Anyone old enough here to remember 1968?

[wryter2000]

Just kidding. But I have a serious question.

How much do you think the riots in Chicago affected the subsequent election? I ask because I imagine we might be looking at the same sort of thing in New York in 2004. There's a major, ugly war going on, and the people of NY are p*ssed. If the police riot as they did in 1968 (and in Miami a couple of weeks ago), I think we could have a rerun of 1968.

If so, will that hurt Whistle Ass? How much?

[TrueAmerican]

1. What hurt was Robert Kennedy's death.

that's it in a nut shell.

[wryter2000]

3. That was a major tragedy

Thanks for your insight.

[xxqqqzme]

20. it was THE major

political event of '68. It set up the convention cuz it gave the control back 2 LBJ who allowed uninspiring, unelectable Hubert Humphrey 2 B pushed N2 the nominee spot. Up until RFK assassination HHH wasn't even a blip.

After MLK & RFK murders, we left the country until '72.

[Kool Kitty]

4. Yep, good point.

I tend to agree.

[maha]

21. If RFK had been the nominee

I think he could have beat Nixon, I agree. Hubert Humphrey had the burden of being LBJ's vice president and couldn't do it.

[pistoff democrat]

25. I think RFK would have beat Nixon and

that's why he had to die.

:cry:

[Yupster]

127. A fun little game

If you like thinking about things like this, check out
www.old-games.com It's a site where they have games from companies that went out of business. For $ 3 or $ 5 you can download as many of them as your want, but you need to unzip them.

Anyway, there's a game called "President Election" where you can run a campaign of the past from 1960-1988 and match up your dream candidates. You can run Robert Kennedy against Nixon in 68 and see how well you do. It's simple, but a fun game. Take Mondale or Goldwater and see if you ca do better than they did.

Take Dukakis or Ford and see if you can put them over the top.

But don't make too many campaign stops each week or you'll make gaffes.

[Yupster]

160. Just for grins,

I ran an election simulation -- RFK vs Nixon.

Computer asked me who to choose as RFK's VP candidate and that got me thinking. I ended up picking Scoop Jackson.

I played RFK - computer picked Nixon. I took the northeast for granted and pounded my money into the mid-west and the Pacific coast. My strategy worked as I won every industrial midwest state except Indiana. I won Oregon and Washington but Nixon held California even though I wasted lots of money there.

Nixon seemed to be fighting Wallace more than me. I think it would be better if a person ran each side. He did take three of Wallace's five states away from him, leaving Wallace with only Mississippi and Alabama, Final results...

Popular vote RFK - 31.7 million (47 %), Nixon 30.7 million (46 %), Wallace 4.6 million (7%).

Electoral vote -- Kennedy 271, Nixon 250, Wallace 17.

Kennedy wins, but I almost blew it. i completely ignored the northeast. Nison kept campaigning there and when the results came in, Pennsylvania came in after California. I won Pa by only 10,000 votes. That would have blown it for me. Was a fun 20 minutes. Maybe next time I'll try Wallace and see how many states I can get him.

[flamingyouth]

2. I was born Dec. 27 that year

My mother always told me about watching the horrible events of that year unfold while she was pregnant with me - it was a scary time.

[asjr]

5. 1968

Other than the fact I was pregnant with my second child, I don't remember a lot about it. We could definitely have another show like '68. I think more people are angrier than people were then. I don't know about "free speech zones" in NY but the Repubs will try to set it around Long Island. If Bloomberg goes along with it he is toast also.

[Cornus]

9. I disagree

I think people are a LOT more complacent now than they were in 1968. Speaking for myself, I'm as angry now as I was then. Perhaps I travelled with a different crowd back then, but it seems to me that many people I know today couldn't care less about anything political.

[pistoff democrat]

26. affirmative

:pals:

[Ardee]

65. perspective is everything

We tend to judge by our own groups and attitudes. As one who attended the '68 events in Chicago, actually petted "pigasis", the SDS candidate for president and ran for my life from the Chicago stormtroopers I remember this nation as complacent as hell. I remember noone batting an eye when that Chicago judge chained and gagged one of the Chicago Seven defendants, nor gave much thought when ,later on, four college kids were gunned down at Kent State by the military.

If anything good came out of the american political scene of that era it was that the increasing violence of the police against the demonstrators began to turn the tide.I see the same need for taking to the streets now that I did then and I see the same general apathy nationwide now as then. Every year many more fail to take part in the political process than actually vote. It seems that energising the american public cannot be accomplished without a major protest movement.

[dreissig]

86. Pigasus

Pigasus was the candidate of the Yippie party. I don't know what relationship Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin had to SDS, and SDS was indeed active at the 1968 Chicago convention. But I don't associate the pig stunt with SDS - they were too serious for that.

[Ardee]

114. you are correct of course

as I was a participant in those 68 demonstrations I can quite readily plead advancing senility...thanks for the heads up.

[Jacobin]

72. I agree with you.

Until the transport tubes start coming home by the dozen and there's a draft, middle americans will just "tsk tsk" the dead when they read the papers.

[AlinPA]

95. Agree. People today don't seem to care.

I was 29 yrs old, w/ 2 kids and lived near Chicago. That was a big deal at the convention. With Rpiglican free speech zones, such a thing will never happen.

[sallyseven]

10. I remember 68

next to 63 it was the worse in my young adulthood. I kept slogging though. Bob Kennedy's death took my breath away. I am still involved with the democratic party and just want to beat bush. Riots don't help. They just confuse people. Better we should be banging on doors getting out the sane people to vote. Write letters to the editors. Point out the trash bush is dong. e-mail news organizations. Don't let up.

[hlthe2b]

12. 1968: I was 10 years old at the time...

and it seemed like the horrors would never end: Chicago riots, vietnam, MLK and RFK assasinations, Tet Offensive...


Hard to argue that death of RFK wasn't the nail in the coffin for that year, but it was truly cumulative. Two years later, Kent State. Geez, what childhood memories (starting with JFK assasination at age five)

[maha]

24. Disagree.

Unless you WANT Bush to be President for four more years, please don't even think about a replay of the Chicago riots in NYC next year.

[tinanator]

89. well I remember

my mother sobbing at the sight of RFK's coffin, and me joining in out of concern. She had ridden his train during the campaign. A friend of mine was in the place that night. 35 years later we have a second chance. His name is Dennis Kucinich. Dont blow it.

[madrchsod]

6. noi don`t think they influenced the election

the police riot in chicago was broadcast across the nation and miami was not covered at all. as for new york in 2004, it all depends on what the polls are saying about bush`s election numbers and the amount of disruption the feds do to the protesters.

[GalleryGod]

7. Absolutely.

They're "stuck" with NYC,now. That's why Delay got caught trying to use a luxury liner as a "hotel".

Riots would be bad for President PeePee Pants candidacy.

Especially with Wives of Dead First Responders in the lead.

[maha]

27. Riots would NOT be bad for Bush's candidacy!!!

Oh, please, people, don't even THINK about riots. They'll play right into Karl Rove's hands and help keep Pee Pee Pants in the White House.

Can't we learn from history? Am I the only one here who remembers how Nixon used the antiwar movement to his own advantages?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. You Are So Right.....

I remember watching the Democratic convention with my parents in 1968. The riots and the general social unrest in the country made it appear the nation was out of control.... That's what the New Left wanted anyway... They wanted Nixon to win to maximize the contradictions in the system and as a result the nation would turn to them...

The worse the better......


Sad.....

[wryter2000]

71. I wasn't thinking of starting a riot

Honest. I won't even be there as I live in CA. I don't condone violence of any kind. I was just wondering what the effect would be if one happened.

[Silverhair]

119. Unless some really calm heads prevail, there will be a riot.

Although I dislike the "free speech zones" that keep Bush isolated from dissent, and give the camera impression that there are only supporters - this time they may help us if they help stop the violence before it starts.

[Silverhair]

118. I remember well. Nixon certainly did exactly that.

I fear that our young hotheads are going to have to learn for themselves.

[Yupster]

129. Agree maha

I think Bush would like as many riots as possible.

Remember the states Bush would like to win this year are Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, all of which he lost by just a percentage or two last time. How do you think riots will play in Wisconsin.

Bush will be the calm, steady man in charge while his detractors will be marching, screaming and getting arrested. I think he'll take that tv shot.

[Tharesa]

132. Are you sure???

Remember who the Mayor of New York is! One thing about the marches which ultimately killed Humphrey was when the networks showed these peaceful demonstrators being badly beaten up at the same time Humphrey was being nominated. They showed what was happening inside the convention hall and outside, and this certainly turned off people who might of supported him!

[msmcghee]

8. Part of why many average Americans turned . .

. . against the war, was the general sense, that many Americans felt strongly enough about it to demonstrate and get their heads bashed in. Sure, many of them just hardened their hatred of the "hippies". But many in the middle started to ask, "Why do they feel so strongly about this?".

People generally respond when they see others risking their life and limb in a cause they strongly believe in. The pukes orchestrate their rage and pay for it as a big PR campaign. But that's been the only campaign for 30 years now.

It's about time we stated drawing some lines in the sand ourself. Even if we fail, at least we stood up for our beliefs, and I believe our values are worth it.

[maha]

33. I disagree.

Maybe because I was watching from the Midwest, but seems to me all the antiwar movement accomplished was re-electing Dick Nixon in 1972.

Lots of people who might have had second thoughts about the war a great deal sooner rallied around Dick Nixon and defended Vietnam because the "hippies" were against Dick Nixon and the war.

People came around to being against the war IN SPITE OF the antiwar movement, not because of it. If the antiwar movement had been more disciplined (and not infiltrated by CREEP operatives), the war might have ended sooner.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. Right Again....

There was a general feeling that things were out of control that Nixon cleverly exploited.....

[msmcghee]

56. You could be right.

The movement was infiltrated, and Nixon did exploit it for all he could - would you expect him to do otherwise?

But politics is like marketing. If your product fails - management blames marketing. If the product succeeds, management claims their astute leadership is the reason. Management always gets to make the call.

But they are always wrong. Because in all cases - no-one knows whether things would have been better or worse - if a different path had been taken.

Sometimes it's just better to stand for what you believe and let the cards fall as they may.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. The Die Was Cast

when the Dems nominated Humphrey who was perceived as pro war... It was like waving a big red flag in front of the anti-war protestors...The riots were inevitable....

[msmcghee]

61. But this statement . .

"People came around to being against the war IN SPITE OF the antiwar movement, not because of it."

Is the most absurd thing I have ever heard at DU.

:toast:

[maha]

80. Behold, the truth!

I was a college student during the Nixon Administration and even took part in some minor antiwar demonstrations. However, the fact is that the antiwar demonstrations changed NOBODY'S mind. The excesses of the movement just caused pro-Nixon opinion to become more hardened and entrenched. The demonstrations actually helped Nixon's propaganda efforts, because for a while he got people focused on the nasty "hippies" so they weren't paying as much attention to the war.

If you don't believe me, consider this: The antiwar movement peaked in the years 1968-1870. After the draft lottery got going, and after Kent State in 1970, the whole movement became much more subdued (yes, it continued, but especially on campuses it was much less intense). Yet the Paris Peace Agreement wasn't signed until 1973, and the final evacuation of U.S. troops from Saigon was in 1975.

Remember that Nixon won in 1968 partly because he claimed to have a plan to end the war, and because Hubert Humphrey was seen as being pro-war. So it's not as if the War in Vietnam was so all-fired popular even in 1968.

[Ardee]

66. Interesting take

one completely unsupportable, based far more on your conservative desire to keep the status quo than from any sociological correctnesss. There is general concensus among historians and political pundits that the demonstrations were directly responsible for the end of that horrid war.

I urge everyone to understand that this posters call to keep quiet, dont make waves and things will somehow get better is a call from the far right of the democratic party, the same folks who have ruined two elections now and are rather more responsible for the conditions we find ourself in than are those who take to the streets.

As one who participated in many such demonstrations I assure you that almost all the violence came from the police and only a few regrettably unfocussed demonstrators and outside agitators.

[maha]

82. Boy, are you wrong.

If I'm a "conservative" with a "desire to keep the status quo," then George W. Bush must be a patriot and a genius. And I'm also the Virgin Mary. Perhaps you are the Pope?

I've dedicated most of my time for the past couple of years to defeat George W. Bush, and I've been working against the war since last summer. Visit my web site some time if you want to know how "conservative" I am.

I'm also a regular writer for Open Source Politics (here is my most recent, although I've got an article scheduled to appear tomorrow or Monday comparing Bush's and Hiter's propaganda techniques) and have had some articles published on DU (not the forum), like this one.

I also proudly took part in two major anti-war demonstrations this year, in New York.

When did I ever say "don't make waves"?

When you write, "There is general concensus among historians and political pundits that the demonstrations were directly responsible for the end of that horrid war."

I don't need no stinking historians or pundits to tell me about the effects of the anti-Vietnam War movement. I was a college student during the Nixon Administration. I saw it first hand. (And I was against the war and voted for George McGovern.) The antiwar movement did NOTHING to end the Vietnam War. The antiwar movement peaked in 1968-1970, yet the war didn't end until 1975. And them's the fact, child, like it or not.

[msmcghee]

87. I think you're not even close.

If you believe the war finally ended in spite of the anti-war effort then you are telling me that my efforts against it prolonged the war.

But, for the sake of argument, if you were right, then what's your point?

People should just shut up when they see their country involved in a terrible, destructive, illegal injustice?

The anti-war effort started to decline as the draft was ended and everyone finally realized that it was going to end. The GI's essentially quit fighting and just tried to stay alive. Officers who insisted were fragged. The writing was on the wall.

Maybe we should stop complaining about the Iraq invasion. Then when they see we don't care they'll pull all the troops out.

Where, exactly are you coming from here?

[maha]

99. Protest smart, not hard

"If you believe the war finally ended in spite of the anti-war effort then you are telling me that my efforts against it prolonged the war."

My efforts, too. There's no way to know if OUR efforts prolonged the war, but it's clear to me now the antiwar movement did nothing to END the war.

"But, for the sake of argument, if you were right, then what's your point?

People should just shut up when they see their country involved in a terrible, destructive, illegal injustice?"

Oh, please, get a grip. I'm not against demonstrating (how many times do I have to say this?). I'm certainly not saying to shut up (since when did I shut up?).

I'm saying that what must be avoided AT ALL COSTS are public demonstrations that might turn violent and result in property damage or injury to people. This sort of demonstration is utterly counterproductive. If you didn't learn that 30+ years ago, you weren't paying attention.

THINK! Why are there demonstrations? Are they just big public temper tantrums, or are you trying to communicate something to people with different points of view? Assuming the latter, that must mean you want to reach people who support Bush and the war (or who are on the fence) to get them to change their minds. Do you think you are persuasive by behaving in ways they find offensive and frightening?

We MUST speak out. We MUST communicate to those who aren't seeing the truth. But we must do so in a way that might actually be effective.

Demonstrations that get out of hand AT BEST are not effective; at worst they will help Bush. Consider next year's GOP convention. A hoard of screaming hotheads confronting National Guard in front of Macy's will communicate to Mr. and Mrs. Brainwashed America that they need George Bush to protect them from "lefties." Is that what you want?

Here's a really good article from The American Prospect by George Lakoff on why we're not communicating to the Right Wing, even though we have truth on our side. I strongly suggest reading it.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/8/lakoff-g.html

Last paragraphs:

Here is a cognitive scientist's advice to progressive Democrats: Articulate your ideals, frame what you believe effectively, say what you believe and say it well, strongly and with moral fervor.

Reframing is telling the truth as we see it -- telling it forcefully, straightforwardly and articulately, with moral conviction and without hesitation. The language must fit the conceptual reframing, a reframing from the perspective of progressive values. It is not just a matter of words, though the right ones are needed to evoke progressive frames.

And remember, a jerking knee is no substitute for a thinking brain.

[Ardee]

116. demonstrations are a must

and they WILL be held in NYC that you can take to the bank. I will not accuse you of being a right winger but you do come rather close to being an apologist for their strategies with that call to the impossible.

Demonstrations against the war in Viet Nam increased in numbers, at least here on the west coast and the violence ,mostly perpetrated by provacateurs and outright govt agents increased as well. The local police riot squad called the Tac squad, became increasingly violent in response to these demonstrations. I remember these as if it were yesterday and would swear that Nguyen Cao Kys visit to SF was in '72 which sparked the single most violent displays, with buses being set on fire and police cars overturned. But there was no violence whatsoever until the police waded into the crowd around the Mark Hopkins hotel with batons flailing.

It is an essential tactic of the right to use any means necesary to discredit the left and attempt to put the demonstrators in the worst possible light. Do you all not recall, here on DU, the attempts to paint ANSWER as a villain and those who turned out in the hundreds of thousands as dupes? Of course we will show our opinions of the Bush government by turning out for the republican convention. Of course the right will do everything in their power to discredit the demonstrations. Yes there is going to be violence, get ready for it and DO NOT buy into the propagand that will follow.

[maha]

149. What are you trying to accomplish?

Do you want to communicate with people or do you want to have a big, self-indulgent temper tantrum?

DO NOT COME TO NYC NEXT YEAR. Please. You say "yes there is going to be violence, get ready for it." You may be astonished to find out that New Yorkers, as much as they hate Bush, will NOT support you if you put anyone in danger. And you will, with that attitude.

I just got done writing an essay on why communication with Bush supporters is so hard. We MUST communicate, we must REACH people, not throw temper tantrums.

http://www.mahablog.com/2003.11.30_arch.html#1070773098117

Your arguments about who started what are beside the point. The fact is that violent demonstrations play into the opposition's hands. Doesn't matter whether the demonstrators started it, or the police, or the Bad Demonstration Fairy. Self-indulfeng, juvenile stunts such as you propse will get Bush four more years in the White House.

[msmcghee]

146. You were not at the same demonstrations that I was.

Before these events ever happen, the FBI sends info to police departments that exaggerate the threat of demonstrators and suggest violent tactics and special crowd control tactics to quell them. At major demonstrations where they really want to discredit the movement they place agent provacateurs in the crowd. I've been attacked by these supposed fellow demonstrators myself.

You don't think every RW police chief in the US doesn't want a piece of this anti-Bush movement? They get to kick our ass and blame us at the same time. What could be sweeter?

I've never been to a peace march when there weren't extensive attempts by organizers to keep things peaceful. Granted there will probably be some anarchists and just violent jerks showing up for a party. The sensible thing would be if the cops would just go after them instead of attacking crowds of peaceful demonstrators.

But then how can they discredit the demonstrators if everything remains relatively peaceful or if they only arrest a few troublemakers who obviously are not part of the organized demonstration?

There is no way to demonstrate smarter. Go organize a smart demonstration - but make sure your insurance is paid up. They will do whatever they can to discredit you. Might as well accept that and get as much mileage as you can. At least you will have exercized your right to call bullshit on them - and to get your head beat in - which would probably enlighten you a little bit.

[maha]

152. Speaking of enlightenment ...

"At least you will have exercized your right to call bullshit on them - and to get your head beat in - which would probably enlighten you a little bit."

It's not about getting heads beat in. It's about getting rid of the Bushies, the Neocons, the Corporate Whores and Shills, the Religious Right, and the rest of the scum infesting and killing my country.

I think the difference between us is that you aren't seeing the big picture. You want to indulge in drawing attention to yourself so you can feel better. I want to change America. You want to do something stupid and self-indulgent that will hurt the cause, but you can brag about it to your neighbors. I want to stop playing their games (because that's what you'll be doing when they beat your head in, you know, playing their games). Instead, I want to beat them.

Take the money you might use to travel to New York and give it to Moveon.org for their ad campaign. Put it go good use.

[Tharesa]

153. I have a better idea.

You use your money as you see fit, and we can use our money as we see fit. After all, isn't this what liberity is all about? The last person Tharesa needs to hear from about spending hard earned money is from a fascist!

[Isome]

155. Protesting is a good thing.

There are no limit to the number of ways one can peacefully participate in the political process, and no one is the authority on which ways are acceptable.

This is NOT a campaign event, it has nothing to do with electing a particular candidate.

[Isome]

157. I've read TAP.

Frankly, they strike me as those "moderate" folks who are a bigger obstacle to social justice than those who are outwardly hostile towards it! They're the type of Democrats who bend over backwards to agree with the rethuglicans.

I read an article by some idiot who is so out of touch with Black people (he either needs glasses or he doesn't see Black people in his daily life), he couldn't differentiate between a caricature and a "stereotype", between a "housemaid's dress" and judicial robes. And, he had the audacity to rely on his impaired perspective (one that doesn't consider Black people as mainstream, nor their issues as important) to deem a popular website, host to a number of intellectual contributors & translated into several other languages online, as obscure.

TAP is not impressive.

[mikehiggins]

131. Ardee, I cannot beleive anyone who lived through those days

could still live in such a world of self-denial as to think the riots in the street did anything but get Nixon elected, and keep his war machine going.

Where is this "general consensus" that the demonstrations ended the VietNam war? Did they stop Nixon's reelection after four years of unparalleled butchery? If Watergate hadn't tied up the White House the war could have gone on forever. Nixon didn't give a rat's ass what the demonstrators said or did. He knew he could count on the people's willingness to beleive, even after the Pentagon papers and all the rest.

Of course the violence came from the police and from plants and agitators within the movement BUT that didn't change what the world saw, and what the world WILL see next November.

The right wing already largely controls the images that the general public sees and the articles they read (those who do read anything but the sports pages) so what do you think is going to be the general public's impression of 2004 in NYC?

Miami is just a precursor of what NYC will be all about.

If you think I'm a right winger because I don't think it smart to knowingly go, or encourage people to go and get their heads busted so be it. You are free to have your own opinion, of course, at least until Bush is safely back in office. Then, things will be different.

I'd rather work to prevent that from happening, and mass demonstrations just aren't going to work.

[Silverhair]

120. Peaceful demonstrations work extremely well, violent ones don't.

Look at the incredible success of the civil rights demonstrations. MLK emphasized nonviolence and accepting the civil punishment. Look at the sucess Ghandi had. Yes it took sacrifice, but IT WORKED!!!
Violent demonstrations make heros of the cops and turn the public against the demonstrators.

[Tharesa]

123. What makes ole silverhair think this?

The Chicago march was peaceful, until teargas bombs were shot and exploded behind us demonstrators. We could only flee toward the clubs and shields just to breathe. Cum in fuga traheretur..tanta erat caedes ut perpauci effugerent! :spank:

[jiacinto]

11. Well it did have long term effects

The Democrats never carried IL again until 1992. So there were plenty of "long term" effects.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. '68 The best of times, the worst of times.

The best of times: A real feeling that the people were about to take back their government and effect a real change.

The worst of times: We failed. We finally were able to arouse the disgust, and outrage of the people, but a lot of it was directed at us for daring to shatter their illusions.

A repeat of '68? I don't think so. The raw fervor of not just stopping an unspeakably horrible war, but of changing the world is not present. There will be demonstrations, disruptions, etc, but it will amount to an insurrection. '68 was a revolution.

[acmavm]

14. I think that the riots had the effect of drawing much needed attention

to what was going on in the country at that time. The election results were pretty much unconnected to the event. The democrats had a weak candidate and he was deep-sixed by a lot of the same things that are going on now. Dirty political tricks and mis-information. What really had a BIG effect on this country were the subsequent trials of the Chicago Seven and their mobilizing effect on the voters, especially the younger ones. That's when all the fun began. The trials brought to light the underhanded and criminal behavior of Mayor Daley and how he tried, like Shrub & Co. are trying, to deny free speech to Americans who do not believe that war and killing are the way to promote democracy here and elsewhere in the world.

edit: did not proofread for spelling

[Zomby Woof]

15. they did have an effect

Middle America saw it as "lawless" behavior, and fell for the "law & order" (read: racist, pro-war) rhetoric of Nixon.

RFK and MLK's assassinations were the first major blow, so I'd rank the '68 Chicago riots much lower in impact, but it was there. Right or wrong, it scared the squishy center and "love it or leave it" crowd. In a way, idiots like Jerry Rubin and the Chicago 7 prolonged the war, by ensuring scared Americans would vote for Nixon.

Also, Nixon tricked people into thinking he would end the war quickly, although most anti-war people on the Left were smart enough to see through that. For the Middle Americans having doubts about the war, Nixon was also their man. This is the crowd that gave us such phony rhetoric heard up through the Reagan years as "all those Democrat wars". :eyes: So Nixon got both pro-war and (conservative) anti-war votes, for different reasons. Fear of lawlessness and "hippies" on one hand, and wanting to end "a Democrat's war" on the other.

Safe to say, if the 1968 riots had little impact, it certainly wasn't positive. Must err with negative impact then.

[grasswire]

18. we're still seeing the effects...

....in that much of middle America is afraid of liberalism as dangerous. Older America in the red states still votes AGAINST the left more than they vote FOR the right.

[Zomby Woof]

28. and it's racist too

They still stereotype liberalism as 'socialism' which helps black people and other "undeserving" minorities. They use affirmative action as their scapegoat now, since welfare has been diminished on the radar as the liberal boogeyman out to get 'em!

[jiacinto]

46. Not everything is based on race

nt

[Zomby Woof]

48. study some American history

I suppose you will tell me slavery wasn't based on race, voting rights weren't based on race, the poll tax (NOT even outlawed until LBJ!) wasn't based on race, lynching wasn't based on race, school segregation wasn't based on race, and the draft wasn't based on race.

A WHOLE HELLUVA LOT OF THIS NATION'S HISTORY IS SCARRED DEEPLY BY RACE. It matters, it's important, it runs deep, and it affects policy unto this day.

Race is America's #1 intractable issue.

Plus, knowing some of your private views on racial matters, it would sicken DUers if they knew too, and why it makes your rebuttal of my post revolting.

[jiacinto]

50. Please

I didn't say race wasn't a factor. I said it wasn't the "sole" factor.

[Zomby Woof]

54. I didn't say sole either

I said IMPORTANT. I know you will want the last word, so go for it Chuckyboy.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zomby Woof]

64. not at all

I would have corrected ANYONE who put the words "sole problem" in my mouth. I do wonder why you are adamant in your refusal to admit misstating my opinion on race in America.

[diamond14]

91. thank you, ZombyWoof....your post is right on...and most DUers

would truly be upset if they knew....I agree totally, because I've seen some sickening posts and tried to get as many as possible removed....thanks for telling it like it is....

[Zomby Woof]

138. you're welcome

It can be hard to reign in the emotions, but I appreciate you seeing the reason in there somewhere. :-)

[Punkingal]

16. There were a lot of factors....

in 1968, but George Wallace really took a lot of votes from Humphrey. Humphrey would have won if not for Wallace. And of course, Bobby would have won, hands down. Nixon would have been beaten by 2 Kennedys. SIGH

[Zomby Woof]

23. we really don't know

This is not a slam against RFK, I just don't think we knew if he was going to win. He was killed in early June, and there was lots of campaigning ahead. Politics should resist such easy "if only" hindsight predictions.

JFK BARELY beat Nixon, so it was a safe bet, in a country as polarized by Vietnam as it was in 1968, that an RFK/Nixon election would have been just as close, with the outcome hard to predict even 35 years later.

[pistoff democrat]

35. Disagree with your comparison of

the JFK/Nixon run and the possible RFK/Nixon run.

JFK barely beat Nixon because the country was sick of politics at that time; less than 20 years after WWII, immediately after the Army-McCarthy witchunt.

The country was polarized over Vietnam in 1968, but the tide was turning. Also, please don't forget that RFK had a different 'aura', partly because his brother had been assassinated.

[Zomby Woof]

47. my bottom line

Is we DON'T KNOW. Which makes my assessment as dicey as the next person's. I was trying to caution against a DEFINITE hindsight prediction.

It could have been a landslide in either direction too. We forget that the Kennedys were not universally loved in their lifetimes. RFK owed as much to his legend due to a bullet as did his brother. The Left today romanticizes the Kennedys, and builds up their legend in hindsight. There is a certain amount of wishful thinking projected onto them.

If it helps, I certainly would have wanted RFK to defeat Nixon, but alas, I was a baby then. According to a t-shirt I wore in 1968, my official endorsement was for Snoopy for president. :-)

[Eloriel]

67. JFKs problem was he was Catholic and

people were genuinely afraid that he'd take direction from the Pope.

Eloriel

[Zomby Woof]

70. yeah

Joe Kennedy invited Billy Graham to the family compound in MA, to alleviate WASP fears. There is a famous photo of Joe and Graham talking amiably at an outdoor table.

WV was a battleground state, because of that fear. The Democratic voters who worked the mines were in danger of defecting, and JFK campaigned extra hard there because he could not take any southern states for granted, not even normally reliable WV.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. I Think Your Analysis Is Flawed...

If Wallace took alot of votes from Humphrey why did all the Wallace voters go to Nixon in 1972?


The results are clear......


1968

Nixon 43%

Humprhrey 42.5 %

Wallace 14%


1972 (sans Wallace)

Nixon 62%

McGovern 38%

As you can see the lions share of the Wallace voters went to Nixon....
So did the five states Wallace carried....

Even McGovern blames his landslide defeat on the Wallace's absence from the race.... Wallace wasn't there to siphon conservative votes from the Republican party...

Nixon's whole "southern strategy" was based on coopting the Wallace Democrats into the Republican party. The effects are still being felt today....

[jiacinto]

51. Yeah

if you added the Nixon+Wallace vote of 1968 you realize that Hubert Humphrey lost in a landslide.

Clinton did break that coalition somewhat, but enough of it still remained to elect Bush in 2000.

[Zomby Woof]

52. I would say incomplete

I wasn't trying to be comprehensive, just sticking to the riot/law&order angle.

If I were to add Wallace to my analysis, he was the vote of the disaffected Right, or the ones who didn't cotton to Nixon's call for ending the war so quickly, were more socially conservative, and like today's Greens, saw both major parties as one and the same. It would have been helpful to include him I admit. But I was trying to stay with the topic of the riots.

Your analysis of 1972 is fine, but irrelevant to my analysis, for MANY things changed in those 4 years, the dragging on of Vietnam and the shifting mood of the country being among them. Apples/oranges.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. Folks Who Thought The Nation Was Out Of Control

voted for Nixon and Wallace who got 57% of the vote....


Let's fast forward to 1972.... A president presiding over an unpopular war wins in a landslide because he successfully portrays his opponent as an out of touch, effete, liberal....

Let's fast forward to 2004.....

Does history repeat itself neatly?

[jiacinto]

59. I disagree about Wallace

most of the Wallace vote would have gone to Nixon. 1972's results confirm that.

[maha]

17. I remember 1968 and will explain it.

I was 17 in 1968, but I remember the Chicago protests. I also remember the subsequent antiwar movement and how Richard Nixon used it to his political advantage.

Please get this straight. Write it down, memorize it, recite it every day. Riots and violent protests against Bush in 2004 WILL HELP BUSH GET RE-"ELECTED." Got that? Thanks.

I live in terror that a pack of juvenile hotheads will show up in New York and try to start riots, or possibly get themselves shot by the National Guard who will be guarding Madison Square Garden. Four more years of Shrub, here we come.

Protests will be good if they are PEACEFUL and do not compromise security. I live in New Yorker, and as pissed off as New Yorkers are, they are very sensitive about security.

The 1968 Chicago riots did not cause average Americans to turn against the Dems and embrace Nixon. There were a lot of other factors going on. The principle factor in the GENERAL election was that Lyndon Johnson was hated by everybody across the political spectrum in 1968, and Hubert Humphrey had the burden of being LBJ's vice president. Nixon said he could straighten out LBJ's mess in Vietnam, and people believed him. I don't believe he Chicago riots had that much of an impact on the general election.

[Eric J in MN]

29. Even regarding peaceful protestors, most Americans are hostile.

Most Americans have an attitude towards protestors of, why are they complaining? They must be spoiled brats who have nothing better to do than complain. They should move if they don't like things in America.

Protests will help Bush, including peaceful protests.

[jiacinto]

57. I disagree

Riots might just hurt Bush if you believe in the Keys to the Presidency theory. Massive social unrest tends to hurt incumbent presidents. So if there are hundreds of thousands of people causing problems on Manhattan then it will hurt Bush. But if it is just a bunch of left wing freakshows--the types who come to IMF and World Bank meetings to protest while smoking pot--then it will help him.

But the riots did help the Republicans. I've said it several times that after the events of Chicago in 1968 the Democrats never carried Illinois or held their own in the suburbs of Chicago until 1992. NJ never voted Democratic again until Clinton, neither did CA. So there were implications.

The riots weren't the "sole" factor that turned "average Americans" against the Democrats, but they were part of many variables of the late 1960s that would haunt the party throughout most of the presidential cycles of the 1980s: being soft on crime, supporting higher taxes, not respecting mainstream values, not respecting the middle class.

The riots helped solidify that image.

[stevedeshazer]

112. You are right

Nixon went on national TV and said he had a "secret plan" to end the Viet Nam War.

It cracks me up to read posts from people who weren't born yet or who were babies trying to educate those of us who were there and remember.

[GalleryGod]

154. I Reject your explanation and Recollections

and I wasn't 17 then...a bit older and more "active' in Presidential politics. It's wonderful to have your own blog site and a strong opinion ,but, leave the lectures for the 101 Halls nad the Freshmen.
EOM:grouphug:

[Tharesa]

156. Si me consulueris, te monebo.

Then maybe you should try putting a cork in it yourself machoman! :pals:

[Eric J in MN]

19. I think that most Americans hate protestors.

I think that most Americans hate protestors.

It's unfortunate, but most Americans have an attitude towards protestors of, if they don't love America, why don't they leave?

They would rather identify with someone living it up inside a Republican convention than with someone getting clubbed and tear-gassed on the street.

I'd prefer no protests in NYC this summer. I think protests will help Bush.

[jiacinto]

53. The reality

most average people see protestors--such as the ones who go to IMF and World Bank meetings--as being freaks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. I Disagree

Martin Luther King's March On Washington was hugely successful...

Perhaps that's because the marchers were well dressed and well behaved....

It depends who's marching....

That might suck but it's true....

[jiacinto]

106. Well

If it looks like normal people and it numbers into the hundreds of thousands then it will hurt Bush. If it looks like the types who go to IMF and World Bank Protests--freaks dressed in black, anarchists, pot smokers, those with strange nose piercing--it will help Bush.

[Tharesa]

107. Perhaps you don't remember, the march on Washington was not a protest

It was a gathering. Are you saying that the demostrators who marched on Birmingham and Selma were unsucessful? :shrug:

[Eric J in MN]

142. I don't know what the news coverage was like in the 1960s, but

I don't know what the news coverage was like in the 1960s, but today newscasters call protestors spoiled-brats or ignore them altogether.

And trying to win an election is different than trying to end discriminatory laws.

Ordinary people, many of whom hate protestors, couldn't personally vote for or against civil rights, but they will be voting for President in 2004.

[Tharesa]

150. What bullshit!!!

And my guess is that you believe them. This is not about winning an election, it is about having a GODDAMNED election. It is about my taxdollars being used for death and destruction, and it is about stopping this war before more of our brave soldiers must die.

Sit on your toilet and shit away, because some of us know that we need a democracy and public action to show that we are not sitting on the sidelines. They will have to beat us up, before we are stopped for marching on streets which our taxdollars paid for!

[kentuck]

22. I only know what I've read since because....

I was in Viet Nam that year and I still know nothing abut Eugene McCarthy or the Chicago riots - other than what I've read.

[caledesi]

30. CSNY (Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young). This says it all.

Though your brother's bound and gagged
And they've chained him to a chair
Won't you please come to Chicago
Just to sing
In a land that's known as freedom
How can such a thing be fair
Won't you please come to Chicago
For the help that we can bring
We can change the world —
Re-arrange the world
It's dying — to get better
Politician, sit yourself down,
There's nothing for you here
Won't you please come to Chicago
For a ride
Don't ask Jack to help you
Cause he'll turn the other ear
Won't you please come to Chicago
Or else join the other side
We can change the world —
Re-arrange the world
It's dying — if you believe in justice
It's dying — and if you believe in freedom
It's dying — let a man live his own life
It's dying — rules and regulations, who needs them
Open up the door
Somehow people must be free
I hope the day comes soon
Won't you please come to Chicago
Show your face
From the bottom to the ocean
To the mountains of the moon
Won't you please come to Chicago
No one else can take your place
We can change the world —
Re-arrange the world
It's dying — if you believe in justice
It's dying — and if you believe in freedom
It's dying — let a man live his own life
It's dying — rules and regulations, who needs them
Open up the door
We can change the world

Yes, I do think there could be another "Chicago" in NY. People are pissed. The GOP picked the worst place for a convention.

Last I heard, the unemployment rate in NY was 10%. Discuss.

[kentuck]

32. And that's why they are thinking of renting a cruise ship....

They know that possibility is there.

[Eric J in MN]

40. The crusise-ship was cancelled. (nt)

nt

[Silverhair]

122. Only DeLay wanted the cruise ship. All the other Reps told him

NO. The idea was dropped the day after it made the news.

[caledesi]

158. Good point kentuck...was wondering about the cruise ship deal. eom

[Ardee]

68. well done caldesi

Please please eveyone note that those who castigate Rubin and the other leaders who tried to restore democracy to our nation are the same ones who support the Iraqi war, support the sellouts of the democratic party to Bush and his agendas and have the most to lose if a populist uprising casts out the neocons from the party and restores it to its rightful place.

[caledesi]

159. Thank you ardee. Like your thinking as well. eom

[Snow]

31. Lost it, absolutely -

Average americans would've voted for HHH, but the riots set up a law'n'order counter that worked very much to Nixon's advantage. I had just voted in my first primary (for Clean Gene), and remember the politics very well. Note that the cops who clobbered all the demonstraters, especially in the parks, were ordered to clobber by a mayor who was a democrat. So, whether the demonstraters or Daley's cops lost the election is probably moot, but IMHO that was a turning point. We radicals would not (and didn't) vote for HHH (although I honestly don't remember whom I voted for in the presidential election), and the great middle moved over to the right after the riots.

One thing, don't forget - the upcoming NY election is for the repukes; the '68 riots were against a war-mongering president (who, granted, had already retired) who was a democrat. So if riots happen against the republicans? and mayor bloomberg busts some heads? Dunno.....

[jiacinto]

34. The other thing is that IL never voted Dem again until 1992

nt

[maha]

36. No head busting.

There will be armed National Guard all over Midtown, for one thing. It will be dangerous. People could get killed.

It's all too easy for people in the Red States to write off anything that happens in New York as just, well, New York. I don't see how rioting New Yorkers will cause anyone in Kansas to have second thoughts about Bush. If anything, it would cause people to rally around Bush because those nasty New Yorkers weren't nice to him.

[dreissig]

92. Republicans Don't Own WTC Issue

Republican Mayor Giuliani claimed the September 11th attack for his own party, and nobody really contested it. Bush exploited it to the hilt, using it to justify a long list of Republican objectives.

But it's not a Republican issue, in fact the Republicans have been suppressing a serious investigation into what happened. There's a case to be made that Bush Let It Happen On Purpose.

Lots of blood has been shed already, and New York isn't that calm a place. There's no reason for the Republicans to believe that they will be safe. A police over-reaction may start a lot more trouble than anybody realizes.

[mot78]

133. If Convention protesters are just LIHOP/MIHOP people

then the protests will help * massively. I think the protests should be more dignified, and more akin to the anti-Iraq War protests from earlier this year...there were a lot more mainstream-oriented demonstrators at those. Let the anti-IMF, LIHOP people stay home.

[OKNancy]

37. A problem with the scenerio is

That the Republicans aren't going to riot against their own. The Chicago police riot was kids and others who in every other way, should have been wishing for a Democratic victory. Instead they went against the power and Nixon was elected.

I got in many arguments with SDSers then and I told them they were making a big mistake. The hatred of tthe war was all-powerful and clouded everything. I am positive that Humphrey would have ended that war much sooner than Nixon ( 5 years later!)

Funny, I was just thinking about all the comparisons that have been made about past elections and the present one. What strikes me is that the Dean people seem more like what I remember the McCarthy people being like ( I was one) Young and idealistic. Those years were so intense.

[Donna Zen]

75. Clean for Gene here!

I campaigned and walked the streets of downtown Pittsburgh with Gene McCarthy. I'm going to differ with you on this however; the two groups, Dean and McCarthy, have little in common.

First, McCarthy was an historian and much more reservered than Dean. We were all alone in opposition to war for a long time. Also, he was truly progressive with a liberal vision for the country.

RFK came late to the movement party, but was a much better spokeman. That was also hard for McCarthy supporters to understand. I remember resenting it, rather than embracing our success in making the movement super charged.

Chicago, and I was there, was a different matter. This wasn't Dems demonstrating against Reps.; this was Dem on Dem. The whole world is watching. Humphrey had stood beside Johnson throughout the build up to Johnson's "I will not seek" speech. We did not trust him, of course in hind site (20/20) we should have. That was the first time I can remember when the meme came out that it made no difference because both were the same. We ate our own and gave rise to a beast. I learned a hard lesson by refusing to vote for a president.

Humphrey, like many of the current candidates, had spent his entire life dedicated to important liberal principles, and we turned on him. So blind that will lost sight of the prize, and in doing so, damaged the party. Democrats have never fully rebuilt from that time.

Next summer's protests are a lose-lose situations. No protests or invisable ones would signal approval of the monkey; while large protests, no matter how peaceful the demonstrators wanted to behave, are sure to spell disaster.

[Eric J in MN]

79. The polls will determine if press portrays Bush as popular.

Protestors will be portrayed as spoiled-brats if they look nice and as freaks if they don't. I'd just as soon there be no protest during the conventions.

It's the polls which will determine if Bush is portrayed as popular at the time of the convention. We need to sway opinion by distributing literature and/or contributing to The Move On Voter Fund, which runs anti-Bush tv ads:

https://www.moveonvoterfund.org/

[maha]

Yes, that's now it is.

And you say it so well.

I'm not telling people to stay away from New York next summer, but I'm scared to death some hotheads are going to show up and unwittingly help Bush get re-"elected." Plus, I'm sure there will be armed National Guard in Midtown (there are NOW, why wouldn't there be even more next year?) and people could get killed.

[Iverson]

39. sure do remember 1968

Although I was a kid, that was the year that I became deeply politicized. It's a year that sticks out.

Police riots would not have the same political fallout now because the country has changed in some meaningful ways. For one thing, our capacity to be shocked by that level of violence is so much smaller. People buy video games to enjoy as entertainment far worse images of violence.

Another change is that the far right has neater methods of propagandizing. They prefer to manufacture events (e.g.- Gucci rioters, "top gun" Bush landing, "mission accomplished," fake Thanksgiving, etc.). That way, they retain complete control over the way that the event is presented. With them and just a few of their corporate buddies owning the mass media now, there becomes almost no danger of an objective version of events to blast their propaganda apart. Compare that to a real, public event where the truth could leak out. They prefer control, right on down to the cellular level if possible.

We should take inspiration from the best things that 1968 had to offer, but we're contending with different models now.

Peace, baby.

[Cleita]

43. It hurt a lot. Heavy handedness by the Chicago

police under the direction of Democratic Mayor Richard Daly, left a sour taste in everyone's mouth for any Democratic candidate especially with the Vietnam war in full ugly view of everyone.

If it happens it won't hurt Whistleass because the press won't report it as headline news, so unless you are there, most of the country won't know about it. That was the difference in 1968. We had a press that reported the real news.

[jiacinto]

44. IL never voted Dem again until 1992

nt

[Scott Lee]

49. Do you recall Mayor Daly's star gaffe on that event?

It's one of my all time favorites...

"Listen, the police aren't here to create disorder. The police are here to maintain disorder!"

[mlawson]

81. It shows the infinite silliness of many voters.

Imagine it's 1968, you are over 21 so you can vote. You are totally against the war in Vietnam, and you typically vote Dem. BUT, you saw the 'horrible riots' on TV in Chicago, you saw several Dem leaders in the hall condemn the whole mess, and then you say:

"Oh, my. I REALLY don't like Nixon, but there were those awful riots at the Democratic convention last summer!! It looked just terrible. That's it, I HAVE to vote for Nixon, even though I don't like the way he looks, or talks. Why couldn't those Dems behave themselves??"

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

What would have been the IQ of anyone like this??? Yet, it happened.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

84. It Wasn't A Pavlovian Stimulus and Response....

with the stimulus being the Chicago riots and the response being a vote for Nixon....

The Chicago riot only added to the perception that the nation was out of control after the King assasination, the Kennedy assasination, and the race riots...

Maybe it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back....

[mlawson]

85. I think it was the straw...

It never seemed likely that HHH could win, after Chicago. The party was terribly damaged there, before a record TV audience.

Bobby could have beaten Nixon, but not HHH, what a tragedy. Nixon was seen as a stronger figure, even though he had a 'shifty' image, even then. But if 18 year olds could have voted, Slippery Dick would never have won, IMO.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

101. I Wish That Was So But Eighteen Year Old Voters

could vote in 72 and look what happened... Nixon even carried a majority of em against McGovern...


Recent surveys indicate that * is stronger among 18-29 year olds than any other group...


Maybe youth and wisdom are indeed mutually exclusive.....


I am forty five... I was Dem when I was 8 and still a Dem now....

[Scott Lee]

45. Well Mayor Bloomberg pulled the plug on the cruise ship idea

for the Republicans - saving face for what was building up to be a splendid little PR disaster.

NYC is showing signs of being incendiary, but it doesn't help when timid certain Democratic State assemblymen put their nuts in a jar and mention to the press that the repukes are picking NYC for its "possible symbolism". You FOOL. That's the whole reason they're picking it! Democrats politicos are going to have to undergo some self esteem training.

But on the up note. Now that the RNC can't run away and hide in the harbor, this sets up a wonderful confrontation in the Big City, where the for-certain protests will be large, loud and hard hitting and the repukes (unlike their fearless little Fuhrer) won't be able to shuttle them all away to "free speech zones".

Now pray to the Gods that the Dem/Left doesn't drop this ball.

[RebelOne]

60. Yep, definitely old enough.

And to my knowledge, the riots did not seem to affect the election.

[Gloria]

69. OH, yeah, I remember 68....I was going to go to college in the fall

My one memory is seeing people in Chicago getting clubbed. I think the overall effect was that it really hurt the Dems in terms of their image, that the party was full of loonies.

In the Spring of '69, I was at Cornell and the black students took over the student union with guns. The turmoil of the whole period is hard to forget.
There were marches all over the campus; a strike, too. And then you watched your male friends getting their draft numbers selected and guys going for their physicals. I'll never forget how my boyfriend's roomate came back from Syracuse, shaking like a leaf. Gentle Mark, on weed most of the time, majoring in Rural Sociology, and already talking to his minister about CO status, had gone up scared to death. When he was came back, he wasn't shaking from knowing he'd be going....he was shaking because he FLUNKED, with a hernia he didn't know he had!! He practically fell apart with shock and relief....

[wryter2000]

73. Thanks so much

Thanks to everyone for all the insightful comments. I didn't mean to advocate for protests or not. If I had had an opinion one way or the other, reading everyone's opinions has just convinced me this is a very complicated issue.

:yourock:

[VOX]

74. "The whole world was watching"

Was too young to vote, but 1968 was a shocking year. Every day seemed like it brought a world-changing event (most of them tragic).
Here's an excellent 1968 timeline:

http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/1968/reference/timeline.html

[DrBB]

76. A scary and fundamental misconception here

That was anti-war leftists protesting their OWN party, as it were. And I think the harm it did to the Democratic party's chances was that it drew an unmistakeable gut-level association between the party of the left and the social upheaval that was going on in the country at large. "They can't even agree amongst themselves; how can we let them run the country."

I think massive protests in NYC will have exactly the same effect--i.e., it will trash the DEMS' chances, not the GOP's. Protests, if they become violent and chaotic, will be seen as a symbol of leftist anarchy, which the country can ill-afford in a time of "war." I think massive, riotous protests in NYC around the GOP convention is a Rove wet-dream. I hope protest organizers are not so stupid as to imagine differently.

And yes, I was 13 that year and I remember it very well. The only time that was as dark as that year in my political memory is right now.

[jiacinto]

77. It depends

Massive Social Unrest usually hurts the incumbent party--not the challenger. If several hundred thousand people come to NYC to protest Bush--and they represent a wide variety of Americans--then it will hurt the GOP significantly. However, if most of the prostestors are only a few thousand, and they are like the freaks who tend to protest at IMF/World Bank meetings, then it will hurt our candidate.

[DrBB]

93. Always appreciate your perspective Jiacinto

...even when I don't agree. But this is an interesting point. I think the key is whether the unrest is percieved as evidence of a rudderless, feckless administration. Doesn't this kind of thing drive people toward whoever they perceive to be the law-n-order candidate? I think massive ORDERLY protest could be damaging to the GOP, but a 1969-Chicago-style event would intensify apprehension toward the left and drive people toward Bush.

[Tharesa]

100. Tharesa understand!!!

Just as this same apprehension drove voters toward Humphrey in 1968? :wtf:

[jiacinto]

110. No

Historically social unrest hurts the incumbent administration.

Some examples

The racial riots of the 1960s, coupled with the Chicago Dem Convention incidents, and the assasinations helped Nixon beat Humphrey.


The LA Riots of 1992 hurt Bush and helped Clinton. The worst rioting since the 1960s it made Bush look weak

So if hundreds of thousands of people descend on NYC and protest, and they are normal looking, then Bush will be in trouble. However, if they are just a few thousand of the anarchist freaks who come to IMF meetings in DC every year, then it will help Bush.

Thus, the larger the crowd, the more diverse it is, then the more it will hurt Bush.

[dreissig]

98. Political Upheaval

America is all over the world undermining legitimate governments or overthrowing them directly. It's starting to backfire on us - September 11th was an example.

Terrorism is a result of a foreign policy that Americans didn't vote on. Because democracy depends on informed consent, this system doesn't work when the voters are hoodwinked. Our political system said to be democratic but it isn't.

Whether we have a democratic society or not, political change will occur. If there's no possibility for peaceful political change, there will be violence. Violence is messy.

[KoKo]

78. I think the Repugs picked the worst spot for their Convention!

It could be Repug Karma biting back on them.

I never agreed with those who trashed Boston for Dem convention......because Boston was the "birthplace of freedom" for the colonies. Yeah.....Atlanta might have been a great political coup for Dems....but BOSTON is where "Independence" began.

I think Repugs are in BIG TROUBLE picking NYC! Because there will be HUGE ANGER THERE.......but that's only my thought. I was around then, so I have some perspective. Big Mistake for Repugs--NYC! hee hee!

[VOX]

83. Conv. will end in early September, & will tie in with the 9/11 anniversary

A convention has *never* been held this late in the summer -- because the GOP wants their convention to blur into the 9/11 third anniversary. They are going to try to take their post-convention "bump" into the election.

Let's hope that this strategy backfires!

[dreissig]

94. Backfiring Strategy

There's an open question about who really owns the issue of the World Trade Center attack. The Republicans claimed it right away, and nobody contested it. But the attack was on a Democratic city, and the Republicans have been slow in helping New York recover. WTC is actually more of a Democratic issue, and the Republican convention may be the first serious attempt to reclaim it.

There is lots of resentment in New York, and if the Republicans rub it in as they love to do, there will be plenty of trouble. All of the unfortunate outcomes will be seen as easily foreseen, given the raw emotions involved. This will not break favorably for the Republicans.

[Tharesa]

88. Tharesa remember Chicago, one doesn't forget the smell tear gas!

Most of the people demonstrating in Chicago were not from organized groups, but just marching separately as individuals. However Tharesa did march with some demonstrators, but once the tear gas is released and cops rush in with the clubs..it is very hard to keep everyone's arms linked!

[tinanator]

90. No telling how this will play out

but the RNC convention may be democracies last stand. I believe there are more pissed off citizens than anyone would believe, and most of them will be there to square off with the beast. The unbridled arrogance of these ultimately powerful cheats tells us all we need to know about our dead democratic process. It is down to this, and those who tell you not to resist are already bought and sold. Do you love your country? Do you value your constitutionally promised rights?
Stop them, fight them, show your spine. Or never bitch again.

[Tharesa]

96. Potestas publica!

Time for the big march, and with enough people no police force can stop us from entering that convention and making the nomination ourselves.

[dreissig]

97. That Sounds About Right

There's a kind of Last Stand aspect to the confrontations that are certain to occur at the Republican Convention. People are forgetting there has already been a lot of bloodshed in New York City ... it isn't just an ordinary place to hold a convention.

In choosing New York to hold their convention, the Republicans are claiming ownership of the issue of the attack. The issue has been kept below the surface largely out of respect for the dead. But Democratic New Yorkers won't allow the Republicans to steal the memory of people who we know opposed George Bush and his policies.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. I Don't Like Last Stands.....

They don't end well....

Witness Little Big Horn and Wounded Knee.....

[Tharesa]

109. Tharesa agrees.

This is why a movement, or a large gathering of peaceful demonstrators is necessary. All of the demonstrators in Chicago went there for a peaceful march.

The teargas bombs were shot behind us, forcing the demonstrators to flee toward those violent police.

[tinanator]

161. try Alcatraz and Pine Ridge

you know who the bad guys are
do something about it

[diamond14]

102. many were frightened in 1968, but as young people, we went to

Chicago to STAND UP during the court trial of the Chicago 7....we were six young high school students from a Catholic High School in Detroit, drove together to Chicago (350 miles, borrowed my Dad's car), to STAND UP for justice and for everything that we had learned in school...if you do not object, you are complicit....we were beat by police on the streets of Chicago, for standing in our high school uniforms on a public sidewalk (no signs)...

and I attended U of Michigan during the Kent State shootings, which did make people fearful of protesting, fear that they would be killed...that fear is very similar today, the attacks on returning protestors posted on DU were the most terrifying to me, suggesting and encouraging hate and attacks on protestors....it was very challenging to get over 100,000 people to bravely STAND UP in DC on October 25, 2003...because so many people were fearful after the beatings, macings, killings at protests prior to the 'shock and awe' massacre....and many people are very aware that they might loose their jobs if shown protesting, that anthrax and other horrors await those objecting, included asscroft's secret incarcerations to prevent another Chicago 7 trial...some protestors today have been 'disappeared' in an attempt to silence, and beat and killed....but that doesn't mean there isn't a 'simmering majority'... people are simply afraid to STAND UP or speak out, bush* has done another good nixonian BEAT-DOWN of protestors, and some here have actually helped that by slandering and attacking protestors returning on Oct. 25, 2003 (the first Iraq war protests since April 2003, because people are very afraid)....

it amazes me that young DU people have now seen the 2000 Florida voting fiasco, but those 'reTHUGlican' techniques have been going on for YEARS, and were much worse during nixon's election....why does anyone here even suggest that people 'elected' nixon?....he was put into office by the same big reTHUGlican voting fraud that you saw in 2000, and with only 4 TV channels, and no video cameras/internet/fax/cell phones to cover, the reTHUGs intimidated vote counters, eliminated whole boxes of votes and more...it was much easier than today to fraudulently count votes...in 2000, the fraud was documented by today's modern devices, in 1968, there were no devices, those who objected were yelled at and called unpatriotic, but there was no proof, no videos...

today, all the reTHUGlican election voting tricks are being exposed, the 2000 election fraud allowed bush* to steal the WH, but it also eliminated the few of the last remaining reTHUGlican frauds, finally...and if we can beat diebold...we win...if a few more young people would help, the election fraud can be ended once and for all, something that us old people have been working on since the 60's, and it is now within our reach...

my cousin was killed in Vietnam in 1966....it's important to look at Vietnam in context though...many on the Vietnam Wall were 'volunteers', not all were drafted...there was still a big push from families for their sons to serve, at least in the mid to late 60's....my Father fought in WWII, and my dead cousin's Dad also had fought in WWII...many of the WWII Dads wanted their sons to volunteer and go to defend our country against that evil 'communism' (the same 'communism' that shrub loves in China)....nobody knew how many were killed, there was no internet to keep track....there was no periodically showing of PHOTOS of all the American dead (as the WP, Newsweek, and MSNBC occasionally do)...it took years after the Wall was built to figure out WHO died (and how many)...

IMO, the reTHUGlicans worked to get humphrey to run (provided funding through their operatives, infiltrated campaigns, dirty tricks)...that's a very old reTHUGlican approach...and that, with the voting fraud, got nixon in.....I fear the same trick today, as was played in 2000 by splitting the vote, the reTHUGlicans are pumping money into a loosers' Democratic campaign, someone who cannot beat shrub, just like with humphrey...and will try to add 'diebold' to the mix....and get a third party splitter to help...it's all old stuff, been done for many years....

the protests today are not RIOTS, and they are not just young people (sadly, there are still not enough young people, even though for Oct. 25, we old people tried to recruit at many colleges, thinking their imminent draft might motivate them...more young came, but still not enough)....todays protests are families, old people, middle aged, raging grannies...all races and religions....and very peaceful protests, a really different mix from the Vietnam protests, who were mostly (but not totally) young men scared/motivated by the their own draft....

in Vietnam protests on U of Michigan's diag, cars were lit on fire...protests were much more violent and disruptive...classes were shut down by protestors in the hallways, the ROTC building was burned to the ground...I haven't seen anything like that in the Iraq protests...just floats, and peaceful families and Veterans and old grannies walking down the street, and today, even permits (which was unheard of for Vietnam protests, and sort of defeats the whole effort by warning police so they can viciously prepare..for Vietnam, people just got a group together and went out in mass to protest)...the police are always ready to beat people....but the protestors are quiet today, scared but quiet, Miami was peaceful protestors, it was the police that were out of control....I have yet to see a car set on fire, or a building burnt to the ground...like on U of M's campus during Vietnam...students today just allow ROTC and other military stuff on their campuses and say little to stop it...there are Military recruiting offices all over America, yet nobody objects....

IMO, peaceful protests in NY are an extremely important part of stopping the shrub....the value of peaceful protests is HUGE....
please please please, encourage protests as much as you can (money, behind the scenes, actual protesting, and stopping anyone on DU that attacks protestors or suggests here, that they do no good)...and do not diss the protestors, like the recent attacks on the DC Oct. 25 protestors...support protestors as much as you can, they serve a very important function that inspires those who cannot come, and makes all of America realize that they are NOT alone, that others want bush* out too...please support protestors, your American heros, risking their lives to stand up to bush*....IMO, all anti-protestors ranting away here, belong on a different board, and not on DU....

[banana republican]

104. I was in Chicago During the Convention.

I was there to attend a Lutheran Student Convention that was scheduled for the same time. Some of us decided to go down town and see what was happening for ourselves.

I remember on scene when we were trying to leave the area and the cops started chasing after the protesters. One lady, clearly not a demonstrator but someone who worked in the loop, started walking away a cop followed her and took as swing with his nightstick. He missed and a frend of mine grabbed my arm and dragged me away....

[annagull]

108. Seems that what is old is new again

thanks for your story, banaana.

[banana republican]

111. I posted

before reading all of the posts a habitual problem I have.

There are several things I want to say.

First of all Chicago was a riot. We have not seen any riots, yet, with respect to Iraq(at least that have been reported). In Chicago, the police department rioted and indiscriminately attacked individuals wether or not the were peacefully assembled or not.

Divinity students participating in a non-violent demonstration organized were run over by the police using motercycles.

Individuals with injuries to the head from police nightsticks were turned away from hospitals.

Exits leaving from Lincoln Park, where the demonstrations were held, were blocked by police berracades and teargas was released when people tried to leave. I was gassed three times.

These riots were televised by the major networks. I remember standing beneith a TV camera pointed directly at the protesters.

I firmly beleive this will happen again if the draft is reinstated....

[diamond14]

113. there is only one thin strand keeping the police from killing and injuring

more protestors today...lawyers and lawsuits....there has been a tremendous group of volunteers attorneys here in DC, saving people from jail, defending protestors, and major lawsuits against police who are abusiing law-abiding citizens....and politicians and police all know that the common citizens are backing the protestors (except when some on DU viciously attacked the Oct. 25th DC protestors)

there simply wasn't a team of attorneys for the Vietnam protestors....and many common citizens just thought the Vietnam protestors were really just chickens, afraid to fight like they did in WWII....most (but not all) protestors were young men about to be drafted...because of college deferments, many young men went to college and STAYED in college (as dick cheney - got several college deferments, and asscroft, who also got a college deferments)....the real violent Vietnam protests were because young men eventually finish college, and they were immediately drafted and killed....

there is only one thin strand saving today's protestors...please join us, because there is safety in numbers, and please support the protestors, with money, behind-the-scenes time, and/or actual protests...and stop those here who diss and attack the protestors, they do not belong here, and they are endangering brave American's lives....GO NEW YORK !.....DC will join you, just like we did on February 15, 2003...a caravan of buses coming up to New York...we're with you....BOOT BUSH....save America !!!!

[Catshrink]

115. I remember watching it on TV with my Dad -- I was 14.

I was screaming in horror at my Dad. Why are they doing that? Why are the police beating them? I remember a very strong physical reaction.

[Silverhair]

117. Yes, there will be a riot. It will hurt us. Bush will gain from it.

jThe cameras will show violent protesters. The police are a lot better trained for this sort of thing than they were in 1968. The know how to use the media now too. They will wait for some hotheaded protester to start to violence, or for the protesters to attempt to trespass, like maybe break into the RNC convention or something stupid like that. Then they will have the excuse they need. The cameras will show the police trying to restore order.

Joe & Jane Average will see on TV pictures of anti-Bush violent people attempting to stop the ordered process of a democracy. They will be turned off by it. The reaction by Joe will be anti-Democrat.

In 68, the protesters were anti-war, the public still was more hawk than dove, and even though it was the Democratic convention where the demostrators were, Humphrey took a more dovish stance than Nixon did. Nixon won. The demonstrator were extemely illogical and hurt their own cause.

I can't remember the guys name, but there is a regular poster here who advises people to stay home and do something constructive that can get in the local papers. That will have far more effect than pitching a fit in NYC.

[diamond14]

124. yes, there will be a BIG peaceful protest...Yes, it will help us....

don't listen to the man behind the curtain....


a very very BIG anti-bush* protest, led by the victims families of bush* 9/11 killings....that WILL energize other people all across America....

I was in NY protesting on February 15, 2003...over one million people...and the large numbers of protestors, armed with video cameras, cell phones directly to web-streaming broadcasts, and cameras....that kept the police from attacking us...although they were rough, the HUGE numbers of protestors kept the police mostly standing by....they knew there were many many many more of us, than of them, so they stood by....

so come to New York and STAND UP...take back our country....let all of America see that bush* AmeriKKKa is NOT our America...that bush* and his reTHUGlicans are taking us in the wrong direction...that WE love America and we will be in New York to take our country back...and change the direction.....come join us...

[Silverhair]

134. I will mark the occasion by doing something down here.

Budget and health problems make a trip to NYC for a protest out of the question for me. So I'll do something local. Don't know what yet.

[Eric J in MN]

143. Have the victims' families offered to lead the protests? (nt)

nt

[Silverhair]

144. I'm sorry, but I don't think it will stay peaceful. The organizers,

I hope, will certainly want it to stay peaceful, and do everything they can, but you can't control every hothead. What do you plan to do when you reach the line that you aren't supposed to cross? When the police, say, "don't go any further.", then what?

[Tharesa]

126. Excuse Tharesa for asking, but were you there?

Rogat quid faciamus. :shrug:

[Silverhair]

135. In 1968 I was in the Army.

But I was able to read papers, magazines, and watch TV.

[Tharesa]

136. Did you know any demonstrators?

Or talk to some personally? Newpapers don't tell everything, it never hurts to ask someone involved what happened before making judgements.

I still wonder why I still have arguments just to justify something I was beaten up for 34 years ago!

[Silverhair]

140. Please reread my post. My judgement was that the protesters

were illogical and hurt their own cause. It is a well documented fact that part of Nixon's campaign stressed "law & order". I remember it. The average American saw the demonstrations and in their eyes they didn't see a police riot, they saw police trying to protect order from unruly demonstrators. It looked to Joe & Jane Average as if the demonstrators were simply "pitching a fit".

Anger accomplishes little, and tends to blind the intellect. I have stated many times that I once played poker for a living for several years. To do that successfully, you have to have absolute control over your own emotions when you are in a game. You have to be cold as ice, and totally deliberate if you want to win. Same thing in politics.

[Tharesa]

147. many soldiers died, others came back with destroyed lives.

This was something worth demonstrating for. There was little anger when the march began, but much fear and anger after this demonstration. And we were successful, successful at making the Democratic Party change...and reform the delegate and primary process. We were successful at confincing Nixon that the best political alternative in 72 and 73 was to pull us out of Vietnam. And yes, successful at making that pig Humphrey pay for his support of the losing war and the arbitrary draft.

Nothing you say will change this, and no police brutality will reduce the effect of a peaceful demonstration. And if the demonstrators not been beaten, and surrounded..none of this would have hurt Humphrey. And I have worked on both winning and losing political campaigns, so I don't need a lecture on politics from one who loves to see women and teenagers on Michigan Aven. Brutally beaten for a peaceful march.

For every bruise we got and all the blood we lost, we also lost more trust in this cruel and tyrannical system of government.

[NNN0LHI]

121. The 68' Dem convention had more to do with energizing the anti-war people

Even conseratives started wondering about the war after watching the Chicago police beating the shit out of white college kids on the streets of America on live television. I can remember even my parents who were pro-war, began questioning the war after that fiasco.

Don

[mikehiggins]

125. I'm sorry but I gotta do it again

Holding demonstrations in NYC during the GOP convention is as stupid and self destructive an idea as anyone could ever come up with.

Stay home.

If you want to protest the GOP convention, do something at home. Hold memorial services for the men and women who have died in Bush's War. Visit a VA hospital, organize a blood drive, do voter registration, hold a concert or ten, but under no circumstances be stupid enough to put yourself in harm's way and in the video cameras of the media and Rove. You will be doing the GOP's work for them. How dumb is that?

There will be little more than two months between the GOP convention and the election, and the images from that event will be all over the press, all over the world, and in every US television set that can pull in a signal.

What do you think the message will be?

Is it possible that anyone could be blind enough to ignore what has gone on with the media in this country over the last decade? Does anyone really think any newsreader is going to go out in the street to learn the truth and take a chance on getting hit? Does anyone really think any media type is going to try and raise a ruckus on the Convention floor? What is wrong with you people? Is it conviction or ego?

And what kind of moron looks forward to something like what happened in Chicago? Some protest leaders are bragging that people are going to die; that there'll be blood in the street. If someone looks forward to that, just how can they claim to be any different from the Bush League?

Does anyone think the world doesn't know there are lots of people who don't like King George? Watch BBC news if you have any doubts. So what are exactly you going to prove by confronting the NYPD and the Secret Service except your ability to get hit?

Spokespeople on the left are doing what the old style generals always do, fighting the last war.

2004 is not the 60's and 70's. This administration already knows a huge number of Americans are in opposition to them and their putsch. They don't care. All that will happen that week in September will be spun as proof that only terrorists and protestors are against Bush.

Pictures of protestors "desecrating" the 911 site will play round the clock across the nation, even if the Bush League has to use its 200 million to pay for the airtime. Mass arrests will follow and lots of those arrested will be charged with terrorism under the Patriot Act. Others around the US will be dealt with the same way and no one can count on some brave newsperson standing up for the victims.

You must know this is likely.

Avoid NYC like the plague next September. If there was someone or some group out there with the resources to do it, concerts could be set up to take place that whole period, stealing some of the attention from the GOP convention and focusing it on what would be much better for all concerned.

My vision is of empty streets, lined with GOP agitators without crowds of dupes surrounding them, facing rows of bored NYPD cops standing around drinking coffee and eating donuts.

On overtime.

Stay home and do something constructive where it will make a difference, where the people who are going to vote are.

[arewethereyet]

128. sage advice

hope people are listening

[Isome]

137. There's nothing more CONSTRUCTIVE for democracy...

than exercising your right to dissent peacefully!

I just paid for my plane ticket two weeks ago (got an offer to use a buddy pass) and I'll be searching for a hotel on priceline in the coming weeks. Because it's so far in advance I'm praying to get a good deal for my beer money and champagne tastes.

I hope to see some of you there! Remember:

Dissent is patriotic!

[diamond14]

139. yes !!! come to NY, show America that we will NOT tolerate this

crap from the shrub and his minions....

to dissent is the HIGHEST form of Patriotism.....

Our country was founded on dissent...the Highest form of Patriotism...and property destruction too, like the Boston Tea Party....there's been plenty of dissent in America...and dissent will ALWAYS help our cause...the more the merrier...there is safety in numbers...JOIN US !!!!

NY is the time to come to the aid of our country.....STAND UP and save America....

the time has come...if not now, when? if not YOU, who?

[arewethereyet]

145. wouldn't getting him defeated do more to heko the country ?

if so how does this act toward that end ?

just saying 'we don't like you bush' does not get a dem elected in any way that I can see.

[Isome]

148. You took the words right out of my mouth...

I use that line often: if not now, when, if not you, who?

It's frustrating to hear recollections of the '68 convention that rely on pure anecdotal evidence from which to draw conclusions. My interest in politics is relatively recent (the past eight years) and I would never portray myself as an authority. However, having read much from political historians and past & present politicos, I know the assertions painting the '68 convention as inconsequential to ending the Vietnam war are disputed by many. Quite the opposite is said in fact.

Many left-leaning groups were infiltrated by COINTELPRO operatives in that era. That seems to be used as a reason to urge us not to exercise our right to dissent peacefully, or ignored completely. Although COINTELPRO was allegedly disbanded, recent PUBLIC statements and proposed policy changes or initiatives are clear signals that there's a desire to reinstitute it — actually it's akin to merely changing the name and lulling the public into believing it will be a legitimate, non-violent program. For that reason alone, all law-abiding citizens who are able should come out to peacefully demonstrate. The more people who can eyeball the perpetrators of any violence, make the government's ability to lie to the American public that much harder.

Another thing to keep in mind (also a new moveon.org t-shirt slogan):

Democracy is not a spectator sport!!

[arewethereyet]

141. hope you are able to keep it peaceful

heaven help us all if you don't

[Isome]

151. I can only take responsibility for my actions.

I can't guarantee the behavior of others. Can you? I can only control myself. Who do you control?

This is being touted as a demonstration, not a riot. No one in their right mind wants to provoke confrontation with the notoriously triggerhappy and racist NYPD. We want to protest the politicization of Sept. 11th. We want the people to know that we're unhappy enough to get out there. We want those who could not be there know that they're not alone in being fed up with the sanctimonious tactics of the GOP. They'll have to learn that not all the people will play dead or rollover while they exploit a tragedy for political gain.

Will it get anyone elected? It's not supposed to, it's not a campaign event.

[littlejoe]

130. I think

that everything that can be said has been said on this subject. P.S. The assassinations in 1968 were THE underlying cause for the Chicago riots.