Former U. S. Senator Thomas Eagleton, who had been in poor health the past few months, died today at age 77.
Eagleton was probably the only major Missouri politician of the 70s through 90s that I didn't have the opportunity to interview during my time at the Lamar Democrat and Carthage Press. That is something I have always regretted, but at that time, and it has been that way until last year's election, Democratic candidates did not spend much time in southwest Missouri.
I was in high school when Senator George McGovern chose Sen. Eagleton as his vice presidential running mate. That choice began the practice followed to this day of thoroughly checking out potential running mates' backgrounds. When it turned out Eagleton had received electroshock treatment and never mentioned it to McGovern. When after a few days McGovern finally cut Sen. Eagleton loose, he went through a public debacle in which five people (going strictly by memory, I believe he asked Ted Kennedy, Ed Muskie, Scoop Jackson, Abraham Ribicoff, and former Vice President Hubert Humphrey) rejected him before former Peace Corps Director (and Kennedy in-law) Sargent Shriver joined the eventual losing ticket.
Looking back on Eagleton's time, it is amazing how well Missourians had it at that time. In the Senate, the body established as the Constitution to be the deliberate, thoughtful body, we had Tom Eagleton and Jack Danforth, two thoughtful, accomplished men, who were loyalty to their parties, but were willing to put the nation's interest first, serving at the same time.
Unfortunately, it will likely be a long time before we see that happen again.
12 comments:
I too remember when we had Tom Eagleton, Jack Danforth, Stuart Symington in our Government. At no time do I remember them deliberately cutting services to Missourians, leaving them without medical coverage, etc. and telling them they were better off. I doubt in my lifetime our Government will ever get back to the stable, respectable platform of Democracy that it once was. I saw Harry Truman numerous times during the 1950's. I would have never suspected 50 years later our President of this nation would be hated around the world and have no more respect than a junk yard dog.
Pitiful isn't it?
Drust
Maybe to be more respected the current President should take a page from Truman’s book and intern American citizens based on race and then drop two atomic bombs on cities filled with women and children.
"and then drop two atomic bombs on cities filled with women and children."
Spoken like a true- Republican-baptist. Nothing more dangerous!
Drust
I will say this for Truman, he recognized that America’s enemies were not fellow Americans who’s views he disagreed with (i.e., Republicans) but the people we were at war with (i.e., Japanese and North Koreans).
On the other hand, modern Democrats seem to have a weird intolerance for different political views coming from their fellow citizens while being very open-minded when it comes to the people who actually wish to harm or destroy our country. Which is what permits a crank to say there is “nothing more dangerous” then “true- Republican-baptist.”
Here’s a news flash: It wasn’t Baptist nor Republicans who crashed into the World Trade Center on 9/11, or took over our embassy in Iran in the last 444 days of the Carter Administration, or blew up the marine barracks in Beirut in the 1980's, or attacked our embassies in Africa in the 1990's, or attacked the USS Cole in the 1990's. So, to say that there is “nothing more dangerous” then “true- Republican-baptist.” suggests that your views are based more on bigotry then reason.
P.S., I still say that, thus far at least, no Republican President has ever authorized the internment of American citizens based on race nor dropped nuclear bombs on any city. So, if you want to worship Roosevelt and Truman then you need to remove that ugly beam from your eye before you attempt to remove the speck from Bush’s (that’s a biblical analogy, I couldn’t resist throwing it in seeing as how I am a “true- Republican-baptist”).
Is anyone locked up in Cuba without representation or any chance thereof? These people are people, someone's brother, sister, or son or daughter. Did anyone lie to the American Public about the reason for going into Iraq, no one lied about the reason to go into World War II. Have we been searching for Osama with all our might? Do our citizens have healthcare, AFFORDABLE healthcare? What happened to the budget surplus after the last Democratic presidency? Now we have a record debt.
Keep on being a republican, your support for your president and governor are certainly in the minority.
Drust
World War II era Germans and Japanese were also someone’s brother, sister, son or daughter. Nevertheless, German and Japanese POWs where held in captivity, without trials or representation, until the end of the war. Apparently, we have more compassion for enemy combatants today because they do have a right to representation and review of their detention (you are several months behind the times on this issue).
In addition, Japanese-Americans during WWII were also someone’s brother, sister, son or daughter, what legal process were afforded to them? What about all the civilians that burned in the Dresden firestorm or in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were they not someone’s brother, sister, son or daughter?
As for the search for Osama and/or weapons of mass destruction, we haven’t found Hitler’s body yet either but I’m fairly certain he existed and that we won WWII despite the lack of a body.
As for lying to go to war, there are always crackpots with conspiracy theories who are ready to believe the worst about their political opponents. There are even nuts who suggest that Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor to happen to give him an excuse to enter WWII (I might also note that the German’s were not involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor and yet we concentrated our military efforts on them first).
So, if you wish to live in a fantasy world where Bush concocted a conspiracy with American, British, French, and Israeli intelligence services to present phoney evidence of weapons of mass destruction then more power to you. However, I might question that if Bush was so nefarious as to create a lie to go into Iraq then why wouldn’t he just plant chemical weapons in Iraq after we invaded to justify his position?
As for being in the minority, somehow I’m happy despite the last election whereas you (like most Democrats I speak too) sound oddly bitter. I suspect that it’s because I don’t have the laundry list of grievances you do . . . after reading your last post it sounds like your America is a hell-hole when compared to mine.
You should volunteer immediately to go to Iraq, remember the Army still needs a few good men (or women). When you are so happy with your government and all that it represents, do your patriotic duty and hit the enlistment office first thing tomorrow morning.
Drust
Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, after todays events in the Libby trial and all the implications this has toward the Bush Administration, I am sure you will say that Libby was a good honest man. The Republicans have made such a mess out of Washington and Jefferson City, I don't intend to waste my time reading any more of your posts. So post away, you'll be talking to yourself.
Drust
Good come back. I’ve never been in the military and I’m too old now. However, I have worked as a police officer, then I went to law school, got out, worked as a public defender for a couple of years and now I’m in private practice doing mostly disability and bankruptcy law. So, I suppose by your logic I would have the right to opine on crime issues, Constitutional issues, debt issues and disability issues but not on war issues. Of course, Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln never served in combat but that didn’t stop them from sending others into combat (and I’m glad they did).
Still, if you wish to live in Robert A. Heinlein novel where only veterans can vote I’ll be happy to take you up on that and let the guys in the service vote on what we should do in Iraq. I doubt they would vote to cut off funding and “re-deploy.”
You might give some thought to your argument, by your logic I could say that if you disprove of rape and murder then you must do what I did when I was in my 20's (i.e., become a police officer). In addition, if you think the government is violating people’s civil rights, then do must do what I’m doing now and become a lawyer. On the other hand, again following your logic, if you have never served in either of these professions then you have no right to voice an opinion on those issues (and you just may be gutless).
It is amazing how quickly we all go from posting our views on the topics at hand to slamming those that don't agree with us. If this blog were a party, it would be an interesting one, definitely not boring and probably with a fist fight or two. I have found that I love to read the views, love to argue and love to blog. It is sometimes educating, sometimes depressing but always entertaining.
You said you said you wouldn’t be reading anymore Durst. I guess you have something in common with Libby (and Bill Clinton) after all.
I am another reader and this is my first post in this column. Durst please be a man of your word and stop reading and posting. I have taken in enough ignorance for one day. I do commend the police officer/attorney for being so well-read and honest. Durst, you are simply out-gunned here. Your "I'm gonna slam any republican view that I can" mentality is borish and simply old.
Post a Comment