Last time an anti-war candidate won a Presidential race in wartime?

[Reaganfan]

I can't think of when it was the last time that an anti-war candidate won a Presidential election during wartime? Nixon wasn't anti-war in '68....Reagan wasn't anti-war in '84.....Bush wasn't anti-war in '04....

[Smash255]

Typical Naso Hackery.   And the last time a pro-war candidate won when 2/3 of the country wanted out of the war was........

[Reaganfan]

Typical Naso Hackery.   And the last time a pro-war candidate won when 2/3 of the country wanted out of the war was........

Thanks for sliding the question!

[Smash255]

Typical Naso Hackery.   And the last time a pro-war candidate won when 2/3 of the country wanted out of the war was........

Thanks for sliding the question!

Interesting coming from someone who never answers anyone else's question.  Regardless you seemed to be using this as a way to suggest the GOP will win in 08 because an anti-war candidate hasn't won during a war while completely ignoring the fact no pro-war candidate has ever won during a war as unpopular as this one.

Generally the questions, you ignore are legit, this is just retarded.

[DanielX]

Typical Naso Hackery.   And the last time a pro-war candidate won when 2/3 of the country wanted out of the war was........

1864!

[Reaganfan]

Typical Naso Hackery.   And the last time a pro-war candidate won when 2/3 of the country wanted out of the war was........

Thanks for sliding the question!

Interesting coming from someone who never answers anyone else's question.  Regardless you seemed to be using this as a way to suggest the GOP will win in 08 because an anti-war candidate hasn't won during a war while completely ignoring the fact no pro-war candidate has ever won during a war as unpopular as this one.

Generally the questions, you ignore are legit, this is just retarded.

HAHA...I love how you use an opinion as an answer. "A war as unpopular as this one" ... I doubt this is as unpopular as Vietnam or Korea and by the way...a pro-war candidate (Eisenhower and Nixon) both won during those unpopular wars.

So, would you like to try again, pal?

[Smash255]

Typical Naso Hackery.   And the last time a pro-war candidate won when 2/3 of the country wanted out of the war was........

Thanks for sliding the question!

Interesting coming from someone who never answers anyone else's question.  Regardless you seemed to be using this as a way to suggest the GOP will win in 08 because an anti-war candidate hasn't won during a war while completely ignoring the fact no pro-war candidate has ever won during a war as unpopular as this one.

Generally the questions, you ignore are legit, this is just retarded.

HAHA...I love how you use an opinion as an answer. "A war as unpopular as this one" ... I doubt this is as unpopular as Vietnam or Korea and by the way...a pro-war candidate (Eisenhower and Nixon) both won during those unpopular wars.

So, would you like to try again, pal?

Neither Korea in 1952, nor Vietnam in 1968 were as unpopular as Iraq is now.  Neither Stvenston or Humphrey were exactly anti-war candidates either.

[Gabu]

HAHA...I love how you use an opinion as an answer. "A war as unpopular as this one" ... I doubt this is as unpopular as Vietnam or Korea and by the way...a pro-war candidate (Eisenhower and Nixon) both won during those unpopular wars.

So, would you like to try again, pal?

In 1952, Eisenhower promised to end (and did get a cease-fire in) the Korean War.

In 1968, Humphrey's main problem in his campaign was that America was still in Vietnam, and he received a massive boost to his campaign when President Johnson announced a bombing halt and a possible peace deal.

If you're going to try to bolster your position, these are not exactly the best example to pick.  In 1952, the Democratic candidate was severely dragged down by an unpopular war started by a Democratic president.  In 1968, the Democratic candidate was severely dragged down by an unpopular war started by a Democratic president.  If we're going to assume that history will repeat itself, then fill in the blanks: "In 2008, the ________ candidate will be severely dragged down by an unpopular war started by a ________ president."

Would you like to try again?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Reagan wasn't anti-war in '84.....

Which war was this? Unless are you counting the situation where Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon after terrorists killed 243 Marines? I have a cousin who was in the Marines there, and he still hates Reagan for how he handled that.

[Reaganfan]

Reagan wasn't anti-war in '84.....

Which war was this? Unless are you counting the situation where Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon after terrorists killed 243 Marines? I have a cousin who was in the Marines there, and he still hates Reagan for how he handled that.

I'm talking about the Cold War...by the way....which side were you on during the Cold War??

[Gabu]

I thank Mike Naso for his acknowledgement that I made a good point and that he found himself unable to adequately rebut my statement.

[Vasall des Midas]

Typical Naso Hackery.   And the last time a pro-war candidate won when 2/3 of the country wanted out of the war was........

Thanks for sliding the question!

Interesting coming from someone who never answers anyone else's question.  Regardless you seemed to be using this as a way to suggest the GOP will win in 08 because an anti-war candidate hasn't won during a war while completely ignoring the fact no pro-war candidate has ever won during a war as unpopular as this one.

Generally the questions, you ignore are legit, this is just retarded.

HAHA...I love how you use an opinion as an answer. "A war as unpopular as this one" ... I doubt this is as unpopular as Vietnam or Korea and by the way...a pro-war candidate (Eisenhower and Nixon) both won during those unpopular wars.

So, would you like to try again, pal?

Neither Korea in 1952, nor Vietnam in 1968 were as unpopular as Iraq is now.  Neither Stvenston or Humphrey were exactly anti-war candidates either.

Nixon was kind of anti war in 1968.

[Reaganfan]

Nixon was kind of anti war in 1968.

Not really. Infact, Governors Romney, Rockefeller and Reagan ran against Nixon in 1968 for the GOP nomination as the anti-war Republicans. Nixon was not anti-war.

[Verily]

Nixon was kind of anti war in 1968.

Not really. Infact, Governors Romney, Rockefeller and Reagan ran against Nixon in 1968 for the GOP nomination as the anti-war Republicans. Nixon was not anti-war.

He wasn't anti-war in his heart-of-hearts, but nor is Hillary Clinton. He did, however, campaign strongly against the war during his presidential campaign. Humphrey's promise to Johnson not to campaign against the war would have made 1968 a landslide had Johnson not recanted in the last few months.

[StateBoiler]

I would say Nixon in 1968, as he ran on getting us out of Vietnam. If anyone wants to argue that, fine, it doesn't change the reality of 39 years ago though.

Nixon promised peace with honor, and, though never claiming to be able to win the war, Nixon did say that "new leadership will end the war and win the peace in the Pacific". He did not explain in detail his plans to end the war in Vietnam, causing Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey to allege that he must have had some "secret plan." Nixon didn't invent the phrase, but because he did not disavow the term, it soon became part of the campaign. In his memoirs, Nixon wrote that he actually had no such plan.

Once in office, he proposed the Nixon Doctrine, a strategy of replacing American troops with the Vietnamese troops, also called "Vietnamization". In July 1969, he visited South Vietnam, and met with President Nguyen Van Thieu and with U.S. military commanders. American involvement in the war declined steadily until all American troops were gone in 1973.

The Nixon Doctrine was put forth in a press conference in Guam on July 25, 1969 by Richard Nixon. He stated that the United States henceforth expected its allies to take care of their own military defense. The Doctrine argued for the pursuit of peace through a partnership with American allies.

In Nixon's own words (Address to the Nation on the War in Vietnam November 3, 1969):

First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.
Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.
Third, in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.

You could make an argument for Warren Harding in 1920, who ran anti-League of Nations and all our interventionism Wilson had us in with World War I. So that's "anti-war" of a sort.

[SPC]

Eisenhower promised to end the Korean War in 1952.
Nixon promised "Peace with Honor" in 1968.
Bush was pro-war in 2004, but so was his opponent.

[Gabu]

And now, with his arguments hopelessly crushed, Mike Naso will never be seen again in this topic, tacitly admitting defeat.

[Reaganfan]

And now, with his arguments hopelessly crushed, Mike Naso will never be seen again in this topic, tacitly admitting defeat.

I'm sorry, are you an American?

In all seriousness, my point stands. The 2008 Democrats are staunchly anti-war...especially Obama and Edwards...and so is the base. If the race is between pro-choice pro-war Hillary and pro-choice pro-war Giuliani...it will be interesting.

[SPC]

And now, with his arguments hopelessly crushed, Mike Naso will never be seen again in this topic, tacitly admitting defeat.

I'm sorry, are you an American?

In all seriousness, my point stands. The 2008 Democrats are staunchly anti-war...especially Obama and Edwards...and so is the base. If the race is between pro-choice pro-war Hillary and pro-choice pro-war Giuliani...it will be interesting.

Your point doesn't stand. I've aleady proven that the anti-war candidate won in 52 and 68, and the main reason they didn't win in 2004 is because none of the anti-war candidates (Badnarik, Cobb, Peroutka, and Nader) were endorsed by a major party. However, it is worth pointing out that only Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul are genuinely anti-war. The rest are only pretending to be for political reasons.

[True Federalist]

Wilson - 1916 - "He kept us out of war."

FDR - 1940 - "I tell you again and again and again I will not send your sons into a foreign war."

[riceowl]

Reagan wasn't anti-war in '84.....

Which war was this? Unless are you counting the situation where Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon after terrorists killed 243 Marines? I have a cousin who was in the Marines there, and he still hates Reagan for how he handled that.

I'm talking about the Cold War...by the way....which side were you on during the Cold War??

hahahaha....so Carter was pro-war too then?  Kennedy?

[SPC]

Reagan wasn't anti-war in '84.....

Which war was this? Unless are you counting the situation where Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon after terrorists killed 243 Marines? I have a cousin who was in the Marines there, and he still hates Reagan for how he handled that.

I'm talking about the Cold War...by the way....which side were you on during the Cold War??

Ummmmm, the Cold War wasn't an actual war.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

Of course not, it's just typical Naso hackery logic.

[Jeff from NC]

In 2004 someone said: "The taller candidate has always won."  In 2000, it was "The winner of the popular vote has almost always won the electoral college."  In 1996, it was "No democrat since WW2 has won a second full term."  In 1988, they said "No sitting vice-president has won the White House since Martin van Buren."

History is a tricky temptress.  Trite historical analogies don't fly when it comes to today's politics.

[YRABNNRM]

I'm sorry, are you an American?

LOL

Gabu owns Naso so Naso resorts to the "OMG U RNT AMERCAN SO YOUR OPINION DONT MATTR@!!!" argument.