Speaking as one mostly ignorant of that era of history, I wonder whether the parallels between what TR did and what W is doing are for real.

The two men couldn't be more dissimilar.

BIG STICK DIPLOMACY = International negotiations backed by the threat of force. The phrase comes from a proverb quoted by Theodore Roosevelt, who said that the United States should “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”

In light of the above, I guess that good old Teddy would have been a big supporter of shoving a Moab down Hussein's throat.

AKLIM, you are right. 1. Who cares what some dead guy (President or no President) said and 2. (And here lies the rub) Anyone who knows how to use Google can find quotes from just about any dead guy to support any point of view.

"Those who appear the most sanctified are the worst." Elizabeth I,1586.

Unless, of course, that Prez happened to be TR himself. In which case he tolerated no dissent. (See the post by BOT a few spaces up).

I guess whether we applaud a certain quote and cover it with praise or lambaste it and spray it with scorn depends on whose ox is being gored.

Ay caramba que interesante!!!

The men are different, the global circumstances are different, the economy of the planet is different, and as a people our governmental philosophies are different. I don't think there's a damn thing to learn. Cherry-picking quotes is a simple-minded excuse to avoid thinking.

Bot

hmmm, so true
 

Shakespeare, MLK, Reagan, JFK, Mencken and Goethe were dumbasses anyway. Their quotes are perfectly useless...of no value, whatsoever.

Good lord, I forgot JC himself!!!!!

"I thought he was dead." -Lord Salisbury

although you can draw some parallels between w and tr, tr was a populist. he was FOR ordinary people. he broke up trusts and monopolies. i doubt that his wars benefitted his wealthy friends. and he didnt give tax breaks to the rich because, (i believe) there was no income tax at the time.

nixon... i was really sad when he died because he was the one i most loved to hate.

lets see, he would never have been elected in '68 if RFK had not been assassinated. he would never have been reelected in '72 if wallace hadnt been shot. hmmmmm. see any pattern here?

when he was pres i used to sit there and watch him talking on the tv and shout at it "liar!".

tom w

And the evidence is???

Nixon had RFK and Wallace shot and killed? Is that the pattern? :eek:

I agree, Nixon would have never been elected in 68 and re-elected in 72...

IF ONLY Richard Dailey and the Chicago "Democratic" Mafia had not stolen the election in 1960.

You know the joke in Chicago: "vote early -- vote often." :rolleyes:

Hey, at least Bush did it the legal way and had the Supremes rule on his behalf -- instead of destroying balllots. :eek:

Where's Z when we need his expert proletarian viewpoint?

Nixon had RFK and Wallace assassinated? Attempted in Wallace's case. Are you mad? RFK would never have gotten elected. He had a core following who were filled with passion but he didn't have much big money behind him and had little prospect of getting any. He probably wouldn't have survived his own convention because the professional Democrat politicians despised him for a variety of reasons (many of them named Lyndon Johnson). What he had was good name recognition.

Nixon benefited from Wallace. it's often a benefit to have a wacky politician far to the extreme of your party that you can demagogue. Nixon ran against the anti-war crowd. So Wallace cornered the bigot vote. Nixon benefited from that by being able to claim that he didn't want those people anyway and the truth is, they hated Nixon almost as much as they hated black people. Nixon probably got some percent of the bigot vote when Wallace was shot. But most of them stayed home and reread their John Birch Society Truth Missiles.

Current mythology suggests that the anti-war movement influenced the two elections. Oh yeah, it was an influence alright. It undermined the Democrats and energized the Republicans.

i didnt say nixon had them assassinated. i said he was assisted by their assassinations. the difference is specific.

what ifs are of course impossible to prove.

but if RFK had run, and as it appeared in 68 he would have been the dem nom. maybe he wouldnt have been elected, but at the time it appeared he would. the sentiment for the fallen JFK was very strong. of course back then nobody much knew about his infidelity.

and if wallace had been on the ballot taking all the bigot dem and rep votes it would have been a probable dem victory since a lot more bigot rs voted for nixon than bigot dems voted for mcgovern. no, they would have voted for nixon for sure. his bigotry was at least disguised enough to fool the ones who were fooling themselves about their own bigotry but it was there.

btw, am i predjudiced? yes. i try not to be but i still am.

so you seriously think anyone who would have voted for wallace would have as an alternative voted for mcgovern?

just me. these thoughts are obvious but too radical for mainstream media to touch. but with what we know now, do you doubt that it is possible?

i do not

tom w

Tom, I have agreed with you in the past. On this one I think you are wrong.

I don't think that Wallace could have syphoned enough votes from Nixon to make a difference. Look at Nixon's margin of victory over McGovern. It was a landslide.

Perot may have made a difference, Nader may have made a difference (notice teh use of "may"). But Wallace was too far out to matter.

BTW, a pox on mainstream media!

The liberal media has brainwashed many people.

Here are some facts, a direct quote from a great president:

President Discusses Year-End Accomplishments in Cabinet Meeting
Remarks by the President After Meeting with the Cabinet
The Cabinet Room



10:51 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: I want to thank the members of my Cabinet for coming for what will be the last Cabinet meeting of the year 2003. I've just heard from each Cabinet member about the accomplishments in the year 2003. This has been an historic year. America is safer, America is more prosperous, America is a better place because of the actions this administration has taken.

In order to secure America, we liberated the people of Iraq from a brutal tyrant, and now we're in the process of rebuilding that country, along with others, and we're making good progress.

In order to make sure people could find work in America, we proposed, and Congress passed, an economic stimulus package, and that package is making a significant difference on our economy. Our economy is strong, it is vibrant, people are finding work. But we won't rest until everybody who wants to find a job can find one.

The country is better off for a lot of reasons. A significant piece of legislation was passed by the Congress, which I recently signed, and that is the Medicare reform bill. We took on a tough issue, we worked with Congress to make sure that we fulfilled a promise to America's seniors by modernizing and strengthening Medicare.

This has been a year of accomplishment. We also recognize we've got a job to do, to continue to do for the American people, to keep this country safe and prosperous and strong and a better place for all our citizens. And we look forward to working with the Congress in the year '04 to accomplish those objectives.

Today is Mel Martinez's, the fine Secretary of HUD, last meeting. Mel has served our country with class and distinction, I'm proud, Mel, to have had you on this team. Good job

Huh? You quote the "great enunciator" as definitive proof of his greatness and contribution? That's beautiful man, gawdamned beautiful...

The voters I knew back then that were total bigots held their noses and supported Wallace. They thought we should have a race war and exterminate black people. They wanted a race war. Wallace was their 2nd choice. Without Wallace they just didn't vote. The result in 1972 looked like a vote for Nixon but that is a simple-minded explanation. In fact, many of the Wallace type folks simply did not vote. The result was that the (white) Democrat South, which had been reliable Democrat voters for nearly 100 years, stayed home. This has been popularly mythologized as a vote for Nixon.

In truth, the southern bigot vote hated Nixon even more than they hated a liberal Democrat. They had hated Republicans since Lincoln. Republicans perpetrated legal theft under the euphemism of "reconstruction" which retarded southern economic development for 80 years. Many southern Republicans (older white ones) still feel that way. They view Republicans as NE yankee wealth engineering the rape of the south for personal economic gain. The Democrats have accidentally sacrificed that generational resentment in their bid for a broader base.

Remember that they voted for Jimmy Carter the first time, rather than Gerald Ford. It was not simply because Carter was from the south. It was because he was a Democrat (first) and not a damned yankee fatcat politician. It wasn't until Ronald Reagan ran for election that the southern conservatives and bigots could bring themselves to vote for a Republican. And it was NOT because Reagan was a bigot. Reagan never directly pandered for the bigot vote.

Bot