Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush's new UN-Iraq plan. This is how Nixon won in '72

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-03-03 02:26 PM
Original message
Bush's new UN-Iraq plan. This is how Nixon won in '72
When McGovern turned up the heat on Nixon with arguments about Vietnam, Nixon pretended he was turning down the heat in Vietnam.

A lot of voters thought that that meant that Nixon was listening to voters. They ended up not voting him out of office.

After he won reelection, Nixon and Kissinger went back to business as usual in Vietnam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-03-03 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. Hmm...there's actually one huge difference
For all his faults, Nixon didn't start that war.

He kept it going, expanded it into Cambodia and Laos (we find out later), but he initially inherited it from Johnson.

I'm not sure HOW that makes a difference, but it may be a significant one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-03-03 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Nixon was the object of protests and McGovern's attacks,
he was the commander in chief, and people had few illusions about whom they needed to appeal to to get Vietnam ended.

Nixon pretended he was winding it down and it took all the air out of the sails of the people who wanted to get him out of office.

If Americans and Democrats define their opposition to Bush in terms of Iraq, all Bush will need to do is moderate his position on Iraq as he is doing today.

There is a much big picture, of which Iraq is a part, which people need to focus on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GainesT1958 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-03-03 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. Nixon had a good economy in '72, though...
With low unemployment...and he took the wage/price freeze he imposed in '71 off in time to make workers happy--and to keep inflation down.

With the exception of low inflation (and the exception to THAT being gas prices!:mad: ), Dub has NONE of those economic advantages, and Nixon could always blame the quagmire nature of Viet Nam on LBJ--try as he might, Dub & Co. CANNOT do the same to Clinton--and certainly not so in the case of "who got us in this Iraq mess"! x(

B-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-03-03 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Nixon had Watergate in '72, but it wasn't unfolding fast enough.
Democrats should have figured out how to work with that. Watergate wasn't an abberation for Nixon. It was the entire mindset of his administration, and the Democrats should have fit an anti-Vietnam rhetoric into themes which turned on the axis that Watergate was turning on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-03-03 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. NPR/OTM had a segment on why Watergate worked and Iran Contra didn't
...that is to say the Watergate investigations were carefully planned and conducted so they succeeded, but the Iran/Contra investigators were sloppy and allowed Ollie North and his thugs to escape justice.

It was about a month ago on NPR's On the Media. You could probably download it at www.npr.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-03-03 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I think they succeeded because they had bipartisan support.
I think George H.W. Bush was probably going after Nixon from the far right, and the Democrats were going after him from the left, and he had nowhere left to hide.

If Congress agreed to functioning investigations and hearings, it's because Nixon's own party wanted to see him gone. (It didn't hurt that he was actually a criminal, but there have been plenty of Republican criminals who didn't meet his fate.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-03-03 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. "Watergate's Screenwriter " (OTM Link)
July 18, 2003 show. This is almost worth another thread.

http://www.wnyc.org/onthemedia/otm071803.html

Thirty years ago this summer, millions of Americans tuned in to daily congressional hearings, and watched the Watergate plot unfold like a Perry Mason trial. The role of Perry Mason was played by Sam Dash, Chief Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee. He tells Brooke that the drama of the hearings was no accident. It was carefully scripted - by him - for television.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ButterflyBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-03-03 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. Also
Nixon ended the draft, which is from what I heard one of McGovern's main campaign promises. That lost McGovern the youth vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-03-03 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
5. Good Point!
And it may well be their strategy. Remember, while Bush may be dumb, his handlers aren't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terryg11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-03-03 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
7. Bush won't downplay Iraq
unless something changes which is doubtful he will be running on it. 400 dead US soldiers and more dying each day?

"We will not back down! America will see this through. yadda yadda yadda " you know the drill. They are going to try and spin it as a victory over there and with the media's help the people will believe it. hopefully when the race heats up the dem candidates will be calling him on the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-03-03 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Maybe you haven't heard. Today he wants to get the UN involved.
Lots of moderate voters who might have had questions about Iraq will get the fealing that maybe Bush is taking care of the Iraq problem, and the issue will be off the table as a potential administration-ender.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC