HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Bag Production

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 07:02 PM

Bag Production



I recently attended a training for grass roots organizing with the Democratic Party chairpersons of towns from four counties. The presenters were a state university professor and a retired high school teacher, both of whom have been activists within the party since their involvement in the 1972 Nixon vs McGovern election. Group members included activists who had participated in the 1968 presidential election, to those who have come of age in time to vote for Obama in 2008.

It was nice that I was invited, despite being the only person there who was not a chairperson. I always appreciate the opportunity to learn new things. Thus, during the day-long program, which involved a lot of group participation, I only spoke once. And although I didn't learn any new methods or tactics, it allowed me the chance to listen closely to other people's opinions.

The most interesting topic involved the on-going divide between some sub-groups within the Democratic Party. Most of those who spoke about this considered it to be rooted in the tensions that came to the surface in 2016. Being old, I know that in each presidential election that we have lost since 1968, there were similar divides; more, each one we've won has been when most party members put differences behind them, and unite in common cause.

In 1968, Nixon won a close election over VP Hubert Humphrey. Now, Humphrey had not entered a single primary. There had been a serious division between the Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy camps up until June. Those entrenched divisions, plus resentment towards Humphrey, allowed Nixon to win. Curiously, exit polls showed that a significant number of people who supported RFK in the primaries ended up voting for George Wallace; this disproves the theory that RFK's support was limited to yound adults and minorities.

In 1972, in large part due to the series of felonies known collectively as “Watergate,” Nixon defeated George McGovern. In this instance, the majority of the Democratic Party's “establishment” not only failed to support their nominee, they actually voted for Nixon.

In 1980, there were deep divisions, even within the party's establishment. The result was Reagan beat President Carter. In 1984, Reagan defeated Carter's former VP, Walter Mondale, in what amounted to a re-match.

On July 4, 1988, I was in the Boston park when Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis met with Jesse Jackson. In many ways, the two represented the same sub-groups that the two candidates in the 2016 primary had. Dukakis failed to bridge the divide; Bush the Elder became the last republican to win a first term with majorities in both the popular vote and electoral college.

In 2000, the USSC selected Bush the Dunce after Al Gore had won a close election. Mythology holds that “Nader voters” elected Bush. The accurate history can be found in Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s “Journals: 1952 – 2000” (Penguin; 2007). Gore's VP selection had disgusted too many of the establishment people, who thought that Bush couldn't do much harm in four years.

In the elections that the Democratic Party won, Carter, Clinton, and Obama were able to united enough sub-groups within the party (and get the support of numerous non-party voters) to win the popular vote and, more importantly, the electoral college.

If we limit our thinking to 2016 to the present, we risk getting a subjective view. One must step outside of the picture frame to view it properly, Rubin used to tell me. I suspect that if we look at 1968 to present, we can see a clear pattern. United, we win; divided, we lose. That's clearer than the face in the tree from the old “Weekly Readers” we read in school.

Now, this isn't only important in presidential elections. All of us at the meeting were residents of upstate New York. Though we are generally outnumbered by both republicans and independent voters, it's true that this is a safe state in presidential elections. It is, for us, more important in the context of how we can compete in local and state elections. That is how we build the foundation.

We do not have the luxury of holding tight to petty grudges. We need to work on building our foundation for 2018. That means working on coalition-building within the various sub-groups that make up the party. No single group – or individual -- is greater than the whole. Alone, w3e are like individual fingers that our enemy can easily break; united, we form a powerful fist capable of protecting all of our interests.

Peace,
H2O Man

44 replies, 6205 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bag Production (Original post)
H2O Man Jul 2017 OP
CaliforniaPeggy Jul 2017 #1
H2O Man Jul 2017 #4
NCTraveler Jul 2017 #2
H2O Man Jul 2017 #5
The Mouth Jul 2017 #44
panader0 Jul 2017 #3
H2O Man Jul 2017 #6
BigmanPigman Jul 2017 #7
H2O Man Jul 2017 #8
RainCaster Jul 2017 #10
H2O Man Jul 2017 #11
NRaleighLiberal Jul 2017 #9
H2O Man Jul 2017 #12
GoneOffShore Jul 2017 #13
H2O Man Jul 2017 #14
tblue37 Jul 2017 #15
H2O Man Jul 2017 #16
lunatica Jul 2017 #17
H2O Man Jul 2017 #21
lunatica Jul 2017 #28
H2O Man Jul 2017 #29
spanone Jul 2017 #18
H2O Man Jul 2017 #22
burrowowl Jul 2017 #19
H2O Man Jul 2017 #23
Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #20
H2O Man Jul 2017 #24
Foamfollower Jul 2017 #25
H2O Man Jul 2017 #26
Foamfollower Jul 2017 #27
H2O Man Jul 2017 #30
Foamfollower Jul 2017 #32
H2O Man Jul 2017 #33
G_j Jul 2017 #35
H2O Man Jul 2017 #40
Iggo Jul 2017 #31
H2O Man Jul 2017 #34
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #36
H2O Man Jul 2017 #37
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #38
H2O Man Jul 2017 #39
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #41
H2O Man Jul 2017 #42
Warren DeMontague Jul 2017 #43

Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 07:13 PM

1. United we will--divided we lose.

No petty grudges, nothing like that will help us win.

And win we must! There is so much at stake, especially now. The Republicans are running amok with our sacred institutions and they must be stopped.

In order to stop them, we must unite and become the powerful fist you talk about, my dear H20 Man.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 08:25 PM

4. Thanks!

It is the most important time for political-social action in my lifetime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 07:33 PM

2. I think your last paragraph and a number of your references are spot on.

 

I do see some overgeneralizations. I really enjoyed reading your op and think we need to work on what you rightfully define as grudges. Our elected and respected leaders play a role there as well. Thanks for the excellent read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 08:30 PM

5. Thank you.

I fought the urge to go into greater detail, largely because every sane person finds my long essays tedious to read.

In my opinion, people need to look within, and identify what they can produce as their best effort. That holds true, from the rural grass roots, to those in office in DC.

Watching coverage of the jackass -- especially on this trip -- it is apparent that he and his ilk are attempting to destroy our nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #5)

Tue Jul 11, 2017, 04:55 PM

44. Strongly disagree

your essays and posts are insightful, well written and I am sure I'm not the only person wishing they were longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 07:39 PM

3. Let's Work Together

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 08:31 PM

6. Very good!

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:09 PM

7. "United We Stand" has to be the Dem motto and yelled out loud and clear and incessantly!

But we can't just yell it we have to be it, act it, proclaim it as OURS. We need (no we MUST) walk the walk and not be complacent to talk the talk!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #7)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:24 PM

8. Well said!

Very well said, indeed. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:36 PM

10. I'm with you both on this

H2O Man, your piece is concise and to the point. This needs to be our mantra as we rebuild the DNC into what is needed for future generations.

As for the respondent,my phone won't let me see your name, but I get your urgency and I agree completely. I am from a very different generation than my kids (duh), but we need to focus on our common enemy in order to take back our country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainCaster (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 10:45 PM

11. Thanks.

Your post got me thinking .....the part about different generations from our kids. The other day, my younger son was saying that I'm far more likely to try to get along with people now, than I was when he was a kid. He and his brother spent lots of time riding to distant cities for meetings, and watching me debate the opposition's "experts" in public forums.

I pointed out that he is about the same age now, as I was then. And I have no problem admitting I am different now, than I was decades ago. I still like to win, of course, but old men approach conflict differently than young lions do. I pointed out that when he won the Golden Gloves in April -- 42 years after his old man had -- I was there. But I was working his corner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:35 PM

9. Great post. And I guess I am a true Beatles fan - saw your OP title and thought immediately of

Come Together!

this is for you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRaleighLiberal (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 10:47 PM

12. Thank you!

I think it's impossible for young folks today to really know how important The Beatles were in the 1960s. But it makes me happy to see that many of them listen to Beatles' music. My youngest daughter listens to them every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 07:16 PM

13. Well said, sir. Too bad that there are many who don't get the message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoneOffShore (Reply #13)

Sat Jul 8, 2017, 10:03 AM

14. Thank you.

There were several people at the meeting I attended who also aren't at the point where they grasp this, as well. In one town, there were three splinter groups -- people who reportedly dislike the DNC, and don't like the "establishment." I can certainly relate to that, though I do not think that splintering offers any benefits in terms of local, state, or national elections. In time, I'll be traveling to their community, with an open mind, hoping that we can reach common ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Sat Jul 8, 2017, 12:49 PM

15. K&R. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue37 (Reply #15)

Sat Jul 8, 2017, 01:11 PM

16. Thank you, tblue37!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Sat Jul 8, 2017, 03:23 PM

17. I agree we need to be united

but in what way? I'm a Democrat but I've always been a Progressive which puts me somewhat on the fringe where many confuse me with far Left reactionaries, which I am decidedly not.

I live in California but I'm financially supporting Randy Bryce who is an ironworker in Wisconsin and is running against Paul Ryan. You probably already know all of this. I first heard of Bryce because a DUer from Wisconsin posted about him asking for our support. I'm sorry I can't remember who the DUer was, but his message was welcomed.

https://www.google.com/search?q=randy+bryce&oq=Randy&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j69i60j0l2j69i60.2638j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I wonder how the DNC will treat Bryce. Probably not very well because they will write him off because he's a blue collar worker and a supporter of Sanders in the Presidential elections.

I always vote Democratic, and will never vote for a Republican. My lifelong reason for this is because when you vote for a Democrat you're voting for a person but when you vote for a Republican you vote for the entire party and party line. It is a party line that I loathe and which has become incredibly toxic to our country which we are now watching as it loses its standing in the world.

But even though I'm quite loyal to the Democratic party, if only because it's supposed to stand for true equality and universal benefits and opportunities for everyone, I am seeing that's not true anymore. The DNC has moved too far to the Right, when what it should do is move further Left. In the Progressive direction where the European style Democratic Socialism guarantees far more beneficial lifestyles for all citizens. You can't do that if you're straddling the middle divide of both parties.

I'm 68 years old and I've seen every single group gain rights in my life. It's been a true uphill struggle with what I think are downhill outcomes. As a nation Americans have pushed those societal boulders up the hill and reach the summit and now we should be coasting downhill, with more and more groups and people benefitting and luxuriating in their hard won rights and benefits. But for the last 17 years, from the time Bush was selected by the Supreme Justices there has been a concentrated effort to roll back any rights that were gained in my lifetime. President Obama came in and could have reversed all that if there hadn't been such a concerted effort to neutralize him, but one good thing is that our Gay brothers and Sisters finally gained their equality on all levels because the Democratic Party was running the country.

But now we have someone who the RNC views as a useful bull in a china shop destroying everything in his path. I think, though, that they're incredibly stupid in their conceit, because it could well be that he destroys the RNC too. He is destroying much of our government, especially the parts that are good for this country simply by starving them of leadership. the result is they wither on the vine. If anyone wants to know why Trump's supporters are still supporting him the answer is that he's doing what they want. He's destroying our government. Blowing it up spectacularly. Except that in their shortsightedness they haven't thought far enough into the future to know what they want to replace it with. A good analogy is that like the GOP they are all for repealing, but have nothing to replace it with.

Sorry for the long windedness, but that's the reaction I have to your posts. I support the DNC but don't necessarily feel I'm being supported by it. I supported Sanders, but that didn't mean I hate Hillary or that I would never accept her. Among the many things I like about Hillary is her concern with universal healthcare and I'm sure she would never take our rights away. Part of her is Progressive. I am proud to have voted for her.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #17)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 10:53 AM

21. Thank you for this.

I really appreciate the thought you put into this.

I am a progressive Democrat, at the left edge of the party. I've self-identified that way for many decades. And, as time has passed, although I'd like to think that some of those rough edges from my youthful days have worn away, I find that the party in general has shifted rather significantly to the right, and so others identify me as a "leftist" -- as if that were a bad thing.

Randy Bryce is, in my opinion, an ideal candidate to support. I prefer to invest my time, energy, and money in individual candidates such as him, rather than investing in the DNC. I understand that there are regions where, in order to obtain a majority in both the House and Senate, our party will need to run a variety of candidates -- progressives, liberals, moderates, and conservative Democrats. And some of those will not be remarkably different than moderate republicans, as we have already seen.

Our party needs candidates that advocate for our values. Such candidates create interest, rather than the business-as-usual types that have resulted in a huge amount of loses, in DC and in state government. Yet, the excitement such candidates generate tends to be met with resistance from the establishment. They always have, and always will. As a party, we can either use such tension creatively, or it will be destructive. And that is far more important than the reactions of the republicans. It's up to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #21)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 11:17 AM

28. My feeling is that it will be us who vote for Progressive leaning people such as Bryce

When we get progressive leaning people in office that's when the changes will start. We've talked ourselves blue in the face trying to influence our party leaders and still, very little happens. But as soon as we put people in office who truly represent us we change the stubborn static inertia that our party has become. Like throwing a stone in a calm lake, the ripple effect changes everything.

That's the way I describe progressive. Progress happening in steps. And it takes a great deal of faith and stamina to continue for the long haul which is something real Progressives understand.

An example I'm proud of is Jerry Brown who is actively changing how California gets er done. He's out there making agreements with other countries to have agreements with California specifically and separately from Trump's government. Especially regarding Climate Change.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/06/jerry-brown-one-ups-trump-on-climate-change-with-g20-announcement/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #28)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 12:43 PM

29. Jerry Brown

is outstanding. He represents the values that should unite the party.

Again, thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Sat Jul 8, 2017, 03:53 PM

18. K&R...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #18)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 10:53 AM

22. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Sat Jul 8, 2017, 10:58 PM

19. Very well written and to the point!

I remember,
I remember protesting against the Vietnam war and the only place I have been fired on was UNM and I have been in some dicey places elsewhere.
The Democrats have to get their act together and be the party of justice and the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to burrowowl (Reply #19)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 10:56 AM

23. Principles.

The Democratic Party has to be the party fighting for social justice, or it is a meaningless social club. Often, that means engaging in struggles that are, in essence, the same types we participated in decades before .....because democracy is an on-going struggle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 07:40 AM

20. Very good Post...during the two elections in he 80's we lost badly...Mondale and Dukakis...

both men faced flak from the left...not liberal enough. Even though during the Reagan years, there was no chance to elect a liberal ...we lost both as we all know...it was not until 92 when Clinton ran to the center and Perot helped that we ended 12 years of GOP rule...the reason Clinton even ran was because many Dems thought it would be a waste of time as Bush had poll numbers close to 100%. And Clinton never had a majority either in 92 or in 96.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #20)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 11:04 AM

24. Thank you.

Mondale was liberal enough. It was more a case of the establishment Democrats not supporting him, largely because of his association with Jimmy Carter. Schlesinger's journals detail that quite well: people thought four years of Reagan would damage the republican brand.

Dukakis was a flawed candidate. A good person, but not cut out for being president. To be fair, the same could be said of George McGovern.

In 1992, Bill Clinton created excitement. I think that Al Gore added to the ticket, as well, though he wasn't particularly exciting.

I still think Mondale would have been a very effective president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 11:08 AM

25. Some grudges will never go away.

 

That's just human nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Foamfollower (Reply #25)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 11:14 AM

26. True.

Also true: Bitterness contaminates the vessel which contains it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #26)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 11:15 AM

27. For some, all that is left is bitterness

 

We saw that when the Exremist purists on the Left went Jill Stein in 2016 and for Nader in 2000.

I disagree vehemently with Schlesinger's assessments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Foamfollower (Reply #27)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 12:53 PM

30. It's a choice.

Some people are most comfortable being bitter. It's the option they chose, rather than "all that is left."

I think that rather than being bitter that many in the Democratic Left opted to vote for Stein -- despite the fact that they were part of the Obama coalition -- it it far more important to consider why millions of registered Democrats voted for Trump. That is, I dare say, what people should think about as we approach the 2018 and 2020 elections.

Schlesinger was clearly wrong about Reagan in 1980. He presented a clear danger to the nation. I also liked Al Gore -- not perfect, but pretty solid overall. Obviously, Schlesinger's assessment of Gore's VP selection was correct. That's the value of his journals, as well as his other books: not that one should agree with him on everything, but rather, to recognize that his opinions reflected the thinking of a large portion of the DC establishment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #30)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 01:01 PM

32. Most who vote for Trump were BITTER

 

Extreme leftists.

The lesson to be learned is the extreme left is unreliable at best, their agenda must be discarded and the party MUST move to the center where reliable voters reside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Foamfollower (Reply #32)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 01:12 PM

33. Interesting.

I have encountered no evidence whatsoever that supports this. I think it is difficult to imagine "extreme leftists" being registered in the Democratic Party. There are, of course, many good leftists within the Democratic Left (hence, its name).

I suspect that a winning -- "reliable" -- formula for presidential elections would need to do what Obama did: appeal to a wide variety of people. He ran as a centrist, and won twice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Foamfollower (Reply #32)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 03:29 PM

35. Why do you say that?

That doesn't hold at all true from any of my reading or observations of events, and I try to stay informed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #35)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 05:30 PM

40. You are right.

It's not accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Foamfollower (Reply #25)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 12:55 PM

31. But grown-ups PUT them away to get shit done.

A whole lot of people need to grow the fuck up right fucking now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #31)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 02:56 PM

34. It's a process.

Hopefully, that person will continue to play an active, positive role in Democratic politics.

However, you raise an important point. And I'm speaking generally here, certainly not about any person on DU. But there are those in life who opt not to get over bitterness. Quite often, we encounter such people in an array of situations, not limited to politics. In the field of health psychology, they are identified as having an external locus of control. Rather than take responsibility for those things they can change, they prefer to self-identify as victims of circumstance. Someone else is always responsible for their problems, their bitterness, and their suffering.

Likely everyone here has met someone who complains constantly about those darned "others." If you suggest a tactic they might use to improve the quality of their life, they respond with some variation of "I tried that, and it doesn't work." They tend to trust only those who share a similar, if not identical, world-view as themselves.

There are, of course. some people who are involved in political action that bring a variation of this to the table. We need to set the bar of expectations very low, in terms of what they might contribute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 03:39 PM

36. I like your point. I would quibble with one bit of history, I don't think Watergate helped Nixon win

That is one of the core head-scratching, Shakespearean tragedies about the guy. Fact is, he won that election in a walk- there was no reason whatsoever for him to need or want to bug the DNC.. (Unless, of course, one buys into conspiracy chatter about some of Nixon's seedier associates having ties to a Bay of Pigs/JFK assassination conspiracy, positing Nixon's paranoia as an outgrowth of that- witness the missing 18 minutes of the tapes, etc)

I think Nixon won because the electorate in 1972 was far more reactionary and conservative than Democrats at the time may have realized... "acid, amnesty, abortion" ... the mistake people NOW make, or some people on this board that I've seen, with using '72 as an example is assuming that the lessons of almost 50 years ago are universally and permanently applicable to the electorate today. They're not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #36)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 04:02 PM

37. If it were not

for the series of felonies known as "Watergate," the Democratic Party's nominee would almost certainly have been Edmund Muskie. I'm not speaking about the burglary at the Watergate, but rather, the series of activities that were called "rat-fucking." These are detailed in the Senate Committee's report.

I will admit that I am not entirely objective about Muskie. I had the opportunity to listen to, and meet, him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #37)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 04:11 PM

38. Interesting. Wasn't the crying thing part of what brought down Muskie?

But yes, you make a good point.

I thought Hunter S. Thompson was involved, somewhere along the line, with all that, too.

I was a toddler at the time so I don't pretend to have a firsthand historical memory of the events.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #38)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 05:29 PM

39. Muskie was angry

and hurt by the attacks on his family. He was talking outside, and it was snowing; hence, there is some dispute over if he was wiping a tear or a melted snow flake off his cheek.

There were tons of rat-fucking operations going on during the primary campaign, all geared towards dividing the Democratic Party. And turds such as Patrick Buchanan were focused on getting McGovern to be the nominee, as he was identified as the weakest. (I always liked and respected McGovern. He was a honorable man. But his presidential campaign was severely damaged during our convention, and was inconsistent thereafter.)

Thompson's most famous book was "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72." He was absolutely anti-Nixon, and had run for office in 1970 on the "Freak Power" ticket. But he had no involvement in Watergate, other than being a vocal spectator. A lot of my friends and associates had/have a very high opinion of him, though I've never read anything by him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #39)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 05:57 PM

41. Right, I'm very familiar with the good Dr's work.

still, my memory about a connection between him and some stuff with Muskie .. I didn't hallucinate it. Did a little research and my memory was correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Muskie#cite_note-31


***


Canuck letter of 1972

The collapse of Muskie's momentum early in the 1972 campaign is also attributed to his response to campaign attacks. Author and Rolling Stone journalist Hunter S. Thompson is credited for starting a rumor that Muskie was addicted to a drug called Ibogaine, which dealt a surprising amount of damage to Muskie's reputation.[30][31][32][33] Prior to the New Hampshire primary, the so-called "Canuck letter" was published in the Manchester Union-Leader. The letter claimed that Muskie had made disparaging remarks about French-Canadians – a remark likely to injure Muskie's support among the French-American population in northern New England. Subsequently, the paper published an attack on the character of Muskie's wife Jane, reporting that she drank and used off-color language during the campaign. Muskie made an emotional defense of his wife in a speech outside the newspaper's offices during a snowstorm. Though Muskie later stated that what had appeared to the press as tears were actually melted snowflakes, as the press conference was done in a snowstorm, the press reported that Muskie broke down and cried, shattering the candidate's image as calm and reasoned.[34]


***
In short, Thompson- the way he wrote all the time, of course- said something off the cuff about Muskie looking like he was on ibogaine; probably because "ibogaine" sounded funny and weird and exotic- and the rumor took off. Knowing what I know about HST's political views, obviously he wasn't trying to ratfuck Muskie, it was just the way he stream-of-consciousness made jokes.



edited to add: Also, F&L on the campaign trail 72 is a great book--- nevertheless HST's most famous work is undoubtedly Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. A rush of a read, if you've never picked it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #41)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 06:17 PM

42. Interesting.

It's a myth, of course.

The Senate Watergate Report is the best resource for the facts. The committee was not able to say for sure who authored the infamous letter from "Paul Morrison." (pages 309-311) However, they did identify the three individuals who had organized similar, closely related "dirty tricks." (Indeed, editing some similar letters, etc, was as close as Pat Buchanan came to active involvement in Watergate.) The head of the trio responsible for these specific operations was Roger Stone. It is documented that Stone had targeted the newspaper that the letter appeared in previously in the campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #42)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 06:26 PM

43. I suspect the rest of it was pure Stone-Nixon ratfuckerry, agreed.

Still, HST did say the thing about ibogaine. Anyone familiar with the way he wrote- he said all kinds of shit, not intended to be taken seriously or literally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread