You’ve heard it before.
No lead is safe in Wrigley Field. Or in Fenway Park; at the Indianapolis Speedway; sitting at a blackjack table in Las Vegas; or in an American Presidential election.
Where have you heard this? On television, of course. Maybe on radio, too. Somewhere, sometime, some broadcaster has told you, “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over.” No lead is safe in Wrigley Field… because, when the score is 8-0 after six innings, a lot of viewers will turn to something else if they are not being urgently reminded, “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over.” The announcers don’t really believe the team ahead 8-0 is going to lose. What they do believe is the TV station’s ratings will suffer if the audience goes elsewhere and it’s their job to keep those viewers tuned in. After all, what about the sponsors who’ve bought time in the seventh, eighth and ninth innings? “Hey, folks, we’ll be right back, after these messages. And don’t forget: No lead is safe in this stadium!”
In the broadcasting of political campaigns, the same principle applies: keep the audience tuned in! And what is the time honored favorite device used by TV producers to accomplish this “prime objective?” The Four C’s: Controversy. Conflict. Crisis. Chaos. These are the erotic figments of a TV producer’s wet dream.
It is the nature of media coverage to start with the assumption that “their perspective” automatically becomes “your perspective.” It is essential to their presentation that the viewer believe what they see and hear – and believe it to be the truth.
The real truth is, there is no such thing as broadcast journalism. That term is every bit as much an oxymoron as the phony “catastrophe titles” routinely used by all television networks as labels for just about any story they televise. As with all oxymoron’s, broadcast journalism, expert commentator, noted observer, respected historian, elder statesman and all the other nonsensical titles given to the same old, endless line of TV Talking Heads, it's self-contradictory. Some might go so far as to say the coverage of politics on TV amounts to hyperbole and trope. Whoever did say that might be right, except it’s really much worse. Broadcast journalism, including the so-called serious coverage of this Presidential election, is actually an outright lie. You think that’s too strong, too harsh a judgment?
Have lies become so ordinary in our daily public discourse that we now overlook them, excuse them, pretend they are not what they are, accept them as “acceptable?” What exactly is a lie?
LIE: “A false statement deliberately presented as the truth.”
Think hard about that. The key words are; “…deliberately presented…” Well, what do you know? Isn’t that the very essence of broadcasting, of television, of radio? Of course it is. Broadcast journalism, including the commentary that is the blood and guts of it, is just that… it’s “deliberately presented.” It doesn’t happen by itself. It’s all planned, setup, written out, even rehearsed. You don’t think they just turn on the camera and start talking, do you?
So, let’s look again at the upcoming election and ask the following question:
“What if this election is not close; what if the outcome seems certain; will anyone on TV ever say that?”
Looking back should give us some insight on this. What happened on TV during the primaries?
By now, any rational observer must conclude that after Barack Obama ran off a dozen or more victories in a row – most of them in states like Nebraska, Idaho, Alaska, Utah, North Dakota and other places he was never given a chance to win – after that string of impressive wins, it was practically impossible for Hillary Clinton to come back and win enough delegates to capture the nomination. It never mattered how well she might do in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia… or any other state yet to vote. The rules of the Democratic Party were such that the manner of delegate selection dictated that Obama was the obvious victor way back in February and March. Yet, for 5 months – nearly a half-year of TV time – the broadcast journalists kept up the “Battle Between Hillary And Obama.” The “new threat” of a Hillary Clinton comeback was a nightly affair on all the TV channels devoted to covering the election. For five months, Hillary’s already moribund hopes, her dead-in-the-water campaign, was reported as both alive and well, together with millions of dollars in TV product advertising on MSNBC, CNN and FOX NEWS. They “deliberately presented” coverage of a campaign that was actually already decided, as if it was not. Well, of course they did – they are commercial television networks carrying millions and millions of dollars in product advertising. They have programming needs everyday, every week, every month. It never stops – not for them. “And remember, folks, no lead is safe in this election!”
The Democratic Primary was treated like a Cub’s baseball game in Chicago’s Wrigley Field. “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over!” That was the unremitting refrain from TV. Was it an oxymoron? An example of hyperbole? A trope? Well, maybe it was all those – but, most of all, it was a lie. It was something false, deliberately presented as the truth.
Watch out! The same thing is happening now. There are still eight weeks to go – “It ain’t over ‘till it’s over!” Except it is. It’s already over. Here’s what you won’t hear on TV because any Talking Head dumb enough to say it won’t be seen again anytime soon: John McCain has as much chance to win this election as Hillary Clinton had to win the Democratic nomination.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THIS "COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF TEST?"
What’s the deal with “The Commander-In-Chief Test?” What test are they talking about? And how many of our War Presidents passed it?
Barack Obama and John McCain are running for President. Whoever wins will be Commander-In-Chief. Obviously, that’s important – but only in time of war. Otherwise, it’s just another piece of the job description. So, what exactly is the history of our wartime Presidents? Would they – if they were running for the office today – pass this so-called “Commander-In-Chief Test?” Take a guess – go ahead. How many American Presidents have served in times of foreign wars?
The answer is 17. Yes, 17 different American Presidents have been in office while the US was engaged in a war with a foreign nation. How did they do, and how important was their background? Did they all pass this all important test of leadership? Let’s look at the two indisputably biggest wars in US history and see if those President’s might pass whatever it is people today are calling “The Commander-In-Chief Test.”
World War I was fought almost entirely under a Commander-In-Chief whose previous experience was as a college professor and President of Princeton University – Woodrow Wilson. Officially, the Great War was concluded under President Warren Harding. Neither Wilson nor Harding served in the military. Neither ever commanded men in battle. Neither man ever saw battle themselves. Imagine that skimpy resume, and we won that war, too – didn’t we?
Twenty years later an even larger conflict would engulf our country. During World War II, the Commander-In-Chief, until the final few months, was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Although WW II called for the US to do battle completely around the globe, fighting two mighty empires simultaneously, we somehow managed to win this war, even with a Commander-In-Chief who had never served in the military in any capacity. Amazing, don’t you agree?
After Roosevelt’s death in office, President Harry S. Truman (who as Vice President was not even briefed on the progress of the war and had never heard of an Atom Bomb until the day he became our Chief Executive) concluded the hostilities still underway with Japan. Truman had served his country in the Army during WW I. He attained the rank of Major. What about his work experience prior to being Vice President? Perhaps that gave him the necessary Commander-In-Chief stones. Harry Truman was a haberdasher, a clothing retailer. After dropping two Atom Bombs on Japanese cities, President Truman got to hone his Commander-In-Chief skills in another war, the Korean War. Using nuclear weapons, something no Commander-In-Chief had done, before or since, apparently didn’t help Truman much. The Korean War did not come out as well as the one before it. In fact, more than 50 years later, our military forces are still there.
Going back to the beginning of the United States of America, our very first foreign war was fought against a bunch of rag-tag North Africans. In the Tripolitan War (1801-1804), the US Commander-In-Chief was the third President of the US, Thomas Jefferson. Some people say Jefferson was a member of the Virginia militia in 1789, but most records of his time do not indicate any military service on his part. Despite his lack of experience, we beat the North African pirates handily. Taught them a lesson or two.
In 1812, England had the temerity to attack us. They even bombarded our new capital city, Washington D.C. We fought back bravely under Commander-In-Chief James Madison. President Madison liked to say that he and Jefferson served together in the Virginia militia, but there are no records to backup his service and nothing to show that he actually manned an artillery position against the invading British in 1812. That story may have been the first in what would be 200 years of Presidential spin. Nevertheless, we successfully pushed the British forces off North America and back across the pond from whence they came. Another victory for a Commander-In-Chief with no experience.
Thirty years later, the United States went to war with Mexico under the leadership of Commander-In-Chief James K. Polk. That engagement, which lasted from 1846 to 1848, was successfully concluded in our favor although President Polk had, at best, a sketchy military record. He claimed to have been in the Tennessee militia, but just like Madison and Jefferson before him, there are no official records to prove it.
In the years 1861 through 1865, the Civil War happened. This may not have been a foreign war, but it accounted for the greatest loss of life and number of seriously wounded of any war ever fought by the United States. The Commander-In-Chief was Abraham Lincoln, a man who rose to the Presidency despite having served only a single term in The House of Representatives. The sum total of his military service was a short stint spent in the Illinois militia and his participation in one of the unfortunate Indian Wars, called The Black Hawk War, in 1832. In that engagement, Lincoln did not see combat. He was part of a burial unit. Lincoln did have some command, executive experience. Back in Illinois he had served briefly as a Postmaster. As Commander-in-Chief, he seemed to work out just fine. He saved the Union. The Civil War was officially ended under President James Buchanan. He was the only Commander-In-Chief in our history who served as an enlisted man in the Army never rising beyond the rank of Private in the War of 1812.
A couple of years before the turn of the century, the US was caught up in The Spanish-American War. We won that one in 1898 and the very next year our victorious Commander-In-Chief plunged us into a new war in the Philippines that lasted from 1899 to 1902. That Commander-In-Chief was President William McKinley. While McKinley served in and survived the Civil War, reaching the rank of Major, he came to a bad end one day in Buffalo, New York. We won that war in the Philippines; at least that’s what we said for many decades to come. We’re not as proud of it today as we once were.
In more modern times, the involvement of the United States in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos was conducted under three Commanders-In-Chief – Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, in that order – and every unbiased observer will tell you we didn’t do very well there. However, each of our three Commanders-In-Chief had seen service as officers during WW II. All three served in the Navy, John Kennedy as a Lieutenant and both Johnson and Nixon as Commanders. That service, that wartime military experience – although none of the three ever commanded combat troops - didn’t seem to help much. We came out on the short end of the stick in Vietnam.
In 1983, Ronald Reagan, who reached the rank of Captain in WW II despite never leaving the country and never seeing active duty or combat, invaded the tiny Caribbean nation of Grenada. Among his previous job experiences, prior to getting the gig as Commander-In-Chief, he had been an actor, in the movies and on the new medium, TV as well as a baseball announcer on radio. Under his leadership, we whipped those Cuban construction workers who were building an international airport in Grenada.
Later, the next President after Reagan, George H.W. Bush, commonly known as Bush 41, attacked, in force, the country of Panama. Panama had not threatened or attacked us and they were easily defeated in a war that resembled an eighth grader taking lunch money from kindergarten kids. We literally kidnapped Panama’s President. No doubt encouraged by his swift success in Latin America, President Bush, acting as Commander-In-Chief, then started a real war in 1991 against Iraq. Although he went up against Iraq, Bush decided to fight that war in the country of Kuwait, right next to Iraq. Bush 41 had been a Lieutenant in WW II. As a flyer, his plane was shot down in the Pacific. Perhaps, it was this military service that accounts for the fact that we won, both in Panama and against Iraq in Kuwait. What do you think?
The final American President to fight a foreign war is George W. Bush, or Bush 43, or Son of Bush. Beginning in 2001 with his bombing of Afghanistan and subsequent invasion there, and then in Iraq, in 2003 and continuing to this very day, these two wars have not gone well. Although he claimed, once, that it was “Mission Accomplished,” thousands more have died since that declaration and no end to either conflict appears in sight – at least not under the leadership of this Commander-In-Chief. President Bush 43 was a member of a unit of the Texas Air National Guard, but his outfit was never activated, he left the state before his obligation had been completed and he never saw combat or any other active duty action. You tell me, did Bush 43 pass “The Commander-in-Chief Test?”
So, have you figured out yet what this “Commander-In-Chief Test” is all about? No? Does it strike you as strange that the United States has never had a wartime President with any command experience in the military? Again, take in the meaning of that fact – that’s never; not sometimes; not frequently; not when we win these wars; it’s not never! We have never in our history had a wartime President with a background that included command of men in wartime. Although we have elected a handful of men who were Generals in time of war, we hired them afterward, and during their tenure as Commander-In-Chief, none ever fought another war. Come to think of it, maybe that tells you something.
The reality is - our foreign wars have been fought under the Commander-In-Chief leadership of farmers, Postal clerks, haberdashers, cripples, actors, University professors and businessmen, most of them failed businessmen. Does this have relevance to the 2008 election for President?
John McCain served in Vietnam. He flew a Navy bomber, was shot down and spent more than 5 years in a POW camp. McCain never commanded men in battle. Unlike his father and grandfather, he was refused promotion to Admiral and eventually resigned his commission to go into politics. How does that stack up against “The commander-in-Chief Test?” The US has endured untold POWs in war after war. We have never before elected a former POW President of the United States. We have never publicly considered that time spent as a POW was a serious qualification to serve in political office.
Barack Obama, the other choice for President and therefore would-be Commander-In-Chief, is in the historical tradition of those American Presidents with no military experience, no service in uniform and no personal participation in any sort of war. Obama joins a list of US Presidents that includes: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Bill Clinton.
When choosing your candidate in 2008, will you look to pick a President who can pass the mythical “Commander-In-Chief Test,” or will you recognize the true history of America’s foreign wars and see that there no prior life experiences that anyone can point to that qualifies a prospective President of the United States to lead the country in time of war.
Barack Obama and John McCain are running for President. Whoever wins will be Commander-In-Chief. Obviously, that’s important – but only in time of war. Otherwise, it’s just another piece of the job description. So, what exactly is the history of our wartime Presidents? Would they – if they were running for the office today – pass this so-called “Commander-In-Chief Test?” Take a guess – go ahead. How many American Presidents have served in times of foreign wars?
The answer is 17. Yes, 17 different American Presidents have been in office while the US was engaged in a war with a foreign nation. How did they do, and how important was their background? Did they all pass this all important test of leadership? Let’s look at the two indisputably biggest wars in US history and see if those President’s might pass whatever it is people today are calling “The Commander-In-Chief Test.”
World War I was fought almost entirely under a Commander-In-Chief whose previous experience was as a college professor and President of Princeton University – Woodrow Wilson. Officially, the Great War was concluded under President Warren Harding. Neither Wilson nor Harding served in the military. Neither ever commanded men in battle. Neither man ever saw battle themselves. Imagine that skimpy resume, and we won that war, too – didn’t we?
Twenty years later an even larger conflict would engulf our country. During World War II, the Commander-In-Chief, until the final few months, was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Although WW II called for the US to do battle completely around the globe, fighting two mighty empires simultaneously, we somehow managed to win this war, even with a Commander-In-Chief who had never served in the military in any capacity. Amazing, don’t you agree?
After Roosevelt’s death in office, President Harry S. Truman (who as Vice President was not even briefed on the progress of the war and had never heard of an Atom Bomb until the day he became our Chief Executive) concluded the hostilities still underway with Japan. Truman had served his country in the Army during WW I. He attained the rank of Major. What about his work experience prior to being Vice President? Perhaps that gave him the necessary Commander-In-Chief stones. Harry Truman was a haberdasher, a clothing retailer. After dropping two Atom Bombs on Japanese cities, President Truman got to hone his Commander-In-Chief skills in another war, the Korean War. Using nuclear weapons, something no Commander-In-Chief had done, before or since, apparently didn’t help Truman much. The Korean War did not come out as well as the one before it. In fact, more than 50 years later, our military forces are still there.
Going back to the beginning of the United States of America, our very first foreign war was fought against a bunch of rag-tag North Africans. In the Tripolitan War (1801-1804), the US Commander-In-Chief was the third President of the US, Thomas Jefferson. Some people say Jefferson was a member of the Virginia militia in 1789, but most records of his time do not indicate any military service on his part. Despite his lack of experience, we beat the North African pirates handily. Taught them a lesson or two.
In 1812, England had the temerity to attack us. They even bombarded our new capital city, Washington D.C. We fought back bravely under Commander-In-Chief James Madison. President Madison liked to say that he and Jefferson served together in the Virginia militia, but there are no records to backup his service and nothing to show that he actually manned an artillery position against the invading British in 1812. That story may have been the first in what would be 200 years of Presidential spin. Nevertheless, we successfully pushed the British forces off North America and back across the pond from whence they came. Another victory for a Commander-In-Chief with no experience.
Thirty years later, the United States went to war with Mexico under the leadership of Commander-In-Chief James K. Polk. That engagement, which lasted from 1846 to 1848, was successfully concluded in our favor although President Polk had, at best, a sketchy military record. He claimed to have been in the Tennessee militia, but just like Madison and Jefferson before him, there are no official records to prove it.
In the years 1861 through 1865, the Civil War happened. This may not have been a foreign war, but it accounted for the greatest loss of life and number of seriously wounded of any war ever fought by the United States. The Commander-In-Chief was Abraham Lincoln, a man who rose to the Presidency despite having served only a single term in The House of Representatives. The sum total of his military service was a short stint spent in the Illinois militia and his participation in one of the unfortunate Indian Wars, called The Black Hawk War, in 1832. In that engagement, Lincoln did not see combat. He was part of a burial unit. Lincoln did have some command, executive experience. Back in Illinois he had served briefly as a Postmaster. As Commander-in-Chief, he seemed to work out just fine. He saved the Union. The Civil War was officially ended under President James Buchanan. He was the only Commander-In-Chief in our history who served as an enlisted man in the Army never rising beyond the rank of Private in the War of 1812.
A couple of years before the turn of the century, the US was caught up in The Spanish-American War. We won that one in 1898 and the very next year our victorious Commander-In-Chief plunged us into a new war in the Philippines that lasted from 1899 to 1902. That Commander-In-Chief was President William McKinley. While McKinley served in and survived the Civil War, reaching the rank of Major, he came to a bad end one day in Buffalo, New York. We won that war in the Philippines; at least that’s what we said for many decades to come. We’re not as proud of it today as we once were.
In more modern times, the involvement of the United States in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos was conducted under three Commanders-In-Chief – Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, in that order – and every unbiased observer will tell you we didn’t do very well there. However, each of our three Commanders-In-Chief had seen service as officers during WW II. All three served in the Navy, John Kennedy as a Lieutenant and both Johnson and Nixon as Commanders. That service, that wartime military experience – although none of the three ever commanded combat troops - didn’t seem to help much. We came out on the short end of the stick in Vietnam.
In 1983, Ronald Reagan, who reached the rank of Captain in WW II despite never leaving the country and never seeing active duty or combat, invaded the tiny Caribbean nation of Grenada. Among his previous job experiences, prior to getting the gig as Commander-In-Chief, he had been an actor, in the movies and on the new medium, TV as well as a baseball announcer on radio. Under his leadership, we whipped those Cuban construction workers who were building an international airport in Grenada.
Later, the next President after Reagan, George H.W. Bush, commonly known as Bush 41, attacked, in force, the country of Panama. Panama had not threatened or attacked us and they were easily defeated in a war that resembled an eighth grader taking lunch money from kindergarten kids. We literally kidnapped Panama’s President. No doubt encouraged by his swift success in Latin America, President Bush, acting as Commander-In-Chief, then started a real war in 1991 against Iraq. Although he went up against Iraq, Bush decided to fight that war in the country of Kuwait, right next to Iraq. Bush 41 had been a Lieutenant in WW II. As a flyer, his plane was shot down in the Pacific. Perhaps, it was this military service that accounts for the fact that we won, both in Panama and against Iraq in Kuwait. What do you think?
The final American President to fight a foreign war is George W. Bush, or Bush 43, or Son of Bush. Beginning in 2001 with his bombing of Afghanistan and subsequent invasion there, and then in Iraq, in 2003 and continuing to this very day, these two wars have not gone well. Although he claimed, once, that it was “Mission Accomplished,” thousands more have died since that declaration and no end to either conflict appears in sight – at least not under the leadership of this Commander-In-Chief. President Bush 43 was a member of a unit of the Texas Air National Guard, but his outfit was never activated, he left the state before his obligation had been completed and he never saw combat or any other active duty action. You tell me, did Bush 43 pass “The Commander-in-Chief Test?”
So, have you figured out yet what this “Commander-In-Chief Test” is all about? No? Does it strike you as strange that the United States has never had a wartime President with any command experience in the military? Again, take in the meaning of that fact – that’s never; not sometimes; not frequently; not when we win these wars; it’s not never! We have never in our history had a wartime President with a background that included command of men in wartime. Although we have elected a handful of men who were Generals in time of war, we hired them afterward, and during their tenure as Commander-In-Chief, none ever fought another war. Come to think of it, maybe that tells you something.
The reality is - our foreign wars have been fought under the Commander-In-Chief leadership of farmers, Postal clerks, haberdashers, cripples, actors, University professors and businessmen, most of them failed businessmen. Does this have relevance to the 2008 election for President?
John McCain served in Vietnam. He flew a Navy bomber, was shot down and spent more than 5 years in a POW camp. McCain never commanded men in battle. Unlike his father and grandfather, he was refused promotion to Admiral and eventually resigned his commission to go into politics. How does that stack up against “The commander-in-Chief Test?” The US has endured untold POWs in war after war. We have never before elected a former POW President of the United States. We have never publicly considered that time spent as a POW was a serious qualification to serve in political office.
Barack Obama, the other choice for President and therefore would-be Commander-In-Chief, is in the historical tradition of those American Presidents with no military experience, no service in uniform and no personal participation in any sort of war. Obama joins a list of US Presidents that includes: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Bill Clinton.
When choosing your candidate in 2008, will you look to pick a President who can pass the mythical “Commander-In-Chief Test,” or will you recognize the true history of America’s foreign wars and see that there no prior life experiences that anyone can point to that qualifies a prospective President of the United States to lead the country in time of war.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
"HILLARY'S WOMEN" IS 2008 ANOTHER 1968?
If “Hillary’s Women” are the cause of John McCain becoming president, they will have to live with the shame and guilt when McCain’s appointees to the Supreme Court – at least 3 staunch conservatives who will rule for decades to come - overturn Roe v Wade and young women suffer – which is to say, die - as they will. “Hillary’s Women” will share responsibility for those deaths as well as the continued killing in Iraq, and wherever is next for a new McCain War. If “Hillary’s Women” are ready and willing to live with that – and all the other consequences that will arise from another Republican administration – then they deserve every ounce of the scorn and disrespect they seem so determined to earn.
If you believe the TV talking heads – and why wouldn’t you? – there may be millions of Hillary Clinton supporters who are so… so… pissed, they’re not going to vote for the Democratic Party nominee in the upcoming election. Some have even said they will vote for the Republican, Senator John McCain.
Remind you of anyone? If you’re as old as Papa, visions of 1968 are sweeping past your eyes… protests and demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention; demands for “Justice!” confrontation with authorities; and a steadfast, dead-on, absolute refusal to vote for the party nominee, this time if it isn’t Hillary – and it won’t be! That’s exactly what happened in 1968. Many of the “best and the brightest,” the generation come of age in the 60s, they (we!) never got behind the candidacy of Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey because HHH would not back off his support of Lyndon Johnson’s war in Vietnam. Minus his rejection of the war, they (we!) sat on our hands on Election Day. We didn’t show up. We didn’t turn out. We didn’t vote for Humphrey. Showed him, didn’t we!
Richard M. Nixon, the disgraced former Vice President, loser to JFK in 1960, loser again in 1962 in his bid to become California’s Governor… somehow this guy snatched his party’s nomination. And, believe it or not, he won the Presidency in 1968, beating Hubert Humphrey by the thinnest of margins, seven-tenths of one percent. How did he manage that? He won all 6 of the key battleground states in 1968. Nixon triumphed in Missouri by 1.13%. He won in New Jersey by 2.1%, and in Ohio by 2.2%. He won the state of Illinois – where he had claimed the 1960 election was stolen from him – by 2.9%. Nixon was victorious in California (where earlier he had been defeated for Governor) by 3.0%, and in Wisconsin, Nixon won by 3.6%.
In these 6 key states, Nixon won them all, by a total of 593,000 votes. He won because Democratic voters, angry with Hubert Humphrey – pissed just like Hillary’s voters are today – stayed home. Some maybe were so angry they actually voted for Nixon. Need you be reminded – Richard Nixon served two terms (well, almost), resigning in disgrace in August, 1974.
In 1976, when Jimmy Carter, an unknown Governor of a small state in the South, a man with no national political credentials and no experience outside Georgia, a state with a “weak Governor” system, a man hardly "Ready On Day One” ran for President as a Democrat, Hubert Humphrey was forgotten; all Democrats felt comfortable voting for their party’s nominee. Carter won, carrying 3 of the 6 key states Nixon won in 1968: California, Illinois and New Jersey. Even while Gerald Ford carried Wisconsin, Missouri and Ohio – the other 3 Nixon states – Jimmy Carter won the popular vote for all 6 states combined by more than 180,000 votes. That was a difference of more than 773,000 votes for Carter that Humphrey did not get – from the same voters! - 8 years earlier. Those 61 Electoral Votes, garnered by Carter in these battleground states meant the difference in the election’s outcome. Carter won in the Electoral College by only 57 votes. Gerald Ford was not elected to his own full term. Jimmy Carter became the President of the United States. Poor Hubert.
This time around, are we in for “Poor Hillary?” Once again some of the most intelligent, well educated, thinking Americans – the vast majority of them smart, successful women – are poised to screw things up just like an earlier generation of Democrats did. If they follow their politically suicidal tendencies, they must live with the responsibility for the consequences just as those of us who refused to vote for Humphrey in ’68 must face our role in making Richard Nixon president.
Are “Hillary’s Women” ready to wear the scarlet H?
If you believe the TV talking heads – and why wouldn’t you? – there may be millions of Hillary Clinton supporters who are so… so… pissed, they’re not going to vote for the Democratic Party nominee in the upcoming election. Some have even said they will vote for the Republican, Senator John McCain.
Remind you of anyone? If you’re as old as Papa, visions of 1968 are sweeping past your eyes… protests and demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention; demands for “Justice!” confrontation with authorities; and a steadfast, dead-on, absolute refusal to vote for the party nominee, this time if it isn’t Hillary – and it won’t be! That’s exactly what happened in 1968. Many of the “best and the brightest,” the generation come of age in the 60s, they (we!) never got behind the candidacy of Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey because HHH would not back off his support of Lyndon Johnson’s war in Vietnam. Minus his rejection of the war, they (we!) sat on our hands on Election Day. We didn’t show up. We didn’t turn out. We didn’t vote for Humphrey. Showed him, didn’t we!
Richard M. Nixon, the disgraced former Vice President, loser to JFK in 1960, loser again in 1962 in his bid to become California’s Governor… somehow this guy snatched his party’s nomination. And, believe it or not, he won the Presidency in 1968, beating Hubert Humphrey by the thinnest of margins, seven-tenths of one percent. How did he manage that? He won all 6 of the key battleground states in 1968. Nixon triumphed in Missouri by 1.13%. He won in New Jersey by 2.1%, and in Ohio by 2.2%. He won the state of Illinois – where he had claimed the 1960 election was stolen from him – by 2.9%. Nixon was victorious in California (where earlier he had been defeated for Governor) by 3.0%, and in Wisconsin, Nixon won by 3.6%.
In these 6 key states, Nixon won them all, by a total of 593,000 votes. He won because Democratic voters, angry with Hubert Humphrey – pissed just like Hillary’s voters are today – stayed home. Some maybe were so angry they actually voted for Nixon. Need you be reminded – Richard Nixon served two terms (well, almost), resigning in disgrace in August, 1974.
In 1976, when Jimmy Carter, an unknown Governor of a small state in the South, a man with no national political credentials and no experience outside Georgia, a state with a “weak Governor” system, a man hardly "Ready On Day One” ran for President as a Democrat, Hubert Humphrey was forgotten; all Democrats felt comfortable voting for their party’s nominee. Carter won, carrying 3 of the 6 key states Nixon won in 1968: California, Illinois and New Jersey. Even while Gerald Ford carried Wisconsin, Missouri and Ohio – the other 3 Nixon states – Jimmy Carter won the popular vote for all 6 states combined by more than 180,000 votes. That was a difference of more than 773,000 votes for Carter that Humphrey did not get – from the same voters! - 8 years earlier. Those 61 Electoral Votes, garnered by Carter in these battleground states meant the difference in the election’s outcome. Carter won in the Electoral College by only 57 votes. Gerald Ford was not elected to his own full term. Jimmy Carter became the President of the United States. Poor Hubert.
This time around, are we in for “Poor Hillary?” Once again some of the most intelligent, well educated, thinking Americans – the vast majority of them smart, successful women – are poised to screw things up just like an earlier generation of Democrats did. If they follow their politically suicidal tendencies, they must live with the responsibility for the consequences just as those of us who refused to vote for Humphrey in ’68 must face our role in making Richard Nixon president.
Are “Hillary’s Women” ready to wear the scarlet H?
Saturday, August 23, 2008
PAPA NAILED THE DEMS VP PICK - LAST MONTH!
Papa is not one to brag, but - as the "Splendid Splinter," Ted Williams, once said: "If it's true, it ain't bragging!" More than a month ago, on July 16th to be exact, what did Papa say about who would be Barack Obama's pick to be his running mate? Well, in case you've forgotten... take a look:
PAPADABLOGGER, JULY 16, 2008
THE HISTORICAL ODDS HEAVILY FAVOR A US SENATOR IN 2008 TO BE BARACK OBAMA'S RUNNING MATE... JOSEPH BIDEN FITS THE HISTORICAL MOLD PERFECTLY.
So... is Papa bragging, or what? Joe Biden not only fits the mold - he is the mold! And he's now the official choice to run as VP on a Democratic Party ticket headed by Obama headed.
Papa wants to remind his readers why he made this prediction. Here's what he wrote last month:
FOR NEARLY 50 YEARS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS LOOKED TO THE US SENATE FOR ITS VICE PRESIDENTS. AND IT HAS ESPECIALLY SOUGHT OUT WELL-KNOWN, POPULAR AND ACTIVE SENATORS, POLITICIANS WITH THEIR OWN CONSTITUENCIES, MANY WITH PERSONAL HISTORIES OF SEEKING THE PRESIDENCY THEMSELVES. EXAMINE THE LIST: LYNDON JOHNSON, HUBERT HUMPHREY, WALTER MONDALE, LLOYD BENTSEN, AL GORE, JOSEPH LIEBERMAN AND JOHN EDWARDS - ALL NATIONAL FIGURES WITH PRESIDENTIAL AMBITIONS.
But, I hear you asking - what about the "experts," the pundits, the talking heads on TV? Aren't they the ones who really know what's happening? Don't these "pretty faces" have all the inside sources, the real skinny on Washington politics?
Again... here's Papa from July 16th:
THE CURRENT PUNDITS MAKE A BIG DEAL OF THE PARTY'S INTEREST IN GOVERNORS AS POTENTIAL VP NOMINEES. THEY STRESS THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE GOVERNORS HAVE THAT LEGISLATORS LACK. AND THEY TALK ABOUT BRINGING "SWING STATES" INTO THE ELECTORAL FOLD. BUT THE HISTORY OF WHO ACTUALLY GETS NOMINATED DOESN'T JIBE WITH THAT ANALYSIS. IN THE LAST 100 YEARS, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NOMINATED ONLY 5 GOVERNORS FOR VICE PRESIDENT: JOHN KERR OF INDIANA IN 1908, THOMAS MARSHALL, ALSO OF INDIANA IN 1912, FDR OF NEW YORK IN 1920, CHARLES BYRON OF NEBRASKA IN 1924 AND JOSEPH ROBINSON FROM ARKANSAS IN 1928. WELL, WHAT'S THAT MEAN? IT'S BEEN 80 YEARS - 80 YEARS! - SINCE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SELECTED A STATE GOVERNOR TO BE ITS VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE.
For all those who were sure Obama would select Gov. Tim Kaine, please read that last line again.
IT'S BEEN 80 YEARS - 80 YEARS! - SINCE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SELECTED A STATE GOVERNOR TO BE ITS VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE.
You can maake that 84 years now.
Obama/Biden '08! Papa is sitting pretty today.
PAPADABLOGGER, JULY 16, 2008
THE HISTORICAL ODDS HEAVILY FAVOR A US SENATOR IN 2008 TO BE BARACK OBAMA'S RUNNING MATE... JOSEPH BIDEN FITS THE HISTORICAL MOLD PERFECTLY.
So... is Papa bragging, or what? Joe Biden not only fits the mold - he is the mold! And he's now the official choice to run as VP on a Democratic Party ticket headed by Obama headed.
Papa wants to remind his readers why he made this prediction. Here's what he wrote last month:
FOR NEARLY 50 YEARS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS LOOKED TO THE US SENATE FOR ITS VICE PRESIDENTS. AND IT HAS ESPECIALLY SOUGHT OUT WELL-KNOWN, POPULAR AND ACTIVE SENATORS, POLITICIANS WITH THEIR OWN CONSTITUENCIES, MANY WITH PERSONAL HISTORIES OF SEEKING THE PRESIDENCY THEMSELVES. EXAMINE THE LIST: LYNDON JOHNSON, HUBERT HUMPHREY, WALTER MONDALE, LLOYD BENTSEN, AL GORE, JOSEPH LIEBERMAN AND JOHN EDWARDS - ALL NATIONAL FIGURES WITH PRESIDENTIAL AMBITIONS.
But, I hear you asking - what about the "experts," the pundits, the talking heads on TV? Aren't they the ones who really know what's happening? Don't these "pretty faces" have all the inside sources, the real skinny on Washington politics?
Again... here's Papa from July 16th:
THE CURRENT PUNDITS MAKE A BIG DEAL OF THE PARTY'S INTEREST IN GOVERNORS AS POTENTIAL VP NOMINEES. THEY STRESS THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE GOVERNORS HAVE THAT LEGISLATORS LACK. AND THEY TALK ABOUT BRINGING "SWING STATES" INTO THE ELECTORAL FOLD. BUT THE HISTORY OF WHO ACTUALLY GETS NOMINATED DOESN'T JIBE WITH THAT ANALYSIS. IN THE LAST 100 YEARS, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NOMINATED ONLY 5 GOVERNORS FOR VICE PRESIDENT: JOHN KERR OF INDIANA IN 1908, THOMAS MARSHALL, ALSO OF INDIANA IN 1912, FDR OF NEW YORK IN 1920, CHARLES BYRON OF NEBRASKA IN 1924 AND JOSEPH ROBINSON FROM ARKANSAS IN 1928. WELL, WHAT'S THAT MEAN? IT'S BEEN 80 YEARS - 80 YEARS! - SINCE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SELECTED A STATE GOVERNOR TO BE ITS VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE.
For all those who were sure Obama would select Gov. Tim Kaine, please read that last line again.
IT'S BEEN 80 YEARS - 80 YEARS! - SINCE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SELECTED A STATE GOVERNOR TO BE ITS VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE.
You can maake that 84 years now.
Obama/Biden '08! Papa is sitting pretty today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
