Where on the geek scale do these sort of re-enactors fit in? Above LARPers? Below furries?

Can I be the one to punch the "Dan Rather" re-enactor

Dan Rather Punched In Stomach 8-27-1968 (new window)

The part of Mayor Daley will be played by...Mayor Dayley.

I would like to play Abbie Hoffman but I just don't have the hair for it anymore.

/hoping someone saves me a little roasted Pigasus
/mmmmmm.....bbq-ed candidate ribs....

Ordering a case of Wild Turkey, two dozen pink grapefruit and a very large, very sharp knife.

Everyone should see "Chicago 10" instead.

Bill_Wick's_Friend: I would like to play Abbie Hoffman but I just don't have the hair for it anymore.

Animated Hank Azaria already does a stellar job.

ah, the 1968 convention; when the world finally realized how awful hippies are.

Count me in...I'll play Phil Ochs.

Although I look more like Rob Tyner...

First Mass Meeting: Outside 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Participants encouraged to show up in police riot-gear costumes, so that not all of us show up as hippies!

Hilarity ensues.

The hippies were scapegoats. That was a police riot.

Please please please please please let this happen...

TommyBahama: ah, the 1968 convention; when the world finally realized how awful hippies are.

And yet hippie-bashing continues, 40 years later.

Can we beat the hippies?

Let's get these guys involved.



They've got the experience, and they're not doing much these days.

You know, if all you wound-up fatheads want to get into rumbles with the cops, "recreate" it in Chicago or some other drab northeastern city, OK? Denver doesn't need that sort of bullsh*t.

Trying to recreate the archaic concept of "politically conscious Americans with balls."
How quaint.

In other news: Denver PD practicing to "Wail Ye Like Daley"

/what the heck else rhymes with Daley?

Sofa King Awesome:

/what the heck else rhymes with Daley?

Um - "fail-y"?

BMulligan: Um - "fail-y"?

damn it.

borg: Can I be the one to punch the "Dan Rather" re-enactor

Dan Rather Punched In Stomach 8-27-1968 (new window)
if you ask me, that ought to be an attraction at disneyworld....

Didn't I tell you? Democrats are stuck in the past, and that's why they keep insisting on all these warped policies. Get with the times, people, this is the 21st century we're living in now, okay? Just a little reality check.

borg: Can I be the one to punch the "Dan Rather" re-enactor

Dan Rather Punched In Stomach 8-27-1968 (new window)

One one condition, I get to ask him "What's the Frequency?"

You all suck. This is a great idea.

Can one of you oldtimers tell us what was so great about 1968? That 7 more years in Vietnam came after that?

what the hell

Mole Man: borg: Can I be the one to punch the "Dan Rather" re-enactor

Dan Rather Punched In Stomach 8-27-1968 (new window)

One one condition, I get to ask him "What's the Frequency?"

Kenneth?

Everybody booze up and riot!

/Gin makes a man mean.

Note to ex-1960s radical baby boomers: You are killing liberalism, go away. You are directly responsible for Reagan and Bush II, as you turned liberalism from a force for progress and change in to an extremist, sloganized parody. The '60s ended 40 years ago, assholes.

Now, personally I was planning on driving down to Denver and protesting if the superdelagates throw the nomination to Clinton. But if there are a bunch of hippies on hand, I'm staying the hell away.

hockeyfarker: Can one of you oldtimers tell us what was so great about 1968? That 7 more years in Vietnam came after that?

what the hell

If you're genuinely interested, I liked this book:


If you're just mildly curious, look at the Wiki article for what happened that year. From MLK to the Tet Offensive to the invasion of Czechoslovakia to the Paris General Strike, and even "Hair", it was an important year.

.
...miles from anywhere, Americans will receive their first real taste of America 2008. The new and improved "Free Speech Zones".

xkillyourfacex: Didn't I tell you? Democrats are stuck in the past, and that's why they keep insisting on all these warped policies. Get with the times, people, this is the 21st century we're living in now, okay? Just a little reality check.

Because nothing screams 21st century like John McCain.

Satyagraha: .
...miles from anywhere, Americans will receive their first real taste of America 2008. The new and improved "Free Speech Zones".


DNC "Free Speech Zone," Boston, 2004

My dad's friend got his front teeth knocked out at the 68 convention. I remember him as a kid proudly telling the story and showing off his two fake front teeth.

/he was a bit of an odd one.

Tabatha Static: Satyagraha: .
...miles from anywhere, Americans will receive their first real taste of America 2008. The new and improved "Free Speech Zones".


DNC "Free Speech Zone," Boston, 2004

Are they protesting, or practicing 'assuming the position' for party leaders?

El_Dan:

Note to ex-1960s radical baby boomers: You are killing liberalism, go away. You are directly responsible for Reagan and Bush II, as you turned liberalism from a force for progress and change in to an extremist, sloganized parody. The '60s ended 40 years ago, assholes.

I think this is a terribly oversimplified position. You may feel that you can disregard my opinion since I'm a baby boomer myself (born in 1960), but to blame 60's radicals for Reagan (who was elected a decade after the 60's ended) and Bush II (elected 3 decades after the 60's ended) seems a little far-fetched. Certainly, there were those in the 60's who went much too far, but the generation you're disparaging here brought us a tremendous amount of progress with respect to civil rights for racial and sexual minorities, environmental protection, and responsible oversight of executive power (especially with respect to foreign policy). Of course, much of this progress has been walked back over the past 28 years, but I don't see how you can blame the activists of the 60's for that except to the extent that the right was able to successfully caricature all liberals by reference to a very, very tiny fringe of actual radicalism which had, in any case, expired long before the Reagan years began.

TommyBahama: ah, the 1968 convention; when the world finally realized how awful hippies are Vietnam was.

BMulligan: El_Dan:

Note to ex-1960s radical baby boomers: You are killing liberalism, go away. You are directly responsible for Reagan and Bush II, as you turned liberalism from a force for progress and change in to an extremist, sloganized parody. The '60s ended 40 years ago, assholes.

I think this is a terribly oversimplified position. You may feel that you can disregard my opinion since I'm a baby boomer myself (born in 1960), but to blame 60's radicals for Reagan (who was elected a decade after the 60's ended) and Bush II (elected 3 decades after the 60's ended) seems a little far-fetched. Certainly, there were those in the 60's who went much too far, but the generation you're disparaging here brought us a tremendous amount of progress with respect to civil rights for racial and sexual minorities, environmental protection, and responsible oversight of executive power (especially with respect to foreign policy). Of course, much of this progress has been walked back over the past 28 years, but I don't see how you can blame the activists of the 60's for that except to the extent that the right was able to successfully caricature all liberals by reference to a very, very tiny fringe of actual radicalism which had, in any case, expired long before the Reagan years began.

The civil rights movement started in the 1950s, when the boomers were still kids or weren't born yet. Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954, and Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat in 1955. MLK wasn't a booomer, either. The boomers continued what was happening, certainly, but that's it.

Meanwhile, executive power has been the subject of debate since the country was founded. Read up on Andrew Jackson or the Steel Seizure case. The boomers weren't the first ones to think of that, either. Further, the War Powers Act did basically nothing, and Watergate simply led to future presidents being more careful about their wrongdoings.

Additionally, Reagan was elected as a result of the conservative backlash to the '60s and early '70s. Bush II is a product of the same religious conservative movement that was assembled by Reagan.

I am going to laugh when the first protester raises the AQ flag somewhere and gets a royal beatdown by the cops. Fine it might be a bit extreme of a reaction but I will laugh anyway.

/Does AQ have a flag?

El_Dan:

The civil rights movement started in the 1950s, when the boomers were still kids or weren't born yet. Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954, and Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat in 1955. MLK wasn't a booomer, either. The boomers continued what was happening, certainly, but that's it.

Yes, the civil rights movement began (with respect to racial minorities) before the 60's. But it caught fire as a direct result of the 60's counterculture - MLK was no boomer, but boomers were certainly his core audience. It was boomers who were killed trying to register black voters in the early 60's, and it was boomers who brought us a real Voting Rights Act with real teeth. And of course, as far as civil rights for sexual minorities go, it was boomers FTW.

Meanwhile, executive power has been the subject of debate since the country was founded. Read up on Andrew Jackson or the Steel Seizure case. The boomers weren't the first ones to think of that, either. Further, the War Powers Act did basically nothing, and Watergate simply led to future presidents being more careful about their wrongdoings.

I know a little bit about the history you reference here, and certainly it's true that balance of powers issues have been a major debate throughout the history of the Republic. It's also true that there have been numerous swings of the pendulum, both ways, over the years. But certainly one consequence of the Vietnam War - and of the movement to end that war - was the call for dramatically increased scrutiny of our Cold War security apparatus (think Church Commission, for instance). I did not mean to imply that the 60's radicals invented this issue - that would be stupid - but certain elements of the counterculture grew up to make oversight of the CIA and the Pentagon a major priority, and had some meaningful success in that regard.

Additionally, Reagan was elected as a result of the conservative backlash to the '60s and early '70s. Bush II is a product of the same religious conservative movement that was assembled by Reagan.

This is where I really disagree with you. Reagan was a product of the backlash against a caricature of the left, not the reality of it. And the people responsible for drawing that caricature never felt obligated to trade in facts rather than made-up boogeymen. Go back to the right's opposition to McGovern: He was defeated because the right succeeded in painting him as the candidate of "acid, amnesty, and abortion" - except, of course, he wasn't. By the time Reagan came along, the Lee Atwaters of the world had honed this schtick to a fine point, and managed to use it to draw blood. But it never, ever had anything to do with reality.

El_Dan: Note to ex-1960s radical baby boomers: You are killing liberalism, go away. the previous generation: We believe you are directly responsible for Reagan and Bush II, as you turned liberalism from a force for progress and change in to an extremist, sloganized parody all the problems now faced by the current generation. We think you're stupid and we hate you.

Oh, and when future generations lob the same complaint at us, they'll be wrong. All their problems will be their own fault. Bunch of whiners, those future generations, always pointing fingers at their elders! Where's the respect? Stay off our future lawns!

FTFY

this summer could be interesting if the dems don't lock in a candidate...


straight from the olympics in a police state to DNC riots would make for interesting TV coverage

I think all of us have wanted to punch Dan Rather one time or another.

Pigasus to be played by the pig who starred in Babe?

EL_DAN; they will soon be doing a re-creation of the LAPD shootout with the SLA when they were holed up in a house in South L.A. . An opportune time for you to DIAF

wildcardjack: this summer could be interesting if the dems don't lock in a candidate...

Why do you think Limbaugh was pseudo backing Hillary?

So that Barry O wouldn't win by so much.
So that Hillary wouldn't give up.
So that the two of them would bring out all the dirt, trying to discredit the other.

Let the democrats destroy themselves, instead of McCain having to try to do it.

Quick - somebody dig up Nixon! Then we can totally relive the experience.

Seriously - while I understand the spirit, why not create '08 instead of trying to recreate '68? Not everything has to be rooted in the 20th century.