Why didn't Jerry Walk?

[littlespeedysuperbike]

Watergate was a scandal about cheating in the 1972 election.

Why didn't Gerald Ford, upon succeeding to the office of President, appoint George McGovern vice-president, then resign?

[adaher]

The cheating didn't make a difference. Mcgovern was beaten on the merits in the biggest landslide ever.

[MEBuckner]

Because he wanted to be President of the United States?

Also, the 1972 election wasn't exactly what you'd call close. Arguably, Nixon's re-election (and McGovern not being elected) was the will of the people, regardless of what all shenanigans CREEP and the White House Plumbers pulled. In a really, really close election (like 2000, say), one can imagine dirty tricks swinging a crucial precinct or two, and hence a crucial state--and in 2000, they were all crucial states. But for a result where the losing candidate gets 18 million fewer votes than the winner to be invalid would require banana-republic dictatorship level election tampering, way beyond anything even Nixon ever pulled. Thus, The People wanted a Republican, not a Democrat (or at least not George McGovern); given that Nixon turned out to be manifestly unsuitable for the office, Gerald Ford was the next Republican in the Constitutional line of succession.

Really, it's one of the great baffling mysteries about Nixon's mind that he felt the need to resort to such things when he was clearly a very popular candidate and a shoo-in for re-election.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by adaher

The cheating didn't make a difference. Mcgovern was beaten on the merits in the biggest landslide ever.

That was always one of the craziest things about Watergate. Nixon was such total paranoid nut he couldn't see this was the situation. McGovern was way too far to the left to get elected at that point. It's possible the election would have been closer with out all the ratfucking and dirty tricks but there is no way McGovern would have won.

[zamboniracer]

Originally Posted by MEBuckner

Because he wanted to be President of the United States?

This.

At the time, it was never even considered a remote possibility that Ford would appoint McGovern to be VP. Nor should it have been. Ford had been appointed to replace VP Agnew, who had been convicted of tax fraud, but Ford had been a long time, and well-respected, GOP House member.

[JRDelirious]

Originally Posted by adaher

The cheating didn't make a difference. Mcgovern was beaten on the merits in the biggest landslide ever.

One of the most aggravating things about the whole Nixon debacle -- his paranoid conviction that he "had" to play extra dirty to survive, even when he did not.

As to the OP: The charges against Nixon never included anything actually altering the valid electoral result. The voting and ballot-counting processes themselves were free and fair and were in favor of a GOP ticket. The headliner being "unworthy" of the office is no basis to void the legality of the mandate.

[42fish]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

That was always one of the craziest things about Watergate. Nixon was such total paranoid nut he couldn't see this was the situation. McGovern was way too far to the left to get elected at that point. It's possible the election would have been closer with out all the ratfucking and dirty tricks but there is no way McGovern would have won.

Actually, Nixon did see that McGovern was too far left to be elected. A large part of the "dirty tricks" involved sabotaging the campaigns of the other Democratic candidates (Muskie, Humphrey, Scoop Jackson) so McGovern would be the nominee.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Yeah, I know you have a very valid point. However, the break-in took place a month before the Democratic convention and it was clear at that point McGovern had locked up the nomination. I realize Nixon had his minions doing all kinds of crazy BS to screw over the various Democrats in the running. It's debatable how much effect it really had on the final results. McGovern would probably have been the nominee regardless, that's pretty much the point.

[adaher]

Nixon was never very popular, but the Democrats made a big mistake with Mcgovern.

and didn't McGovern put the final nail in his coffin by saying he would fly to Hanoi and get down on his knees and beg for an end to the war?

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by adaher

...didn't McGovern put the final nail in his coffin by saying he would fly to Hanoi and get down on his knees and beg for an end to the war?

No, he did not. All he would have had to do to end the war would be to pull all American combat troops out. That's what Nixon eventually did and it brought the war to a very quick end.

[adaher]

McGovern said he was going to go to Hanoi and do something, don't remember if it was prostrate himself or just ask nicely, but McGovern did not only promise a troop withdrawal.

Besides, just withdrawing the troops was unacceptable. Just withdrawing troops means leaving men behind in POW camps. Never happen in a million years.

[elucidator]

Yeah, McGovern the peace creep. Thirty five combat missions, piloting a bomber over Germany. Fucking hippy. Not like Nixon, playing poker on a boat. There's a hero!

[adaher]

Irrelevant. Was McGovern going to leave our men behind or wasn't he?

[adaher]

Actually, just checked my 1972 Facts on File. He did say he would get on his hands and knees and beg for peace. I'd say that's the 49 state loss right there.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by littlespeedysuperbike

Watergate was a scandal about cheating in the 1972 election.

Why didn't Gerald Ford, upon succeeding to the office of President, appoint George McGovern vice-president, then resign?

That wouldn't exactly be making-it-right. For one thing, it was only because of the Nixon team's cheating that McGovern had gotten the nomination. CREEP sabotaged all the other Dem contenders' compaigns, because McGovern was judged easiest to beat. You can read the story in Nixonland, by Rick Perlstein.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by adaher

Irrelevant. Was McGovern going to leave our men behind or wasn't he?

I very much doubt it.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by zamboniracer

This.

At the time, it was never even considered a remote possibility that Ford would appoint McGovern to be VP. Nor should it have been. Ford had been appointed to replace VP Agnew, who had been convicted of tax fraud, but Ford had been a long time, and well-respected, GOP House member.

And he was also a much closer friend of Nixon's than was generally known at the time.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by adaher

Actually, just checked my 1972 Facts on File. He did say he would get on his hands and knees and beg for peace. I'd say that's the 49 state loss right there.

I would be interested in knowing when and where he made such a statement. I have had zero success finding a contemporary reference to McGovern making any such statement. Would you be good enough to tell me the exact quote and date he said this? Thanks in advance.

[adaher]

I can't find any contemporary references on the internet either. I tried looking at Time's archives, but those are behind a paywall now. When I get home in the morning I'll get the exact quote from the Facts on File with a date.

[Little Nemo]

Here's an interesting piece of historical trivia. When a group of Republican leaders met with Nixon to offer suggestions for a new VP after Agnew's resignation, their first choice was George Bush. But Nixon overruled their choice and went with Ford.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by adaher

I can't find any contemporary references on the internet either. I tried looking at Time's archives, but those are behind a paywall now. When I get home in the morning I'll get the exact quote from the Facts on File with a date.

Great. If you could also give the source I would appreciate it.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

That wouldn't exactly be making-it-right. For one thing, it was only because of the Nixon team's cheating that McGovern had gotten the nomination. CREEP sabotaged all the other Dem contenders' compaigns, because McGovern was judged easiest to beat. You can read the story in Nixonland, by Rick Perlstein.

Nonsense. Who else would have been the nominee? Humphrey was the 1968 loser and had nothing to offer against his former opponent who hadn't exactly been cooling his heels in the meantime (China, detente, Vietnamization, etc.) McCarthy wasn't any more attractive than he was in '68 when he failed to get his party's nomination, Wallace was a segregationist and withdrew besides thanks to Artie Bremer... McGovern was the only viable candidate, he was the only one without the taint of a loss or the stink of racism on him. Did anyone else even show up in the primary results?

Whoever was selected by the Democrats that year was a sacrificial lamb, Nixon was a lead-pipe lock. How exactly was McGovern the easiest to beat? Nixon would have tuned Humphrey up just as easily.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by Airman Doors, USAF

Whoever was selected by the Democrats that year was a sacrificial lamb, Nixon was a lead-pipe lock. How exactly was McGovern the easiest to beat? Nixon would have tuned Humphrey up just as easily.

You forgot Muskie.

I have to agree with you though. In '72 none of the Democrats had a serious chance of unseating Nixon. And yet his paranoia was so gigantic he couldn't see it. McGovern was probably the easiest to beat because he was perceived as the biggest peacenik but I doubt it would have made a difference with a different nominee. The country wasn't ready at that point to admit the war was a lost cause.

[Measure for Measure]

I found 2 indirect cites of the McGovern quote. The first is a 1972 piece by Max Frankel on the Republican convention:

[Reagan] stressed Mr. McGovern's desire to "beg" for the release of prisoners in Vietnam and for passing severe judgment on the Saigon regime without ever criticizing Hanoi.

"If someone is setting fire to the house, you don't waste time trying to decide whether he is a deliberate arsonist or just a fellow being foolish with matches," Mr. Reagan's speech said. "You stop him before he burns the place down."

That's begging for the release of prisoners. Now from the archives of Lindsey Williams, a columnist I had never heard of:

August 23, 1972
A few weeks ago McGovern told a group of wives and mothers of U.S. war prisoners that if elected he would go to Hanoi and "beg" for release of the men.

Such words fall strangely on the ears of Americans proud of the brave refusals of their forefathers to surrender, "Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute", "Nuts", and "I've not yet begun to fight."

Again. War prisoners. Not peace. I concede it still sounds odd, but I'll note I quoted highly partisan commentators.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...on-gop-ra.html
http://www.lindseywilliams.org/index....htm~mainFrame

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by littlespeedysuperbike

Watergate was a scandal about cheating in the 1972 election.

Why didn't Gerald Ford, upon succeeding to the office of President, appoint George McGovern vice-president, then resign?

According to a guy I knew, after Agnew resigned "THEY" wanted Nelson Rockefeller to become VP since the Rockefellers control the government. Nixon instead appoints Ford and so "THEY" force Nixon out via Watergate. So what's the first thing that Ford does as President? Appoint Rockefeller as VP.

[adaher]

In 1972, Americans hadn't accepted that the war was lost, but they did demand the end of the US troop presence. What took the steam out of McGovern's candidacy was simply that by the fall of 1972 there were very few troops left, and around October the Nixon administration was close to a peace deal.

What exactly anti-war folks had to bellyache about in late 1972 I still haven't figured out, unless I assume the worst: that they didn't actually want a peace agreement.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by adaher

What exactly anti-war folks had to bellyache about in late 1972 I still haven't figured out, unless I assume the worst: that they didn't actually want a peace agreement.

Your theory doesn't make a lot of sense. The anti-war people were pretty clear on their goal - they were against the war. And in 1972 the war was still being fought so they still had reason to protest against it. A peace settlement is exactly what they wanted.

And you can say that the Nixon administration was close to a peace deal in 1972. But this was Nixon were talking about. Anyone who trusted him was a fool. He had promised he'd end the war back in 1968 and hadn't done it four years later. It wasn't unreasonable to be suspicious he might decide to rev the war back up after the 1972 election was over and keep it going for a few more years.

[adaher]

Almost all the troops were out.

[Captain Amazing]

The quote's contemporary, at least, and McGovern's opponents were using it against him in '72.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...pg=2956,448238

"In his race for US Senate, incumbent Republican John Tower told a luncheon in Bryan that Sen. McGovern "admits he would crawl to Hanoi and beg for peace."

Meanwhile, Agnew, in a speech in October in Columbus, Georgia, said of the Nixon presidency:

We will not entrust our allies to the whim of their invaders or crawl to Hanoi to beg forgiveness from the North Vietnamese aggressors.

Then, in a speech by Florida Senator Edward Gurney made November 1:

"McGovern's idea is to walk away from the war in 90 days, and then crawl to Hanoi and beg to have our prisoners of war back", Gurney declared. "It's really an idea to boggle your mind."

[adaher]

Here's another contemporary source:

http://newspaperarchive.com/morning-herald/1972-07-10/

Hubert H Humphrey sharply criticized Sen George S McGovern Sunday for saying he would be willing to go to Hanoi and beg for the release of U S prisoners of war I wouldnt beg here in Hanoi or anywhere said Humphrey I do not believe the word beg represents sound morality Humphrey said I think its unfortunate that Sen McGovern used that term There is a difference between tough negotiations and beg ging Im not a beggar.


Interestingly, there is no firsthand account that I can find. Although McGovern never denied the remarks and Snopes has nothing to say about it. the version I found in Facts on File was also response to the remarks, not an original quote. It also seems that some people responded as if he was talking about the POWs, while others responded as if he was talking about an end to the war.

Given that he was supposedly speaking to family members of POWs, I wonder if what he meant was that if it would bring them back, that he'd be willing to humiliate himself to make it happen? It wasn't something he held a news conference to say, obviously. And it obviously wasn't his official vietnam peace plan.

[Kolak of Twilo]

So this comment earlier in the thread:

Originally Posted by adaher

… and didn't McGovern put the final nail in his coffin by saying he would fly to Hanoi and get down on his knees and beg for an end to the war?

wasn’t accurate, just like I said at the time.

Originally Posted by adaher

Actually, just checked my 1972 Facts on File. He did say he would get on his hands and knees and beg for peace. I'd say that's the 49 state loss right there.

You said you looked and the quote was there. Then in your last post, suddenly it isn’t. How on earth did you make that mistake?

What I was able to find is from David Frum’s book, How We Got Here, where he relates the following:

At a meeting on June 28, 1972, with South Carolina’s delegation to the Democratic national convention, McGovern was incredulously asked, “ You want us to do all they demand and then beg them to give us back our boys?” He replied, “I’ll accept that. Begging is better than bombing.”

Dale Van Atta tells a similar story in his book about Melvin Laird and adds this to what McGovern said:
“I would go to Hanoi and beg if I thought that would release the boys one day earlier.”

Clearly the idea of a national leader begging for something from someone considered our enemy was, and still is, unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans. Whether this is what cost him the election or not is debatable. I would still take the position the majority of voters in ’72 still had not accepted that the Vietnam War was lost. Given that I don’t think any Democrat had a chance of winning the White House that year.

However, I do think it is an important distinction to note that McGovern was willing to win the release of POWs rather than beg for peace. To beg for peace allows people to paint him as a coward or appeaser. The reality shows that his concern was actually about getting all the members of the military safely home and ending the war. That paints a more honorable picture of the man and is something all the haters won’t tolerate.

Most people forget Senator McGovern was a decorated WWII veteran. Whatever we may think of his failed run for the Presidency, I still think he is an American hero.

Originally Posted by George McGovern

Every Senator in this chamber is partly responsible for sending 50,000 young Americans to an early grave. This chamber reeks of blood. Every Senator here is partly responsible for that human wreckage at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval and all across our land - young men without legs, or arms, or genitals, or faces or hopes. There are not very many of these blasted and broken boys who think this war is a glorious adventure. Do not talk to them about bugging out, or national honor or courage. It does not take any courage at all for a congressman, or a senator, or a president to wrap himself in the flag and say we are staying in Vietnam, because it is not our blood that is being shed. But we are responsible for those young men and their lives and their hopes. And if we do not end this damnable war those young men will some day curse us for our pitiful willingness to let the Executive carry the burden that the Constitution places on us.

[adaher]

The reference I found was Humphery's response. I googled parts of his quote to see if there was something I could link to on the internet and I found that 1972 newspaper story.

[Captain Amazing]

Lil' Abner's Al Capp, based in part on that incident, but more because his "groveling at the feet of the miniscule minority of the untoilet-trained on our campuses has won him the reputation as spokesman for all youth", made a character based on him named Senator George McGrovel in his "The Hardhat's Bedtime Storybook".

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

groveling at the feet of the miniscule minority of the untoilet-trained on our campuses has won him the reputation as spokesman for all youth

He was out there canvassing for Ted Nugent's vote?

[Measure for Measure]

FTR, US troops suffered 584 fatalities from the Vietnam war from 1973-1976. They are tallied on the basis of the year of death though and I'm not sure how many combat and noncombat incidents occurred during that period. http://www.archives.gov/research/mil...tics.html#year

Nixon campaigned on a promise to end the draft in 1968. The draft ended in 1973. I see from wikipedia that there was a draft lottery in February 1972, the ground war ended in December 1972 and that the last draftees reported for duty in June 1973. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscr...es#Vietnam_War

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Nixon campaigned on a promise to end the draft in 1968.

He went beyond just promising to end the draft. His campaign statement in March 1968 was "If in November this war is not over, I say that the American people will be justified in electing new leadership and I pledge to you that the new leadership will end the war and win the peace in the Pacific." When Nixon was asked specifically how new leadership would end the war, he said he couldn't reveal the details because this would tip off the North Vietnamese before the negotiations. This led to people saying Nixon had a "secret plan" although he himself never used that phrase.

But the point is that he challenged the Johnson administration to end the war within eight months. He reaffirmed a deadline when he gave an interview in October 1968 and said "I will deal with it within six months" in reference to the war. So there was reason to question Nixon about why the war was still going on in 1972.

[handsomeharry]

Back to the OP: Why on earth would you think Ford, or anybody, would do this?