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

966Re: An email I sent to DailyKos.com

Expand Messages
  • Ram Lau
    Aug 15, 2005
      Wilson and Bryan was the transitional generation for the Dems.
      Wilson was a Southerner who happened to be an educated conservative,
      and he was not one of those orthodox Southern Democrats in his days.
      After all, he became President of Princeton and Governor of New
      Jersey before the Presidency. I like Taft for being real and honest,
      even I think he was a little too passive and conservative as an Ohio
      Republican a century ago. But, to be fair, Taft was just as centrist
      as Wilson.

      The country wanted progressives at a time when the Triangle Factory
      Fire just happened, and the anti-child labor sentiment and women's
      rights movement were fermenting. The 1912 election was all about
      the "America can do better" feelings.

      Ram


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