« Dancing with the devil | Main | The death of good neighborliness »

The Recency Effect and 2008

I was reading Jay Cost earlier this week, and he was of the opinion that, historically, the Republicans are in for a rough haul in 2008. Certainly he has reasons to think so, but I disagree a bit with him about the historical influences at stake. This is partly due to the Recency Effect, which may be phrased as 'Folks See Today and Yesterday, and Forget Everything Else". A bit of an over-simplification, but to my mind true as Gospel when we're talking about elections.

I don't want to re-open the feud between various factions of Republicans about President Bush. The facts are plain enough for anyone who can stop shouting long enough to think the matter through, but that is turning out to be a problem for a lot of folks. Bad news for the Donkey Kongs, is that all this feuding does not mean that Conservatives will suddenly decide to vote Donkey out of spite, or that they will sit out the next election. Like it or not, people with strong opinions tend to vote by those opinions, and if Bush is not their cup of joe, well, he's not running this time around, now is he? The Donks will run against Bush anyway, but then that's another psychological issue I will let alone for here. So I want to examine, from a somewhat casual and personal point of view, the Presidential elections from 1948 to 2004, and why they went the way they did. I picked 1948 for my starting point because of the number of elections available to consider, and because it's a good starting point for the modern political era. FDR was an anomaly, call him whatever else you will, and before him the media, methods of debate and public opinion consideration were so radically different that the elections hardly bear comparison. Mr. Cost thinks differently, and on some levels I agree with his argument, but for this consideration the closer term is the only relevant one. I doubt, for example, that most folks could name the losing candidate from the major parties from any election prior to their birth.

I begin then, with 1948. President at that time was Harry Truman, not very popular with Democrats and certainly not with Republicans, whom he regularly treated like trash. That's one reason why Democrats won't mention him these days - they don't want comparisons between a Democrat and a Republican who put doing the right thing ahead of being popular. Anyway, Truman was far behind in the polls to a fellow named Dewey, a prominent New Yorker with a reputation for integrity and straight-speaking - sound like anyone running for President these days? It was supposed to be a done deal, no chance for Truman, but the history books show that Truman pulled out that election. The lesson, largely ignored today, was that you can never count out a man of conviction, especially when he's already the President.

- continued -

Move on to 1952. Democrats by then were really angry with Harry Truman. Mad enough to let him know that he couldn't get the nod for another term. Well, near as I can see that was an extremely stupid thing for the Democrats to do, seeing as how there were still millions of American Democrats who thought of Harry as Mr. President, and with a measure of respect, as well. So playing 'We're Not Harry' cost the Democrats some support, and when the GOP was smart enough to get General Ike to run on their ticket, that was it. Maybe Eisenhower would have won anyway against Truman, but there's no question the Democrats made their hand weaker by whacking their own guy.

That brings us to 1956. Eisenhower versus Stevenson again, with pretty much the same results. When you consider that this time Ike was the sitting President and not the challenger, this tells you that he should have had a harder time in 1952, if he'd run against Truman. Not trying to pick on President Eisenhower, but his 1956 election was pretty vanilla fare, with no major bad news balanced against a lot of general good feeling. A don't-rock-the-boat kind of thing, which must have annoyed Stevenson immensely. The lesson there, I hate to say, is that a President who chooses not to stand up in the hard fights can look real good in the short run.

Next, 1960. Nixon losing to Kennedy was a stunner at the time for the politicos, but it shouldn't have been. Kennedy ran as the effective challenger, since Nixon was the Vice-President under Eisenhower. But in actual fact, there was not much of an impressive executive resume for Nixon. Yes, he'd been a member of Congress, but that has limits to its value. So in actual fact it was a race between a guy with name recognition because he was connected to the President, and a guy with name recognition because he was articulate, handsome, and rich. The lesson, is that such contests are usually close.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson smashed Barry Goldwater. Some of that was residual from Kennedy's assassination; in 1964 not so many people knew JFK hated LBJ. A bit of that was old-fashioned dirty tricks, frankly much nastier than the stuff we see today. And some of that was that folks wanted to see Johnson given a chance to have his own term. It's worth noting that 1964 was the last time a Democrat won the White House in a landslide.

On to 1968. What a mess. The Democrats were in a sorry state, having abandoned LBJ - maybe for good reason, maybe not, but he got a delegation of 'crats in his office telling him he should find a good moving company. Made him bitter enough that he refused to support anyone in the race for most of the campaign, which certainly hurt the eventual nominee, VP Hubert Humphrey. It also hurt the Democrats that Robert Kennedy was assassinated - it may be a stretch to claim that RFK was a lock for the nomination, but he was certainly a force in the election, and a portion of the Democrats simply lost any reason to vote when Bobby Kennedy was dead. Add to that the fierce anger in the South against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which manifested itself in support of George Wallace, and you can see why Richard Nixon was able to win the election with only 43% of the popular vote. The lesson is, never assume the other guy is so bad that you cannot lose, and once again that deserting your President will cost you for it.

Next, 1972. If it makes sense to say that Richard Nixon only won - barely - in 1968 because the Democrats blew their unity, identity, and party discipline, what does it say that Nixon blew away Senator George McGovern in 1972? It should be noted that the Watergate scandal indicates that Nixon's campaign was actively working at underhanded ways to win, but it's unsure whether it would have made all that much difference. Nixon won 49 states, including McGovern's home state of South Dakota. This was partly due to McGovern's poor handling of his campaign (he fired his VP pick in the summer, for example), McGovern's poor selection of issues (McGovern based a lot of his campaign on a 'cut and run' strategy in Vietnam, missing the fact that the Paris Peace Accords had given Nixon a much stronger hand in that arena, and that most Americans felt that cutting out on an ally was wrong, even in an unpopular war). The lesson is, organization and consistency is a critical factor.

On to 1976. This one is pretty simple. The Watergate burglars were unable to keep their secret, and whatever his initial involvement in the crime, Nixon's deliberate obstruction of the FBI was criminal. Like another President later on, Nixon's lying is what did him in, and his own party confronted him with the threat of impeachment. Nixon resigned in 1974, leaving unlucky Gerald Ford to try to lead the GOP. The 1974 mid-term elections were a disaster, and Ford lacked both the resume to claim authority to lead and the charisma to charm the nation. A folksy Democrat from Georgia simply smiled a lot, promised not to lie, and won almost by default. 1976 was also the last time a Democrat running for President claimed a majority of the popular vote. The lesson is, the voters will punish the party for a bad individual, if he's a Republican.

Next up - The New Republicans, and the New Democrats

Comments (48)

Enough with this regency of... (Below threshold)

Enough with this regency of the now; off with its head, this instant.

The moment is dead; long li... (Below threshold)

The moment is dead; long live the next.

You can't compare a person ... (Below threshold)

You can't compare a person of intergity today with a person of intergity in the 40-50's. We still have leaders with intergity (very few), but we have citizens that make hero's of criminals and it carries over the career criminal politicians. Look at the Clintons for a living example of a criminal family (life song)that a large group of Americans profess to worship more that they worship 'what is right', or even God. You figure that out and open a mental health hospital, you will be a trillionaire within a year. 48% of the population have proven that BDS is a mental illness and will require years of treatment. Hate is not a light bulb and can't be turned off at will, it will simply be turned on someone else when President Bush goes back to the ranch and enjoys life and laughs at the fools who now hate someone else, or everyone else.

The Democrats can run again... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

The Democrats can run against Bush for 35 years.

Adrian: "The Democrats can ... (Below threshold)

Adrian: "The Democrats can run against Bush for 35 years."

I recall Carter and his campaign masters saying in 1976 that of all the Republican candidates, they would most like to run against Reagan.

Further, I recall the Dems saying they were going to run against Reagan and his policies for 30 years.

How'd that work out?

