Tag Archives: George McGovern

political news

VP’s ego might keep him out of race

My desire to see Vice President Joe Biden join the Democratic Party presidential primary race remains intact.

I want him to run and I want him to provide a serious challenge to presumed frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

However, I haven’t been around Washington, D.C., the way the writer of an attached blog — Carl Leubsdorf — has been, so I respect his notion that the vice president has some serious hurdles to clear in deciding whether to run.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20150803-carl-p.-leubsdorf-8-problems-that-await-a-biden-candidacy.ece

Hurdle no. 3 jumps out at me. It’s Biden’s presidential campaign track record.

Does he want to be known as someone who’s tried three times to get his party’s nomination, only to fall flat on his face? I doubt it. His ego won’t allow it.

I mention his ego because of something the late Sen. George McGovern — for whom I cast my first vote for president in 1972 — once wrote. He said the first thing a successful politician needs is a massive ego. That’s where it starts, he said.

I am betting Joe Biden’s ego doesn’t take a back seat to anyone else’s.

He once sought the 1988 Democratic nomination, but got derailed before the primaries began when it was revealed that he had lifted huge portions of his stump speech from a British pol, Neil Kinnock. Americans laughed at the then-senator from Delaware as a copy-cat.

He ran again in 2008, but got swamped by Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama then rewarded his former foe by picking him to run for vice president — and then after the election he turned to the other rival, Clinton, and appointed her secretary of state.

Hillary Clinton has enlisted an enormous political army to assist her. Biden is facing a serious challenge in getting up to speed relatively late in the primary game.

The ego thing well might prevent him taking the leap a third time.

Unless … something happens to Clinton’s presumed invincibility. As Leubsdorf writes:

“But a more realistic path for him to become the Democratic nominee might be to avoid a divisive fight, back Clinton and, if any of several ticking time bombs sinks her candidacy, step in then to save the Democratic day.”

That, indeed, would provide plenty of balm for the vice president’s ego.

political news

Crowd size is overrated … trust me

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich is blown away by the size of the crowds greeting Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders as he campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Here’s what Reich posted on Facebook: “What amazes me, frankly, are the crowds. Not since Robert F. Kennedy sought the Democratic nomination in 1968 has a candidate for the nomination of either party generated such large numbers of people eager to see and listen to him. None in living memory has summoned such crowds this early, before the nominating season even begins. Even Sanders’ advisers are amazed (I spoke with one this morning who said they never expected this kind of response).

“What’s the explanation? It’s not his sense of humor. It’s not his youth. He isn’t a demagogue, bashing immigrants or pandering to hatred and bigotry. It’s that he’s telling Americans the unvarnished truth about what has happened to our economy and our democracy, and he is posing real solutions. And it seems that America is ready to listen.”

I guess I need to remind Reich — who I’m sure is aware of a lot more than I am — about a reality.

It is that big crowds don’t translate necessarily into votes.

The late U.S. Sen. George McGovern drew big crowds as well when he ran for president in 1972. I stood among a throng of thousands of people in a plaza in downtown Portland, Ore., as McGovern fired up the masses. That crowd was big, boisterous, enthusiastic — and it mirrored many of the political rally crowds McGovern was drawing all across the nation.

Sen. McGovern lost the election that year by 23 percentage points, as President Nixon rang up a 49-state landslide victory.

Yes, Sanders is telling voters his version of the “unvarnished truth.” Indeed, RFK did much the same thing in 1968 as he sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Kennedy’s message was different; it dealt more with issues of the heart, such as peace abroad and justice at home for all Americans.

Sanders’s crowds are impressive. Let’s remember, though, that he remains a still-distant second to the Democrats’ frontrunner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who’s got another all-important edge over the rest of her party’s primary field: money.

We now live in an era where money matters far more than massive crowds.

political news, State news

Can HRC carry Texas in '16? Not a chance

I’m enjoying reading the stories about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s many friends in Texas organizing her presidential campaign, some of whom are deluding themselves into thinking she actually has a chance of winning the state’s 38 electoral votes in November 2016.

Do not hold your breath.

The Texas Tribune article attached here looks back when she and her boyfriend, William J. Clinton, worked diligently to register Democratic voters who, they hoped, would make the 1972 party nominee, George McGovern, president of the United States.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/16/clintons-take-texas-1972/

One of their better friends was a young man named Garry Mauro, who went on to serve as Texas land commissioner from 1983 until 1999. Mauro said he knew McGovern was going to lose Texas in 1972. I’m guessing the young couple — Clinton and Hillary Rodham — knew as well.

I figure these days, Hillary Clinton’s best hope is to make Texas competitive. Even that’s a long shot.

The last Democrat to win the state was Jimmy Carter in 1976. It’s been downhill for Democrats ever since. Two years later, Texans would elect the first Republican governor since Reconstruction — and that’s when the tide began to turn from solid Democrat to even more solid Republican.

I figure, though, if Clinton — who I will presume will be the Democratic nominee — can make any inroads with her party’s natural constituency, African-Americans and Hispanics, then the Republican nominee will have to spend more time and money on Texas than he otherwise would spend.

Democrats keep talking about their hopes for turning the state into a political battleground.

So far, though, it’s just talk.

 

political news

Sanders sounding like a non-candidate

It’s not a stretch to equate running for president to deciding to get married.

You’d better be all in on both counts, or else you’re doomed to fail in both endeavors.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who sounds like a left-leaning Democrat, now says he’s not so sure about running for president, which many liberals in his party want him to do.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/bernie-sanders-isnt-so-sure-about-this-2016-thing-116031.html?hp=l3_3

Don’t hold your breath on this one, lefties. I don’t think Sanders is going to do it.

“If I run it has to be done well,” Sanders said in an interview with POLITICO this week. “And if it’s done well, and I run a winning campaign or a strong campaign, it is a real boon to the progressive community, because I believe that the issues I talk about are issues that millions and millions of people believe in. On the other hand, if one were to run a poor campaign, didn’t have a well-funded campaign, didn’t have a good organization, did not do well, because of your own limitations, then that would be a setback for the progressive community.”

Sanders is sounding, with those comments, as if he’s full of doubt about whether it’s worth it.

Politico noted that he hasn’t raised much money, has hired virtually zero key campaign advisers, has done next to no groundwork in any of the early crucial primary and caucus states.

Now he’s talking like someone who seems to question whether he has the fire in his gut to go all the way.

The late Sen. George McGovern once said that the first thing a presidential candidate needs is a huge ego. Sanders likely possesses the requisite ego to mount a campaign. He needs the rest of it — all of it — to make it a reality. I’m talking about commitment.

 

political news

Texas seeks a voice in '16 contest

It’s good to be one of the Big Dogs when it comes to electing presidents of the United States.

Texas is big. And on March 1, 2016 the state is going to have its primary election, meaning that it’s going to be one of the first states to select delegates to the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

http://www.newser.com/article/ab00f4db33c14188a5a6ab79ba90bbd5/in-unusual-twist-the-presidential-race-is-already-afoot-in-texas-changing-the-2016-outlook.html

The state is going to be a player in the next presidential election cycle, judging by the early interest by a gang of potential GOP candidates who are coming to the state in search of cash and even some votes.

In an interesting twist, several of the potential GOP candidates have strong Texas ties.

* Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was born here; his dad, former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, has run for president twice already while serving as a congressman from the Houston area.

* Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush also is a Texas native; his son, George P. Bush, has just taken office as state land commissioner. Jeb’s brother, George W., was Texas governor before being elected president in 2000 and his dad, George H.W., served in Congress from the Houston area before he was elected vice president in 1980 and then president in 1988.

* Ted Cruz represents Texas in the U.S. Senate.

* Rick Perry is a former Texas governor and holds the record for longevity in that office.

And for the Democrats? Well, some folks have tried to suggest that Hillary Rodham Clinton has a Texas connection, too, having worked with her husband, Bill Clinton, as Texas campaign coordinators for the late Sen. George McGovern’s presidential campaign in 1972.

Aw, what the heck. Let’s allow her to claim some Lone Star State roots, too, shall we?

As the Associated Press reported: “Traditionally, opening the campaign with small states has allowed the candidates to concentrate on connecting with highly motivated groups of voters rather than wooing the masses, and gradually building momentum. Adding an early behemoth like Texas makes a difference. More than 150 delegates to the GOP nominating convention are at stake in one place, dozens more than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada combined. And Texas’s 270,000 square miles requires more campaigning by television across 20 cash-draining media markets.”

Welcome back to the Big Show, Texas.

 

political news

Campaign button brings back cool memory

Cleaning and rearranging my desk this week brought me in touch with a memento of a long-ago event that means much to me to this day.

It is a campaign button, given to me not many years ago by a gentleman — a friend of mine — who had a similar political coming of age at the same time.

It is a McGovern-Shriver presidential campaign button.

I cast my first vote for president on Nov. 7, 1972 for Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota and former Peace Corps director Sargent Shriver of Maryland. McGovern was the presidential nominee selected at a tumultuous Democratic National political convention in Miami; his running mate, Shriver, wasn’t his first pick, as you’ll recall. The first selection was Sen. Thomas Eagleton of Missouri, who then revealed he had gone through treatment for depression; McGovern dumped him because at the time the public didn’t understand fully that Eagleton was cured of whatever ailed him.

But that was a vote of which I remain perhaps most proud of all the votes I’ve ever cast for any candidate running for any office.

I was nearly 23 years of age. The Constitution had been amended the previous year granting 18-year-olds the right to vote. But because the voting was still 21 when I was 18, I couldn’t vote in the 1968 election — even though I had a keen interest in that contest.

My own interest came from uncertainty about the Vietnam War and whether we were engaging in a conflict that was worth fighting. I had just returned home from my own service in the Army and came away from my time in Vietnam asking questions about the wisdom of our continuing along that futile course.

There also was that break-in at the Watergate office complex that would grow into a significant constitutional crisis.

Sen. McGovern was a war hero who rarely mentioned his combat service along the campaign trail. Meanwhile, his Republican foes kept denigrating his opposition to the Vietnam War as some sort of chicken-hearted cop-out. This man knew war. He’d fought it from the air as a bomber pilot in Europe during World War II.

McGovern’s opposition to the Vietnam War didn’t sell in the final analysis. Even though public opinion was deeply split on that war, McGovern would lose the election almost immediately after the polls closed. The TV networks declared President Nixon’s re-election literally within minutes of the polls closing.

It was over. Just like that.

I had taken on a duty for the McGovern campaign in my home state of Oregon. I helped spearhead a voter-registration effort at the community college I was attending. Our task was to register young Democrats to vote that year. We did well on the campus.

As a result — I’d like to think — Multnomah County went for McGovern narrowly over Nixon that year. Mission accomplished in our tiny portion of the world.

I’ve voted in every presidential election since. This was the first — and so far only — election in which I served as a foot soldier in a cause in which I believed. By the time 1976 rolled around, my journalism career had just begun. Therefore, all I could do was vote.

The campaign button reminds me of how idealistic I was in those days. It also reminds me of how much energy I possessed as a young man who saw politics as fun, exciting and quite noble.

Age has rubbed some of that idealism and energy away. But only some of it.

 

 

national news, political news

GOP readies for internal fight

One of the many forms of conventional wisdom in the wake of the 2014 mid-term election goes something like this: Republicans, flush with victory at taking over the Senate and expanding their hold in the House, now face a fight between the tea party extremists and the mainstream wing of their party.

Let’s go with that one for a moment, maybe two.

I relish the thought, to be brutally candid.

The likely Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, may be looking over his shoulder at one of the tea party upstarts within his Republican caucus, a fellow named Ted Cruz of Texas.

Cruz wants to lead the party to the extreme right. McConnell is more of a dealmaker, someone who’s been known to actually seek advice and counsel from his old friend and former colleague, Vice President Joe Biden. Cruz, who’s still green to the ways of Washington, wants to shake the place up, seeking to govern in a scorched-Earth kind of way. He wouldn’t mind shutting down the government again if the right issue arises. McConnell won’t have any of that.

So, will the battle commence soon after the next Congress takes over in 2015.

Lessons unlearned doom those who ignore them.

Republicans have been through this kind of intraparty strife before. In 1964, conservatives took control of the GOP after fighting with the establishment. The party nominated Sen. Barry Goldwater as its presidential candidate and then Goldwater got thumped like a drum by President Lyndon Johnson.

They did it again in 1976, with conservative former California Gov. Ronald Reagan challenging President Ford for his party’s nomination. Ford beat back the challenge, but then lost his bid for election to Jimmy Carter.

To be fair, Democrats have fallen victim to the same kind of political cannibalism.

In 1968 and again in 1972, Democrats fought with each over how, or whether, to end the Vietnam War. Sens. Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy challenged LBJ for the nomination in 1968. Johnson dropped out of the race, RFK was assassinated, McCarthy soldiered on to the convention, which erupted in violence and Democrats then nominated Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who then went on to lose to GOP nominee Richard Nixon.

Four years later, the Democratic insurgents nominated Sen. George McGovern after fighting with the party “hawks.” McGovern then lost to President Nixon in a landslide.

So, what’s the lesson?

History has shown — and it goes back a lot farther than just 1964 — that intraparty squabbles quite often don’t make for a stronger party, but a weaker one.

Bring it on, Republicans!

 

 

Uncategorized

Political discourse needs cleansing

5 Comments

This is what has become of honest-to-goodness political discourse in this country.

Or so it appears.

A Fox News talk-show host has compared liberalism to a “disease,” such as Ebola.

That’s the spirit, Eric Bolling, of the so-called “big tent” philosophy preached by your pals on the right and extreme right wing of the political spectrum.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/06/foxs-bolling-calls-liberalism-a-dangerous-virus/201037

This kind of rhetoric is beneath contempt. Sadly, it seems to illustrate what has become of the state of political discourse in the United States. It’s “our way or the highway.”

Before you accuse me of being a liberal shill who’s taking on the righties of our great country, I want to toss a haymaker at the lefties as well. Listen to the tone of their commentary regarding those on the right. It is equally painful to hear. It suggests that conservatives are out to starve the very young and the very old, take away Granny’s retirement income and send our young men and women off to war with no clear purpose.

There once was a time in this country when conservatives and liberals could argue about ideas without trashing the other side. They were patriots of the first order. They loved their country. They merely argued over the best way to make lives better for all Americans.

***

All of this reminds me of an interview I witnessed on what was then called the “MacNeill-Lehrer News Hour” on PBS.

Jim Lehrer was interviewing two genuine war heroes: liberal Democratic former U.S. Sen. George McGovern and conservative Republican former U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater. They were commenting on the nastiness of the 1988 presidential campaign and wondered aloud to each other why liberals and conservatives no longer got along when they were off the clock.

These two political giants had earned their spurs the hard way. They both were aviators during World War II and had served heroically while fighting tyranny. They were friends and political adversaries. They shared a bond forged by fierce combat.

Goldwater became the father of the modern conservative movement in America, while McGovern became a champion for social justice and along the way became a hero to progressive all across the land.

It was at the end of the interview that Goldwater pitched an idea to McGovern: “Why don’t we run together, as a ticket, George. You and me.” McGovern and Goldwater then laughed out loud at the seeming preposterousness of the idea.

More than a quarter-century later, I wish it could have come to pass.

Uncategorized

Ford had it right on Nixon pardon

A friend posed this question on Facebook in response to my blog post on the 40th anniversary of President Nixon’s resignation.

He asked about my thoughts relating to President Ford’s pardon of Nixon barely a month after taking office on Aug. 9, 1974.

Here it is: President Ford did the right thing.

I’ll add that at the time I didn’t agree with the decision to grant a full and complete pardon. I was barely 25 years old at the time and I suppose I wanted my pound of flesh from the former president. Nixon, after all, had clobbered Sen. George McGovern in the 1972 election, dashing my hopes after working for McGovern in Multnomah County, Ore., and after casting my first-ever vote in a presidential election.

That was then.

Time, as they say, has this way of tempering one’s anger.

It has done so with me.

I grew to respect Gerald Ford immensely over the years. I now understand why he did what he did so early in his presidency. He did it to spare the nation the heartache of a possible trial for crimes that President Nixon committed against the nation, the Constitution and, yes, rank-and-file Americans.

I wasn’t alone in looking critically at the president’s decision to pardon his immediate predecessor. Nor am I alone in recognizing President Ford’s decision.

Not too many years before his death, President Ford received the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award granted annually by the JFK Library and Museum in Boston. The man who presented the award to the former president was one of his harshest critics at the time of the pardon: the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Kennedy turned to Ford and said, in effect: “Mr. President, I was wrong to criticize that decision.”

The president did perform a courageous political act. It well might have cost him his election to the presidency in 1976.

It was the right thing to do.

Uncategorized

Tea party winning as it's losing

It’s time to give credit where it most definitely is due to the tea party wing of the once-Grand Old Republican Party.

Even when it loses it wins.

Take the race for U.S. senator in Mississippi this week. Sen. Thad Cochran beat back a stout challenge from tea party Republican Chris McDaniel. But did Cochran campaign in the GOP runoff on his ability to work with Democrats, or on his ability to funnel lots of money to his home state? Oh no. He campaigned on his conservative record — which he has established — and by telling Mississippians that he’s as conservative as they are.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/weakened-tea-party-takes-more-punches-n140851

I am no longer paying much never-mind to these predictions of the tea party’s death, resurrection and death yet again. The tea party wing of the GOP has won the debate.

It has dragged normally thoughtful conservatives into the rage pit right along with them. U.S. House Speaker John Boehner is as “establishment Republican” as they come. Now, though, he’s suing President Obama because the president has taken some executive action that has angered the tea party wing of the GOP. That means Boehner is mad, too.

Here in Texas, tea party Republican state Sen. Dan Patrick yanked Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst so far to the right that Dewhurst never got his legs under him or found his voice. He looked and sounded awkward trying to be as out there as Patrick, who’s smooth, articulate and glib. Patrick beat Dewhurst in the Texas GOP runoff.

Across the state, Republicans are sounding more alike all the time — meaning they’ve adopted the do-nothing mantra so popular among tea party officeholders in Washington.

There once was a Republican Party with pols who could work well with Democrats. Two come to mind immediately: the late U.S. Sen. Everett Dirksen of Illinois and former U.S. Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas. There’ve been others, but those two men stand out in my own mind. Dirksen was pals with President Lyndon Johnson and helped LBJ enact civil rights and voting rights legislation in the mid-1960s. Dole was a dear friend of the late Democratic U.S. Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota. It helped that the two men both were World War II heroes and had a shared bond of military service. They also worked hand-in-hand on anti-hunger legislation.

Dole and Dirksen would be laughed out of the Senate chamber today.

The tea party’s strength can be seen in the debate that’s raging within the Republican Party — if you want to call it that when virtually all Republicans now are singing off the tea party song sheet.

The tea party, therefore, is winning, even when it’s losing.