(Page 7 of 7)
The fact is, President Nixon was already leaving Vietnam. One month after the election, there were only advisors left, no combat troops. Kissinger didn’t come forward in the days before the election and announce another offensive that would “win” in Vietnam, he said that “peace is at hand.” So McGovern was just for rushing things a bit. In analyzing the ‘72 election, what seems to have defeated McGovern so convincingly was the electorate’s yearning for a return to cultural orthodoxy. No more militant blacks, no more hippies, no more riots and bra-burning — that was the deciding factor. Any objective analysis would also show that Nixon continued, and even expanded the New Deal. Today, he would never be nominated by the Republican Party.
What Nixon was decidedly NOT doing was slashing the size of government, or continuing the draft, or continuing the Vietnam War until the ARVN Army could “stand up.” He was bugging out, forming the EPA, and even suggesting a Guaranteed Annual Income. Faced with this guy, the left of the Democratic Party, which felt empowered by the collapse of the center, still could not stand against Nixon.
But now, Bush is not suggesting the peace that the clear majority wants. He has no plans but keeping the troops in the buzz saw. The phantasmagoria of “victory” gets more and more remote. And it wasn’t the Democrats who got us in there, it was Bush. Lamont is far from the “left” of the Democratic Party, if such a thing still exists. The CIO? Nope. New Dealers? All dead. The zealous mood after Vietnam? Gone. If Democrats were following your suggested strategy, then Nixon would have promised to keep fighting in the glorious Vietnam War or been accused of appeasement: instead, he back out from the war that had been started by a Democratic president, which was now ripping apart the Democratic Party. Sounds familiar.p>Remind me, as a Democrat, not to take Republican advice on how to beat you. br> — Jim Hassinger br> Glendale, California /p> p> READER MAIL CORNER br> Re: Michael Tomlinson’s letter (under “Chickenhawkism”) and C. D. Lueders’s letter (under “Melbourne’s Own”) in Reader Mail’s Hearts of Hardness : /p> p>Would it be possible to have Michael Tomlinson write a few articles for TAS , since most letters are in response to articles and not original articles themselves? I’ve been reading his responses over time and I feel he could add to the debate quite nicely with his insights from the Eastern Shore area of Maryland. Maybe you could have a section (other than Reader Mail) for guests columnists, outside of your regulars. Like Ken Shreve and Elaine Kyle, it would be nice to see a really down to earth take on events from someone considered an amateur. Jed Babbin and the rest are really fine but they are experts in their fields overall and are well versed in events as part of their jobs. Even Ben Stein is a professional. Also for Mr. Tomlinson, you may be aware of a radio personality on the local Christian station by the name of Pete Chagnon. That is my son and he has often been concerned that my opinions may be confused with his. The main difference between us is that he is more articulate, but anything under that name in TAS is mine. Thanks, people, and keep up the excellent job. br> — Pete Chagnon /p>
It took a while to get a response in the letters to the Editor…But finally! And from my city’s namesake, Melbourne as well (I am an Australian)! Right of reply…C.D. Lueders takes offense to my interest and deep affinity with my American friends and allies, and their politics. Having assumed I had a right in this democratic world to freedom of speech I apologize for any unintended offense I caused the learned gentleman (or woman). Having discussed the Connecticut situation with longtime Connecticut resident, American Spectator contributor and thoughtful political commentator Lisa Fabrizio, it’s clear the Lieberman/Lamont issue is a bellwether for the upcoming elections. The voters will have their say and that will decide it, but surely we’re all entitled to our opinion.
As for the GOP-basher label, I consider myself a big fan of Republicans like Arizona senator, John McCain, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani…And you might not believe it, but having read Kitty Kelley’s bashing of George W. Bush, I came out of it with a new found respect for the Bush dynasty and that straight-talking larrikin I’d probably enjoy having a drink with, W. Alternatively I find Bill and Hilary Clinton and England’s Tony Blair as strong leaders of the left.
Essentially I’d like to say to C.D. Lueders of Melbourne, Florida, that from Australia it’s clear that the divisiveness and polarization of today’s America can be put down to the “scorched earth” politics that people like you practice.p>I take an interest in American politics because I have to know what I’m talking about, as I continually have to defend your great nation to those who think the USA is a belligerent, thoughtless, and red-neck blight on the world. Maybe you can appreciate the alternative and different views of your friends, allies and other countrymen, or are we to be like those enemies of America like al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, France, Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, where dissent and difference is illegal and unwanted? br> — Nathan Maskiell br> Melbourne, Australia /p>
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?