Of course, Donald Trump makes almost anyone look classy by comparison, including that drunk who threw up on your lap on the subway. (He apologized.)
On November 7, 1962, Richard Nixon made his official concession statement after losing the election for Governor of California to incumbent Pat Brown, Jerry Brown’s father. Nixon had barely lost the U.S. Presidency in one of the closest election ever two years earlier, and earning the governor’s seat in the Golden State was supposed to be the beginning of his comeback. The loss was devastating, but Nixon made it more so with a bitter, graceless, self-pitying concession speech that became part of his legacy. It was a long, extemporaneous, rambling mess. Read the whole thing, by all means, or watch the video, because it really is remarkable. Here are some highlights:
Good morning, gentlemen…. now that all the members of the press are so delighted that I have lost, I’d like to make a statement of my own….I congratulate Governor Brown…I believe Governor Brown has a heart, even though he believes I do not. I believe he is a good American, even though he feels I am not.
And therefore, I wish him well because he is the Governor of the first state. He won and I want this state to be led with courage, I want it to be led decisively and I want it to be led, certainly, with the assurance that the man who lost the campaign never during the course of the campaign raised a personal consideration against his opponent — never allowed any words indicating that his opponent was motivated by lack of heart or lack of patriotism to pass his lips. I am proud of the fact that I defended my opponent’s patriotism. You gentlemen didn’t report it, but I am proud that I did that. I am proud also that I defended the fact that he was a man of good motives, a man that I disagreed with very strongly, but a man of good motives. I want that — for once, gentlemen, I would appreciate if you would write what I say, in that respect. I think it’s very important what you write it — in the lead — in the lead.
…Now, above everything else I want to express my appreciation to our volunteer workers.
It was a magnificent group. Five hundred thousand dollars was spend, according to Newsweek Magazine, to get out the vote on election day. They had a right to do that if they could get the money. We didn’t have that kind of money. But believe me, we had wonderful spirit.
And our 100,000 volunteer workers I was proud of…. I only wish they could have gotten out a few more votes in the key precincts, but because they didn’t Mr. Brown has won and I have lost the election…I have no hard feelings against anybody, against my opponent, and least of all the people of California. We got our message through as well as we could. The Cuban thing [The Cuban Missile Crisis] did not enable us to get it through in the two critical weeks that we wanted to, but nevertheless we got it through and it is the people’s choice.
They have chosen Mr. Brown. They have chosen his leadership, and I can only hope that that leadership will now become more decisive, that it will move California ahead and, so that America can move ahead — economically, morally and spiritually — so that we can have character and self-reliance in this country …
One last thing. At the outset, I said a couple of things with regard to the press that I noticed some of you looked a little irritated about. And my philosophy with respect to the press has really never gotten through. And I want to get it through….And as I leave the press, all I can say is this: For 16 years, ever since the Hiss case, you’ve had a lot of- a lot of fun- that you’ve had an opportunity to attack me and I think I’ve given as good as I’ve taken. It was carried right up to the last day.
I made a talk on television, a talk in which I made a flub — one of the few that I make, not because I’m so good on television but because I’ve done it a long time. I made a flub in which I said I was running for governor of the United States. The Los Angeles Times dutifully reported that. Mr. Brown the last day made a flub — a flub, incidentally, to the great credit of television that was reported — I don’t say this bitterly — in which he said “I hope everybody wins. You vote the straight Democratic ticket, including Senator Kuchel.” I was glad to hear him say it, because I was for Kuchel all the way. The Los Angeles TImes did not report it.
I think that it’s time that our great newspaper have at least the same objectivity, the same fullness of coverage, that television has. And I can only say thank God for television and radio for keeping the newspapers a little more honest….
I leave you gentlemen now and you now write it. You will interpret it. That’s your right. But as I leave you I want you to know- just think how much you’re going to be missing.
You won’t have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference…Thank you, gentlemen, and good day.
Now, in contrast, here is Donald Trump’s statement last night after being shellacked by Sen. Ted Cruz in a major primary Trump was once supposed to have won. He didn’t deliver it in person—he didn’t have the courage or respect for his supporters—which is just the first of many ways in which it is ethically inferior to Nixon’s disgraceful rant. Another is that it was delivered via Twitter, which would have been like Nixon tying his to a rock and throwing it through a window at the LA Times in 1962:
Trump’s mess has one virtue over Nixon’s speech. It is shorter. Incredibly, it is even less organized and coherent than Richard Nixon at his worst. While Nixon took unseemly sideswipes at Brown that were considered at the time to be unforgivable breaches of the political etiquette, defying the tradition of civil and gracious concession speeches, Trump begins by calling his opponent a nasty schoolyard-style name….several steps down the evolutionary scale.
If Trump’s statement were a creature on that scale on the way to Homo Sapiens, it would be a newt.
Incredibly, Trump is more whiny than Richard Nixon, whose false exit from the political scene (after all, he was elected President just six years later) has defined whiny concession speeches ever since. He also engages in wild and unsubstantiated accusations—naturally, for these are his weapons of choice–and takes no responsibility for his own defeat. This is especially telling, because Trump’s loss was the direct result of his metaphorically shooting himself in the foot, the head, the butt and the face over the past two weeks with crude attacks on Cruz’s wife, an alliance with the National Enquirer, a frighteningly unhinged interview with the Washington Post editors, his reliance on the most incompetet, repulsive and ridiculous array of spokespersons in the history of politics, his demonstration of absolute ignorance and negligence regarding the issue of abortion, and a Wisconsin talk radio performance that exposed his act as the shallow bluster that it is.
Any American who would honestly say that they could point to Trump’s statement last night as an example of how they would want their children to accept a tough setback in life is an unfit parent and an ethically inert human being. Nixon’s pathetic concession statement sent him into exile for years, but because of the intellectual and character deficits of his supporters, Trump’s far worse display will barely slow him down.
Think about that.
Ethics Alarms 
Take heart, our long national nightmare is almost over. Trumps loss makes it virtually impossible for him to get enough delegates for a first ballot win at the convention (source http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/can-you-get-trump-to-1237/ fill in 3 for Wisconsin and get back 1197 delegates.) Since the party chooses the delegates, he losses votes on the second and third, then on the fourth he has only those he can buy.
I think we’re finally beginning to see The Donald’s attention span being exceeded. His campaign is unprofessional and suggests it’s nothing more than a publicity stunt. If the left and the media (but I repeat myself) weren’t rooting so hard for him, he’d have been out of the picture long ago.
Shifting the blame, you’d make a good Trump talking head.
Who’s voting for Trump? Blame them.
A Trump supporter would say Trump’s popularity is enhanced by the left-leaning mainstream media’s obsessing about him and hoping with all their might he is the Democrat’s opponent this fall?
These people you blame, they are not voting for Trump, they are not making him popular, they do not have that power.
It is the assholes who vote for Trump who do that, why are you denying their agency?
The media do not have the power to elevate candidates?
Ron Paul always made for good TV, you don’t see him in the oval office.
That’s a complete flip of what Other Bill asserts. Ron Paul may have made good TV, but he wasn’t advanced by media the way Other Bill asserts Trump has been.
What else do they have. You’re not suggesting that they’re telling people to vote for Trump?
This isn’t binary, don’t feign ignorance, it makes me less likely to take you seriously. The media isn’t limited to only openly promoting or openly denigrating individuals.
There is a manner of reporting in which subtleties and nuances infiltrate. I think that is was Other Bill is asserting.
Correctamundo, A&M. Thanks.
That isn’t blame shifting. Merely identifying OTHER culprits in all of this. Jack even had an entire article devoted to the sources of Trump’s rise, in which the Media is also mentioned in conjunction with actual Trump supporters.
So were they just supposed to not report on all the stupid crap a man running for president, who was leading in the polls was saying?
Irrelevant jab. Try again.
Were they supposed to do it so incessantly and with such utter glee?
Yes, but our alternative is Ted Cruz? I am the only one terrified by this possibility?
No, but consider the OTHER alternatives – Hillary the serial liar or Bernie the bum turned wacko.
See Jack’s discussion of cognitive dissonance, Beth. Trump makes almost anyone look good by comparison. Unfortunately.
Bernie, at his worst, would just be ineffective because he doesn’t live in reality. Hillary would maintain the status quo. I fear what Cruz would do. And I think Trump would just be ignored.
“I fear what Cruz would do.”
Given that President’s have 0 legislative power, I’m not sure exactly why your ‘fear’ is so deep…
Whereas Hillary’s and Trump’s attitudes and character CAN be directly translated into an Executive nightmare – Domestically and in Foreign Affairs. And well, if we thought Carter was a milquetoast and Obama was worse, then Sanders on the international stage will downright be a pussy-cat, and domestically? Yeah…he’d be harmless because, again President’s have 0 legislative power, but he’d also be so passive and pushover, like Obama, that I think the Executive branch would come apart at the seams due to lack of management.
>Given that President’s have 0 legislative power
Technically yes, but we’ve had a rollover Congress for the past 8 years. I guess that would be the one and only benefit of a Trump presidency (knock on wood). Congress would most definitely reassert itself as an equal power.
“Bernie, at his worst, would just be ineffective because he doesn’t live in reality.” Our current President lives in his own reality and look at all the damage he’s done. “Hillary would maintain the status quo.” Eight more years of the last eight years? “I fear what Cruz would do.” Because he’s a born again Christian? That’s a problem but I just don’t think they are militant enough to really get much done on their fronts given the pretty liberal bent of the country. “And I think Trump would just be ignored.” How do you ignore a president?
Don’t answer him and speak to other people as if here wasn’t there.
valkygrrl said, “Don’t answer him and speak to other people as if here wasn’t there.”
That is disrespectful of the OFFICE and not acceptable behavior!
We’re ending eight years of foreign leaders of all stripes ignoring our president. I just don’t think it’s desirable.
Other Bill said, “We’re ending eight years of foreign leaders of all stripes ignoring our president.”
I wasn’t referring to what foreign leaders do, I was referring to what WE do.
We cannot control what other leaders do; however, we can control our respect for the OFFICE regardless of who in in that office and what valkygrrl stated is blatant disrespect for the OFFICE.
I really don’t see that happening, Beth, though it is is still preferable to Trump. Cruz is still an experienced public servant, and he is not going to turn the next generation into assholes, boors and jerks (though he will try to turn them into theocrats). Everyone hates Cruz: he is the means of stopping Trump, and that’s all he is. Once the convention becomes a free-for-all, someone else will emerge. This is why Cruz is making all those dire predictions about the “Revolt” if one of the delegate leaders isn’t nominated. The one who is revolting is Cruz. The GOP’s duty is to nominate someone trustworthy who can win. Not Trump, not Cruz.
I think Priebus has already indicated that there likely won’t be someone from outside the current candidate list that will receive the nomination. Given that, your analysis will be that Kasich gets the nomination.
That’s also why Kasich is trying to stick it out, although it’s a race between that and him running out of cash. I get that the party’s duty is to nominate someone that can win and can govern, but isn’t it also, as nearly as possible, to reflect the wishes of the voters? If it’s clear that the voters want Trump or Cruz, isn’t it dangerous to the party’s own existence to spit in their eye and tell them the leadership knows better?
Yes.
Is their duty to the voters or to the party platform? They could have nominated based on a popular vote system rather than delegates but chose not to.
Their first duty is to win. They can’t win if they run Trump. The second duty is to uphold the principles of the party. They arguably aren’t doing that if they run Trump. Only after that is their duty to respond to the popular vote. Unfortunately, the people casting the votes, especially the Trump voters, don’t see it that way. This is where populism leads to problems.
Both.
So, whom should the Democrats nominate?
Unfortunately, too many GROWN people I know would say mostly the same things when dealing with a loss – the deck was stacked, the other guy bent the rules, we did our best but no one was even listening, etc., etc. Sometimes there may be an element of truth, but too often that’s used as a way to say no loss is ever your fault. That said, one more loss and I think that’s the beginning of the end for Trump. His ground game is terrible, and Cruz is working the unpledged delegates and Rubio. That MAY be enough to slingshot him through, depending on whether Kasich remains a fairly effective spoiler, or is forced out as the money dries up.
Kasich can’t suspend, he’s counting on using the fact that he never gave up as justification for delegates to choose him at the convention. He’ll say he’s the only acceptable person still running and that choosing a darkhorse would be unfair because they didn’t compete.
He won’t suspend on his own, no, but if the $$ taps out, he may have no choice.
Ehhh…. You’re not wrong on a practical level. On a technical level he’s under no obligation to formally suspend, it’s a fig-leaf.
In the morning after I have had my coffee, I am usually nothing BUT practical.
That’s truly horrible. He’s sunk lower than I thought he could go; he sounds like a junior high bully who’s just had his behind handed to him.
My goodness, Nixon’s speech seems so tame by comparison to what we’ve become inured to in the last twenty or so years. Almost statesmanlike. Striking and sad.
I had the same thought. It’s so TAME! Good grief, what we’ve become inured to…
Ironically, when I was in my first two years of college I was very big into “tell it like it is” and “say what you really think, no matter what.” Now that I’m hearing what that really sounds like in a presidential campaign, I know that was dead wrong.
Moliere wrote a play about that. Do you think Donald Trump has ever read or seen a Moliere play? Do you think he knows who Moliere was? I wonder.
Tartuffe?
Trump has been speaking prose his entire life?
Heck, I haven’t done either myself, I am not too well-versed in French literature – a Montaigne essay or two, the Song of Roland, and a few short stories are about it. I doubt Trump has, except maybe as some kind of society event, where he snoozes through the play and is more interested in schmoozing the power players who sip champagne with the actors afterward.
The following quote seems relevant.
“Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untravelled, the naive, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as “empty,” “meaningless,” or “dishonest,” and scorn to use them. No matter how “pure” their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best.” — Lazarus Long or Robert Heinlein, depending how much you think the character represented the author’s views.
I wonder if Heinlein is the most quoted author on here?
I’m one of the Wisconsin voters that stripped a vote away from Trump; I will never, ever cast a vote for Trump – period!
I’m terribly saddened that there were still 384,803 fellow Wisconsin voters (political dolts) willing to cast their vote for the dirt-bag snake-oil salesman Trump.
You and I both.
You have my gratitude. I wish it were enough.
Now you’ve done it. Totally depressed my morning, even though the sun is shining bravely.
Draft Condolezza Rice. I think she’d be a great president.
First of all, I’d like to High Five my State for rejecting The Donald and his terminally moronic joke-of-a-candidacy.
Of infinitely more importance, I’d like readers/commenters to show some empathy.
Madison/Dane County Hillarity (sic) backing Lefties are in a fearfully frenzied free-fall, hopelessly saddled with the rather off-putting realization that not everyone thinks/acts/votes/exists the way they’re supposed to.
Though I’m at Ground Zero in The 77 Square Miles Surrounded By A Sea Of Reality, (Motto: “We know what’s best for you/the answer is no/now what’s your question?”) my impact is finite.
I can only talk so many people in off a ledge.
Remember; The Bill-n-Melinda Gates Foundation builds hospitals and other facilities for the needy, the rest of us should do what we can.
There is a chorus here – and one I have contributed to myself – that can only wring its hands and lament that this strange phenomenon called ‘Trump’ has appeared among us. It is pretty much all stated in a tone similar to Yeat’s: “And what rough beast, its hour come at last, slouched toward Bethelehem to be born”.
Or Conrad: “The horror! The horror!”
There is another perspective and I am wondering if any positive aspect of Trumpphenom can be recognized and described? Here is just one example swiped from cyberspace that recognizes a ‘positive aspect’. Many more could be found.
“Yes, I would agree. I think that whatever happens with Trump, whether he gets the nomination or not, whether he wins the presidency or not, he’s already broken through a lot of taboos about what can be discussed in the political realm in America. He put immigration back on the table. He put Muslim exclusion out there, which even shocked me, frankly. It surprised me how popular the idea was and how it resonated among ordinary Americans. He also has put economic nationalism back on the table and the dismissal of political correctness. When he said the words, “Only Rosie O’Donnell!” I thought, “My God, he could have won the presidency right there.” And then he went on to say he’s tired of political correctness. That really struck a chord with a lot of people. Even people who I know who tend to be centrist-types, they really liked that. They thought, “Wow. This guy is making politics not only entertaining again, but he’s also articulating a lot of things that the political establishment just agrees not to talk about.” They’re not going to compete on these issues, right? They have principles. Unfortunately, the trouble with the Republicans’ principles is that they’re the same principles as the Democrats for the most part.”
70% of investment institutions think Hillary will win anyway, so maybe this all means nothing.
I found the Nixon speech incredibly amusing; I guess time gives it a different perspective (that and Nixon not being able to do any more damage). I look forward to the day when we can look at Trump’s speeches like that – or forget them because he’s not even a footnote in history.
Jack’s inclusion of Nixon’s awful concession speech revived my curiosity about Nixon’s “Checkers Speech.” Talk about loaded with gems – this has a bit of Trump, a bit of Sanders, and a bit of Clintons all woven together:
http://watergate.info/1952/09/23/nixon-checkers-speech.html
Well I can’t get too angry over Nixon’s speech after all these year. Sure it was bitter and graceless but after all Edward Brown fathered probably the worst governor California has seen in recent history.
On to Trump. His press release was unethical and designed to convince the low information voters who support him that there is not so secret conspiracy against him making America really great with him in charge. It is symptomatic of his massive ego that he allowed this foolish crap to be released.
He’s lazy and doesn’t have much money to squander. He’s not really making a serious effort to get elected. He thinks there’s a short cut.
I’m positive he either wrote it or it is substantially his work.
http://captiongenerator.com/86079/Donald-Trump-at-a-Campaign-Meeting
Finally. Please delete all my errors.
Done. Thank you for your perseverance.