George McGovern: A Campaign Fiasco That Wasn't (Why should I be ashamed about 1972?)

The Washington Post ^ | Wednesday, February 4, 2004 | George S. McGovern

[presidio9]

had not expected to be involved in this year's presidential campaign. But almost daily my name is mentioned by some commentator, usually as a warning of what candidates should avoid. One gets the impression that the campaign of 1972 is the only one whose shortcomings are worth noting.

Is the central lesson of '72 that George McGovern lost everywhere except Massachusetts and the District of Columbia? If so, what is the lesson of 1984, when my friend Walter Mondale lost everywhere except Minnesota and the District? Is the lesson of these campaigns that Midwestern liberals can never reach the White House?

I don't think so. Mondale and his Minnesota mentor, Hubert Humphrey, who, like me, was defeated by Richard Nixon, were U.S. patriots of unquestioned integrity and ability. (They might say the same about me.) I wonder whether even a Jefferson or Washington could have defeated Ronald Reagan in 1984 or Nixon in '72. Any Democrat running against these heavily financed incumbent presidents would probably have lost (though some still think that the Democratic contenders Mondale and I defeated in winning the nomination would have been stronger than we were in the general election).

[dwd1]

This is true but as you know, it was also the point where we no longer believed or trusted the government regarding the progress, status, or conduct of the war...

It was, without a doubt, the beginning of the end.... Of course, the French Journalists who slanted things and the South Vietnamese intel guy who blew away a Viet Cong on camera....That probably didn't help...

[krb]

Do you know which Bomber he flew? My grandad served as a navigator on the B-24 "Squirrely Shirley." That's why I ask...

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"By 'we' do you mean Conservatives or Americans in general? Do the initials FDR ring a bell?"

Touche.

Even so... FDR had four terms to do his damage. Nixon had a term and a half, and in that time it's arguable that he did more damage than even FDR. I mean, Federal wage and price controls, for heaven's sake! That wasn't just a mushrooming socialist entitlement, that was a fascist's fondest fantasy. And I'm having trouble coming up with something FDR did that blew as big a hole in the Constitution as the establishment of the EPA, which turned the interstate commerce clause into a metastatizing cancer.

So, we can argue. Both men were Bad News for the cause of liberty in America.

[You Dirty Rats]

I never understood why there were so many people who hated Nixon until I saw a tape of the Checkers speech about ten years ago.

I know it saved him politically, but it was truly a pathetic speech, especially when viewed these many years later.

Brilliant politician and among the most knowledgeable Presidents we've ever had in foreign affairs and history, but he definitely had a flawed character.

But McGovern ... when he was nominated and all those hippies went crazy on TV, I was truly frightened!

[Vigilanteman]

Is winning an election worth dishonoring the nation?

I give McGovern and Mondale their due for not trying to paint themselves as something they weren't and for going down with a blaze of glory when America rejected their Liberalism.

Both men were a cut above Bill Clinton who would answer "yes" in a heartbeat to the above question. Even if I don't agree with them, I give them their due.

[Rummyfan]

The title of the book is THE WILD BLUE and the name of McGovern's plane was the Dakota Queen.

[gg188]

I was there, George McGovern, and it WAS a fiasco.

[foreverfree]

bump

[NYCVirago]

Critics also overlook my opponent's unprecedented campaign spending. Most of his negative television ads were designed to paint me as an extreme radical uninterested in the defense of the country. This even though I was a decorated combat bomber pilot in World War II, while Nixon was stationed far from battle.

McGovern is being a bit disingenous here. He himself didn't highlight his own war experience then, because his own party would have found it revolting. It wasn't until Ambrose's book many years later that most people even heard about his WWII experience.

[185JHP]

I remember the "Demogrants." An idea so nasty and so nutty it amazed me. And cemented my vote for RN.

[metesky]

FDR was much worse than Nixon could ever hope to be. By 1938 the Revolution was over, without firing a shot.

[metesky]

This is true but as you know, it was also the point where we no longer believed or trusted the government regarding the progress, status, or conduct of the war...

Sure, because by then even the most dedicated of us on the home front realized that the war was being fought on a purely political basis with no intention of crushing the enemy. Though we were winning handily, the rules of engagement were such that territory taken in the morning would be abandoned before nightfall, there were hotbeds of enemy activity where the military was not allowed to pursue and our native commies were winning the propaganda war at home.... Well whole books have been written about the war and we both know the list of errors could go on endlessly.

It was, without a doubt, the beginning of the end.... Of course, the French Journalists who slanted things and the South Vietnamese intel guy who blew away a Viet Cong on camera....That probably didn't help...

Ya, this was certainly the time when "reporters" transformed into "journalists", each trying to outdo the other in the quest for prizes and fame. The reporters should have been embeds, but instead were allowed to wonder freely anyplace they damn well please and send out copy without censorship.

I see the same thing happening with reporting from Iraq now that the "embeded" phase is over for the journos.

[presidio9]

FDR had four terms to do his damage. Nixon had a term and a half, and in that time it's arguable that he did more damage than even FDR. I mean, Federal wage and price controls, for heaven's sake!

Nope. Not even close. Nixon's measures were temporary fixes to economic problems that bordered on the ones FDR faced when he took office. We are still paying the price for many of FDR's "solutions" to this day.

[presidio9]

hero

???

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"Nope. Not even close."

Okay, okay, FDR wears the crown.

But while I've got you going, who was the more statist, corrupt and and government-expanding President: Nixon or Clinton? Hmm? ;-)

[presidio9]

President: Nixon or Clinton? Hmm?

There's no "hmm" either. Clinton's 1998 tax increas (the largest in our nation's history) put an end to our greatest economic expansion, and heralded our most recent recession. He also established restrictive tariffis with several of our European and Asian trading partners, tried to break up Microsoft, and helped spearhead the Kyoto treaty.

I can see that you didn't like Nixon, but the only recent Democratic President who compares favorably to him on the Domestic front is JFK (a disaster internationally).

[metesky]

I'll go with Clinton for the reasons stated here.

[Finalapproach29er]

He was a great bomber pilot in WW II. Read Ambrose book for details.

[presidio9]

He was a great bomber pilot in WW II. Read Ambrose book for details.

I have read everything Ambrose ever wrote. In the contest of politics, Mondale was definitely not a hero.

[Finalapproach29er]

Talking about McGovern. Read title.