Posted on 02/03/2011 6:22:45 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
Prescient.
Was it Mark Twain that said history doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme?
There are definitely similarities between the Roosevelt administration and the Obama era today, the most obvious being the massive increases in government spending, the bad economy, and the government efforts at intruding into the private sector.
But one factor in the political environment back then was vastly different than today. That would be the media. Newspapers were the most influential players in the 1930s media, and the bulk of the major newspapers were "Republican" and unabashedly anti-Roosevelt. The Chicago Tribune, owned for decades by the McCormack family, is a prime example.
Is that “Young Punkies from Columbia and Harvard?”
At least in those days, the media and government were pro-American.
Most of the major players in the media were.
But you can't say that the government during Roosevelt's administration was completely pro-American. There were some communists and communist dupes in high positions. The most notorious was probably Harry Hopkins, FDR's most trusted confidante. These commies and dupes worked for the USSR's best interests, not those of the US.
Even the NY slimes (democrat biased already) didn’t endorse FDR in 1940 when he went for the 3rd term instead going with the RINO Wilike.
This may surprise you, but the NY Slimes was considered "Republican" (although Eastern Republican establishment) until some time in the 1960s. Their last GOP presidential endorsement was probably Eisenhower.
The Ochs family, which owned the Times from the late nineteenth century on (the Sulzbergers are part of the same family), like most prominent American Jews of German decent in nineteenth centry, were Republicans. (Most of these families are no longer Jewish today because of assimilation over the generations.)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Muttley-picture.gif
Well there’s their Presidential endorsements, Mostly rat since the 1880’s seems like that’s when they went from R to D (at least from R to Bourbon Democrat). Ike was the last R they endorsed, you are right (and will be the last R for all time or until they go out of business). I’m pretty surprised they went with anti-women’s suffrage and segregationist democrat John Davis in 1924.
I read a few old NTimes articles from the 1894 midterm elections (GOP beatdown of dems), pre-election predictions were “Democracy”(the dems) is gonna win yay” post election was like a reading an obituary, I could almost see the writers tear stains on the .PDF.
Oops, wrong link. Though the laughing dog is a good representation of a slimes writer.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/23/opinion/20081024-endorse.html
There.
The Superbowl: I have no real love for the Pack, but the fact that the Steelers owner, Dan Rooney is such an Obama ass-clown has made me HATE that franchise. So, by default, go Green Bay.
Mark Foley? He'll probably end up being the keynote speaker at CPAC.
Chelsea Clinton (and her mom, too): Methinks they've seen the surgeon's scalpel once or twice.
The NYT and their satellites are not worthy to be bird cage lining.
Mostly rat since the 1880s seems like that's when they went from R to D...
Adolph Ochs did not gain control of the Times until 1896! At the time he purchased the paper, they were in poor financial shape (panic 0f 1893?; cheerleading for the Democrats?). Start there and see if you can pick up a "Republican" pattern (editorially) through the 1950s.
In New York, I seem to recall that they liked liberal Republicans like Rockefeller, Javits, and Lindsay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
