George McGovern

George McGovern, R.I.P.

The former Democratic senator from South Dakota and 1972 Democratic nominee has died

|

tried to make it so nixon wouldn't get kicked around anymore

George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic nominee, died today at age 90. Jesse Walker wrote an appreciation of McGovern earlier this week and Nick Gillespie reviewed the former Democratic nominee's libertarian hero status.

Here is George McGovern's 1972 acceptance speech, delivered at three in the morning after defeating 30-some candidates, promising not to "concede a single state to Richard Nixon" (in November he lost all but Massachusetts):

More on that Democratic convention and this last one

NEXT: New Poll Has Obama, Romney Tied

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is this going to be one of those things that every reason contributor is going to weigh in on? Because if so, steel yourselves for a lot of grousing from the peanut gallery.

    1. They really need some sort of meeting where they assign these things.

  2. What’s with all the typos in posts these days? It’s “Massachusetts.”

    1. Mass-o’ -two-shits

  3. Here is the 1972 Democratic Platform:
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu…..?pid=29605

    1. To create a system of “recession insurance” for states and localities to replace lost local revenues with federal funds in economic downturns, thereby avoiding reduction in public employment or public services;

      We urge full funding of the Ethnic Studies bill to provide funds for development of curriculum to preserve America’s ethnic mosaic.

  4. While I wholeheartedly agreed with the first 2 of McGovern’s 3 1972 campaign platform planks: Acid Amnesty and Abortion, I don’t see him as some “libertarian” hero-pol just because, in his dotage, he realized “there’s too much government regulation” while failing at a small business venture.

    And let’s not forget:

    McGovern voted in favor of the August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which turned out to be an essentially unbounded authorization for President Lyndon B. Johnson to escalate U.S. involvement in the war.

    He called draft-card burning “immature, impractical, and illegal” too.

  5. Another mass shooting.

    Of course, this has got NOTHING to do with the hundreds of millions of guns in the US and the BS fed to the Americans by the NRA every day of the week. Right?

    1. The shooting is being investigated as a possible domestic-related incident

      Okay, so how would gun control stop people who already lawfully own guns from snapping over a bad break-up?

      1. I don’t think people should be walking around with weapons. I truly don’t think a big ol’ heroic shootout is the answer. Crossfire, it ain’t gonna be like the movies. You’d probably end up opening some poor old ladies head while you were aiming for the bad guy. The last thing we need is somebody trying to be a hero with a gun.

        1. I don’t think people should be walking around with weapons.

          But they do, legal or not, unless you want to empower the police to stop and frisk like they do in NYC nowadays.

          You’d probably end up opening some poor old ladies head while you were aiming for the bad guy. The last thing we need is somebody trying to be a hero with a gun.

          Well we saw what happened when only one person with malicious intent had a gun, so I don’t think your argument is impressive at all.

          1. Yes, two or more people with guns shooting at each other in a target-rich environment is a FANTASTIC idea.

            1. Again, only one person had a gun in that store and nothing good happened. We’ve established that you can’t get rid of guns, ergo it would be better for more people to be armed. People who own guns and open carry tend to be trained in their usage and thus more than capable of shooting a bad guy.

              And in your world this 12 year old girl would have been left to her fate when a robber broke into her home because guns are bad, mmmkay?

              1. I am reminded of any demonstration of an uncontrolled chain reaction.
                First one gunmen, then 2, then 4, then 8, etc. all firing away at others with guns.

                Headline:
                “643 Killed and 2974 Injured in Mall Shootout”

                And having a gun at home is not the same as taking your gun to the mall.

                1. “643 Killed and 2974 Injured in Mall Shootout”

                  Well gee, I’d imagine the overwhelming majority of people would flee from a gun fight rather than throw down and start shooting, so you’re prediction is extremely unlikely.

                2. Yes, if only this gent was told by the law to keep his gun at home. Better yet, if only they made murder illegal.

                3. Oh, you mean like the NYPD wounding 9 people while attempting to kill 1 man?

                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..30007.html

                  I agree, the NYPD should definitely be disarmed.
                  Ooooh, you meant disarming all the little people, because of THEIR “perceived” incompetence with firearms. Well then, I guess you are probably either a moral hypocrite, or a chicken shit coward terrified of your fellow citizens.

            2. Yes, two or more people with guns shooting at each other in a target-rich environment is a FANTASTIC idea.

              It often beats the alternative. Since we hear this “old-west shootout” meme so often from statists, perhaps an example or two would be easy to provide, with innocent bystanders littering the ground?

              While you’re looking, here’s an actual shootout in West Texas, for you to ponder:

              http://www.gosanangelo.com/new…..d-robbery/

        2. Cops shoot the wrong person at a rate higher than honest citizens do.

    2. Disarm the government and I will think about maybe giving up my weapons.

    3. Fine, Dan’s brother Jeff, at what time and on what day of the week would you like to have your house searched to make sure that you don’t have any weapons to be “walking around with”?

  6. Dang it, you are right! Based on this incident, it is time to ban all ownership of firearms in the USA. Then no one would ever have anything to worry about again.

    1. You’re right. Now is not the time to have a conversation about gun control.

      1. You are a fucking idiot. That is all.

      2. Here’s my contribution to a conversation about gun control.”

        “Fuck you!”

        1. So anyone should be able to pull out a gun and start shooting in the middle of the mall, because if we don’t respect the 2nd AMENdment, the king of England can sail up to our shores and take over.

          1. Yes, those are our only choices.
            Well those and the pointy stick ban.

            and my contribution to the conversation:

            Fuck Off Slaver.

          2. So anyone should be able to pull out a gun and start shooting in the middle of the mall,

            Of course not.

            Unless, of course, they are acting in self-defense.

          3. Isn’t it already illegal to shoot people int he middle of the mall? If someone’s already breaking that law, why would they care if it’s also illegal to be carrying the gun in that location in the first place?

  7. Hope the old dude can rest in peace! RIP old dude.

    http://www.Over-Anon.tk

  8. I have no logic to support this but fuck felting dead people. I not give a shit.

    1. I agree, the skin of dead people does not make for good felt for my top hat.

  9. Very good and interesting site with very good look and perfect information … I like it sohbet

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.