I don't know if it affects things today, but back 30,40.50 years ago were conditions for the mob better under a Republican presidency or a Democratic one?

It would be similar as with the rest of society. A Republican would be better for the wealthy bosses that have money tied up in big business, Wall Street, etc. A Democrat would be better for the working class heavy lifters. Less jail time, more union jobs available as fronts, etc.

You look back at history and it's been generally Democratic politicians that have been in bed with the mob. Reasons vary but include the unions, Democrats running a lot of big cities where the mob had a presence, etc. It was Reagan that really gave law enforcement the support to go after the mob in the 1980s.

I would say democrat. Better for the unions which is better for when they were more in charge. Also more government programs and incentives for them to take advantage of.

J. Edgar Hoover was despised by liberals, and he's the primary reason the mafia was ignored for so long.

Ignore Ivy. He's remarkably partisan. He can't be taken seriously on this issue -- he's too busy trying to argue that women shouldn't leave the house, anyway, so he's probably compromised.

What?!?!?

It is common knowledge and documented history that Bobby Kennedy restructured the Justice department to target the mob. Bobby Kennedy all but ended ended Sam Giancana's reign, arguably the most powerful era of organized crime in U.S. history. The mafia wanted both Bobby and JFK dead because of how aggressively the Kennedy Justice department targeted the mob (whether or not they actually played a role in the Kennedys' deaths is another discussion altogether, but if not, it wasn't for a lack of determination).

It was because of the Kennedys that the Teamsters began to endorse Republicans, starting with Nixon in '72 and then, you guessed it, Ronald Reagan in 1980. The mob families that had a chunk of the Teamsters were certainly glad Reagan wasn't as tough on them as you'd like to believe.

Reagan had a certain charisma that really reignited the conservative movement in America, and to this day he still has a rock star status on the right, but his hands were never clean, not in Hollywood, Sacramento nor Washington. Read Dark Victory by Dan Moldea for more.

How about this century? Have to believe that with the rackets the Genoveses had in the housing boom that they benefited quite well from the 2008 Stabilization Act (government program!). You think they're the most powerful family today because they're just out hustling the other families on the street? Somebody was looking at the big picture, and it wasn't big city Democrats and unions they were looking to partner with.

I know it's fiction, but there was a real life basis in this:

"Dick Cheney for president...of the world" - Tony Soprano

It's got nothing to do with partisanship. Once again, I'm not a Republican. It has to do with the historical facts.

The Kennedys certainly went after the mob but their efforts died with them. Law enforcement really didn't get the backing they needed to go after the mob until the Reagan administration in the 1980s.

Like I said, if you look at the mob's political ties down through the years, by and large it's been with Democratic political machines. There's no denying that and anyone who does is the real partisan hack.

So, you're just going to double down on this fallacy, huh?

Research Bobby Kennedy's tenure at the Justice department. He added hundreds of agents to target the mob, when there had only been dozens or so up to 1960. He restructured the department around this agenda, meaning, his restructuring was PERMANENT, and still in effect to this day. It made way for the RICO act, a bill that was introduced by a DEMOCRAT, John McClennan of Arkansas, and which was essentially the final nail in the coffin for the mob's heyday.

Look, I get the Reagan admiration. I'm from California. Sacramento, of all places. Even Democrats here get all gushy over him. But man, you are just so far off in thinking that Reagan in any way spearheaded the federal government's crackdown on the mob. It's ridiculous, and rips about a hundred pages out of any history book. The Kennedy White House's aggression toward the mafia could be the reason the John and Bobby were killed. A lot of credible historians have come to this conclusion. After all, it well documented that they wanted to. The mob doesn't set out to kill a president because they consider him and his party to be allies.

Furthermore, and as I mentioned in a previous post, the Teamsters, well documented as being linked to the mob, began their support for Republicans precisely because of the Kennedy white house, from Nixon's endorsement in '72 to the endorsement of, you guessed it, The Gipper himself in 1980. Imagine that, Reagan was so tough on the mob, they endorsed him!

Put two and two together.

Why the hell do some people here possess a fervent hatred of the Kennedy's?

Because they went after the mob after decades of dormancy and inaction against them.

Nobody is denying the Kennedys' efforts against the mob. From the time of Apalachin in 1957 until the death of John in 1963 and Bobby no longer being AG in 1964, the mob was under a lot of pressure. But it's well known that after that short time span, the mob had a reprieve of sorts until the 1980s. Restructuring or not, the same heat was not there through the rest of the 1960s and 1970s. And it's not just a coincidence that the real national push against the mob happened in the 1980s. RICO had already been in place since 1970 and Hoover had been dead since 1972. But it wasn't until certain initiatives by the Reagan administration gave law enforcement the resources it needed that a real, sustained effort against the mob happened.

Now, I am aware of certain appointments Reagan made that can be called into question. But to use Teamster support as a reason to believe the mob "supported Reagan" is quite a leap and they didn't exactly get what they may have wanted in return. Furthermore, to keep focusing on these two presidents alone, where you exaggerate Kennedy while overlooking Reagan, is to ignore the overall history of mob ties to politics in various cities down through the years. It was almost exclusively Democratic politicians and political machines. But you appear to want to do that because you seem to have entered this topic, not with an objective and correct view of history, but more with simply a desire to be politically partisan and get defensive about Democrats.

You're still missing the concept of restructuring. Bobby reconstructed the justice department to make the mafia a top priority. And, that restructure was permanent. Obviously, the shift since has gone toward terrorism, but until the mob was brought to its knees in the '80s, the restructure that Bobby Kennedy implemented was instrumental in whatever efforts were made to fight the mob, during and after the Kennedy White House. Ronald Reagan's name is hardly even mentioned in regards to fighting the mafia. He was hyping up the Cold War and the Soviets the second he took office. Did he ever even mention organized crime when in office? His jelly beans were a bigger priority.

What the fuck does the Mob care who's President? They are not paying anywhere near their fair share of taxes anyway, so they don't have much to lose either way. Remember the end of Goodfellas? "I never paid taxes, I never voted...."

If they were so instrumental, why the lull in efforts against the mob during the rest of the 1960's and 1970's? And why did things change in a big way in the 1980's? You can try and give Kennedy credit for everything afterward but people who know their history aren't going to buy it. And you apparently know nothing about Reagan's efforts against organized crime while in office. That you actually have to ask if he "ever even mentioned organized crime" tells me I've been arguing with someone talking out of their ass this entire time. Read about the President's Commission on Organized Crime, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, or several speeches by him or by people in the FBI who saw things turn around in the 1980s. Like I said, that wasn't just a coincidence.

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/12/magazine/declaring-war-on-organized-crime.html?pagewanted=all

Low taxes is not the only route to success. Sometimes there needs to be a sophisticated scheme, too. That's where a president could come in handy. Sam Giancana thought the Kennedys would look the other way from the Vegas rackets. He was telling people Vegas was going to be wide open. Boy was he wrong. But he thought it would be, and he took an interest in the election. As I said earlier, I doubt the Genoveses are in the position they're in today because they're just out there cracking more heads than the other families. They were active in the housing bubble. Made millions, I'm sure. So, they're probably not the biggest fans of bank regulation, and therefore would prefer a Republican over a Democrat.

What our friend Ivy League seems to be in denial of is that the mob shifted their allegiance from Democrat to Republican in the '70s, and, it was because of Bobby Kennedy, the biggest gang buster in the history of the U.S. government, and a Democrat. The Kennedys used the mob like two dollar whores, and Frank Sinatra, for that matter, which is why he became a Republican too. Sinatra, Dino, Rickles and the guys chumming up at Reagan's inaugural ball should give you enough of a clue. You think they do that if their "friends" back east are Democrats?

I agree with that generally. I just wanted to make the point that the mob does not have investment in good government the way us law abiding folks do. They do not seem like civic minded people anyway. I am not a fan of this topic anyway as it tends to lead to partisan bickering. I think it's more suited to the politics forum.

You're living in dreamland if you think the mob bosses got together and decided to "give their allegience" to one political party or another. These guys weren't all suddenly GOP voters because of Kennedy. They've taken each president as they've come. But, while the original post was about presidents, the real point and answer is that...once again...by and large the mob has gravitated toward Democratic politicians and political machines. I've listed some of the reasons for why that was and the Kennedys efforts against the mob (while it lasted), or your ignorance of what the efforts against the mob under the Reagan administration, doesn't change that fact. You can keep repeating yourself over and over again or you can recognize you have been in over your head in this discussion from the start.


"Did he (Reagan) ever even mention organized crime when in office? His jelly beans were a bigger priority."
- OakAsFan

The mob was always invested in government, and always will be. The regulations and trade policies in Washington have a profound effect on how the mob does business. If I have to bring it up a thousand times, look at the Genovese family, their current status, and their rackets after the housing bubble burst. Since Bobby Kennedy, the mob began to move away from union racketeering and move toward Wall Street. In political red or blue terms, that is essentially a shift from Democrat to Republican. Sure there are exceptions, but since the '70s the mafia has benefited far more from GOP politicians than Democrats.

Even James Traficant became a tea partier before he died.

That's a wrap. You can just close the thread now.

Ivy thatt a solid point..but to be honest imo the majority mob political corruption in the past was almost always linked to Democrats..if u go back to Tammany Hall and Frank Costello that was all dems...whats ironic is now more and more mob guys appear to align their old school conservative values with the Republican party

If you mean old school values like Wall Street looting, then you're right.

In the case of this election, it's not clearcut I don't think, but fundamentally mobsters thrive better under a system where government lends them legal tools which they can rely on to push out competitors and carve a quasi-monopoly for themselves.

That's why they were heavily involved in and supported unionism and regulations of all kind which they could manipulate to crush competition, and those two tendencies are staples of the Democratic party and the left in general.

This thread is living in the 1950s. The OP asks a simple question, which president would be better for the mob, GOP, or Democrat. Yet half the answers invoke union rackets, which have been largely dead for decades. The mob's only prayer today is a Republican president, because a) playing the stocks is the easiest way to get rich today, and b) they can not control the Democrat supported unions anymore. 2016, ladies and gentlemen. 2016.

No oak by old school I mean anti gay marriage,anti abortion, anti-immigration, anti big government...thats pretty clearly at least some part of republican ideology..and im not shitting on republicans I am a registered republican myself altho I think my fellow conservatives would be better served to drop that religious horseshit thats anti gay marriage, anti abortion, and anti legalization of marijuana but im all for any laws/policy thats anti illegal immigrants but I digress....
From the wiretaps ive read at least sociAlly theyre conservative but the corruption and union/ wall street looting I got news for ya oak that aint on republicans

The Wall Street looting is on Republicans. Republicans are notoriously for less regulation, and since the '80s Wall Street has been the mob's bread and butter. There is really nothing else when it comes to sophisticated, multi million dollar schemes. Can't corrupt the unions anymore. RICO ended that. Not to mention union membership is dwindling.

I'm sorry, but this whole mafia/unions/Democrats thing is so 1959. It's 2016. We just are not living in that world anymore.

All this assumes that there's a big difference between the two parties, which there really isn't. Especially on a federal level. Small differences between one administration to the next, but that's about it.

Lots of myths and standard conventional wisdom about what political parties do.

There's what they claim they'll do and what they actually do.

Republicans are supposed to be for small government, less regulation, lower taxes, balanced budgets, and yet they spend and regulate just as much, if not more than the democrats. Regan lowered some taxes and then began raising taxes.

Wall Street and the financial sector is one of the most, if not thee most regulated sector of the economy.

This whole debate is useless and full of partisan biases.

Did...you just say there's too much regulation on Wall Street?

Of course there is. There's too much regulations everywhere.

I know conventional mainstream wisdom. The myth of deregulation collapsing the economy. It's tiring.

If you want to just talk about today, then it's largely a moot point either way because significant, widespread mob political connections are a thing of the past. However, the union rackets, while certainly diminished, are not dead. Especially in New York. I could give you a list as long as your leg of labor racketeering cases involving the NY families alone from 2000 to the present. And it's no secret that New York is a Democrat town and unions are largely tied to them. But of course, you're likely not aware of most of that stuff because you clearly don't do your own research. Nor would you care because your entire motive in this thread has been to just defend Democrats. Seriously, go drool over that Hillary '16 poster above your bed because you contribute nothing to this thread.