How strong was the opposition to the Vietnam War in 1972?

[question everything]

I don't remember. I would think that it was strong, since the draft was in effect.

Yet, the anti-war candidate, George McGovern, who was already an elected official, lost miserably. And no, no Diebold then. There may still be debates of whether Ed Muskie, who was a hawk but whose candidacy was derailed by Rove... er... Nixon's goons, may have had a better chance.

Will 2006 (and 2008) be a replay of 1972, where the candidates who run on a single issue - bringing back the troops from Iraq now - will sink the Democrats?

In one important aspect it will not. For one thing, the Internet makes communication, and mobilization (and flaming wars) immediate and is changing the pace of elections.

But I have to wonder. Lamont may beat Lieberman in CT, but what about other candidates in other districts? Will the primaries kick out every single Democrat who does not demand the return of the troops, now, only to lose in the general elections?

[CountAllVotes]

1. it was STRONG!

People were out in the streets marching! Demonstrations were everywhere!

Too bad the younger people today might need something called a DRAFT to wake them up!

They got my brother, my friend, etc. etc. etc. etc.

:grr:

We were angry and we still are!!

U.S. OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST NOW!!!!

[YOY]

11. It would...but I hope that it doesn't come to that

I fear that the antiwar reaction wouldn't be as peace loving as the mainstay of it was back in the day. We've been raised on violence...moreso than previous generations. I think many of us would take to it like ducks to water.

The modern version of the Weathermen wouldn't be anything as 'tame' as the past's. I don't want to think about it.

:scared:

[CountAllVotes]

28. believe me ....

It was far from being PEACEFUL more than once!

REMEMBER PEOPLE'S PARK IN BERKELEY!!

I was there, WERE YOU? :grr: :grr: :grr:

:kick:

[YOY]

30. Wasn't born then...

I hope that's not a crime. :eyes:

Furthermore, I've lived in the developing world and had weapons shoved in my face. Were you there?

What's with the anger. Did I actually say something offensive?

[CountAllVotes]

32. people were murdered in People's Park

that is where the anger lies, not with you. Too bad no one seems to remember. Sad isn't it?

:kick:

[YOY]

33. Agreed...sad most don't remember

Then again, I read alot (and watch craploads of documentaries) so I actually know what you're talking about.

[CountAllVotes]

34. more here ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Park

It was awful. My father worked a few blocks from there and I used to go there all the time to see him at work. They had it roped off after the Univ. of Calif. sicked their goons on those living in People's Park at the time and some died.

Many don't even remember hearing about it. I guess you almost have had to have been living there as I was at the time to remember how horrible it was.

People's Park is still there today but it isn't anything like they had hoped it would be sadly. :(

The picture of it I post here is nothing like it looked like for many years after the main uprising occurred.



The link states:

The mythology surrounding the park is a major part of local culture. The surrounding South Campus neighborhood was the scene of a major confrontation between student protestors and law enforcement during May, 1969. A mural near the park, painted by Berkeley artist and lawyer Osha Neuman, depicts the shooting of James Rector, a student who died from shotgun wounds inflicted by law enforcement on May 15, 1969. (See "'Bloody Thursday' and Its Aftermath" below).

Why they call it "mythology" is beyond me. It was for real alright, hell, I saw it with my own eyes and so did my father! Mythology my ass!

The way I remember it was this way: The idea was to make it a place where people could live and grow their own food in exile during the Vietnam war. People's Park was/is owned by UC Berkeley supposedly but no one was using it. That was one of the ideas anyway and it failed miserably with death being but one of the ugly consequences.

This photograph - I remember this!



And what it says about it ... I concur!

The Berkeley community enjoyed the park for three weeks, picnicking on the lawns and napping under the trees. But in the early morning hours of May 15, the university enlisted 100 California Highway Patrolmen to erect a cyclone fence around the park. "No trespassing" signs were hung along the fence. The move engendered an immediate and angry response. By midday a huge crowd had gathered to protest the action, and an impassioned call was put out to reclaim the park. An estimated 3000 people poured into the streets surrounding People's Park where a violent conflict ensued between students, neighbors, and the police. The times were already fraught with civil strife, and the battle over People's Park caught the attention of the media. Headlines splashed across the nation, with disturbing images of tear gas, flames, bricks, and fury. The unrest lasted for several days until then Gov. Ronald Reagan sent in 2000 National Guard troops to quell the disturbance. In the end one person was blinded, another was killed, and some 120 people were injured. The Guard kept an armed presence in the area for the weeks that followed.

link: http://www.afsc.org/about/hist/2002/peoples_park.htm


Fence around the park

:kick:

[YOY]

35. Not to "one-up" you but my parents were here a few years later time

They were off campus at time, but knew a few involved. One of the Profs at KSU was there and talks about the events that happened to incoming students. (I am an alumni as well.)

[CountAllVotes]

36. well admittedly, I was not "involved" in any of it

I was a mere observer. As I said, my father worked nearby and he would have blown a gasket if he knew I had gone anywhere near the place. Those were very turbulent times in Berkeley no doubt. I did not live in Berkeley myself. I lived in what was the rural East Bay at the time. Today, that area is a complete mystery to me as it sure is not rural any longer. I left a long time ago and moved north to get away from all of the noise and people. I don't regret it. However, at times I will admit, I sure do miss my City by the Bay (aka San Francisco where I lived for many years).

[question everything]

62. Wasn't Reagan the governor, then? (nt)

[Mz Pip]

67. Yes

and in retrospect it didn't help much. If at all.

People get nervous when they see cities in flames and riots in the streets. MOst people aren't revolutionaries.

I think it is actually a good thing that these kinds of things aren't happening today. People might be more comfortable voting for people who are against the war when there aren't riots in the streets.

By 72 people were fed up with the war. Casualites were far greater than those of Iraq. But the anti-war movement was much more violent than today.

I hope we can take our displeasure with the war to the ballot bos and not to the streets. We will have a much greater chance of being successful.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Lerkfish]

15. It was the most beautiful metaconcert of activism this country has ever

witnessed.

[Breeze54]

19. WooHoo!! You betcha it was HUGE!!

You betcha!! It's was strong and massive and prevalent everywhere!!
College's, high schools, businesses....everywhere!
Marches, moratoriums, black armbands, silver bracelets for MIA's...etc!
On the news every night...in every conversation that I was present!
At the dinner table at home, in school, at work...everywhere!
College & high school campuses, small towns, big cities....



http://www.english.ucla.edu/ucla1960s/7274/Max/nagano2.htm
Protests from May 9 - 11, 1972

MAY 9, 1972: RESPONSE TO NIXON
On Tuesday, May 9, 1972, Students for a Democratic Society, along with other groups,
spoke to an audience of around 500 in Meyerhoff Park in response to Nixon’s Monday
night announcement of the naval blockade of North Vietnam and the mining of Haiphong
harbor. Protestors were then called to demonstrate against Charles E. Young’s office
because of the Chancellor’s support of ROTC (Reserve Officers’ Training Corps.)
on campus (see “SDS and ‘Young’s Wave of Repression’”).
Following Young address to the protestors, the crowd regrouped with the rest of the
demonstration as they moved throughout North Campus, including the Law School,
gathering people to join them along the way, before regrouping at Royce Hall in
preparation for a march on ROTC classrooms.

