Boo! It's McGovern! Boogabooga! Aaaahhhhh!

One of the most significant figures in America today, George McGovern has earned the respect of countless individuals from all political viewpoints and all walks of life.

From his days as a student at Dakota Wesleyan University throughout his long and distinguished career in public service, George McGovern has never forgotten his roots. He was born in Avon, South Dakota, on July 19, 1922, the son of a Wesleyan Methodist minister. The family moved to Mitchell, South Dakota, in 1928, and George graduated from Mitchell High School in 1940. He was an outstanding student, and his proficiency in debate won him a scholarship at Dakota Wesleyan University in Mitchell, where he enrolled in the fall of 1940. There he met fellow student Eleanor Stegeberg of Woonsocket, South Dakota. George and Eleanor were married on October 31, 1943, and their five children were all born in Mitchell.

As a college student, McGovern was twice elected class president and won the state oratorical contest with the topic "My Brother's Keeper," an avowal of his belief in one's responsibility to humankind.

World War II interrupted McGovern's education in 1943. He flew 35 combat missions as a B-24 bomber pilot in Europe, earning the Distinguished Flying Cross. After the war he returned to Dakota Wesleyan University, graduating in 1946. McGovern then attended Garrett Seminary for one year before enrolling at Northwestern University in Chicago, where he earned his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in American history and government.

http://www.mcgovernlibrary.com/george.htm

Those who are ignorant of what it might have been like to fly 35 combat missions over Europe between 1943 and 1945 are invited to read a little goddamned history.

I'm so fucking sick of the use of "McGovern" as shorthand for "unelectable liberal" that I could spit. C'mon, centrists - read a little bit and then tell me why we can't afford to nominate a McGovern!

It's the BOOGIE MAN!!!!!!!!!


RUNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just what the media loves!

I didn't know all of that about McGovern, thanks for the info.

They can keep calling Dean McGovern all they want. I don't think it will stick.

Sorry, I was just inhaling the DLC...what were you saying?

and in second place is always Fritz Mondale. There are no two better public servents than George McGovern and Fritz Mondale. They did more for this country than many presidents even thought of. They were visionaries and dedicated to liberal principles. They willingly went up in 1972 and 1984 against presidents that most objective observers believe no Democrat could have defeated in the years they ran for re-election.

Good men and men we should all be proud to Associate ourselves with.

I lived through the '72 election and have never, before or since, been as utterly dismayed for the Democratic Party as I was that November night. It was one of our very darkest days and it is nothing to be sneered at as a bugaboo. It was dreadful.

I am not saying that any of the comparisons between the current crop of candidates and George McGovern are valid. Frankly, the circumstances today are far different, Bonehead is far different from Nixon, none of our candidates are anywhere close to as left wing as George, bless his heart (I voted for him, btw).

But my point is this: that election was a debacle that we still would not be over had Nixon not over-reached and devolved to the lowest common denominator. Nothing imaginary about it.

McGovern? Liberalism? Could it be, a horrid war and a really FUBAR society in 1972?

My first political memory is of watching Nixon resign.

The use of McGovern as "proof" that liberals can't win is still bullshit, Pepperbelly. I suspect that you know that.

You managed to miss this: "I am not saying that any of the comparisons between the current crop of candidates and George McGovern are valid."

hmmmmmm ... so what exactly was your point as it related to my post?

I get your point - none of the current candidates are necessarily McGoverns. Got it.

My point is that it's stupid and counterproductive to constantly fear - and paint candidates one doesn't like as - McGoverns and the McGovern-like. Do you get that? If so, what was your point as it related to my original post?

although my point was that what happened in '72 was very, very real and not something imaginary. That ass-whipping had me embarassed for a long, long time. I was in the service when Carter was nominated so I remember nothing from that campaign, instead spending the time on station in the Med.

But it truly, sucked and I would not recommend it to anyone who has not been through one like it. The word 'landslide' is pretty ugly when you're in front of it.

on edir ... spelling ... keyboard autopilot failed. :D

I don't have some idea that the '72 election was imaginary. I *do* reject the idea that it happened as it did because McGovern was some wild-eyed leftist and that, therefore, leftist politics in America don't work.

I was there, McGovern was my first vote -- back when you had to be 21 to vote.

It didn't leave me embittered or feeling defeated. It left me with an unshakeable determination to hold on to my principles no matter what. And to the best of my ability, that is what I have done for lo these many years...

sw

:)

that you could register to vote as an 18 year old.

Something about being old enough to be drafted to die for your country but not old enough to vote.

I ought to have made what I meant clearer. It was the first presidential election that *I* could vote in, and I was already 22 years old by then.

sw

I mean ... I could understand Nixon winning. He was the incumbent and although he had not ended the war as he promised, he did inherit it without a doubt. When he got it we were in mid-shitstorm. So I didn't expect the citizenry to hold him totally responsible for it. I expected some grief for him because of the bombing and invasion of Cambodia but not a lot.

He didn't get any.

McGovern was a very decent, intelligent, honorable man with an exemplery record of achievement. He should not have lost that badly. The Egleton/Shriver thing was unfortunate but not a deal breaker. Nixon's CREEP did a lot of 'rat fucking' during the election but that couldn't have accounted for the wave of support for Nixon.

The only thing tho ... waking up on the day after the election wasn't very pleasant although I do remember than as the Supreme Court effectively appointed Bonehead in 2K, the weather turned cloudy, windy and cold and then we were hammered with an ice storm. Omens are kinda tough to swallow but that one ... :shrug:

although I do remember than as the Supreme Court effectively appointed Bonehead in 2K, the weather turned cloudy, windy and cold and then we were hammered with an ice storm. Omens are kinda tough to swallow but that one

I don't particularly remember what the weather was here. We watched Gore's concession with the little girls across the road, told them that it was important, etc.

You're still missing my point, and it seems almost intentional at this point. Thirty-one years later, the McGovern campaign of 1972 is still - constantly - used as "proof" that a "liberal" campaign for president can't win in America. He's replaced Mondale and Dukakis (a moderate, no less) as the liberal beast hiding in the Democratic closet. Ask Al From, he'll tell you what a liberal mistake McGovern was.

Let me put it plainly. What I deny, and what you fail to address, is the idea that a liberal can't win the presidency in America.

Not ever.

Why would I defend something I haven't said?

concerned those who do say that. If you don't say that, then why bother with the thread?

add my impressions of the incident, don't I? And besides that, I have every right to hijack any thread I can.

:D

Let's not play games though. That said, I do appreciate you keeping the thread afloat. :7

you talking about? :shrug:

hijacking?

;-)

You're still helping my point. In our America, "McGovern" pretty much equals "communist" to most folks. Anything we can do to even out the understanding and make folks realize that McGovern is, in fact, synonymous with "patriot and war hero" is all to the good.

everybody knows that.

Except republicans.

My point, I suppose, was actually less of a hijack than a cogent and succinct comment on the danger of comparing elections. The times are always different, the total environment is different, the candidates are different, the cultural mileu is different, everything is different.

Except people and that election clearly demonstrated that there really just isn't any telling what the electorate might do. The size of the landslide astounded everyone. And no one, to my satisfaction, has ever managed to account for it.

you'd mind pointing this

My point, I suppose, was actually less of a hijack than a cogent and succinct comment on the danger of comparing elections. The times are always different, the total environment is different, the candidates are different, the cultural mileu is different, everything is different.

out to our dear compatriots who so enjoy the "any leftist is McGovern" meme, would you?

that's why I get so pissed off to see Dean being compared with McGovern.

Dean is not advocating a pullout from Iraq and Dean is not running as an "anti-war" candidate. He is running as someone that was opposed to THIS war!

But the DNC and the DLC has decided that the best way to stop him is to distort his views. And that makes me more "utterly dismayed" in this election than I was in the '72 election.

it's really really faded and yellow, but you can still see it. I'd go talk to him, but I think he's a little crazy by now. The rest of his windows are covered with stacks of newspapers or plastic bags full of god knows what.

what candidate in the race is a McGovern anyway. There ain't one, period.

Eloriel

and they change to meet the perceived threat. As I said the other day, if Paul Wellstone were alive and had run for the presidency, *he'd* be the "new McGovern". As it is, had Dean not garnered the support that he has, it would be Kucinich.

None of this has anything to do with the actual George McGovern, of course...

The media loves twisting the past this way.

We missed a lot in the loss of a McGovern Presidency.

Robert Kennedy too.

McGovern would have doubtless been a fine President. However, the same evil forces that are at work now were also in play at that time. How fascinating the the real losers are almost always Pugs.

I wonder how many of the "McGovern was a loser" folks are at all aware of the scope of the dirty tricks perpetrated by the Nixon campaign.

The phony "McGovern campaign" calls, where NIxon operatives telephoned voters and made totally outrageous statements purporting to be part of the McGovern platform.

Phony "press releases", and cancellations of McGovern campaign events made by Nixon operatives claiming to be McGovern campaign staff.

There was a great deal of ongoing harrassment, disruption and acts of sabotage against the McGovern campaign. Remember, George Herbert Walker Bush was already a bigtime insider, becoming chairman of the RNC when Nixon assumed the presidency. We are STILL dealing with many of the same (criminal) elements from the Nixon days holding tremendous power today.

If people think that the 1972 election was "free and fair", then they are living in dream world. The cabal of shadowy operators that saw to it that Dubya was installed in 2001, have been at work subverting our democracy for DECADES!

sw

I was going to mention all of that...and CREEP and whatnot...

Many Gen Y'ers (and even some of us X'ers) never got the load of why Nixon had to resign in our schools.

1972 was FAR from fair and had it been fair Nixon would not have won, period.

Keep in mind to win 72 the republicans had to

- Use Muskie stationary to disrespect other dems
- Make phony rallies, then cancel them
- When real rallies happened, put banners changing the location.
- Dig up dirt by breaking into prominent Democrat's psychiatrists' offices.


And to win in '68 they had to (UNPROVEN) kill RFK....

Sometimes I feel like NOBODY pays attention to this stuff!

The nice little dreamworld "America" that most people thought they were living in hasn't been the reality for a LONG time. The REAL coup happened on November 22, 1963. The villians have been consolidating their power ever since.

There was no way that the shadow powers were going to allow McGovern to win. He didn't lose because of who HE was, he lost because of the forces arrayed against him, who would stop at NOTHING to gain control.

sw

can someone fill me in on his views?

I only know two things about George McGovern:
1. Voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.
2. ran as an antiwar candidate in 1972.

Two words: John Kerry.

as far as I understand. He makes a nifty shorthand, though, for "unelectable, antiwar Democrat".

Should we be talking about Kerry as "the new McGovern"?

How come McGovern is considered a "disaster", and Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore are not? They all lost, and in this non-parliamentary system, that's all that matters. You could say McGovern didn't get a lot of states, but neither did Mondale (he got only 2).

Out of these 5 candidates, the moderates who lost are never "disasters", only the one who stood by his principles. Yet they all lost. I'd rather lose voting for someone who represented me, than compromise on the lesser of two evils, and STILL lose.

He basically said that he ran on what he believed to be true. He added, that given the outcome with Nixon, perhaps the country would have fared better had he won.

I liked George and I voted for him.

quinnox, anyone? I know y'all are out there.

Why can't we nominate a McGovern? Back up the meme!

don't you get it yet? since a 'liberal' hasnt been elected, that obviously means they are unelectable. :eyes:

I haven't been elected yet! That must mean that blue-eyed white men aren't electable!

:silly:

to describe someone as being unelectable. I agree with you. It distorts the issue and berates an incredible human being. But, I noticed that you used "centrist" in your post. Isn't that "shorthand" as well? Isn't this a little bit of the pot calling the....

Isn't that "shorthand" as well? Isn't this a little bit of the pot calling the....

Perhaps, but it certainly isn't the leftists on DU that sling around the "McGovern" label like a weapon. If the foo shits...

And I'll try to answer your question. When McGovern lost it all but destroyed the radical-left movement that was born in the 60's. It broke the heart and spirit of many people very much like yourself. Since few are weighing in on your post....and I can't speak for everyone....I suspect many that lived through that time don't want to do so again.

I appreciate that you understand the label issue. That's my main point here. However, I'm a leftist because I've made a point of keeping myself informed about American politics and it's simply what I believe. It has nothing to do with any 60s worship. I'm not reliving something I didn't live the first time around and I'm not asking anyone else to do so.

If the hippies of yesteryear are uncomfortable with left politics now, so be it.

McGovern is used not primarily because of his personality, but because he stands for us getting whipped.

Woohoo!

Care to back that up?

Well I usually use say "another McGovern" personally I mean someone who is going to get nailed in an election, for one reason or another. It usually happens to apply to a liberal who won't cater to the majority as well as someone else might, but in some cases it could be the total opposite. It applies to centrists in liberal areas. It applied to this girl Jenna who got beaten in the student council elections.

McGovern's circumstances were peculiar to McGovern and
to the time in which he ran. He bungled some things badly
(most noticably the Eagleton situation) and was made into
a polarizing symbol of the cultural upheaval of that time.

I'm proud to say I worked for McGovern here in PA but
the fact is he handled some things rather poorly.

I wrote about this for DU back in July:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/07/15_howard.html

McGovern became the lightning rod for the
conservative/liberal split INSIDE the Democratic
Party.

After the disastrous 1968 convention, the McGovern
forces captured the party machinery and used it
to disenfranchise corrupt ward-heeling Dem politicos.
This was an open declaration of civil war inside
the party.

The times being the 60s, anyone against corrupt
ward-heeling politicos became a "hippy, draft-dodging
freak". This was the beginning of the "Reagan Democrats".
The Democratic Party "big tent" started collapsing
right after the 68 election. Nixon ran on Kevin
Phillips' "southern strategy" and won. The GOP have
been doing it ever since.

----

How is this relevant to today?

Well, the DLC represents a corporate rightwing takeover
of the Democratic Party, historically the party of
labor, civil rights, and education. The DLC, in the
person of Holy Joe Lieberman, has already declared
civil war on "liberal" (read hippy, draft-dodging,
Bush-hating, freak) elements in the Democratic Party.
(Liberal elements in the Dems? That's like sugar in
Coca Cola.)

Calling Dean a "liberal" is classic psychological
projection, not to mention psyops dirty trick. It is
the DLC that is way too conservative for the Democratic
vote base. And it is the DLC that is trying to hijack
the party machinery.

McGovern teaches not that liberals can't win, but that
inter-party warfare can sink the Democratic nominee.
The DLC crowd has pulled the McGovern gun because many
of them are so tight with Bush that they probably don't
see any problem with Bush winning as long as they get
re-elected to kiss hiss *ss.

McGovern is a codeword that the DLC crowd uses to threaten
the party. Honest Dems need to be reminded that it was
conservative Dems voting GOP that let Nixon continue
his criminal administration and the Viet Nam quagmire
for another two years.

Whenever someone calls Dean, or any candidate, a McGovern,
you tell them the DLC is a re-run of Mayor Daley, Sr. and
all the crooked, corrupt ward-heelers who let Nixon win.


arendt

As someone who lived through those times, I really appreciate both of you bringing to light some of the salient FACTS of the 1972 campaign, as a counter to the knee-jerk cliches of the assumed "common wisdom".

The intra-party split is an especially important piece of information, absolutely essential to any honest evaluation of that election.

I also wonder if anyone who didn't live through those times can ever truly understand the incredibly overarching effect of the "culture war" that was sending convulsions throughout American society in the late 60's/early 70's.

sw

I lived through it. And times were totally different then. Comparisons between today and then in terms of a liberal Democrat suffering the same fate today are mere spin.

McGivern did not lose because we was "too liberal." He was not a great presidential candidate. But his defeat had more to do with the turmoil going on in the country -- and the Democratic legacy of Vietnam -- than with his ideas or character.

McGovern still has guts, brains and a heart. Anyone who read his piece in The Nation before the Vietnam, er, Iraq War earlier this year could see that he was telling the absolute truth with absolute clarity and honesty and guts.


We need that sense of clarity from real liberal leaders again.

We need that sense of clarity from real liberal leaders again.

Yes.

Yeah, that's what we need more of....I'm sorry, I LIVED through it and the hell that followed. I love George McGovern and I pray that we never again nominate anyone as far to the left.

The saddest part is, McGovern actually thought he was going to win until the final days. He's a great man, but an incredibly bad politician and candidate. Save me from the ideologically pure.

that McGovern lost because of his actual position on the American politial spectrum. Please.

He's a liberal fer chrissake. He's not a raving socialist or anything beyinbd the pale. He also happened to be absolutely correct on Viet Nam.

Save me from people who have forgotten what ideology is.

on my old cassette recorder ... directly from the TV ...

also, have hard copies of McGovern's acceptance speech and Ted Kennedy's speech ... packed away in the garage ...

he gave several "issue" talks directly to the American people on TV as part of his campaign ... I really should try and save them on another format

some DUers may have never seen a real convention ... the last Democratic platform floor fight was probably in 1980 ... the Republicans went to their convention in 1976 not knowing for sure who its nominee would be ... Ford vs. Reagan ... much of all the laundry is done these days before the gavel comes down so most is all nice and tidy for the viewing public's consumption

The convention of the future, pre-tested by focus groups and edited by Hollywood, is a high-tech sales pitch. Technology has trumped tradition.

"I personally regret it, but I think it's inevitable," says 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern, who has attended his party's conventions for four decades. "You could see it coming: TV, marketing, computerizing - all the things that go with modern salesmanship."

http://cgi.usatoday.com/elect/ec/ecd/ecd100.htm

1972 (Miami Beach)
Due to a long vice presidential roll call, Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern is unable to deliver his acceptance speech until almost 3 a.m. ET.

The National Women's Political Caucus challenges the South Carolina delegation on the grounds that women were underrepresented. The challenge, designed to increase the number of women in the delegation, is defeated by a 1,555.75 to 1,429.05 vote.

The McGovern campaign regains control of the entire California delegation by a 1,618.28 to 1,238.22 floor vote that overturns an earlier decision by the credentials committee to strip McGovern of 151 of the state's 271 delegates. The committee's decision had been issued in response to a challenge to California's winner-take-all primary law. McGovern's victory on the California credentials challenge helps ensure his nomination.

A report recommending the seating of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's delegates is defeated, 1,486.04 to 1,371.56. Daley and 58 other Illinois delegates had been unseated prior to the convention by a 71-61 credentials committee vote.

Martha Mitchell, the wife of Republican Attorney General John Mitchell, receives 0.84 votes for vice president.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/democratic/features/convention.history/#1972

We were camping in the Appalachians the night McGovern was nominated, stayed up very late in our tent and listened to his speech on radio. That was the second presidential election I voted in and I've never regretted voting for a good Democratic progressive like George McGovern. It's the one vote I've always been proud of.

"Dean's a McGovern Liberal" means a good thing to many of us. The same label means something vile to a "rightie", and some centrists hear the slur and believe the lie.

It doesn't require inquiry, or study, or verification - SOME people will just nod their heads and hearing it as a slur and THINK they know what it means.

Read some of the nasty name-calling stuff on the right-wing web sites - or even here. The intent appears to be a desire by the writer to impose a feeling, not share knowlege.

Don't take it personally, you're just bring "yanked"

Now, if we could just respond to the reason behind the attack.....

Ignorant people use the name "McGovern" to symbolize unelectable Democratic candidates. McGovern wasn't "unelectable"...he had the multiple misfortune of:

1) Personifying, for a great majority of centrists and right-leaning voters, the radical libs and student agitators that the Nixon crowd so effectively demonized.
2) Running against an incumbent who, in the 10 months preceeding the election, achieved a dual foreign policy masterstroke of detente with the USSR and establishing relations with China...the effect at the time was stunning, especially as the die-hard anti-communist Nixon was seen as the architect
3) Suffering from both his own missteps (ex. the Eagleton debacle) as well as those speedbumps placed by Nixon's "ratfucking" team. All these years later do we truly understand the absolute ruthlessness and criminal behavior of these thugs and their assault on our electoral process

McGovern did lose in a landslide and I can understand the resulting despair over the '72 election. But, for Christ's sake, it's not like McGovern addressed the Democratic National Convention in a dashiki and bell-bottoms, smoking a joint, yelling about kicking out the jams, motherfuckers. McGovern was (and is) an honorable, decent man who's endured both war and the tragic loss of his daughter with dignity, humor and an indefatigable spirit of public service.

If you want to describe an unelectable candidate, than call him or her "unelectable". Don't drag this man's good name down in your ignorance.

He is still fighting the bastards today. The late Stephen Ambrose really liked him and I remember Mark Shields wrote a great article on him. I think Mac once said it was his experience in war when many of the guys never went home that made him oppose it well I am not a vet but I think thats a good reason to be dovish.

named Tom Eagleton who was nominated for VP to give the ticket some balance. A moderate from a border state who was liked by George Meany and the AFL-CIO as well as Mayor Daley and the big city bosses, it slipped Eagleton's mind to tell McG that he had a history of mental illness and receiving shock treatments. Times were greatly different then, today such a candidate if he came out with candor and honesty and admitted such things probably wouldn't have been disqualified. Nevertheless, McG went from being behind Nixon by a solid, but not overwhelming, 53-37 percent to 64-30 behind in the polls and never recovered.