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

963Re: [prezveepsenator] An email I sent to DailyKos.com

Expand Messages
  • THOMAS JOHNSON
    Aug 14, 2005
      Greg and Ram and all, thanks for the responses and
      welcoming me into the group. I have entertained the
      notion that perhaps the Taft presidency was the most
      analogous to our current inhabitant. He was born into
      political privilege, divisive, pious,
      anti-environment, and a pawn of the party machinery
      (TR claimed they stole the 1912 Republican
      nomination). I also would have included a puppet of
      big business, but after doing a little reading
      tonight, he apparently did some trust-busting. He
      seems to have had a pretty good post-presidency,
      including serving on the US Supreme Court. I also find
      it heartening that he and TR, who had been close
      friends( Taft was TR's hand-picked successor), and
      were able to have an amicable lunch together before
      the latter's death , significant in that in the 1912
      primaries terms such as 'fathead' and 'congenital
      liar' were thrown at each other.
      I caught a bit of the Carl Sferrazza Anthony Cspan
      interview on the subject of Nellie Taft that Ram
      alluded to and came away with feeling that she was
      pretty cool..thanks Ram for the link to see the whole
      segment and for the great Coolidge interview, the Debs
      profile and for answering my question. I'm learning a
      lot form you guys.

      Tom Johnson

      --- Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...> wrote:


      ---------------------------------
      I can't answer your question, Tom, though I'd also
      like to know the answer. Do you or anyone here have
      suggestions on books or websites to do with the Taft
      administration? The Roosevelt biography I'm reading
      has been mentioning Taft a lot, how Teddy began
      sending him on important missions and taking Taft into
      his confidence, at least as early as 1905 though
      probably earlier.

      Roosevelt's occasional anti-trust prosecutions of
      monopolies raised quite a storm in his first term, but
      he never went as far as the progressives wanted, and
      he angered progressives by insisting on "open shops"
      among government employees.

      I'd like to see a similar reaction by the progressive
      movement now, as you mention, but how would that come
      about? Right now progressives seem to be very much on
      the defense.

      --- THOMAS JOHNSON <AVRCRDNG@...> wrote:

      > I'm really enjoying the posting from this group and
      > am
      > curious if anyone thinks the progressive advances
      > that
      > were developing around 100 years ago, such as
      > suffrage and shorter workdays, were due at least in
      > part to a backlash against the robber barons and the
      > Taft administration. It would give me hope if a
      > pious,
      > pro big business president such as Taft inspired
      > the
      > progressive movement to rebel and a similar
      > reaction
      > could repeat itself a century later.
      >
      > Tom Johnson
      >
      > --- Greg Cannon <gregcannon1@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > I agree with you, but I fear that if taken too far
      > then the party's message might become only marketing
      > and packaging, with a great lack of substance. At
      > the
      > moment though the Democrats seem to be lacking on
      > both
      > accounts. They never fully committed to either
      > opposing or supporting Bush's foreign policy and his
      > policies on civil rights, and they failed miserably
      > when they attempted to explain their ambivalence to
      > the voters.
      >
      > What did the Socialists say in 1904? I've been
      > reading
      > a Teddy Roosevelt biography and recently finished
      > the
      > part on the 1904 election and didn't hear the
      > Socialists mentioned. The Democrats sure seem to
      > have
      > picked an unfortunate candidate that year, a judge
      > named Alton Parker who was apparently picked because
      > he seemed very very nonpartisan, uncontroversial,
      > and
      > boring in contrast to Roosevelt who was very
      > flamboyant and nearly always controversial.
      >
      > --- Ram Lau <ramlau@...> wrote:
      >
      > > In politics and in my years of studying politics,
      > > I've come to the
      > > conclusion that marketing and packaging matter
      > more
      > > than anything
      > > else. The GOP has a much better marketing team and
      > > are willing to go
      > > for the nasties, that's why they keep winning. The
      > > Dems are simply
      > > whiney losers who keep picking the wrong (and less
      > > than bright)
      > > candidates. Moral high ground is not the way to
      > go,
      > > the elitist
      > > liberals should understand. And, honestly, most
      > > people don't vote on
      > > the issues.
      > >
      > > LBJ's prophecy upon signing the Civil Rights Act
      > in
      > > 1964: "We have
      > > just lost the South for a generation." He's dead
      > > WRONG. They had
      > > lost the South for generations. The only times
      > when
      > > the Democratic
      > > candidate could win the South and thus the
      > election
      > > were all
      > > accidental (when the GOP screwed up very badly) -
      > > namely, the
      > > Watergate referendum year (1976) and the Perot
      > year
      > > (1992). Then it
      > > took a Clinton miracle to get re-elcted in 1996.
      > > Even worse, both
      > > Carter and Clinton had to be a Southerner to
      > > attractive the Southern
      > > moderates who don't usually vote to garner enough
      > > support to win.
      > >
      > > The only issues that matter to most - abortion,
      > > civil rights (from
      > > affirmative action to gay rights), and religious
      > > freedom - are what
      > > the Southerners care about (to deprive them) and
      > the
      > > liberals have
      > > never been on their side. That's why the
      > > pro-slavery, anti-women
      > > rights, xenophobic South was the Democratic
      > bastion
      > > in the pre-FDR
      > > days when the Yankee Republicans were controlled
      > by
      > > the liberals.
      > >
      > > Liberalism doesn't sell well in the South in the
      > > past 200 years, and
      > > I doubt ever will. Ironically enough, these
      > liberals
      > > always get what
      > > they want a generation later or two. Read the
      > > platform of the
      > > Socialist Party in 1904. What was perceived as the
      > > far left agenda,
      > > we have adopted most of it. That's why I'm still
      > > hopeful in a longer
      > > term perspective even very disturbed in these
      > days.
      > >
      > > Ram
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      >
      > Visit your group "prezveepsenator" on the web.
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
      > to:
      > prezveepsenator-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
      > Yahoo!
      > Terms of Service.
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      >
      >
      >
      >



      ---------------------------------
      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


      Visit your group "prezveepsenator" on the web.

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      prezveepsenator-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
      Terms of Service.


      ---------------------------------
    • Show all 25 messages in this topic