Salon smears Dean as McGovern

[Classical_Liberal]

writen by a "The New Republican" John B Judis

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/11/dean/index.html

I don't personally subscribe to the new republic for a reason, and I am not inclined to resubscibe to Salon since they have become the online edition.

[Tanketra]

1. Whoever wins the nomination will be the new McGovern

Insofar as they will have a corrupt administration spending tax dollars in a below-the-boards attempt to rig the election.

But hey, if we just move to the center, the GOP will stop cheating ... right?

[w13rd0]

2. That sound you hear is my applause...

...nail on the head there...

Who ISN'T trying to pain Dean as the next McGovern? I definately think one should counter with your retort. That'll stop them in their tracks ;)

[Friar]

3. I saw this too

Pisses me off they run that crap without a rebuttal alongside. Of course, I kinda sighed when they started running Andy.

Fuck fair and balanced! They aren't, why should we be?

[DemoTex]

4. Some smear. McGovern was a WWII hero. Can you say "backfire?"

George McGovern was a B-24 pilot in WW2. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. McGovern was the hero that the wannabees will never be.

[JasonBerry]

16. Thank you!

I reply to another McGovern smear by a DU poster below. My point-by-point reply is post #15.......

Thanks again for pointing out the REAL George McGovern.

[charlie]

5. Short version

No Democrat can beat Bush, only Bush can beat Bush. If the Democrats get lucky and he fucks up, they must be ready with one of their more "bland, faceless, less exciting" candidates to maximize chances for success.

Crimeny, Salon paid him for that advice. No wonder they're perennially broke.

[NJCher]

6. huh?

If the Democrats get lucky and he fucks up...


Cher

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[charlie]

8. Hunting freepers, are we?

Put your capgun away and read the article I lifted the phrases from.

[WCGreen]

9. First of all, most of the crap about McGovern doesn't

Even come close to explaining the truth.

Remember, he had to jetison Eagleton, his first pick for VP when it was discovered Eagleton had undergone shock treatment....

It showed he was incapable of making a good decision...

Also, there was contention in the party. The nomination didn't occur until way after midnight in the east. He gave his acceptance speech afer 1:00 in the morning.....

It was a disaster from start to finish.

The AFL-CIO bolted and supported Nixon.

The South totally went over to the GOP.

No, to say it was because he was anti-war is too simplistic....

Also, the party was split badly. It was a very contentious primary season and it was the first time the party embarked on so many primaries. They effectiviely, the McGovern people, toke all the power away from the traditional brokers and gave it to the people. And that was when the boys in the smoke filled rooms took a pass on teh democratic nominee. They still supported their local congress people but wrote McGovern off...

It wasn't about the war at all, it was about forced change coming to the democratic party and alienating a whole bunch of people who put their personal interests over the good of the party.

I remember, I was a memebr of the youth for McGovern or some other such organization that I can't remember the name of.

It was, in the terms of the times, a hoot-n-anny.........

[Bandit]

10. And that is exactly what they are threatening today

If Dean is allowed to give the power to the people the boys in the smoke filled rooms eg. DLC will whelch from giving their support. The people will still want Dean but the power brokers will help to defeat him just as they are doing now and as they did to Mcgovern. It wasn't Mcgovern who let the party down it was yesterday's equivalent to DLC

[Eloriel]

17. Oh dear

I hadn't thought of it that way.

Hmm.

I do know Dean is simply DANGEROUS. He's dangerous to ALL those forces who do NOT want The People to have their rightful place in the grand scheme of this government. Sadly, those forces do include plenty of Democratic "power brokers."

Eloriel

[OrdinaryTa]

14. Why McGovern Dumped Eagleton

Remember, he had to jetison Eagleton, his first pick for VP when it was discovered Eagleton had undergone shock treatment....

It was reported as shock treatment, but it was probably a drying-out clinic. Eagleton was drunk driving all over the state, and they finally nabbed him before he killed somebody. He agreed to enter a rehab, and the records were amended to suggest he'd sought help for stress-related mental problems. This cover-up would not have survived a presidential campaign, and Eagleton would have been a major liability.

Bush drove drunk all over Kennebunkport, and like Eagleton, became a menace on the roads. The local DA finally had him arrested before a gory accident happened. Bush was said to be knocking them back with Don Newcombe, the Australian tennis player, on the day he was arrested. It was not two or three drinks. Bush was shit-faced.

[JasonBerry]

15. Point-by-Point Reply To McGovern Smear

May I reply to the smear against Senator Mcgovern by WCGreen?

In defense of George McGovern:

Remember, he had to jetison Eagleton, his first pick for VP when it was discovered Eagleton had undergone shock treatment....

Senator McGovern has said on many occasions it was one of the toughest decisions he ever had to make and never was comfortable with it. However, with times the way they were, he was told he would stand no chance with a man with "mental illness" a heartbeat from the presidency. The information was NOT provided to the McGovern campaign before his selection. McGovern said he would stand behind Eagleton. As the hours ticked by it was clear, he could not continue with Thomas Eagleton. Damn shame - but that was just the truth.

It showed he was incapable of making a good decision...

Please. If anything, it showed he was able to process the information and at great loss of face do what was best for the Democratic ticket. McGovern was not known for making "bad decisions." In fact, he was right on so many things - in hindsight for many - they're too numerous to mention. His decision-making won him the Distinguished Flying Cross in WWII.

Also, there was contention in the party. The nomination didn't occur until way after midnight in the east. He gave his acceptance speech afer 1:00 in the morning.....

You are correct. They were still trying to run a convention like a convention instead of a made-for-TV mini-series which is what they are today. It was the last of the old-style conventions. It wasn't "all on cue" and for McGovern, the late speech was a disaster.

The AFL-CIO bolted and supported Nixon.

Yep! And why did the AFL-CIO bolt??? Because the party had brought in too many minorities and women and they were represented at the convention as opposed to a white-male club. George Meany was a racist and a war monger supporting Vietnam to the biter end.

The South totally went over to the GOP.

Thanks to one of the most elaborate dirty-tricks campaigns in history. Remember? McGovern was tagged the candidate of Amnesty, Acid and Abortion. They spent money like there was no tomorrow on smearing a man of the highest integrity. Acid? It was ridiculous - but the dirty-tricks throughout that campaign were criminal. We later learned it was literally criminal.

No, to say it was because he was anti-war is too simplistic....

Very true. However, to pin all of the above you wrote on McGovern is a slap in the face to one of the great Democrats of our time. A man who had the guts to stand up and be counted for traditional Democratic values and open the party to all people, regardless of race, gender or age. If that was such a bad thing and it cost McGovern the election - so be it. He opened the doors for representation to more than just white males.

It was, in the terms of the times, a hoot-n-anny.........

I beg to differ. It was a campaign of inclusion that was the victim of horrible dirty-tricks and an old-line party apparatus that felt "intruded upon" by the inclusion of people who finally had a voice in the party. I also worked for George McGovern's campaign in 1972 - I am most proud of my work in Senator McGovern's campaign. I'm sorry you felt it was nothing but a "hoot-n-anny." Many, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, cut their teeth on real politics working for this great and honorable man.

- Jason Berry
edit for spelling error

[charlie]

19. I think

maybe you've worked yourself into a high dudgeon over nothing. Try reading WCGreen's account without the presumption that he wants to harsh on McGovern, and you'll see that it's merely a concise summary of why those who blame the senator's liberalism for his loss are wrong. You can rightly argue that the "incapable of making a good decision" bit is unfair, but to characterize the rest as a smear is reaching.

[DemBones DemBones]

21. Thank you for saying this, Jason. It needed to be said and it

may need saying a good many more times. McGovern didn't win the election but McGovern is not a loser but a fine Democrat who deserves respect.

Of all the votes I've cast in presidential races, going back to my first vote in 1968, my votes for George McGovern in primary and general election are the only ones I take real pride in. In other years, I simply voted for the lesser of two evils.

More than thirty years after voting for McGovern with pride, I will again take real pride in voting, this time in voting for Dennis Kucinich. Some DUers have said, and are continuing to say, that Kucinich can't win and he would be "another McGovern" for our party (and that we should vote for whichever candidate they feel is "electable.")

