Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Ramsey Clark

Expand Messages
  • jim smith
    Note: In 74 Clark was the Democratic nominee for Senate against Republican incumbent Jacob Javits. But even in that most Democratic of years Javits won
    Message 1 of 23 , Dec 18, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Note: In '74 Clark was the Democratic nominee for Senate
      against Republican incumbent Jacob Javits. But even in that
      most Democratic of years Javits won handily. Clark was (is) a
      decent man but he's too left, has too little humor and a visage
      more dour than John Kerry.

      Bella Abzug was as left but she came off less ideological. And
      she had entertainment value. When she ran in '76 for the Dem
      Senate nomination Clark was again a candidate. He felt she had
      broken her word to him to stay out. He rejected her entreaties
      that he drop out.

      But Clark's '74 showing had cost him credibility. In '76 there was
      less enthusiasm for him. A local reporter told this scene in a
      feature story: Reporter was doing a day on the campaign trail
      with Clark here in NYC. An elderly gent down here in the Village
      shook Clark's hand without knowing he was a candidate. He
      asked: "So tell me Mr. Clark: who should I vote for Mrs. Abzug or
      Mr. Moynihan?"

      Clark and Abzug spoiled it for eachother opening the way for the
      more moderate Moynihan to edge into the nomination and then
      defeat the incumbent Conservative-Republican James Buckley
      in November. Jim Smith----
    • D.J. Jones
      ... Jim, you re far more charitable towards Clark than I and many others would be. I d have no hesitation in calling Clark a bonafide Communist who always
      Message 2 of 23 , Dec 19, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        "jim smith" <wrldbrowser@h...> wrote:

        > Note: In '74 Clark was the Democratic nominee for Senate
        > against Republican incumbent Jacob Javits. But even in that
        > most Democratic of years Javits won handily. Clark was (is) a
        > decent man but he's too left, has too little humor and a visage
        > more dour than John Kerry.

        Jim, you're far more charitable towards Clark than I and many others
        would be. I'd have no hesitation in calling Clark a bonafide
        Communist who always rushes to embrace anti-American hate causes
        (from associating with the most extreme elements of the anti-Vietnam
        crowd to recently becoming the most outspoken champion of the cause
        of our own home-grown terrorist (in Peru), Lori Berensen). As
        radical as Henry Wallace was, I think Clark has far surpassed that
        benchmark for extreme leftism. Jacob Javits, probably the definitive
        RINO of his generation, generally regarded as a Socialist and the
        most leftist member of the Senate during his tenure (1957-1981),
        Javits looked like a right-wing reactionary compared to Mr. Clark in
        the '74 contest.

        > Bella Abzug was as left but she came off less ideological. And
        > she had entertainment value. When she ran in '76 for the Dem
        > Senate nomination Clark was again a candidate. He felt she had
        > broken her word to him to stay out. He rejected her entreaties
        > that he drop out.

        And for folks that aren't familiar with Bella, to say she came off
        as ideological as Clark shows just how far off the radar he was !

        > But Clark's '74 showing had cost him credibility. In '76 there was
        > less enthusiasm for him. A local reporter told this scene in a
        > feature story: Reporter was doing a day on the campaign trail
        > with Clark here in NYC. An elderly gent down here in the Village
        > shook Clark's hand without knowing he was a candidate. He
        > asked: "So tell me Mr. Clark: who should I vote for Mrs. Abzug or
        > Mr. Moynihan?"

        Heh...

        > Clark and Abzug spoiled it for eachother opening the way for the
        > more moderate Moynihan to edge into the nomination and then
        > defeat the incumbent Conservative-Republican James Buckley
        > in November.

        Probably fortunate for the Democrats in this instance going with the
        most "Conservative" of the 3 major primary candidates. Had either
        the Communist Clark or radical feminist leftist Abzug defeated the
        (no modifier) liberal Moynihan, Jim Buckley would've gone on to a
        2nd term without much effort.

        I went to my handy '78 Almanac of American Politics to pull up the
        final results of that primary, and it was Moynihan-36%; Abzug-35%
        (it was just that close); with Clark way back at 10%; Paul O'Dwyer-
        9% (the 1968 nominee against Javits and much younger brother of
        Mayor Bill O'Dwyer) and perennial candidate and NYC "personality"
        Abe Hirschfeld, also with 9%. Moynihan got 56% against Buckley's 44%
        in the November '76 general.

        Regards,
        --D.J. Jones
      • Richard Roman
        Even tho I take exception to branding anything left as Communist, I will not defend Mr. Clark. Mr. Javits on the other hand was a liberal Republican, not a
        Message 3 of 23 , Dec 20, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Even tho I take exception to branding anything left as Communist, I will not
          defend Mr. Clark. Mr. Javits on the other hand was a liberal Republican, not
          a Socialist. He originally was endorsed by the NY County Republican
          Committee to run in a heavily Irish and immigrant Jewish district and ran
          with support of the ALP (American Labor Party) as a 2d line endorsement.
          When the ALP became defunct, the NY Liberal Party was formed out of the
          ILGWU and David Rose. The Liberal Party endorsed Javits his whole political
          career. It provided him with many votes but none necessary to help him win
          with combined line totals as the Republicans and the Democrats who loved
          this legislative genius kept him in office until the 3-way race with Jim
          Buckley as he suffered from ALS.

          Methinks you are too harsh with reality. Javits never lost an election until
          his last one. Republicans and Democrats in NYS loved him. I remember he and
          Louis Lefkowitz, someone you would likewise erroneously label as a Socialist
          seeing who would win by more votes than the other. He represented NY in many
          forums and never as a Socialist. Always a Republican and always a liberal
          but, a Republican first and a New Yorker first and a half.
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "D.J. Jones" <fieldmarshaldj@...>
          To: <political-graveyard@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 2:42 PM
          Subject: [political-graveyard] Re: Ramsey Clark


          >
          >
          > "jim smith" <wrldbrowser@h...> wrote:
          >
          > > Note: In '74 Clark was the Democratic nominee for Senate
          > > against Republican incumbent Jacob Javits. But even in that
          > > most Democratic of years Javits won handily. Clark was (is) a
          > > decent man but he's too left, has too little humor and a visage
          > > more dour than John Kerry.
          >
          > Jim, you're far more charitable towards Clark than I and many others
          > would be. I'd have no hesitation in calling Clark a bonafide
          > Communist who always rushes to embrace anti-American hate causes
          > (from associating with the most extreme elements of the anti-Vietnam
          > crowd to recently becoming the most outspoken champion of the cause
          > of our own home-grown terrorist (in Peru), Lori Berensen). As
          > radical as Henry Wallace was, I think Clark has far surpassed that
          > benchmark for extreme leftism. Jacob Javits, probably the definitive
          > RINO of his generation, generally regarded as a Socialist and the
          > most leftist member of the Senate during his tenure (1957-1981),
          > Javits looked like a right-wing reactionary compared to Mr. Clark in
          > the '74 contest.
          >
          > > Bella Abzug was as left but she came off less ideological. And
          > > she had entertainment value. When she ran in '76 for the Dem
          > > Senate nomination Clark was again a candidate. He felt she had
          > > broken her word to him to stay out. He rejected her entreaties
          > > that he drop out.
          >
          > And for folks that aren't familiar with Bella, to say she came off
          > as ideological as Clark shows just how far off the radar he was !
          >
          > > But Clark's '74 showing had cost him credibility. In '76 there was
          > > less enthusiasm for him. A local reporter told this scene in a
          > > feature story: Reporter was doing a day on the campaign trail
          > > with Clark here in NYC. An elderly gent down here in the Village
          > > shook Clark's hand without knowing he was a candidate. He
          > > asked: "So tell me Mr. Clark: who should I vote for Mrs. Abzug or
          > > Mr. Moynihan?"
          >
          > Heh...
          >
          > > Clark and Abzug spoiled it for eachother opening the way for the
          > > more moderate Moynihan to edge into the nomination and then
          > > defeat the incumbent Conservative-Republican James Buckley
          > > in November.
          >
          > Probably fortunate for the Democrats in this instance going with the
          > most "Conservative" of the 3 major primary candidates. Had either
          > the Communist Clark or radical feminist leftist Abzug defeated the
          > (no modifier) liberal Moynihan, Jim Buckley would've gone on to a
          > 2nd term without much effort.
          >
          > I went to my handy '78 Almanac of American Politics to pull up the
          > final results of that primary, and it was Moynihan-36%; Abzug-35%
          > (it was just that close); with Clark way back at 10%; Paul O'Dwyer-
          > 9% (the 1968 nominee against Javits and much younger brother of
          > Mayor Bill O'Dwyer) and perennial candidate and NYC "personality"
          > Abe Hirschfeld, also with 9%. Moynihan got 56% against Buckley's 44%
          > in the November '76 general.
          >
          > Regards,
          > --D.J. Jones
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • JOHN MANNION
          richard, an excellent summary of what really happened well done!! ... http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/9DfwlB/TM
          Message 4 of 23 , Dec 20, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            richard, an excellent summary of what really happened
            well done!!
            --- Richard Roman <rroman@...> wrote:

            >
            > Even tho I take exception to branding anything left
            > as Communist, I will not
            > defend Mr. Clark. Mr. Javits on the other hand was a
            > liberal Republican, not
            > a Socialist. He originally was endorsed by the NY
            > County Republican
            > Committee to run in a heavily Irish and immigrant
            > Jewish district and ran
            > with support of the ALP (American Labor Party) as a
            > 2d line endorsement.
            > When the ALP became defunct, the NY Liberal Party
            > was formed out of the
            > ILGWU and David Rose. The Liberal Party endorsed
            > Javits his whole political
            > career. It provided him with many votes but none
            > necessary to help him win
            > with combined line totals as the Republicans and the
            > Democrats who loved
            > this legislative genius kept him in office until the
            > 3-way race with Jim
            > Buckley as he suffered from ALS.
            >
            > Methinks you are too harsh with reality. Javits
            > never lost an election until
            > his last one. Republicans and Democrats in NYS loved
            > him. I remember he and
            > Louis Lefkowitz, someone you would likewise
            > erroneously label as a Socialist
            > seeing who would win by more votes than the other.
            > He represented NY in many
            > forums and never as a Socialist. Always a Republican
            > and always a liberal
            > but, a Republican first and a New Yorker first and a
            > half.
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: "D.J. Jones" <fieldmarshaldj@...>
            > To: <political-graveyard@yahoogroups.com>
            > Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 2:42 PM
            > Subject: [political-graveyard] Re: Ramsey Clark
            >
            >
            > >
            > >
            > > "jim smith" <wrldbrowser@h...> wrote:
            > >
            > > > Note: In '74 Clark was the Democratic nominee
            > for Senate
            > > > against Republican incumbent Jacob Javits. But
            > even in that
            > > > most Democratic of years Javits won handily.
            > Clark was (is) a
            > > > decent man but he's too left, has too little
            > humor and a visage
            > > > more dour than John Kerry.
            > >
            > > Jim, you're far more charitable towards Clark than
            > I and many others
            > > would be. I'd have no hesitation in calling Clark
            > a bonafide
            > > Communist who always rushes to embrace
            > anti-American hate causes
            > > (from associating with the most extreme elements
            > of the anti-Vietnam
            > > crowd to recently becoming the most outspoken
            > champion of the cause
            > > of our own home-grown terrorist (in Peru), Lori
            > Berensen). As
            > > radical as Henry Wallace was, I think Clark has
            > far surpassed that
            > > benchmark for extreme leftism. Jacob Javits,
            > probably the definitive
            > > RINO of his generation, generally regarded as a
            > Socialist and the
            > > most leftist member of the Senate during his
            > tenure (1957-1981),
            > > Javits looked like a right-wing reactionary
            > compared to Mr. Clark in
            > > the '74 contest.
            > >
            > > > Bella Abzug was as left but she came off less
            > ideological. And
            > > > she had entertainment value. When she ran in '76
            > for the Dem
            > > > Senate nomination Clark was again a candidate.
            > He felt she had
            > > > broken her word to him to stay out. He rejected
            > her entreaties
            > > > that he drop out.
            > >
            > > And for folks that aren't familiar with Bella, to
            > say she came off
            > > as ideological as Clark shows just how far off the
            > radar he was !
            > >
            > > > But Clark's '74 showing had cost him
            > credibility. In '76 there was
            > > > less enthusiasm for him. A local reporter told
            > this scene in a
            > > > feature story: Reporter was doing a day on the
            > campaign trail
            > > > with Clark here in NYC. An elderly gent down
            > here in the Village
            > > > shook Clark's hand without knowing he was a
            > candidate. He
            > > > asked: "So tell me Mr. Clark: who should I vote
            > for Mrs. Abzug or
            > > > Mr. Moynihan?"
            > >
            > > Heh...
            > >
            > > > Clark and Abzug spoiled it for eachother opening
            > the way for the
            > > > more moderate Moynihan to edge into the
            > nomination and then
            > > > defeat the incumbent Conservative-Republican
            > James Buckley
            > > > in November.
            > >
            > > Probably fortunate for the Democrats in this
            > instance going with the
            > > most "Conservative" of the 3 major primary
            > candidates. Had either
            > > the Communist Clark or radical feminist leftist
            > Abzug defeated the
            > > (no modifier) liberal Moynihan, Jim Buckley
            > would've gone on to a
            > > 2nd term without much effort.
            > >
            > > I went to my handy '78 Almanac of American
            > Politics to pull up the
            > > final results of that primary, and it was
            > Moynihan-36%; Abzug-35%
            > > (it was just that close); with Clark way back at
            > 10%; Paul O'Dwyer-
            > > 9% (the 1968 nominee against Javits and much
            > younger brother of
            > > Mayor Bill O'Dwyer) and perennial candidate and
            > NYC "personality"
            > > Abe Hirschfeld, also with 9%. Moynihan got 56%
            > against Buckley's 44%
            > > in the November '76 general.
            > >
            > > Regards,
            > > --D.J. Jones
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            > --------------------~-->
            > $4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
            >
            http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/9DfwlB/TM
            >
            --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political-graveyard/
            >
            > political-graveyard-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • david mcdonald
            Jack Javitz lost the 1980 election to Al D Amato, not Jim Buckley. Had Javitz not had the Liberal endorsement that year, Liz Holzman would have beaten D Amato.
            Message 5 of 23 , Dec 20, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Jack Javitz lost the 1980 election to Al D'Amato, not Jim Buckley. Had
              Javitz not had the Liberal endorsement that year, Liz Holzman would have
              beaten D'Amato.

              Buckley won the seat that had been held by Bob Kennedy prior to his death;
              the same seat was Moynihan's from 1976.

              Cheers!
              Dave

              >From: "Richard Roman" <rroman@...>
              >Reply-To: political-graveyard@yahoogroups.com
              >To: <political-graveyard@yahoogroups.com>
              >Subject: Re: [political-graveyard] Re: Ramsey Clark
              >Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:21:50 -0500
              >



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • D.J. Jones
              ... I don t brand everything on the left as being Communist (in fact, some have broken down the left into many many categories, which I m not going to get
              Message 6 of 23 , Dec 21, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                "Richard Roman" <rroman@n...> wrote:

                > Even tho I take exception to branding anything left as Communist,
                > I will not defend Mr. Clark.

                I don't brand everything on the left as being "Communist" (in fact,
                some have broken down the left into many many categories, which I'm
                not going to get into here), but the distance between liberal and
                socialist is not terribly far these days (or perhaps even in "those"
                days). By the original goals of Socialism at the beginning of the
                20th century, even most Conservatives in the GOP could be branded
                as "Socialist." (Anyone who believes, say, in protective laws in the
                workplace, minimum wage, Social Security, etc.). Then taken to the
                extreme are the examples of Henry Wallace and Mr. Clark, who were or
                are well beyond the Socialist wing.

                > Mr. Javits on the other hand was a liberal Republican, not
                > a Socialist.

                BTW, I did not invent the term Socialist merely to apply to Sen.
                Javits out of dislike for liberal Republicans. He WAS a liberal
                Republican as a political label, so was Nelson Rockefeller, but in a
                discussion I had some years ago with the head of the NY Young
                Socialists, he giddily called Javits a Socialist ("He was one of us,
                definitely."). Javits was unquestionably the most liberal member of
                the Senate during (at least) most of his Senate tenure. I did not
                brand him as a Communist, as he was not anti-American, but he was
                clearly as left as, if not more so, than many members of Democratic
                Socialists of America, a group for whom a large number of Democratic
                Congressmembers belong to.

                > He originally was endorsed by the NY County Republican
                > Committee to run in a heavily Irish and immigrant Jewish district
                > and ran with support of the ALP (American Labor Party) as a 2d
                > line endorsement.

                This is where you confirm my conclusions above. The ALP wasn't into
                nominating merely garden-variety liberals, but pretty much out and
                out Socialists and some bonafide Communists. Remember, that in 1934,
                a "liberal Republican" ran and won a seat in Congress from NYC, and
                that was Vito Marcantonio, a Communist (in fact, he was the only
                person to ever run on a Communist party line to win a seat in
                Congress). He opted to run on the ALP line when he regained his seat
                in 1938. Mayor LaGuardia, also a "liberal Republican", was an ALP
                member (he, too, had been elected to Congress on that label), and
                was regarded as a Socialist (though not as leftist as Marcantonio).

                > When the ALP became defunct, the NY Liberal Party was formed out
                > of the ILGWU and David Rose. The Liberal Party endorsed Javits his
                > whole political career. It provided him with many votes but none
                > necessary to help him win with combined line totals as the
                > Republicans and the Democrats who loved this legislative genius
                > kept him in office until the 3-way race with Jim
                > Buckley as he suffered from ALS.

                The Liberal Party was merely a creation in order to purge the more
                radical interests of the ALP, but carried most of its non-Communist
                Socialists over with them. Javits, of course, being one of them. As
                was stated by another poster, Javits was defeated in the 1980 GOP
                primary by Al D'Amato and chose to remain on the Liberal Party line,
                to the chagrin of the left.

                > Methinks you are too harsh with reality.

                Well, I was only pointing out a side-issue regarding Sen. Javits,
                the main thrust of my previous post was against Mr. Clark. I offered
                neither criticism nor compliment regarding Javits (except perhaps in
                comparison to his 1974 opponent), just merely pointing out where he
                stood on the political spectrum. If anything, it was quite
                understandable why the NY Conservative Party rose to become a force
                almost a bit more than the Liberals. With the GOP controlled by the
                left and same with the Democrats, center-right voters had nowhere to
                go. I found it remarkable from a contemporary viewpoint that Javits
                was able to retain the GOP nomination for the Senate as long as he
                did.

                > Javits never lost an election until his last one. Republicans and
                > Democrats in NYS loved him.

                Liberals and Socialists loved him, but he left a lot to be desired
                from more center-right voters (those that elected Jim Buckley and Al
                D'Amato), who would be called mainstream Republicans today.

                > I remember he and Louis Lefkowitz, someone you would likewise
                > erroneously label as a Socialist seeing who would win by more
                > votes than the other. He represented NY in many forums and never
                > as a Socialist. Always a Republican and always a liberal
                > but, a Republican first and a New Yorker first and a half.

                I will not comment too much on Lefkowitz, but he was clearly in the
                same boat as Javits. I do say again, I think you protest too much at
                the Socialist label. As one who would've felt unrepresented by their
                viewpoints, I don't think it too unreasonable to want to have two
                major parties/candidates with ideologically dissimilar viewpoints. A
                liberal-Socialist Javits for the Republicans and the radical Clark
                for the Democrats in 1974 may have been the perfect set of choices
                for the left, but was a nightmare for the rest of the electorate
                looking for a real choice and not an "echo."

                Regards,
                --D.J. Jones
              • Richard Roman
                Nice discussion. Clark is beyond redemption.The district Javits represented (21st CD Manhattan) was one of few in the City to elect Republicans. Those
                Message 7 of 23 , Dec 21, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Nice discussion. Clark is beyond redemption.The district Javits represented
                  (21st CD Manhattan) was one of few in the City to elect Republicans. Those
                  Republicans had to be liberal in order to win the votes of the
                  overwhelmingly Democratic district. The Republican Assemblyman from the
                  district (15th AD Manhattan) also had the same endorsements but, he was not
                  a socialist-type liberal. In fact he was a moderate Republican who lasted
                  four terms but did his homework with the Irish and Jewish immigrant voters
                  and learned early on the necessity of voting for and expanding rent-control.
                  I guess you make a point when you say these programs are liberal programs.
                  But the name of the game was Members in the Legislature. It didn't matter
                  that Mr. Roman was a liberal Republican. He was given the rent control bills
                  and the teachers pay raise bills (before the days of the UFT) and the
                  anti-discrimination bills that few Conservatives from upstate would have
                  handled but were necessary so as to keep the Majority and the GOPs appeal.

                  But, to agree with you, yes, these were liberal politicians. Out of
                  expediency more than anything else because I've seen them change on a dime
                  for what appear to be self-serving purposes. But, Roman died a moderate
                  always supporting the Republican ticket with his mouth and his money. He did
                  not however, favor the impeachment of ole Slick Willie tho not because he
                  liked Clinton but, because he loved this country too much to see the
                  partisanship that has become so prominent in American politics today. By
                  your assumption I would expect true Conservatives to be pro-Roe v Wade as it
                  grants a right never given before and Conservatives don't take away rights,
                  they expand their scope. Therefore I think it appropriate to label today's
                  pseudo-Conservatives as Radical Republicans which throws us back to the
                  Lincoln era and who forced him the free the slaves - the Radical Republicans
                  in Congress. Interesting cycles.
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "D.J. Jones" <fieldmarshaldj@...>
                  To: <political-graveyard@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 2:15 PM
                  Subject: [political-graveyard] Re: Ramsey Clark


                  >
                  >
                  > "Richard Roman" <rroman@n...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Even tho I take exception to branding anything left as Communist,
                  > > I will not defend Mr. Clark.
                  >
                  > I don't brand everything on the left as being "Communist" (in fact,
                  > some have broken down the left into many many categories, which I'm
                  > not going to get into here), but the distance between liberal and
                  > socialist is not terribly far these days (or perhaps even in "those"
                  > days). By the original goals of Socialism at the beginning of the
                  > 20th century, even most Conservatives in the GOP could be branded
                  > as "Socialist." (Anyone who believes, say, in protective laws in the
                  > workplace, minimum wage, Social Security, etc.). Then taken to the
                  > extreme are the examples of Henry Wallace and Mr. Clark, who were or
                  > are well beyond the Socialist wing.
                  >
                  > > Mr. Javits on the other hand was a liberal Republican, not
                  > > a Socialist.
                  >
                  > BTW, I did not invent the term Socialist merely to apply to Sen.
                  > Javits out of dislike for liberal Republicans. He WAS a liberal
                  > Republican as a political label, so was Nelson Rockefeller, but in a
                  > discussion I had some years ago with the head of the NY Young
                  > Socialists, he giddily called Javits a Socialist ("He was one of us,
                  > definitely."). Javits was unquestionably the most liberal member of
                  > the Senate during (at least) most of his Senate tenure. I did not
                  > brand him as a Communist, as he was not anti-American, but he was
                  > clearly as left as, if not more so, than many members of Democratic
                  > Socialists of America, a group for whom a large number of Democratic
                  > Congressmembers belong to.
                  >
                  > > He originally was endorsed by the NY County Republican
                  > > Committee to run in a heavily Irish and immigrant Jewish district
                  > > and ran with support of the ALP (American Labor Party) as a 2d
                  > > line endorsement.
                  >
                  > This is where you confirm my conclusions above. The ALP wasn't into
                  > nominating merely garden-variety liberals, but pretty much out and
                  > out Socialists and some bonafide Communists. Remember, that in 1934,
                  > a "liberal Republican" ran and won a seat in Congress from NYC, and
                  > that was Vito Marcantonio, a Communist (in fact, he was the only
                  > person to ever run on a Communist party line to win a seat in
                  > Congress). He opted to run on the ALP line when he regained his seat
                  > in 1938. Mayor LaGuardia, also a "liberal Republican", was an ALP
                  > member (he, too, had been elected to Congress on that label), and
                  > was regarded as a Socialist (though not as leftist as Marcantonio).
                  >
                  > > When the ALP became defunct, the NY Liberal Party was formed out
                  > > of the ILGWU and David Rose. The Liberal Party endorsed Javits his
                  > > whole political career. It provided him with many votes but none
                  > > necessary to help him win with combined line totals as the
                  > > Republicans and the Democrats who loved this legislative genius
                  > > kept him in office until the 3-way race with Jim
                  > > Buckley as he suffered from ALS.
                  >
                  > The Liberal Party was merely a creation in order to purge the more
                  > radical interests of the ALP, but carried most of its non-Communist
                  > Socialists over with them. Javits, of course, being one of them. As
                  > was stated by another poster, Javits was defeated in the 1980 GOP
                  > primary by Al D'Amato and chose to remain on the Liberal Party line,
                  > to the chagrin of the left.
                  >
                  > > Methinks you are too harsh with reality.
                  >
                  > Well, I was only pointing out a side-issue regarding Sen. Javits,
                  > the main thrust of my previous post was against Mr. Clark. I offered
                  > neither criticism nor compliment regarding Javits (except perhaps in
                  > comparison to his 1974 opponent), just merely pointing out where he
                  > stood on the political spectrum. If anything, it was quite
                  > understandable why the NY Conservative Party rose to become a force
                  > almost a bit more than the Liberals. With the GOP controlled by the
                  > left and same with the Democrats, center-right voters had nowhere to
                  > go. I found it remarkable from a contemporary viewpoint that Javits
                  > was able to retain the GOP nomination for the Senate as long as he
                  > did.
                  >
                  > > Javits never lost an election until his last one. Republicans and
                  > > Democrats in NYS loved him.
                  >
                  > Liberals and Socialists loved him, but he left a lot to be desired
                  > from more center-right voters (those that elected Jim Buckley and Al
                  > D'Amato), who would be called mainstream Republicans today.
                  >
                  > > I remember he and Louis Lefkowitz, someone you would likewise
                  > > erroneously label as a Socialist seeing who would win by more
                  > > votes than the other. He represented NY in many forums and never
                  > > as a Socialist. Always a Republican and always a liberal
                  > > but, a Republican first and a New Yorker first and a half.
                  >
                  > I will not comment too much on Lefkowitz, but he was clearly in the
                  > same boat as Javits. I do say again, I think you protest too much at
                  > the Socialist label. As one who would've felt unrepresented by their
                  > viewpoints, I don't think it too unreasonable to want to have two
                  > major parties/candidates with ideologically dissimilar viewpoints. A
                  > liberal-Socialist Javits for the Republicans and the radical Clark
                  > for the Democrats in 1974 may have been the perfect set of choices
                  > for the left, but was a nightmare for the rest of the electorate
                  > looking for a real choice and not an "echo."
                  >
                  > Regards,
                  > --D.J. Jones
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • D.J. Jones
                  ... Well, at the federal level, Javits was the sole Republican elected from the Upper West Side from after 1922 to the present (only a one- termer named Martin
                  Message 8 of 23 , Dec 22, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "Richard Roman" <rroman@n...> wrote:

                    > Nice discussion. Clark is beyond redemption. The district Javits
                    > represented (21st CD Manhattan) was one of few in the City to
                    > elect Republicans. Those Republicans had to be liberal in order to
                    > win the votes of the overwhelmingly Democratic district.

                    Well, at the federal level, Javits was the sole Republican elected
                    from the Upper West Side from after 1922 to the present (only a one-
                    termer named Martin Ansorge represented it as a Republican from 1921-
                    23). There's always been an assumption that a Republican needed to
                    be "more liberal" in order to win a Democrat-leaning district, but
                    given that this was pre-Watergate (after which when the remaining
                    federal Dems tended to move uniformily to the left), it's not
                    necessarily clear whether or not the Democrats from long ago were as
                    liberal as we'd believe them to be. Since I don't have any info
                    regarding the voting records of Javits's predecessors or immediate
                    successor (Democrat Herbert Zelenko), it's hard to ascertain. In
                    some instances, it appeared that the Republicans, if anything, were
                    further left than the Democrats in NYC (as the examples of
                    Marcantonio (pre-ALP) or Mayor LaGuardia, and later John Lindsay).
                    Many Democrats representing those working-class areas were decidedly
                    rather Conservative when it came to social issues and more liberal
                    on economics. In 1946, just Javits and Fred Coudert were the sole
                    Republicans in Manhattan at the federal level (Coudert, of course,
                    representing the Silk Stocking district). But Coudert, unlike
                    Javits, was a bonafide Conservative Republican (much to the chagrin
                    of the establishment GOP liberals). Unfortunately for Coudert, his
                    district underwent a dramatic demographic shift during the dozen
                    years he represented it (with many traditional families moving out
                    and the rapid increase of the replacement of those buildings with
                    business high-rises). Coudert was safe as long as those traditional
                    families remained, but when the shift was in full-swing, his
                    reelection numbers eroded. With the GOP establishment frightened of
                    the Democrats picking up the seat, they gave the poor Congressman
                    the bums' rush and installed Lindsay as his replacement. Alas, with
                    that sad turn of events, when Fred Coudert left Congress in January
                    1959, his was the final center-right Republican to ever fully
                    represent Manhattan since.

                    > The Republican Assemblyman from the district (15th AD Manhattan)
                    > also had the same endorsements but, he was not a socialist-type
                    > liberal. In fact he was a moderate Republican who lasted
                    > four terms but did his homework with the Irish and Jewish
                    > immigrant voters and learned early on the necessity of voting for
                    > and expanding rent-control.

                    Well, supporting rent control may be a necessity and quite popular
                    amongst renters of all socioeconomic classes, but from an
                    economic/free-enterprise standpoint, rent control is as
                    quintessentially Socialist as you can get.

                    > I guess you make a point when you say these programs are liberal
                    > programs. But the name of the game was Members in the Legislature.
                    > It didn't matter that Mr. Roman was a liberal Republican. He was
                    > given the rent control bills and the teachers pay raise bills
                    > (before the days of the UFT) and the anti-discrimination bills
                    > that few Conservatives from upstate would have handled but were
                    > necessary so as to keep the Majority and the GOPs appeal.

                    But in the end, it didn't work out so well, because since Watergate
                    and the Dems solidifying for the left and the GOP for the right
                    (both with some exceptions), when you're handing out liberal goodies
                    as a Republican, you end up accomplishing two goals, #1 you anger
                    center-right voters who will either toss said person out in the
                    primary or just not bother to show up to vote in the general and #2
                    you make it that much easier for an effortless shift to the
                    Democrats. The NY GOP because of its behavior could scarcely make
                    the argument that they were better government managers (one need
                    only point to Rockefeller's ghastly monument in Albany, something so
                    audacious a spending project that I know of no Democrat with the
                    brass cajones to have attempted to move forward on). As a result,
                    the GOP has never regained the Assembly in 30 years and only through
                    mechanations that might make some 3rd World leaders blush, have held
                    on to the Senate.

                    > But, to agree with you, yes, these were liberal politicians. Out of
                    > expediency more than anything else because I've seen them change
                    > on a dime for what appear to be self-serving purposes. But, Roman
                    > died a moderate always supporting the Republican ticket with his
                    > mouth and his money. He did not however, favor the impeachment of
                    > ole Slick Willie tho not because he liked Clinton but, because he
                    > loved this country too much to see the partisanship that has
                    > become so prominent in American politics today.

                    I'm definitely not going to rehash that one, but let's just say that
                    it's the Democrats in standing so firmly behind Clinton deprived
                    Gore of becoming the incumbent President for the 2000 election (that
                    he might not have lost to Gov. Bush), so they hurt themselves.
                    Perhaps the GOP owes them a great deal of thanks of sparing us that
                    monstrosity (and as a Tennessean, especially so).

                    > By your assumption I would expect true Conservatives to be pro-Roe
                    > v Wade as it grants a right never given before and Conservatives
                    > don't take away rights, they expand their scope.

                    Well authentic Conservatives are strict Constitutionalists, and
                    since there's nothing in the Constitution granting said rights, it
                    goes without saying how easily and quickly said "rights" be revoked.

                    > Therefore I think it appropriate to label today's pseudo-
                    > Conservatives as Radical Republicans which throws us back to the
                    > Lincoln era and who forced him the free the slaves - the Radical
                    > Republicans in Congress. Interesting cycles.

                    Hey, if you want to associate us with those militant abolitionists,
                    be my guest (many of us pro-lifers are very happy to be associated
                    with these folks). It would also be nice to have 95% of the African-
                    American vote back again, too. :-)

                    Regards,
                    --D.J. Jones
                  • Richard Roman
                    Thanks, John. Always fun at the political graveyard. ... From: JOHN MANNION To: Sent: Monday,
                    Message 9 of 23 , Dec 22, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thanks, John. Always fun at the political graveyard.
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "JOHN MANNION" <irish54@...>
                      To: <political-graveyard@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 6:31 PM
                      Subject: Re: [political-graveyard] Re: Ramsey Clark


                      >
                      > richard, an excellent summary of what really happened
                      > well done!!
                      > --- Richard Roman <rroman@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > >
                      > > Even tho I take exception to branding anything left
                      > > as Communist, I will not
                      > > defend Mr. Clark. Mr. Javits on the other hand was a
                      > > liberal Republican, not
                      > > a Socialist. He originally was endorsed by the NY
                      > > County Republican
                      > > Committee to run in a heavily Irish and immigrant
                      > > Jewish district and ran
                      > > with support of the ALP (American Labor Party) as a
                      > > 2d line endorsement.
                      > > When the ALP became defunct, the NY Liberal Party
                      > > was formed out of the
                      > > ILGWU and David Rose. The Liberal Party endorsed
                      > > Javits his whole political
                      > > career. It provided him with many votes but none
                      > > necessary to help him win
                      > > with combined line totals as the Republicans and the
                      > > Democrats who loved
                      > > this legislative genius kept him in office until the
                      > > 3-way race with Jim
                      > > Buckley as he suffered from ALS.
                      > >
                      > > Methinks you are too harsh with reality. Javits
                      > > never lost an election until
                      > > his last one. Republicans and Democrats in NYS loved
                      > > him. I remember he and
                      > > Louis Lefkowitz, someone you would likewise
                      > > erroneously label as a Socialist
                      > > seeing who would win by more votes than the other.
                      > > He represented NY in many
                      > > forums and never as a Socialist. Always a Republican
                      > > and always a liberal
                      > > but, a Republican first and a New Yorker first and a
                      > > half.
                      > > ----- Original Message -----
                      > > From: "D.J. Jones" <fieldmarshaldj@...>
                      > > To: <political-graveyard@yahoogroups.com>
                      > > Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 2:42 PM
                      > > Subject: [political-graveyard] Re: Ramsey Clark
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > "jim smith" <wrldbrowser@h...> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > > Note: In '74 Clark was the Democratic nominee
                      > > for Senate
                      > > > > against Republican incumbent Jacob Javits. But
                      > > even in that
                      > > > > most Democratic of years Javits won handily.
                      > > Clark was (is) a
                      > > > > decent man but he's too left, has too little
                      > > humor and a visage
                      > > > > more dour than John Kerry.
                      > > >
                      > > > Jim, you're far more charitable towards Clark than
                      > > I and many others
                      > > > would be. I'd have no hesitation in calling Clark
                      > > a bonafide
                      > > > Communist who always rushes to embrace
                      > > anti-American hate causes
                      > > > (from associating with the most extreme elements
                      > > of the anti-Vietnam
                      > > > crowd to recently becoming the most outspoken
                      > > champion of the cause
                      > > > of our own home-grown terrorist (in Peru), Lori
                      > > Berensen). As
                      > > > radical as Henry Wallace was, I think Clark has
                      > > far surpassed that
                      > > > benchmark for extreme leftism. Jacob Javits,
                      > > probably the definitive
                      > > > RINO of his generation, generally regarded as a
                      > > Socialist and the
                      > > > most leftist member of the Senate during his
                      > > tenure (1957-1981),
                      > > > Javits looked like a right-wing reactionary
                      > > compared to Mr. Clark in
                      > > > the '74 contest.
                      > > >
                      > > > > Bella Abzug was as left but she came off less
                      > > ideological. And
                      > > > > she had entertainment value. When she ran in '76
                      > > for the Dem
                      > > > > Senate nomination Clark was again a candidate.
                      > > He felt she had
                      > > > > broken her word to him to stay out. He rejected
                      > > her entreaties
                      > > > > that he drop out.
                      > > >
                      > > > And for folks that aren't familiar with Bella, to
                      > > say she came off
                      > > > as ideological as Clark shows just how far off the
                      > > radar he was !
                      > > >
                      > > > > But Clark's '74 showing had cost him
                      > > credibility. In '76 there was
                      > > > > less enthusiasm for him. A local reporter told
                      > > this scene in a
                      > > > > feature story: Reporter was doing a day on the
                      > > campaign trail
                      > > > > with Clark here in NYC. An elderly gent down
                      > > here in the Village
                      > > > > shook Clark's hand without knowing he was a
                      > > candidate. He
                      > > > > asked: "So tell me Mr. Clark: who should I vote
                      > > for Mrs. Abzug or
                      > > > > Mr. Moynihan?"
                      > > >
                      > > > Heh...
                      > > >
                      > > > > Clark and Abzug spoiled it for eachother opening
                      > > the way for the
                      > > > > more moderate Moynihan to edge into the
                      > > nomination and then
                      > > > > defeat the incumbent Conservative-Republican
                      > > James Buckley
                      > > > > in November.
                      > > >
                      > > > Probably fortunate for the Democrats in this
                      > > instance going with the
                      > > > most "Conservative" of the 3 major primary
                      > > candidates. Had either
                      > > > the Communist Clark or radical feminist leftist
                      > > Abzug defeated the
                      > > > (no modifier) liberal Moynihan, Jim Buckley
                      > > would've gone on to a
                      > > > 2nd term without much effort.
                      > > >
                      > > > I went to my handy '78 Almanac of American
                      > > Politics to pull up the
                      > > > final results of that primary, and it was
                      > > Moynihan-36%; Abzug-35%
                      > > > (it was just that close); with Clark way back at
                      > > 10%; Paul O'Dwyer-
                      > > > 9% (the 1968 nominee against Javits and much
                      > > younger brother of
                      > > > Mayor Bill O'Dwyer) and perennial candidate and
                      > > NYC "personality"
                      > > > Abe Hirschfeld, also with 9%. Moynihan got 56%
                      > > against Buckley's 44%
                      > > > in the November '76 general.
                      > > >
                      > > > Regards,
                      > > > --D.J. Jones
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      > > --------------------~-->
                      > > $4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
                      > >
                      > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/9DfwlB/TM
                      > >
                      > --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >
                      > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political-graveyard/
                      > >
                      > > political-graveyard-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • EddieB119@aol.com
                      Thanx for your interesting analysis. One minor point, Javits was done in by Al D Amato in 1980 who defeated Javits narrowly in the Republican Primary, and
                      Message 10 of 23 , Dec 23, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanx for your interesting analysis. One minor point, Javits was done in by
                        Al D'Amato in 1980 who defeated Javits narrowly in the Republican Primary,
                        and then was forced to run as a Liberal only against D'Amato and the Democratic
                        candidate, Elizabeth Holtzman. Thanx to Javits siphoning off Liberal
                        votes, D'Amato pulled out a squeaker in a 3 way race. The New York Times
                        incidentally endorsed the Liberal Party candidate,Javits, in that race, thus helping
                        to ensure a conservative victory.
                        Ed Bohrer


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Richard Roman
                        I gratefully stand corrected. ... From: To: Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 3:28 PM Subject: Re:
                        Message 11 of 23 , Dec 23, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I gratefully stand corrected.
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: <EddieB119@...>
                          To: <political-graveyard@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 3:28 PM
                          Subject: Re: [political-graveyard] Re: Ramsey Clark


                          >
                          > Thanx for your interesting analysis. One minor point, Javits was done in
                          by
                          > Al D'Amato in 1980 who defeated Javits narrowly in the Republican Primary,
                          > and then was forced to run as a Liberal only against D'Amato and the
                          Democratic
                          > candidate, Elizabeth Holtzman. Thanx to Javits siphoning off Liberal
                          > votes, D'Amato pulled out a squeaker in a 3 way race. The New York Times
                          > incidentally endorsed the Liberal Party candidate,Javits, in that race,
                          thus helping
                          > to ensure a conservative victory.
                          > Ed Bohrer
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • frambook@aol.com
                          Ed, et al, In an editorial dated October 30, the New York Times praised Javits as the best, by far, of the three candidates running for the New York senate
                          Message 12 of 23 , Dec 24, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Ed, et al,

                            In an editorial dated October 30, the New York Times praised Javits as the best, by far, of the three candidates running for the New York senate seat. However, the Times urged him to pull out of the race rather than split the liberal vote and put D'Amato, for whom the paper had no kind words, in office. Unfortunately, Javits ignored the advice.

                            Joel Fram
                          • Richard Roman
                            Because Jack was so sick by then everybody was urging him to withdraw and let Liz Holtzman, the Dem dod a head to head with The Fonz. He was too proud. He
                            Message 13 of 23 , Dec 25, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Because Jack was so sick by then everybody was urging him to withdraw and
                              let Liz Holtzman, the Dem dod a head to head with The Fonz. He was too
                              proud. He thought SHE should retire as there was some very negative press
                              about her. The loss was assured and one of the last of the remaining New
                              York Rockefeller Republicans fell along with the beginning of the end for
                              the Liberal Party which has been de-balloted by the voters.
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: <frambook@...>
                              To: <political-graveyard@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 8:26 PM
                              Subject: Re: [political-graveyard] Re: Ramsey Clark


                              >
                              > Ed, et al,
                              >
                              > In an editorial dated October 30, the New York Times praised Javits as the
                              best, by far, of the three candidates running for the New York senate seat.
                              However, the Times urged him to pull out of the race rather than split the
                              liberal vote and put D'Amato, for whom the paper had no kind words, in
                              office. Unfortunately, Javits ignored the advice.
                              >
                              > Joel Fram
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • Lawrence Kestenbaum
                              (I m not moderating the list right now, but let s keep political invective to a minimum, shall we?) I don t think there s another area of the country with more
                              Message 14 of 23 , Dec 25, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                (I'm not moderating the list right now, but let's keep political invective
                                to a minimum, shall we?)

                                I don't think there's another area of the country with more thorny
                                geographic issues than greater NYC.

                                Here's my understanding of the situation; those with better knowledge are
                                invited to correct any of this. (I'm making one change, which is noted
                                toward the bottom of this.)

                                New York City now consists of five boroughs, each of which is a separate
                                county: Manhattan (New York County), Brooklyn (Kings County), Bronx (Bronx
                                County), Queens (Queens County), and Staten Island (Richmond County).

                                The Borough of Brooklyn used to be (until 1898) the City of Brooklyn. At
                                least since some time in the mid-to-late 19th century, Brooklyn has been
                                coextensive with Kings County. Locations in Brooklyn have been "Brooklyn
                                NY" right along. (However, a non-Brooklyn politico who claims a
                                birthplace in "New York City" is sometimes a native of Brooklyn.)

                                The Borough of Staten Island used to be the Borough of Richmond, but the
                                name was changed a few years ago. It continues to be Richmond County.
                                Most locations are now cited as "Staten Island, NY", but there are many
                                neighborhood areas with their own geographic identity, such as Port
                                Richmond, New Brighton, etc. On TPG, these are given as 2-level
                                addresses, as in "Port Richmond, Staten Island".

                                Bronx County was created in 1914. Until then, New York County encompassed
                                all of what is now Manhattan and the Bronx. I am not sure whether the
                                borough of Bronx was created in 1914, or earlier, in 1898, when the city
                                was expanded to its current boundaries. The use of "Bronx, NY" as a post
                                office address seems to have gradually expanded across the 20th century;
                                earlier, Bronx addresses were usually considered to be in "New York, NY".

                                Nowadays, New York City or NYC is understood to mean the entire five
                                borough area. However, when the five boroughs were put together as one
                                unit in 1898, and for some years thereafter, the collective area was
                                called "Greater New York". In those days, even after the consolidation,
                                "New York City" meant just the area of Manhatattan and Bronx.

                                At the time of the 1898 consolidation, Queens County was split. The
                                western part became part of the city of New York, and the eastern part
                                became Nassau County. For example, when Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. was born
                                in Oyster Bay NY, it was located in Queens County.

                                Nassau and Suffolk Counties are generally considered to be Long Island.
                                In New York media, locations are cited in Long Island as if it were a
                                state, as in "Bellport, L.I.", or "Patchogue, L.I.". The land mass of
                                Long Island includes the NYC boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens, but those
                                are not currently considered part of the cultural entity of "Long Island".

                                However, Queens borough locations USED to be considered "Long Island",
                                both before and after the 1898 city consolidation. Though residents of
                                the borough of Queens may be considered to be in "Queens, NY", there are
                                innumerable neighborhood areas which each consititute post office
                                addresses, such as Long Island City, Flushing, Astoria, Jackson Heights,
                                Kew Gardens, etc., each of which is given in TPG as two-level addresses as
                                "Kew Gardens, Queens" and the like.

                                Locations in Manhattan (New York County) are usually given as "New York,
                                NY". However, in the interest of clarity, the new version of TPG will
                                give those locations, since about 1914, as Manhattan, NY. Cases before
                                1898 will remain as New York, NY.

                                I'm not sure about the in-between era from 1898-1914, but certainly cases
                                which are ambiguous (New York County at the time but possibly Bronx now)
                                will remain New York, NY.

                                Again, I'm interested in any ideas or comments on this.

                                Larry

                                ---
                                Lawrence Kestenbaum, polygon@...
                                The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com
                                Mailing address: P.O. Box 2563, Ann Arbor MI 48106
                              • Richard Roman
                                Larry, I was born in the 1940s in New York, New York, NewYork. In school we used to write our names and our school as, e.g. P.S. 152 Manhattan. But, I was
                                Message 15 of 23 , Dec 25, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Larry,

                                  I was born in the 1940s in "New York, New York, NewYork." In school we used
                                  to write our names and our school as, e.g. "P.S. 152 Manhattan." But, I was
                                  born in New York City, in New York County, in New York State.

                                  Bronx is called The Bronx altho mail is addressed to Bronx, NY. A small tip
                                  of northern Manhattan intrudes into The Bronx just below Riverdale which IS
                                  in The Bronx.

                                  I think that to residents of The City, the words, "The City" refer to
                                  Manhattan. Brooklyn, which is bigger in size and population than Manhattan
                                  and also known as New York, does not come to mind when talking about The
                                  City itself. That's reserved in name and importance for the island of
                                  Manhattan, or New York County, New York City.

                                  Formally, addresses on Long Island are referred to as, e.g., Garden City, NY
                                  but also would get delivered if addressed as Garden City, LI.

                                  New York is a mad scientist of name alternatives some based on the vox
                                  populi, some based on tradition, some on pride (especially with regard to
                                  Staten Island and Brooklyn) and some on plain ole "that's where I live"
                                  stuff.
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "Lawrence Kestenbaum" <polygon@...>
                                  To: <political-graveyard@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 2:54 PM
                                  Subject: [political-graveyard] Geo-historical issues: NYC and Long Island


                                  >
                                  >
                                  > (I'm not moderating the list right now, but let's keep political invective
                                  > to a minimum, shall we?)
                                  >
                                  > I don't think there's another area of the country with more thorny
                                  > geographic issues than greater NYC.
                                  >
                                  > Here's my understanding of the situation; those with better knowledge are
                                  > invited to correct any of this. (I'm making one change, which is noted
                                  > toward the bottom of this.)
                                  >
                                  > New York City now consists of five boroughs, each of which is a separate
                                  > county: Manhattan (New York County), Brooklyn (Kings County), Bronx (Bronx
                                  > County), Queens (Queens County), and Staten Island (Richmond County).
                                  >
                                  > The Borough of Brooklyn used to be (until 1898) the City of Brooklyn. At
                                  > least since some time in the mid-to-late 19th century, Brooklyn has been
                                  > coextensive with Kings County. Locations in Brooklyn have been "Brooklyn
                                  > NY" right along. (However, a non-Brooklyn politico who claims a
                                  > birthplace in "New York City" is sometimes a native of Brooklyn.)
                                  >
                                  > The Borough of Staten Island used to be the Borough of Richmond, but the
                                  > name was changed a few years ago. It continues to be Richmond County.
                                  > Most locations are now cited as "Staten Island, NY", but there are many
                                  > neighborhood areas with their own geographic identity, such as Port
                                  > Richmond, New Brighton, etc. On TPG, these are given as 2-level
                                  > addresses, as in "Port Richmond, Staten Island".
                                  >
                                  > Bronx County was created in 1914. Until then, New York County encompassed
                                  > all of what is now Manhattan and the Bronx. I am not sure whether the
                                  > borough of Bronx was created in 1914, or earlier, in 1898, when the city
                                  > was expanded to its current boundaries. The use of "Bronx, NY" as a post
                                  > office address seems to have gradually expanded across the 20th century;
                                  > earlier, Bronx addresses were usually considered to be in "New York, NY".
                                  >
                                  > Nowadays, New York City or NYC is understood to mean the entire five
                                  > borough area. However, when the five boroughs were put together as one
                                  > unit in 1898, and for some years thereafter, the collective area was
                                  > called "Greater New York". In those days, even after the consolidation,
                                  > "New York City" meant just the area of Manhatattan and Bronx.
                                  >
                                  > At the time of the 1898 consolidation, Queens County was split. The
                                  > western part became part of the city of New York, and the eastern part
                                  > became Nassau County. For example, when Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. was born
                                  > in Oyster Bay NY, it was located in Queens County.
                                  >
                                  > Nassau and Suffolk Counties are generally considered to be Long Island.
                                  > In New York media, locations are cited in Long Island as if it were a
                                  > state, as in "Bellport, L.I.", or "Patchogue, L.I.". The land mass of
                                  > Long Island includes the NYC boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens, but those
                                  > are not currently considered part of the cultural entity of "Long Island".
                                  >
                                  > However, Queens borough locations USED to be considered "Long Island",
                                  > both before and after the 1898 city consolidation. Though residents of
                                  > the borough of Queens may be considered to be in "Queens, NY", there are
                                  > innumerable neighborhood areas which each consititute post office
                                  > addresses, such as Long Island City, Flushing, Astoria, Jackson Heights,
                                  > Kew Gardens, etc., each of which is given in TPG as two-level addresses as
                                  > "Kew Gardens, Queens" and the like.
                                  >
                                  > Locations in Manhattan (New York County) are usually given as "New York,
                                  > NY". However, in the interest of clarity, the new version of TPG will
                                  > give those locations, since about 1914, as Manhattan, NY. Cases before
                                  > 1898 will remain as New York, NY.
                                  >
                                  > I'm not sure about the in-between era from 1898-1914, but certainly cases
                                  > which are ambiguous (New York County at the time but possibly Bronx now)
                                  > will remain New York, NY.
                                  >
                                  > Again, I'm interested in any ideas or comments on this.
                                  >
                                  > Larry
                                  >
                                  > ---
                                  > Lawrence Kestenbaum, polygon@...
                                  > The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com
                                  > Mailing address: P.O. Box 2563, Ann Arbor MI 48106
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Lawrence Kestenbaum
                                  Still struggling with some geography issues, this time in California. (1) What s the deal with the places called: La Canada Flintridge La Canada Flintridge
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Dec 27, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Still struggling with some geography issues, this time in California.

                                    (1) What's the deal with the places called:

                                    La Canada
                                    Flintridge
                                    La Canada Flintridge

                                    This looks like a merger. If so, when did it take place?

                                    If someone was born or lived or died in La Canada or Flintridge, at some
                                    time in the past, should those locations now be given like these?

                                    La Canada (now La Canada Flintridge)
                                    Flintridge (now La Canada Flintridge)

                                    (2) What's the situation with a place called "Portugese Bend"?

                                    From Google, I get the sense that it was a small town in Los Angeles
                                    County that was destroyed by a landslide. Is this correct? Did Portugese
                                    Bend have a legal status as an incorporated city or town? Should
                                    locations in Portugese Bend be noted as "(now ***)" or "(now part of
                                    ***)", where *** is the current city name for that area? Or is there
                                    "still" a place called Portugese Bend?

                                    (3) One non-geographic California question. "Herbert Hoover, Jr." of San
                                    Marino, California, was a delegate to the 1960 Republican National
                                    Convention. Was he, indeed, related to the former president?

                                    Many thanks for any help with the above.

                                    Larry

                                    ---
                                    Lawrence Kestenbaum, polygon@...
                                    The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com
                                    Mailing address: P.O. Box 2563, Ann Arbor MI 48106
                                  • Alan Fox
                                    He was almost certainly the President s son. See: http://www.easyfunschool.com/HerbertHoover.html Hoover s oldest son was Herbert Clark Hoover (1903-1969).
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Dec 28, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      He was almost certainly the President's son.
                                      See:

                                      http://www.easyfunschool.com/HerbertHoover.html

                                      Hoover's oldest son was Herbert Clark Hoover (1903-1969). His grandson,
                                      Herbert Clark Hoover III, of San Marino, CA, is listed elsewhere on
                                      inernet as a current member of the Hoover Institution Board of Overseers.

                                      Lawrence Kestenbaum wrote:

                                      >(3) One non-geographic California question. "Herbert Hoover, Jr." of San
                                      >Marino, California, was a delegate to the 1960 Republican National
                                      >Convention. Was he, indeed, related to the former president?
                                      >
                                      >Many thanks for any help with the above.
                                      >
                                      >
                                    • Lawrence Kestenbaum
                                      ... Apparently I had the spelling wrong: it s Portuguese Bend. Have I been misspelling that word all these years? And apparently the location is now in either
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Dec 28, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Lawrence Kestenbaum wrote:

                                        > (2) What's the situation with a place called "Portugese Bend"?
                                        >
                                        > From Google, I get the sense that it was a small town in Los Angeles
                                        > County that was destroyed by a landslide. Is this correct? Did Portugese
                                        > Bend have a legal status as an incorporated city or town? Should
                                        > locations in Portugese Bend be noted as "(now ***)" or "(now part of
                                        > ***)", where *** is the current city name for that area? Or is there
                                        > "still" a place called Portugese Bend?

                                        Apparently I had the spelling wrong: it's Portuguese Bend. Have I been
                                        misspelling that word all these years?

                                        And apparently the location is now in either "Palos Verdes" or "Rancho
                                        Palos Verdes".

                                        Larry

                                        ---
                                        Lawrence Kestenbaum, polygon@...
                                        The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com
                                        Mailing address: P.O. Box 2563, Ann Arbor MI 48106
                                      • Lawrence Kestenbaum
                                        I ll be in the Connecticut state library all day today. Probably no access to email until this evening. My cell number is 734-353-0131. Larry ... Lawrence
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Dec 28, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I'll be in the Connecticut state library all day today. Probably no
                                          access to email until this evening. My cell number is 734-353-0131.

                                          Larry

                                          ---
                                          Lawrence Kestenbaum, polygon@...
                                          The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com
                                          Mailing address: P.O. Box 2563, Ann Arbor MI 48106
                                        • CcKat@aol.com
                                          Yes, indeed he did have a son 1903-1969 he was born in London and graduated from Stanford University in 1925 and was like his Dad an engineer he was
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Dec 28, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Yes, indeed he did have a son 1903-1969 he was born in London and graduated
                                            from Stanford University in 1925 and was like his Dad an engineer he was
                                            specifically and aircraft engineer. He began later on the study of geophysical
                                            engineering and founded the United Geophysical Company in 1935. He also mediated in
                                            1953-1954 the oil dispute between Britain and Iran, he also served as an
                                            undersecretary of state for Middle Eastern Affairs 19574-1957 by Pres Eisenhower.
                                            Katherine


                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Scott Bill Hirst
                                            Hi! How long will you be in Connecticut? Scott ... ===== Scott Bill Hirst 20 Maple Court Ashaway,RI 02804-9630 USA (401)377-4643 Note:Telephone if you need
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Dec 28, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Hi!
                                              How long will you be in Connecticut?
                                              Scott
                                              --- Lawrence Kestenbaum <polygon@...> wrote:

                                              >
                                              > I'll be in the Connecticut state library all day
                                              > today. Probably no
                                              > access to email until this evening. My cell number
                                              > is 734-353-0131.
                                              >
                                              > Larry
                                              >
                                              > ---
                                              > Lawrence Kestenbaum, polygon@...
                                              > The Political Graveyard,
                                              > http://politicalgraveyard.com
                                              > Mailing address: P.O. Box 2563, Ann Arbor MI 48106
                                              >


                                              =====
                                              Scott Bill Hirst
                                              20 Maple Court
                                              Ashaway,RI 02804-9630 USA
                                              (401)377-4643
                                              Note:Telephone if you need quick reply.Use <scottbillhirst@...>as alternate e-mail.
                                            • D.J. Jones
                                              ... Rancho Palos Verdes. There is no town or city of Palos Verdes. I don t believe it (Portuguese Bend) ever was incorporated, that section of peninsula being
                                              Message 22 of 23 , Dec 28, 2004
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Lawrence Kestenbaum <polygon@p...> wrote:
                                                > Apparently I had the spelling wrong: it's Portuguese Bend. Have I
                                                > been misspelling that word all these years?
                                                >
                                                > And apparently the location is now in either "Palos Verdes"
                                                > or "Rancho Palos Verdes".

                                                Rancho Palos Verdes. There is no town or city of Palos Verdes. I
                                                don't believe it (Portuguese Bend) ever was incorporated, that
                                                section of peninsula being unincorporated until very recently (RPV
                                                incorporated only in the late 1970s), and has also apparently maxed
                                                out in its development as well.

                                                Regards,
                                                --D.J. Jones
                                              • hbremmer@webtv.net
                                                Hello Larry, Looked up La Canada and Flintridge and found out that La Canada is one of the oldest settled areas in CA. Flintridge was a subdivision developed
                                                Message 23 of 23 , Jan 13, 2005
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Hello Larry,
                                                  Looked up La Canada and Flintridge and found out that La Canada is one
                                                  of the oldest settled areas in CA. Flintridge was a subdivision
                                                  developed by U.S. Senator Frank Flint and was next to La Canada. La
                                                  Canada and Flintridge merged Dec. 8, 1976.

                                                  Helen Bremmer

                                                  http://community.webtv.net/hbremmer/AncestralTrailsanda
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.