HOME
|
MEA CULPA |
GIVE THE GOP A LANDSLIDE VICTORY |
THE ELEPHANT, THE ROOM, AND THE
PEOPLE
PART II |
THE ELEPHANT, THE ROOM, AND THE PEOPLE
PART I |
MONEY GRUBBING FEMALES, UNITE! |
WE AREN’T ELECTING A HOMECOMING QUEEN |
DESPERATELY SEEKING SUSAN |
THE TOOTSIE ISSUE |
Toddlers 4 President! |
CRYING BABIES AND OTHER PRESSING
MATTERS OF STATE |
Democratic Convention 2016: How It
Might Have Been |
I’D LIKE TO FEEL THE BERN,
ONLY…
|
AN UNFORTUNATE REMEMBRANCE
OF THINGS PAST
|
On Matters of the Lie, the
War, and Judgment |
EGO, POLITICS, AND THE
PRESIDENCY |
On Getting What We Deserve |
HOW JANUARY 2017 WILL LOOK |
Return
to Main Website |
|
|
AN UNFORTUNATE REMEMBRANCE OF THINGS PAST
I voted in my first Presidential election in 1972. The Vietnam War
had been going on since I was an eighth grader, and the military
draft was still in force. Massive street protests against both the
war and the draft were a feature of the nightly news. So was
memorable footage of the war itself taken by newsmen embedded with
the troops. It was the first time one was able to see film of a war
outside of a movie theatre, and doubtless the nightly news helped to
fire the growth of the antiwar movement. The President at that time
was Richard Nixon, elected first in 1968. Nixon had done nothing to
end the war, so he was enormously unpopular with that part of the
electorate who wanted the war stopped n-o-w.
The Democrats had several strong candidates, but the two most
appealing were Senator Edmund Muskie and Senator George McGovern.
Muskie looked good because he was less liberal than McGovern and
thus more likely to draw the votes of moderates from both parties
who wanted the war to end as well. But just before the primary in
New Hampshire, the Manchester Union newspaper ran a story with
information in it about a letter they’d received in which the writer
claimed that Senator Muskie had laughed at a slur against French
Canadians made by one of his staff. When Muskie denied the
accusation, he began to weep. Although weeping is not a game changer
today (We’ve seen Presidents weep at funerals and weep at the mass
shooting of first graders, among other things.), in 1972, that
moment ended Muskie’s bid for the Presidency. The primaries
continued, and George McGovern was the candidate chosen by the
Democratic party. But George McGovern, representing what was then
the radically liberal wing of the party, ended up suffering one of
the greatest defeats in the history of Presidential elections.
Within months, of course, the unraveling of that election would
begin, and one of the threads of that unraveling was the fact that
the abovementioned letter—which became called “the Canuck letter”--
was a forgery manufactured by a dirty tricks team employed by the
Committee to Re-Elect the President, which was given the apposite
acronym CREEP. This team was willing to do just about anything to
re-elect Richard Nixon, and the trail of slime they left eventually
led right to the Oval Office and resulted in Nixon’s resignation.
What the nation learned only later was that CREEP was desperate to
have Nixon run against McGovern because they were afraid that Muskie
would beat him. So while they undermined Muskie’s campaign with ‘the
Canuck letter” they launched no attempt to undermine McGovern’s
efforts. For they knew that they would be able to destroy him in the
general election, not only because of his liberal positions but also
because of the vast resources they had at hand.
I’ve been reminded of 1972 during this election. Of course, while it
bears no actual resemblance to the McGovern-Nixon race, it has
turned out to be similar in one regard. While the Republican Party
through their talking heads has been happy to eviscerate Hillary
Clinton, they have maintained an interesting distance from Bernie
Sanders. So what I’ve found myself wondering for a number of weeks
is this: Are they keeping their distance from Bernie Sanders because
they have so much trouble in their own party right now that they
have no time for their talking heads to go after Hillary and Bernie?
Or are they keeping their distance from Bernie Sanders right now
because they learned an important lesson from their own Presidential
disaster of 1964 in which their own radical candidate lost? And
could it possibly be that they learned from 1964 what the Democrats
may have failed to learn from 1972?
If that’s the case, it seems to me that what they would be intent
upon doing at this point is making sure neither Ted Cruz (extreme
right) nor Donald Trump (extreme idiot) gets enough delegates to win
the nomination. Then in a brokered convention they can either choose
John Kasich or draft Paul Ryan with the proviso that Governor Nickie
Haley be either man’s running mate. At the same time, they would be
attempting to make sure that Bernie Sanders (extreme left) either
gets the Democratic nomination or in the process of seeking it,
inflicts enough damage upon Hillary Clinton as to make her
unelectable should she get nominated.
Regardless of what the GOP is up to, it’s my personal belief that a
socialist cannot be elected to the Presidency as we are not a
democratic socialist country but rather a democratic capitalist
country. To turn this country into a democratic socialist society
would require the participation of millions upon millions upon
millions of people electing democratic socialists at all levels of
government but particularly into the House of Representatives and
the Senate. Yet as far as I know—and I admit that I’m no expert when
it comes to this—there are no democratic socialists aside from
Bernie running for national office right now. There certainly might
be in the future but since Bernie Sanders will be 75 when he takes
office should he win the election, I think it’s safe to assume he
won’t be around long enough to see both the House and the Senate
have democratic socialist majorities.
I believe that the Republican power brokers behind the scenes are
aware of this. I believe that they are also aware of Bernie
Sanders’s praise of Fidel Castro and that they will use the film of
the interview in which he praises the dictator in political ads that
run across the country. They will also take Bernie’s laundry list of
proposals and they will cost them out and they will use that
information as well, showing how much people stand to lose in tax
increases to fund everything Bernie plans to do. All of these things
will fuel their campaign against him. Because he represents a
radical wing of the Democratic party and because recent history has
demonstrated to both Democrats (George McGovern, 1972) and
Republicans (Barry Goldwater 1964) that the radical wing of either
party cannot take the Presidency, let alone the Presidency and both
Houses of Congress, he will lose the election.
But…..what if that’s not the case? What if this election turns
history on its ear? What if Bernie wins? Well, the last eight years
have shown us how far the Republicans are willing to go to throw the
country to the wolves in order to destroy the Presidency of a
Democrat. Destroying the Presidency of a Democratic Socialist will
be child’s play for them. For they have made temporizing into an art
form. Putting Bernie’s plans off for four years till they can regain
the Presidency will be very small potatoes to them after what
they’ve done to President Obama.
In the parking garage in Washington D.C. where Bob Woodward met his
source Deep Throat during the Watergate scandal, the man said
something quite memorable to the reporter with regard to what CREEP
had been up to during the 1972 campaign: “You’ve got to remember:
these aren’t very smart guys, and things got out of hand.” What
remains to be seen in this election of 2016 is just part of what
Deep Throat said back in the early 70s. We already know that things
have gotten out of hand among the GOP. But are they smarter about
other things now?
I guess we’ll know in just a few months.
- Elizabeth George
Whidbey Island
Washington State
|
|