Through this source we can see, that although Nixon was concerned by the Anti-war movement, he refused to alter his policies to satisfy them. This adequately proves that the Anti- war movement didn’t have a didn’t have a direct influence on Nixon’s Indochinese policy. Contrarily, One could argue that because he mentioned the Anti-war movement at all he was indeed effected by them, however this is more of an indirect impact, and doesn’t demonstrate a direct influence of policy. This source shows that President Nixon refused to listen to the
Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial was not justified because of the unconstitutionality of the Tenure of Office Act and the extreme biases of the radicals in the Republican Party. When current President Abraham Lincoln was running for reelection in 1864, he decided not to select Hannibal Hamlin as his vice president. Instead, Andrew Johnson was chosen because he was a man who was from a different political party who could help him restore the Union. While running in 1864, Lincoln and Johnson ran under the party name of the National Union to broaden their appeal. The assassination of President Lincoln would see Johnson become the seventeenth President of the United States.
All things considered, it is not a fair assessment to call it “Johnson’s war” bearing in mind Nixon interfered, but to a certain point it is reasonable to call it so, because of the Tonkin Gulf resolution and because of Operation Rolling Thunder. The Tonkin Resolution put too much power into Johnson’s hands and allowed him to start a war without officially declaring one. In addition, Operation Rolling Thunder was a fail and helped the Viet Cong in finding a way to attack the American troops without showing themselves. Nixon going behind Johnson’s back and making a deal with the enemy made the war, to a certain degree, his fault as well. All in all, the Vietnam War should not be looked at as all Johnson 's fault, the blame is divided between
Question two As the chairman for the Republican National Convention and knowing that Buckley V Valeo decision will not be soon changed, I would argue against changing the current campaign system in the most spectacular way. I would get on air and frame as the case as the liberal media trying to suppress free speech. I would attack the media on its double standards and vendetta against businesses. The press demands to know the inner working of institutions, yet it hardly respects other people’s right to assemble nor does it promote candidates that reflect the views of people whom want to make America great. The first amendment guarantees the right to assemble even in secret.
Deja Vu As our 'writer ' says,” Candidates who tried to offer a sunnier vision, Carson, Kasich and “Bush.” The 'sunnier ones ' just sat back and let the left wing rant and rave. Not Trump, he stood up on his back legs and told them 'to go to hell ' and how to get there. As Reagan ran against a failed President in 1980 and later in 1984 an earlier version of 'Bernie ' [Mondale]. We now have Trump running against, what is left of a failed president 'Obama ' a failed Secretary of State, who a majority of Americans believes, she lies and can not be trusted. But, is well loved and adored [worshiped] by the left wing MSM.
The second myth, that the Tet Offensive was a military victory, is as incorrect as the television thesis as it demonstrated that the United States could not win a limited war of attrition in Vietnam and had to change policy. Westmoreland’s comment about the effect of Cronkite’s word notwithstanding, evidence exists to support the contention that, rather than changing opinions within the viewing audience, television coverage of the war may have reinforced those that already existed. Press coverage became negative after the enemy’s Tet Offensive in February 1968, but by that time the American public’s view of the war had itself begun to shift. In the end, the doubts festering just beneath the official optimism in Washington had a profound influence upon the willingness of Johnson administration officials to accept the Saigon correspondent’s erroneous conclusions over Westmoreland’s assurances that the Tet Offensive had been an American
Carter was elected into office when America was looking for a great change in politics but soon after instances like the hostage crisis, Americans began to realize that Carter was not the type of representative that they wanted. The Carter administration and the State Department officials thought that the problem would be over quickly and the hostages would be returned quickly, giving Carter’s image a boost. Unsurprisingly, Carter’s political needs matched poorly with those of Ayatollah Khomeini, the Shah Muslim religious leader of the time. Americans pressured Carter to handle the issue in an American manner with gusto and military force as a small group of university students managed to humiliate and humble the “American tiger.” Carter’s strategy included sending a letter to Khomeini, calling for the resolvement of issues of Iran-America issues but the Carter administration quickly learned that it would take a great deal to get the Ayatollah’s attention. Overwhelmingly, the world saw Carter as “weak and ineffectual” and this majorly tainted the image of a 1970s-1980s
Republicans was stressed to maintain of the gold standard and the high protective tariffs that would in return protects American jobs and wages. And despite these vague promise to seek international agreements for looser monetary policy, the platform was economically conservative. The republican urges support for Armenians and for Cubans who sought freedom from Spain. Resulting a finger pointing toward the issues of foreign relations that would take center stage by 1900, however in truth the platform retain none of the reform goals, such as antitrust and worker protection. Disregarding the matter of the truth be told, this particular elections was significant in the display of Republican power.
However, the liberal and progressive organizations that usually would have protected the civil liberties of the victims of McCarthyism backed down from the task. Although numerous Americans were disturbed and troubled by McCarthy’s allegations, there was an absence of effective outlets for them to express their opposition. Therefore, liberals and progressives merely did not mount a campaign against McCarthyism nor did they defend the victims’ civil liberties, or when few tried, it was not effective. Schrecker argues, “The destruction of the front groups and the left-led unions may well have had a more deleterious impact on American politics than the decline of the (Communist) party itself.” (Schrecker 105). This is because, as seen in the example of McCarthyism, with the demise of the left-led unions and organizations, the nation lost the network that created a public space where legitimate alternatives to the status quo could be presented.
Larry J. Sabato has analyzed the candidates and offers his opinions of the strengths and weaknesses of each. Despite having a conservative gubernatorial resume, monumental sums of campaign funding, and the iconic GOP nominee persona, Jeb Bush’s challenges may insurmountable. Sabato believes that Bush’s name has worn out its welcome in US politics, Bush is too “establishment” and Bush is not a commanding speaker. Moreover, Bush is a supporter of Common Core which is not favored by the GOP. Trump, on the other hand, “Can command the stage, [he] has freedom to say anything” (Sabato).