Cheweycorns, wasn’t Wallace’s defeat due to the release of his “guru letters”–correspondence with the Russian esoteric painter Nicholas Roerich? As an Agni Yoga fan I’d love to hear your take on this.
Not at all. Political people (Republican operatives for Wilkie and Conservative Democrats who didn’t want Wallace as FDR’s VP) knew about those letters in 1940 and were going to use them against him at the convention and in the general election. During the national election campaign in 1940, the Republicans were very close to leaking the “guru letters”–where Wallace refers to FDR as the “flaming one” and Cordell Hull as the “sour one” 
, but Democrats mentioned that they would disclose Wilkie’s numerous affairs if the Republicans released them. A gentlemen’s agreement was reached. In 1948, the letters were circulated, but Wallace’s Progressive Party campaign was doomed to fail. The brilliant campaign strategy devised by Clark Clifford (Truman’s campaign strategist), foreign policy events in Berlin and Czecheslovakia, splits in the American left (between anti-Communist ADA and pro-Communists etc., ensured that most American’s took a dim view of Wallace’s pro-Russian appeasement-oriented foreign policy. After the Russian aggressiveness in provoking the Korean War, Wallace would renounce the Progressive Party and even voted for Nixon in 1960 (favoured his agricultural policies over JFK’s). Today, the agricultural company he founded is worth billions and his family is one of the 100 richest families in the US. Glen Taylor, the Progressive PArty VP and singing Senator from Idaho, also made millions of dollars in the toupee business in California in his later years.
Most people that spent any time around Wallace knew about his eccentricities, so I don’t think any Washington insiders were suprised by the “guru letters.” As a non-smoker and drinker, most professional politicians and “city bosses” despised Wallace (well, at least in relation to his predecessor, the hard-drinking former VP Cactus Jack [John Nance Garner]) . Wallace’s “new age” mystical beliefs, his preference for working on the farm and reading over socializing, and his inability to compromise on many things (e.g. his fight with Jesse Jones) made him an outsider and unpopular to many people in DC (although Eleanor Roosevelt and Nelson Rockefeller admired him a lot).
Thanks, Cheweycorns.
During the 1930’s, Wallace “sent” Roerich to Manchuria, supposedly for agricultural purposes. Roerich raised diplomatic eyebrows by making overtures to the Manchukuo government. Anyway, it turns out (now that certain material in Russian has been released) that Roerich’s real objective was to start a new Buddhist Central Asian country. If he couldn’t find Shambhala, then he was prepared to start his own! No success whatsoever, of course.
So–you’ve read the guru letters! I haven’t, I’m ashamed to report. What major themes come up in them? What was Roerich after? What did Wallace want from Roerich? (Ruth Drayer’s new biography of him says that they had a falling out at some point, but I’d have to look up the dates.)
[quote=“Chewycorns”]
He doesn’t appeal to me one bit. I think naive candidates don’t fare too well in electoral politics. Look at Henry A. Wallace (whom I wrote my masters dissertation on 
) in 1948 or George McGovern in 1972. I think Disraeli, one of the UK’s most cynical prime ministers, was right when he declared upon reaching that office, “I have climbed to the top of the greasy pole”. His opponent in that era, William E. Gladstone, was self-righteous and a total bore. [/quote]
Disraeli, Prime Minister twice for a total of seven years.
Gladstone, PM four times for a total of fourteen years.
I agree I’d much rather spend an evening with Disraeli, but Gladstone seems to have fared rather well as far as electoral politics go.
[quote=“MikeN”][quote=“Chewycorns”]
He [Obama] doesn’t appeal to me one bit. I think naive candidates don’t fare too well in electoral politics. Look at Henry A. Wallace (whom I wrote my masters dissertation on ) in 1948 or George McGovern in 1972. I think Disraeli, one of the UK’s most cynical prime ministers, was right when he declared upon reaching that office, “I have climbed to the top of the greasy pole”. His opponent in that era, William E. Gladstone, was self-righteous and a total bore. [/quote]
Disraeli, Prime Minister twice for a total of seven years.
Gladstone, PM four times for a total of fourteen years.
I agree I’d much rather spend an evening with Disraeli, but Gladstone seems to have fared rather well as far as electoral politics go.[/quote]
I mentioned that Wallace and McGovern were naieve (based on their foreign policy viewpoints) not Gladstone. I mentioned he was self-righteous and a total bore (saving prostitutes in his spare time? 
). As Emily Eden remarked, “If he were soaked in boiling water… I do not suppose a single drop of fun would ooze out.”
I don’t think Gladstone was naieve. He started out as a Tory opposing the Reform Act in 1832, but later switched sides. In fact, in today’s political environment, he probably would favor an active foreign policy(he raised taxes to pay for the Crimean War and refused to disengage from Egypt).
[quote=“Chewycorns”]Anyone see this story about Barack Obama supporting a Taliban supporter in Kenya?
[quote=“Doug Ross”]
Sarah Hussein Obama of Kenya, Barack Obama’s stepgrandmother, is a lifelong Muslim. “I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith,” she says.
So noted an April 2007 New York Times profile of Barack Obama. Kenya is in the news again and, like much of Africa, the reports are horrifying.
This past weekend, women and children – entire families – were burned alive as a crowd of Kenyans torched a church where they had gathered to protect themselves.
The violence broke out after a disputed election in which populist challenger Raila Odinga was defeated. [/quote]
[quote=“Jack Wheeler”]
When Raila Odinga lost the presidential election last week (12/27) to Mwai Kibaki, he claimed the vote was rigged, whereupon his tribal followers went on murderous rampages such as in the town of Eldoret, where on New Years Day dozens of people were burned to death in a church set on fire… Throughout Kenya, hundreds of people have been politically murdered in the last few days.
Raila has now made a deal for support from the Soviets’ successors as world-champion enemies of the West and democratic freedoms: Muslim fundamentalists… The Evangelical Alliance of Kenya has posted on its website a photograph copy of a Memorandum of Understanding, dated and signed on August 29, 2007, between Raila Odinga and Shiekh Abdullah Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum of Kenya. [/quote]
[quote=“Doug Ross”]
And here is the biggest non-surprise: Raila Odinga has, in his own words, a “close personal friendship” with Barrack Hussein Obama Junior. When Obama went to Kenya in August of 2006, he was hosted by Raila and spoke in praise of him at rallies in Nairobi… Obama’s bias for his fellow Luo was so blatant that a Kenya government spokesman denounced Obama during his visit as Raila’s “stooge.”
It gets worse. If you read through the agreement that Obama’s friend signed with the National Muslim Leaders Forum, you’ll find that Kenya is destined to turn into an African version of Talibanistan.
- “Popularize Islam, the only true religion… by ordering every primary school in Kenya in the regions to conduct daily Madrassa classes.”
- “Impose a total ban on open-air gospel crusades by worshippers of the cross…”
- “Outlaw gospel programs… on KBC, the National Broadcaster.”
- “Impose a total ban on the public consumption of alcoholic beverages…”
- “Impose an immediate ban on women’s public dressing styles that are considered immoral and offensive to the Muslim faith…”
Obama’s friend, in other words, is setting the stage for a transformation of Kenya into a Muslim state, similar to that which governed Afghanistan during the days of the Taliban. [/quote]
directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/0 … er-in.html[/quote]
Sorry, I call bullshit.
First of all, reports from international observers all agree that Odinga was winning the popular vote, and that Kibaki rigged it by massively overcounting votes from Kikuyu areas.
Secondly, as pointed out, the country is 85% Christian, with a Muslim population of between 6-10%.
Why on earth would Odinga sign an agreement guaranteed to piss off 85% of the population, including the vast majority of his own supporters?
Both Odinga and the Muslim leaders have denounced the document circulating on the Internet as fake, and if it is real, it goes in the category of political suicide notes.
Banning public drinking? In Kenya? That alone would get you lynched.
What’s happening is Kibaki was supporting Bush in Somalia, turning over suspected Muslim terrorists. The Muslims in Kenya are largely concentrated on the coast and North-east, and are often of mixed black/Somali/Arab race. They’re a minority group that has often complained about discrimination, justifiably according to some:
[quote]A statement issued Tuesday by Fr. Wilybard Lagho, Vicar General of the Catholic Archdiocese of Mombasa and Secretary of the Inter-Religious Dialogue Department:
-
We recognize that the Muslim community of Kenya has traditionally suffered
from official and societal discrimination especially as concerns obtaining national
identification documents. -
We are strongly in favor of ending all forms of official and societal discrimination
against any religious, cultural or ethnic group in Kenya. -
We strongly favor full integration of our Muslim fellow citizens into the political
& social life of our country. -
We believe that any secret memorandum of understanding between political
parties and any section of Kenyans serve only to divide the nation and hasten
suspicion among groups of Kenya. -
We believe all such understanding should be openly entered at and openly
shared with all Kenyans. Such an approach can serve to build a more tolerant
and inclusive nation. [/quote]
africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=16414
Odinga promised Muslim leaders he would look into what they claimed to be unjust renditions to Somalia, Ethiopia and Guantanamo, which naturally angers supporters of Bush and the GWOT.
So they get a twofer- they can attack Odinga, and smear Obama with the Muslim association.
If Obama does win the nomination, look for a whole lot more of this kind of mud to fly.
And in recent news…
Obama gets beefed-up protection
Normal procedure…or hoping to avoid Arkancide / The Books about Arkancide.
edit:
MikeN wrote:
MikeN -
What is your sourcing on this comment? Is this something that we are just supposed to be ‘naturally true’? Or is it supposed to be true because you say it?
Pray tell…whats your backing for saying this?
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]And in recent news…
Obama gets beefed-up protection
[/quote]
Interesting. Seems there are enough wacko white supremacists with guns out there to pose a threat.
[quote=“Dragonbones”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]And in recent news…
Obama gets beefed-up protection
[/quote]
Interesting. Seems there are enough wacko white supremacists with guns out there to pose a threat.[/quote]
[quote]
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Secret Service presence has increased for Sen. Barack Obama since his dramatic win in Iowa, amid fears over the safety of the man seeking to become America’s first black president.[/quote]
[quote]
The Internet is rife with theories that someone may try to assassinate the senator — typing into Google “assassinate Obama” brings up more than 2,000 hits. Anyone from Islamist terrorists to racist Americans to operatives of Halliburton and Blackwater are speculated about, but other, more nefarious Web sites are for real, according to reports from the Associated Press.[/quote]
Google wrote:
Seems like the press is playing the race card for Obama?
and:
[quote]Results 1 - 10 of about 23,400 for assassinate jd smith[/quote] 
[quote=“Dragonbones”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]And in recent news…
Obama gets beefed-up protection
[/quote]
Interesting. Seems there are enough wacko white supremacists with guns out there to pose a threat.[/quote]
Whats interesting is that you’d play the race card so quickly.
Could be illegal Mexicans or Mexican Drug Cartels trying to make a Mexican Political Statement.
And the rest of the post just zoomed right by ya.
[quote=“Dragonbones”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]And in recent news…
Obama gets beefed-up protection
[/quote]
Interesting. Seems there are enough wacko white supremacists with guns out there to pose a threat.[/quote]
The better conspiracy theory is that Obama would be assassinated by Blackwater/Halliburton/other branch of the military-industrial complex.
huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a- … 79751.html
I’m not saying that I believe this, but there are certainly some interesting parallels between 1968 and 2008 (Vietnam->Iraq, RFK->Obama)
[quote=“alidarbac”][quote=“Dragonbones”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]And in recent news…
Obama gets beefed-up protection
[/quote]
Interesting. Seems there are enough wacko white supremacists with guns out there to pose a threat.[/quote]
The better conspiracy theory is that Obama would be assassinated by Blackwater/Halliburton/other branch of the military-industrial complex.
huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a- … 79751.html
I’m not saying that I believe this, but there are certainly some interesting parallels between 1968 and 2008 (Vietnam->Iraq, RFK->Obama)[/quote]
There was no conspiracy in the assassination of RFK. He was killed by a single deranged gunman, Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian Jordanian, who despised RFK’s strong support of Israel.
Furthermore, grouping them together as similar candidates is ludicrous IMHO. Obama started out as an ultra-liberal [ read his position papers and questionaires he filled in as an Illinois state senator ], but has moderated his positions since getting national exposure. Kennedy, on the other hand, started out working with Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn, and only became a liberal in his later years. Kennedy also had a lot more support amongst the party establishment. While many mainstream Dem politicians were supporting HHH in 68, Kennedy still had a lot of support from big city bosses such as Mayor Daley in Chicago, “Big Daddy” Jesse Unruh in California etc. In other words, Obama is much more of an outsider than RFK ever was.
RFK was also 1000 times more ruthless than Obama could ever hope to be. I actually admire the ruthlessness and tenacity that RFK displayed against his opponents. Obama is too professorial IMHO.
A much better Democrat in 68 to compare Obama to would be Gene McCarthy. A university professor who accomplished very little and who was a lonely poet outsider in the Senate, but whose anti-war views propelled him to national recognition, Gene attracted the same type of people who are attracted to Obama today. Even today, many RFK and McCarthy supporters have personal animosity towards one another. Many defense-minded and national security focused Dems in the Senate such as Scoop Jackson disliked McCarthy on so many levels.
I don’t know how any neocon could support Obama, unless they want an outsider to fuck things up real bad as Carter did after being elected by a country with Watergate fatigue, but which allowed Reagan to win a landslide in 80…
I like the way Obama has shut out the Fox network. I only hope the Dems have learned some lessons from last time. He’s got Kerry’s endorsement. So learn from his stupidity.
Could be a kiss of death Kerry talked about Obama bringing transformational change to America. This coming from the mouth of a Senator [Kerry] that sponsored six bills in 20 years 
[quote=“Chewycorns”]
A much better Democrat in 68 to compare Obama to would be Gene McCarthy. A university professor who accomplished very little and who was a lonely poet outsider in the Senate, but whose anti-war views propelled him to national recognition, Gene attracted the same type of people who are attracted to Obama today. [/quote]
Barack Obama–the candidate of the white upper class. Similar to the rich, spoiled Eastern college students in '68 that were “clean for Gene” A great analysis here on Obama’s allure to the white upper class and to people that “imagine” rather than who actually “do”.
Excellent link, Chewy – thanks! 
Excellent link, Chewy.
This is the first time I’ve been grateful for white supremicists rearing their stupid heads. They’ll do nothing but help Obama by drumming up sympathy and a desire in white voters to prove we’re for anything white supremicists are against. If only they would come out and say which Republican candidate they support. Let’s hope they’re that stupid.[/i]
No problem. Although grouping Obama with William Jennings Bryan and Adlai Stevenson is interesting, is it not? I mean they lost five presidential elections between them.
Hillary was able to win New Hampshire because she was able to sway a lot of undecided voters, particularly angry, working single women. There are a lot more of these voters than ultra-liberal Yuppie flakes from New Caanan, Connecticut. As such, I think Hillary would be a hell of a lot more of a formidable nominee than Obama and much more scary to traditional Republicans (although many neocons have no problem with her foreign policy). Dick Morris, who now despises the Clintons, said as much last night on Fox News during an interview.
It will be interesting to see if Obama would accept the VP slot if Hillary wins the nomination. I mean, given that so many Obama supporters despise Clinton and her style of politics, wouldn’t they be really disappointed in their candidate for making a deal with the devil? You know, for entering the real world? Oh, the dirty, greasy pole of politics. How I love it indeed 
He’s a Muslim.
He’s not black enough.
He’s Osama.
He doesn’t wear the pin.
Now He’s not muslim enough. Maybe the Muslims will try to kill him as an apostate.
He might be the toughest candidate to swiftboat. You have to nickle and dime him or you’ll appear too racist.
Yeah, and all that too. How about just examining his record?
[quote]As a member of the Illinois Senate, Obama supported a single-payer health care plan run by the state and voted for an increase in the minimum wage. He also endorsed embryonic stem cell research and, in 2003, co-sponsored legislation that would have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation.
He voted against allowing people to claim self-defense if they used a gun in their home. The measure would have affected only residents of towns where local handgun bans were in effect.
But he also voted in favor of allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons. Gibbs said that would be his only exception to a prohibition against the right to carry a concealed weapon.
On abortion, Obama voted against a measure designed to protect what supporters termed live babies born during abortion procedures.
Senate opponent Alan Keyes criticized Obama for the vote during their 2004 campaign. Gibbs said the legislation, which was defeated, defined a fetus as a person and “would have criminalized every abortion.”
In 1998, when Democrats were in the minority in the state Senate, he made headlines as the co-sponsor of a bipartisan-backed package of legislation that overhauled state ethics laws.
His dealings with lawmakers on that ethics bill helped him build his image as someone who can work effectively on both sides of the political aisle.
State Sen. Gary Forby, a Democrat from the coal fields of Southern Illinois whose constituency includes a lot of Reagan Democrats, said Obama is a person who has wide appeal.
“Barack Obama is a person who will sit down and talk with you,” Forby said.
State Sen. Dave Luechtefeld, a Republican from Okawville, also had high marks for Obama’s gifts as a communicator but said he shouldn’t be confused as a centrist.
“He is what he is - a liberal Democrat,” Luechtefeld said. “I’m not saying that’s all bad. It’s just what he is.”[/quote]
time-blog.com/real_clear_politic … ecord.html
Senate record: