|
Posted on 07/12/2008 12:24:50 PM PDT by flyfree
HUDSON, Wis. — Senator John McCain in a wide-ranging interview called for a government that is frugal but more active than many conservatives might prefer. He said government should play an important role in areas like addressing climate change, regulating campaign finance and taking care of “those in America who cannot take care of themselves.”
“I count myself as a conservative Republican, yet I view it to a large degree in the Theodore Roosevelt mold,” Mr. McCain said, referring to Roosevelt’s reputation for reform, environmentalism and tough foreign policy.
The views expressed by Mr. McCain in the 45-minute interview here Friday illustrated the challenge the probable Republican presidential nominee faces as he tries to navigate the sensibilities of his party’s conservative base and those of the moderate and independent voters he needs to defeat Senator Barack Obama, his Democratic rival.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
theodore roosevelt was a progressive, i.e. liberal socialist.
Less TR and more Calvin Coolidge, please.
Teddy Roosevelt believed in Global Warming?
Who knew?
You sure your not thinking of FDR?
Teddy wasn’t particularly “conservative”, either. Belligerent, yes, conservative, no.
LOL!
McCain and Teddy hold a lot of similar positions. I wouldn’t call either “progressive liberal” though. Moderate Conservative, yes.
BS. You are talking about Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
"A hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts 'Native' before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance." Theodore Roosevelt... 1915
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer.
– Theodore Roosevelt, speech at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (July 27, 1917)
Another reason I won’t vote for McCain. TR was a fascist, in the true sense. Read Jonah Goldbergs’ book “Liberal Fascism”.
The GOP sent me a McCain 2008 sticker in the mail. I said what the hell he’s better than Osama so I put it on my truck even though I’m not much of a McCain fan. The thing peeled off after only two weeks. Could this be an ominous sign? Yesterday McCain sent me a picture of him and Cindy asking for money. It ain’t going to happen my friends.
Well better Teddy than Franklin.
Clinton said she identified with FDR
You’re confusing Teddy with Franklin.
No, I’m not.
p. 92 “liberal fascism” by jonah goldberg:
“teddy’s new nationalism was equal parts nationalism and socialism. ‘the new nationalism,’ (teddy) roosevelt proclaimed ‘rightly maintains that every man holds his property subjet to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require of it.’ this sort of rhetoric conjured fears among classical liberals (again increasingly called conservatives) that teddy would ride roughshod over american liberties. ‘where will it all end’? asked the liberal editor of the new york ‘world’ about the rush to centralize government power. ‘despotism? caesarism’?”
teddy roosevelt was a big government guy.
goldberg’s book is a good read. i highly recommend it.
Here is a passage from Jonah’s book:
Since the dawn of the Progressive Era, reformers have constructed an army of straw men, conjured a maelstrom of myths, to justify blurring the lines between business and government. According to civics textbooks, Upton Sinclair and his fellow muckrakers unleashed populist rage against the cruel excesses of the meatpacking industry, and as a result Teddy Roosevelt and his fellow Progressives boldly reined in an industry run amok. The same story repeats itself for the accomplishments of other muckrakers, including the pro-Mussolini icons Ida Tarbell and Lincoln Steffens. This narrative lives on as generations of journalism students dream of exposing corporate malfeasance and prompting government-imposed “reform.”
The problem is that it’s totally untrue, a fact Sinclair freely acknowledged.“The Federal inspection of meat was, historically, established at the packers’ request,” Sinclair wrote in 1906. “It is maintained and paid for by the people of the United States for the benefit of the packers.” The historian Gabriel Kolko concurs: “The reality of the matter, of course, is that the big packers were warm friends of regulation, especially when it primarily affected their innumerable small competitors.” A spokesman for “Big Meat” (as we might call it today) told Congress, “We are now and have always been in favor of the extension of the inspection, also to the adoption of the sanitary regulations that will insure the very best possible conditions.” The meatpacking conglomerates knew that federal inspection would become a marketing tool for their products and, eventually, a minimum standard. Small firms and butchers who’d earned the trust of consumers would be forced to endure onerous compliance costs, while large firms not only could absorb the costs more easily but would be able to claim their products were superior to uncertified meats.
This story plays itself out again and again during the Progressive Era. The infamous steel industry—heirs to the nineteenth-century robber barons—embraced government intervention on a massive scale. The familiar fairy tale is that the government stepped in to control predatory monopolies. The truth is almost exactly the opposite. The big steel firms were terrified that free competition would undermine their predatory monopolies, so they asked the government
to intervene and the government happily obliged. U.S. Steel, which was the product of 138 merged steel firms, was stunned to seeits profits decline in the face of stiff competition. In response, the chairman of U.S. Steel, Judge Elbert Gary, convened a meeting of
leading steel companies at the Waldorf-Astoria in 1907 with the aim of forming a “gentlemen’s agreement” to fix prices. Representatives of Teddy Roosevelt’s Justice Department attended the meetings. Nonetheless, the agreements didn’t work, as some firms couldn’t be
trusted not to undersell others. “Having failed in the realm of economics,” Kolko observes, “the efforts of the United States Steel group were to be shifted to politics.” By 1909 the steel tycoon Andrew Carnegie was writing in the New York Times in favor of “Government control” of the steel industry. In June 1911 Judge Gary told Congress, “I believe we must come to enforced publicity [socialization] and government control . . . even as to prices.” The Democrats — still clinging to classical liberal notions—rejected the proposal as “semi-socialistic.”
