[Peace-discuss] on Kucinich and Paul

[John W.]

At 01:03 PM 11/13/2007, David Green wrote:

>LBJ ran in 1964 as the peace candidate in contrast to Goldwater, even 
>after his provocation in the Gulf of Tonkin. Reagan ran as opposed to 
>government spending, and then increased the military budget by 3-fold, if 
>I recall correctly, exploding the deficit. Nixon used the southern stategy 
>and exploited class/race resenement regarding the minimal northern gains 
>of the Civil Rights Movement, and then implemented a large federal jobs 
>program and affirmative action in the construction trades, making him the 
>last liberal president, in that sense.

So apparently ALL Presidents do precisely the opposite of what they said 
they were going to do when they were running for office.  If that's the 
case, then we should obviously look for the worst possible candidate and 
vote for him or her.

John Wason



>"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20071113/03d1e751/attachment.html