KENT STATE KILLINGS

UCLA: May 5, 1970 Protest
UCLA in the Sixties Homepage| UCLA 1970-1971 Homepage
http://www.english.ucla.edu/ucla1960s/7071/heyder.htm
The early seventies saw a lot of student activism and student demonstrations,
especially on college campuses.
More than ever,
students were taking an interest in current events and were demanding to be heard.
UCLA was no exception; there were frequent demonstrations on campus during the early]
seventies, most notably those associated with Vietnam and Angela Davis.
While most of these demonstrations proved harmless, on May 5, 1970 the LAPD invaded
UCLA's campus to break up a violent demonstration that was in reaction to the deaths
at Kent State, Ohio (see picture to the left).
This particular demonstration may have been the most violent in UCLA's history;
74 arrests were made and 12 people reported injuries.
This demonstration and the many others at UC campuses throughout the state on May 5,
caused Governor Regan to shut down the state's colleges and universities for the
first time in California's history.

Strike Today

“The violence on this campus yesterday may be just another indication that America’s
chances of achieving peace, in both external and domestic affairs, have slipped away.

The rally in Meyerhoff Park was relatively undistinguished except for the fact that
it may have drawn one of the largest crowds ever to assemble there.

They were there because they were angry and frustrated. They were angry and frustrated
with a President who promises peace and widens the war. They were angry and frustrated
with a society which responds to thrown bottles and rocks and a possible single gunshot
with 40 rounds of rifle fire into a crowd.

They were angry because every day America seems to become more callous, more ruthless,
and they were frustrated because there is nothing they can do about it.

Consequently, they lashed out at the most available, most vulnerable target
in the society-the University. Their acts can probably be justified by everything
except for reason, and when you are angry and frustrated,
reason does not seem all that important.

Ant the society responded with a repressiveness that has become predictable.
Because of a recently adopted set of regental orders defining a “state of emergency”
one was called, and for hours Los Angeles police roamed the campus, isolating both
demonstrators and non-demonstrators, clubbing them, and arresting them,
often for no apparent reason.

In order to release the tensions here, we believe that Chancellor Charles E Young
should have cancelled classes and shut down the University.
Instead he has to keep the campus open and to hold a convocation at noon today in
which he will speak. We challenge the wisdom of this decision,
and we doubt that anything is to be gained by attendance at this convocation.

Students and faculty members who are repulsed by Mr. Nixon’s decision to widen
the Vietnam war and who are repulsed by the murders at Kent State could probably
better serve their ideals by getting out of the academic environment for a few
days and working to educate citizens in the community.

Another day of petty violence on this campus, however, will be another day of futility.
We would have hoped that the American left would have learned at least one lesson from
the ghetto riots, from Chicago, from People’s Park and from Kent State-the dissenters
who take to violence can never expect to match the thoroughness and efficiency which
marks the society’s use of violence.

America is strong enough and has become cruel enough to be capable of smashing all dissent
within its borders.
If they are to survive, the dissenters must learn to leave violence to the professionals.”

Daily Bruin

Wednesday, May 6, 1970

http://www.english.ucla.edu/ucla1960s/7071/heyder%206.htm

:wow:

:hippie:

http://libcom.org/library/soldiers-opposition-to-vietnam-war-zinn
1965-1973: GI opposition the Vietnam War - Howard Zinn
Historian Howard Zinn on the opposition to the Vietnam War by American soldiers.
For a fuller introduction we recommend our article 1961-1973: GI Resistance in the Vietnam War

[primative1]

50. It was way stronger in 72 than today ...

Also there was a radical militant fringe that put an exclamation point on it. I think the internet today may have nuetralized a lot of the protests. Back then you grabbed a sign and hit the street. Today we sit home and type on a keyboard. For radical we type in curses without editing. This loses a lot of the effect. They can ignore us easier now.

[regnaD kciN]

108. Not in 1972, it wasn't!

People were out in the streets marching! Demonstrations were everywhere!

I think your memory is playing tricks on you.

Anti-war sentiment was big through the last part of the 1960s. The high-water mark may have been the two Vietnam Moratoria on October 15th and November 15th of 1969.

In May of 1970, nationwide protests over Nixon's invasion of Cambodia (thus expanding the war) culminated in the killings by National Guard troops of unarmed protesters at Kent State in Ohio and Jackson State in Mississippi. In the turmoil that followed those shootings, many colleges closed down and sent their students home early for the summer.

When school resumed that fall, it seemed that the energy had been sucked out of the protest movement. People still organized against the war, but it was more along the lines of political education than mass street protests. By the time 1972 rolled around, most leftist and anti-war activity was centered on the Presidential election campaign, and little on specific "stop the war" efforts.

I would say there were several reasons for this. During 1969-70, President Nixon made it "perfectly clear" that he was going to carry on with his policy no matter how many people opposed it. Protests (which were based in a desire to influence current leadership to change its policies) were therefore replaced with attempts to change the leadership through elections, since that was the only way the anti-war movement would prevail.

Furthermore, in 1970, the end of American engagement through "gradual withdrawal" seemed a long ways off. It was easy for young men, in particular, to imagine that, by the time the U.S. got out of Vietnam, they would long since have been drafted and sent to die there. By 1972, though, it seemed clear that our involvement was, indeed, rapidly winding down. U.S. troop levels and involvement in day-to-day combat (and thus American casualties) were much lower. (As I pointed out in another thread, a full end to American combat operations in Vietnam came in January 1973, barely two months after Nixon's re-election.) Moreover, the shift had already been made from the prior, and highly arbitrary, Selective Service system (in which local draft boards had wide latitude on who to call up for service -- some made a point of drafting youth known to be "longhairs" or opposed to the war) to a fairer draft lottery, and it was known that an all-volunteer force was less than a year away. Those who might have had a special impetus to want the war brought to an end out of sheer self-interest no longer had to worry much about getting called up themselves.

There was still a lot of anti-war rhetoric, peace signs on clothing, etc., in 1972, but, by and large, the height of the anti-war movement had passed.

[spag68]

2. 1972

I turned 30 in that year and had been in the streets for 3 years at that time. I only wonder where that style of protest is now? I think the draft may have something to do with it. I hear and fell the passion on the blogs, but only immigration has got people in the streets.

[question everything]

9. Thank you

I agree about both the draft and immigration.

And yet, with all that opposition, McGovern carried only MA and D.C.

And this is why I wonder about the wisdom - as we see in Lieberman-Lamont race - of forcing experienced office holders who have otherwise been good Democrats, off the ticket in favor of an inexperienced one issue candidate.

This may not backfire in a blue state like CT, but I worry about "purple" districts.

[Breeze54]

22. My husband to be was drafted that year....

:grr:

[CountAllVotes]

39. my brother enlisted

The lottery was that year (1972) and he enlisted. I was so mad at him for doing that! His number was 265 or something like that (he would have not been drafted as he had a high number).

He went anyway and was in the service for about 5 years altogether. Luckily, being it was to wards the end of the Vietnam war, he never left the USA.

However, I had a boyfriend that was in Vietnam. He was messed up in the head from it. He used to ride motorcycles really fast as a way to get out his frustration. One night he went out riding with no helmet on (he never wore one most of the time) never to return home. He died in an accident. I remember having to go to the funeral home to see his body after he died. That was a first for me - the first time I'd ever seen a dead person.

God, that time really was a hell and messed up vets? There were plenty of them around in 1972, plenty. As those that still remain today, I know a few. One in particular comes to mind. He has been severely injured by the Agent Orange they used. He can no longer use his hands at all and he too is really messed up in the head. War is HELL no matter what year we are in. :(

PEACE NOW!

[Breeze54]

49. My boyfriend and both my brother's were drafted, but

they all enlisted too. I think everyone enlisted to avoid 'shit' assignments,
lot of good that did... My brother's were in the lottery of 1969.

http://www.sss.gov/lotter1.htm

THE VIETNAM LOTTERIES

A lottery drawing - the first since 1942 - was held on December 1, 1969,
at Selective Service National Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
This event determined the order of call for induction during calendar year 1970,
that is, for registrants born between January 1, 1944, and December 31, 1950.
Reinstitution of the lottery was a change from the "draft the oldest
man first" method, which had been the determining method for deciding order of call.

There were 366 blue plastic capsules containing birth dates placed in a large glass
container and drawn by hand to assign order-of-call numbers to all men within the
18-26 age range specified in Selective Service law.

With radio, film and TV coverage, the capsules were drawn from the container,
opened, and the dates inside posted in order. The first capsule - drawn by
Congressman Alexander Pirnie (R-NY) of the House Armed Services Committee -
contained the date September 14, so all men born on September 14 in any year between
1944 and 1950 were assigned lottery number 1.
The drawing continued until all days of the year had been paired with sequence numbers.


Photo, above: Rep. Alexander Pirnie, R-NY, draws the first capsule
in the lottery drawing held on Dec. 1, 1969.
The capsule contained the date, Sept. 14.


Results from lottery held December 1969
Results from lottery held July 1970
Results from lottery held August 1971
Results from lottery held February 1972

PEACE NOW!

[question everything]

63. How awful

I think that even today, many homeless people are vets who never could find their way back to society who had to endure, in addition to the trauma of the war, the hate and curses hurled at them.

At least we've learned from there. Not to take our frustration of a war on the troops that are doing their jobs.

Though I think that on occasions there are some comments on DU about them, but I think that these people are in the minority. Yes, they've volunteered, but for most it is a way to get out of a hopeless, dead end place in life.

[CountAllVotes]

79. what you say is true today

My brother is not a dummy by a long shot. My father encouraged (forced?) him to enlist being he was afraid he'd get drafted and end up in Vietnam.

I support our troops 100% because I remember Vietnam and today there are plenty of men left that went to Vietnam and are really messed up. It is not their fault. It was either go or be a deserter and forget about finding a job later on.

In my brother's case, it worked for him. He always had good jobs after he got out and he had no permanent scars from the war being he never left the USA.

However, my other male friend that had massive exposure to Agent Orange is not so lucky. At present, he is about 62 years old and lives in a boarding house rather than a nursing home. This way he remains independent but has meals prepared for him and the basic needs being met, like cleaning his room, etc. Sad really. He is a good man and he was drafted. Btw, he receives NO COMPENSATION from the VA I thought I'd mention - NONE. :grr:

[Lasher]

105. He is entitled to VA medical benefits.

You might have meant to say that he doesn't get a check from the VA, but I wanted to mention VA medical benefits in case he isn't signed up for that.

For the first time ever, all new Enrollment Priority 8 veteran applicants have been rejected if they applied on or after January 17, 2003.

http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility/eligibility/epg_all.asp

Because of exposure to Agent Orange, however, he qualifies for Enrollment Priority 6 and should be allowed to sign up.

[coalition_unwilling]

87. I've been in the streets for five years now (since Oct. '01), but

more accurately, the sidewalks for weekly anti-war\anti-militarism vigils.

On edit: I'm 46, so missed out on most of the anti-war movement during Vietnam (altho I stayed home from school the day Nixon resigned and smoked a giant spliff in celebration!)

[jpak]

97. The draft forced some young men to join the Texas Air National Guard

That's how desperate some young people were!

[sinkingfeeling]

3. I think emotions and opposition were stronger in 1972 than today.

The summer of '72 was rocked with demostrations. The draft was catching up thousands. I just don't see the 'passion' today.

[SaveElmer]

4. It was strong...but...

McGovern became identified with hippies, peaceniks and protesters. Not a winning hand even in 1972...

And even with regards to the war, while most had turned against it, few were for an immediate, or precipitous pull-out.

[question everything]

10. I kinda remember Nixon promising "peace with honor" (nt)

[SaveElmer]

13. Yep..and it worked...

Kept enough independents and moderates on his side...both in 1968 and 1972...

Meanwhile, Democrats became identified with Jane Fonda, rioters etc...

McGovern never had a chance...

[dflprincess]

16. Acid, amnestry and abortion

those were the buzz words used by the GOP against McGovern.

That, and he gave his acceptance speech (which was wonderful) at about 2 am when he got the nomination. I don't think the party establishment was really behind him (not unlike the situation progressive candidates are in today) and finally, he refused to make use of the fact he was a decorated WWII hero - he didn't think it was right to do so as he felt he hadn't done anymore than so many others had done.

I love George McGovern, my vote for him was the first one I ever cast.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. I agree with every word you said

He was and very much *is* a great man. And not nearly as 'left' as people have painted him. He was much more - not 'moderate so much - 'caring left' than 'hard left'.

Actually, in 1972-speak, he *was* moderate. But moderate back then had a **quite** different connotation than it does today.

[CountAllVotes]

41. my father voted for McGovern

and my father was in the Marine Corps. during WWII. He hated war as he had seen how ugly it is. He was very anti-war, or became very anti-war I should say. He was your "Archie Bunker" incarnate but he still went to the peace marches and he took me with him!

He was conservative yes. He was a proud Marine, yes. But, he was against the Vietnam war and he voted for George McGovern over Kennedy.

He was far from a "peacenik" or a "protester", believe me. He was a Union man and a Democrat all the way. That is what he believed in. Democracy, freedom and peace.

Nothing wrong with that and he did not fit into the mold you have described.

Not by a long shot.

[SaveElmer]

44. Well of course...

I did not say anyone who voted for McGovern fit that mold...he wouldn't have gotten as many votes as he did if that were true...

I am saying that he became associated with the goals of those groups and it cost him the election.

[NCarolinawoman]

52. Yep, Nixon said he had a "secret plan" to end the war.

Of course it was all lies.:(

[coalition_unwilling]

88. By '72, Nixon's policy of "Vietnamization" was in full swing and number of

U.S. combat troops in Vietnam had been dramatically reduced. Of course, as number of troops were reduced, number of U.S. airstrikes increased exponentially. Kissinger, imho, is a war criminal in desperate need of a international tribunal at the Hague.

[endarkenment]

5. major urban areas contained youth liberation zones

we took in anyone and everyone no questions asked. The draft and the whole war machine were effectively inoperative due to resistance inside and outside the military. There were riots. There were demonstrations that filled washington. There were insane radical groups causing havoc and disruptions. Hell NYC raised its subway fares and riots broke out. What a different world.

There was no way McGovern was going to win. That was sort of beside the point. With Wallace conveniently out of the race due to yet another assasination (attempted) Nixon's southern strategy guaranteed a victory. Lots of people were pretty well horrified by what us kids were up to anyway, and for sure we went way overboard, but we weren't terribly concerned about who got elected president, we were more concerned about putting the damn war to an end.

[livetohike]

6. I was a Sophomore in college. It was very strong.

I went to a small state university in rural PA. We were demonstrating on our little campus and hitching rides to get to larger demonstrations. Many people my age were very tuned into the war and watched the news from the Student Union or dorm lounge every night. We registered to vote as soon as we turned 18 (and got the right to vote).

Our friends were dying. Our friends were being drafted. Guys were coming back from Nam and trying to pick up their old lives, but everything was changed......

[kurth]

7. "This is Jane Fonda speaking from Hanoi, and I'm speaking particularly to

to the US servicemen... I don't know what your officers tell you... but weapons are illegal and that's not just rhetoric... The men who are ordering you to use these weapons are war criminals according to international law, and in the past, in Germany and Japan, men who committed these kinds of crimes were tried and executed." - Jane Fonda, July 14, 1972

[Throd]

8. I just wanted by daddy to come home

I was 5.

(He came back safely)

[question everything]

12. Glad to hear that

these must be very strong memories of that time

[paparush]

14. Um..apparently 1/2 of 'Murkins still believe Saddam had WMD...

[Stinky The Clown]

17. The sentiment was strong, but the hits came not just from Nixon's people

Google Henry 'Scoop' Jackson and read up on him. Very interesting history, him. And very interesting accolytes ......

Scoop and McGovern were in a fight for the 72 Dem nomination. And I can make the case that we have some of the same dynamic at work today.



Here's a bit from Wikipedia:

Henry Martin "Scoop" Jackson (May 31, 1912 – September 1, 1983) was a U.S. Congressman and Senator for Washington State from 1941 until his death. Jackson was an unsuccessful candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972 and 1976.

As a Cold War anti-Communist Democrat, Jackson's political philosophies and positions have been cited as an influence on a number of key figures associated with neoconservatism, including Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson

I'd suggest, if you're really interested in this, you do a bit more googling. In many ways, he's the granddaddy of the Neocons.

[question everything]

64. And since 1972 Democrats "earned" the perception

that they cannot be relied upon in terms of defense, of "fighting terrorism."

And this is what bothers me. That if the grassroots activists kick out any candidate who is not for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, that we will lose big in November.

[Stinky The Clown]

83. In the broadest sense, of course, you're right ......

'Liberal' and 'anti-war' surely have an affinity. We all know the reasons why and they're the right reasons.

That said, not supporting war does not equate to general wimpiness. Sadly, that's not easily explained in moron-ese. And so the label persists.

[coalition_unwilling]

90. Dems now like Repukes in '64. Time to purify the party and

re-clarify what it stands for, instead of trying to accomodate war pigs like Hilary Clinton and Lieberbush.

[question everything]

99. Yes, but can we?

Do we have individual(s) who can articulate what we stand for? No, not Kerry, sadly. Voters do not have the patience to listen to him trying to explain to himself what he means..

You have to give it to Clinton: she is a master of delivery.

And it really not Iraq and not impeachment:

Decent wages
Decent schools (no meaningless slogan of "no child left behind")
Decent access to health care
Jobs that do not get outsourced
Decent retirement

These are goals that every voter should understand

[Ken Burch]

82. Wolfie, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Elliott Abrams and the rest of the whole wacky

crew were the Scoopster's staffers at one point.

[AtomicKitten]

20. HUGE

Threat of the draft put the fear of God in people.

[calico1]

21. I was a kid then and in parochial school in

NYC. I can remember some of the nuns and priests going to protests. The eighth graders were allowed to go if they had their parents permission. I also recall us debating the war. Imagine that, grade schoolers debating war and world events. But that was the case.

[bigbrother05]

23. Think it's clear that Nixon's "plumbers"

pulled every trick in the book and got Muskie out early on. McGovern was a great guy (wish I could find my t-shirt with the green dove), but carried all the anti-war baggage, good or bad. The fact that he was a decorated WWII vet meant nothing to the AmeriKa "right or wrong" crowd, he wasn't supporting the troops. It's no coincidence that the current misAdministration is populated with neocons who served in the Nixon WH or were draft avoiding chickenhawks during that time.

[Stinky The Clown]

25. A considerable amount of the damage to McGovern came from the Dems

Specifically, the Neocons-to-be who followed the Scoop wing.

[Totally Committed]

38. Scoop Jackson...

Father of today's DLC-ocons. Ugh.

TC

[Ken Burch]

61. It's time we called the DLC by its true name:

"Adult Children of Democrats for Nixon".

[MrBenchley]

75. No, the true name is

"Democrats the Green Party ratfuckers hate"

[Ken Burch]

78. You know perfectly well that I am not Green Party.

Stop lying about that. Now.

