McGovern warns against delaying Kerry nomination

[Kadie]

McGovern warns against delaying Kerry nomination

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press
Last Updated: May 25, 2004, 06:28:00 PM PDT

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat George McGovern, who ran for president in 1972, warned Tuesday that John Kerry should not delay the party's nomination schedule out of concern over money.

The liberal South Dakotan told The Associated Press that Kerry's proposal to delay accepting the Democratic nomination would show that "money is king and everything else takes a back seat." And while McGovern said he wished he'd had more funds in his unsuccessful campaign against Republican Richard Nixon, he said money isn't everything.

Kerry may delay accepting the Democratic nod at the July 26-29 party convention in Boston so he can raise more campaign money and stay on a more equal financial footing with President Bush, whose convention is five weeks later.

A decision was expected sometime this week, but McGovern said the proposal is bad politics.

more... http://www.modbee.com/24hour/politics/story/1395651p-8661153c.html

[jpgray]

1. I have to agree. It can be spun far too negatively against Kerry

Even many Democrats will be thinking 'what's the point of this if we're not nominating anyone yet?'

[Leilani]

17. I saw Tom Brokaw on Larry King tonite

& he said NBC probably would not cover the convention if Kerry does not accept the nomination.

I think this is looking bad for Kerry. I think McGovern is right.

[mountainvue]

49. Brokaw really

pissed me off with his comments. Nothing new though.

[jsw_81]

2. McGovern is right

Bush may have a slight advantage for a few weeks, but money isn't everything. Remember, we got outspent by a huge margin in 2000 but still won the popular vote and picked up seats in the House and Senate.

[frogbison]

6. Besides,

our numbers, along with our dollars, will get the J.O.B. D.O.N.E. We may be less endowed with monitary wealth, but we are far, far richer in generosity to our fellow man. WE WILL WIN!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. I agree with McGovern that money isn't everything and doing this seems

awkward..but George Bush has made certain that this campaign will be about money and there's nothing worse than coming into the home stretch and not being able to respond.

I would prefer that they manage their resources another way..but I also prefer that Kerry have the MEANS to respond to the relentless attacks.

[JI7]

13. can moveon and other independent organizations

raise and spend money on ads and other things during this time? if so, i think that may be the key to deal with what will happen.

[w4rma]

29. One of McGovern's excuses for losing his election was he was underfunded

Why wouldn't he want Kerry to be as well funded as possible, especially when he believes that lack of funds were what cost him his election?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. I don't think he's arguing against funds as he points out in the end

as he is about preserving the dignity of the convention itself

[troublemaker]

4. Another winner weighs in

When did losing landslide elections become such a hot credential? Has it crossed George's mind that maybe his belief that there's more to elections than money wasn't exactly validated in the real world?

(I love McGovern but I have as much use for his political advice as that of Dukakis, Mondale and Gore.)

[MontecitoDem]

5. You're right, but

I'm more concerned about the media. They already hate to cover the conventions. If he isn't even taking the nomination, I'm afraid we lose the positive press and excitement. Maybe they don't even show it (except cable - but lots of folks don't have cable).

He shouldn't do it.

[WI_DEM]

25. so what is your solution when the networks don't cover it?

we would have wasted millions on a convention no one will be watching nominate someone who will not accept it. Hoping that later in the summer people will tune in to watch his acceptance speech. It is a waste of momentum. Conventions give the candidate MOMENTUM--prior to the dem convention in '92 Clinton was running third in the polls and then he had a successful convention and speech and moved into first place.

[Webster Green]

7. Yeah. I agree....Kerry needs to be the anti-bush.....

Smirky has got to be toast based on the fact that he has nothing to offer except more misery and endless wars that will only aggravate terrorism. No amount of negative ads and idiotic speeches will save him. The Iraq war is going to take a horrible turn for the worse after the "turnover". Being appointed to govern Iraq for the Americans is the equivalent of a death sentence for any Iraqi stupid enough to accept such a position.

Bush is fucked. All Kerry has to do is stand back and watch.

[JI7]

8. i think what Kerry needs to do and think about is

i think kerry and his people need to try to think of a plan to deal with THE WORST AND ALL types of attacks they expect to right wing to throw at them during this free time. if they plan right they could be able to deal with what the right wing will do without having money to raise and spend that bush will have during this time. come up with good campaign plan right after the convention. and he will have a vp by this time so they could be together for about a week, then campaign separately to cover more places during the same time.

[jpgray]

9. I think, like most other things in a nat'l campaign, that it's a balance

Does deflating some of the convention's power counter any positive effect the extra money will have? Of course nobody can answer that question, so we have to hope for some good guessing on the part of the Kerry campaign.

[JI7]

12. true, also

many point to the more recent attacks they ran against kerry where he didn't respond with much but hasn't gone down too much in polls. but this was during a time when most don't pay attention and of course we have months to go before the election. i guess i do lean towards mcgovern's advice. i don't want them to get too caught up in the money. but kerry and the people working with him are pretty smart and i trust them to do what they think will be the best.

[Jim Sagle]

10. Earth to McGovern: Fuck off ya fuckin' never-was.

[Forkboy]

21. That's deep Jim

[Jim Sagle]

22. About as deep as his '72 campaign was.

[Forkboy]

31. So tell us Jim

What positions of his did you disagree with?

[Jim Sagle]

34. That's irrelevant. See #11 below for a relevant question.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Jim Sagle]

37. Denigrate THIS.

[thebigidea]

39. how completely nasty. McGovern is a hero, a good Senator and a fine man

I wonder how YOU would've fared against the machinery of Nixon n' Co.

[Jim Sagle]

48. Not that well. But that's still another irrelevancy..

[Forkboy]

51. It doesn't always take many words...

..to say a lot.

[Forkboy]

50. charming

:eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. What exactly does McGovern know about running a winning campaign?

:shrug:

[Zen Democrat]

14. McGovern certainly knows about Republican Dirty Tricks Campaigns

Get off his back. George McGovern was a decorated WWII veteran who was unmercifully smeared by the Nixon Dirty Tricks Machine. Because the Dem convention didn't run on time in 1972 and McGovern's acceptance speech was pushed back until after midnight -- and because he appointed Tom Eagleton as his vice presidential nominee without knowing Eagleton had been treated for depression, the media pretty much wrote him off from the get-go. He can sure give his two-cents about what to AVOID in a campaign!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. I remember.

That is the first Prez campaign that I paid attention to.

I've got a lot of respect for McGovern for the stands he's taken, but there is no getting around the fact that he was not a winner.

[flaminbats]

18. Who could have beaten Nixon in 1972?

I think the best that any candidate could have won against Nixon was 43% of the vote. McGovern lost some of this because of his opposition to the Vietnam War, the Eagleton minefield, and largely because Nixon refused to debated him. Many of the Democrats who voted for Vice President Humphrey in 1968 did not support McGovern because they simply were not familiar with his politics until after he lost!

Some of the best people to obtain advice from are those who have lost campaigns and know what not to do if they had a second chance! This includes people like Gary Hart, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, and Mike Dukakis. And remember that winning a Senate seat in South Dakota was no easy task for any Democrat. If you combine McGovern's Senate career with his long-shot path in winning the nomination there is much to admire about this veteran's accomplishments.

[troublemaker]

52. Nobody could have beaten Nixon

But l'affaire Eagleton was McGovern specific. And when your opponent *successfully* plants the meme that your motto is 'acid, amnesty and abortion' perhaps it's a sign you're not running the best possible campaign.

But of course it was managed by fellow winner Gary 'stake out my house... I dare you!' Hart, who I also like a lot but wouldn't want to bet money on.

I grew up accepting these lovable losers who were so principled. Clinton changed that for me, and I can't see ever backing another 'decent guy' again.

[flaminbats]

53. Before Clinton became the comeback kid he was considered a loser governor.

It took a defeat in 1980 as Governor, one of the worst convention speeches in history, and learning from the mistakes of the Dukakis campaign to make him into a winner. The people who lose elections are usually the ones who have learned the most about running a campaign. I find it extremely doubtful that Clinton could have won in 1988 or 1984. But those defeats..and the lessons learned from them enabled Clinton to become President.

I'm not suggesting McGovern would make a better candidate than John Kerry, but that John Kerry is right to consider advice from McGovern when it is offered. Remember that McGovern played an active role on the Clinton campaign in 1992.

[flaminbats]

15. What does McGovern know about campaign mistakes?

Eccelesiastes 7.3 Sorrow is better than laughter; it may sadden your face, but it sharpens your understanding.

Ecclesiastes 7.5 It is better to have wise people reprimand you than to have stupid people sing your praises.

[JSJ]

19. people love...

...a hint of larceny in their politicians. Tactically, it's a GOP move. But it's heartening to finally see in public a bit of the underhanded being used in Democratic politics. It's just a hint because it's... LEGAL.

[flaminbats]

38. IMHO this amount of larceny would lose Kerry more votes than it would win

I don't think Kerry is seriously considering this option, but he is brillantly drawing media coverage away from Bush by giving all voters a darker alternative to consider. This will give him an unending stream of positive press when he unexpectedly accepts the nomination at the convention!

And using this media strategy for the convention is something that the Bush campaign isn't in the position to do.

[Cheswick2.0]

43. I'll bet he's won more than you have

:shrug:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

47. He's definitely lost more than Kerry has

and Kerry is the person to whom he is publically offering his unsolicited advice. Anyway the point is moot; the campaign has announced that they will accept at the convention, according to CNN today (no link, I watched it).

[Awsi Dooger]

20. An idiotic move that would turn off swing voters

I verified that Tuesday, calling four friends of mine who don't follow politics closely but always vote in presidential years and typically watch debates at my house.

As I expected, none of them were aware of Kerry's potential plans to delay the acceptance. But when I briefly explained it to them, and the monetary rationale, none were impressed and three of them said it lowered their opinion of John Kerry, when I gave the option of raised, same, lowered. I did my best to present the material impartially, so they would not automatically agree with my assessment.

Not a major sample, I concede, but these are two males and two females who I have found to be terrific barometers.

[dusty64]

23. Where is the outcry

over the rethugs moving THEIR convention past the LEGAL deadline so as to allow them to further exploit the 9/11 dead. I haven't heard a fucking peep about it and instead have seen Democrats in many states twist the rules to put chimpo on the ballots against the rules. Yeah, thats opposition for ya. Imagine the shoe on the other foot for a second.

[WI_DEM]

24. this is one trial balloon that Kerry should pop

if there is no accepting the nomination there will be no coverage and no momentum. McGovern is right.

[zulchzulu]

26. I agree

We see what Bush's money has done so far to Kerry. Over $60 million has been spent on character assassinating Kerry by the Bush campaign and the race is either tied or Kerry is ahead. So the ruse that Bush will be able to spend a lot more money on Kerry in the fall doesn't hold much water in terms of damage.

Add the negative publicity coming from Kerry's own hometown where Bostonians would complain (they are usually really good at that anyway :->) about how Kerry couldn't make up his mind... perfect Rove material.

A lot of people would be pissed within the Democratic party that attend the convention and the usual push and name recognnition that a convention nomination would give would be silenced. The convention may be barely covered by the major media if such a strategy to waive the nomination happens.

I don't think the extra $10-15 million that could come into the campaign would be worth having to go on the defensive to maintain the position of not accepting the official nomination.

On the other hand, if the GOP convention could be moved to the same time as the Democratic convention or have both conventions in September, then that would work too. But that will never happen...

Additionally, Kerry's numbers will improve by the mere fact that Bush's approval numbers will be in the mid-30% range by the fall if trends continue.

[Le Taz Hot]

27. And once again,

it all comes back to money -- exactly the reason Terry McAuliff was brought in. Exactly the reason so many of our elected Democrats are Democrats in name only and why our Democratic core values are virtually non-existent. Money trumps ideals. Money trumps people. Money reigns supreme. And in the end, "your side" may or may not hold the reigns of power and our (as in you and I -- never them) sellout is complete.

[w4rma]

28. Maybe they can stage an "unofficial" nomination at the convention.

And turn in the official nomination paperwork after a few weeks.

[Monte Carlo]

30. Sen. McGovern, time and money is king in this election...

... whether we want to acknowledge it or not. We don't need another martyr for the cause this year. We need to get Bush out as soon as possible; America has a cancer that it needs to remove.

[mzmolly]

33. I totally agree. This is war, and it will take $$

eom

[dolstein]

35. Listen to what McGovern says . . . then do the OPPOSITE

Excuse me, but should Kerry really be taking advice from the man who ran one of the most disastrous presidential campaigns in American history?

[salonghorn70]

40. And One of The Most Disastrous Conventions

Eagleton. And an acceptance speech that occurred when? Wasn't it 3:00 a.m. on the east coast?

[flaminbats]

41. exactly...

better just to let history repeat itself than to learn from the past :freak:

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting a different result." - Albert Einstein

[Cheswick2.0]

42. They should figure out how to spend that money now

I too think it is a bad idea to put the nomination off.

[BlueStateGirl]

44. I agree.

[robbedvoter]

45. McGovern is a good guy but his election expertise is not his forte

Kerry cannot run his campaign based on "what the RNC&their media might say". Gore already proved the idiocy of that.

[flaminbats]

46. And how did Gore prove that?

:shrug: