George McGovern Confirms His Idiocy

Lest you think George McGovern's lunacy was confined to his 1972 run for the presidency as the ultra-liberal Democratic candidate, be assured he's just as zany today. It seems that his $1,000 'mad money' for all wasn't the end of his foolish notions.

Just read some of his idiotic ravings in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial.


"Most Americans probably agree that we have elected a highly articulate, talented president in Barack Obama. He has also given us a potentially great Secretary of State in Hillary Clinton. It makes me proud to witness these two recent political rivals working together to strengthen and enrich America at home and abroad. Recognizing the major economic crisis our new leader has inherited, we must hope his proposed economic plan will be helpful.

He must be on something- something strong and hallucinogenic. Figures. These two disconnected liberals have already damaged US foreign policy more in five months than even Bubba managed in two terms.

Hope "his proposed economic plan will be helpful?" Oh my God! McGovern never saw a spending program he didn't like, either.

First, why not order all U.S. troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan by Thanksgiving?

Oh, I don't know, George. Maybe because their missions are still incomplete? Something you wouldn't understand.

We now spend $12 billion a month on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- two mistaken invasions that have increased violence and terrorism in the Middle East.

Another liberal canard- that we brought all this on ourselves. Again, evidence of McGovern's addled brain processes.

The second step I would take is to ask Congress to shift half of our military budget to other sources of national security. For almost 50 years, American foreign and national-security policy were believed to require a military budget big enough to win wars against Russia, China and a smaller country such as North Korea simultaneously. We waged what was called a Cold War against an alleged "Sino-Soviet bloc."

As we now know there was no such thing as a bloc involving Russia and China. The relations between these two large communist nations could have better been described as a rivalry.
In his second term, Ronald Reagan met with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who proposed that the two countries end the Cold War and the arms race. Reagan agreed, and the danger of war between the two nuclear giants has since subsided. As for China, no one any longer fears war with this most-populous, fast-developing country to which we have extended "most favored nation" trading status. It would seem that no nation now threatens us.

Wow, what planet is George currently calling home? Has he missed the recent Chinese escalation in its blue water navy? Its belligerence in claiming all of the South China Sea as its own, for oil exploration and production? Not to mention that the Chinese, and other nations, will gauge the continuing influence of the US by its willingness to preserve its military power and ability to fight and defeat any enemy on the globe.

Well, I wouldn't expect McGovern to understand foreign policy and military danger any better now than when he got blown out in the election of '72.

There is the terrorist danger, but this is not a military problem. Terrorism is a by-product of military weakness. The terrorist has no battleships, bombers, missiles, tanks, organized armies or heavy artillery.

No, but they do have weapons to attack such armies. And they do conduct land campaigns to take and occupy territory, George. So, wrong again.

The only significant terrorist attack on the U.S., on Sept. 11, 2001, was carried out by 19 young men from Saudi Arabia and Egypt armed only with boxcutters. They used these devices to intimidate the crews of four airplanes into surrendering control of their planes. The terrorists then suicidally flew the planes into buildings.

This event, which took place nearly a decade ago, dramatized the limitation of a huge military budget in assuring national security. Nonetheless, our military budget is higher than ever -- $515 billion annually, not including the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan.

This figure is greater than the combined military budgets of the rest of the world. We could defend ourselves with an arms budget half that size. If we directed the $250 billion we could save annually into national health care, improved education, a better environment and restoring our infrastructure, the nation would be more secure, better employed and have a higher standard of life. Or the savings might be used for annual reductions in the national debt.

To cut spending for more and more costly armaments and these two wars would require both common sense and a measure of political courage on the part of the president and Congress. Why? Because all 50 states have either a military installation or a defense contract or both.


These create payrolls and jobs.

That is a major reason for investing an equal sum in the public programs suggested here, which should provide as many or more jobs than are now offered by surplus military spending. Much of the arms spending is for things that are capital-intensive but low on job creation. The reverse is true for public investment in such things as upgrading our decaying infrastructure, protecting the environment, providing quality teachers and schools, and improved health care.

Funny how McGovern turns basic defense spending into pure pork, and government-driven social spending into necessities, isn't it? By the way, George, defense contractors happen to employ people to build necessary armaments for our national defense. You know, that pesky part of the constitution about 'providing for the common defense?'

Finally, I would like to see America build the fastest, safest and cleanest-powered railway system in the world. This nationwide system of passenger and freight rail service should be integrated with equally superior public transit facilities in our cities.

Very few Americans are in the market for a tank or aircraft carrier. There are many eager consumers for the world's best, fastest and safest rail and transit systems."


Really? There's little demand for long haul rail in the US because of its point-point nature and high cost. Especially acquiring right-of-ways. If there were a demand for it, someone would have offered to assemble a passenger system from existing trackage.

But nobody has. Not Conrail. Not Chessie. Or UP, or SantaFe.

Could it be because only a non-profit, government-backed money-losing entity could possibly afford to do this? By wasting taxpayer dollars?

Pretty much.

McGovern. 1000% loony in 1972, and still as misinformed, misguided and lacking comprehension nearly 40 years later!

McGovern's Conversion To Conservatism

Last Friday's Wall Street Journal featured a remarkable editorial by George McGovern entitled "Freedom Means Responsibility." To read his latest piece is to, I believe, witness the final conversion of Senator McGovern into a man of truly conservative values.

Some passages from his editorial are,

"Nearly 16 years ago in these very pages, I wrote that "'one-size-fits all' rules for business ignore the reality of the market place." Today I'm watching some broad rules evolve on individual decisions that are even worse.

Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior. Much paternalist scrutiny has recently centered on personal economics, including calls to regulate subprime mortgages.

Health-care paternalism creates another problem that's rarely mentioned: Many people can't afford the gold-plated health plans that are the only options available in their states.

Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It's as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all.

Economic paternalism takes its newest form with the campaign against short-term small loans, commonly known as "payday lending.

With payday lending, people in need of immediate money can borrow against their future paychecks, allowing emergency purchases or bill payments they could not otherwise make. The service comes at the cost of a significant fee -- usually $15 for every $100 borrowed for two weeks. But the cost seems reasonable when all your other options, such as bounced checks or skipped credit-card payments, are obviously more expensive and play havoc with your credit rating.

Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn't perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who's familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next."

That last line is amazing to read. I'm old enough to remember McGovern's run for the Presidency, so this is particularly sweet to read. Imagine him, a former ultra-liberal Democratic US Senator, acknowledging the 'law of unintended consequences.'

It harks back to his reflections on attempting to run a B&B some years ago. Whether he appeared on Firing Line with Bill Buckley, or merely wrote about it in the Journal, I recall that he seemed a truly chastened man. His admission of frustration in dealing with the very same laws and paternalistic attitude he had helped craft as a Senator was gratifying to watch.

McGovern closed his piece with these words,

"Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else."

I could not put it better myself. Nor, I think, could any conservative of longstanding beliefs in that vein.

Why Are There Any Intelligent Liberal Democrats?

Today I was shopping with my daughters, observing and enjoying the bounty and selection of products in some of the larger American retail stores- Target and Costco, to be specific.

My younger daughter was looking for an iPod, and we went to the electronics section to view the various models. On the way there, we passed the youth clothing section. Spring clothes are already on display.

What caught my eye is how stylish and varied the selection of tops, skirts and pants was for young girls and boys of a pre-teen age. Back in the day, when I was young, things were much more basic, even at a mid-line department store. Youth clothing was rarely the province of fashion, let alone in a more mass-merchandised retail outlet, like Target.

As I surveyed the many lower- and middle-class shoppers in both stores filling carts with merchandise, I wondered, why would anyone would ever think government could create such spectacular advances in the provision of high-quality, broad selections of goods for the general American public?

Who do liberal Democrats think have wrought such economic miracles? Central planners in Washington, D.C.? The lifetime civil servants over at Commerce, Labor, or the FTC?

Congress didn't create jobs. Neither did any President. The best they can do is set stable, dependable rules for treatment of capital and income, as well as Federal spending and taxation, then get out of the way.

Companies like Target, Costco, and many others like them will do the rest. They provide improved standards of living with their lower prices and wider assortment of products than were available even five years ago.

So why do I have liberal, intelligent, educated friends and acquaintances who vote for regulation-loving, income-leveling, tax-and-spend liberal Congressmen, Senators and Presidents? How is this possible?

What do these liberals think drives our economic prosperity and improvement in standards of living? Congressional witch hunts and higher taxes?

Truly, this mystifies me. I will never forget watching an interview with George McGovern sometime in the 1980s or 1990s, post-Reagan. He had attempted to run a bed and breakfast after retiring from the Senate, but it had failed. George regaled the interviewer with tales of over-regulation and the high costs of compliance with various local, state and Federal authorities. It was touching to see him admit, on camera, that, while a Senator, he had no idea of the awful, stifling impact on economic activity many of the bills for which he voted actually had.

One liberal possibly converted, a few hundred million more to go.....