Johnson was a TEXAN, not a southerner. I know it may seem the same to you folks in england, but there's a big difference. the 'elite' southern gentlemen of washington hated him, but they were basically appeased through the brilliant 1 on 1 with Johnson. this strategem is actually coined as the "Johnson treatment," comprised of inviting guests to win over outside the media. sure Kennedy looked great on TV (Johnson's speeches sucked), but he couldn't round up ALL the politicians to respect him like they did for Johnson.Sir Sir_Didier_Drogba said:Yeah, that is a big thing that Johnson managed to do, winning round the vote of the Southern Democrats. However, he did it by being even more of a stereotypical southern redneck than they were and thus winning them round to his point of view.
And to me, looking at where he came from and what he ended up doing just makes me see a poor, southern boy with little oppertunities or prospects rising through his own hard-graft, (and underhand methods if what Run DMB and other sources say is true), to take the United States into one of the most horrible, devasting and screwed up wars in history.
By the way, all I really have to go on is what I remember from history class and the extremely biased information on the internet, so please excuse me if what I say is totally incorrect
you misunderstood me about Reagan; I agree that he really didn't do anything. I was just praising his "people" skills, fronting the NOT WASHINGTON title and still having the best of relationship with the peple in Washington.ShiftyPowers said:Hyun, you're awesome man, looks like the only Presidents we really disagree on are Reagan and Bush I. Yeah the people generally seemed to like Reagan, but it was all smoke and mirrors, he didn't do anything. It's pretty commonly accepted in academia that his economic policies did virtually nothing to bring about the end of the Soviet Union, or at the very least one cannot say that he did. Bush I on the other hand, it looks like I'm going to have to go digging into the archives to prove that he was a good President. The common assertion these days is that his approval ratings were high, but he was nothing more than an extension of Reagan when the conservative 80's were waning. I think that's wrong.
we do seem to share much opinion, but then I am your mama. :fool: