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

To: John Lenin
I'm not a fan of either Buchanan or Kristol. Both like different forms of Big Government. In this article, I think Buchanan is correct. Southerners left the Democratic Party because it was perceived (and in my opinion is) as anti-American and anti-defense. Nixon was successful in drawing those distinctions. Look at the election of '72. McGovern was regarded as an anti-American freak and was trounced.

The only way Democrat presidential candidates have won Southern electoral votes is by being Southerners and masking their anti-American proclivities, i.e. Carter & Clinton. In 76, Carter won every single Southern State except VA. In 80, he lost every one but GA. Bubba diluted Bush Sr's Southern electoral strength and the same with Dole. Gore was rightly perceived as a faux Southerner and lost every Southern State, including his "home" state.

Remember Kristol was advising Dan Quayle & Bush Sr. in the 92 election.

Some comments on Nixon specifically. Nixon was more liberal socially and domestically. He picked Harry Blackmum who authored the infamous Roe V. Wade decision. He instituted wage & price controls and did some other things that compromised his conservative credentials. Then again he never had a Republican Congress to work with. Buchanan, I'm pretty sure thinks he had more influence on the GOP Presidents he served than he actually did. To give him credit, I think he came up with the "nittering nabobs of negativism" line for Agnew.

I forgot where I read this once. Essentially Nixon had no reason to think he was going to lose the '72 election to McGovern. If Nixon had disbursed campaign funds down to the congressional election rather than hogging them to acheive an electoral landslide, the Senate might have turned Republican. That would have meant no Sam Ervin.

As far as Lott. My problems with him began almost as soon as he became Majority Leader. He seemed to continuously get outfoxed by Daschle and the impeachment handling etc. convinced me the GOP was ill served by Lott as leader. That was long before the birthday gaffe. The gaffe was all the more perplexing to me because there was so much more Lott could have used to honor about Thurmond's life. His quixotic '48 election bid was not something I would use to commemorate him.

Kristol's support of McCain is all I need to know about Kristol. Everything I hear from him goes through that filter.

112 posted on 12/30/2002 3:26:47 AM PST by Credo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]


To: Credo
Remember Kristol was advising Dan Quayle & Bush Sr. in the 92 election

No wonder he lost !
120 posted on 12/31/2002 12:36:49 AM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

To: Credo
A McGovern presidency would have turned the U.S. over to the left entirely. I can't imagine anything more important than voting "not-him" then, when the differences were so stark, and were I in Nixon's shoes, I can't imagine not doing everything possible to beat him. Especially bearing in mind that Nixon deserved the 60 election--he was paranoid but his legitimate persecution may have made him rightfully so.

Not that I liked the guy. I think Nixon's dodging pitchforks. But that doesn't mean I disagreed with EVERYTHING about him, and not disbursing money to Congress to use for his own campaign is definitely one move I am 100% okay with, even with Sam Ervin as the result. Coulda been much worse.
124 posted on 12/31/2002 2:05:23 AM PST by LibertarianInExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | 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