[Peace-discuss] on Kucinich and Paul

[C. G. Estabrook]

There's very little correlation.  Remember Bush the Less campaigned
against the Clinton admin's "nation building."

Classic case is the 1932 election, when FDR campaigned against incumbent
Herbert Hoover in the midst of the Great Depression.  At the center of
FDR's campaign was a promise to balance the budget, over against
Hoover's deficit spending!

Roosevelt said: "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the 
American people", coining a slogan that was later adopted for his 
legislative program as well as his new coalition.  But during the 
campaign, it meant the opposite of what it came to mean. Roosevelt 
campaigned on the Democratic platform advocating "immediate and drastic 
reductions of all public expenditures" and for a "sound currency to be 
maintained at all hazards."

In some cases expediency, in others flat-out lies.  To the latter
category belong John Kennedy's 1960 "missile gap" scare stories, which
Kennedy knew weren't true. (But his belligerent, semi-fascist rhetoric
was all too true and announced what was probably the most dangerous
admin until the current one.) --CGE


Karen Medina wrote:
> Peace discuss,
> 
> Anyone know some good political science studies that look at the 
> campaigns of presidential candidates and then the terms in office 
> that shows what they say and what they end up doing.
> 
> I know we all get general impressions and there are media reports 
> that summarize things like the first 100 days in office, but I am 
> more interested in a deeper analysis. Can anyone suggest one?
> 
> With regard to Tom Mackaman's complaint that one particular person 
> did not stand up for the peace demonstrators as they were removed 
> from the Democratic National Convention, was there anyone who did 
> stand up for the demonstrators? And ultimately is there anything we 
> can say about all of those who did not defend the demonstrators?
> 
> Who would Ron Paul have defended?
> 
> -karen medina