Eagleton Revisited
When, in 1972, George McGovern had wrapped up the Democratic nomination very late in the process, he then turned to the question of the Vice Presidential running mate. He asked Ted Kennedy, as related by Rick Perlstein in his terrific "Nixonland." Kennedy turned him down.
Then McGovern asked Abe Ribicoff, and was turned down again. Time began to run out. Because of credential fights and general disorganization, the McGovern campaign hadn't vetted a large number of people. They loked into Leonard Woodcock, president of the UAW, but his Catholic credentials proved suspect when someone reported he had not been to mass in 20 years. They decided on Kevin White, mayor of Boston, but Ted Kennedy put the kibbosh on that. They moved to Gaylord Nelson, who said no but suggested Tom Eagleton. He had been in the Senate for three years but was almost unknown even to politically savvy people. Rumors reported that Eagleton had a drinking problem, but that McGovern's people did check out, and found no support.
With all the false starts, failed offers, and poor vetting, perhaps it was inevitable that McGovern lost the ability to obtain a rubber stamp approval from his own convention. The delegates nominated, among others, Chub Peabody, Sissy Farenthold, Mike Gravel (Alaska! He seconded his own nomination), Hodding Carter, Peter Rodino, and a Dallas disc jockey. Eagleton in a three-hour roll call got only 58% of the votes. Others garnering votes included Jerry Rubin, Mao Tse-tung, and Archie Bunker.
Ultimately, of course, Eagleton did not stay on the ticket.
Hypocrisy Update:
Forget the daughter.
Governor Palin herself, who supports “abstinence only” as government policy, was having premarital sex and got pregnant before marriage back in 1988, according to the NY Times:
"The Palins eloped on Aug. 29, 1988, and their first son, Track, was born eight months later ..."
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02palin.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&hp&oref=slogin
“Abstinence only, for thee and not for me.”
But she attends fundamentalist Churches and assures everybody else that she is pro-abstinence only (now, but not for herself in 1988).
The hypocrisy boggles the mind.
September 2, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dr. Steve,
you just don't get it; Just say NO!
September 2, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget Eagleton.
Ain't ga happen.
It would be admitting defeat right now and the GOP won't go there.
The way Republicans do it is the Checkers speech. It was before my time, but it's all there in Rick Perlstein's Nixonland. Ike was ready to dump Nixon because of popular/media pressure, but he let Nixon sink or swim. He sold himself in that damned speech with that damned cloth coat and we've been living in Nixonland ever since. Nixon was good at that sort of thing.
So is Palin. If she can sell herself to the public, she stays, and having watched her these past few days, that is one thing she does very well. She's on, abandon all your dreams and speculations otherwise, all your wishful thinking, and get down to the job of beating McCain/Palin.
And there's a plus side here: the GOP has made this bed and has to lie in it. Stop trying to get her off the ticket, this could be good. And if they DO decide they must drop her, better it happens after the convention.
September 2, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
sTiVo,
I think she hurt McCain with the undecideds and the Indies. She probably cost him between 1 and 2 percent. She helped him with the wingnuts but they were his anyhow.
note: I'm horrible at predicting political races.
September 2, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The trouble with we Democrats, we're reality based." (the Big Dog)
Generally, when we make a mistake we start backing away from it, and fairly quickly.
The other guys tend to strongly characterized their worst errors as sound decision making. And, a huge segment of the press stands by to back them up. This is why Sara Palin is likely to stay on the ticket.
On those who think, that Palin's experince is a deep as Obama's: Can they read a resume? Can they read? They seem to be functioning somewhere below the level of Dilbert's boss.
But, again, we live in a world of spin. Spin by a small, controlling and narrow group. Note, it's the more petty Palin issues that are getting the reportage, crowding out the more important ones, and setting the stage for their ultimate dismissal.
September 2, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eagleton and Palin are not comparable. Of course, you know that, Reed, or you would have gone into details about Eagleton and why he withdrew. Or maybe you're just a sensitive guy and wanted to spare any Eagleton family still around.
If it turns out that Sarah Palin has a history of mental illness and has received shock treatments, she'll withdraw. If anything else turns up that could affect her performance if she is elected, she will withdraw. Otherwise, I'm afraid you're stuck with her, not because McCain can't admit he made a mistake, but because she locks up the evangelical base and energizes them even more than Bush did in 2004. We remember how that turned out.
In addition to the evangelical base, she may be appealing to the blue collar constituency that Obama so desperately needs to court. She is the poster child for the "rubes clinging to their guns and religion." So how does Obama court those voters while tearing down one of their own?
Sarah Palin is a rook on our seventh. She's a bone in our throat.
September 3, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
billy,
i agree that palin will energize the fundys to turn out in greater numbers than they would have, had mccain done the responsible thing and picked someone actually qualified to take over.
so he picks up votes and shores up his base.
however, he can't win with just the fundys in a big turn out election, there's just not that many of them, but to the extent that they keep john in the race, they keep the pressure on for a big turnout.
obama knows this thing hinges on turnout so he's built the best ground game around.
what palin will not do, is pull in the independents, thus, game, set, match for obama barring any major game changing events.
No way Palin will withdraw unless some "un-vetted" issue comes up.
September 3, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, and you may be right. However, I believe the evangelical church ground game trumps Obama's black church ground game. More of them. I also believe McCain will get the blue collar vote now. I don't see how he can get it back. They're the ones he lost with his "bitter" comments and the Republicans are going to let Palin carry that message plus the glass ceiling message.
In a glimpse of things to come -- although it was really a no brainer for anyone who was paying attention instead of tossing red meat to the choir to build clicks -- McCain has announced an ad devoted to showing that Palin is more experienced than Obama on every level.
Axelrod has to be depressed. He knows Rove plays chess, not checkers, but apparently Palin came in under his radar. Now that she's in the game, Axelrod has to change up his game plan and watch them prove that their VP is better qualified than our Presidential candidate. There is nothing worse than seeing a move that you can't do anything about.
We have to win without the Reagan Democrats and outwork a fire-up evangelical base. I'm going to work for Obama, but I'm going to hedge my bet by buying McCain on Intrade. :)
September 3, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's the Black Churches who are running Obama's ground game. He's actually opening up field offices and funding phone banks, along with MoveOn's phone banks that always donate some hours to, and putting get out the volunteers on the ground.
IOW, he's funding it to make it happen.
As for this being a chess move by rove, i just don't see how it gives mccain the votes he needs if dems turnout big for obama, which I believe will happen.
September 3, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink