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

964Re: An email I sent to DailyKos.com

Expand Messages
  • Ram Lau
    Aug 14, 2005
      Because of his deep sense of fairness and equality that the original
      Republican Party embraced, Taft made a superb Supreme Court Chief
      Justice. I find it impossible to picture what kind of Justice Bush or
      Cheney would be, but I pray to God (and I only bother God when
      necessary) that a Justice Bush/Cheney will never happen to mankind.

      The 1912 election was a critical election. The Democratic Party for
      the first time experienced the progressive elements that Woodrow
      Wilson and William Jennings Bryan embraced, while the Republican Party
      began to turn from a center-left party to something totally different
      half a century later. Here is the transcript of the BookTV interview
      with the author of the book "1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft, and Debs -
      The Election That Changed the Country," a very readable book:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prezveepsenator/message/192

      Ram


      --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, THOMAS JOHNSON <AVRCRDNG@F...>
      wrote:
      > 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@y...> 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@F...> 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@y...> 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@y...> 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