Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why did John Glenn not get the Democratic nomination?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Superman Returns Donating Member (804 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 12:06 AM
Original message
Why did John Glenn not get the Democratic nomination?
Kind of off topic, but considering I wasn't born back then, wouldn't it have made sense to run him against Reagan or for Carter to have put him on the ticket in 76 considering his biography?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rowdyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. I've never understood why he was unable to connect....
John and Annie Glenn are really class acts. Its been my experience that Democrats frequently refuse to nominate their best possible candidates and John Glenn is a classic example.

He would have made a great president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Unbrilliant
Glenn was a college educated military officer with combat experience. I think he understood the geopolitical parameters and was a measured and reasonable man, not a knee-jerk reactionary.

And you compare him to a monkey? To quote Yeager in "The Right Stuff": "You think the monkey knew he was sitting on a 30 ton bomb? Those are brave men."

Duh!
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. What's your beef against Glenn? He had a distinguished Senate career as well as
his previous career as an astronaut and military officer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wiregrass Willie Donating Member (436 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I have nothing against Glenn.
He was a good soldier and I'm sure he was a good man. What I can't understand is why -- in some people's mind -- being an astronaut qualified him to be President. Or even Senator, for that matter.

Why does being a celebrity make a man qualified for something in which he has no training ? The same applies to John McCain of AZ. McCain was a good soldier and served his country bravely. But I can't understand why getting the hell beat out of him every day for several years makes him presidential material.

I think it's this cult of celebrity hood that has harmed American politics more than any one thing. True we don't elect many such people -- but the better qualified men and women have to stumble over their political bodies and sometimes that stumbling causes them to lose out to even lesser people. Our political graveyard is beginning to look more like a cesspool.

BTW, I see some sensitive sister had my post deleted. I'm so sorry to have offended them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
2. I don't know about '76...
...but in '84, when he was a candidate, he ran an incredibly boring campaign, basically presenting himself as a Lieberman-like "centrist" (as opposed to the "liberalism" of Walter Mondale) with all the personality of a Fred Thompson.

Strangely, when he spoke at the national convention, his speech was terrific -- sharp and funny. If he'd shown half that personality on the primary trail, he might have been the nominee. (I still don't think anyone could have beaten Ronnie that year, though.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. He was totally upstaged at the 76 Convention.....
By Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, a/k/a The Voice of God.

She was the keynote speaker and always gave RIVETING speeches.
The Angel of the Fifth Ward (Mickey Leland and George Foreman also came from the Fifth Ward).

And that was after America noticed her in '74, on the House Judiciary Committee and explaining impeachment to us in another famous speech.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PinkTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
3. I was alive and I was involved in Democratic politics. I'll be happy to answer.
John Glenn was not a very good politician. He ran hard, but not very smart. He hit the high spots - I went to see him in Kansas City in 1984 and got his autograph on a bumper sticker, that I still have - but he never really connected with the people. He was amazingly stiff in person, and small in stature, it seemed. We were looking for someone with star power. In 1976 he was still very new to national politics, although his name - which was genuine "household," would have packed a punch. Jimmy Carter passed him up as a VP option, in favor of Fritz Mondale.
No Democrat had a prayer in 1984. Reagan was the most popular president since FDR. Not in my house, but in just about everywhere else, it seemed, LOL.
The Gary Hart scandal and the popularity of Jesse Jackson (I was a state delegate for the Rainbow Coalition) eclipsed Glenn, who failed to get momentum in Iowa and faded from view.
In retrospect, perhaps Glenn would have been the stellar choice. Mondale was a prick. He treated all of us in the party like his servants. I went to a $100 a person coffee klatch for him in Jefferson City and he wouldn't even stand and shake hands. He was in and out so fast, if you blinked, you missed him.
But Glenn, like Carter, was a nice guy in politics.
Politics is a dirty business. It is no place for a nice guy.
National politics is a different animal than state politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Reagan was not the most popular president since FDR.
That is a myth.

Reagan left office bolstered by the oft-repeated media myth that he had been far and away the most popular of any president since World War II. But bearing in mind Mark Twain's observation that a lie gets half-way around the world before truth puts its boots on, the US public deserves to know what the polling data actually says.

<snip>

In May of the second year of his second term (1986), Reagan's 68% approval rating surpassed the mid-sixth year figures for two-term presidents. But after the Iran-Contra scandal broke in the fall of 1986, Reagan's approval rating plummeted to 46%, leaving him with an unimpressive average for that year.

Reagan finished strong with a December 1988 Gallup poll recording a 63% approval rating. But given the 3% margin of error, this statistic is not appreciably different than the final ratings of Eisenhower (59%) or Kennedy (58%). Polls showed FDR with a 66% favorable tally at the time of his death.

Reagan's 52% average approval rating for his entire presidency was topped by Kennedy's 70% average, Eisenhower's 66%, Roosevelt's 68%, and even by Johnson (54%), who eschewed running for reelection because of the unpopularity of his Vietnam policy. In short, about half-- and sometimes more than half-- of the US public did not approve of Reagan's presidential performance. His approval index was not much better than the lowest modern presidential averages: Truman's and Ford's, each at 46%; Carter's at 47%; and 48% for Nixon.

<snip>

For anyone who cares to look at the actual polling data, the facts show that Reagan was definitely not the most popular post-war president, and during many comparable periods he was among the most unpopular.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1192
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Americans DID NOT like being lied to over Iran-Contra and they DID NOT like paying for the Savings &
Loan debacle (the most expensive scandal in U.S. history up to that time, if I'm not mistaken), at least those who were paying attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Yes, the S&L chrisis cost about $150 billion
The current subprime loan fiasco will have a higher price tag before it's over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #6
19. Actually, a majority didn't seem to mind
since they elected his VP as president in the '88 election.

Ronnie was the "Teflon president"-- everything that went wrong on his watch was always someone else's fault, no matter what, so he never had to take the blame for anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PinkTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Yes, I remember that.
It was really awful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PinkTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. My comment was correct in context.
In 1984, it was BEFORE the scandals, but after his recovery from the assassination attempt, and he was extremely popular.
If you go check out your history, you will see that FDR also suffered in the polls before WWII began, and if not for the war, he would not have been re-elected for a fourth term. Ironically, he was elected in 1940 on the promise that he would avoid war! Then, because he was a wartime president, he stayed in office but died before it ended, a month before VE day and months before we ended the war in Japan.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Yes, in that context you were correct.
I was aware that you meant to cite his popularity just before the election, nearing the end of his fourth year. And to be fair, I included this text from my source:

In May of the second year of his second term (1986), Reagan's 68% approval rating surpassed the mid-sixth year figures for two-term presidents.

I have no doubt you are knowledgeable about these things, so you know that Saint Ronnie's legendary popularity is but one of the many myths about him that are endlessly perpetuated by right wing stink tanks and foundations, and mindlessly repeated over and over by the complicit media. Being aware of this it might have been prudent to include a qualifier such as "at that point in his presidency" so as not to confuse those who do not have as good an understanding of this truth.

OK I'm being picky but that is a pet peeve of mine.

This is after the time period of the current discussion, but most people don't know that Clinton's popularity tracked about the same as Reagan's for each of their 8 years. And due mostly to the Iran/Contra and S&L fallout, Clinton was actually more popular than Saint Ronnie. This observation is often met with surprise, which is due to the propaganda I have already bemoaned. But the following graphic makes it clear:



http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PinkTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Well, Geez, Louise. I didn't know I was writing a frigging dissertation.
LOL
I was answering a question about John Glenn's popularity.
You need to chill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. And neither are you posting at a right wing website.
You shouldn't be surprised at a challenge when you say without qualification, "Reagan was the most popular president since FDR."

I am quite chilled already, but thank you for the advice. Double LOL back at you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. America didn't like him much until Newt told them to. . .. . .n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yep.. he was "wooden" and not very charismatic
He always kind of reminded me of Eisenhower. soft spoken , and kind of ordinary.. What he DID , made him famous, but other than catapulting him into politics, it did not prepare him for national politics..

Successful politicians have to have a HUGE ego, and people who are used to being part of a TEAM, usually don't make it.. As an astronaut, he knew better than anyone, that he was just ONE part of the whole program, and he always seemed too humble & normal to even want to be president:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-10-07 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
11. Great man, crapy campaign
Glenn had perhaps the most inept campaign management team in modern political history. It was a bloated, top-heavy mess. The national campaign manager failed to recognize the importance of a field organization in Iowa and New Hampshire, believing that paid advertising and "earned media" would be enough to carry Glenn to victory.

Once Gary Hart emerged as a viable contender, it was all over for Glenn. Hart had a decent Iowa organization, an acceptable (but overrated in hindsight) NH organization, and a better television persona than Glenn.

Glenn campaign story: Someone at Glenn's Manchester headquarters on the corner of Bridge and Elm thought it would be a cool idea to drape an enormous American flag from the roof of the building. Apparently they forgot that this is the windiest spot in a city not known for mild weather. The wind kicked up and tore the flag loose on ne side. Soon, the flag was flapping loose, veering into the sidewalk and oncoming traffic on Elm St. creating all sorts of chaos. The folks at the Mondale office, a half block away on Bridge St., had a field day...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 07th 2024, 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC