Role Reversals: if Bush is Nixon 2 could Kerry be, Lyndon Johnson 2?

[Larkspur]

Bush is the most malicious and secretive President since Nixon. Nixon campaigned on getting us out of Vietnam, but after being elected increased the violence there.

Kerry reminds me of Lyndon Johnson, who was liberal in regards to civil rights and trying to reduce poverty, but Johnson was a hawk and anti-Communist zealot who escalated the Vietnam War under his tenure. This escalation, the Viet Cong backlash, and the rising anti-war movement caused Johnson to withdraw from running for a 2nd term in 1968.

What's your thoughts on this comparison?

[LynzM]

1. Let me see if I understand...

You think Kerry's going to escalate the war in Iraq? After fighting so strongly against continuing the war in Vietnam? Why?

[blm]

3. Irrational hatred of Kerry.

Wants everyone to know it.

[Larkspur]

12. Actually, I have a rational hatred of Kerry

I've never been impressed with him and he always strikes me as a political coward.

[blm]

14. Because you were FOR keeping BCCI and IranContra hidden?

Sorry you believe he was a political coward for pursuing those investigations and the CIA drugrunning and that he almost got in the way of Al Gore's efforts to stem dirty song lyrics.


I know you boast of being a moderate but that is TOO right wing for me.

I see good governance as exposing true government corruption and setting up legislation to prevent further abuses. THAT takes a political courage possessed by damn few lawmakers.

[Larkspur]

29. blm, you don't even know where the middle is

Kerry participated in exposing Iran Contra, but what did it accomplish? Those convicted are still running free. And Kerry's supposedly liberal stances are way back in his past -- mid '80's. The last decade has shown him to be more conservative than me. Didn't Ted Kennedy chastise Kerry for not supporting a minimum wage increase a few years ago? If Kerry was trully a left wing liberal like you, Kerry should never have doubted supporting a minimum wage increase.

[kiahzero]

30. Kerry was ranked as the most liberal Senator of 2003

He may be more conservative than you, but you aren't in the upper echelons of government - the population that a viable Presidential candidate comes out of.

[IrateCitizen]

31. I'm not doubting Kerry's "liberalism", but he missed a lot of votes...

... in 2003 while he was out campaigning.

It would be more accurate to look at his ratings from 2002 on back.

[blm]

33. Yes, his lifetime rating that put him closest to Wellstone

and even more liberal than Kennedy over his career.

[kiahzero]

34. Pretty sure it was rather high in 2002, but I don't think it was as high.

From FOXNews (I know, I know, but you work with what you can find):
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/012204_kerry_kennedy.pdf

[blm]

32. You are basing that charge on a FALSELY reported story.

And you have no problem with REPEATING false stories about Kerry, do you?

Kennedy walked into a room where Kerry was giving a rundown on the Republican argument against minimum wage. Kennedy snapped a reply to that.

Guess you are unaware that Kerry stood with workers in Boston to promote LIVING WAGES.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. No you don't. You rely on generalities to slur him and can't be rational

nor objective to save your life. Even the opening post for this thread paints him as a "hawk" simply for his vote authorizing the resolution.

[IrateCitizen]

6. After reading Daniel Ellsberg's secrets, this actually makes sense

Why? Because one of the primary concerns of the Democratic Party has been, since the beginning of the Cold War, to avoid charges of being "weak on defense" from the Republicans. This was as much of a reason as any for LBJ's increasing involvement in Vietnam. Hell, even the overwhelming majority of his advisors -- including McNamara -- privately assessed the situation as essentially unwinnable.

Where I see a similar parallel taking place is with Kerry's calls for providing more troops to commanders in Iraq (flashback to Gen. Westmoreland, anyone?) while saying that "we can't afford to lose". It's a willful ignorance of the possibility that the situation in Iraq will only deteriorate so long as US troops remain on the ground there. The Democratic Party, by and large, is politically unable to even consider the possibility of a military withdrawl.

The John Kerry who spoke against Vietnam was a young man, relatively idealistic and without as much to lose. The John Kerry of today is a professional politician, striving for the highest elected office in the land. A notable contrast between the two was evident during his interview with Tim Russert in which he was shown his piece from MTP in 1971 in which he was denouncing atrocities committed by US troops in Vietnam. When pressed, he backed away from what he had said then, despite the fact that numerous studies and reports have shown that atrocities were relatively widespread. That was the politician talking, not the young man of so many years ago.

[paulk]

23. "The Democratic Party

by and large, is politically unable to even consider the possibility of a military withdrawl."


You mean like in Somalia?

[IrateCitizen]

28. Somalia was more like Beirut than anything else

I don't think that you can place Somalia -- a relatively limited deployment that was started primarily as a PR mission for the armed forces -- in the same category as either Iraq or Vietnam.

Remember, Reagan also withdrew from Beirut -- but it wasn't pounced upon, because it wasn't portrayed as an essential mission to US "security". Vietnam and Iraq have both been portrayed as essential to our security.

I'm not saying that the situations in Iraq and Vietnam are in any way identical. I'm just saying that there are certain parallels, especially in regards to the web of lies upon which the involvement was based, and the calls from BOTH parties, by and large, to "stay the course" and that "we cannot afford to lose".

[Larkspur]

7. Yes, I think that Kerry would escalate the war or the problems in Iraq

Dems like Kerry, who voted for 2002 IWR, have boxed themselves into supporting this mess. To pull out of Iraq would be losing face, another memory of the Vietnam withdrawal, which Dems, like Kerry, and our pro-war Media see as a sign of weakness and failure. Kerry would not want to be remebered as the President who told the last man in Iraq that he died for a mistake, which the Iraq invasion is.

Kerry has also supported Bush's support of Sharon's latest plan for the Israeli-Palestinian, which is NOT supported by the Arab and Muslim nations, who Kerry wants to court to help him in Iraq. If Kerry blindly goes along with Ariel Sharon's vision of I-P to keep the US-Jewish lobbies supporting him, then he will continue increasing the hatred Muslims and Arabs have of the US, which is at an all time high right now. Kerry will pressure Arab and Muslim leaders to help him in Iraq with foreign aide and other means, but they will not be able to stop the rising tide of Muslim hatred against the USA and that will lead to more terrorist attacks against US interests.

[Killarney]

2. I don't think it's an accurate comparison

For one, Kerry was not a anti-Communist zealot or hawk. Sure, he volunteered for Vietnam, but came back to be one of the war's biggest protestors--and that might just lose the election for him. Yeah, he voted for the IWR, but to be honest, I think he did that because he knew he was running and the polls showed 70% supported the war. When Gulf War one came and he was not running for pres, he voted against it. For this one, I think he just pandered. I think if he wasn't running for Pres he would have voted no. Yeah, that sucks that he pandered to the polls and I think he probably regrets it 200% right now, but I do NOT think he's a hawk and I do NOT think he compares to Johnson. I think he made a mistake.

[Brotherjohn]

4. The key diff (besides the order) is Johnson was "an anti-communist ...

... zealot", and were fighting to prevent Viet Nam from becoming communist.

Kerry has made his opinions on the "War on Terror" very clear. He is not an "anti-Iraq" or even "anti-terror" zealot.

He does not think Iraq is a part of the war on terror, and in fact thinks that "war" should be more of a law enforcement, intelligence activity. His statements on this in his Meet the Press interview of a couple of weeks ago on this are very clear (http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4772030/). I'm sure he has spoken about it elsewhere as well.

If he speaks of increasing troop levels (if only temporarily), it simply speaks to the situation we are stuck in. We are in a situation where we do have some responsibility to restore order. But he also speaks of a much greater level of international cooperation, and of using the troops differently, and of actualy working towards the real goal of getting out.

I believe, based on all of his actions and words, that Kerry truly feels that Iraq was a mistake. But based on his IWR vote and the reality that we now have troops in harms way there and some responsibility there (due to Bush's actions), he is not in an easy situation.

I do not think he will at all ratchet up military activity in Iraq, and I certainly don't believe that he will ratchet up the "war on terror" with further military "inteventions" (he has said as much on the latter). I believe he will be a very different president from LBJ in this respect.

Given the order of the LBJ/Nixon presidencies and your proposed comparison, I believe, if anything, it would be Nixon/LBJ "in reverse". A Kerry term would bring a gradual scaling BACK of military action in Iraq and intervention elsewhere.

[gpandas]

21. i agree, thanks for a terrific post and...

you gotta win to win

[displacedtexan]

5. Kerry would be Adlai Stevenson.

Statesman.

[IrateCitizen]

10. That doesn't bode well for our chances, then...

IIRC, Adlai Stevenson lost twice in bids for the Presidency. :scared:

[President Jesus]

8. my thoughts: this is retarded [eom]

[John_H]

9. Pretty good comparison, for an eighth grade history paper

LBJ was a product of his times. in the early sixties, anyone who wanted to get elected to anything was a strident anti-communist, the validity of domino theory was considered beyond obvious, his Sec. of Defense, one of the most respected people in the world at that time was providing him with alarming assessments, and domestic politics made pulling out of Vietnam nearly unthinkable for LBJ.

LBJ was running against proto-wingnut Goldwater in 64 and would have been attacked as weak on communism had he reduced force levels in Vietnam. A five minute listen to the LBJ tapes will also show that he was scared to death of RFK making a bid to, as LBJ said, "assume his brother's throne." he believed that RFK would attack him for both softness and not following his brother's wishes vis a vis Vietnam policy. In fact, RFK did leak a couple of statements that LBJ was not doing enough in Viet Nam before the war turned into a fiasco and RFK appropriated the anti war forces to make a bid against Johnson in '68.

Did Johnson make a tragic mistake escalating in Vietnam? In hindsight, absolutely. But at the time it seemed like a no brainer--not only politically necessary but the right thing to do as well.

The crime LBJ committed was lying about the war once we were in--exaggerating success, diminishing failure, covering up atrocities, calling critics unpatriotic, etc. Sound familiar?
Sure does, eh? Sounds just like the current resident of 1600, eh?

Chimp represents the worst of both LBJ and Nixon--Nixon's secrecy and slimeballism and LBJ's lies and political opportunism.

John Kerry does not. If your intest was to bash Kerry with historical comparisons, you need to do a lot better.

[Webster Green]

11. Bush is way more malicious and secretive than Nixon....

Smirky makes Nixon look like Clinton. A better label would be Hitler 2, though I realize we aren't supposed to mention that fact because that would be "over the top", or maybe "beyond the pale".

I can see the LBJ analogy though. Kerry will probably wind up having to increase our troop strength in the Colonies, but he may be able to bring in an international force eventually, something the chimp will never be able to do because of worldwide hatred for him and his bully boys.

Kerry wants to continue fucking with Cuba, and I think that is a huge mistake. Castro was trying to help the people of Haiti. I don't think I've even heard Kerry mention the coup in Haiti. We just engineered an overthrow of a nearby Democracy, and the Dems are (with a few exceptions), totally silent about it. What a disgrace!

[oc2002]

13. I have no great support for Kerry, but..

..I think that only time will tell.

Kerry is hawkish, and has been sounding more so every day. However, he wants the UN to take over in Iraq, and reduce US involvement in the rebuilding and security. Also, Vietnam was much different, although there are a few similarities, its too soon to tell.

I supported Dean, now Kerry, just not as enthusieasticly.

[troublemaker]

15. Kerry is Woodrow Wilson

Wilson ran on a slogan of 'he'll keep us out of the war' then promptly entered WWI, making him the greatest 'flip-flopper' of all time. Yet he is considered a great president. Hmmm.... It seems a person with principles will often 'flip-flop' when reality changes.

Maybe Kerry will do the opposite -- run as pro-war but govern anti-war.

(Nixon also ran as a peace candidate then escalated the war, but his paralells with Wilson end there.)

[IrateCitizen]

17. Wilson was also a prude and a racist

Kerry is neither. Plus, Kerry has already said that he would advocate giving military commanders in Iraq the troops they request, and that we "can't afford to lose".

IMO, there's nothing "flip-flopping" about those statements. I'd say they're pretty straightforward in indicating that we're in this for the long haul, should Kerry win this November.

Perhaps, considering the way in which both Wilson and Nixon were prudes and racists, in addition to escalating wars they said they'd either end or not get involved in, there is more of a similarity between them than you initially thought....

[Neecy]

16. fast-forward a bit...

If Bush* is defeated in November, part of the reason will be public disgust over this illegal, botched, unnecessary invasion.

Johnson didn't face a large anti-war movement in '65 when he started escalating our forces in Vietnam. Most people weren't all that aware of the level of our involvement or the potential of a large-scale ground conflict once our troop levels were increased. The public, in large part, was blindsided by Vietnam. We aren't blindsided by Iraq. People know the risks and can identify a sure loser when they see it, and public support for this war is decreasing daily.

I don't think Kerry would be able politically to ramp up this mess very much. I don't think the majority of the public would stand for it. That's why I don't see the Johnson comparison as being terribly accurate.

[IrateCitizen]

18. Let's assume that Kerry is elected, and our involvement increases

You said, "I don't think Kerry would be able politically to ramp up this mess very much. I don't think the majority of the public would stand for it."

And just what, pray tell, would the public then be able to do about it? Vote Kerry out and an even more pro-war Republican in come 2008?

The choice in 2004 is eerily familiar. We have a choice between a fervently pro-war Republican Party, and a less-fervently pro-war, but still pro-war nonetheless, Democratic Party. The public can go to hell.

[Neecy]

19. the difference being...

Kerry would presumably be up for re-election in 2008. If he ramps this war up and it continues to be a disaster - as it surely would be - the only valid comparison to Johnson is that he'll face an anti-war challenger in the primaries and lose or withdraw.

Bush*, on the other hand, obviously wouldn't care about 2008 and all bets are off, 4 years of total bloodbath. The guy is a nutcase who could give a crap about the future of his party, so expect further invasions and 'regime changes' which Kerry wouldn't touch with a ten-foot poll.

That's the difference.

[IrateCitizen]

20. That 2008 re-election would cut both ways, Neecy

Democrats are typically worried about charges from Republicans as being "weak on defense". If Kerry were to withdraw, he would be seen as opening himself up to those charges. If he were to remain and things continue to go badly, then the Republicans could step in and say, "We'll make sure we WIN in Iraq."

I'm not discounting your consideration of a challenger in the 2008 primary, but you also have to consider the General Election factor as well.

I also agree with you about a Bush administration not concerned with re-election. :scared:

[Neecy]

25. true

But flash back to Chicago in 1968 - the war split our party, which contributed to the Republican death grip on the presidency until 1992 (I consider Carter an electoral aberration).

Would Kerry fall into the same trap? Possibly. I think he's smarter than that, and I also think he lacks the deep psychological defects of LBJ. I personally think he'd accomplish at least something positive in Iraq, which is to establish trust again in the international community and persuade them to carry some of this water. I also don't think he'd support the neo-con agenda of an endless military occupation of Iraq.

But more than that, I don't think he'd invade Iran or Syria. I think that's a certainty with Bush*. As much as I hate the entire war in Iraq and believe that it's the most obscene thing our country has ever done, I'd hate even more extending this insanity into more countries, a la Richard Nixon and Cambodia.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. Total bullshit comparison but I would expect nothing less

Nixon did not campaign on bringing a multi-national force into Viet Nam to restore the peace. I do have my disagreements with Kerry, but he HAS said we rushed to war and that it was not his preference that we go to war.

Giving one's vote to a resolution is NOT being a hawk no matter how much certain sore losers in the Dean camp try to make it so.

My thoughts are that it is probably impossible for you to say anythng positive about Kerry even though his record is more liberal than Dean's and even though he certainly hasn't had to backtrack on his public statements nearly as much as Dean.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. One historical innacuracy to prove my point about your bias

Kerry has only advocated bringing in more troops to keep the peace..when Johnson increased troops for Viet Nam, it was DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY in order to escalate bombing. So there's one big difference right there.

Find me ONE SINGLE reference where John Kerry has advocated increasing attacks on Iraq. OK? If you can then I will lay off.

[robertpaulsen]

26. This comparison is too simplistic for me.

I think Bush combines the worst traits of LBJ and Nixon. And Reagan while were at it. But dealing specifically with LBJ and Nixon, Bush is malicious and secretive like Nixon as you say. But like LBJ, Bush is responsible for exacerbating a quagmire that he could have avoided. "Stay the course" and "Don't cut and run" sound like direct quotes from LBJ.

As far as Kerry goes, I don't know who to compare him to. I've always said I hope his presidency is more like Clinton than Carter or Johnson before him. Hopefully, once elected, he'll see that Iraq is just as much a no-win situation as the war he fought and protested against and withdraw before asking another soldier to be the last soldier to die for a mistake.

[nomatrix]

35. Who was LBJ's V.P.?

LBJ
While he was in the White House, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and Medicare were signed into law.
His administration was known as "The Great Society," despite nation-wide anti-war protests.
During his term, Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated.


(answer) Hubert Humphrey.
I had to look it up.

Is there a comparison, no.