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

965Re: [prezveepsenator] Re: An email I sent to DailyKos.com

Expand Messages
  • THOMAS JOHNSON
    Aug 15, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks,Ram, for the clarification and the BookTV
      interview about the 1912 election. First of all, I'd
      like to apologize to the legacy of Taft for comparing
      Bush to him.. After learning more about him, I feel
      like I slimed him by lumping him in with Bush 43.
      In reading the interview, I was very surprised to
      learn that of the 4 nominees ( Taft, Wilson, Roosevelt
      and Debs) in the 1912 presidential race, that Wilson
      seemed to have the most in common with Bush, in that
      they govern(ed) from a place of divine ordination,
      although it is not clear to me whether Wilson applied
      that philosophy in general or just in the Treaty of
      Versailles. I have read that Wilson was prone to use
      the threat of prosecution of sedition as a political
      tool and was not above using propaganda. I'm curious
      whether that it is reasonable to assume that Deb's
      incarceration under the Espionage Act was an attempt
      to lessen his impact on the 1920 race.
      I found the image of a weeping Taft being the last to
      leave TR's grave site pretty touching, and the fact
      that TR delivered a 50 minute speech, immediately
      after taking a bullet in the chest, astounding.

      Tom Johnson




      --- Ram Lau <ramlau@...> wrote:


      ---------------------------------
      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.
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------





      ---------------------------------
      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