito is grooming Sonny in the hopes that he proves worthy enough to claim the title. Wouldn't Vito have introduced Sonny to some of these connections as his son and possible successor? When Vito died, did he just expect his successor to start from scratch and build up the empire from the ground again?
Vito was such a meticulous and prepared individual, I doubt he would have allowed such a situation to occur. I know he was slipping, as Sollozzo alluded to, but he would have had things set up to keep his family provided for in the event of his death long before the events we see in the movie.
The politicians who did favors for Vito either did so out of respect and gratitude or for money. It's possible some might not have transferred that respect to Sonny, but most probably would have, as long as Sonny kept the money coming. After a couple of months of Sonny running things, they may have distanced themselves as they saw what a bad Don Sonny turned out to be, but I don't see why they wouldn't stay with the Corleones at the time of Vito's hit.
Tom's line seems out of place. If, for whatever reason, the Corleones would lose political protection without Vito, why would they lose half and not all of it. If the politicians are loyal only to Vito, then they're screwed. If they're loyal to the Corleones, then they should transfer that loyalty to the Corleones.
oh, well, it was made clear (to me, anyway) that these connections were personal connections of Vito Corleone. While Vito may have, very well, introduced Sonny, who's to say that these connections wanted to maintain their current, illegal and trecherous, relationship with some one other than the man whom they have this bond with??? It seems very clear to me that this is feasible, even probable, to be the case. Tom was right on with this statement. When this statement was made by Tom, did ANYONE object??? NO. That was the whole purpose of this statement to be made... so that we, the audience, would not be making the same ignorant assumption as Sollozzo was making. So, the argument that Tom was just (pardon my expression) talking out of his a$$ is kinda rediculous to me.