[MrBenchley]

95. Pout louder, Kenny...it's so cute

[Ken Burch]

102. Benchley Auto-Slur #3

Ready to do the right thing and endorse Lamont yet? If I can endorse Johnson(which I started a thread to do, btw)you can endorse Lamont.

[Ken Burch]

92. No the true name is

"Democrats Who Agree With Republicans On Everything 'cause They Get Bigger Donations That Way".

[MrBenchley]

94. In other words, Democrats the Green party hates

[Ken Burch]

96. The Green Party has nothing to do with this.

I'm NOT Green Party. Stop repeating yet another meaningless slur.
If you won't promise not to campaign for Lieberman as an independent you've forfeited your OFFICIAL JUDGE OF PARTY LOYALTY rights.

Assuming you ever had them.

And, since you've never told any of us exactly what you've done for this party that's so much more important than anyone else, I doubt you did, Thug Life.

[MrBenchley]

98. Democrats the Green party hates

Now go snivel to somebody who gives a shit.

[Ken Burch]

101. You can't ascribe ALL progressive criticism of right-wing Dems

to the Green Party, Thug Life.

Those of us here are JUST as loyal to the party as you claim to be.

[coalition_unwilling]

91. Don't forget the Eagleton SNAFU -- not helpful that McG said

he backed Eagleton "1000%" just two days before he sacked him and replaced with Sargent Shriver.

[mtnsnake]

24. It was monumental. Today's MTV generation is so apathetic it's pathetic!

[CountAllVotes]

29. a saw a film a few days ago

Made by some young people of today's generation. It was made by "Apathy Productions" and it was incredibly stupid. A waste of time to watch. It made me sad! :(

[question everything]

65. "60 Minutes" had a program about "generation Y" last year

or, perhaps, two years ago. This is a "whatever" generation: tolerant of other people's beliefs and lifestyle (the good thing), but also a generation that chooses to follow rather then to lead. This is what scares me since I am afraid that any demagogue may be able to lead these laid back people in the direction that he chooses.

I am saddened by this generation that does not have the incentive to go out and march, and protest, and address city council, but chooses to just sit at home and click.

[MissWaverly]

26. I think that it's different now

I have been thinking about this; Vietnam was different, America was different. American society
was more prosperous back then, yes, people cared about their kids going over to Vietnam, but to
many Americans life was good. They were earning decent wages, had good benefits and the cost
of living was lower. I remember when I graduated from highschool in 71; you could buy a car
for 3500. My first apartment was $110.00 a month and it was nice, in a brick duplex. The
price of gas was lower; VW bugs were a rarity, and were dwarfed by all the larger cars that
were really big old boats with a steering wheel the size of a small hoola hoop. And cars
had a clutch to switch the gears. Times are very different since Reaganomics; that was when
the S&L's were deregulated, that's when everything started to go screwey. I think people are
afraid now, we have actually been attacked by "terrorists" and they see a harder life for their
children and grandchildren. I think people are inclined to be more critical and yes, I think
that the anti-war movement will be more powerful. You forget that the antiwar movement was intertwined with the free love, hippie, save the planet, which appealed to us, boomers; but scared the crap out of our parents.

[NoPasaran]

27. McGovern and the war

First, McGovern came out the convention with a very divided party. The primary battles had been long and bitter up through the California Primary, which took place in June. After Muskie imploded early on, Hubert Humphrey emerged as the great hope of the Anybody But McGovernites. Also, George Wallace made a strong showing, especially in the South and among conservatives until he was shot. Bad feelings between the hawks and the doves continued at the convention. It was certainly satisfying to see Chicago Mayor Daley's delegation tossed out in Miami, but the result was that Daley (and many like him) didn't exert themselves too much for the ticket.

To put this in a modern context, imagine that Howard Dean had emerged as the candidate in 2004 and various groups in the party hostile to his grass- and netroots supporters had sat back and watched him go down to a landslide defeat.

McGovern followed the convention with the mess of the Eagleton Affair. (For those too young to remember, his running mate, Tom Eagleton of Missouri, was revealed to have undergone psychiatric treatment. McG declared he stood behind Eagleton "One thousand percent", then changed his mind. Eagleton withdrew and was replaced with Sargent Shriver. The McGovern campaign never recovered from this self-inflicted wound.


Now, as to the war: Yes, by 1972 the war had become very unpopular. Opposition was now longer the province of college campuses and political radicals but had grown to include growing numbers of what Nixon called "Middle America". So unpopular was the war that Nixon had been withdrawing US ground forces from the conflict. By 1972, there were actually very few American ground combat units left. The big North Vietnamese Easter Offensive of 1972 was held mostly by the ARVN (South Vietnamese Army), albeit with heavy US air support. So while the war went on, American casualties had declined since we were no longer bearing the brunt of ground combat.

In contemporary words, South Vietnamese had been standing up, allowing us to stand down. I don't think we're close to anything like this happening in Iraq. Certainly the regime's continued denial of reality makes it unlikely.

It should not be forgotten that Nixon had two foreign policy successes in 1972 as well: the trip to China, which kept Americans glued to their televisions for some of our first real glimpses of a land known mostly by myth and terrifying rumor for a generation, followed by Nixon's trip to the Soviet Union that heralded the era of detente.

Then, about a month before the election, Kissinger, who had been conducting peace talks with the North Vietnamese, announced "Peace is at hand". Of course, the announcement was a bit premature; the Paris Peace Accords weren't signed until January and December saw some of the heaviest bombing of the North in the whole conflict, but the overall feeling was that the war was indeed coming to an end.

Unlike Bush and his gang of idiots, Nixon and Kissinger actually understood the world and were able to pull off some pretty remarkable diplomatic achievements, totally unlike Bush's almost gleeful alienation of many of our longtime friends and allies.

So my view is that the image that Nixon was able to project as being a leader who really understood foreign affairs and really knew how to deal with the Communists, combined with mistakes made by the McGovern campaign explain the failure of the antiwar candidate in 1972.

Please don't take me for a fan of either Nixon or Kissinger. I loathed them both. It has taken this regime of almost unimaginable ineptitude to bring their better qualities into relief.

[kineneb]

31. John Dean

in Worse than Watergate admitted that he never thought he would be nostalgic for the Nixon era...boy, does he despise GWB.

[ProudDad]

71. He really tears the shrub

a new asshole in his newest book.

[eridani]

106. And if someone had told me in 1974--

--that I'd be keeping a sharp eye out for anything John Dean has written lately in 2006, I'd have asked them for a hit of whatever they were smoking.

The Eagleton fiasco was very harmful, plus the fact that a big chunk of the Dem party apparatus was actively working for Nixon.

