National Review Makes Shit Up

Granted, it’s a pretty regular occurence, and something that should be assumed in most every post, but things like this just seem especially egregious, and it seems to me that someone should catalogue it on the internet so that others can reference the fact that NRO makes a general habit of speaking completely untrue nonsense:

Between 1804 (during the fight against the Barbary Pirates) and 2004 (during Iraq), the United States held nine presidential elections in wartime.  Only two of these elections — 1952 and 1968 — produced a change in party control.   Both times, the winner was a Republican who ran on national-security experience, and the loser was a Democrat who seemed more dovish. 

The problem is that this just isn’t true, in any sense. Yes Republicans won both of those elections, but both of those Republicans, Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, ran on a platform of ending those unpopular wars (Korea and Vietnam). And while it’s entirly plausible that Stevenson “seemed more dovish” than Eisenhower, that is decidedly not true in regards to 1968. Hubert Humphrey had been LBJ’s Vice-President, and ran on a platform of continuing the reigning policy in Vietnam. As such, the left hated him, and his nomination is what brought on the 1968 riots. There’s just no way any person familiar with basic electoral history, any honest person that is, could characterize Humphrey as the “dove” of the 1968 election.

But then, not being a hack sort of disqualifies you from contributing to The Corner now doesn’t it?