Site Contents
George McGovern's Acid Trip to Cornell
Comments RSS (info)(Don't know what RSS is?)
View comments
Post a comment
Print this article
Send this to a friend
Please take the time to rate this article below:
Score: 2.71 (125 ratings)
Rate:
Former presidential candidate trashes Bush and Nixon
George McGovern, former senator and famous presidential loser, graced Cornell University with his presence April 11 to deliver a speech entitled “Ending Hunger in Our Time.” McGovern’s audience was approximately half liberal students fostering save-the-world fantasies with the other half being the gray-haired remnants of the ‘60s radicals waxing nostalgic about their glory days of promiscuous sex, draft-dodging, and acid trips.
While McGovern’s speech was supposed to be about world hunger, he frequently drifted into the waters of US politics and proudly displayed the liberal credentials that made him the idol of the unwashed protestors and violent radicals who hated America and her values in the Vietnam era. McGovern acknowledged he “didn’t have the most votes” in his presidential campaign against Richard Nixon in 1972, “but we had the best ones.” Not only did he not have the most votes, he lost every single state in the Union, save Massachusetts. His only other tally in the win column was the District of Columbia.
Nor did McGovern have the “best” votes. Massachusetts is a den of liberalism where even Ted “The Swimmer” Kennedy can be reelected every year despite killing a girl; where two men, two women, or a man, a goat and three ferrets can enter into Holy Matrimony; where being tough on crime is Michael Dukakis letting convicted rapists out of jail for weekend holidays. Washington D.C., of course, is one of the most awful places on earth where the mayor was a ho-banging cokehead; where congressmen sell their souls for reelection; where every hard-working American’s money goes to be thrown into the giant fire pit that is the federal government.
McGovern’s campaign platform was famously derided as, “acid, amnesty, and abortion.” Maybe Democrats no longer publicly support legalizing LSD, but the rest stands pretty firm as Party doctrine. As McGovern’s speech at Cornell showed, the silver-haired fogies in the Democratic Party today are the same hippies and radicals of yesteryear.
Their party’s nominee in 2004, John Kerry, served in Vietnam, but upon returning he joined the anti-American protestors, showed contempt for his country by throwing away his war medals, and slandered his fellow American troops by alleging they had committed war crimes. The Democratic Party of 1972 was not the anti-war party—they were the anti-troops party. Richard Nixon was also for peace Vietnam, but he supported America’s men in uniform and wanted victory rather than surrender to Hanoi. McGovern had said that if elected he would remove all US support from South Vietnam and immediately halt the bombing of North Vietnam. Syndicated columnist Joseph Kraft characterized McGovern’s position on Vietnam: “Apparently without knowing it, he is prepared to accept worse terms than the other side is offering.”
Liberal activists during the 1960s hated America and actively sought its defeat. Student protestors waved North Vietnamese flags at their rallies, and when current New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. was asked by his father, “If an American soldier runs into a North Vietnamese soldier, which would you like to see get shot?” Arthur responded, “I would want to see the American get shot. It’s the other guy’s country”
Not only was McGovern wrong in1972, he has apparently learned nothing in the past 35 years. He claimed in his speech that there were no catastrophes after we left Vietnam, attempting to draw a parallel to argue for speedy withdrawal from Iraq. What McGovern did not remember was the millions of anti-communist Vietnamese who had sided with the US that were killed or forced to live under the evil and immoral system of communism. He also must have washed away the image of an American helicopter leaving Saigon with South Vietnamese trying to board the craft and escape oppression.
After finally discussing the issue of global hunger, McGovern answered a few questions from the audience. Naturally, the questions were asked by an assortment of aging hippies, androgynous weirdoes, and stoned college kids. As follows, most of the subject matter related to George W. Bush, how evil he is, and how we should get out of Iraq.
In response to a question about Afghanistan, McGovern claimed, “The [Bush] administration ridicules those who ask ‘Why do they hate us?’” but wondered, “Why was it the World Trade Center that got hit rather than Parliament in London?” Perhaps McGovern has been in a coma for the past six years. Radical Muslim savages have bombed trains in Spain, the Metro in London, and have created general havoc in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. It is worthwhile to understand why the terrorists attacked us, but it is equally important to realize that September 11 was not an isolated event. Barbaric Muslims have spread murder and destruction throughout the world, not only in America.
When a frustrated audience member asked McGovern why Bush had not been impeached yet, he responded that it won’t happen because there isn’t enough grassroots support for the effort. However, McGovern did believe “Richard Nixon was impeached for offenses for less than those of Bush and Cheney.” This statement is wrong on several counts. First, Nixon resigned before he was ever impeached. Second, Nixon’s offenses were mild political snafus that paled in comparison to the black-bag jobs committed by his Democratic predecessors in the White House.
While there is no evidence Nixon had any knowledge of the Watergate burglary beforehand, former CIA agent E. Howard Hunt (who was convicted for his Watergate involvement) testified in front of a congressional committee that Lyndon Johnson had ordered federal agents to spy on Barry Goldwater’s campaign headquarters in 1964. Goldwater’s campaign plane was wiretapped by the FBI and spies were sent to infiltrate his campaign organization and provide key information to LBJ’s White House. The reason Nixon was forced to resign for his staff’s mistake while LBJ was not run out of office for his far greater abuse of executive power is because LBJ was a hero to the liberal media while Richard Nixon was the bogeyman whom they loathed with hellfire passion.
Richard Nixon was a man hounded out of office by rabid liberals who smelled blood and rode a minute political scandal all the way to his resignation. Compared to Democratic administrations before and after Nixon, Watergate was almost a non-incident.
Despite the claims of McGovern and the existing stereotype concocted by the liberal media, Nixon was a good, if flawed, man and a strong president who brought America peace with honor in Vietnam (before the Democratic Congress cut off aid to South Vietnam and let it be conquered by the North).
In a time when many Republicans are looking for the next Reagan, this author is looking for the next Nixon—the next man who will call out over-privileged anti-war college protestors as “bums” who are “blowing up the campuses”; whose vice president will say of the America-hating radicals, “I would swap the whole damn zoo for a single platoon of the kind of young Americans, I saw in Vietnam,”as did Spiro Agnew;who will get America out of an unpopular war while maintaining our dignity; and who will reinvigorate the Silent Majority, “the forgotten Americans, those who did not indulge in violence, those who did not break the law, people who pay their taxes...people who love this country.”
In this time of trial in our nation we need a leader strong enough to stand up to America’s enemies both foreign and domestic. If there is one lesson to take from George McGovern, it’s that we need President Nixon, now more than ever.
Comments
Re: George McGovern's Acid Trip to Cornell
By: Alan Patrick on 04/24/2007 at 5:57 PMWow, there's a lot of hatred in this article! Sadly not many facts, though. Your put down of McGovern (35 combat missions in WWII), Kerry (Purple Heart), and other "liberals" like Rev Martin Luther King, Jr and Muhammad Ali who opposed Vietnam, is typical attack-the-messenger hyperbole. All these gentlemen were/are men of courage, and they were willing to face personal consequences for their convictions. Was Dick Cheney during Vietnam (hint: 5 deferments). Was George Bush (hint: Alabama National Guard). Are you?
(Reply to this)
Re: George McGovern's Acid Trip to Cornell
By: A loyal American on 04/29/2007 at 4:38 PMEric Shive's hateful diatribe is ignorant, simplistic hyperbole at the expense of facts.
Some examples...
Hyperbole: "Michael Dukakis letting convicted rapists out of jail for weekend holidays."
Fact: Dukakis's Republican predecessor approved that furlough program, which was already the law when Dukakis was governor. Ronald Reagan also presided over a comparable furlough program as governor and president, with similar results.
Hyperbole: "Washington D.C., of course, is one of the most awful places on earth"
Fact: Compared to appalling conditions in numerous other parts of the country and around the world (including Iraq), Washington is "one of the best places on earth".
Hyperbole: "Maybe Democrats no longer publicly support legalizing LSD"
Fact: They never did. (Nor did McGovern.)
Hyperbole: "The Democratic Party of 1972 was not the anti-war party—they were the anti-troops party."
Fact: The Democratic party that year was a diverse body with a wide range of views. McGovern and other Democrats supported the troops by advocating de-escalation and withdrawal that saved soldiers' lives, and by supporting pro-veteran policies that Republicans opposed.
Hyperbole: "Richard Nixon was also for peace [in] Vietnam, but he supported America’s men in uniform and wanted victory rather than surrender to Hanoi."
Fact: Even Nixon implemented de-escalation and, ultimately, withdrawal under terms comparable to those offered by North Vietnam at the Paris Peace Talks four years earlier. As a presidential candidate and president, Nixon was smart enough to know that victory wasn't possible and never suggested it.
Hyperbole: "Liberal activists during the 1960s hated America and actively sought its defeat."
Fact: Most liberal activists were patriots who opposed America's involvement in Vietnam and actively sought an end to that war, and history has proven them correct. As McGovern said, "It is unpatriotic to lapse into silence during a time of American wrongdoing."
Hyperbole: "Student protestors waved North Vietnamese flags at their rallies"
Fact: South Vietnam was a ruthless, oppressive dictatorship, propped up by the U.S. government, that didn't have the support of its own people. By contrast, North Vietnam's government did have popular support and posed no threat to the U.S. That government has since been befriended by the U.S. on a bipartisan basis (the natural conclusion of Nixon's own detente policy), and the U.S. government has acknowledged its earlier mistake.
Hyperbole: "Not only was McGovern wrong in 1972, he has apparently learned nothing in the past 35 years."
Fact: History proved McGovern's position on Vietnam correct. Today even most Republicans realize that war was a mistake and un-winnable.
Hyerbole: "McGovern claimed, 'The [Bush] administration ridicules those who ask why do they hate us?' but wondered, 'Why was it the World Trade Center that got hit rather than Parliament in London?' Perhaps McGovern has been in a coma for the past six years. Radical Muslim savages have bombed trains in Spain, the Metro in London, and have created general havoc in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. It is worthwhile to understand why the terrorists attacked us, but it is equally important to realize that September 11 was not an isolated event. Barbaric Muslims have spread murder and destruction throughout the world, not only in America."
Fact: McGovern did not claim otherwise. Rather, terrorists have attacked other western targets because of those countries' support of U.S. policies.
Hyperbole: "McGovern did believe 'Richard Nixon was impeached for offenses [far] less than those of Bush and Cheney.' This statement is wrong on several counts. First, Nixon resigned before he was ever impeached."
Fact: The evidence proved that Nixon had committed impeachable offenses for which the impreachment process was already underway. He faced certain, imminent impeachment, which is why he resigned.
Hyperbole: "Nixon’s offenses were mild political snafus that paled in comparison to the black-bag jobs committed by his Democratic predecessors in the White House... Compared to Democratic administrations before and after Nixon, Watergate was almost a non-incident."
Fact: The scandal known as "Watergate" was a wide-ranging series of illegal activities that took place regularly over a several-year period. The evidence shows that the Nixon administration's numerous violations of the U.S. Constitution were far more extensive and far-reaching than any committed by his Democratic or Republican predecessors or successors (with the possible exception of George W. Bush.)
Hyperbole: "Richard Nixon was a man hounded out of office by rabid liberals who smelled blood and rode a minute political scandal all the way to his resignation."
Fact: Nixon was forced to resign because the evidence showed he obstructed justice by authorizing an illegal cover-up, and because his conduct was deemed illegal by a majority of Congressional Republicans and conservatives and a presiding Republican judge (Sirica).
Hyperbole: In this time of trial in our nation we need a leader strong enough to stand up to America’s enemies both foreign and domestic.
Fact: A diversity of views regarding public policy is what American democracy -- and being an American --is all about.
Shive's histrionics and historical revisionism amounts to nothing more than a "knee-jerk" reaction to an accomplished scholar, historian and decorated war hero like Dr. McGovern. It is also an embarassment and insult to the academic integrity of Cornell University. His piece contains such ridiculous distortions and caricatures that, to the informed observer, it almost reads like political satire. It might even be funny if it wasn't for the fact that some people are duped into believing such nonsense.
(Reply to this)
Re: George McGovern's Acid Trip to Cornell
By: Wendy Boulding on 04/29/2007 at 5:44 PMEric Shrive succeeds only in being slightly provocative and humorous yet highly embarassing to Cornell. After reading his article my first thought was: Cornell is actually going to give this kid a degree next month? What a sad state of affairs for higher education.
As far as being conservative, he might have won me over to his side if he only got his facts straight, for cryin' out loud (LOL!!!). Could someone please walk him to the history department, or help him crack open a copy of "Nixon for Dummies" or something?? The evidence on the guy has been constantly leaking like a sieve since before his own recordings of himself were released to the public. If Eric knows how to use "the google" (to quote our illustrious commander in chief) he might find some of the recordings himself and hear the words that have reverberated through history "I know where we can get a million dollars and we can get it in cash." (Nixon would have made a great recording engineer -- the clarity is crystal clear!)
(Reply to this)
Re: George McGovern's Acid Trip to Cornell
By: Wendy Boulding on 04/29/2007 at 5:44 PMEric Shrive succeeds only in being slightly provocative and humorous yet highly embarassing to Cornell. After reading his article my first thought was: Cornell is actually going to give this kid a degree next month? What a sad state of affairs for higher education.
As far as being conservative, he might have won me over to his side if he only got his facts straight, for cryin' out loud (LOL!!!). Could someone please walk him to the history department, or help him crack open a copy of "Nixon for Dummies" or something?? The evidence on the guy has been constantly leaking like a sieve since before his own recordings of himself were released to the public. If Eric knows how to use "the google" (to quote our illustrious commander in chief) he might find some of the recordings himself and hear the words that have reverberated through history "I know where we can get a million dollars and we can get it in cash." (Nixon would have made a great recording engineer -- the clarity is crystal clear!)
(Reply to this)
Re: George McGovern's Acid Trip to Cornell
By: Another loyal American on 05/1/2007 at 8:57 AMEric Shive criticizes McGovern for, among other things, citing the attacks on the "World Trade Center... rather than Parliament in London" as indicative of terrorists singling out the U.S. for its grievances. To counter McGovern's claim, Shive cites, among other things, the "general havoc in Iraq". In doing so, Shive overlooks the fact that the only reason there is terrorism and "general havoc" in Iraq is because of the U.S.'s ill-prepared invasion and occupation.
Indeed, that is at the core of the argument for disengagement from Iraq espoused by nearly everyone today, including McGovern. Even many advocates of the invasion and occupation (including some of Shite's beloved Republicans) have now agreed that it's a lost cause that was ill-advised from the start and is growing worse by the day. It's already caused far greater loss of American and Iraqi civilian lives than Saddam Hussein, or Al-Qaeda prior to the invasion. (So much for saving lives!) And that death toll is steadily increasing.
Shive seems unaware that Al-Qaeda has targeted Iraq because of the occupation and the instability and polarization that undeniably resulted from it. Just as Al-Qaeda's targeting of Spain, London and the Middle East, which Shive also sites, was in response to those countries' support of U.S. policies. And that observation is hardly limited to "anti-American liberals", any more than opposition to the U.S. invasion is. Former President Bush, his secretary of state James Baker, and his national security advisor Brent Scowcroft also advised against the invasion. Does Shive consider them "anti-American liberals" too?
Lastly, Shive credits Nixon for bringing "peace with honor" in Vietnam. The so-called "honorable" peace he delivered was, in effect, no different than the terms offered by North Vietnam four years earlier, or the policy previously espoused by Democrats like McGovern. Except for one thing. Nearly half of the American casualties suffered in Vietnam occurred during Nixon's presidency and four-year prolonging of that war, along with many thousands of additional Vietnamese civilian casualties -- after Nixon and others had already determined that the war was un-winnable. Is that "honorable"?
(Reply to this)
Re: George McGovern's Acid Trip to Cornell
By: Supporter of McGovern-Dole Food Act of 2001 on 05/2/2007 at 12:38 PMHow unfortunate and telling it is that Shive's op piece about McGovern's lecture "Ending Hunger in Our Time" makes no mention of that issue or McGovern's success in that area -- other than to dismiss it as "liberal students fostering save-the-world fantasies."
McGovern's lifelong work on the issue, as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, and currently as U.N. Global Ambassador on World Hunger, and his work with former Republican Senator Bob Dole in co-sponsoring the McGovern-Dole Global Food for Education and Child Nutrition Act of 2001 has proven that it's no "fantasy".
Such an ignorant and callous response by Shive says more about him than McGovern or the issue of world hunger. Is Shive really more interested in taking cheap shots at productive public servants than feeding starving children? What has he done to help the hungry, or anyone else for that matter?
If it's between a successful humanitarian and a mean-spirited, snot-nosed ranter, it's easy to know which side to be on.
(Reply to this)
Post a Comment
Re: George McGovern's Acid Trip to Cornell
By: Mark Nicols on 04/24/2007 at 11:32 AMDear Publisher,
Firstly, on which planet was this ditto-head raised? Is Rush Limbaugh one of your senior professors? Or Eric Shive’s daddy?
Secondly, can we learn from some recent news not to use terms like “ho-banging?
Thirdly, your masthead-“Limited Government”? In this day and age? You guys need a reality-checker along with your spell-checker.
What drivel. And what possible constructive dialogue can such a hate-mongering, fallacious article achieve?
“Whether you like it or not, you’re sharing the country with people you disagree with.”—Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, April 12, 2006
Somebody needs to reign in this venomous little Editor “AT-LARGE”. Or perhaps Eric Shive is the nom de plume for little Annie Coulter.
Bring back Nixon-he'd be a real breath of fresh air from the snakes now in the lair.
(Reply to this)