Reminders of the Goldwater Campaign

Hearing John McCain complain about the media treatment he's been getting or not getting lately reminds me of the 1964 presidential campaign of another Republican senator from Arizona.

I was the CBS News producer responsible for supervising coverage of Barry Goldwater's campaign when he and his aides maintained a steady barrage of complaints about the unfair coverage his candidate was receiving from "the Eastern Press Establishment." The phrase was engraved on gold-encrusted or brass lapel pins manufactured by Goldwater's most ardent supporter, an Arizona jeweler.

They were distributed to each of us that supposedly would identify those traveling with the senator's campaign swing around the country and get his supporters all riled up. We all went along with what was generally considered a gag by the reporters and we wore the pins with a smile every time we emerged from the senator's campaign plane.

So McCain's complaints have a rather hollow ring to them 44 years later. In 2000, he made his own attempts to woo the ink-stained wretches and broadcast journalists in that last failed attempt to win the GOP nomination. Back then, he had his share of contacts with reporters on the so-called "Straight Talk Express" that had the journalists falling all over each other portraying a "different" kind of candidate.

Comments

[DonnaZ]

To Mr. Fromson,

I missed the chance to comment on your blog about Wes Clark for VP. I am in agreement with what you wrote, and in addition would add that Gen. Clark has long advocated for a sensible policy in Afghanistan. Talking Points Memo has recent interview where Gen. Clark gives some of his views.

One other note that is often over looked about Clark, he holds a masters in economics from Oxford, something that served him well when he worked at OMB. If the economy is an issue, which it will be, what better compliment to supporting the Democratic ticket. Besides, Gen. Clark is also a director for a wind energy company.

All the bases are covered.

Thanks and sorry to go off topic.

[3fingerbrown]

Has there ever been a presidential candidate who didn't complain about their treatment in the press? It's a time-tested part of any politician's bag of tricks. I heard a commentator this week compare it to a basketball coach "working the refs," complaining about a ref's call in order to influence the next one. I think it's a good analogy. A good ref will continue to call them as he sees them no matter what the coach says. Good reporters and editors should do the same.

[JinChicago]

wouldnt the last sentence of your post pretty much negate the above?

mmk

[FarOutFish]

In 1964 Lyndon Johnson was the darling of the media. He was the successor to the martyred John F. Kennedy, the war in Vietnam was still popular, and the "Great Society" was winding its way through congress. Goldwater was portrayed as a warmonger who would nuke North Vietnam. Remember the "Daisy" add that Johnson"s campaign ran only once?
Goldwater"s problem was he was too honest. At one rally he was presented with a drink concocted by a supporter called "Goldwater". The Senator took a swig, spat it out, and declared, "This tastes like horse piss. I wouldn"t drink it with gin." Although there was no evidence he would use the, Goldwater refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in the Vietnam War, providing the basis for the "Daisy" ad. His infamous "Extremism in the defense of liberty" convention speech sealed his reputation as a dangerous right wing nut job. His motto, "In your heart you know he"s right" morphed into "In your guts you know he"s nuts". Goldwater never had a chance.

[mamacat]

In 1964 the country was in mourning for JFK. It would have been nearly impossible for anyone to defeat LBJ, left, right, or middle.

The resemblance between Goldwater and McCain is that they were/are both their own worst enemies. The difference between them is that Goldwater was a real, honest to goodness maverick, who had integrity and honor. McCain is a facetious flip-flopper. He was unwilling to stand up to Bush when Bush did a swift boat job on him, a fellow Republican. In fact, he fawned all over Bush, forever showing that he was happy to be mistreated. McCain has shown by his actions that he is unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief. We don't need a president who is going to cave in and grovel before someone who mistreats him, the way McCain does to Bush.

[csbrudy]

The MSM is owned by five huge conglomerates. They like McCain because he would never do anything to hurt them. Obama could do anything, from raise their taxes to bust 'em into pieces with anti-trust law.
We'll get even coverage when there is competition in the industry again: No cross ownership, no chains, just home town ownership.

[ShamusDaedal]

Could it be that there's just far more positive things to say about Obama than McCain?

In fact, I cannot think of any positives from McCain's relentless and silly attacks.

[Bitsko]

And the McCain campaign uses that as a negative! The right wingers are officially out of ideas. Not that they ever had any, besides "exporting democracy" to their authoritarian allies and cutting taxes for their rich friends.

[crablover]

I'd like to see Sen. McCain receive more media coverage.

How about covering his complete naval career, starting with his "legacy" admission to Annapolis; bottom of his class graduation and family-influenced admission to flight school (one of the Navy's most selective and elite positions)?

How about releasing his complete Navy personnel record, including the negative comments from his commanders?

How about covering how he left his wife for a younger rich women?

How about covering the sudden disappearance of his lobbyist girlfriend? (Has anyone seen or heard from her since the allegations of hanky-panky surfaced?)

How about covering his big donations from the oil industry?

How about covering his lack of understanding of economics, international affairs, geography, and technology?

All we hear from the MSM is "McCain the Maverick."

How about asking the media to do their job in reporting and uncovering facts instead of ignoring McCain's obvious lack of qualifications to lead this country in the 21st century?

[JerryKCDC]

Nice summary, crablover (as am I).

I have a proposal:

Let's stop referring to the MSM "main-stream media" - that accepts the premise that those of us outside that boundary are some kind of fringe elements. Call them what they are, the Corporate Media, which reminds readers where the bias originates.

[Bitsko]

This is brilliant. Mille grazie.

[csbrudy]

The only way to get a fair perspective from MSM is to break up the five huge media conglomerates. Actually, we should atomize them: No one owns more than one radio station, one newspaper or one TV station in any market. Then, we would have competition, and more truthful reporting.
Meanwhile the media love McCain, because he would never bring anti trust charges, and they are scared of Obama, because he just might.

[jsinclair]

Yes! More coverage of McCain would be very welcome--more, that is, if it's like what Obama gets.

Yesterday, David Gregory (delightedly) devoted his program to "Obama's Weaknesses".

I'm not holding my breath that today will be equal time for "McCain's Weaknesses". They may call it that, but then show us, "What's WRONG with Obama? Part II"

The problem isn't the amount of coverage (as McCain definitely knows). It's the quality of it (or lack thereof).

[jsinclair]

Yes! More coverage of McCain would be very welcome--more, that is, if it's like what Obama gets.

Yesterday, David Gregory (delightedly) devoted his program to "Obama's Weaknesses".

I'm not holding my breath that today will be equal time for "McCain's Weaknesses". They may call it that, but then show us, "What's WRONG with Obama? Part II"

The problem isn't the amount of coverage (as McCain definitely knows). It's the quality of it (or lack thereof).

[gevan]

Hey GOP! (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush & Bush) Remember this one? "They are still ninety miles away"

[bogananda666]

You forgot Eisenhower who was President when Castro was victorious.

[gibels]

The only reason Obama gets covered more is because the media is looking for a gaffe they can talk about all day....
Instead they should focus on McCain who makes a Gaffe every day or forgets what he said from one day to the other ....
Yes they do focus on Obama but not to be favorable so please cover McCain more but also report what he says and run it for days like you do Obama ..Fair is Fair

[ApolloSpeaks]

John McCain had his Goldwater moment in Presidential politics when he lost to Texan George Bush in 2000. This race has a little bit of the Nixon McGovern contest of 1972 and a great deal of the Eisenhower-Stevenson battle of 20 years earlier. Eisenhower defeated the mesmerizing Illinois governor on November 4th, 1952.

[speeddeeps]

No it is more like J.F.K. vs Tricky |Dick, Sen O will win but not big

[ApolloSpeaks]

O will win zero. Substance wise McCain has more in common with JFK-the orthodox cold warrior-than the shallow, inept, inexperienced Obama. In the end substance will win over fluff.

[BinBaldwin]

I recall this campaign clearly. This is the one where Lyndon Johnson ran ADs showing Mushroom Clouds as if Barry Goldwater was a War Monger. Of course history clearly shows it was LBJ was the actual war monger.

[DanBest]

Great handle. Are you the youngest (unknown) Baldwin brother?

[Bitsko]

True, but at least he felt guilty about waging the war. No excuse for him though. BTW the ad only ran once, but many times over the years by newscasts.

[BlueZoo]

LBJ had no choice but to defend Vietnam. He was bound by the treaty signed in 1954, long before his time in office. He said at the time that America was a country of its word. What a shame nobody believes that anymore thanks to the current administration.

[BADEN]

Grumpy Old Men don't want their grumpy old faces up in public places.
"Get off my lawn!"

Ooops!

"Come back! I didn't mean it...POINT THAT MICROPHONE HERE - AT ME!!"

Grumpy Old Men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.....

"Wait! Look! I can jump thru that burning hoop TOO!"

[michael098762001]

Ah if you rad the book by left-liberal Rick Perlstein on the Goldwater campaign you will recall that the MSM of 1964 did portray Goldwater as a Fascist loon.

[Bitsko]

Just read some of the conservative's own books from the time. They really were fascists.

[gevan]

Not Fascist. A reckless (willing to use Nukes in Viet Nam) segregationist (vote against the '64 Civil Rights Bill).

[Bitsko]

Thinking about it, you do have a good point. I've seen fascism defined as when the state and business act as one. Unfortunately, that would mean we live in a fascist state, an unhappy thought, to say the least.

[csbrudy]

Goldwater wanted to end social security. Not fascist?

[Bitsko]

The conservative movement of 1964 was a bunch of fascist loons, and you don't need to "rad" anything by a "left-liberal" to find out. Just read the conservative's own books. W.F. Buckley believed that juts because there might be a majority of black people in a state or county didn't mean they had any right to have any political power there, because white people are morally and spiritually superior. Sounds like fascism to me.

[bogananda666]

The 64 Goldwater campaign proved that a Republican could get 43% of the vote regardless. They only had to appeal to 8% to achieve a majority, theoretically because of the electoral college, to win a presidential election.

[JinChicago]

actually thats called RACism