Just what in tarnation is "Moderate Conservative?" It's "moderate" and in my book I'm into getting rid of "moderates" in the repub party. Why? Because they're nothing but liberal condoning dipstix!
Ok i can see if it is a sarcastic comment...
I think by environmentalist it is meant that he was one of the greats that advocated conservation of resources, but not the conservation that the eco-liberal-nutbags call for today... he called for responsible stewardship of the planet and its resources... if I am not mistaken he started the National Park service and deem some of our great natural wonders national parks to protect them.... i may be wrong on that last part....
progressive, i.e. liberal socialist.
quite a few of them around these days too.. in both parties.
mcCain is no Teddy. sorry, uh uh. Teddy may have been an early enviro-friendly Chief Executive but he never chopped anybody off at the knees, unless he absolutely needed to.. use the stick or lose it. ;-)
We have had worse President.
Not much moderation in wanting to seize and nationalize coal mines and have soldiers mine the coal . T.R. is easily recognized as the model for McCain’s moral superiority when it comes to sneering at American business and judging profits “obscene” .
So are you voting for Obama then, if you won’t vote for McCain?
That’s handing the election to the dimocrats.
(Even if you vote third party — you will still contribute to electing Obamaniac!
Another reason to draft Gov Palin.
you are wrong!
teddy was a republican in name only.
Teddy wanted:
Social welfare legislation for women and children, workers’ compensation, farm relief, required health insurance in industry, new inheritance taxes and income taxes, and limitation of naval armaments...
That’s handing the election to the dimocrats.
No. You see, and this comes strange to some people, particularly in the GOP.. you have no claim on my vote. It is not "your" vote, that you are entitled to. Thus, my not voting for McCain is not taking anything away from you.
(Even if you vote third party — you will still contribute to electing Obamaniac!
Sorry. I will not accept the blame for the GOP running a liberal for president. That's your problem, not mine.
i’m voting for mccain, simply because obama is worse.
but the topic above was about teddy roosevelt.
teddy was one of them, a liberal-socialist.
|
I don't know how to answer that, as there is no international body of Fascists who certifies that you are one. Is it a historical fact that Jimmy Carter is a traitor? I would say yes, he would say no, but I know of no way to say that he is as "historical fact".
it seems like a virus that was going around at the turn of the 19th-20th c.
americans and europeans were taken by socialism.
president woodrow wilson was the biggest liberal of the progressive era.
if you read my quote above, teddy did not think much of private property.
hitler and mussolini admired fdr,
and fdr and his admired them in turn.
Were his ways different then the Conservative ideals we hold now??? most certainly... but do the acts that he did as president really constitute the title fascist???
Folks forget the mindset of the time when he was president is much different then now...
I just think it rather flippant and misguide to call him a fascist.
When I say fascist, I mean in the true theoretical and economic sense. Not in the "dictator who was on the other side of us in a war" sense. So yes, I maintain he is a fascist.
“The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, who rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.” Speech, Osawatomie, Kan., 31 Aug 1910
Here is another quote:
“My position as regards to monied interests can be put in a few words. In every civilized society property rights must be carefully safeguarded; ordinarily and in the great majority of cases, human rights and property rights are fundamentally and in the long run, identical; but when it clearly appears that there is a real conflict between them, human rights must have the upper hand; for property belongs to man and not man to property. – Teddy Roosevelt Address at the Sorbonne, Paris, 23 Apr. 1910.
We are cruisin for a bruisin...
Bring back DUNCAN HUNTER.
If you want to fix something, retrace your steps to where it first went wrong. Logic will point out your mistake. Do not take that path again. Seems we can never get that.
Works every time it is tried.
your first quote doesn’t make teddy out to be a property rights guy!
“...holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use...”
uh duh!
And you think those quotes support him? LOL.
They show he wasn’t a fascist. Fascists don’t believe in human rights trumping profit or government.
The libs love to call W a fascist, but I don't see him throwing anyone in jail for saying it, or shutting down newspapers, like lib icons Wilson and FDR did.
Goldberg’s book is a great read, especially the early parts about “men of action” (translation: fascists) who wanted to “get society moving again”; shades of JFK. Goldberg also says Hitler started out as a pure foods crusader, even using the word “organic” in his rantings. However, even though I could easily vote for a candidate who said “If I’m elected I’ll get out of your way and let you get on with your life,” it would be the rare candidate who would be running for national office without wanting to lead the nation in some direction. Otherwise, why bother? What you’d be left with is Dylan’s “Don’t follow leaders, watch the pawking meters.”
you are my 20,000th reply!
you are right; it is a different perspective as some of the remarks above show.
quite frankly, after reading goldberg’s book i kicked myself for not reading up on the progressive era before.
many democrats and republicans wanted to ditch the u.s. constitution.
my favorite of the sixties—bob dylan.
saw him when i was in the u.s. navy february 12, 1966 live.
he was stoned.
And that's better than Karl Marx how?
As much as they ignore it now, nothing has changed.
It's as close to a "must read" as I would recommend. The parallels are scary. You can see the demagoguery of the left in the energy crisis: create the problem with corrupt policy, blame someone else, and "vote for me, the god that will save you from all your problems."
"Yay! Yay!" say the Ignorant Masses.
It's sickening, disgusting, and transparent.
One bright spot: the Ignorant Masses are giving the Clown Show a 9% approval rating. There is still hope.
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.
