Posted on 05/03/2012 9:50:55 PM PDT by neverdem
The major Demo tactical effort against Mitt Romney is based on portraying him as a robotic, out-of-touch figure not much like other Americans -- at least not Americans of the 21st century. Romney is a creature of the 1950s, raised and indoctrinated within a Mormon cocoon, a man effectively living in a time warp. He uses words like "zany." His hair looks funny. He's been married to the same woman for nearly half a century. What kind of post-'60s American is this?
The key element here, repeated in piece after piece, is that Romney was "untouched by the '60s." Liberals tend to take this "touch" carried out by a decade -- a strange concept in and of itself -- in much the way in which fundamentalists take adult baptism: as a rite necessary to achieve salvation. Those who have not been "touched" are fringe figures, not at all part of the mainstream as defined in Ann Arbor, San Francisco, and the Upper East Side.
This thesis contains a number of assumptions, chief among them the idea that the '60s were a universal phenomenon, a decade that altered everyone who lived through it (except for the Mormons, presumably, protected by the desert on one side and the Great Salt Lake on the other), and all of them in the same way. That one-sided transformation involves a sharp shift to the left politically and to the flamboyant morally. Films telling of stiff, uptight, and uncool types who suddenly loosen up when exposed to "alternative lifestyles" (and become better persons for it!) have been a staple of Hollywood almost as far back as the decade itself. Despite the fact that nobody actually knows anyone who went through this process, it has become one of the chief myths of millennial America...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Exactly. Michael Barone had an article a couple of months ago along the same lines. “you can’t be authentic if you weren’t a hippie in the sixties. Whatever...
Aww crap: “That’s when they became moonbats, and the moonbats started taking over the rat’s leadership.”
The key element here, repeated in piece after piece, is that Romney was “untouched by the ‘60s.”
________________________________________________
Nah
He did drugs and dodged the draft and took off to another country other than Nam like any other nonestablishment type...
That sounds like the guy who did that commercial for me the other day. I want to thank you for the good work you been doing. My buddy Rev. Wright loves your stuff. Keep hammering those damn Mormons for me. Wouldn’t look good if I was doing it. But with Matthews, O’Donnell, Maher, and yourself I can get plausible deniability.
Love
Barack Hussein Obama
The vast majority of Americans weren’t hippies in the 60’s or 70’s (when the 60’s “culture” actually happened)
This is one of the stupidest “attacks” I have ever heard of. If the Democrats want a line of attack that makes sense, is true and will work.... run an ad campaign in October pointing out that Romney is just a pale imitation of a Democrat.
Damn; I am a Roman Catholic and I guess I have to be lumped in with Romney. First part of the 60s I was to young to do dope and get laid, second part of the 60s I was pretty busy doing my 4 years in the the Marine Corps. I did notice when I came home on leave before shipping out that the people in my age group had become kind of strange and unemployable.
I got my Dear John about 8 months into my tour, seems she just couldn’t live with being engaged to a member of the military/industrialist complex who killed men, women and Children for a living (thank God). I guess I can’t be an authentic human being by that standard. I must be a Sears-Roebuck model, but lets not forget that Sears also makes the Craftsman model of tools.
At the Democrat convention in 1968, the Yippies were rioting in Grant Park.
At the Democrat convention in 1972, the rioters were in the hall -- running the affair.
From 1968 forward, the Democrat party has been increasingly radicalized by left-wing anti-American crowd spawned by the sixties.
William Ayers is the prototype.
Sounds more refreshing than a post-modern, "sexually warm" dog-eating, Afro-"american".
The election of JFK was the initial triumph of incandescent boolshiite over even the semblance of productive electoral thought processes. Even then, it took massive vote fraud in Texas and Illinois to put the SOB in.
Vietnam? JFK was specifically warned by President Eisenhower AND General MacArthur to not commit American troops beyond the rather low-key, non-uniformed advisory, supply, and training roles in which we were engaged. Vietnam? It was JFK's show. However, to this day, the post 1960's people blame the war on Nixon ... who ended it; disastrously to be sure.
Yet you dolts continue to write 50's, 60's, 70's, etc.
Why are you people so stupid?
The disaster in Vietnam happened on LBJ’s watch.
Yet you dolts continue to write 50's, 60's, 70's, etc.
Why are you people so stupid?
Look at my comment# 1.
"I think the author is correct about the overall effect of the 1960s on the overall culture, but he underestimates the effect on the rat party. That's when they became moonbats, and the moonbats started taking over the rat's leadership."
Who's illerate, a dolt and stupid? Anyway, the apostrophe works if it is the possessive case.
Hey, at least they are not writing it sixtie’s! (Not on this thread, anyway, though it has been observed.)
I think being “untouched by the ‘60s” is like being untouched by a child molestor. It’s a good thing.
“Why are you people so stupid?”
If we could answer that question, you probably wouldn’t be asking it.
“The disaster in Vietnam happened on LBJ’s watch.”
Not exactly, even though LBJ is deserving of plenty of blame.
The disaster began because of John Kennedy.
In early November 1963 JFK let it be known that he wanted to get rid of Ngo Dinh Diem, South Vietnam’s President. Diem wasn’t compliant enough to suit President Kennedy.
Well the result of this was a coup and the assassination of Diem and his family. This left RSVN leaderless and chaotic, a situation that would persist for years. And just a few weeks later JFK was himself assassinated and Lyndon Johnson had the whole mess dumped in his lap.
Ho Chi Minh could hardly believe his good fortune; Diem was the most effective foe he had of the Communist war against South Vietnam. Now his victim was severely weakened.
In order to bolster a weakened South Vietnam Johnson decided to send in American combat troops, something that both Eisenhower and MacArthur had warned against. And to make that decision even worse Johnson decided to keep control of the war in Washington DC instead of leaving it a military commander, like Ike had been during WWII. The combination of Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara insured that the war was fought badly, ineffectively, and at great expense to the GIs sent to fight it.
You are correct about that, but LBJ only compounded the problem.
And it coincided with Cambodia falling to the Khmer Rouge....the blood of 2 million Cambodians is on the hands of all of the so-called “anti-war” activists.
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.