THE LIVE THREAD: Election 2002 Compilation Thread

www.freerepublic.com | November 5, 2002 | Freepers

[Howlin]

Please post as much election information as you can on this thread, so we won't have a million separate threads running at one time.

And, please, NO GRAPHICS -- just links!

[nicollo]

So then would you find Teddy Roosevelt's actions in standing his own political ground when Taft had placed the Republican Party on what proved to be a suicidal course to be better, or less so than pragmetism and a vote for the lesser of two weasels?

Before you go off on the road to Armageddon, read the fine print. Try it here (Progressive Party platform of 1912)

Btw, you confused 1912 with 1916. Also, as you seem not to like those who advocate "constitutional comprimise and unconstititional *shortcuts*" , do pay attention to the above link. Perhaps you didn't notice: Roosevelt held the Constitution in contempt.

[cherry]

can someone give me an update on what is happening in alabama?....I thought that one was all sewn up nice and tight this morning...thx

[nopardons]

Please don't attempt to lecture me about TR. My grandfather, who was a staunch fan of his, heard him speak, worked to get him elected ( but NOT after he switched over to the BM party ), and infused a love of him, in me, when I was but a tiny child. Unlike YOU, I have heard directly, from someone who actually lived through those times, besides reading everything I could, about TR. I also know history quiet well, and your assumptions about TR keeping Communism from our shores, is utterly delusional, fallacious, and a conjecture that is unsupportable by facts.

TR conjured up and ran on the Bull Moose ticket, because of his ego. There would have been no BM party with TR. He was a one man show and a sideshow , unfortunately, at that.

Would Taft have been better than Wilson ? YES ! Would a second term og Bush the elder been better than 2 horriffic terms of X42 ? How can you even wonder about that ?

Political naifs, who went for Perot ( and that poster said NOTHING at all about the NRA, Ruby Ridge, nor anything but about " READ MY LIPS " ! ), just because of the " NO NEW TAXES " line, shouldn't be allowed to vote ; they aren't educated enough. Neither are silly " purists ", who can't see beyond the edge of their own delusional self righteousness.

Oh so President Bush is going to have his own Riby Ridge " ? REALLY ? Which are you using, tarot cards, a scrying mirror, or a crystal ball to make prognostications with ? Maybe you can give us next weeks WSJ Dow Jones figures. Oh, but never mind, dear, you aren't trustworthy; not in the least. LOL

[nopardons]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Feeling better after your pathetic little rant ?

You didn't say that you aren't a Libertarian, in the post I replied to. You left it quite open, so that I and others assumed that you are one. At the very least, you were their champion and not a very good one. That you don't like the responses, that you engendered, is your problem.

As to my one, tiny , misspelling, late at night, after an exciting election, is what makes my entire response incorrect / objectionable to you ? How adult . LOL

No, I don't want to recapture the Libertarians, if it means that the GOP have to cave in and take on enough of their positions, to woo them into the fold. What you fail to realize, is that by doing so, the GOP would lose the majoprity of its REPUBLICAN base. If they wanted to be Libertainas, they would be; not Republicans. That you can't see / understand that concept, proves that you haven't a clue. So much for your smary, and yes, juvenile claims to be so enlightened. LOL

[Dan Day]

"Ask your question again without the gratuitous drug insult, and I'll be glad to answer it"

I'd better not, for, since you stumbled over my "drug insult," you didn't even get to the "masturbation" insult that followed. Don't bother.

Your admission that you'd rather fling childish insults instead of understand the issue under discussion is duly noted.

Indeed, I won't bother with you any more.

(For the curious, here's what I wrote)

Wow, you're awfully *proud* of your juvenile insults, aren't you? Not enough to just let people follow the thread links back, you have to provide special pointers to it. Sheesh.

I outgrew that sort of stuff a couple decades ago. May you someday do likewise.

[Dan Day]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Feeling better after your pathetic little rant ?

It wasn't a rant at all. I'm perfectly calm. It was a point-by-point deconstruction of your errors and your gratuitous insults. I'm not surprised, however, that you've managed to have the actual essence of yet another post bounce off your forehead with a sharp "ping".

Actually, I doubt you're truly that dense. I think you're playing dumb in order to try to pretend that my public exposure of your mistakes and abominable behavior didn't hit home. You're hoping that by saying in effect, "nyah nyah, missed me!", you'll divert attention from how poorly you've behaved here.

If so, the only person you're fooling here is yourself. An honorable person would have apologized for such attacks as you've indulged in for no damned good reason. But since you have dodged my specific invitation for you to tender an apology, I now know that you have no honor.

So now I'll know how to consider you in the future.

If you want to see what a "pathetic little rant" actually looks like, consider this incredibly hyperemotional post:

This is precisely WHY Libertarians will NEVER win anything, get what they want, and are THE ENEMY WITHIN THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT " . You aren't Conservative, don't understand politics, and are dogs in the manger, who revel in being miserable and want everyone else to be too.

In a nutshell, when Dems win, that only energizes Republicans; it doesn't make us want to go over to the ENEMY WITHIN and vote Libertarian. Frankly, it makes you guys a hated, reviled, and laothsome group. This is no way to win friends and influence anyone.The Libertarian Party is the home for juveneiles, cases of arrested developement, pro dopers, who couldn't survive two months, under a real LP run nation.

One can just feel the screeching rage bleeding out through the excessive boldfacing and capitalizations.

Oh, wait, that was one of yours, wasn't it? That was your childish rant in response to my simply explaining the political dynamics of why third party voters choose to vote for third parties.

You didn't say that you aren't a Libertarian, in the post I replied to. You left it quite open, so that I and others assumed that you are one.

Nor did I give any reason for you to presume that I was one. My writing about libertarians (which I clearly described as "they" -- that alone should have been clear enough) and why they vote as they do hardly counts as even the flimsiest pretext for your disgusting personal attacks against me.

If I wrote about why the Nazis made certainly political choices, would you presume I was "championing" the Nazis, and that I must be one, and go off on a rant about how "Nazis like me" are subhuman? Yeah, I guess you would after all.

An honorable person would... Oh, wait, I forgot to whom I was speaking, never mind.

At the very least, you were their champion and not a very good one. That you don't like the responses, that you engendered, is your problem.

Oh, please. No one could possibly be as dense as you are pretending to be here.

I didn't "champion" anything, I was explaining why third-party voters don't feel that they are "wasting their vote" if they vote for someone other than the two major parties.

I "didn't like the response" because I got in response three childishly vicious attack screeds, one of which being yours, all of which exposed their authors' various emotional problems and were based on nothing I actually wrote.

My huge sin, apparently, was daring to write about libertarian motivations in a neutral manner (gasp!), without in the process rabidly denouncing them strongly enough for your tastes.

As to my one, tiny , misspelling, late at night,

In the interests of accuracy, you made three.

after an exciting election, is what makes my entire response incorrect / objectionable to you ? How adult . LOL

Ah, yet another point which zoomed over your head entirely. I take it back -- maybe you *are* as slow-witted as you appear to be.

Hint #1: Nowhere did I claim that it "made your entire response incorrect / objectionable". You're hallucinating things into my posts. Again.

Hint #2: You were taking snotty potshots at me and snootily proclaiming superiority from them, so I returned the favor in kind to see how you liked it. Did you take the hint and tone down your own impertinence? No, of course you didn't.

I notice that your ego (not to mention your double-standard) didn't allow you to let it slide, you had to play the wounded victim.

Score for me.

No, I don't want to recapture the Libertarians, if it means that the GOP have to cave in and take on enough of their positions, to woo them into the fold. What you fail to realize, is that by doing so, the GOP would lose the majoprity of its REPUBLICAN base.

Nonsense. There are plenty of things the Republicans can do to be more attractive to those who currently vote libertarian, without taking on the entire libertarian platform, *and* be more supported by its "REPUBLICAN base" at the same time. For just one example, a more serious commitment to reducing the bloated size of the federal government (especially where it currently exceeds its constitutional bounds). Republicans in power talk a lot about doing this, but seldom act on it as much as they could.

Libertarians aren't just about drug legalization, you know. Well, *you* may not know that...

At this point I'm tempted to say "I'm sure you could think of more if you bothered to try", but then, perhaps you couldn't.

Fine -- you go ahead and refuse to think of ways that we could draw more votes to the Republicans because you don't want "those people's" votes. There's no harm in you being so shortsighted and self-destructive to your own party, your misguided opinion matters not. But thankfully President Bush and the grown-ups running the Republican party are a lot more savvy than that, and are constantly on the lookout for ways to attract more voters. They know the wisdom of that approach even if you'll never grasp it.

If they wanted to be Libertainas, they would be; not Republicans. That you can't see / understand that concept, proves that you haven't a clue.

Your declaring such an absurdity doesn't make it true -- not even with your now traditional gratuitous insult.

There are plenty of swing voters in any voting block, who can be persuaded to vote for your party if you just make the effort to understand what's important to them, and take the time to reach out in the right way.

It's ludicrous for you to declare that they're all unobtainable votes, forever beyond our grasp. The same (faulty) argument could be applied to declare that it's useless to try to turn any of today's Democratic voters into next election's Republican voters.

And you say *I* don't have "a clue"?

So much for your smary, and yes, juvenile claims to be so enlightened. LOL

Your record is stuck in a groove. Are you really so short of actual argument that you have to keep repeating the same silly insults in the hopes that you can "win" by being condescending heavily enough?

If so, I regret to inform you that it's not working. It sure makes you sound like a Democrat, though.

Okay, enough dodging. Here are the points you failed to address from my last post:

1. Several times, you mistakenly accused me of holding a "delusional, juvenile, and silly" position that I in fact did not make (to wit, that I had claimed "that voting LP, would make others do so"). You were flat wrong, you were grossly misrepresenting (and/or misunderstanding) my actual point. I challenged you to admit your error, and retract it (for bonus points, retract all the insults you flung at me based on your false accusations about my position). You made a mistake, and repeated it after I already clearly corrected you on it. I want to see you admit for once that you made a mistake. I'm still waiting.

2. Point out the place where I claimed to be a libertarian, or, alternately, admit that you flew off the handle for no good reason and insulted me repeatedly in error. I'm still waiting on that one too. I'm afraid your lame "well you didn't say you *weren't*" mumble simply isn't adequate. Come on, just once I want to see if you're capable of admitting that you made a mistake -- so far you seem entirely incapable of doing so, even when its grossly manifest. Instead, you try to change the subject, or fling more insults to cover your screw-up, or lamely try to claim that it's somehow my fault that you repeatedly jumped to wild conclusions which "made" you spew long strings of insults.

3. Apologize for your grossly uncalled-for insults. They were based on your several errors (see above), which makes them even more inexcusable and worthy of apology. If I mistakenly insulted someone repeatedly based on my own misconception, I'd very quickly tender my apologies. But then, I have a sense of honor. I again ask the question you have failed to address: "Are you honorable and "wise" enough to admit when you were wrong?"

I think you've made the answer to that question *quite* clear, but I'm willing to give you one more chance to behave honorably after your abysmal behavior. I would advise you not to squander it.

[archy]

Btw, you confused 1912 with 1916.

No I didn't. It was in 1912 that Roosevelt split from Taft and the Republicans, and vice-versa, and accepted the nomination of *Fighting Bob* LaFollette's *Bull Moose* progressive Party, quite popular and successful once T.R.'s charisma and experience was added. The aftermath of 1916, not too surprisingly, came afterward, but the genesis was in Teddy's 1912 walkout, after which, of course, there was an attempt on his life by a *lone, crazed gunman...*

Perhaps you didn't notice; Roosevelt held the Constitution in contempt.

Perhaps, but likely no more so than many or most of our Supreme Court Justices, and likely not to a greater extent than our present chief executive, who, like T.R. appears to be distancing himself from the conservatives in his own party.

Why spoil the beauty of a thing with legalities? --attributed to T.R., via John Milius

[nicollo]

I responded to your this:

I would reckon his principles are to be found very near those of Theodore Roosevelt's, who in 1912 backed away from supporting Republican Taft and instead accepted the nomination of the Progressive *Bull Moose* party. As a result, T.R. came in second, behind Wilson, with Taft taking a very losing third place.

Of course Wilson, who promised to keep American sons from dying in a Europeans' war, took the U.S. to our entry in that war just a few years later.

The reference to Wilson there I understood you to say came in 1912. That came in 1916, which I'm sure you either implied here or meant. Sorry to be confused or confusing.

Btw, Roosevelt's contempt for the judiciary was not admirable.

[nicollo]

...[archy's] assumptions about TR keeping Communism from our shores, is utterly delusional, fallacious, and a conjecture that is unsupportable by facts.

TR conjured up and ran on the Bull Moose ticket, because of his ego. There would have been no BM party with TR. He was a one man show and a sideshow , unfortunately, at that.

Even when President, Roosevelt justified his populism by saying it was either that or socialism. Out of office, he kicked up the rhetoric even more. It was as much a posture as an act of self-justification.

My understanding is that Roosevelt rather kicked up socialism than stopped it. His theory was that in order to stop socialism he'd have to act like it.

American politics uniquely absorbs dissent. Roosevelt took it further. He cannot be credited with stopping the advance of communism. I'd give Taft far greater marks on that, for he stood for constitutional government and stopped cold the populist tide that Roosevelt tried to ride back into office.

[archy]

The reference to Wilson there I understood you to say came in 1912. That came in 1916, which I'm sure you either implied here or meant. Sorry to be confused or confusing.

Roosevelt, of course, had picked Taft, who had been a Roosevelt Cabinet member, as his successor circa 1910, following T.R.'s trips abroad to Europe and on safari in Africa. Teddy was more than a bit upset when he found Taft in the pocket of the Republican conservatives who had schemed against his administration and were celebrating its finale. The progressive wing of the party still supported him, as did crossover voters from other camps, and he challenged Taft in the Republican primary. When the nomination went to Taft, Roosevelt and the Republican progressive *wing*, then led by Bob LaFollette of Wisconsin, left the Republicans to become the Progressive Party, better known as the Bull Moose Party. The Democrats nominated the then-president of Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson as their candidate.

Taft campaigned very little; having no doubt as to what was coming; and the Republicans of the day were aware that a vote for him was as good as a vote for Wilson. Following the August assassination attempt on Roosevelt's life, both Taft and Wilson halted their campaigning until Roosevelt left the hospital and Roosevelt's campaign never regained the momentum it had begun. When the votes were counted, Wilson won his first four years of the presidency with more than 6 million votes; Roosevelt and the Progressives received some 4 million and Taft took hind place [well, except for Debs' Socialists, and even Debs didn't vote for himself] with just over 3 million.

Thus, after the election, Woodrow Wilson began his first term. Following the next presidential election of 1916, during which Wilson sucessfully ran against Republican challenger Charles Evans Hughes, Wilson began his second term in office as president.

The only confusion remaining was whether the little moose collar pins of 1912 designated Roosevelt supporters or members of the fraternal organization, as they were likely intended to do. The lodge pins were marked *P.A.P.* standing for the order's stated virtues; those of the political group were sometimes marked *P.P* for *Progressive Party*. I suppose there were those who wore both....

[nicollo]

Thanks for looking over my post again. I'm glad you found the second insult, which you missed the first time. But you missed my third insult. Can you find it? (Hint: it was about sexual orientation, this time).

This is all quite funny, for I never meant a thing. I only replied to you since you took offense the first time. Now you're making it even more fun.

You're a bit sensitive me thinks. I wrote the word "toke" without any reference to drugs. It was a metaphor, a means to emphasize the statement without elaboration. I only saw it after you pointed it out; then I re-read what I wrote and I found two other potential insults that I never intended -- very funny!

Just shows how one can read anything into anything.

As for me enjoying this stuff, absolutely. The other day, I pulled up in my little beat-up Ford Escort next to a guy in a BMW 7-series. His kids were in the back. At the green, I took off with my usual vigor, that is I popped the gas pedal. The guy next to me took this as a challenge, I guess, and sped past me. Ahead, though, the road merged to one lane just as my little Ford was struggling its way out of second gear. I drive this way. But the BMW was stalled at 50, and I had to hit the brakes. He again took this as a challenge and slowed down to forty, just to be in the way.

It was very funny, for I never meant to race the guy. I drive fast. I'm used to taking off at that light, as I know there's a lane merge ahead, and I hate being stuck behind people. This guy seems to worry about what other people do around him. He wanted to show off to his kids, too, I supposed, but it was more than that. He had something to prove.

At the next light, there were two lanes. I pulled up next to him. He was laughing with the kids, and pointing to me. I rolled down my window. Straight-faced now, he stared at me. I smiled, and gestured to roll down the window. He did and said, "May I help you?" I said, "Your car is faster than mine." "What?" he said, trying to look like he had know idea what I was saying. I repeated it. "I didn't notice a thing," he said. "Well, I'm just pointing it out to you, then, since you didn't notice: your car is faster than mine. Mine sucks, in fact. Yours is nice." He didn't know what to say. He sputtered, "Have a nice day, and enjoy yourself." I replied, "I always do."

If that makes me an asshole, fine. It's just the way I enjoy life. Even though I end up running in life on four cylinders with dents down the side, I get more out of it in a day than most ever do in a BMW lifetime .

"Have a nice day."

Oh, here's something on the point you've been trying to make about pushing politics from the extreme:

Extreme Leaders as Negotiators: Lessons from the U.S. Congress

as a .pdf here

The article affirms that an extreme view drives politics. Before you get excited, though, the study concerns extremism within party politics. Once it's outside, the party is relieved of it. TR's little third-party run is case in point: by leaving the Republican party, the Republican party no longer had to answer to him. He carried greater influence within than without.

[archy]

American politics uniquely absorbs dissent. Roosevelt took it further. He cannot be credited with stopping the advances of communism.

Evidently not, since it did not successfully emerge in Rusia until the 1917 Revolution. Had there been no Great War, or no American participation in it, would Communism have been stillborn? But Roosevelt certainly had many on his coat-tails attracted to the Labour and Socialist movements then active in the U.S.

I'd give Taft far greater marks on that, for he stood for constitutional government....

Socialist leader Eugene Debs backed Taft, who Debs saw as being defeatable. Roosevelt undermined those whose support might have gone to the Socialists, and thereby weakened the Socialist cause.

[nicollo]

Thanks for the outline there. I'll object to a couple of things, especially the reason for Roosevelt's "disapointment" with Taft and the party conservatives.

During his final two years, Roosevelt was useless with the lawmakers. He caved to Congress and took his fights elsewhere, such as to his "commissions" and public moralizing. This empowered the Congress, which left Taft with no choice but to work with it as it was. Roosevelt, in fact, convinced Taft of this. Taft had earlier planned to challenge Cannon.

Then, amazingly, Taft found that Congress would work with him. The 61st Congress got more done than any Congress in years, including the 59th, which Roosevelt praised to the skies, Cannon, Aldrich, and all. Taft actually advanced the "Roosevelt agenda" in law further than Roosevelt himself had done over the previous three, and, arguably, all seven of his years in office.

Meanwhile, the left wing of the party went ballistic. They tried to beat Taft and take over the party. They lost. So they turned to Roosevelt for help; he refused. Instead, in 1912 he took over their movement. Taft campaigned like a tiger during the Republican primary -- the first time a President had ever done so. After winning at the Convention, Taft sat back and didn't campaign at all. I call it the first and only "Golf Course" campaign. Taft's sole concern was to salvage the party. He knew Roosevelt would lose in November. From the golf course (and motoring around New England), he turned up the conservative rhetoric in order to keep Republican regulars in line. It worked. The party thereafter was his, not Roosevelt's.

Most importantly, during the Republican primary, and during the previous year, actually, Taft defined and defended constitutional government. He pointed to the logical conclusions of Roosevelt's populism and "Direct democracy."

More on this later, as I've got to get back to work. I'm making final revisions on a book on the Taft presidency. It will be published next Spring by McFarland & Co.

Thanks for the banter.

[archy]

The other day, I pulled up in my little beat-up Ford Escort... Even though I end up running in life on four cylinders....

There's a female aircraft mechanic of my acquaintance who runs in life with a Ford Escort into which she's shoehorned a V-8 Ford 60 flathead engine. My references to her *Escort Service* generally go unappreciated, but I bet she'd be an interesting surprise to your neighbor in the BMW-7mobile.

I believe if I were so inclined to build up such a *sleeper*, I'd begin with a Yugo, myself. But I more generally run through life on two cylinders, rather than four or more.

[nicollo]

This came in while I was writing the last, so real quick:

Socialist leader Eugene Debs backed Taft...

Perhaps as a political manouver, and I don't know anything about it. As a philosophy, forget it. In fact, many of Debs' closest advisers helped prepare the Bull Moose platform. Debs took almost 900,000 votes that year.

[nicollo]

BMW..."Escort Service"... that's hillarious!

I'll use that one on one of my ex-wives. She got the Jeep and the house and the... and all I could afford was an Escort.

Your story reminds me of something I just ran across. In 1908, Henry Ford stuck the engine of a "six" into a Model T and tooled around Detroit, racing and amazing other autoists.

[archy]

After winning at the Convention, Taft sat back and didn't campaign at all

Had things gone just slightly different on 14 October, 1912 in Milwaukee, Taft wouldn't have needed to have campaigned particularly hard. Why it's almost as if he knew in advance....

During his final two years, Roosevelt was useless with the lawmakers...

Was this when the *Why spoil the beauty of a thing with legalities* quote might have come about? I've tried to track it down without success, including in the back numbers of the Chicago newspaper that once was my source of daily bread, without success. It may be a bit of artistic license, but if genuine, I'd like to be able to cite it aurthoritatively. In any event, there's some great reading to be had while looking.

I'm making final revisions on a book on the Taft presidency. It will be published next Spring by McFarland and Co.

Rats! I'd have asked Santa for a copy for Christmas...and would also have given at least one copy as a present to a pal. But my birthday's in March. Revise faster!

-archy-/-

[archy]

Debs took almost 900,000 votes that year.

But not his own. He was so busy campaigning elsewhere, particularly in the West, that he failed to register for the election in his home town of Terre Haute, Indiana, and instead spent the election eve at home, celebrating his 57th birthday.

In California, Debs did better thatn Taft, pulling 79,000 votes for his Socialists while Prohibitionist Chafin took 23,000 and Taft managed only 4,000. In Arizona, Debs brought in 3,163, Taft followed with 2,986 and Chafin only 265.

Fyi, in those days, candidates and their supporters were differentiated by colours, often used for backgrounds on campaign buttons and posters and on speech platform bunting. Roosevelt's was Green; Taft's Red. Wilson was White and I'm not certain about Debs, but some of his campaign buttons from that period are a buff-yellow. [I know Seidel was his 1912 running mate; I don't know of a pic of a 1912 Debs button online]

[archy]

In 1908, Henry Ford stuck the engine of a "six" into a Model T and tooled around Detroit, racing and amazing other autoists.

And thereby inventing the American pastime of hot-rodding. The vehicle in question was black, no doubt, as in *You can have it in any colour you want, so long as you want black...*

But do you know why black was Ford's preferred colour choice?

-archy-/-

[nicollo]

Had things gone just slightly different on 14 October, 1912 in Milwaukee, Taft wouldn't have needed to have campaigned particularly hard. Why it's almost as if he knew in advance....

Oh, now, don't go spreading rumors.

What gets confused is the party and the national campaigns. Taft campaigned vigorously in the Spring primary. Roosevelt won most of the popularity contests (the big exception was Massachusetts, which Taft won in his most vigorous effort, and which secured for him the delegate totals he needed for the convention). But not all the primaries were open, and in open primaries, not all the delegates were elected. It was the first primary ever, and it was very confused. Notably, turnout was low, which meant that the motivated voters voted, securing an influence beyond their numbers (sound familiar?)

After the June convention, Taft's only major public speech was at the party notification in July at the White House. After Congress finally closed out, he went to Massachusetts and enjoyed himself the rest of the summer and autumn. Roosevelt and Wilson hit the trail. Taft played golf.

He actually did pretty well. Roosevelt had offended too many people, and Taft held the party too strongly. The Republicans won a couple August preliminaries that looked good for Taft. Bookies started giving Taft better odds. But after the shooting, a shocked public moved its sympathy to Roosevelt. Giving that speech with a bullet in his chest was an amazing publicity stunt. Whatever the heroics of the act, it got him votes.

By then, Taft knew Wilson would win, and he was content with having defeated Roosevelt. It's all in the book...

And thanks for your encouragement on that. Ok. Back to work!