Deadline Hollywood: ‘Best of Enemies’ – Pete Hammond Review’

Source:Deadline Hollywood– William H. Buckley vs Gore Vidal in 1968.

Source:The New Democrat

“‘Best of Enemies’ – Pete Hammond Review”

From Deadline Hollywood

Source:POLITICO Magazine– William H. Buckley vs Gore Vidal in 1968.

What this is about is the debate between Conservative Libertarian writer and publisher of the Center-Right publication The National Review, William Buckley and Socialist, or Social Democratic writer and author Gore Vidal. They were brought on as part of ABC New’s coverage of the 1968 Republican National Convention and also went on to debate each other the Democratic National Convention that year as well.

They were brought in by ABC News to offer contrarian views of what was going on at those conventions. Bill Buckley, was supposed to represent the Right, or the Republican point of view. And Gore Vidal, was there to represent the Left, I guess the entire Left and the Democratic point of view.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should if you’re familiar with American politics today. Because that is now how its done, whether the coverage comes from the broadcast networks, or the cable news networks. You have a moderator which back then for ABC News would’ve been Howard Smith and today depending on which network you’ll have that network, or news division’s lead anchor lead their coverage of the conventions. And they would have several reporters there from their team to report what is actually happening. And then have an analyst from each side to tell people what they believe this all means. But that was not how it was done back in the late 1960s. Where you would have two people who are ideologically completely different debating what is going on.

But what happened at ABC News at the 1968 RNC was not CNN Crossfire of today. Howard Smith, was there to moderate and lead the discussion between Buckley and Vidal. But the problem is Buckley and Vidal were in separate rooms as Smith and you could barely hear, or see Smith during this debate.

If you’re familiar with Howard K. Smith, you know he wasn’t some who was short on words and opinions. He had an opinion on practically everything. From things that he was very informed about like politics, to things where he wasn’t that informed on like sports. But when you have a debate between two of the sharpest and quick-witted people at least in politics, but the media as well and perhaps in general and they don’t even respect yet like each other, it is very hard to get any word in edgewise.

So what happens in 1968 at the RNC between Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal is what we saw with Crossfire in the 1980s and 90s. Essentially a free for all without a moderator. Where the two debaters would make their points, but also listen to the other side. They would debate and moderate the same discussion at the same time. With poor Howard Smith acting not much more as a presiding officer at a U.S. Senate session, or something. Perhaps signing autographs, or catching up on paperwork. And really just serving a ceremonial role. But that debate because of the two men who were involved and what they were talking about and the year that it happened in 1968, made for great TV. And changed how politics would be covered on TV in the future.

Read Full Post »

ABC Evening News: ‘March 1972, Campaign News’

Source:ABC News– anchor Howard K. Smith.

Source:The Daily Journal

“In this rare clip, One of Nixon’s primary challengers drop out, the Republican accuse AT&T of not making the Democrats pay phone bills, African Americans have their own convention Jesse Jackson makes an apprentice, also news on Northern Ireland.”

From E-Fan

One way to sum up the 1972 Democratic presidential primaries, is to say it went to the guy who was damaged the least and not to the best candidate. Because there was really never any real danger to President Nixon losing reelection. But about how big of victory he would get and what he would do with it.

The Democratic race for president between Senator’s George McGovern, Ed Muskie, Hubert Humphrey and others, was great TV and very interesting. And a very good look inside of the Democratic Party was between its establishment Center-Left, that Senator Muskie and Senator Humphrey represented and the more social democratic New-Left that Senator McGovern represented in 1972.

The story about the Black Panthers (a New-Left socialist and communist group interested in the state of the African-American community) was interesting. They were in and outside of the Democratic Party back then and much further left of the NAACP which is more of a progressive Center-Left civil rights organization who are definitely tied to the Democratic Party as their supporters are.

The word militant is perfect for the Black Panthers, because that is what they were. And at the very least were linked and associated with known terrorists and criminals. And were accused of being part of terrorists acts in the 1970s. They were looking for a much more radical direction for the African-American community than the NAACP.

Apparently big business’s and other special interests on the Democratic Party and Republican Party was also a big issue in 1972. Of course it was which is why I still don’t know why Congress has never passed a full-disclosure law on all federal candidates and incumbents. Actually I do, because neither Democrats, or Republicans want to disclose who contributes to their campaigns. Because a lot of those contributors are controversial and Democrats and Republicans don’t want to officially be associated with groups like that. But that along with ending gerrymandering completely is the only way you weed out corruption in American politics. Because of how liberal our First Amendment is.

Read Full Post »

ABC Evening News: ‘Ted Kennedy’s Potential Run For President in 1972’

Source:ABC News– if you are one of the 3 people who don’t recognize these cars: (ha, ha) those are d-model Citroens, which are French luxury cars.

Source:The Daily Journal

“In this clip, ABC goes over the rumors of Ted Kennedy’s possible run in 1972, It did not happen. Also discussed is the Vietnam peace treaty and action and Vietnam.”

From E-Fan

Senator Ted Kennedy was still way too controversial to run for president in 1972. He wasn’t ready to run for president and was happy in the Senate being a Senator and being one of the largest voices in Congress, (at least in the Democratic Party) gaining seniority and influence in what happens in the Senate and Congress as a whole, where he had a lot of friends in both the Senate and House.

I sort of see Ted Kennedy as his generation’s Paul Ryan, as someone who could have done more things outside of Congress, but was happy in Congress. Paul Ryan, now Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Ted Kennedy, long time Chairman and Ranking Member of the Labor Committee. Plus, he had personal issues he was still dealing with in his family, including his wife.

There was never much reason for Ted Kennedy to really ever run for president. He never actually wanted the job, again because of how successful and happy he was in Congress being such a powerful Senator who had so much to do with so much important legislation that came out of Congress.

Senator Kennedy’s 1979-80 presidential run showed that being president was not something he wanted, when he couldn’t even answered the point-blank question from CBS News’s Roger Mudd: “Why do you want to be president?’

Senator Kennedy wouldn’t have won in 72 even if he did run and win the nomination, because of how divided the Democratic Party was between their mainstream Progressives and their New-Left that George McGovern represented. Ted Kennedy, made the right decision not running in 72 and he shouldn’t have run in 1979-80 either.

Read Full Post »

ABC Evening News: ‘1972 VP Drama’

Source:ABC News– the ABC Evening News with Howard K. Smith, in 1972.

Source:The Daily Journal 

“This is a rare color clip of the 8-28-72 Edition, of the ABC Evening News. This is about the struggles of 1972 Democratic Nominee Thomas Eagleton, who was the VP nominee until he was dropped for mental health issues.

This is the first of a series of Videos, ending with Election Night 1972 from ABC News, which I will upload sometime.”

From Efan

George McGovern did a lot to bring in new voters to the Democratic Party by reaching to African, Latin, Asian, and Jewish Americans. As well as women and suburban voters, after the civil rights movement of the 1960s with a large number of Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans heading to the GOP because of civil rights. And you could credit Senator McGovern with even saving the Democratic Party because without these new voters, all of these new people would’ve ended up Republicans, or not voting at all.

Without George McGovern we would’ve seen Republican Congress’s, not just a Republican Senate, but the GOP would’ve won back the House and Senate well before 1994. Perhaps even by 1980 with the Reagan Revolution, because the Democratic Party would’ve been left with a large hole to fill. With all of those Southern voters heading to the GOP, without other voters heading to the Democratic Party. So by bringing in all of these new voters to the Democratic Party, Senator McGovern deserves credit for saving the Democratic Party. From future losses in Congress and the White House after 1972.Democrats added to their majorities in Congress in 1974. And they won back the White House while holding both the House and Senate in 1976.

The Democratic Party paid such a heavy price for it in 1972, yes President Nixon was pretty popular, but they were a very divided party between establishment Progressives who wanted a united party to face the Republicans in the fall and the anti-war New-Left Socialists that wanted to take over the party and return it to where it was in the 1960s and build on the New Deal and Great Society. And George McGovern also deserves credit for running the most disorganize convention in the TV era.

Even if Senator Tom Eagleton didn’t have the pass mental health controversy going on, George McGovern not just loses, but loses going away. The Eagleton Affair (as it was called) was just another reminder of how disorganized the Democratic Party was in the early 1970s. And it’s until 1975 or so after the Watergate affair that the Democratic Party finally recovered at the presidential level, from what went on in the late 1960s.

Read Full Post »