Ken Rudin wrote: The McGovern campaign conducted an under-the-radar effort in the state, and it paid off ??? if not with a win, then certainly surpassing expectations. Uncommitted 36%, Muskie 35.5%, McGovern 23%.

Yeah, I remember that campaign well. I worked for McGovern, the anti-war candidate. Was part of the VVAW, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, the Florida chapter.

Worked our butts off for McGovern. Boy, did we take a whipping from Nixon.

Let's see, Nixon took forty-nine states that election. Biggest landslide whipping ever in American political history: "The Democrats were trying to oust a sitting president who although not very popular, was an effective president."

We learned a couple of valuable lessons from that massive butt whipping. One, the youth vote didn't matter. Two, the anti-war vote doesn't coalesce in the electoral system against the hawks. Three, working for McGovern's campaign was a great way to meet liberal minded women. Other than that, you got to learn how to work a disastrous campaign, and laugh it off and move on.

Didn't matter that Nixon was facing problems with Watergate during that election, and that Nixon ended up resigning two years after thoroughly destroying the McGovern campaign. Americans went for the strong national defense. Lock, stock and two smoking barrels.

And, there wasn't the internet. People weren't sitting in their bedrooms protest typing. People actually got together, in person...and got whipped in the elections. Anyway, the virtual reality mirage of the internet has done severe damage to the Democrats and their horde of conspiracy theorists. The Iraq anti-war movement has been a an illusion all along. While the Republicans have used the internet more effectively to unite through the churches and small town meeting halls.

I'm a firm believer in the lessons history has to share.

The candidate with the strongest national defense image will win handily in this coming election. Bet the Iowa farm on it.

And a big part of the fault goes to the Democratic constituency who spent the past seven years trying to end the war in Iraq, and not putting enough emphasis on domestic issues to interest the majority of voters.

Oh, yeah, and after Nixon pulled the troops out of Vietnam, and later resigned, America went into a huge economic rescession tailspin that evolved into the Carter fiasco and finally into the Reagan years. Which would happen tenfold by pulling the troops out of Iraq at this point in the game.

And the ghost of Reagan still runs around the White House issuing orders, they say.

While the Democrats still use the internet to spread more conspiracy theories that only results in more Republicans getting out the vote.

Or, is it blogging Republicans posing as blogging Democrats on the internet to get more Republicans angry enough to vote? Yeah, I know a bunch who do that kind of stuff. And it works for them real good. The blogging anti-war movement just angers the Republicans to no end. While the moderates just got tired of hearing the same old anti-war conspiracy theory tirades repeated over and over again.

Nixon used that same psy-op tactic to whip the benoodles out of McGovern's anti-war campaign. The voters just hated them long haired, pot smoking hippies to no end.

But it was a great way to meet women.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 2:38 PM ET | 12-12-2007

President Of The United States Of America, n. 1) A pathological liar suffering delusions of grandeur; 2) An office which confers upon its holder vast coercive power as well as the means to commit mass murder -- an opportunity of which all recent U.S. presidents have taken advantage. Because of this, some observers have concluded that only the worst type of individuals seek the office of president. This unkind assessment is, however, incorrect. It is much more realistic to conclude that only the worst type of individuals are ELECTED to the office.

-- The American Heretic's Dictionary, by Chaz Bufe

Sent by John R. Otten | 3:49 PM ET | 12-12-2007

Sent by John R. Otten: It is much more realistic to conclude that only the worst type of individuals are ELECTED to the office.-- The American Heretic's Dictionary, by Chaz Bufe

John, that cracked me up. And I got to go find this dictionary. And, you know what, it's probably not all that far from the truth. It's like that saying that the qualities that makes a policeman a good policeman probably messes up his civilian life.

Hey, who really likes their boss at work, anyway?

Thing is, John, people somehow have the mistaken notion that the office of the Presidency is a popularity contest. Take Franklin Roosevelt for instance. You couldn't find a president who had more critics for his New Deal Administration. Yet, FDR got elected four times.

And I know you are going to hate hearing me say this, but if Bush could run again, I'd put my money he'd win. Not because I personally feel for the guy. Betting the president is unemotional, like betting the Super Bowl.

The office of the President is far and away from being about popularity. It's about getting the job done. And the more the common people hate George Bush, the more George Bush is liked by the people in power. Or, by the people who hate John Wayne so much they went to all his movies.

Look at history's greatest leaders people loved to hate. Napoleon. Stalin. Hitler. Ghengis Khan. Lincoln. Grant. Lee. Barry Bonds. The list is dang near endless of 'unusual' personalities who get the job done.

And the next president (and I won't make an endorsement this time) will be severly hated, too. Though I'm trying to figure out how the conspiracy theorists are going to blame 9/11 on Mitt Romney. That's going to be a hard spin for them to do. But, they will do it, won't they?

It's human nature to hate the boss.

Thanks for turning me onto this dictionary. I got to go look for it.

fred call

PS...You just made me think of something. If it's the worst kind of person that runs for the office.....heck...I should'a been elected a long time ago! John, you want to be my campaign manager?

Sent by fred call | 5:39 PM ET | 12-12-2007

No your just not awful enough, FC, so you won't win. But you can count me in with those who see the election of president as essentially a popularity contest, like class president in high school. I suspect it was personality that got Bush whatever legit votes he got in 2000. I think it's been that way since Kennedy vs. Nixon in 1960, the first TV election. Kennedy was relatively unknown to the rest of the country at the time but people just liked him better than Nixon. Now 2004 may have been a watershed. One pundit said that election was about fear vs. anger and fear won. I tend to agree. It was the first election in a long time that was not essentially a popularity contest. (well in 1992 it was about the economy, officially, but the fact that Bill was a more likeable fellow didn't hurt him one bit) Kerry's personality, on the other hand, didn't help him any IMHO. So the next election is anyone's guess. Might be issue driven, for a change. Or might be, once again, a personality contest and not much more. That's up to the American people to decide, I guess.

Sent by John R. Otten | 7:18 PM ET | 12-12-2007

Have there ever been more than 3 tickets out of Iowa? Will there be more than three tickets this year?

Sent by Joachim Schneider | 3:25 AM ET | 12-20-2007