Former Sen Eugene McCarthy

[Len Colby]

John,

Thanks for the interesting article

Len

My comments in bold

This article by Marie Cocco in Newsday (13th December, 2005) is worth reading as it links McCarthy's campaign in 1968 with the events in Iraq.

When Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a decorated Vietnam veteran and longtime defense hawk, called recently for a quick withdrawal from Iraq, the White House denounced him as adopting the policies of "Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party."

A GOP Congress woman even called him a coward as if wanting to send others to their deaths is an act of courage

...

You do not have to have backed McCarthy in 1968 to see the parallels to Vietnam, with its shifting military goals and the empty promise of "peace with honor." But there will not now be another McCarthy.

Hopefully she's wrong about that. I still have my hopes up for 2008 (and '06)

...

In truth, the bitter legacy of Eugene McCarthy - a man who stood on principle for a cause larger than himself - is that he has been succeeded in politics by men who lack principle, and have as their cause themselves.

This unfortunately is true, as much as I fevently backed Kerry my impression of him is that when it came to descions between principle and political expediency he all too often chose the latter

Many people criticized RFK for jumping into the race after McCarthy's success in NH for deviding the anti-war vote. I would be interested to hear the opinions of members of this forum.

-Was Kennedy wrong for entering the race?

-Could McCarthy have won the nomination and election if RFK hadn't entered the race?

Len

[William Kelly]

Many people criticized RFK for jumping into the race after McCarthy's success in NH for deviding the anti-war vote. I would be interested to hear the opinions of members of this forum.

-Was Kennedy wrong for entering the race?

-Could McCarthy have won the nomination and election if RFK hadn't entered the race?

Len

Len, I was one of the Clean for Gene, children's campaign, 17 years old and didn't know what I was doing.

I certainly liked my candidate and didn't like it when RFK joined the fray. An opportunist, I thought.

The New Jersey primary was around the same time as the California and Oregon primaries, and was overhsadowed by California.

I was shocked and saddened when my father woke me up that morning and told me RFK was killed.

Even at the convention in Chicago [60s Flashback #237], the Kennedy forces put up their own man - George McGovern, rather than back McCarthy, which I still don't understand.

The real powers that be wouldn't let McCarthy get the nomination let alone the election. McCarthy was too smart and independent.

During Ted Kennedy's 1980 campaign RFK, Jr. came to South Jersey and through my friendship with Stockton College professor Joe Walsh, I drove Bobby, Jr. around South Jersey to poliltical meetings, the black radio station where he did a live interview, and a fundrasing party, after which he stayed at my home in Ocean City. I told Bobby I was a McCarthy kid and how I felt about his dad, but there was no hard feelings.

I wrote up my "Reminiscences of the 1968 Campaign and the Chicago Riots," which details my conversion from a do goody liberal to an independent radical, if interested.

Like I said though, I was a 17 year old who didn't know what I was doing.

So the answer to your questions are No and No.

BK

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

[Mark Knight]

It was my impression at the time that McCarthy went into Chicago with the best chance to claim the nomination, if he was only able to corral the RFK delegates into his corner. But the Kennedy people wanted to distance themselves from McCarthy, for whatever reason. Personally, I thought that RFK and McCarthy were on the same side, but that Bobby had a slight edge in the charisma department...call it the "Kennedy Mistique," the "Camelot factor," or whatever. I wasn't a Kennedy supporter exactly, but his extemporaneous speech in Indianapolis on the night of April 4th, shortly after the MLK assassination, showed me a level of substance to the man that I hadn't noticed before [hell, it may not have existed before].

But McCarthy was the frontrunner, by most accounts, going into Chicago. And then all hell broke loose, both on the convention floor and in the streets of Chicago...and McCarthy, I thought, was robbed of a nomination that rightfully should've been his at that point. I still have my "Kennedy for President" button with Bobby's picture, but...in all honesty, he wasn't my first choice.

And McGovern? I wasn't aware of him as a serious candidate in '68...and in '72, other than being the anti-war candidate, he seemed totally out of touch with Middle America. [Of course, McGovern's "guaranteed annual income" proposal, derided as communistic at the time, has evolved into the ever-popular "earned income credit" today...go figure.] I suppose the nation just wasn't ready for "McGovern-ment," either in '68 or '72.

I think that Gene McCarthy would've probably beaten Nixon in '68, had McCarthy obtained the nomination...but I suppose we'll never know, will we?

[John Simkin]

And McGovern? I wasn't aware of him as a serious candidate in '68...and in '72, other than being the anti-war candidate, he seemed totally out of touch with Middle America. [Of course, McGovern's "guaranteed annual income" proposal, derided as communistic at the time, has evolved into the ever-popular "earned income credit" today...go figure.] I suppose the nation just wasn't ready for "McGovern-ment," either in '68 or '72.

As someone involved in radical politics in the 1960s (in the UK) I thought Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern both lacked a great deal in the charisma department. The Republicans were aware of this and that it why they were not too heavily criticized as they were the best people to take on in a election. After all, Nixon's dirty tricks campaign was all about getting McGovern as the Democratic Party candidate. Both Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King did have charisma. That is why they were dangerous and could not be allowed to live.

[Ron Ecker]

It remains a mystery to me why Robert Kennedy ran for the nomination, taking it away from McCarthy, in 1968. As John states, he "could not be allowed to live." Didn't Robert know that? He certainly was not a stupid man. Did he have a genuine death wish? I will never understand it.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The December 11, 2006 "New York Times" reports the death, at 89, of former Sen. Eugene McCarthy, whose dramatic showing in the New Hampshire primary caused LBJ to decide not to seek re-election in 1968.

Once again Mr. Gratz is flat wrong. It was the March 16 announcement by RFK that led to LBJ's withdrawal a couple of weeks later. LBJ had earlier beaten McCarthy in New Hampshire EVEN THOUGH LBJ HAD NOT EVEN DECLARED HIMSELF A CANDIDATE IN THAT RACE. RFK was a very different matter.

BTW, I was not living in the US in those days, but long-time researcher Paul Hoch told me that by late '67/early 68' the JFK assassination was one of the hottest topics on late night talk radio and callers repeadedly questioned whether LBJ was behind the murder and cover-up (of course many still do).

Ron Ecker writes: "It remains a mystery to me why Robert Kennedy ran for the nomination, taking it away from McCarthy, in 1968."

I think that, based on the New Hampshire showing, RFK calculated that, given the enormous power of incumbency, McCarthy would not beat LBJ, nor would any other Democrat except himself.

No doubt David Talbot's forthcoming book will shed much light on these issues.

BTW I have never seen any historian note the coincidence that March 16, 1968, the day RFK announced his plan to unseat LBJ, was also the date of the My Lai massacre.

As for Eugene McCarthy, he was by all accounts a middling poet, a middling politician and an all-round decent guy. May he rest in peace.

[Ron Ecker]

Ron Ecker writes: "It remains a mystery to me why Robert Kennedy ran for the nomination, taking it away from McCarthy, in 1968."

I think that, based on the New Hampshire showing, RFK calculated that, given the enormous power of incumbency, McCarthy would not beat LBJ, nor would any other Democrat except himself.

My point was not about political calculations. It was about life and death. RFK should have been intelligent enough to know that his brother's killers would not allow him to become president. That is why I don't understand his running unless he truly had a death wish. And even if he had such a wish, what about the pack of children he would leave behind fatherless?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

[quote name='Ron Ecker'

My point was not about political calculations. It was about life and death. RFK should have been intelligent enough to know that his brother's killers would not allow him to become president. That is why I don't understand his running unless he truly had a death wish. And even if he had such a wish, what about the pack of children he would leave behind fatherless?

Ron, with the greatest respect I think your point is based on hindsight bias (cf. any modern textbook on cognitive biases). I have never heard that RFK's brother or any of his sisters, for example, thought he was in any particular danger at the time nor did any of his many political advisers.

Everything is forseeable after the fact.

[Ron Ecker]

Ron, with the greatest respect I think your point is based on hindsight bias (cf. any modern textbook on cognitive biases). I have never heard that RFK's brother or any of his sisters, for example, thought he was in any particular danger at the time nor did any of his many political advisers.

That may be so. Then why did the third brother run for president, after the first two had been executed? Still no hint of danger? Plus there was Teddy's own narrow escape in a small-plane crash (a time-honored method of political assassination) in the mid-'60s. (And some believe that he was set up at Chappaquiddick.) What does it take for a person, or at least for a Kennedy, to get the message?

[Mark Knight]

The appeal, to many people, of the RFK campaign was on several different levels. As a brother of a president, as well as a member of the cabinet, it could be assumed that Bobby knew how to structure a presidency and how to fill a cabinet with qualified people...the old "been there, done that" thing, as he had helped his brother do just that. And with the Garrison investigation gathering momentum in the press, the Kennedy name was once again in the headlines...a positive, as far as political campaigns go. Bobby knew that '68 was probably "now-or-never" for his own presidential campaign...as Teddy's '80 campaign proved, the passing of time--combined with the unanswered questions from Chappaquiddick--meant that the Kennedy name just didn't carry the same magic later that it did in '68.

McCarthy awoke the passion in the younger Americans, but he really didn't awaken much of anything in older voters. While he came across as intelligent, to some Americans that put him in the same category as Adelai Stevenson...smart, but not exactly electable.

In MY mind, a Kennedy/McCarthy ticket would have made Nixon a loser once again.

But after Bobby's death, McCarthy's campaign seemed to lose direction. Sure, there was still the war in Vietnam to campaign against, and LBJ, and Nixon...but after June 6th, 1968, it just seemed that McCarthy's heart was no longer in it. Before Bobby's death, it was obvious that McCarthy wanted the nomination, and wanted the presidency; afterwards, it was as if McCarthy was having second thoughts...or at least that's how it appeared to me. Maybe he was questioning whether the presidency was worth dying for [or in pursuit of]. But McCarthy's confidence, at least in my own eyes, evaporated after Bobby Kennedy died.

Did anyone else see it happen that way?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ron, with the greatest respect I think your point is based on hindsight bias (cf. any modern textbook on cognitive biases). I have never heard that RFK's brother or any of his sisters, for example, thought he was in any particular danger at the time nor did any of his many political advisers.

That may be so. Then why did the third brother run for president, after the first two had been executed? Still no hint of danger? Plus there was Teddy's own narrow escape in a small-plane crash (a time-honored method of political assassination) in the mid-'60s. (And some believe that he was set up at Chappaquiddick.) What does it take for a person, or at least for a Kennedy, to get the message?

What does it take for a person, or at least for a Kennedy, to get the message? That question has an edge to it that I frankly do not like and that seems completely out of character for you. It seems to put you on the side of the assassins, and I'm sure that could not have been your intent.

This thread has gone a long way from Eugene McCarthy, but if I understand you correctly Ron, you are now arguing that not all the Kennedys were stupid and only Ted was a fool to run for President.

I agree that Ted's campaign was misguided because, unlike Bobby in 1968, Ted had no good reason to usurp Jimmy Carter, the leader of his party. But I do admire his courage in that campaign precisely because of what had happened to his brothers.

[Ron Ecker]

What does it take for a person, or at least for a Kennedy, to get the message? That question has an edge to it that I frankly do not like and that seems completely out of character for you. It seems to put you on the side of the assassins, and I'm sure that could not have been your intent.

Why would I be "on the side of the assassins"? All I was saying is that the Kennedys didn't seem to get the message that most people would get. Maybe with Robert it's only "hindsight bias." But again, why did Teddy run? The only thing that saved him from the fate of his brothers was Jimmy Carter.

if I understand you correctly Ron, you are now arguing that not all the Kennedys were stupid and only Ted was a fool to run for President.

That pretty well sums it up, though I still feel Robert was rather foolish too.

I agree that Ted's campaign was misguided because, unlike Bobby in 1968, Ted had no good reason to usurp Jimmy Carter, the leader of his party.

You can say that again. Walter Cronkite asked Ted why he wanted to be president, and Ted couldn't even answer the question.

Edited December 17, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[Tim Carroll]

Walter Cronkite asked Ted why he wanted to be president, and Ted couldn't even answer the question.

In 1980, Roger Mudd was the CBS reporter who conducted the interview in which Ted stumbled so badly over the question of why he was running. Wikipedia particular notes that interview here:

He lost substantial credibility in November 1979 during the week his campaign was officially launched, when he was widely ridiculed in the press following an interview with Roger Mudd on CBS News Special Reports. When Kennedy was asked by Mudd: "Why do you want to be President?", he was unable to provide a straightforward answer.

T.C.

Edited December 17, 2005 by Tim Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Walter Cronkite asked Ted why he wanted to be president, and Ted couldn't even answer the question.

In 1980, Roger Mudd was the CBS reporter who conducted the interview in which Ted stumbled so badly over the question of why he was running. Wikipedia particular notes that interview here:

He lost substantial credibility in November 1979 during the week his campaign was officially launched, when he was widely ridiculed in the press following an interview with Roger Mudd on CBS News Special Reports. When Kennedy was asked by Mudd: "Why do you want to be President?", he was unable to provide a straightforward answer.

T.C.

Let me once again come to Ted Kennedy's defense: George W. Bush, for example, has never, to my knowledge, given a coherent answer to ANY question he was ever asked, yet the same T.V. & Media people who castigated Ted ensured that "W" was elected and then re-elected to the White House. Ted Kennedy, on the other hand, coherently explained why it would be supreme folly for the U.S. to invade Iraq, and the coffins and cripples that come home daily - which T.V. is not allowed to show you -- prove that he was right.

[Tim Carroll]

Walter Cronkite asked Ted why he wanted to be president, and Ted couldn't even answer the question.

In 1980, Roger Mudd was the CBS reporter who conducted the interview in which Ted stumbled so badly over the question of why he was running. Wikipedia particular notes that interview here:

He lost substantial credibility in November 1979 during the week his campaign was officially launched, when he was widely ridiculed in the press following an interview with Roger Mudd on CBS News Special Reports. When Kennedy was asked by Mudd: "Why do you want to be President?", he was unable to provide a straightforward answer.

Let me once again come to Ted Kennedy's defense: George W. Bush, for example, has never, to my knowledge, given a coherent answer to ANY question he was ever asked, yet the same T.V. & Media people who castigated Ted ensured that "W" was elected and then re-elected to the White House. Ted Kennedy, on the other hand, coherently explained why it would be supreme folly for the U.S. to invade Iraq, and the coffins and cripples that come home daily - which T.V. is not allowed to show you -- prove that he was right.

What made the Roger Mudd interview response so noteworthy was the context of challenging an incumbent from one's own party, which requires some particularly compelling reason. Also, there is the fact that Ted Kennedy is generally an articulate person, and he has proven by applying his skills laudibly in the Senate for over forty years. He's a great liberal champion.

As an aside, it was a strange confluence of timing that the Mudd interview was aired the same day the hostages were taken in Iran, November 4, 1979.

T.C.