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

Re: [tr-m] Edmund Morris' pseudo "Interview" with Theodore Roosevelt - NY Times

Expand Messages
  • Father Ventura
    I am a neophyte, to this list and to TR, but I am disappointed by Morris interview , too. We shouldn t channel the dead. It s always dangerous to judge the
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 29, 2008
      I am a neophyte, to this list and to TR, but I am disappointed by Morris' 'interview', too.  We shouldn't channel the dead.  It's always dangerous to judge the past with modern glasses, and equally so to guess what specifically those of the past would do in modern times.  We only know what they did and said, what TR did and said, in his particular time and circumstance, and we can apply those lessons, and the wisdom drawn from them, to our times and circumstances.  We must do this for ourselves, though, and not for TR.  As a man who liked to speak, I am not sure he would like to be spoken for.
       
      God love you,
       
      Father Ventura
      --
      Father William Ventura
      Curate, St. John's Church
      North Chelmsford, Massachusetts

      "The world holds us to be fools.  Let us hold it to be mad."
      St. Francis de Sales

      "Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it."
      Pope St. Felix III
       
      On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Henry Hendrix <henryhendrix@...> wrote:

      Wow.  This is very disappointing.  I never expected that Edmund would attempt "channeling" TR.  Dr. John would be very disappointed I believe, but then again, that would imply I am channeling Dr. Gable. 




      To: tr-m@yahoogroups.com
      From: simonamerica@...
      Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:52:30 +0000
      Subject: [tr-m] Edmund Morris' pseudo "Interview" with Theodore Roosevelt - NY Times


       
      My comments are at the bottom.  Note. I'm NOT commenting on either of the candidates for President.
       
      New York Times 

      Theodore Roosevelt, Pundit

       

      October 27, 2008
      Op-Ed Contributor
      By EDMUND MORRIS
      THE former president, born 150 years ago today, was interviewed in his childhood home at 28 East 20th Street. He has long been a ghostly presence there. The house is now the Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site. Due to Roosevelt's great age, it is difficult to tell how well he hears contemporary questions. But he is as forceful as ever in expressing himself. His statements below are drawn from the historic record and are uncut except when interrupted by his interviewer.
      Q. Happy birthday, Mr. President! Or do you prefer being called Colonel?
      ROOSEVELT I've had the title of president once — having it twice means nothing except peril to whatever reputation I achieved the first time.
      Q. "Colonel," then. Do you think the Congress elected two years ago as a foil to the Bush administration has fulfilled its mandate?
      A. I am heartsick over the delay, the blundering, the fatuous and complacent inefficiency and the effort to substitute glittering rhetoric for action.
      Q. Do you blame the House Democratic majority?
      A. A goodly number of senators, even of my own party, have shown about as much backbone as so many angleworms.
      Q. I hope that doesn't include the pair running for the presidency! What do you think of Senator John McCain? He often cites you as a role model.
      A. He is evidently a man who takes color from his surroundings.
      Q. Weren't you just as unpredictable in your time?
      A. (laughing) They say that nothing is as independent as a hog on ice. If he doesn't want to stand up, he can lie down.
      Q. Mr. McCain has always prided himself on his independence. At least, until he began to take direction from chief executives and retired generals —
      A. But the signs now are that these advisers have themselves awakened to the fact that they have almost ruined him.
      Q. Does his vow to give Joe the Plumber a tax break remind you of Reaganomics?
      A. This is merely the plan, already tested and found wanting, of giving prosperity to the big men on top, and trusting to their mercy to let something leak through to the mass of their countrymen below — which, in effect, means that there shall be no attempt to regulate the ferocious scramble in which greed and cunning reap the largest rewards.
      Q. In Washington today, Colonel, you're increasingly seen as the father of centralized, executive, regulatory control.
      A. Great corporations exist only because they are created and safeguarded by our institutions; and it is therefore our right and duty to see that they work in harmony with these institutions.
      Q. Especially now that we've seen the end of another age of laissez-faire economics?
      A. These new conditions make it necessary to shackle cunning, as in the past we have shackled force. The vast individual and corporate fortunes, the vast combinations of capital —
      Q. Even vaster in your day! John D. Rockefeller was richer than Bill Gates, dollar for dollar.
      A. Quite right. (He dislikes being interrupted.) And please, let this now be as much of a monologue as possible.
      Q. Excuse me, you were saying that vast combinations of capital ...
      A. ... create new conditions, and necessitate a change from the old attitude of the state and the nation toward the rules regulating the acquisition and untrammeled business use of property.
      Q. So you approve of the federal bailout?
      A. I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.
      Q. Should we condone the huge severance packages paid to executives of rescued corporations?
      A. There is need in business, as in most other forms of human activity, of the great guiding intelligences. Their places cannot be supplied by any number of lesser intelligences. It is a good thing that they should have ample recognition, ample reward. But we must not transfer our admiration to the reward instead of to the deed rewarded; and if what should be the reward exists without the service having been rendered, then admiration will come only from those who are mean of soul.
      Q. So we should withhold our envy of Richard Fuld, the chairman of Lehman Brothers, for taking home half a billion before his company went down?
      A. Envy and arrogance are the two opposite sides of the same black crystal.
      Q. Extraordinary image, Colonel. What's your impression of Barack Obama?
      A. Unless I am greatly mistaken, the people have made up their mind that they wish some new instrument.
      Q. You're not afraid that he's primarily a man of words? Like Woodrow Wilson, whom you once called a "Byzantine logothete"?
      A. It is highly desirable that a leader of opinion in a democracy should be able to state his views clearly and convincingly.
      Q. Not Mr. McCain's strong point!
      A. Some excellent public servants have not the gift at all, and must rely upon their deeds to speak for them; and unless the oratory does represent genuine conviction, based on good common sense and able to be translated into efficient performance, then the better the oratory the greater the damage to the public it deceives.
      Q. Mr. McCain might argue that his life of service and suffering is eloquence enough. Have you read his autobiography?
      A. I should like to have it circulated as a tract among an immense multitude of philanthropists, congressmen, newspaper editors, publicists, softheaded mothers and other people of sorts who think that life ought to consist of perpetual shrinking from effort, danger and pain.
      Q. Has Mr. Obama not suffered too? Not at the heroic level of Mr. McCain, but in transcending centuries of race prejudice to become a viable presidential candidate — only to be nearly stopped by Hillary Clinton!
      A. I think that he has learned some bitter lessons, and that independently of outside pressure he will try to act with greater firmness, and to look at things more from the standpoint of the interests of the people, and less from that of a technical lawyer —
      Q. "Technical," Colonel? He took his law degree straight onto the streets of Chicago and applied it to social problems.
      A. He may and probably will turn out to be a perfectly respectable president, whose achievements will be disheartening compared with what we had expected, but who nevertheless will have done well enough to justify us in renominating him — for you must remember that to renominate him would be a very serious thing, only to be justified by really strong reasons.
      Q. He doesn't have Mr. McCain's foreign policy experience. As president, how would he personify us around the world?
      A. It always pays for a nation to be a gentleman.
      Q. There'll be Joe Biden to counsel him, of course. Assuming Mr. Obama can keep track of what he's saying.
      A. (laughing) You can't nail marmalade against a wall.
      Q. Talking of foreign policy, what do you think of Mr. McCain's choice of a female running mate?
      A. Times have changed (sigh). It is entirely inexcusable, however, to try to combine the unready hand with the unbridled tongue.
      Q. How will you feel if Sarah Palin is elected?
      A. I shall feel exactly the way a very small frog looks when it swallows a beetle the size of itself, with extremely stiff legs.
      Q. What's your impression of President Bush these days?
      A. (suddenly serious) He looks like Judas, but unlike that gentleman has no capacity for remorse.
      Q. Is that the best you can say of him?
      A. I wish him well, but I wish him well at a good distance from me.
      Q. One last question, Colonel. If you were campaigning now, would you still call yourself a Republican?
      A. (after a long pause) No.
      Edmund Morris is working on the third and final volume of his biography of Theodore Roosevelt.
       
      Keith's Comment:  I find it astonishing that Morris could possibly think it creditable that TR could/would answer his last question "If you were campaigning now, would you still call yourself a Republican?"   I think that whether or not TR indicated no OR yes he wouldn't do so with a one word answer. That's just NOT TR-like at all. He'd want to explain his reasons for his yes or no answer.  I think Morris set out to make a political instead of an statement in this pseudo-interview.  He's welcome to HIS political opinions but what right does HE have to speak for Theodore Roosevelt?
       


      When your life is on the go—take your life with you. Try Windows Mobile® today




    • jfw39@optonline.net
      This unfortunately, is the same kind of product from him that we saw in DUTCH. However, no morememorable lyric historical writing has been read since his last
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 30, 2008
        This unfortunately, is the same kind of product from him that we saw in DUTCH.
         
        However, no morememorable lyric historical writing has been read since his last three pages of Volume II of the TR Trilogy.
         
        MASTERFUL.
         
        Jon Weinstein

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Henry Hendrix
        Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 9:38 am
        Subject: RE: [tr-m] Edmund Morris' pseudo "Interview" with Theodore Roosevelt - NY Times
        To: tr-m@yahoogroups.com

        > Wow. This is very disappointing. I never expected that Edmund
        > would attempt "channeling" TR. Dr. John would be very
        > disappointed I believe, but then again, that would imply I am
        > channeling Dr. Gable.
        >
        > To: tr-m@yahoogroups.comFrom: simonamerica@...: Tue,
        > 28 Oct 2008 15:52:30 +0000Subject: [tr-m] Edmund Morris' pseudo
        > "Interview" with Theodore Roosevelt - NY Times
        >
        >
        >
        > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/opinion/27morris.html?scp=2&sq=Edmund%20Morris&st=cse
        >
        > My comments are at the bottom. Note. I'm NOT commenting on
        > either of the candidates for President.
        >
        >
        > Theodore Roosevelt, Pundit
        >
        > October 27, 2008
        > Op-Ed Contributor
        > By EDMUND MORRIS
        >
        > THE former president, born 150 years ago today, was interviewed
        > in his childhood home at 28 East 20th Street. He has long been a
        > ghostly presence there. The house is now the Theodore Roosevelt
        > Birthplace National Historic Site. Due to Roosevelt's great age,
        > it is difficult to tell how well he hears contemporary
        > questions. But he is as forceful as ever in expressing himself.
        > His statements below are drawn from the historic record and are
        > uncut except when interrupted by his interviewer.
        > Q. Happy birthday, Mr. President! Or do you prefer being called
        > Colonel?ROOSEVELT I've had the title of president once — having
        > it twice means nothing except peril to whatever reputation I
        > achieved the first time.
        > Q. "Colonel," then. Do you think the Congress elected two years
        > ago as a foil to the Bush administration has fulfilled its
        > mandate?
        > A. I am heartsick over the delay, the blundering, the fatuous
        > and complacent inefficiency and the effort to substitute
        > glittering rhetoric for action.
        > Q. Do you blame the House Democratic majority?
        > A. A goodly number of senators, even of my own party, have shown
        > about as much backbone as so many angleworms.
        > Q. I hope that doesn't include the pair running for the
        > presidency! What do you think of Senator John McCain? He often
        > cites you as a role model.
        > A. He is evidently a man who takes color from his surroundings.
        > Q. Weren't you just as unpredictable in your time?
        > A. (laughing) They say that nothing is as independent as a hog
        > on ice. If he doesn't want to stand up, he can lie down.
        > Q. Mr. McCain has always prided himself on his independence. At
        > least, until he began to take direction from chief executives
        > and retired generals —
        > A. But the signs now are that these advisers have themselves
        > awakened to the fact that they have almost ruined him.
        > Q. Does his vow to give Joe the Plumber a tax break remind you
        > of Reaganomics?
        > A. This is merely the plan, already tested and found wanting, of
        > giving prosperity to the big men on top, and trusting to their
        > mercy to let something leak through to the mass of their
        > countrymen below — which, in effect, means that there shall be
        > no attempt to regulate the ferocious scramble in which greed and
        > cunning reap the largest rewards.
        > Q. In Washington today, Colonel, you're increasingly seen as the
        > father of centralized, executive, regulatory control.
        > A. Great corporations exist only because they are created and
        > safeguarded by our institutions; and it is therefore our right
        > and duty to see that they work in harmony with these institutions.
        > Q. Especially now that we've seen the end of another age of
        > laissez-faire economics?
        > A. These new conditions make it necessary to shackle cunning, as
        > in the past we have shackled force. The vast individual and
        > corporate fortunes, the vast combinations of capital —
        > Q. Even vaster in your day! John D. Rockefeller was richer than
        > Bill Gates, dollar for dollar.
        > A. Quite right. (He dislikes being interrupted.) And please, let
        > this now be as much of a monologue as possible.
        > Q. Excuse me, you were saying that vast combinations of capital ...
        > A. ... create new conditions, and necessitate a change from the
        > old attitude of the state and the nation toward the rules
        > regulating the acquisition and untrammeled business use of
        > property.
        > Q. So you approve of the federal bailout?
        > A. I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in
        > governmental control is now necessary.
        > Q. Should we condone the huge severance packages paid to
        > executives of rescued corporations?
        > A. There is need in business, as in most other forms of human
        > activity, of the great guiding intelligences. Their places
        > cannot be supplied by any number of lesser intelligences. It is
        > a good thing that they should have ample recognition, ample
        > reward. But we must not transfer our admiration to the reward
        > instead of to the deed rewarded; and if what should be the
        > reward exists without the service having been rendered, then
        > admiration will come only from those who are mean of soul.
        > Q. So we should withhold our envy of Richard Fuld, the chairman
        > of Lehman Brothers, for taking home half a billion before his
        > company went down?
        > A. Envy and arrogance are the two opposite sides of the same
        > black crystal.
        > Q. Extraordinary image, Colonel. What's your impression of
        > Barack Obama?
        > A. Unless I am greatly mistaken, the people have made up their
        > mind that they wish some new instrument.
        > Q. You're not afraid that he's primarily a man of words? Like
        > Woodrow Wilson, whom you once called a "Byzantine logothete"?
        > A. It is highly desirable that a leader of opinion in a
        > democracy should be able to state his views clearly and
        > convincingly.
        > Q. Not Mr. McCain's strong point!
        > A. Some excellent public servants have not the gift at all, and
        > must rely upon their deeds to speak for them; and unless the
        > oratory does represent genuine conviction, based on good common
        > sense and able to be translated into efficient performance, then
        > the better the oratory the greater the damage to the public it
        > deceives.
        > Q. Mr. McCain might argue that his life of service and suffering
        > is eloquence enough. Have you read his autobiography?
        > A. I should like to have it circulated as a tract among an
        > immense multitude of philanthropists, congressmen, newspaper
        > editors, publicists, softheaded mothers and other people of
        > sorts who think that life ought to consist of perpetual
        > shrinking from effort, danger and pain.
        > Q. Has Mr. Obama not suffered too? Not at the heroic level of
        > Mr. McCain, but in transcending centuries of race prejudice to
        > become a viable presidential candidate — only to be nearly
        > stopped by Hillary Clinton!
        > A. I think that he has learned some bitter lessons, and that
        > independently of outside pressure he will try to act with
        > greater firmness, and to look at things more from the standpoint
        > of the interests of the people, and less from that of a
        > technical lawyer —
        > Q. "Technical," Colonel? He took his law degree straight onto
        > the streets of Chicago and applied it to social problems.
        > A. He may and probably will turn out to be a perfectly
        > respectable president, whose achievements will be disheartening
        > compared with what we had expected, but who nevertheless will
        > have done well enough to justify us in renominating him — for
        > you must remember that to renominate him would be a very serious
        > thing, only to be justified by really strong reasons.
        > Q. He doesn't have Mr. McCain's foreign policy experience. As
        > president, how would he personify us around the world?
        > A. It always pays for a nation to be a gentleman.
        > Q. There'll be Joe Biden to counsel him, of course. Assuming Mr.
        > Obama can keep track of what he's saying.
        > A. (laughing) You can't nail marmalade against a wall.
        > Q. Talking of foreign policy, what do you think of Mr. McCain's
        > choice of a female running mate?
        > A. Times have changed (sigh). It is entirely inexcusable,
        > however, to try to combine the unready hand with the unbridled
        > tongue.
        > Q. How will you feel if Sarah Palin is elected?
        > A. I shall feel exactly the way a very small frog looks when it
        > swallows a beetle the size of itself, with extremely stiff legs.
        > Q. What's your impression of President Bush these days?
        > A. (suddenly serious) He looks like Judas, but unlike that
        > gentleman has no capacity for remorse.
        > Q. Is that the best you can say of him?
        > A. I wish him well, but I wish him well at a good distance from
        > me.
        > Q. One last question, Colonel. If you were campaigning now,
        > would you still call yourself a Republican?
        > A. (after a long pause) No.
        >
        > Edmund Morris is working on the third and final volume of his
        > biography of Theodore Roosevelt.
        >
        > Keith's Comment: I find it astonishing that Morris could
        > possibly think it creditable that TR could/would answer his last
        > question "If you were campaigning now, would you still call
        > yourself a Republican?" I think that whether or not TR
        > indicated no OR yes he wouldn't do so with a one word answer.
        > That's just NOT TR-like at all. He'd want to explain his reasons
        > for his yes or no answer. I think Morris set out to make a
        > political instead of an statement in this pseudo-interview.
        > He's welcome to HIS political opinions but what right does HE
        > have to speak for Theodore Roosevelt?
        >
        > _________________________________________________________________
        > When your life is on the go—take your life with you.
        > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/
      • Mark Arend
        20 or 25 years ago I attended a talk by Margaret Truman when she was out on a book tour. During question time someone asked her what her father would have
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 30, 2008
          20 or 25 years ago I attended a talk by Margaret
          Truman when she was out on a book tour. During
          question time someone asked her what her father
          would have said about whatever political scandal
          was on the front pages at the time. I've never
          forgotten her answer: "I never spoke for my
          father when he was alive and I wouldn't think of
          doing so now that he's gone." (or words very much to that effect).

          --MWA





          At 09:35 AM 10/29/2008, you wrote:
          >I once saw a letter from Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.
          >(Ted). When asked what his father would have
          >said about something, Ted replied that he had no
          >idea and would not venture a guess, simply
          >because the question had not come up during his
          >father's lifetime and his father had never expressed an opinion on the subject.
          >
          >That said, the piece was very clever...
          >
          >Best,
          >Linda Milano
          >
          >----- Original Message -----
          >From: <mailto:henryhendrix@...>Henry Hendrix
          >To: <mailto:tr-m@yahoogroups.com>tr-m@yahoogroups.com
          >Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:10 AM
          >Subject: RE: [tr-m] Edmund Morris' pseudo
          >"Interview" with Theodore Roosevelt - NY Times
          >
          >Wow. This is very disappointing. I never
          >expected that Edmund would attempt "channeling"
          >TR. Dr. John would be very disappointed I
          >believe, but then again, that would imply I am channeling Dr. Gable.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >----------
          >To: <mailto:tr-m@yahoogroups.com>tr-m@yahoogroups.com
          >From: <mailto:simonamerica@...>simonamerica@...
          >Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:52:30 +0000
          >Subject: [tr-m] Edmund Morris' pseudo
          >"Interview" with Theodore Roosevelt - NY Times
          >
          ><http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/opinion/27morris.html?scp=2&sq=Edmund
          >Morris&st=cse>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/opinion/27morris.html?scp=2&sq=Edmund%20Morris&st=cse
          >
          >My comments are at the bottom. Note. I'm NOT
          >commenting on either of the candidates for President.
          >
          ><http://www.nytimes.com/>
          >New York Times
          >
          >
          >
          >Theodore Roosevelt, Pundit
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >October 27, 2008
          >Op-Ed Contributor
          >By EDMUND MORRIS
          >THE former president, born 150 years ago today,
          >was interviewed in his childhood home at 28 East
          >20th Street. He has long been a ghostly presence
          >there. The house is now the Theodore Roosevelt
          >Birthplace National Historic Site. Due to
          >Roosevelt's great age, it is difficult to tell
          >how well he hears contemporary questions. But he
          >is as forceful as ever in expressing himself.
          >His statements below are drawn from the historic
          >record and are uncut except when interrupted by his interviewer.
          >Q. Happy birthday, Mr. President! Or do you prefer being called Colonel?
          >ROOSEVELT I've had the title of president once —
          >having it twice means nothing except peril to
          >whatever reputation I achieved the first time.
          >Q. "Colonel," then. Do you think the Congress
          >elected two years ago as a foil to the Bush
          >administration has fulfilled its mandate?
          >A. I am heartsick over the delay, the
          >blundering, the fatuous and complacent
          >inefficiency and the effort to substitute glittering rhetoric for action.
          >Q. Do you blame the House Democratic majority?
          >A. A goodly number of senators, even of my own
          >party, have shown about as much backbone as so many angleworms.
          >Q. I hope that doesn't include the pair running
          >for the presidency! What do you think of Senator
          >John McCain? He often cites you as a role model.
          >A. He is evidently a man who takes color from his surroundings.
          >Q. Weren't you just as unpredictable in your time?
          >A. (laughing) They say that nothing is as
          >independent as a hog on ice. If he doesn't want to stand up, he can lie down.
          >Q. Mr. McCain has always prided himself on his
          >independence. At least, until he began to take
          >direction from chief executives and retired generals —
          >A. But the signs now are that these advisers
          >have themselves awakened to the fact that they have almost ruined him.
          >Q. Does his vow to give Joe the Plumber a tax break remind you of Reaganomics?
          >A. This is merely the plan, already tested and
          >found wanting, of giving prosperity to the big
          >men on top, and trusting to their mercy to let
          >something leak through to the mass of their
          >countrymen below — which, in effect, means that
          >there shall be no attempt to regulate the
          >ferocious scramble in which greed and cunning reap the largest rewards.
          >Q. In Washington today, Colonel, you're
          >increasingly seen as the father of centralized, executive, regulatory control.
          >A. Great corporations exist only because they
          >are created and safeguarded by our institutions;
          >and it is therefore our right and duty to see
          >that they work in harmony with these institutions.
          >Q. Especially now that we've seen the end of
          >another age of laissez-faire economics?
          >A. These new conditions make it necessary to
          >shackle cunning, as in the past we have shackled
          >force. The vast individual and corporate
          >fortunes, the vast combinations of capital —
          >Q. Even vaster in your day! John D. Rockefeller
          >was richer than Bill Gates, dollar for dollar.
          >A. Quite right. (He dislikes being interrupted.)
          >And please, let this now be as much of a monologue as possible.
          >Q. Excuse me, you were saying that vast combinations of capital ...
          >A. ... create new conditions, and necessitate a
          >change from the old attitude of the state and
          >the nation toward the rules regulating the
          >acquisition and untrammeled business use of property.
          >Q. So you approve of the federal bailout?
          >A. I think we have got to face the fact that
          >such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.
          >Q. Should we condone the huge severance packages
          >paid to executives of rescued corporations?
          >A. There is need in business, as in most other
          >forms of human activity, of the great guiding
          >intelligences. Their places cannot be supplied
          >by any number of lesser intelligences. It is a
          >good thing that they should have ample
          >recognition, ample reward. But we must not
          >transfer our admiration to the reward instead of
          >to the deed rewarded; and if what should be the
          >reward exists without the service having been
          >rendered, then admiration will come only from those who are mean of soul.
          >Q. So we should withhold our envy of Richard
          >Fuld, the chairman of Lehman Brothers, for
          >taking home half a billion before his company went down?
          >A. Envy and arrogance are the two opposite sides of the same black crystal.
          >Q. Extraordinary image, Colonel. What's your impression of Barack Obama?
          >A. Unless I am greatly mistaken, the people have
          >made up their mind that they wish some new instrument.
          >Q. You're not afraid that he's primarily a man
          >of words? Like Woodrow Wilson, whom you once called a "Byzantine logothete"?
          >A. It is highly desirable that a leader of
          >opinion in a democracy should be able to state
          >his views clearly and convincingly.
          >Q. Not Mr. McCain's strong point!
          >A. Some excellent public servants have not the
          >gift at all, and must rely upon their deeds to
          >speak for them; and unless the oratory does
          >represent genuine conviction, based on good
          >common sense and able to be translated into
          >efficient performance, then the better the
          >oratory the greater the damage to the public it deceives.
          >Q. Mr. McCain might argue that his life of
          >service and suffering is eloquence enough. Have you read his autobiography?
          >A. I should like to have it circulated as a
          >tract among an immense multitude of
          >philanthropists, congressmen, newspaper editors,
          >publicists, softheaded mothers and other people
          >of sorts who think that life ought to consist of
          >perpetual shrinking from effort, danger and pain.
          >Q. Has Mr. Obama not suffered too? Not at the
          >heroic level of Mr. McCain, but in transcending
          >centuries of race prejudice to become a viable
          >presidential candidate — only to be nearly stopped by Hillary Clinton!
          >A. I think that he has learned some bitter
          >lessons, and that independently of outside
          >pressure he will try to act with greater
          >firmness, and to look at things more from the
          >standpoint of the interests of the people, and
          >less from that of a technical lawyer —
          >Q. "Technical," Colonel? He took his law degree
          >straight onto the streets of Chicago and applied it to social problems.
          >A. He may and probably will turn out to be a
          >perfectly respectable president, whose
          >achievements will be disheartening compared with
          >what we had expected, but who nevertheless will
          >have done well enough to justify us in
          >renominating him — for you must remember that to
          >renominate him would be a very serious thing,
          >only to be justified by really strong reasons.
          >Q. He doesn't have Mr. McCain's foreign policy
          >experience. As president, how would he personify us around the world?
          >A. It always pays for a nation to be a gentleman.
          >Q. There'll be Joe Biden to counsel him, of
          >course. Assuming Mr. Obama can keep track of what he's saying.
          >A. (laughing) You can't nail marmalade against a wall.
          >Q. Talking of foreign policy, what do you think
          >of Mr. McCain's choice of a female running mate?
          >A. Times have changed (sigh). It is entirely
          >inexcusable, however, to try to combine the
          >unready hand with the unbridled tongue.
          >Q. How will you feel if Sarah Palin is elected?
          >A. I shall feel exactly the way a very small
          >frog looks when it swallows a beetle the size of
          >itself, with extremely stiff legs.
          >Q. What's your impression of President Bush these days?
          >A. (suddenly serious) He looks like Judas, but
          >unlike that gentleman has no capacity for remorse.
          >Q. Is that the best you can say of him?
          >A. I wish him well, but I wish him well at a good distance from me.
          >Q. One last question, Colonel. If you were
          >campaigning now, would you still call yourself a Republican?
          >A. (after a long pause) No.
          >Edmund Morris is working on the third and final
          >volume of his biography of Theodore Roosevelt.
          >
          >Keith's Comment: I find it astonishing that
          >Morris could possibly think it creditable that
          >TR could/would answer his last question "If you
          >were campaigning now, would you still call
          >yourself a Republican?" I think that whether
          >or not TR indicated no OR yes he wouldn't do so
          >with a one word answer. That's just NOT TR-like
          >at all. He'd want to explain his reasons for his
          >yes or no answer. I think Morris set out to
          >make a political instead of an statement in this
          >pseudo-interview. He's welcome to HIS political
          >opinions but what right does HE have to speak for Theodore Roosevelt?
          >
          >
          >
          >----------
          >When your life is on the go—take your life with
          >you.
          ><http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/>Try Windows Mobile® today
          >
          >
          >Internal Virus Database is out of date.
          >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
          >Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.5.2/1562
          >- Release Date: 7/19/2008 2:01 PM



          Mark Arend
          Oshkosh Wisc.





          Outside of a dog a book is man's best
          friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
          ---Groucho Marx
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.