Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SamuraiScot
a year or two later

Yes, it was an issue a year or two later than 1964.

27 posted on 03/23/2015 9:31:13 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Doctrine doesn't change. The trick is to find a way around it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: Jeff Chandler
a year or two later

Yes, it was an issue a year or two later than 1964.

What I'm saying is that the Johnson people were indeed using Vietnam as an issue during the 1964 campaign—warning that Goldwater would be too aggressive there. Goldwater, as an anti-Communist, was saying we should fight the Communists in Vietnam as if we meant it, and bomb all the NVA's assets and factories and win the darn thing—instead of pussy-footing around, McNamara style. The Johnson people were saying that this was crazy stuff, that the man is a war-monger. Hence the joke—Johnson started escalating in Vietnam, after saying only a lunatic like Goldwater would do that. Reminds you of Woodrow Wilson's campaign slogan for the election of 1916, after his first term: "He kept us out of war!"

For the '64 election, the Dems framed out their usual position, promising to confront Communist aggression in a nuanced manner by not confronting it. Another element of the campaign was how Goldwater would deal with the Soviet Union itself—asserting that he would get us into nuclear war with his belligerence. I'm sure you remember hearing about the famous anti-Goldwater TV ad showing a girl holding a flower in a field, and then cutting to a mushroom-cloud explosion—warning that Goldwater's extremism would be responsible for atomizing little chirrens and their flowers.

28 posted on 03/23/2015 11:04:09 AM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson