Fear and Loathing in Nixonland - NH Democratic Debate

[Lumine]

Debate Overview

Simulating a RL event, those candidates who filed in for the New Hampshire Primary will be able to attend a primary debate to be held on the eve of the primary.

You will each get to deliver a general statement on your campaign, answer a question, and each candidate will get to launch one major attack on another primary candidate (think of it as answering three questions, but guided).

Your answers will have (via Discord or PM, NOT here) to be sent until Friday at midnight. Then they will be posted, and we will have a brief rebuttal phase. This is to ensure there's some fog of war, and that people have to think carefully about their strategy.

At the end of the turn, I will grade your debate peformances. The winner gets a major polling boost, the loser - if it's too lopsided - gets a major polling penalty. Other performances will be judged in terms of whether they won or lost support.

So, the attending candidates will be: Kennedy, Muskie, Lindsay, Yorty, McGovern, Hart, Hartke.

You can choose not to attend without an immediate penalty, but if you don't attend and get attacked anyway, or if a candidate attracts support from your own base, you'll see the effect.

Debate - First Phase

(no more than 300 words per answer please,
or the moderators will cut you off)

1.- The Democratic field has been noted to be quite diverse this year, and quite competitive too. What is the rationale behind your candidacy? Why are you the better candidate?

2.- The Vietnam War has raged for years, and there is still no end in sight as the Paris Peace talks continue to deteriorate. What would you do as President regarding the Vietnam War, and, what makes your record on it different to the other candidates?

3.- If you had to criticize one of the candidates in this primary, who would it be? And why for?

So remember, four days to answer these three questions, send them to me privately, and I'll let you know when we get to the rebuttal phase.

[Lumine]

Debate - First Phase

ATTENDING CANDIDATES: Kennedy, Muskie, Hartke, Hart, McGovern, Lindsay, Yorty

1.- The Democratic field has been noted to be quite diverse this year, and quite competitive too. What is the rationale behind your candidacy? Why are you the better candidate?

TED KENNEDY: I believe America's best days are ahead of us, if we have the right leadership. Great presidents have been men with bold visions for America, working us towards a better and brighter tomorrow. I have made four promises to the American people. Those promises are: A clean environment. A fair wage. An honest democracy. Accessible healthcare for every American. I have the record to turn those words into policy and that policy into action, to make American lives better. I believe in my heart that I can further us toward the cause of a better and brighter tomorrow, while Mr. Nixon cannot - and none of my opponents can beat Mr. Nixon.

ED MUSKIE: I'm an untainted candidate who both has experience with being an officeholder and serving in the senate of the United States. I know what it is to govern. I do have the experience. But just like many of you, i do have a spirit and conscience. Unlike some others who will say everything and do nothing or say everything and eventually not having spoken out on anything, I do want to see change. I haven't noticed from some other candidates what they would change or why they're even running. I think it has been pretty clear that I want change. To that extent that I even risked angering some people within my own party. And you know what... It is because I want to accomplish something.

VANCE HARTKE: Never before has America been involved in a war so inimical to its promise as the world's greatest champion of democracy; never before has our national leadership been infected with the moral rot of half-measures, half-truths, duplicity, confusion and deceit. Since the American people cannot afford four more years of the failures of President Nixon, it falls to the Democratic Party to assume the mantle of leadership. It is our highest duty to bring peace to Vietnam and recovery at home. I am ready to lead this team. My record is my word. I have never been afraid to fight for my country either in the field, as a lieutenant, or on the Hill, as a Senator with thirteen years of experience. I opposed the adventurism in Vietnam in 1965, and I am happy to say that my opposition has only grown over the years! I will not trade blood for votes. My domestic record has also been consistent. I have led from the front to help pass and protect Medicare and Medicaid, civil rights, student loans, veterans' benefits, and Amtrak. I preach the ethos of common-sense progressivism that will appeal to the many facets of our country. Mr. Nixon knows how much of a threat I am: he and his goons tried to run me out of the Senate last year. They failed. If nominated, I will win again.

PHILIP HART: Our party, I believe, has lot its way somewhat over the last four years. We became so shattered by that narrow loss that we have started to believe that we cannot win as a liberal party anymore. There are candidates on this stage that have openly embraced the the rhetoric of the President, seemingly happy to throw away what our party stands for in the name of getting a few delegates.

Our party should stand for the eradication of poverty; for a decent wage for our workers; for a nation where not everyone needs to be born rich to succeed in life. We seem to have thrown that side in favour of winning at all costs. This is not the purpose of the Democratic Party. Our purpose is to stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves.

Tonight, and across this campaign, I have seen a lot of Democrats who listen to this rhetoric of the President because they are scared. Scared of what the future will hold. Scared for their families. Scared for their sons and daughters. We're all tempted to hold fears when things get tough, but fear is not a constructive emotion. It holds us back from solving our problems. Don't give into your fears, America. Choose hope.

GEORGE MCGOVERN: I am running for President today because we’ve had enough. Enough of the struggling economy leaving countless Americans in poverty and out of work. Enough of the hopelessness and division plaguing our society today. Enough of the never-ending war that has sent thousands of our men in uniform to an early grave. We need new blood in the White House. We need a leader who will put the people first and end the culture of secrecy and corruption that has taken hold in Washington.

In my Senate career, I have been a tireless advocate for the constituents of my state, and I would do the same as President of the United States. And for the past decade, I have urged America to lead the free world by example, not by fear. From repeatedly speaking out against the war on the Senate floor, to my campaign at the 1968 convention, to the McGovern-Hatfield Amendment that would have withdrawn American troops from Vietnam in 1971, I have always stood for peace.

In the interest of commitment to peace, I have signed onto an agreement with the Lindsay and Hart campaigns to maximize the impact of the anti-war movement. We will each support the strongest candidate of the three of us by state and combine our slates to back the strongest of us in Miami. Here in New Hampshire, I urge my supporters to vote for John Lindsay, the highest polling candidate, to send a message to Washington that the liberal base of our party is a force to be reckoned with. The way forward against Nixon is not by waffling and equivocating and flip-flopping but by standing firm in the face of injustice. Thank you.

SAM YORTY: Very simple: Of all the candidates in this race, rushing to bend the knee to the loudest constituencies, I am the only candidate standing firm for the beating heart that is the center. I have started out this election proudly declaring myself a moderate Democrat, and I will never budge on my convictions. Just as this is true, I have vested my candidacy since day one in unyielding service to defeat what is on everyone's mind: the looming radical takeover of our Democratic Party.

My candidacy has been one of boldness, I believe we can agree on. It takes fortitude to not only address America's most pressing issues, from crime to the economy, but to defeat the ruthless Richard Nixon in November. I have pinpointed his failures to the Silent Majority in office from the moment I hit the campaign trail, and he will not be able to bludgeon me the way he hopes to with the records of many of my rivals. We will take the fight to Nixon with me as the nominee, showing how America can have its best days ahead just as Los Angeles is now under my leadership.

To get to that point first, however, we must do everything possible to counter the radicals. I call upon a grand coalition of moderates, conservatives, and liberals to join me in this campaign of sensibility. Though we will surely not always agree, you will have in me a champion of common sense government, working for regular folks against the special interests. We've achieved the miracle in Los Angeles, and we will do it again this election year.

JOHN LINDSAY: At its best, America can be like a shining city on a hill, but I don’t think that’s what most people see when they look at their country today.  I hope to change that!  



To those who ask how many more of our boys have to die in Vietnam for a mistake, I say no more!  If elected, I will end the War in Vietnam and bring our boys home immediately.  To those who ask how much longer America will fight for freedom abroad while turning its back on equal rights movements at home, I say no longer!  A Lindsay Justice Department will aggressively fight discrimination wherever it rears its ugly head and I’ll send unelected bureaucrats like J. Edgar Hoover who would rather terrorize courageous anti-war protestors than join the fight for civil rights to the unemployment line where they belong!  I will also fight to pass the equal rights amendment to protect women’s rights.

To those who ask how much longer the government will put the interests of big business ahead of those of the working class, I say no longer!  As President, I will repeal Taft-Hartley, increase the minimum wage to $2.50 per hour, and fight to pass a comprehensive ban on union-busting practices.  To those who ask how much longer we will shirk our duty as custodians of our planet, I say no longer!  As President, I will secure the passage of Senator Muskie’s Clean Water Act currently languishing in Congress, as well as comprehensive endangered species protection legislation.

I am running because I believe in America and because I’m the man on this stage with the best chance of beating President Nixon in November.

2.- The Vietnam War has raged for years, and there is still no end in sight as the Paris Peace talks continue to deteriorate. What would you do as President regarding the Vietnam War, and, what makes your record on it different to the other candidates?

TED KENNEDY: The Vietnam War has become a quagmire from which we need to work our way out of. Some of my opponents would have us up and leave Vietnam overnight, while others would have us continue to lose generations of young men in the rice fields. As President, I will bring together an international coalition to pressure the North Vietnamese into entering meaningful peace negotiations, while also establishing a financial incentive system to root out corruption in South Vietnam. While extricating ourselves militarily, we are not going to abandon the causes of democracy in South Vietnam. We must continue to provide supports to the democratic regime, as they grow from a developing democracy into a thriving democracy. I am the only candidate on this stage who has the experience at home and abroad to actually get this done.

ED MUSKIE: As I stated before, I will leave Vietnam day 1 if elected. It's the first thing i'll do in office. I'll make sure all Americans get home safely. If Vietnam wants a democratic regime, they need to make our own sacrifices. America doesn't have to lose countless numbers of good people and American heroes for something someone else may not even want at all. It's not our task in Vietnam. What we are doing in Vietnam is pointless.

Some people including some that aren't here on the stage because they're frightened of the New Hampshire voters such as senator Humphrey, support Nixon's Peace with Honour. Senator Kennedy isn't different in that regard either. I think i've made my point. I'm glad to see that there are many Democrats within the party left that want our people back home.

When they are back home, i'll ensure that they'll celebrated and received as heroes. There'll be a national parade when they're back where we will award our heroes with a medal and give them the appreciation they deserve. We must thank them for their service. But America must also commit to peace and diplomacy on an international stage.

VANCE HARTKE: Paris is a perfect example of how Janus-faced Mr. Nixon's team is. He continues to bomb the people he's trying to negotiate with, invades Cambodia, expends American blood and treasure fruitlessly with no end in sight, and somehow declares himself an apostle of peace. If I were the president, I would cut through the theatrics and get to the heart of the matter. On day one, I would kick out men like Henry Kissinger. Next, I'd instruct our envoys to convey a desire for a cease-fire. Back it up with a cessation of all offensive bombing. Then I would set a date - no later than March 1973 - when we will withdraw all our troops. Once these assurances are in place, we can resume talks on the transfer of prisoners of war and a long-term settlement between Saigon and Hanoi to end the bloodshed in Indochina. Again: my record is my word. I opposed the war in 1965. I was a leader, not a follower, on this issue. No two-bit dictator in Saigon can tell me what should or should not be done with America's resources. I wasn't afraid to speak my mind then, and I'm not afraid to do so now. If the voters of Indiana could elect me in 1970, I believe the rest of America can too.

PHILIP HART: I have been a consistent opponent of this war from day one. The best way to fight communism is not through the deaths of thousands of young men far from home in fights against an enemy we are not using traditional strategies against. We're drawing a line in the sand while the tide's out, and it's harming our overall military readiness.

We must bring both sides back to the negotiating table without delay, and we must be ready to use whatever means we have to in order to bring about a permanent peace agreement. That alos means we need an administration that will keep their word on Vietnam; the Pentagon Papers demonstrated that there is a credibility gap in America. What our leaders have been telling us on Vietnam has been proven to not be true.

I would bring both sides back to the table using any means neccessary and negotiate a permanent peace agreement in Vietnam, or failing that, an armistice like what we see in Korea. We must put this war in our rear-view mirror and focus on rebuilding our standing with the rest of the world.

GEORGE MCGOVERN: This national disgrace must be stopped. If I were to accomplish only one thing as President, let it be to finally end the senseless carnage there.

On inauguration day, I would stop all bombings and offensive military operations in Vietnam. In the following days, I would meet with President Tôn to end the hostilities for good. After the mutual release of prisoners of war with the North, all our troops would be withdrawn and sent back home. And to properly put this national nightmare behind us, I would pardon anyone convicted of draft evasion and push for the abolition of conscription and repeal of the Selective Service registration requirement for men between 18 and 25.

I have been the Senator most outspokenly opposed to the war. As early as 1963, when the American presence in Southeast Asia was only just beginning to escalate, I questioned the U.S.’s military investment in such an isolated corner of the world. My colleagues thought little of it then, but my prediction that “the trap we have fallen into there will haunt us in every corner of this revolutionary world” could not have been more prescient. Under President Johnson, I was one of the only members of Congress to publicly question his judgment when he escalated the war time and time again. When I traveled to South Vietnam, I saw widespread devastation on a level I had not seen since World War II. And we now have a President who promised to end the war quickly who instead dragged us even further into hell on Earth with his carpet bombings of Cambodia. Some of my Democratic colleagues claim to have recently come around to the necessity of ending this war. But it’s your choice: will you trust their judgment, or mine?

SAM YORTY: I have consistently been on the record as saying Communism is the single greatest threat to the world order, just as Nazism was when I first got involved in politics as a young man. I took the unpopular opinion in 1940, against a fervent America First movement, to call for intervention against Hitler's madness. There has always been value in containment of the spread of communism across Southeast Asia, particularly Vietnam, and I will not hesitate to say that today. That is the basic desire of so-called Vietnamization, though we have seen again and again that Nixon has failed with his Vietnamization policies in getting any lasting substance from his proclamations.

There is another path. Just like the Democrats yearning for peace and withdrawal, I will not tolerate a long stalemate with fruitless goals. As President, I would take the approach of first maintaining our troop presence and increasing our forces after only first achieving ironclad strategic missions. We have to double down on new special forces training and operations which will accompany bombing campaigns to decimate Viet Cong supply lines and infrastructure. If we do the job with new direction and focus, I am confident that we can have our boys leave accomplished and with honor sooner.

What makes me different from many rivals is I have always been unapologetic for the sacrifices of our active troops and veterans. You know how I got the nickname "Saigon Sam" from certain critics? It was after I dared to stop in Vietnam to support our boys there. I'm proudly endorsed by one of the authors of the G.I. Bill, former Senator Ernest McFarland, and you will have a Commander-in-Chief in me who will stand up for the military after they have been spit on and heckled at.

JOHN LINDSAY: Well, first, let me say that President Nixon could end the Vietnam War right now if he were willing to set aside his pride and do the right thing like a leader is supposed to.  We need leaders with the moral courage to put America’s interests ahead of their own and President Nixon has proven himself to be woefully lacking in this respect.

There are two things that need to be done in Vietnam and unlike many of the challenges facing our nation, there’s a fairly simple solution.  First, we need to bring all of our boys home from Vietnam immediately.  Not in six months, not in late October, and not whenever President Nixon’s failed Vietnamization plan was supposed start working; we need to bring our boys home immediately.

Second, we need to bring home all American POWs in Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese would release all American POWs in the blink of an eye if it was part of a peace treaty that included a full withdrawal from Vietnam.

As for my record, I was an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War back when some of the men on this stage were saying we needed to send even more of our boys off to die for this tragic mistake.  I was the first man on this stage to call for a blanket pardon for everyone who evaded the draft.  And I am the only candidate in the race who has called for an overhaul of the VA and dramatic improvements to the quality of veteran’s healthcare.

[Lumine]

3.- If you had to criticize one of the candidates in this primary, who would it be? And why for?

TED KENNEDY: Senator Muskie, I believe, has engaged in a great slander against me for the tragedy of Chappaquiddick. What happened that night was a horrible, horrible tragedy from which I will never escape the demons. I own up to those mistakes and admit it freely: I made mistakes and they ended with a young girl's death. But to fabricate an unofficial "post mortem report" and then send it straight to the publisher of the largest newspaper in the State is disgusting. If Senator Muskie wanted to attack me on this issue, he should have at least had the dignity to say it to my face, rather than hide behind a broadsheet; if you're going to call me a murderous drunk, do it yourself, don't send a hitman.

ED MUSKIE: I'll take this time to not criticize a candidate on stage here, because i think i've criticized senator Kennedy a lot of times already. The voters of New Hampshire should by now know what the deal is.

I'll take this time to criticize the newspaper Manchester Union. They are claiming my campaign leaked information to them about Kennedy's Chappaquiddick. I want to say that I did not. And to me it is very concerning that there are people around who suggest I did something like that when I did not.

I really think America is facing a national security threat and that the newspaper should be thoroughly investigated because we might be dealing with a national security threat. The Manchester Union is a conservative newspaper and all it cares about is to ensure a Democrat would not win the presidential race. They're sabotaging all Democrats and smearing all the candidates, including me and including senator Kennedy.

A newspaper should not lie, they should tell the objective truth, and they are not. They are failing the American people. I think there should immediately be an investigation at the Manchester Union and i'm hoping fellow Democratic candidates on this stage will join me in joining this case and filing a case against this newspaper. The media has one damn job in this country: It's to objectively report information, the facts, independent from outside pressure. And they have failed. They dropped the ball. They failed the American people. That to me is concerning. We need independent media.

And one of the issues i'll focus on when elected president is to reform the media in the entire country to be unbiased and report objective facts, free from outside pressure, free from foreign donors and spies, free from any party affiliation. We need to...(mic cut off by moderator)

VANCE HARTKE: I want to talk about trust. The Democratic Party cannot credibly claim to be fixing the current Republican mess if we don't settle our own house first. There is a $9.3 million deficit in our budget dating back to 1968. Because of this deficit, we have lost the confidence of even the most basic hotels, which require cash up front because they're not sure we'll pay the credit on it. As the benefactors of the last Democratic nomination, I believe that both Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Muskie must take responsibility for the debt they have incurred from the campaign. Since only Mr. Muskie is here, he must bear the brunt of my criticism. As a front-runner, it is imperative that he restore our good credit. But I have seen no action from him on this point. I don’t believe he deserves any special favors since most other Democratic candidates, myself included, have paid off their campaign debts.

PHILIP HART: Mayor Sam Yorty. Mayor Yorty has been the chief purveyor of law and order rhetoric on our side of the aisle, yet as Councilman Bradley pointed out, none of his rhetoric squares with the facts. Mayor Yorty says that he had an integrated workforce. THis is true. It's also true that this man used racist appeals against Councilman Bradley when they ran against each other. He accused the Councilman-a police officer for much of his life-of being a communist or a black power radical.

During the Watts Riots, he failed to coordinate with black city officials to improve conditions there, notably in unemployment. His response was so perfectly McCarthyistic in nature; anyone who called him out on his disastrous mayoralty was a communist or a racial agitator. It's far easier to name-call than actually solve problems after all.

Mayor Yorty has also acted like the law does not apply to him; he freely commented on the evidence presented regarding the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, when as a trained lawyer, he should know better. Finally, this is a man who in 1966, after losing his race for governor, joined in the celebrations of Ronald Reagan when Reagan defeated the Democratic governor.

Mayor Yorty's only loyalty is to himself.

GEORGE MCGOVERN: Ed Muskie has proven himself a fickle snake willing to reverse all of his positions in a cynical attempt to cater to the tides of public opinion. His sensationalist smears against Kennedy and Humphrey reek of a desperation to distinguish himself from an establishment that, until recently, he was very much a part of.

Make no mistake, this man cannot be trusted to keep his promises; he would just as soon order a troop surge into Vietnam as follow through on immediate withdrawal. Even if somehow elected, his erratic leadership would actively make our country a worse place, either backing down or going berserk at the slightest sign of challenge while countless Americans continue to suffer at home and abroad. That’s frankly no better than a second term of Richard Nixon.

So if you want a President who stands for his values, who has devoted his career to making America and the wider world a better place, who will hear your concerns no matter who you are, who will be a responsible and steady hand on the international stage, you couldn’t do much worse than Ed Muskie.

SAM YORTY: Friends, we have seen in recent days just how how emboldened the radical threat feels in their campaign across America. There is so much at stake alone here in New Hampshire, and look no further than their anointed candidate on the ballot: Mayor John Lindsay. If you wish to know about Mayor Lindsay, all you need to know is the story of Ocean Hill-Brownsville.

Mayor Lindsay turned his cheek on New York teachers and organized labor with the UFT, refusing any of their guidance as he condoned and emboldened militant black activists to take over the local school board and dictate our children's education along racial lines. They fired scores of white, Jewish teachers without due process and reshaped curriculum to fit a racist and antisemitic agenda. Even after this, the Mayor refused to take action and forced teachers to take to the streets. This went on for weeks until New York State stepped in and took control, never the Mayor. That alone says a great deal.

You can learn a lot from Mayor Lindsay's friends, however. Far from integration and equality, Lindsay stood behind a full-fledged Malcolm X supporter in Rhody McCoy as he took over the schools with his hateful, separatist ideology. Another ally, Sonny Carson, openly threatened these teachers and boasted this:  I transformed thousands of black kids into little Sonny Carsons." After all our nation has suffered through under the BLA and other extremist groups, we must take these threats seriously at every turn. Someone like Mayor Lindsay is utterly disqualified to be our President at this juncture if this is the record he can boast back home. There are no excuses for this.

JOHN LINDSAY: Much has been said lately about the tragedy of Chappaquiddick.  I’m not going to attempt to exploit that horrible incident for cheap political points nor would I presume to comment on how a grieving family chooses to process their pain.  For better or worse, our legal system has issued its final judgement and the voters will render their verdict.

However, I wince a bit these days whenever I hear Senator Kennedy claim to oppose the Vietnam War or talk about how he opposes the corruption of smoke-filled rooms.  Senator Kennedy says he’s against the Vietnam War, but this is the same Senator Kennedy who passionately called for sending over 150,000 more of our boys to Vietnam just a few short years ago.  The same Senator Kennedy who proudly brags about having received the endorsement of Senator Thomas McIntyre, long one of the most aggressive and outspoken congressional supporters of the War in Vietnam.

Senator Kennedy promises a new day in America, one free from the pernicious influence of machine bosses deciding elections and handing out patronage in smoke-filled rooms.  And yet this is the same Senator Kennedy who couldn’t bend his knee fast enough to kiss the ring of Boss Daley, a man who ordered police to crack the skulls of innocent kids just four short years ago in Chicago.  I urged my supporters to back Senator McCarthy in Illinois because this election isn’t about any one man and I knew we needed to unite if we were to triumph over the Boss Daley delegate slate.  Senator Kennedy eagerly pledged fealty to Boss Daley and backed the Daley ticket.  And this man would have us believe he’s going to clean up Washington?  Americans are sick and tired of this sort of D.C. double-talk.

[Lumine]

Debate - Rebuttal and Closing Phase

4. For the candidates who were attacked on Answer 3 (Kennedy, Lindsay, Yorty, and Muskie three times), you get to make a 150 word rebuttal to each attack.

5. The New Hampshire Primary is in a couple of days. What is your closing statement to the voters there? (150 words max.)

You have until Wednesday midnight.

[Lumine]

Debate - Second Phase

ATTENDING CANDIDATES: Kennedy, Muskie, Hartke, Hart, McGovern, Lindsay, Yorty

1.- For the candidates who were attacked on Answer 3 (Kennedy, Lindsay, Yorty, and Muskie three times), you get to make a rebuttal to each attack.

TED KENNEDY: I appreciate Mayor Lindsay acknowledging the basic facts about Chappaquiddick. I worry that Mayor Lindsay is not being entirely honest with the American people, however. In one of his campaign speeches, he lambasted Senators for voting for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Well, I seem to remember a Republican Congressman Lindsay voting for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Earlier tonight, Mayor Lindsay attacked people on this stage for evolving on the Vietnam War. Well, I seem to remember a Republican Mayor Lindsay staying silent on the Vietnam War in 1968 as he was begging to be Richard Nixon's running mate. I also seem to remember a Republican Mayor Lindsay nominating Spiro Agnew at the Republican Convention just four years ago in Miami. I just wish Mayor Lindsay would be honest with the American people about his own record - a loyal Richard Nixon lapdog, until it wasn't politically convenient for him.

ED MUSKIE: To Ted Kennedy:

As I've said, i'm not responsible for what the Manchester Union told. But i'll say this, you accuse me of lacking the guts to criticize you directly. I'll proof immediately that's not true. I criticized you before and I'll do it again. Look me into the eyes: you are a murderer and all of America knows it. And you should drop it because every moment you stay in this race, you hurt the Democrats nationally. Even in case, you are in your right, you should drop out for the sake of preserving the Democrat Party's chances to win in november and to let the inquiry process. If you mean everything you said up to now, you should drop out. If not for the Democratic Party, than for Mary Jo. Right now, all your words of regret are simply meaningless and empty words. Drop out, Ted!

To Vance Hartke:

Mr. Humphrey is not on the stage tonight, you should direct your criticism to him. The only reason I was on the ticket in 1968 was to ensure the Democrats stood a chance in what was a hard year at the time, and because at the end of the day, we all come together and take our responsability and that's what I did in 1968. I'm not responsible for campaign finances of Humphrey's campaign. I myself have paid of all my campaign debts and I promise to do so for this campaign as well. But I should not pay off the debt of someone else's campaign. That's not my responsability. It's sad to see Mr. Humphrey isn't on the stage tonight, but I agree with you senator Hartke that he should pay off his debt, and i'll address this issue on the campaign trail and privately, because you're absolutely right.

To George McGovern:

First of all, in America we've all taught to be respectful to one other and behave in an ethical, respectful and moral way to one other. Calling me a fickle snake really isn't how we want to teach our children to communicate to one other.

Secondly, what you accuse me of doing, you do yourself right now. You attack me for attacking others. At the very least, i criticize Mr. Kennedy for negligence because he left a woman to die in his car. But I'm not sure what you are trying to say, and I don't think most of America knows either.

Thirdly, i've been very vocal on Vietnam throughout the campaign. I've lost political allies, and the establishment disproved of my comments because of Vietnam, but I promise we will immediately withdraw from Vietnam. It is what my entire campaign is centered on. Your attacks are simply not credible.

SAM YORTY: You brought a lot out, Senator. Let me say I have always acted my conscience as an independent, bipartisan leader. Many of our fellow Democrats are much the same and cannot be fit into one partisan box. I have been willing before to give my Republican friends across the aisle a chance for the good of the nation. If we get cases like Nixon, I will just as easily call them out.

Look around us today and you will see the threats of militant extremism are ever stronger. We have indeed dealt with it in Los Angeles, and other corners of America have suffered. What gives you any credibility to speak here when both you and Senator McGovern have just endorsed in New Hampshire a man who quite literally allowed black power radicals to take an innocent community hostage? This is the snobbish hypocrisy and complacency we must address.

JOHN LINDSAY: I’ll gladly pit my record against Yorty’s anytime.  Since I was elected Mayor, there hasn’t been a single race-riot in New York City.  Watts, the worst race riot in history, happened on Yorty’s watch.  We added over 225,000 new jobs and put 5,000 more cops on the streets in my first term alone.  Under Yorty, Los Angles burned before descending into looting and lawlessness as its Mayor cowered like a frightened child, abandoning the citizens who looked to him for leadership.

I oversaw the most successful reform effort to combat police corruption in American history.  The corruption of Yorty’s police department is matched only by its brutality.  Sonny Carson has never been my friend or ally, but Yorty credited the white supremacist John Birch Society for his reelection.  I’m also proud to have received the overwhelming support of labor, teachers, and the Jewish community when I won reelection.

2.- The New Hampshire Primary is in a couple of days. What is your closing statement to the voters there?

TED KENNEDY: New Hampshire knows Ted Kennedy. You know my family, you know my positions, you know my record. You know I've always fought for the voiceless, the less privileged, the most in need. I've always been honest with you - even when it doesn't always present myself in the best light. We need a President who isn't afraid to show you his warts in exchange for bold, decisive leadership and I am that man. I have a plan to root out corruption in politics, protect our air and water, increase real working wages, and get more people to the doctor's office when they're sick. And I'll do it all without raising taxes on working Americans. I'm Ted Kennedy, I'm running for President, and I'd like your vote.

ED MUSKIE: We want to defeat president Nixon in november, and I really think we cannot win with senator Kennedy on the ballot. He's too tainted by the scandal, and he should drop out. If not because he will be hurting the Democratic chances to win, than it's because he should do so out of respect for the ongoing judical process that will investigate the circumstances in which Mss. Kopechne has died.

My campaign is centered on everyday issues which mostly are in line with the consensus of the Democratic Party. And on leaving Vietnam, and exactly focusing on those everyday issues at home. Fixing our housing, healthcare, education and ensuring America's economy does well, so that we can all enjoy the welfare America provides back again. Vietnam is a sinking waste of our money and resources. I again promise i'll leave Vietnam immediately and Americans should come first again!

VANCE HARTKE: I have a question for the audience: Aren't you tired of the lies? The lullabies sung from the White House while the American people wallow in both war and poverty are an insult to our national intelligence. My name is Vance Hartke, and I am running for the Democratic nomination because I am tired of Richard Nixon's lies! The real enemy is not out there in the jungles of Indochina, but much closer to home. The twin tyrannies of unemployment and inflation are tearing at our social fabric. They must be addressed by clear, concise leadership from the top. I say let us have peace abroad and strength at home. If any part of what I say appeals to you, I ask for your support.

PHILIP HART: (Mr. Hart presumably became indisposed, not penalized, but obviously doesn't win points)

GEORGE MCGOVERN: We stand at a critical juncture for our nation. With the thousands dying overseas, skyrocketing unemployment, and continued civil unrest, the stakes in this election are too high to let another 1968 debacle happen. Mayor Lindsay, Senator Hart, and I have banded together in recognition that the unjust war in Vietnam must be ended with all possible haste. I hope you’ll make your voices heard and send a powerful message on Tuesday that we will not be sidelined, we will not be silenced, and we will fight our absolute hardest to take our country back.

SAM YORTY: Tonight on this stage alone, we have seen the lengths of the radicals' thirst for victory. Make no mistake: they seek a sudden, engineered takeover of the polls, just as they have been doing with our classrooms, campuses, and city halls. New Hampshire is the battleground for America's soul. I will be your voice for reason.

We will stand for the working class, for a strong national defense, and against the social experiments ripping our communities apart. This transcends age or race. This is about decency versus delinquency, liberty versus lunacy. Los Angeles has boomed under my watch for a very simple reason: we have addressed the issues that matter to you. Whether you're a Democrat, Republican, or independent, our campaign has been speaking to the hearts of people in New Hampshire and beyond. Now we must unite against the forces seeking to tear everything down.

JOHN LINDSAY: This election is not only a battle for America’s soul, but her future.  I envision an America where the words “all men are created equal” are more than some cheap slogan for politicians to trot out when they’re making a play for the black vote.  An America in which no young man will ever again be asked to be the last man to die for a mistake.  An America where gender discrimination has been relegated to the trash heap of history and where hard-working Americans can count on fair pay for an honest day’s work.  An America that has finally won its wars on hate, hunger, and homelessness.  An America that takes care to leave behind a world we can be proud of for our children and grandchildren.  An America that rejects the Nixonian demagogues who would divide us along racial lines.  That is the future I’m fighting for!

[Lumine]

Debate - Grading

ATTENDING CANDIDATES: Kennedy, Muskie, Hartke, Hart, McGovern, Lindsay, Yorty

Well.

The RL New Hampshire debate was a borefest, infamous for having stirred no one and, at most, hurting Muskie's chances a bit due to an uninspiring performance.

This isn't that. Not only is it a televised debate among seven people, a first in American political history... it is also a proper Night of the Long Knives, more akin to what we'd see in 2012 and not... well, 1972. People are stunned, shocked, at times disgusted, but most can't take their eyes off the screen. Something has changed. And the polls are very much going to be affected.

Let's get things out of the way with a player by player review:

TED KENNEDY: At this point in the race, it's clear that half of America loathes Ted Kennedy. How could they not, with so many of his colleagues demanding his blood and - in a chilling moment - calling him a murderer on live television? But if the expectation is that the other half loathes him as well... that's not the case. Many have grown to admire how Kennedy stands up for himself - not unlike how many Republicans cheer Nixon for firing back on the "liberal elites" - even if he can be quite clumsy doing so ("murderous drunk" will haunt him).

Not only does he weather the attacks, his surprisingly more moderate persona contrasts rather well for scores of Democrats quite scared or afraid of what they're seeing on stage. And he also gets a brutal attack in to Lindsay, torching the new radical for his recent past. Ted Kennedy didn't win the debate, but perhaps more importantly, he's still standing at the end, and perhaps even gains the grudging respect of a few. Being called a murderer undoubtedly riles up anti Kennedy Democrats... but for many of the quiet residents of New Hampshire, it may just be a step too far.

ED MUSKIE: Contrary to expectations that Ted Kennedy would have to weather the attack barrage, it was Muskie who most of the candidates decided to run into a human punching bag. To his credit, Muskie starts strong, turning the question of his sudden left-wing turn by addressing what was perceived to be his weakness before the primary: a lack of beliefs. This Muskie, who claims to be standing up FOR something, gets people to listen. Unfortunately, this is followed by Muskie calling for an investigation on the Manchester Union Leader over "national security" implications, which, instead of making Muskie look reasonable, rather comes off to voters as spreading conspiracy theories (whether he is onto something is another thing entirely).

Muskie then gets punched into oblivion by a succession of candidates. And then an interesting thing happens. Rather than waste his time merely defending himself - which, at the best, would probably only lessen the effect - Muskie punches back. Calling Kennedy a murderer may indeed be a step too far - soon many Democrats call for him to drop out -, but he ensures that if he's going to go down, he's going to take down a few corpses with him.

VANCE HARTKE: The NH audience has heard of Hartke due to his energetic campaigning, but to most he's still at best "oh yeah, that guy". By the end of the night, a surprising transformation has emerged. Hartke suddenly doesn't sound so implausible next to all the chaos and the drama. For a start, he hits it out of the park on the issue questions, mimicking Hart on being a principled but not ruthless contender, and getting the audience to cheer when claiming that "no two-bit dictator from Saigon" will dictate American policy. Still, this might at best be just enough for the anti-war crowd to pronounce him of the good guys.

He then goes on to make a series of "common sense" points - like the Democratic Party's deficit - that have people nodding along, even if he's just declared war on a livid Larry O'Brien (who orders the DNC staffers to put Hartke on his "____ list"). The people can sense his disgust with the circus on stage, and having avoided the minefield, Hartke is suddenly left standing as a quite reasonable, if radical candidate.

PHILIP HART: Hart performs much like Hartke in many ways, being an anti-war left candidate who speaks of principle and generally decries any lack of principles. He's not as effective as Hartke on Vietnam, but all but matches his performance early on. Then he swings against Mayor Yorty, proving for the second time that Mr. "Conscience of the Senate" is the only one who can get on Saigon Sam's nerves. The problem? The attack line that he choses certainly riles activists up and gets minority groups outside the state noticing. But for New Hampshire, a state which is 99% White in 72', many voters don't really seem to care that much. Thus Hart wounds, but does not kill. Being unable to offer a close statement, he lags behind Hartke despite a good performance.

GEORGE MCGOVERN: Oh, poor George McGovern. He all but kills his chances at this debate when he announces at the outset that he's endorsing Lindsay in the state. That may play well to set himself as a man of honesty, but the local audience is left bewildered as to why he's even on that stage. That simple bit dooms McGovern across the debate, dragging down some rather effective answers - particularly in Vietnam - simply because the audience no longer thinks he's a serious candidate. He does get a last laugh, for he delivers one of the more scathing attacks on Muskie over a supposed lack of consistency, but does not come out a winner.

SAM YORTY: Mayor Yorty correctly notices that there are two debates taking place. One, in which at least five candidates speak to the anti-war, left-wing and liberal Democrats, and another, in which the rest of the party - perhaps even a majority! - is left unattended. And were it not for Kennedy, who wisely dials it down and goes moderate, Yorty would have had those Democrats afraid of what they're listening to all for himself. As it is, he does rather well, toning it down himself on Vietnam, denouncing radicals, and generally making the case that, if the party wants to avoid a Goldwater 64' scenario but from the left, they need a different man in charge. Whether this would work if the stage had seen Hubert Humphrey or more moderate Democrats there is another issue, but as it is, it's a political winner for the Mayor.

Much like Hart, however, he misunderstands his audience at some points. In some other states, going so aggressively against Lindsay on Jewish American issues might provide incisive. In New Hampshire, less than 1% Jewish, voters are once again left thinking that it may indeed be a bad thing, but it isn't THE bad thing they care about. As it is, warning of Lindsay's embrace of "black radicals" riles up and scares far more conservative and moderate voters. And as it is, Lindsay torches the Mayor too, quite effectively.

JOHN LINDSAY: The more time passes, the more of a "marmite" candidate John Lindsay ends up being. For scores of young, minority - outside of NH that is -, anti-war, or generally liberal voters, here is a man unafraid to say what he means and to be bold, provocative, and radical. For all the rest, much of the radical talk outright frightens them, and the populist streak - fire Hoover - looks unbecoming of a President to them. Even so, Lindsay has clearly gambled that the anti-war left can give him the nomination, and he fights fiercely and effectively for their affection. He also has the good sense not to push it too far while still remaining populist, such as the promise to honor the troops returning from Vietnam, or a focus on bringing back the POWs. He also has the most inspiring and effective closing argument, which is widely seen as the weakest part of the debate for the others.

Alas, people can tell he's surging, and they also train their fire on him. What could have been a difficult moment is, however, partly defused by a clever statement. "No race riots on my watch" immediately gets heads turning towards Lindsay, and for many moderates otherwise scared of all the radicalism, it sounds like music to their ears.

-

When the smoke clears, newspapers are clear in stating that the Democratic Party has arguably lost the debate, looking divided, bitter, and turning off many New Hampshire voters who start rethinking whether to vote at all or to go instead to the Republican Primary.

They then pronounce - for the most part - VANCE HARTKE as the darkhorse winner of the debate, providing him with key momentum right on the eve of the primary. ED MUSKIE, for his part, is unanimously pronounced the loser, and likely to pay a price at the polls.

For the rest, it is generally agreed upon that LINDSAY and YORTY battle closely for second, followed right behind by PHILIP HART. Yorty is particularly singled out as a man who could deliver a surprise, having less competitors for the more moderate - or less liberal - vote. Although GEORGE MCGOVERN doesn't lose compared to Muskie, commentators are bewildered by his attendance despite endorsing another candidate in the state, and judge that the debate will likely hurt him for that reason.

Where there is no consensus, is with TED KENNEDY. No commentator or newspaper will claim that he won, but many note that the collapse that his rivals have been plotting for two months is yet to materialize. Not just that, being left to do an effective play for moderate voters has also raised the uncertainity. Could it be that Kennedy, despite not winning the debate, got himself an unexpected boost with overlooked voters? It remains to be seen.