It's so easy to say something stupid like "The Democrats can run against Bush 35 years" when history has shown again and again that events alter perception.

The Democrats can ... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
The Democrats can run against Bush for 35 years.

Please, let them do so.

A sure way to lose a war is... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

A sure way to lose a war is to re-fight the last one. A sure way to lose an election is to campaign against the last opponent. The odds of the GOP winning the next Presidential election are next to nil, but the odds are high that the Democrats are going to lose anyway giving the win to the GOP by default. The reason is that Democrats are vested in defeat and the American people don't see themselves as losers.

(1960 - Nixon/JFK) was a ra... (Below threshold)

(1960 - Nixon/JFK) was a race between a guy with name recognition...and a guy (who was) articulate, handsome, and rich. The lesson, is that such contests are usually close.

I was a ten-year-old kid that election, but I stayed up watching the Illinois voting returns. Illinois in 1960 was Florida in 2000 - whoever won the electoral votes became president.

Cook county (Chicago) was Democrat, but the rest of the state was Republican. During the evening, the downstate precincts kept reporting vote tallies, but Cook county didn't.

Then, after virtually all the Republican counties had reported - Cook county reported totals that tipped Illinois to the Democrats. Credit to 2nd-term Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley's machine.

JFK chose LBJ as his running mate. LBJ finished JFK's term and won in 1964. 3 months later we had the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident which began the Viet Nam "police action" (it wasn't a declared war).

Yes, the 1960 race was close. Nixon was a foreign-policy genius. He might have kept us out of Viet Nam. But thanks to hizzoner Richard J. Daley, we never got to find out.

DJ,You still don't u... (Below threshold)

You still don't understand. Why vote GOP? What have they done for us? Nothing, Nil, Zich. I can give you a laundry list of arguments why the GOP is dead...you cannot give anything in return why we should vote for these elitist. The GOP will have to be remade completely after immigration...much like after Nixon..and there is no Reagan on the horizon!

DJthere was ... (Below threshold)


there was not much of an impressive executive resume for Nixon.

Not to knit pick, but it was Nixon's very impressive CV on the issue of fighting Communism and its infiltration of the U S government that may have galvanized one constituency of his opposition. Nixon took down Alger Hiss and the Left never forgot of forgave him for it.

Look up the percentage of t... (Below threshold)

Look up the percentage of the voters that were white in 1960 versus the percentage of white voters who will be voting in future election. The Republicans are fated to become irrelevent because there is just not enough middle class and upper middle class whites who work in the private sector to keep a political party going.

The Republicans are going to be buried under the demographic changes in the U.S.

Uh Bud' boy just what have ... (Below threshold)

Uh Bud' boy just what have the cut and run crowd done for you lately? Hmmmm. Let me see now--first there is the NO vote that Osoma and Hilly (your prez front runners) cast on the min. wage bill--then there is ...............?????

Hugh S is correct. And DJ:L... (Below threshold)

Hugh S is correct. And DJ:Little executive experience, true. But Nixon's use of Whittacker Chambers' prothontory(sp?) warbler anecdote to prove that Chambers' was indeed (as a Communist agent) intimately knowledgable of Alger Hiss on a personal level (Hiss's private birdwatching coup in spotting that warbler), and it was this detail (irrelevant to the case) that led Hiss to flip out in depostion and sue Chambers for libel, which led to Hiss conviction for perjury.
The statute of limitations for what Hiss was accused of had passed, so Nixon baited Hiss into lying under oath (ala Libby). Bravura performance on Nixon's part to snare a traitor!
The left didn't hate Nixon more than they feared his intellect.

Budahmon, you are the one ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Budahmon, you are the one that doesn't get it. Democrats go through life with heads up ass like a turtle. Popping it out just spew or chew.

The party of criminal frauds say:

"The Democrats can run against Bush for 35 years."

Of Course , is there anything a democrat can't run on by merit?

Democrats are career Criminal frauds and do nothing but stir up hate through lies and fraud. Nothing but a pack of slimy hucksters.

"I can give you a laundry list of arguments why the GOP is dead."

Then why don't you stupid?

"What have they done for us? Nothing, Nil, Zich"

Who is this "US" you speak of. You are a democrat first and formost. Blame yourself for identifying yourself with the party of criminal frauds and not Americans. Don't pretend to speak for Americans , your a stupid democrat.

What the matter , it's safer to campaign against Bush than it is on the usual democrats lies and fear tactics?

One of your fellow idiot frauds already has answered that one.

"The Democrats can run against Bush for 35 years."

Democrats have nothing to offer Americans or our Country. Unless your a lazy lying stupid traitorous criminal , then the sky is the limit.

Democrats have nothing to ... (Below threshold)
Colorado KnightOwl:

Democrats have nothing to offer Americans or our Country. Unless your a lazy lying stupid traitorous criminal , then the sky is the limit.
Posted by: Rob LA Ca

Hey dipstick...I am conservative and I will not vote for a proamnesty Republican no matter who or what ran against them.

I am done supporting people that ignore me, call me names, will not enforce current law or secure the border.

Kennedy has passed 7 previous amnesties and we have 12 million new illegal aliens. Now he wants to pass #8 and GWB, McKennedy, Gramnesty at all are wetting their pants trying to praise Kennedy for his courage. If thats what you want to elect Republicans to do - go ahead.

I for one am done with the national Republican party. I will continue to support real conservatives, but another RINO can go to blazes for all I care...

You keep sending them money and taking whatever they give you like No Child Left Behind, or Prescription RX or expiring tax cuts...

Ba Bye RNC

RdEePaUdBeLnIdCeArN... (Below threshold)
Mr. Subliminal:


Oh Rob LA,Can you sa... (Below threshold)

Oh Rob LA,
Can you say you worked in Reagan's campaign against Ford? Can you say you worked for Jesse Helms campaign twice? Can you say you worked for Reagan's campaign twice? Bush I twice, Ollie North, George Allen, Bush II twice, Mel (Sellout) Martinez? I think I can answer those with an affirmative yes! I can't come up with a Laundry list of why we should not vote Rep!!! Let me count the ways.... Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, Valerie Plame, Mismanaged Iraq War, Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, No Child left Behind, Tax Cuts that fade away, Campaign Finance, Prescription Drugs,Jerry Lewis, Renzi, Foley, Stevens, Calvert, Doolittle, Katrina, management of FEMA, cronyism (Brown, Myers, Meiers, Martinez, Gonzales), The Bridge to Nowhere, House Leadership, Senate Leadership, RNC Leadership, Earmarks, and finally AMNESTIA. Yep that list sure is one to crow about if you are in this administration or republican leadership position. Yeah...I'll think I'll vote for more of that!!!

Budahmonyou left o... (Below threshold)


you left out dubai ports.

Budahmon - You go brother! ... (Below threshold)
Colorado KnightOwl:

Budahmon - You go brother! I got your back.

BudahmonWas that a c... (Below threshold)

Was that a comprehensive list or just a rant? I hope it was the latter because you left out some qualified entrants.
If you are staking claim to the moral high ground then you're obviously a rookie in a veteran's game. Rookies make noise by claiming the other guy is a crook, while vets know that a crook can appear anywhere, anytime.
Care to continue with this? If so, get the name and address of those claiming to have your back.

Oops I did leave out Dubai ... (Below threshold)

Oops I did leave out Dubai Ports....

Hugh S: "If you are staking claim to the moral high ground then you're obviously a rookie in a veteran's game."

Read the post I was referencing. No I'm not staking claim to the moral high ground, but I am saying as a Conservative and a former Republican that the GOP was the reason they lost last election cycle and I'll bet good money they will lose next election cycle. Why, just look at the list, there is quite a few Reps there that will be running next cycle and you can kiss those seats goodbye. The RNC/GOP still doesn't understand what is happening in this country. Nope, they would rather cut a backroom deal to foist amnesty on us than actually do something about the border. Yet, they think they can whine about the Big Bad Hillary who is going to take away our tax cuts.....hell the Republicans did that already!!!!! As to what the Dems can do to wreck this country, well all it takes is 40 Senators in the Senate and they can hold up any legislation through a Filibuster...Oh that would require that some Senators grow some cojones and that my friend is only found in a few Senators and actually very few in the Party of Lincoln.

BudahmonI'll list ... (Below threshold)


I'll list my own sources even if you just fling it on the wall.

Campaign Finance.... Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain-Feingold Act...hello George Soros

Mismanaged Iraq War.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution ..... Own your vote , Own your decision and I don't even like wiwki

Katrina.... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1624290/posts

Cronyism... http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/06/20/revisionist-history-clinton-style/

The Bridge to Nowhere...just my own thought, how much does Alaska pay per capita in total taxes? Say, compared to New York? Massachussetts?

Earmarks..... http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9715-2003Nov6?language=printer

Jack Abramoff....meet Jack Murtha

Valerie Plame.... http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp

Budahman, you surely know that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, but did you think your comment was defensible?

Care to continue with this?... (Below threshold)
Colorado KnightOwl:

Care to continue with this? If so, get the name and address of those claiming to have your back.
Posted by: HughS

That was an intelligent post...Like the RNC can claim the high ground ANYWHERE...Don't let the door hit you on the way to third world country Hugh

BudahmonI just sent ... (Below threshold)

I just sent you an extensive reply to your first post, but Wizbang! is holding it to vet it. I just read your reply.
Given your post in reply (which appeared before my response that has not posted), maybe we are more in agreement and I misunderstood your post.
That said, when Kevin et al release the post, understand that it was written as if you were the adversary.

ColoradoI'll confess... (Below threshold)

I'll confess to getting adressees confused. But the door hitting me "on the way to third world country Hugh"...explain.
BTW, bye bye RNC means you will go where? Third party? Hello WJC. Why not fix the family problem than helping elect another less than 50% liberal Dem.

There was a t... (Below threshold)

There was a topic for this thread once ...

Hugh,My comments wer... (Below threshold)

My comments were defensible.

Campaign Finance - who signed the damned bill? George Bush, he should know what the hell he is signing once in a while.

Mismanaged Iraq War - This is easy. Who said we have enough troops....Who said we need more tropps...The same man, President George Bush! Now does it get any easier than that? He himself by requesting a Surge admits he screwed up and has basically snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Katrina - Do I blame this President for Katrina's mess and the uncontrolled spending by FEMA...Yes I do. Why...because his father was roasted politically by Andrew and yet this President could not see the trouble that was brewing ("Brownie you're doing a fine job"). It was his job, he is the President, the Buck Stops There! Then all he does is throw money at the problem...yep that's conservative.

Cronysim - Wasn't the Republican Party supposed to be a little better, a little smarter than the Dems. Pointing fingers at the Dems doesn't grab the high moral ground either, saying the other guy is a crook doesn't work anymore for me. We should be better, but we aren't we have just as many crooks and right now we have more behind bars than the Dems.

Earmarks/Bridge to Nowhere - Weren't we supposed to be the party of Fiscal Reform? Weren't we supposed to watch after the Taxpayer? When the Reps were in power what happened to fiscal restraint...it went out the window so they could stay in power. That is a pretty damning statement.

Plame - What can be said. This administration got snookered. They should have fired Rove and Libby and Armitage as soon as they knew about this...case closed, but no they let it drag on for ever and a day...the whole affair was mismanaged. Just like the USAGs case...they should have said the President fired them..case closed.

Now Hugh...once, twice in an administration something should come down the pipe and cause us to help defend these guys....but this is continuous. This administration is abysmal. All I can say is there is a reason Cheney is not in the spotlight...He wants people to forget he was VP, no wonder he states that he is not a member of the Executive Branch (BTW I believe he is right about that).

Well , it does make sense t... (Below threshold)

Well , it does make sense to read the thread. Gladly, I don't have the nuclear football!

Like the RNC can claim the high ground ANYWHERE

Are you claiming that your politics and methods are are more moral than the GOP? If so, go find the line called Looking In The Mirror, Liberals in Recovery.
As to the Third World country you refer me to, is it Marxist, Dictator/Thug or Emerging Democracy? Or do you know the difference? Whether it's Shining Path or Sandinista, for good reasons AAA never served up a TripTick for these destinations..

DJThere was ... (Below threshold)


There was a topic for this thread once ...

My apologies for hijacking it.

Trying to discuss this serious topic and comment accurately on a Star Wars movie with my son shows that I have my priorities reversed. Not kidding.
Back to Star Wars....

I did notice that Bu... (Below threshold)

I did notice that Budhamon, as usual, did not even try to support his contentions with facts or links.

Venom and spit only go so far. Which reminds me, Knightowl cut out pretty quick, I think he realized how much like a Liberal he was sounding, and - hopefully - he went to go wash his mouth out with soap, so to speak.

Now, why do I have this sen... (Below threshold)

Now, why do I have this sense that Knightowl is pretending to be 'kim'?

That last comment was neither factually accurate, anywhere near the topic, nor effective as a piece of rhetoric. A piece of feces, sure, but not effective rhetoric.

Say hello to Polipundit for me, Knightowl. And you might remind him that while he broke his promises, I and the others kept ours.

I guess I'm the last to cat... (Below threshold)

I guess I'm the last to catch on to the charade. No body ever tells me anything. That's cuz I'm too busy telling them.

Budahmon, you got the Plame... (Below threshold)

Budahmon, you got the Plame business wrong. Comey set Fitzgerald up, unconstitutionally, to try to subvert this administration, and it almost worked. Joe Wilson is a liar, Armitage is a coward and a despicable traitor, Rove is almost innocent in this whole mess, and Fitzgerald will be bounced on his ass by the three judge panel hearing Libby's emergency appeal of Walton's order denying bail during appeal, one of whose judge's, Tatel, was lied to by Fitz in order to put Judy Miller in jail. As one of the intrepid crew at JustOneMinute said, perhaps Tatel will drop an anvil on Fitz. Was it anduril?

DJ, after reading both of t... (Below threshold)

DJ, after reading both of these "Recency" posts, I can't help noticing that your analyses get worse as you look further into the past. And the elephant in the room that you seem to keep missing is the effect of war on the voters' perceptions.

In 1952, the Republicans ran Eisenhower. Who was Eisenhower? He was Supreme Allied Commander Europe in WW2: the genius behind D-day, the master strategist who whipped the Nazis and brought the boys home. What else was going on in 1952? The Korean War was in its second year of stalemate -- and Truman had pissed off a lot of voters by his treatment of Eisenhower's fellow war hero Douglas MacArthur.

In 1956, Eisenhower ran as not only the genius of WW2, but also the master diplomat who ended the Korean War.

In 1960, John F. Kennedy's name recognition came in large part from his war record -- who of the Kennedy generation doesn't know the story of PT-109? In simple terms, he was a war hero.

Johnson benefited from JFK's aura in 1964, but by 1968 that wasn't enough to overcome the shadow of an increasingly unpopular war (and, incidentally, the first example of the media's determination to make the war look worse for the USA than it actually was).

The activities of the Plumbers so corrupted the 1972 campaign that I consider it an outlier, not fitting into any historical pattern. And the backlash from Watergate similarly corrupted the 1976 election. No one connected with Nixon was going to win, period.

Hugh S where do you live?<b... (Below threshold)
Colorado KnightOwl:

Hugh S where do you live?
Have you ever been to the SouthWest? Have you seen what Los Angeles and the surrounding areas are becoming? LA County is roughly 56% foreign born. In one school district alone 54 different languages are spoken. In the area where I was cop for 26 years all the billboards and storefronts are in spanish or armenian. Spanish and Armenian flags flew from the cars that drove around town, not American. 3 out of the 5 city councilmen in the city I worked for were born in Russia. Their comment to the city manager was that "too many white people work for this city". We had so many day laborers (illegal aliens) that we spent $100k a year to set up a work center for them. This was to get them off the street corners everywhere. The mayor of LA City is a former member of La Raza. I swear that when you go into Rampart division of LAPD you can't tell whether you are in California or in Mexico. There are now neighborhoods in LA where the cops won't go after dark unless it is with a full SWAT call out.
The reason I live in Colorado now is that parts of the SW United States are a third world country.

So where am I going to? I will still vote for conservatives like Tancredo, Hunter, Sessions or DeMint. People like Bush, McCain, Graham, Lott will never get another vote or another dollar. If they are like the latter group that works closely with the likes of Kennedy, what is the difference?

DJ I do have a life, as much as I want to, I can't sit in front of the computer 24/7...

Say hello to Polipundit for... (Below threshold)
Colorado KnightOwl:

Say hello to Polipundit for me, Knightowl. And you might remind him that while he broke his promises, I and the others kept ours.

Posted by: DJ Drummond

What promise was that? To vote Republican no matter how many times they write bad legislation with Kennedy? To support GWB no matter what he does? My oath of office was to defend the U.S. and the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. We are being invaded. Where are our elected leaders coming to the defense of the sovereignty of the United States?

Hey bD, Libby didn't lie un... (Below threshold)

Hey bD, Libby didn't lie under oath, Russert did.

But that was nice about Nix... (Below threshold)

But that was nice about Nixon. Did he really do that on purpose? How did he know Hiss would freak? Or is your chain of causation pretty like a daisy and not durable like iron?

Wolfwalker, you're free to ... (Below threshold)

Wolfwalker, you're free to believe what you like. But you're not getting a refund, seeing as I don't get any pay for this. (lol)

To your points, then:

Iraq is not a win or a loss, yet. The Donks keep trying to surrender but the Marines keep fighting, and I believe Bush will be proven wise in his decisions. Hard to see just what the GOP means to do about Iraq just now ...

"Truman had pissed off a lot of voters by his treatment of Eisenhower's fellow war hero Douglas MacArthur."

So you figure a President can't fire a General who won't follow orders? Check your Constitution. I'd said Harry was unpopular, but he still did the right thing.

"In 1956, Eisenhower ran as not only the genius of WW2, but also the master diplomat who ended the Korean War."

BS. Patton and Bradley did more than Ike, and last I checked, Korea was still not resolved. Sure, Ike looked good in a uniform, and generally was a good guy, but please ...

"In 1960, John F. Kennedy's name recognition came in large part from his war record -- who of the Kennedy generation doesn't know the story of PT-109?"

A ghost writer wrote PT-109. You ever read that slop? In simple terms, it was hype and JFK ran on smiles and family money. He was sure no Audie Murphy.

Vietnam was not unpopular until well after 1964.

"The activities of the Plumbers so corrupted the 1972 campaign that I consider it an outlier".

There's no evidence to prove that the Plumbers affected even one state, and as I said, firing your VP not a week after publicly promising the nation you'd stick by him, well that's just stooopid.

Ford almost beat Carter in 1976. Check the Gallup poll numbers between August and November 1976.

Knighthawk, back when Polip... (Below threshold)

Knighthawk, back when Polipundit.com devolved into DammitYouWillPostWhatITellYou2Post.com, the siteowner asked for certain things from the writers he was kicking out. In return, he made certain promises to us. We kept his secrets for him, but he has repeatedly stabbed in the back and lied about us. For instance, I know the site owner's real name and where he lives and what he does for a living, but have never and will never publish it. Not a big deal really, but I must say that he broke every single promise he made to us, even to Lorie Byrd, who never did or said a single thing to deserve the poor grace he showed her.