Like McGovern, Kucinich is a real Democrat who focuses on issues important to the majority of the American people, not to the owners of corporations. FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ, RFK, would all recognize Dennis Kucinich as a fellow Democrat., while recognizing Bill Clinton as an Eisenhower Republican and some of the current crop of "Democratic" candidates as being farther to the right than Clinton or Eisenhower.

Those who own corporations don't want a real Democrat in the White House and they will fight Kucinich, using their whores in the media, so it will be up to us to get the real message out.

[WCGreen]

23. It wasn't a smear....

It was just a reminder to all of the people who simplify what actually happened into bumper sticker analysis.

Look, I supported Mcgovern. I also know that when Eagleton was given the boot from the ticket, IT WAS THE MEDIA THAT WAS TELLING US HE COULDN'T MAKE A DECISION.

The democratic party was going through a major upheavel at the time, not a good scenerio for a party challenging a strong incumbent. I don't care how altruistic the reasons for the opening of the party were, you still couldn't nor should you, walk in and push people who have been in power and have held the party together for years out of the way.

It was a wrong decision to make at the time. I still stand by that conclusion.

It was a hoot-n-anny when the people who were blinded by alrtuism put their beliefs over the good of the country. We are still feeling the effects of that disasterous convention and campaign.

Would I still vote for McGovern. You bet. Do I respect McGovern. You bet. But know this, Bill and Hillary took lessons from that experience. They realized how important it was to be an insider and to work with those who fancy themselves insiders. It's the way politics works on the personal level.

Do I respect the DLC? No. They remind me of the Rockefeller republicans who were blindsided by the Goldwater conservatives.

I don't blame McGovern. I blame Gary Hart who was very high in the campaign and put together the reorganition of the party.

It was not a high spot for my party. Should all the reforms have been enacted. Yes, but all of that probably should have been put on hold until an incumbant democrat was running for reelection.

[JohnKleeb]

24. Jason for your defense of a fine man thanks that was great

The AFL-CIO mostly always lean dem and McGovern was a fine man and I dont think John Sweeney would endorse Nixon hes the current head.

[JohnKleeb]

25. Jason for your defense of a fine man thanks that was great

The AFL-CIO mostly always lean dem and McGovern was a fine man and I dont think John Sweeney would endorse Nixon hes the current head.

[JohnKleeb]

26. Jason for your defense of a fine man thanks that was great

The AFL-CIO mostly always lean dem and McGovern was a fine man and I dont think John Sweeney would endorse Nixon hes the current head.

[WCGreen]

27. DK is my congressman, I worked with him

for years and I respect him. I can also call him a friends as we have known each other for over fifteen years.

I just spoke with one of his largest contributors over the years and he feels that although DK doesn't have much of a chance, he is still supporting him to try and innoculate the party from Nader.

[trogdor]

11. Identifying problems without offering solutions.

That is what I slammed Salon for in my letter to the editor. I told them they should leave the "Democrats Can't Win" type of op-eds to the major "dead trees" newsweeklies and people like George Will.

I DO subscribe to Salon, mainly because about 85% of what's in there isn't corporate bullshit. I don't have to agree with everything they print; if I did, I probably wouldn't read anything at all. The right wing has a place for people on that side of the fence who don't want opposing viewpoints, and that place is the Fox News Channel.

My guess is, there are a lot more people like me who will write in, and there will be a representative sample of these letters in tomorrow's edition which will say either (1) "Judis is full of shit, and this is why," or (2) "Judis makes some good points, and this is what we can do to mitigate these problems." Either way, I highly doubt Salon is about to be taken over by dittoheads anytime soon.

[Classical_Liberal]

12. I've noticed the New Republic trend since they hired Andy Sullivan

Their take on the Iraq war really made it clear. They treated the protesters terribly and failed to notice they weren't kneejerks or old hippies, like with the Afghanistan part of the conflict. Then they started hawking various war liberals, mostly from tnr as offering a fressh perspective to the left. They haven't always been this bad, but I won't support this trend. It is true there is nothing to replace the old Salon, but then it is already gone as far as I am concerned. My two year investment is up soon and it wont be renewed baring some change. It isn't like the staff of TNR don't already monopolize the pundit position on TV under the moniker "liberal". The only think I am paying for is Conason. It is turned into corporate bullshit.

