No doubt about ads containing the tower attacks being in poor taste. Thank goodness I haven't seen those.
The Cheney remarks are quite honestly a bit much, too. Straight talk appeals to many, but it is a turn off to others. The truth is the specific nature of that comment is it's main down fall. Is it really that different though than Kerry/Edwards saying the war on terror has gone wrong, and we need them to handle things correctly. Since Kerry
would have done everything differently isn't the implication that Bush did everything wrong? Aren't they really saying that they are trying to prevent a catastrophy under another 4 years of the Bush Administration?
Even beyond the issue of symantics, who hasn't heard the argument that Bush has made another attack on America more likely? I've heard this said over and over on the news channels, so why is what Cheney said about Kerry so controversial?
Back on topic, I took a class on US Presidential history back in the day, and it was made clear that FDR used the war as his justification for breaking Washington's self imposed two term limit, which had been honored for nearly 150 years, and that he did campaign on the war. Now in my opinion, this was no big deal. It would have been impossible for him to campaign without addressing the war because it was the most pressing issue of the day. It was also common for his opponents to questions FDR's handling of the war, and the events leading up to the war. After all, you couldn't really say 'FDR is doing a great job with the war, but I still want you to let me have a try at it." It was an interesting class in mud slinging. I wish I'd kept the book.
I don't think you are going to find any of FDR's fireside chats from after the war(
), but to me those made in '40 and '44 would be most pertinent because America's entry into that war was the direct result of Pearl Harbor.
There is no doubt that the things said publicly in those days may have been milder. After all, those were the days when Presidential secretaries sleeping with their bosses wasn't newsworthy.
I don't know if Truman or Ike used Pearl Harbor. Now, one of Ike's opponents during his election run was about his service during the war. What he did, where he did it, etc. Lot's of questions about his actions, while his opponent claimed to have been a better soldier. Now I know you are saying, how could anyone hope to compare war records with Ike and win, but it is really quite simple. No one could compete with his WWII resume, so his opponent attacked him on his service in WWI.
I do know what you are talking about though, and I'll try to find some specifics. [img]smile.gif[/img]
[ 09-13-2004, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]