So far as I am concerned, he is a man with no honor or integrity, and that's about as bad a thing I can imagine of a person who writes on a blog. And yes, when someone comes over from Polipundit.com and starts off on a tear which is 98% emotion and apparently void of context, I can't help but wonder what new lies he is spinning at the old place. I don't hate him, but I am not so naive that I forget what he did, and I can't help but believe that he influences his readers with that same hatred and classless spite.

I can't help but believe th... (Below threshold)
Colorado KnightOwl:

I can't help but believe that he influences his readers with that same hatred and classless spite.
Posted by: DJ Drummond

I haven't seen hatred (on Poli.com) except for some moby trolls. Most are working hard to share info about this very bad immigration bill. The vitriol seems to come more from our so-called leaders, that care more about what Kennedy thinks than the people who actually voted for them.

We feel betrayed DJ, that can cause some emotion as your last post states. I don't post here to piss you off. I post here and there to try and convince even one more person to join me in fighting amnesty.

I have always found you sincere and loyal, though like our president I think you carry your loyalty to him past where it should go.

Knightowl, I know you belie... (Below threshold)

Knightowl, I know you believe I am prejudiced against Polipundit. So, I recommend you send an email to Lorie Byrd, and just ask her one simple question:

"Did Polpundit keep his promises when he sent the other writers packing?"

She is thoroughly honest and a kind person, so hopefully her answer will send a signal which matters.

By DJ "Knightowl, I know yo... (Below threshold)
Colorado KnightOwl:

By DJ "Knightowl, I know you believe I am prejudiced against Polipundit."

DJ, I don't think about what did or didn't happen when you left Poli...I don't know Poli except from what he posts/blogs, the same for you. I take what you say at face value, but having been a police officer for 26 years I believe nothing that I hear and only half of what I see.

I have always thought that you and Lorie were honest and that you say what you believe.

Stay strong.

Thanks, and you too, Knight... (Below threshold)

Thanks, and you too, Knightowl. It takes more than a normal share of patience and cool thinking to be a police officer, especially these days.

DJ,I'm sorry did you... (Below threshold)

I'm sorry did you need a link for my contentions? If so please show which of my so called contentions are incorrect! They're not. Everything I posted is truthful, which makes your little snarky remark (which you were quite famous for at Poli) unsupportable. Prove anything that I said was untruthful....I'll eat my hat...but I still won't vote or donate to those lying elitist politicians you hold so highly.

Had Kennedy not had friends... (Below threshold)

Had Kennedy not had friends in high places he would have been disciplined for falling asleep and letting his small agile boat be run over by a larger, more unwieldy boat. He behaved well after the crash, to his credit.

I note, once again, that Bu... (Below threshold)

I note, once again, that Budhamon can fling it, but not back it up.

And since you skipped school when we learned basic Debate, or esle they don't offer the course at the State Home and Alternative School for Future Thugs, when you make a contention Buddhafaker, it falls upon you to prove your contention, not for someone else to prove you wrong.

And I do not hold lying, elitist politicians in high regard - I support the President.

DJ,This is so you, j... (Below threshold)

This is so you, just as snarky as ever. You claim I said something that was not factual. Do you need a link from me to prove the sun rises in the east and that Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act? Are you that dense? Or do they raise them just stupid in your part of Texas! As for missing debate 101...I guess I did miss since I was learning how to split atoms from one of the scientist on the Manhattan Project....but at ThugU they teach you right. BTW how's that old business degree holding up...I've always been impressed with those guys who struggle to get a 3.0 out of something usually so easy for engineers and scientist that we use it to pad our GPA. I know I did....or maybe you took Debate 101 to bring that 2.0 up to a stirling 2.25 at good ole Cowpoke U... See ya... we at ThugU really miss a good old debate but it needs to be fair and talking down to someone swimming in the shallow end of the human genetic pool just isn't fair. BTW the President is an elitist - lying politician - I don't think I need a link to prove that...

Budahmon - Vietnam Era Vet - BSEE ThugU






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy