lessons from 1972
Pat Buchanan whines about the seeming coming defeat of Trump.
And under this logic, there’s something fraudulent and exposed in the election where George McGovern failed to beat Richard Nixon. I mean, the two major candidates who showed some serious mojo in the Democratic nominating fight — George Wallace and George McGovern, pretty well stomped the corruptible middle establishment of Edmund Muskie and Hubert Humphrey.
Actually, George McGovern spent the nomination fight with this notion that the Wallace vote was “gettable”, the “two sides against the middle” “we see the angry vote here” idea. It’s a logic I heard a while back from this guy — early 20s, big on Bernie Sanders, disenchanted on this election and not voting in what he considers to be essentially George W Bush versus George Wallace, and at least then (who knows now?) believing Trump would eke out a victory, suggestions from anecdotal offerings by his conservative parents who expressed positive words on Bernie Sanders’s integrity…
There’s a thing I grow weary of in listening to political analysis, armchair and professional, where the analysis becomes nothing other than a reflector of the political biases and beliefs of the analyst…
And surely Buchanan jests. Protests and oppositions springing up from people unhappy with Hillary Clinton as president, from the political faction he aligns with as opposed to the political factions (“privileged ivy league students”) he doesn’t? Sure. Never happened before in previous Democratic presidential administrations… and wherefore does this abandonment of a politician come from, with the politician insulting them, where the other politician in the race is…
(sigh) courting John Negroponte and (her long-time favorite) Henry Kissinger? [I didn’t mean to suggest that all those privileged ivy league protest majors would not be protesting in another political universe parallel to Buchanan’s angry tea party frustrates.)