Reply #107: Definitely not stronger -- more pliable is the desired quality [View All]

[Eloriel]

they wanted in their nominee.

In 1960 JFK slandered Hubert Humphrey in the West Virginia primary over the draft.

ONE example, not a boatload or, more accurately, a gangbang.

In 1964 LBJ ran a repulsive ad against Barry Goldwater conjuring up the image of nuclear holocaust.

But it didn't call him a traitor, did it?

In 1968 the Party Establishment totally ignored the antiwar vote and over the body of Bobby Kennedy gave the nomination to Hubert Humphrey.

Wasn't that when The Establishment was officially determining the nominee -- IOW, before primaries and caucuses (which I believe were actually begun in the early 90s as a backlash against just this kind of shit).

In 1972 the progressives who wrote the new nominating rules stole the nomination out from under the noses of the old guard and gave the nomination to George McGovern.

Ditto.

But for his supporters to continually complain that either the DLC or DNC was somehow morally bound to support him or get out of his way while he took the nomination from someone they deemed stronger is just plain naive and misses the point completely that these people dedicate their lives to politics so that they can get their way.

Then we ought to do away with the illusion, not to mention the expense, of primaries and caucuses wherein The People are supposed to get the chance to choose their nominee.

And I absolutely, positively, 100% reject your underlying premise: that's the way it's always been (which you haven't proven anyway, IMO) and thus that's the way it ever shall be. We ARE going to change this party, and for the better. We ARE going to rout out all the self-serving nincompoops who serve the GOP as eageraly if not more so than their own party. We'll not do it by tomorrow or next week or next year, but if this is your best philosophy about politics and governing, then I can promise you: YOUR days (or chance) of power and influence are numbered.