Posted on 02/17/2004 9:46:04 AM PST by truthandlife
But there's the internet, isn't there?
I was close to many who were on active duty and in the guard during the VietNam war. The media then was just as anti-Nixon as they are anti-Bush today. I would remind you that Nixon with 50,000 dead in NAM, hundreds of thousands maimed and injured, and with the nation just recovering from a deep recession, defeated McGovern in 1972. 1972 was the 8th year of our war against North Vietnam. Nixon won reelection by a margin of 62 to 38 percent over peacenik George McGovern.
At that time almost 42 percent of actual voters were Democrats... and McGovern got 38 percent.
McGovern did not even get all the Democrat votes. Nixon got all the Republican, all the independents and 9 percent of the Democrats.
You will hear many stories how a huge majority was opposed to VietNam. That is just not true. It is not true even of the draft age votes.
There were at the peak 500,000 troops in Nam, they served one year in theater. A few volunteered to go back for a second tour, but that number was not large. To say that all people Kerry's age were anti Viet Nam is just a lie.
You might want to consider that Franklin Delano Roosevlt only got 57 percent of the vote in 1932. Richard Nixon got 62 percent in 1972. And in 1936 Roosevelt got 60 percent. Anti war was not a winner when we were getting troops killed by the tens os thousands.
We need to start using our heads before we panic. The best thing that can happen for President Bush is for the Democrats to select a leftist peacenik nominee. The quicker the better. Since Iowa no Democrat has trashed another Democrat. They spend all their time trashing Bush. That is not good.
On the other hand I can't think of a much better candidate than Kerry with the possible exception of Dean. But Dean has no where near the baggage of Kerry. Kerry has 10 times the number of vote costing skeletons in his closet as Dean. WE would have had to wait for Dean to say stupid things that would cost him votes. Kerry has already said them.
What do you think would be happening if the polls showed Bush at 58 and Kerry at 42? You can bet the farm that kerry would not have won 14 or 15 straight states. The Democrats just might nominate a better candidate than Kerry. But bush would still be trashed as they try to select a candidate who could beat Bush.
If I were running the Bush campaign, I would tell Dubya to cool it until Kerry has the nomination locked up. When there is no way out for the Democrats, when there is no alternative to Kerry, that is the time to take Kerry down.
NOT NOW!!!
There are lots of rumors that the pro Bush spots will soon start to run. They will produce questions about Kerry. And Yes the national media will not ask them. But in 2000 the local TV and Radio media was more important than the national media.
And where does every young reporter at those local station want to be in few years? When I was a young reporter we all wanted to be on CBS,NBC or ABC.. in that order. To get therem you had to be liberal. And doing a job on a Republican candidate for president could go a long way towards getting you there.
Later on in the 90's young reporters wanted to be on CNN. Everyone wanted to be the new Larry King. But today there is a new game. Fox is where you want to be... Ah to be a Friend on Fox, or the next Greta, Shep,O'Reily or Cavuto. And how would one get to be noticed by Roger Ailes? What if a local reporter could get their nasty Kerry question and answer covered on Fox? That tells me that lots of local reporters will be trying to take Kerry down. Kerry cannot stiff the local media. If he does they will kill him. They will run Bush until he opens up to them.
If the Bush commercials ask Kerry questions, it is quite likely a number of local reporters will force him to answer them.
I would remind you all that President Bush is ahead of where Ronald Reagan was in 1984. He is, by the way ahead, of where Richard Nixon was in 1962. Those were the two occassions in the 20th century when a candidate won 49 states.
Please consider the following. If the media could swing elections Jimmy Carter would have had a second term. Michael Dukakis would have been president in 1988. Richard Nixon would have lost in 1968 and 1972. The media likes to tell us how important they are... but it is mostly a lie.
It's amazing the stories one hears when these elitist 'Rats are dealing with the common folk. I knew a guy who, as a charter pilot, used to fly the Gores...Al Sr., Al Jr., and their families. He said Al, Sr. was pretty sharp, but Al, Jr. was as dumb as a box of rocks. He didn't have one thought that was his own. Of course, during the 2000 campaign, my pilot friend was proved correct, right down to the Naomi Wolfe (?) earth tones and that horrendous make-up job he had during the debates.;o)
"Bet he was the obnoxious bully in school everyone detested!"
LOL! I just bet he was.
Your post was wonderful, and needs to be taken to heart by everyone on this forum.
Exellent analysis! You should be writing these as their own threads -- what a great job.
Am younger but remember Vietnam very well. Was at Wright-Patt after Nixon was elected in 1968 and took office in 1969 -- that's when the lowlifes from Antioch -- Berkley of the East -- started going after the base. It was sickening. I was at the dedication of the AF Museum when they started putting daises in the barrels of the rifles as the military was standing guard. Wanted to punch out the demonstrators myself.
If I remember right, the lowlifes were put on buses and driven to Southern Ohio to make their own way back home. Bunch of smelly, long-haired people for the most part -- hard to tell the difference between a guy and a girl out of that bunch. I can remember the VW vans with flowers being driven around Fairborn since we were just up the road from Yellow Springs.
In the early 70's, we were told not to even drive through Yellow Springs with a base decal on the car. The number of demonstrators was so small compared to the number of people that worked at Wright-Patt, but they were obnoxious -- remember when they tried to shut down the base for a day. Failed miserably.
I just know that there are a lot more of us that detested the demonstrators then there were demonstrators and if Kerry and the RATs think we are going to stay silent, they need to think again. We will not let this Country be governed by someone who called the men and women of our military "baby killers!"
Not sure that any other candidate would unite us like a Kerry ticket is going to -- I agree totally with your analysis of how the votes will go. Dems seem to want to forget about 9/11 but want a referendum on Vietnam? What I am amazed is that they brought up Vietnam service of Kerry with his background after the War as a war protestor, liar to congress, and all around jerk -- now they want to say he was just a kid -- give me a break -- old enough to run for Congress is not a kid and he protested after that run. Even his wartime record is up for debate from different sources.
The media sooner or later is going to have to become more fair or they will be trashed like never before. They seem to forget that the Internet today is a powerful tool and a lot of us intend to use it to go after Kerry and the DemocRATs along with the biased media! AP has been on a roll today against Pres Bush.
:O)
What a happy day that would be!
But I will settle for sending him back to Bedwettachusetts in abject humiliation after the second Tuesday in November.
And you'll recall that Senator Fullbright was Bill Clinton's patron in his early days in politics, and even before. I seem to remember a Hillary connection to the Senator as well? Maybe just to his committee? Anyone recall?
He is the American "Ace of Spades"
EggsACTLY!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.