The Copeland Courier Vol I Issue I | May 10, 2013 | Katie Blunt, Jonathan Black, Al Drago, Becky Wickel
Extra! Extra! Garfield defeats Hancock Katie Blunt Gen. James Garfield was elected President of the United States today, a win for the Republican Party and its efforts to reconstruct the South. The popular vote was agonizingly close: Garfield received 48.3 percent of the vote, while Hancock received 48.2 percent. However, Garfield won 214 electoral votes while Hancock won only 155. Republicans rejoiced at their assembly meetings.
All celebrated the “victory achieved in the election of the wise and honorable statesman and gallant soldier, Gen. James Garfield, as President, and of the noble citizen of New York, William English,” the New York Times reported. Democratic newspapers appear disheartened by the result. The Washington Post called the final vote a “disastrous result,” and expressed its desire to “indulge in the hope that the Katie Bkunt new President will give the Mentor, OH — James country a wise and honest Garfield (R-Ohio), the Administration.” reluctant Republican presidential nominee, has incited a nationwide media frenzy by conducting a “front porch campaign.” Rather the Fifth Military District — than travelling the campaign comprised of Louisiana and trail, he has invited reporters Texas — he first assured the and voters listen to him speak citizens there that the military from the steps of his home would not interfere with here. Never has a presidential their courts and legislatures, a candidate courted voters so statement many Republicans openly. Though some voters are find abhorrent. disturbed by his unorthodox Several papers, including the New York Times, have campaign, it appears to be accused him of “truckling to at least somewhat effective. Garfield is frequently the the rebels of the South.” A Times article published subject of positive media in July lambasted Hancock’s coverage in both newspapers political cartoons. ac c e p t a n c e and of the On June 8, the New York nomination Times argued Garfield by arguing has developed an excellent through his “ W i n f i e l d reputation Scott is not “toilsome, studious, and a sufficiently intelligent devotion to the descr iptive higher duties of a legislator representative prefix to the under name of the institutions.” The Daily Evening Bulletin Democratic c a n d i d a t e in San Franscisco, Ca., seems for the to be similarly impressed. On presidenc y. the same day, it published an While old article that called Garfield ‘fuss and feathers’ might have “fortune’s favorite.” It read, been equal to the pompous “It is not often that a public platitudes of the letter of man has so many honors acceptance, the peculiar type thrust upon him. Garfield is a of nonsense which pervades comparatively young man… that document would have [but] his career, though brief, has been brilliant.” been entirely beyond him.” Garfield’s path to The article refers to a portion of Hancock’s nomination has not been acceptance letter that read, easy. He is still scorned by “this Union, comprising a the media for accepting 10 general Government with shares of Credit Mobilier general powers and State stock at a discounted rate, as Governments with State reported by the Washington powers, for purposes local Post and others when the to the states, is a polity, the scandal broke eight years ago.
Newspapers spar over Hancock’s qualifications Katie Blunt
As Civil War tensions continue to simmer, the Democratic nomination of Gen. Winfield Hancock for president in June has generated slew of opposing news reports and opinions in prominent newspapers. The conflicting coverage prompted the Galveston Daily News to accuse Republican newspapers of knowingly creating a prejudice against Winfield. Prior to his nomination, Winfield held a range of military positions. After graduating from West Point in 1844, he served with his regiment in the Indian Territory and was named Brevet First Lieutenant during the Mexican war. When the Civil War broke out, he engaged in a series of battles as Union commander,including those of Yorktown and Antietam, and became Major General after the battle at Spottsylvania, as reported by the Washington Post. Now, in the aftermath of the war, Hancock ardently opposes the idea of reconstruction. When President Johnson appointed Hancock as the commander of
“Dark Horse” garners mixed reception by popular media But some outlets have been more forgiving. In December, Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper ran a political cartoon titled “Burden Rightly Lifted.” It shows the Lady of Justice lifting the weight of calumny off Garfield’s back, suggesting it is time to cease the slander and defamation of his character. Garfield has been criticized for his stance on Chinese immigration, as well, despite news coverage affirming his opposition to the present immigration laws. In July, the Times printed a speech by Garfield in which he asserted the need to “put an end to the [evils]…[of ] the migration of laborers and consequent diminution of property. Yet, in October, the Washington Post argued “that General Garfield has been, from his very first time in Congress, a persistent opponent of the interests of workingmen, is a fact which is record demonstrates as conclusively as any proposition in mathematics was ever proven.” The Post’s argument holds considerable sway at a time when thousands of Americans fear cheap Chinese labor will cost them their jobs, despite the fact the Chinese account for only one percent of the population, according to George Mason University’s History News Network. The Post’s condemnation of Garfield’s stance on immigration was perhaps influenced by a mysterious letter supposedly written by Garfield to H.L. Morey of Lynn, Mass. The three
sentence letter implies Garfield favors Chinese immigration, but we strongly suspect it was forged. Nevertheless, it continues to circulate in many other newspapers and is most likely spreading anti-Garfield sentiment as the November election draws nearer. Garfield also faces some opposition to his push for strong tariff protection to prevent foreign competition in the economic marketplace. Democrats, who favor relaxes tariffs, attacked his recent statement that “the tariff question is a local question,” Hancock Family Life: Born in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania in 1824. His father served in the War of 1812 and then became a lawyer. Education: Graduated 18th in his class from West Point in New York. His classmates include Ulysses Grant and George McClellan. Military Experience: Served with his regiment in the Indian Territory and was named Brevet First Lieutenant during the Mexican war. When the Civil War broke out, he engaged in a series of battles as Union commander and became Major General after the battle at Spottsylvania. He was a contender for the presidency in the 1868 elections. Sources: New York Times, HarpWeek Elections
Media chooses sides, conflicts on presidential race favorite continued from pg. 1
foundations of which were laid in the profoundest of wisdom.” The Times chalked off his letter as “rigmarole” that doesn’t align with his purported policies. Some papers have published negative illustrations of Hancock, as well. Thomas Nast, drawing for Harper’s Weekly, depicted Robert Toombs, former Confederate secretary of state and an influential member of the Democratic Party,
manipulation Hancock like a puppet. The cartoon illustrated Republicans’ fear that Hancock, if elected, will bow to the demands of the South. Other cartoons have taken a softer stance on Hancock while attacking the Democratic Party as a whole. A Harper’s Weekly cartoon published two weeks after Hancock received the nomination showed Columbia preventing Hancock from entering the White House
because he is in the company of two disheveled-looking Democrats. Hancock’s vice-presidential nominee, William English, has been subjected to derision in cartoons, as well. In October, Harper’s Weekly ran an illustration of a sign that showed English’s name changed to “Irish,” a demonstration of the Republicans’ hatred of IrishCatholic immigrants. But several Democratic newspapers scorn Republican
Garfield earns mixed views continued from pg. 1 insisting highlights his lack of political experience, according to an Encyclopedia Britannica profile of Garfield. Newspapers across the country have reprinted the statement. Considering the mixed media coverage of his
campaign, it is unclear how Garfield will fare in the November election. When first nominated in June, the Post called him a “vulnerable” candidate, one who “has certain elements of popularity in his own party, but his legislative record is hardly such as to give him great strength before the
people.” Certain attacks by the media on his views and his character have demonstrated his vulnerability, but his determination to forge his own campaign path and compromise with all factions of his parties suggests he may prove to be a strong candidate.
arugments and often cast a glowing light on Hancock’s candidacy. A September article in the Hinds County Gazette of Raymond, Miss., argued, “the fame of General Winfield Hancock as a soldier is secure. Now and then, it is true, some Republican polecat exercises its powers of profanation, but without avail. In the list of the world’s great Captains, Hancock’s name will be forever illustrious.” The Washington Post has taken a similar stance. Directly James Garfield Family Life: Born in Cuyahoga County, Ohio in 1832. His family, headed by his widowed mother, was quite poor. Education: Graduated from Williams College in Massachusetts.
after Hancock received the nomination, it wrote that Hancock is a “big man with a big head, a big heart, and a big brain. He is the very personification of honor, honesty and capacity.” As the election draws near, it is unclear whether media coverage will affect the popular vote. Republican nominee Gen. James Garfield has also received both positive and negative press, rendering the candidates relatively equal on that front. Professional: Lawyer, served nine terms in Congress, elected to succeed Allen Thurman in the Senate. Military Experience: Entered the Union Army as a colonel in an Ohio regiment and rose to the rank of major-general.
Carter intensifies aggressive campaign
Katie Blunt
In an election year defined by low economic growth, high inflation and recent energy crises, President Jimmy Carter is determined to win reelection by any means necessary. His campaign has become increasingly aggressive as Election Day draws nearer, but it seems his attacks on opposing candidates and controversial campaign speeches are not working in his favor. Carter has shown intense determination to serve a second term long before the Democratic National Convention. He traveled 50,000 miles, visited 37 states and gave more than 200 speeches before any other Democratic candidates announced their intentions to run. But his initial fervor was somewhat fruitless. Early in the primaries, Carter was vague and indecisive about many of his political stances and ideas. Multiple media sources criticized his “flipflopping” on major issues, and many Americans began to view him as indecisive. Carter made the front page of many national newspapers after he delivered a speech to the conservative American Legion. When
he announced a “blanket pardon” to Vietnam draft dodgers, more than 15,000 people booed him into silence. A similar scene occurred in San Francisco when he announced homosexuality was a sin according to the Bible. He also set a presidential precedent by granting an interview to Playboy, which has cost him the votes of many women and Evangelists. When the New York Daily News asked him about the interview, Carter said he hadn’t read it yet because “[he] looked at the other parts [of the magazine] first.” In spite of his gaffs, he managed to attain the Democratic nomination. After his acceptance, he “continued his assault on the Republicans as a party that would hinder the causes of civil rights and economic opportunity while enhancing the risks of war,” as reported by the New York Times. During his campaign, Carter recognized the importance of establishing a presence on television this election and launched a series of commercials that portray him as a peacemaker and a veteran who negotiated a peace treaty with Israel and Egypt.
Jimmy Carter
Early Life: Born October 1, 1924 in Plains, Georgia. His father was a businessman and his mother was a nurse. Education: He graduated 59th out of 820 midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy. Some also describe how hard it is to be president and imply that Reagan is not up for the job. He has also spent a large amount of money on newspaper advertisements, and some have proven quite controversial. An advertisement published in 100 newspapers aimed at black readership implied the Republican Party is racist. It said Republicans are trying to defeat him “because of his record in appointing black judges, fighting employment discrimination and creating jobs,” as reported by the New York Times. In the same article, a Republican spokesman responded by arguing “that
the Presidential campaign is no place for the reviving of the issue of racism under any circumstances.” Carter seems to have alienated politicians in his own party, as well. As he campaigns in small towns, he does not take photos with local politician and does not endorse fellow Democrats. The Washington Post recently wrote, “Even now, as Carter crisscrosses the country, the old-time Democratic politicians greet him more often than not like a naturalized Martian rather than a fellow soldier.” A glimmer of hope for his campaign came in the form of an endorsement by The New Republic. But
Military Career: Served on surface ships and on dieselelectric submarines, assisted in the shutdown of the Chalk River Nuclear Reactor. Political Career: Georgia State Senate, Governor of Georgia, appointment to the United States Senate.
even that magazine took its stance “with reservations.” It wrote, “There is enough in the Carter record, as governor and campaigner, to make us apprehensive.”
Reagan adopts Carter’s negative campaign tactics
Katie Blunt In the wake of President Jimmy Carter’s statement that the Republican Party is racist, Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan has been forced to engage in a deprecating exchange of criticisms and accusations. Some voters are feeling overwhelmed by the negativity. Heated campaign rhetoric has fueled many presidential elections. Both the Goldwater-Johnson race and the Nixon-McGovern race were rife with snide comments and ad hominem attacks. But the CarterReagan race is negative in two senses: “the level of discourse, and, judging by the polls, the attitudes of the voters,” the New York Times reported in an article published in September. The article cited a recent poll that showed 43 percent
of voters who preferred Reagan were “really voting against Carter,” while 34 percent of voters who preferred Carter were really voting against Reagan. “More than in most years, the voters are vocally unhappy with the choice before them and admitting that they are voting against, rather than for, a given candidate,” the article read. Reagan, no stranger to the television, has spent $15 million on TV campaign ads. He remains calm and composed in most of his commercials, asking viewers if they are “better off than they were four years ago.” His wife, Nancy, has also appeared in several commercials, marking the first time a candidate’s wife has appeared alone in a campaign ad. Her 60-second commercial accuses Jimmy Carter of making up lies about Reagan. “I’m offended when he tries to portray
him as a warmonger, as a man who would throw the elderly out on the street and cut off their Social Security when, in fact, he never said anything of the kind at any time,” she says on air. She also asks him to explain why inflation and employment are so high and why his foreign policies are inconsistent. Reagan as also employed Ted Kennedy to launch attacks against Carter in the hope of making Carter an enemy of his own party. He frequently shows a clip of Kennedy yelling “no more Jimmy Carter!” The ads exert considerable influence at a time when the majority of Americans are following the campaigns on television, but newspaper coverage remains a viable barometer of each candidate’s success. Newspaper coverage of Reagan’s campaign has generally been neutral or positive, though a number of negative reports have circulated, as well. A New York Times article published in July delivered good news for Reagan and the Republican Party. “Ronald Reagan continues to lead President Carter, according to the latest Gallup Poll. The poll also found that only one-third of the American people approved of President Carter’s handling of his job,” it read. But the tone shift in August, when the Times reported, “For Ronald Reagan, it was a difficult end to an unexpectedly chaotic and in some respects disappointing week. First there was the plunge in the polls to a virtual dead
heat with President Carter, followed by the weeklong string of statements in which Mr. Reagan’s running mate appeared to be contradicting him on the key question of relations with China.” The coverage offered tempered criticism of his “disorganized” campaign, though the language of the article was not overtly negative. In September, the Times was less forgiving as the candidate prepared to rectify some of his most costly campaign mistakes. One report from that month read, “In a bid to get off the political defensive after a string of admittedly costly verbal gaffes by Ronald Reagan, the Reagan campaign shifted tactics today by sharpening its attacks on the Carter Administration and moving to protect the Republican nominee from further selfinflicted embarrassments on the stump.” The suggestion that Reagan needs protection from himself questions his suitability for the presidency. Now, just weeks before the November election, it appears Reagan holds an edge over Carter, despite the mixed media coverage of the campaign. A recent poll “that more Americans have now decided whom they will vote for, even though many are dissatisfied with the alternatives.” But Reagan shouldn’t celebrate just yet. The poll of 1,548 likely voters nationwide found “nearly 40 percent…said that Mr. Carter’s campaign had been vicious and mean-spirited, and almost half said he had handled the Presidency so
Ronald Reagan Early Life: Born February 6, 1911 in Tampico, Illinois. Education: Graduated from Eureka College, where he studied economics and sociology, played on the football team, and acted in school plays. Acting Career: Upon graduation from Eureka College, he became a radio sports announcer. He won a contract in Hollywood in 1937 and appeared in 53 films during the next two decades. When he became president Screen Actors Guild, he engaged in debates regarding Communism in the film industry, and his political views became more conservative. Political Career: He was elected Governor of California in 1966 by a margin of a million votes. Re-elected in 1970. badly that he did not deserve re-election. But the voters expressed concern that Mr. Reagan did not seem to understand the nation’s problems and that he might, intentionally or not, lead the nation into war,” as reported by the Associated Press. Though polls show Reagan in the lead, it is unclear whether a majority of Americans will ultimately place their faith in the Republican candidate.
Extra! Extra! Reagan defeats Carter in landslide electoral vote Katie Blunt Gov. Ronald Reagan was elected President today after an exceptionally negative campaign season. Reagan collected 489 electoral votes to President Jimmy Carter’s 49 votes and carried 51 percent of the popular vote to Carter’s 41 percent. He won several historically Democratic states. Shortly after the announcement of the results, the Washington Post said
the Republicans’ victory may “raise the possibility of a nation on the threshold of a major new political alignment.” The news of Reagan’s victory spread quickly around the world. The Wall Street Journal reported elation in Taiwan, caution in Peking, contradictory views in Iran, Arab disappointment and hope in many European countries. Cuba and the Palestinian Liberation Organization are extremely
displeased by the news, the report said. As the excitement of the landslide dissipates, the Washington Post cautions its readers to temper their optimism. A op-ed published said the final outcome of the election “has left Mr. Reagan with no clear policy mandate, and President Carter, despite his overwhelming defeat, without much public regret. And doubts about Reagan's lead- tion of a “nation on the it has also left our allies and ership in the future.” threshold” remains unceradversaries with profound At this point, the direc- tain.
Bush capitalizes on post-terrorist attack emotions in campaign for reelection Katie Blunt Since his campaign for reelection began in earnest at the beginning of the year, President George W. Bush has consistently pointed to his handling of 9/11 to bolster his image and his arguments. The theme has permeated newspaper, television and Internet coverage. In an article published in March, the president’s advisers told the Wall Street Journal that “the issue dramatizes Mr. Bush’s role as a leader and exploits the Republican Party’s traditional advantage with voters on national-security issues. It also might help him make a deeper, more emotional connection to voters by reminding them of his unifying role after the terrorist attacks of 2001.” Bush has chosen New York as the location for the Republican National Convention and run several television and web ads acknowledging his “solemn duty…to bring an enemy to justice before they hurt us again.” But many aren’t sure if Bush’s frequent allusions to 9/11 will help his campaign in the long run. Even some of his supporters “say that he risks alienating voters by
seeming heavy-handed,” as reported by the Wall Street Journal in March. When he’s not touting his strong leadership, he’s often attacking Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, in speeches and advertisements. Several media outlets, including have cautioned against this practice. A Wall Street Journal, article published in March noted, “The perennial danger of attack ads is that they can muddy the image of the candidate launching them as well as his intended target,” a fact former president Jimmy Carter knows well. In fact, this campaign season bears considerable resemblance to the 1980 contest between Carter and Ronald Reagan. Therapists have called the 2004 campaign “one of the most disturbing, hate-filled contests on record. Voters on the left [have] frequently admitted to fighting for Senator John Kerry’s election simply because they want ‘anybody but Bush,’” as reported by the New York Times. But “the Republican incumbent’s advisers are firing away nonetheless, convinced they have no time to waste in defining Mr. Kerry as a tax- raising, weak-
on-defense Democratic liberal,” according to the Journal article, suggesting Bush will put his image at serious risk this season. Bush has been consistently frustrated by the coverage he has received on TV, perhaps giving him more reason to carry out a campaign imbued with 9/11 imagery and anti-Kerry sentiment. He complained about a “60 Minutes” piece that aired two unauthenticated documents about his service in the National Guard. Dan Rather also aired the documents on “CBS Evening News” earlier that day. Rather staunchly opposed Bush’s criticism. “People who are so passionately partisan politically or ideologically committed basically say, ‘Because he won’t report it our way, we’re going to hang something bad around his neck and choke him with it, check him out of existence if we can, if not make him feel great pain,’” he told USA Today. “They know that I’m fiercely independent and that’s what drives them up a wall.” But Bush soon found another reason to complain. When CBS covered the Democratic National Convention, they deemed it “electric” and called its
speakers “rock stars. Five weeks later at the Republican National Convention, Rather called it a “post 9-11 security fortress.” Tom Brokaw of “NBC Nightly News” was unkind to the Republicans, as well, complaining that the RNC was trying to appease New Yorkers by using three modernist speakers to distract from the party’s “hard right” positions. With attack ads, media biases and controversial campaign tactics swirling around Bush and Kerry, it is unclear who will take the lead during an election dominated by Internet and television coverage.
2004 Electoral votes by state
George W. Bush Early Life: Born July 6, 1946 in New Haven, Connecticut. He had five younger siblings. When the family moved to Midland, Texas, his father, former president George H. W. Bush, entered the oil exploration industry. Education: Graduated from Yale with a degree in history and later received an MBA from Harvard. Political Career: Governor of Texas, elected President of the United States in 2000
Today’s Advertisement
Kerry attacks Bush’s 9/11 campaign Katie Blunt While President George Bush touts his leadership during 9/11 as his campaign focus, Kerry is spreading an economic counterargument that may resonate with voters feeling the pinch of a sluggish economy. “The new Kerry campaign mantra is ‘$200 billion’ — the price tag to date, according to Democratic estimates, for the invasion of Iraq and aftermath,” the Wall Street Journal reported in September. “By focusing on costs, and the cutbacks the war has forced in domestic programs, Mr. Kerry aims to change [Bush’s] equation.” Although he hasn’t utilized television and online advertising as quite as effectively as President Bush, Kerry has continually launched attacks against his opponent since the beginning of the year, a practice the Washington
Post gently criticized in a March editorial. “Rather than simply criticizing specific policies of the Bush administration, Mr. Kerry should emphasize the worldview it represents,” it read. “Mr. Bush favors tax cuts for business and the wealthy as the best way to bring about prosperity. He heralds individualism as the key to a healthy community. In his tenure America has retreated at home before our shared problems, but advanced alone abroad. If Mr. Kerry challenges this worldview, Mr. Bush will be forced to defend it.” Throughout the race, the two candidates have competed to wage effective Internet campaigns. The Internet was a powerful platform in the 2000 election, and it is even more powerful now. Polls estimate more than 40 percent of voters use the Internet to follow the campaign, a 20
percent increase from the last election. In some ways, Bush has beaten Kerry on the digital front. The Bush-Cheney campaign has cultivated online communities of supporters that knock on their neighbors’ doors and hold parties to encourage the incumbent president’s reelection. Bush’s email list has topped 5 million, almost twice Kerry’s list of 2.6 million. However, Kerry’s online ads have garnered a considerable amount of donations. He has received $82 million in contributions, while Bush has received only $14 million so far. But Kerry has an edge over Bush in regard to television coverage of his campaign. CBS’s often appears to blur the line between objectivity and subjectivity. Byron Pitts has consistently presented Kerry in a positive light during his
coverage of the campaign. The day Kerry accepted the presidential nomination, Pitts narrated a profile on Kerry that featured quotes only from Kerry, his wife and liberal columnist Tom Oliphant. “Tonight’s acceptance of the Democratic nomination is more than merely a day, it’s his destiny,” Pitts said. Election Day is now on the horizon, and the race it close. A Gallup poll found Bush leading 49 percent to 46 percent among likely voters, while a Quinnipiac University poll gave Kerry a narrow 46 percent-to-44 percent edge in the same group, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. How well the candidates argue their stances on the race’s defining issues — the war in Iraq, corporate governance, and the state of the economy — may very well determine the final outcome.
Katie Blunt President George W. Bush was reelected today after a drawn-out debate regarding voter fraud and voting procedure. Bush ultimately won 286 electoral votes to Kerry’s 252 and captured 51 percent of the popular vote compared to Kerry’s 48 percent. Kerry considered
contesting the election result in Ohio but ultimately conceded by calling Bush and declaring his defeat, as reported by the New York Times. Still, Kerry’s campaign advisers continued to stew on the voting procedures in Ohio, perhaps thinking of the recounting debacle that occurred following the 2000
election. “Incredibly, four years after the 2000 election mess, more than 70 percent of Ohioans still cast their vote on punch-card machines, whose hanging, pregnant and dimpled chads routinely disenfranchise as many as 2 percent, or more, of the voters who use them,” the New York Times reported.
“Many of the more than 130,000 Ohioans who were forced to vote on provisional ballots were registered voters who should have been on the rolls. The system did not melt down, but there were plenty of problems that showed its vulnerability.” Bush won nearly all the Midwestern and Southern States, while Kerry swept
the nineteenth were considerably more Throughout the course partisan. of three centuries, election Television played a large campaigns have remained role in the 1980 election. fundamentally the same. A majority of voters The candidates attacked received at least some of each other in speeches their election information and newspapers generally from television coverage, sided with one of the and the candidates candidates. What couldn’t quickly recognized the be said with words was power of television said in pictures, whether advertising. Ronald in a political cartoon, a Reagan’s wife Nancy television commercial or was the first candidate’s an Internet advertisement. wife to appear alone in That said, the types a televised campaign ad. of media used during She rebutted many of the each election added attacks President Jimmy distinct elements to each Carter had launched candidate’s campaign. against his opponents. Newspapers provided Internet was a powerful coverage throughout, force in the 2000 election, but newspapers in and it was even more
powerful in 2004. More than 40 percent of voters found election information online during the campaign season, and both candidates benefitted at least somewhat from online advertising. Bush’s advertisements encouraged voters to help with his campaign, and Kerry’s asked for campaign donations. Ultimately, though, candidates in all three centuries employed the same campaign tactics and media coverage generally revealed some sort of bias. The media have changed, but politics has not.
Extra! Extra! Bush beats Kerry, takes 33 states
John Kerry Early Life: Born Dec. 11, 1943 in Boston, Massachusetts. His father worked for the U.S. State Department and his mother was a member of the Forbes, an aristocratic American family. He spent much of his childhood abroad and attended boarding school in Switzerland and New Hampshire. Education: Graduated from Yale, where he was a top debater and president of the political union. He later studied law at Boston College. Military Career: Joined the Navy after his college graduation and served as a “swift boat” captain in Vietnam. He launched a successful counterattack against the enemy in 1969. For his service, Kerry was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts for being wounded three times. Political Career: Lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, U.S. Senate (Massachusetts) Source: PBS
New England and the West Coast. The Republican Party gained seats in the House and the Senate, as well.
Three centuries of elections in hindsight Katie Blunt