Could the Press Grow a Spine?

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...


... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters and
his
own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many campaign
rallies leading up to the election that November.

You say that like it was a bad thing.

Try again peabrain - you're editing achieved that goal, my original comment
was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive peacenik" he and his
supporters did that and they didn't need any help in achieving that goal.

"Brett" wrote in message . ..
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...


... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters and
his
own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many campaign
rallies leading up to the election that November.

You say that like it was a bad thing.

Try again peabrain - you're editing achieved that goal

What goal?

comment was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive peacenik" he
and his supporters did that and they didn't need any help in achieving that
goal.

Do you say that like it was bad thing, or not?

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...


... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters and
his
own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many campaign
rallies leading up to the election that November.

You say that like it was a bad thing.

Try again peabrain - your own editing achieved that goal, my original
comment was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive peacenik" he
and his supporters did that and they didn't need any help in achieving that
goal.

"Brett" wrote in message .. .
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...


... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters and
his
own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many campaign
rallies leading up to the election that November.

You say that like it was a bad thing.

Try again peabrain - your own editing achieved that goal, my original

What goal?

comment was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive peacenik" he
and his supporters did that and they didn't need any help in achieving that
goal.

Do you say that like it was bad thing, or not?

--

FF

"Fred the peabrain" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
.. .
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...


... McGovern the "subversive peacenik"
it was the news shots of his anti-war, anti-capitalist supporters
and
his
own campaign rhetoric at the Democratic convention and the many
campaign
rallies leading up to the election that November.

You say that like it was a bad thing.

Try again peabrain - your own editing achieved that goal, my original

What goal?

The editing addition of an opinion to an opinion free original comment.

comment was that Nixon didn't paint him up as the "subversive peacenik"
he
and his supporters did that and they didn't need any help in achieving
that
goal.

Do you say that like it was bad thing, or not?

It was how the McGovern campaign wanted to be viewed and it lost him the
election.

If you were a Nixon supporter it was a "good thing".
If you were a McGovern supporter it was a "good thing".
If you were a Democrat without a Presidential candidate to vote for, it was
a "bad thing" (he wasn't the best choice the Democrats had available in
1972).

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:cpFDc.124898$Sw.61008@attbi_s51...

Well Steve, if you don't think very well, try to not think very much:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3...scheer20021029

Cheers,


The article is dated 2002, not 1972, and says nothing about portraying Nixon
as a warrior and McGovern a draft dodger. I can only conclude that you have
nothing to support your assertion, and that you don't think very well or
very much.

Have a nice day.

Mike Dargan wrote in message news:cpFDc.124898$Sw.61008@attbi_s51...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
...
By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the
weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the

dodger.

They're trying to pull the same trick in 2004.



I can remember the 1972 election, but I sure don't remember what you
described. I think you fabricated it.

Well Steve, if you don't think very well, try to not think very much:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3...scheer20021029


There is no claim, let alone evidecne, presente din that article to
the effect that anyone attempted to protray McGovern as a dodger.

I also think McGovern is not being honest if he says (note, 'IF'
I don't claim that he is being accurately paraphrased in the
article.) he didn;t use his war record in his campaign for
reasons of 'unseenliness'. The fact is that in 1972 pointing
with justifiable pride to an honorable service record might have
cost him votes. That is how screwed up things were back then.

The article also says he flew B-24s agains Nazi Germany. I
recall, from 1972, that the most famous mission he flew was
an attack on a Rumanian petroleum refinery complex. I had
thought that he flew B-25s out of Italy to targets in
Eastern Europe. Maybe my memory is wrong here.

--

FF

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

The Republicans and their junior college instructor lackey's have a long
history of belittling those who served well while exaggerating the
military records of their, more prudent, candidates.

Can anyone remember the 1972 election? During WWII Richard Nixon ran a
Navy fruit drink stand at some South Pacific backwater supply base while
George McGovern was leading groups of B24s in daylight attacks on Nazi
Europe. AFter the war McGovern used the GI Bill to get a Ph.D., while
Nixon used slush funds to finance red baiting.

By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the
weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the
dodger.

They're trying to pull the same trick in 2004.


I can remember the 1972 election, but I sure don't remember what you
described. I think you fabricated it.


Given that you were only 14 or 15 years old in 1972, it's amazing you're
able to recall the campaign tactics for that election (not that I do).


--Mike

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

Given that you were only 14 or 15 years old in 1972, it's amazing you're
able to recall the campaign tactics for that election (not that I do).


Thanks.

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:29:00 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

The Republicans and their junior college instructor lackey's have a long
history of belittling those who served well while exaggerating the
military records of their, more prudent, candidates.

I've got to say I "resemble that remark", but don't think I'm much in
to belittling those who served well. I've got no problem maintaining
the respect of the warriors that I fought alongside of and who kept
the faith over all these years with their comrades. I tend to despise
those who exaggerate their military record. I support the many groups
who work hard to unmask the poseurs and wannabes.

Can anyone remember the 1972 election? During WWII Richard Nixon ran a
Navy fruit drink stand at some South Pacific backwater supply base while
George McGovern was leading groups of B24s in daylight attacks on Nazi
Europe. AFter the war McGovern used the GI Bill to get a Ph.D., while
Nixon used slush funds to finance red baiting.

As we've often addressed here, a war of the magnitude of WW II
required an incredible amount of manpower. A lot of that was in a
supporting role. My father, for a poor example, served for four years,
drafted as I was being born to function only in a stateside support
role as he was both too old and medically unfit for forward duty. But,
he served and rose to tech sergeant in the Army Air Corps at Keesler
AFB and then Santa Rosa Air Base.

McGovern did not go to any great lengths to highlight his WW II
service during the 1972 campaign. He ran as a staunchly pacifist,
anti-war candidate. He ran on his liberal background as Senator from
SD. He misread the mood of the electorate and while he appealed to the
core of his party, he didn't transfer is appeal to the moderate,
unaffiliated voters and certainly didn't draw from the right.

McGovern used his GI Bill well. Nixon "used slush funds" in his
political role, appropriately if not in consonance with what you might
have chosen him to do. He made his reputation in early political
development as an anti-communist. There's no relationship between
McGovern's education and Nixon's job funding. It's a red herring.

By election time in 1972 the Republican propaganda machine convinced the
weak minded and ignorant that Nixon was the warrior and McGovern the
dodger.

By 1972 we were four years into the Nixon policy of "Vietnamization".
We were down to less than one quarter of the troops in-country in SEA.
We were sitting at the peace table in Paris with SVN, NVN and the VC.
We were actively engaged in diplomatic negotiations with China and
"peace was at hand". Hardly a "warrior" positioning.

There was never a mention of McGovern as a "dodger." There was plenty
of McGovern posturing as a pacifist and unilateral disarmer.

I can remember the 1972 election, but I sure don't remember what you
described. I think you fabricated it.

I can remember the '72 election.


Given that you were only 14 or 15 years old in 1972, it's amazing you're
able to recall the campaign tactics for that election (not that I do).

I was thirty and flying my second tour at Korat in the F-4E, going to
NVN most every day. I had a vested interest in the campaign.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8