DNFtT.
That sounds hot. How *you *doin’?
Well, he claims to be a Texan; perhaps he’s blaming his odd usage on that. However, quite a few of us are from or in Texas. And *we *aren’t illiterate.
Let me guess; he flunked the entry exam for Texas A&M…
the spring heat cleaves roof
the warm days bring libbie-poos
Odessa… A&M… wrong
Jeez, how long’ve you been saving that one?
Nixon didn’t rig an election, he rigged an already won election (both bad and very stupid at the same time.) Nixon was beating McGovern in a land slide even if he spent the campaign year asleep in his bed.
Nixon’s people screwed around with the Democratic primaries because he wanted McGovern to get the nomination. That was the whole point, and it worked.
Played a minor part of Muskie’s not winning (who also would have lost to Nixon), but not much. Humphreys also would not have beat Nixon, he had already tried and failed. Both Humphreys and Muskie’s campaigns were horribly ran, Humphreys got embroiled in minor scandal (nothing to do with CRP or any dirty tricks operatives) and McGovern had by far the best man running his campaign (Gary Hart.) McGovern wins that nomination against the ineptitude of the 1968 ticket running against itself regardless of Nixon, and even if he did not Nixon would have beaten the 1968 ticket in whatever configuration it ran against Nixon in 1972.
[del]Read that again and ask yourself if it really seems like a nit worth picking.[/del]
I’ll put that another way: I think you’re underplaying what he did, the assumption about what would have happened if Muskie had won is not relevant, and the comparison the OP made remains asinine.
I only wanted to clarify for simple minded readers of your first post, that Nixon did not win the 1972 Presidential elections because of dirty tricks or any of the illegal activities directed by him through CRP or anything else. His actions were gravely corrupt and he should have been removed from office had he not resigned. But it’s not good to even imply something factually wrong about history: that Nixon would have lost his reelection had he not done those things. And I am not saying that was your intent, just saying that’s how I believed it would have looked to someone unfamiliar with the history. A proper historical understanding of Nixon is better understood by understanding he would have won anyway, and even he and his advisers should have known that. It’s important because it’s part and parcel of understanding Nixon’s paranoia and personality to understand why he still did what he did when all signs to any rational observer in 1971/72 pointed to him winning and winning big no matter what happened.
" What’s Hebrew for “sycophant”? "
I don’t know.
So he would be a ‘Beaver Cleaver’.
Gee Wally - you might be right!
Let’s ask Eddie Haskell!
Shame on the IRS but unless I hear of some sort of link between the White House and some low level bureaucrats failing to show objectivity, I don’t see why anyone would place this at Obama’s feet.
Is that even possible?
D&R
He couldn’t breathe?
Too slow to catch his sister or a cow, eh?
‘Because they can’ is a reason, is it not?
The rigging was what CREEP did to sabotage the primary campaigns of all Dem candidates other than McGovern, who was judged easiest to beat. (You can read the whole story in Nixonland, by Rick Perlstein.) It worked. Their mistake was in not stopping with the dirty tricks after the point when they had it in the bag.
Of course, if your analysis (that no Dem could have beat Nixon in '72) is correct, their mistake was in bothering at all with the whole thing. But Nixon was paranoid, and the condition leads to self-fulfilling prophecies of doom.
Twudat, but why should he be bovered ? Since when do hippies make 'nuff to pay taxes, let alone not 'nuff that it warrant IRS tension ?