[northernsoul]

13. Ok, Judis now officially has me confused

I have not had a chance to read his "The Emerging Democratic Majority" yet, so I'm basing this off the word on the street:

I thought the premise of his book with Texiera was that College educated professionals who are socially liberal but fiscally a little tighter with the checkbook than traditional New Dealers will ultimately be the electoral salvation of the Democratic party.

Now, Judis comes out with this article that basically says that Dean will doom the party because he exemplifies the exact same people that are supposed to constitute The Emerging Democratic Majority. Am I getting that right or am I just going crazy after two and a half years of B*sh?

Hey Jiacinto, what do you make of this?

[Rich Hunt]

18. i haven't read the book...

But I've perused it. If you have a look at the reviews on Amazon, for example, that's not the thesis of the book - in fact, I think it's quite the opposite.

[northernsoul]

20. well, here's one of the reviews I found:

Book Description


"A LONGER TREND...IS LEADING AMERICAN POLITICS FROM THE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY OF THE 1980s TO A NEW DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY. DEMOCRATS AREN'T THERE YET, BUT BARRING THE UNFORESEEN, THEY SHOULD ARRIVE BY THE DECADE'S END." -- from the Introduction


At the end of the 1960s, Kevin Phillips, battling conventional wisdom, correctly foretold the dawn of a new conservative era. His book The Emerging Republican Majority became an indispensable guide for conservatives through the 1970s and 1980s -- and, indeed, for all those attempting to understand political change at the time. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, with the presidency and the House in Republican hands, political experts John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira convincingly use hard data -- demographic, geographic, economic, and political -- to forecast the dawn of a new progressive era. Their book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, is the indispensable guide to this era.

In five well-researched chapters, the authors show how the most dynamic areas of the country are trending Democratic. Once the party of the Rust Belt, Democrats are now the party of Silicon Valley and of North Carolina's Research Triangle. Once the party of Archie Bunker and Ralph Kramden, the Democrats are now also the party of professionals, working women, blacks, Asian-Americans, and Hispanics.

These new Democratic voters embrace what the authors call "Progressive centrism." They take umbrage at Republican calls to privatize social security, ban abortion, and cut back environmental regulations. They are leery of subjecting science and the family to fundamentalist religious precepts. They welcome the free market as a spur to growth and initiative, but they don't want companies to be free to pollute the environment, mistreat their workers, or defraud their stockholders.

As the GOP continues to be captive to the religious right and K Street business lobbies, The Emerging Democratic Majority is an essential volume for all those discontented with their narrow agenda -- and a clarion call for a new political order.

<bolding and italicizing by me>

So according to this synopsis, Dean is the absolutely the man for the Emerging Demo Majority once he does a better job getting more minorities on board the Dean campaign. I don't understand why Judis is ripping him, sounds to me like Dean will be the standard-bearer for Judis and Texiera's theory.

[Mike_from_NoVa]

22. Well then maybe we need to start up the idea of smearing Bush as Nixon

After all, Nixon did win, but he won as a result of dirty tricks and racist codes like "the silent majority". He got caught lying about what he knew and when he knew it and was forced to resign not two years into his second term. An embarrassing, scandalous and horrible time for America.

Wouldn't it be a great ad to show clips of Nixon accepting the renomination with the haunting, bone-chilling chants of "Four More Years" from the Up With People Young Republicans in their red white and blue outfits and cute straw hats? Four more years huh? Then what happened? Scandal. Division. The horrors of Watergate. Vote Democrat and spare the nation the horror of reliving a nasty long drawn out impeachment. Man would this be a powerful ad!

Look, they're going to cast the Democrat nominee - Dean or whoever - as McGovern. It's inevitable and we will not be able to control that. Looks like even Judis (who REALLY should know better) is going to play along. (maybe he's dealing with employment issues at TNR)

So here's the counterstrategy. Accept the McGovern label but push push push for the Nixon comparison as well. It's no stretch.