Someone else mentioned how making a living was much easier then--recall that the real income of average Americans peaked in 1973. It's been all downhill from there.

[klook]

56. Good analysis. Thanks. (n/t)

[question everything]

66. Fascinating

But this means that the Republicans can still follow the same game, show more transfer of duties to the Iraqis, mend relations with France and Germany and other countries... may even claim a victory in Cuba.

This is why I am worried about choosing our candidates based solely on troop withdrawal, the way Ned Lamont is doing now.

About Nixon, I was always fascinated by the two sides of him. One side an intelligent statesman who understood foreign relations, the other side - a paranoid scary man who, toward the end, was afraid of his own shadow.

[Totally Committed]

37. It was very strong...

people and students marched in the streets almost daily.

TC

[tom22]

40. Although the opposition existed, it was waning.

1972 was the last year that men were actually drafted, and only about 50000. Compare that to 250000 a more a few years earlier. The large demonstrations were over, the casualties and the troop numbers were declining substantially. The war went on but it involved fewer people. Just as the war in Iraq hasn't involved massive protest in the streets. If you aren't personally at risk, the level of passion is not that high. Imagine what opposition to Iraq would be if a million men had been called up in the last 4 years.

[BrotherBuzz]

48. The draft ended in 1973 - 646 were drafted that year...

but draftees had become all but a nuisance to the military by June 1972 when the paranoid Nixon, facing reelection fears and pressure from the public about the draft, announced no more draftees would be sent to Vietnam.

You are correct, the war was winding down, but the military was still ordering soldier there (albeit in smaller numbers) and they was pissed that they could no longer depend of the Selective Service to provide their cannon fodder. I was one of those dumb draftees that was given a reprieve because of Nixon's orders in 1972.

[MrBenchley]

42. It ought to make you stop and think

but I'm too old and cynical to even pretend that it will.....

P.S.: George didn't lose 49 out of 50 states because voters thought he was too moderate.

"For one thing, the Internet makes communication, and mobilization (and flaming wars) immediate and is changing the pace of elections."
And so the far left's crap that used to take weeks to discredit the Democratic party in the eyes of voters, now takes days.

"Will the primaries kick out every single Democrat who does not demand the return of the troops"
Probably not....the far left may be able to muscle the Democratic party in Connecticut because there aren't many of them (independents are the state's largest voting bloc, followed by Republicans). But they're finding it heavy going in other states.

[Ken Burch]

59. Oh, come off it, Benchers...

we know Scoop Jackson would've lost 49 states too. Once Nixon went to China and once the CREEP boys had done their work, no Dem was going to win it that year.

It's time to stop blaming the doves for what would've happened to any DEM.

It couldn't even have been WORTH electing a Dem that hated hippies and loved the war. Such a Dem couldn't have been different than Nixon.

[MrBenchley]

76. Kenny, go play "let's pretend" with somebody else

You got no clue what the fuck you're talking about.

[Ken Burch]

84. Yes I do, Thug Life.

And Scoop Jackson's campaign was destroyed with the CREEP crew spread rumors that he had an illegitimate son. Even if they hadn't, Scoop was never ahead of Nixon in the polls.

George McGovern was a prophet and a hero. Your wing of the party stabbed him in the back for the terrible crime of freely and fairly winning the nomination by winning most of the primaries. I'd hope you at least have the decency to be ashamed of helping reelect Nixon, but I don't think shame has a place in your lack of a soul.

The real reasons McGovern lost were things like the smears against Tom Eagleton, the refusal of virtually every other leading Democrat to be his running mate(when McGovern had done nothing to them to deserve that sort of humiliation)and the desertion of the regular wing of the party from any active effort to help the Democratic ticket in the fall.

Why did you people hate the quiet man from South Dakota so much? How could you stand to keep the Trickster in power?

Can you find any justification at all for how your wing of the party treated the 1972 nominee?

And no, I don't mean can you repeat any of the patented Benchley Auto-Smears. I mean, are you actually CAPABLE of making a coherent arguement for your own position anymore, whatever that position may be?

What good do you really think you do through the politics of abuse?

[MrBenchley]

93. Get a clue, Kenny.....

"Why did you people hate the quiet man from South Dakota so much?"
Geeze, Kenny, it didn't have a fucking thing to do with hate. Now ask one of trhe grownups to tell you about Thomas Eagleton.

Very slowly.

Twice.

[mopinko]

43. very clever of you. hanging the stinking carcass of

the mc govern candidacy around ned lamont's neck.

[bvar22]

45. Which candidates are running on a single issue (Anti-War)?

"candidates who run on a single issue - bringing back the troops from Iraq now - will sink the Democrats?"

Which candidates are running on a single issue (Anti-War)?
I don't know of any.
I know the DLC & Joe Nomentum would like America to believe that Lamont is single issue, but even a quick look at Lamont will crush that LIE. Anyone who watched the debate knows better.

Maybe you can help me out and name some of these mysterous "Single Issue" Democratic Candidates?........

[MrBenchley]

47. The Unknown Millionaire, to name one....

"even a quick look at Lamont will crush that LIE."
Oh, that's right, there's also a racist caricature to show how, you know, liberal and progressive he and his followers are.

[Ken Burch]

60. There is no way that Lieberman can STILL be considered an

honorable candidate. Not with the viciousness he has directed towards those whose only crime is not wanting people to keep dying in a war we all know is now unwinnable.

[MrBenchley]

74. Listening to Kenny natter about "honor"

is like listening to Pepe LePew describe perfume.

"Not with the viciousness he has directed"
Yeah, it wa awful of him to put out a racist caricature...oh, wait, that was the Unknown Millionaire and his appalling whoopsters.

[Ken Burch]

81. Lamont's still LEADING in all the polls.

Therefore he AIN'T unknown.

And FDR was a freakin' millionaire, as was RFK.

Peddle THAT walking, Thug Life.

[Ken Burch]

89. One image on one blog that was gone within minutes.

It's irrelevant to this contest and you know it.

Lamont had nothing to do with it, Thug Life.

[Gregorian]

46. Fax machines, book stores, and the street

A lot more people were dead in that war than in Iraq. But fax machines were smoking away. And people were meeting in coffee shops, in their communities, to try and stop the war.

But here is my general take on things. We were much closer to the Summer of Love then. TV was still new. And the media was still playing by the rules of the Fairness Doctrine. News was news. And the right wing was not so right, and they had not perfected the spin yet. Also, people were still thinking for themselves. The car was not as prevalent. It was not as flagrantly used as it is now. People were not as lazy. Earth day was either new or about to be. Things were slower without computers. That pretty much sums up the picture.

[union_maid]

51. Fax machines?

I never even saw a fax in an office setting until the 80's. Leaflets were big, but they were handed out. The mimeograph still ruled for cheap duplication.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

54. Mmmm, I still remember the smell of freshly mimeographed paper! n/t

MKJ

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

53. 1970 and 1971 saw riots in the streets in my stretch of the woods.

By 1972, it was becoming evident that the our involvement in Vietnam was coming to an end.

I accidentally got caught up in one of the riots. I was a 14 y/o girl, wrong place, wrong time. My parents thought I was at a friend's house, oops.

I was actually at a park, near the university, partying with the students (who I thought were incredibly cool), when things got out of hand. The spark that lit that particular incident was a confrontation between local cops and a few of the kids at that park on a Saturday afternoon.

Ugly stuff, lots of destruction, lots of anger at an establishment that could conscript young men to a war that made little sense to most.

As others have said, the draft was part of the reason that people took to the streets, however, the anti-establishment views of peace, love and anti-materialism were very strong, as well. MKJ

[klook]

55. It was a tidal wave

While the U.S. govt. was already pulling out troops in large numbers -- see http://www.vietnam-war.info/timeline/timeline4.php -- the anti-war movement was getting stronger and stronger in '72. The Pentagon Papers had come out the year before, and 1972 was also the year of the Watergate break-in. Also, the 1972 presidential election was the first opportunity for 18-year-olds to vote, and many young people had a heightened sense of political awareness as a result.

[theanarch]

58. i beg to differ...

...by 1972, the anti-war movement was totally mortibund--factionalized and fractionalized; the best and brightest had burned/dropped out, and the McGovern debacle was the last nail in its coffin, when it was proven to anti-war activists that the Establishment (a good, 60's word one rarely hears any more) would end the war when it was convenient for THEM, instead of when it was necessary for the rest of U.S. With the suspension of the draft, what used to be The Movement broke up into its constituant parts--feminism, environmentalism, ethnic-identity, etc. Truth be told, i suspect the near-collapse of the military, and budgetary concerns, did more to end the war than all the marches, demonstrations and anti-war candidacies combined. As for young people having a heightened sense of political awareness, try to square that with the fact that in the '72 election, the 18-24 year old demographic voted for Nixon in greater percentages than any other--and they also had the lowest turnout of any demographic.

Then, as now, the vast majority of American's didn't turn against the war because of anything the peace movement did, but because we simply weren't winning...the war had just became another bad tv show they no longer wanted to watch, but one they couldn't turn off, no matter how much channel-flipping they did. Most American's knew as little about the causes of the war at its end as they did at its beginning, and couldn't care less-- by 1972, they just wanted to get it over with as quickly as possible, so they could resume their "normal" lives.

[T Town Jake]

72. Absolutely correct - excellent post!

In the final analysis, the hardcore anti-war protesters probably did more to help prolong the Vietnam war than they ever did to end it - Nixon was determined to show his "silent majority" that he couldn't be run out of a war by a bunch of people in the streets.

What finally ended the war was actually just inertia - a majority of the American people decided that if we weren't serious about winning it, we might as well wind it down.

As much as a few in this thread might want to delude themselves, the hard core anti-war position ("get out NOW!") was never supported by the vast majority of the American people during that time, period.

[question everything]

68. Wasn't it also the first year where state primaries

replaced the "smoke filled rooms" of previous conventions, especially the 1968 Chicago?

[NoPasaran]

77. Not exactly

There had been primaries before 1972, aand even today today some states continue to use caucuses to choose their delegates. What was different about 1972 were news rules requiring that delegations be gender- and race- balanced. And after 1972, state primaries could no longer be winner take all; delegates had to be awarded according to the actual preferential vote in the primary.

[Ken Burch]

86. There was no evidence in '72 that a pro-war Dem would have won.

And, actually, Muskie was a moderate dove, not a hawk. He would have been tolerable to both wings of the party. His defeat was caused by CREEP's smears and McGovern should not have suffered for it.

The '72 convention was a beautiful event, the first convention made up of a true composition of what the country actually looked like. Another convention controlled by white male hacks would ALSO have produced a 49 state defeat, because there WERE no popular hawk candidates that year.

[orleans]

57. The opposition to the Vietnam war was HUGE! it went on for years

the kids today--the majority of the ones i know of--don't give a crap, don't pay attention to the politics

i've been trying to keep my daughter aware of things--i remember her talking to her friends on the phone when she was in junior high, trying to explain to them why they should not be supporting bush...she was wonderful, smart, very reasonable....i was always so amused when i would walk past her room and hear her talking politics, or when i'd go in her room to talk to her and i'd hear her on the phone

now they're out of high school

overall, the kids i know are oblivious to the real world--they're self absorbed, involved in themselves and their friends, college, jobs, going out to lunch, shopping

peace protests these days? with students? good luck getting major turn outs. it's gonna take a fucking draft to open their eyes--if someone else is getting killed, if we're destroying other countries, well--it doesn't affect them directly so they don't care

my kid is involved, to a degree, but maybe because i push her, encourage her, and talk to her about what's going on and give her the low down. but i do think she does care, that she is concerned, and that she tries to make the effort to effect change. (she's even an election judge!)

[T Town Jake]

69. Not much at all compared to what it had been...

...by '72 the draft was effectively over, and the protests pretty much evaporated with them. The "Christmas Bombing," the largest escalation of the war since 1970, took place in 1972 and saw virtually no protests in the streets of any of the major cities. Not like '68 and '70, anyway.

[ProudDad]

70. By 1972

J. Edgar Hoover, Nixon and their murderous dirty tricks had set faction against faction for years by then. The anti-war forces had sustained a huge amount of attrition by '72, mainly through agent provocateurs, phony convictions of leaders and murder and, damn it, disillusionment with the pace of change. That is, NO real substantial change in the rate of killing could be seen by most of us by then.

Meanwhile in public nixon and Kissinger were lying to the public about "ending the war with honor" (whatever the f*ck honor means when it comes to killing) which had diffused the anti-war leanings of the older portion of the population.

Much lower troop levels in-country diffused the younger generation's fear of being drafted...from a height of 536,000 in 1968 U.S. troops in Vietnam had dwindled down to 24,200 by '72. (http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwatl.htm) The announcement of the end of the draft in '73 pretty much ended major anti-war activity from the colleges.

The polls were still heavily against the war but between nixon's lies and "conservative democrats'" capitulation to him resulted in the war being somewhat off the public's radar. (http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/Mistakes/Vietnam_support.html for some interesting data).

----------------
on edit:

For me the 1960's ended the night nixon was elected in '68. I was attending our weekly anti-war protest in downtown Palo Alto, California that night. As soon as nixon was declared the winner, my then-pregnant wife and I started home. We got a block down the street and looked down the street to see hundreds of San Mateo County Deputy Sheriffs in full riot gear moving toward the demo. They surrounded the plaza where the demo was taking place and, not allowing anyone to leave, started beating heads with their long billy-clubs. Their boy was in now...

I also remember the night in '68 when Lyndon Johnson announced he wasn't going to run. I remember thinking, "Shit, now we're going to get nixon!" Unfortunately, I was right.

The authoritarian, fascist, right-wing camel's nose was entering the tent...

[Hekate]

73. Riots in the streets. Shootings by cops. Mayhem. COINTELPRO.

Most of the country woke up to the utter waste of 58,000 dead young Americans.... I think we were losing up to 1,000 American lives a month by that time. The carnage of Vietnamese people was unbelievable, but most people in the US focused on our losses.

The war in Vietnam ripped the US apart, and by the end of it nearly everyone was glad to just get out. Unfortunately, there is a core group of people who have never let go of the notion that we cut and run (sound familiar?) and that we could have won if we'd only stayed longer. To this day that core group will not forgive the college students or the veterans who spoke out, and Jane Fonda remains frozen in time for them. In that sense, it still divides us.

Hekate

[4bucksagallon]

80. I had come home from Nam in september 1970

There were protests but a lot of it was by students that were afraid they were going to be drafted. If I remember right they (Nixon) changed the rules on the draft in either '71 or '72 there were to be no more exemptions for marriage, school, etc..
I guess the chickenhawks finally came home to roost.

[Lasher]

107. You arrived stateside 3 months before I did

I was drafted into the Army in 1969 and sent to Seoul. They needed lots of cannon fodder then and they were also drafting into the Marines. I was lucky I didn't get sent to Nam but getting drafted sucked. I didn't get to see my son until a month after he was born and I missed the first 2 years of my marriage. It was all a waste.

We never wore our uniforms when we didn't have to because of the contempt that many (maybe even most) of the public felt toward us. There was so much resentment of the war in Vietnam that this spilled over onto everyone in a military uniform. I thought, "Give me a break, I was drafted!" Didn't matter.

I'll bet you arrived at Fort Lewis, Washington, right? I did. Half of the soldiers on my plane were coming home from Nam, and the other half were from South Korea like me. Remember the big sign that they had hanging where you first walked inside from the plane? It said, "Welcome home, your country is proud of you." I laughed, bud did not smile.

Our country was not proud of us. We were met with disgust and resentment. I have never had a more empty feeling. I am so pleased to see that today's soldiers are greeted with respect and appreciation. I do my small part to help ensure that this is so.

Antiwar sentiment is strong today, but nothing like back then and that's because of the draft. But there's something different now that could prove to be important. Back then you could be drafted at age 19, but could not vote until you were 21. Now potential draftees can vote, and they are crazy if they don't.

[4bucksagallon]

109. No I arrived back to El Toro........ Marine Corp

As you say we were not to wear uniforms off base because of the anti-war protesters, looking for trouble. We also were told to travel in groups for protection, welcome home huh, yeah right. They were quite viscous back then. You know I can understand how they felt but to take it out on someone who has no control over what is going down is nuts.

[Lasher]

111. Yep, things were nuts back then

You gotta figure the Kent State shootings on May 4 of that same year had a lot to do with those attitudes of resentment toward all who were wearing military uniforms. Not so much People's Park because the military was not involved in that. I didn't pick up on the underlying causes of those sentiments very well at the time because I was young and stupid, and also because our news was censored by the armed forces TV & radio networks.

I never quite got over that, and I was not even coming home from combat like you were. Like I said, I'm just glad the young soldiers aren't treated that way today.

Pleased to have met you, brother.

[4bucksagallon]

112. Thanks same to you, and yes I forgot about Kent State as a reason.

[Ken Burch]

85. Is there any evidence whatsoever that a pro-war Dem can do better in '08?

Especially since we now know that a pro-war Dem will be forced by the budget constraints imposed by that position to be Republican on domestic issues?

Is there any reason to believe that the voters want yet ANOTHER election where there is no real difference between the two parties?

Let me remind everyone of the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result.

[question everything]

100. Oh, I would not call for a pro-war

but there is a difference between actively endorsing and recruiting and voting for someone who is "pro-war" and actively smearing and defeating someone like that..

Put it another way - I don't think that anti-war, and impeachment - can win votes outside hard core DUers.

There are so many topics that clearly can click with most voters:

decent wages, decent schools, access to health care, job security, dignified retirement. As wise man once said: all politics is local.

In contrast to 1972, an 1968, the majority of voters do not know someone who is fighting, someone who was wounded or killed. For most, the war is a quagmire that one can just shake one's head, shrug, and go back to... watching NASCAR?

Yes, we know how the war in Iraq is a drain on our resources, on so many positive things that we could do with the money and lives wasted. The sad reality, however, is that such ideas are lost on most voters.

This is why the Republicans got scared about minimum wage, because this is a topic that can be even more relevant to red-staters than to blue ones.

[Ken Burch]

103. And there's no reason we can't run an antiwar campaign

that also hits bread-and-butter economic issues with the same passion. We need to run the kind of campaign that the GOP will call "class warfare". We've lost most of the ones where we didn't

[Norquist Nemesis]

104. Kent State. n/t

[Imagevision]

110. Iraq is out of control of Bushco control, Civil war will change the mix

Bush can hold on just before elections and order troops out asap claiming he would have done so earlier if conditions on the ground warranted it...!

[No Exit]

113. "Hell no, we won't go!" "1,2,3,4, We don't want your rich man's war!"

"I ain't no fortunate son... I ain't no senator's son..." (Creedence Clearwater Revival)

"And it's 1,2,3, what're we fightin' for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam,

And it's 5,6,7, open up the Pearly Gates,
Ain't no need to wonder why,
Whoopee! We're all gonna die!" --Country Joe and the Fish

"Ohio"--Crosby Stills & Nash

... and on and on and on it went. It pervaded everything we did. I was a teenager and wasn't even paying attention, but I remember a great deal of it. It was also on TV: commercial in which two Cheney-esque old men in suits come out and have a pathetic fistfight, and the narrator says, "Our next war: this time, the LEADERS are gonna fight it out..."

And on and on and on. Everywhere. All the time.

OPPOSITION TO THE VIETNAM WAR WAS HUGE. Isn't it amazing, with all that visible, virulent, opposition, the Vietnam war went slogging on and on and on... (hey, just like the Iraq war!) and young people kept getting killed and killed and killed... do you or anyone need ANY more proof that to our elected officials we are nothing more than chattel, to be used like beasts of burden, then sold to the knacker's or the glue factory when we're dead?