[Peace-discuss] on Kucinich and Paul

[Laurie at advancenet.net]

Ok Matt, so what in this post was your contribution to this discussion?  I
think you may have sent the message before its time; it just wasn’t soup
yet.

 

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Matt Reichel
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:52 PM
To: David Green; Peace Discuss
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] on Kucinich and Paul

 

 


  _____  


Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:03:51 -0800
From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] on Kucinich and Paul
To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net

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.

"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
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

 


  _____  


Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http:/www.yahoo.com/r/hs>  

 

  _____  

Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by
today!
<http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctW
Ltagline> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20071113/6ecf24cb/attachment.html