Any of the following sound familiar?
1) The country's in an ever-increasingly unpopular war.
2) The president is not invited to speak in person at his party's convention
1) The country's in an ever-increasingly unpopular war.
2) The president is not invited to speak in person at his party's convention
3) The incumbent president does not run in the election
4) The non-incumbent party's candidate chooses a little-known and inexperienced governor much to the shock and amusement of the press
4) The non-incumbent party's candidate chooses a little-known and inexperienced governor much to the shock and amusement of the press
5) The non-incumbent party's candidate runs on a platform that includes "bringing an honorable end to this war"
6) Tear gas is used against demonstrators outside the incumbent party's convention
7) Governor Romney suggested as his party's VP candidate
8) Questions emerge about the Democrats' delegate system used to pick their candidate
6) Tear gas is used against demonstrators outside the incumbent party's convention
7) Governor Romney suggested as his party's VP candidate
8) Questions emerge about the Democrats' delegate system used to pick their candidate
9) The incumbent president has an approval rating of about 35%
All of the above could be said about the 1968 conventions and the 2008 conventions. While I'm not stupid enough to say we're reliving the past or that the Iraq war and Vietnam war are one in the same, I do find these similarities interesting.
Can anyone think of any others?
And will history repeat itself in electing the candidate from the party not currently holding the presidency? In 1968 it was Nixon. Will it be Obama is 2008?
And will history repeat itself in electing the candidate from the party not currently holding the presidency? In 1968 it was Nixon. Will it be Obama is 2008?
No comments:
Post a Comment