Texas unity dissolves over LBJ

snip>
...on a revived bill that would name the U.S. Department of Education building in Washington in memory of Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Democrat and the first president from Texas, unifying loyalties to the state are harder to find.

For some Republicans, disdain for Johnson's legacy, and behind-closed-doors pressure to avoid supporting a bill that would honor a Democrat, apparently won out.
...
"I strenuously disagree with the way expanded the size, power and cost of the federal government," Culberson said. "I just don't think he's a good role model for young people. I have a lot of respect for Gene Green, but not for Lyndon Johnson."
...
Sugar Land Republican Tom DeLay has not taken a stand, spokesman Ben Porritt said, but another lawmaker, speaking on the condition that he not be identified, said DeLay is in private strenously opposed to the bill.
...
{Johnson} embarked on anti-poverty and racial equality programs under his Great Society agenda. A former schoolteacher in Houston, he signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965, which provided the first federal aid for education. The laws led to the idea of naming the Education Department building for him.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3456016

Dubya has broken records on increased spending and deficits that have stood for four decades. He also has used deceit in his foreign policy. There are many ways in which he resembles LBJ.

Of course, LBJ was more literate, and pressed the civil rights act. So there are many ways they differ, also. Mosty to LBJ's credit.

Here's an excellent article comparing the two:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/08/15/bush_lbj/index_np.html

My Father operated the airstrip at the LBJ ranch when Lyndon was there. One thing about Johnson was that he, like most of us, was a deeply flawed individual. A fascinating man, a ruthless politico, a conundrum of a person.

I attended his alma mater so I am used to seeing him lionized. I didn't realize the cons had any issue with it.

only when it's safe will the gopig make any contrary noises; it's the morale of cowards. LBJ would literally take his horsewhip to bushwashington if he was 'born again'.....LBJ knew alot about how crude political ideas came dressed in silk; he knew the killers of jfk were enjoying their rewards. Yet he would have known even that crime was done with some upperclass twit idear of progress. The bush vultures, otoh, need to destroy the very thing generations have worked to build up, in order to be successful, and, like the jfk murder, it must be done in secret, with confusion and mayhem the only path left for the public...somewhere along, misleading the people became attacking the people, and the goofy mass media acts as if they're objectivists

I have read the first volume of Caro's biography. He was in some ways the consummate politician. He was, as you said, deeply flawed. I did not like him much after what I read, even if he did a lot of good things. For one, he brought rural electrification to his home district when the major utilities refused. Now I haven't read the last two volumes yet.

from texas won't honour him?

what does that tell you?

He taught POOR kids in a rural school before he went to DC.

Craven GOP bastards. They probably want to name the thing after "the librarian."

Bums!

Damn that gawdawful war.

I played this simulation online:

http://www.escalationsim.com/

It may not let you play for free, but it used to. I went in thinking "I'm pulling out all the troops," the advisors (using historical advice from government records) keep pulling you back in, and sometimes I would tend to say "Okay, maybe we'll put a few more in, just to protect the airfields..." It was a slippery slope, and I understand how hard it was for him.

I think he was lied to at least a little, but he could have easily been a great man if he had made the right decisions regarding Vietnam.

putting country before politics, unlike the friggin' repukes who re-stole the 2004 election. We wanted to end the Viet Nam war and he just wouldn't....

Racists have long, long memories and hold deep, deep grudges against fairness and equality.

Photo of Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964:




Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on August 6. The 1965 Act suspended poll taxes, literacy tests and other voter tests and authorized federal supervision of voter registration in states and individual voting districts where such tests were being used. African-Americans who had been barred from registering to vote finally had an alternative to the courts. ... Johnson reportedly stated to associates that signing the bill had lost the South for the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future.

The Act, however, had an immediate and positive impact for African-Americans. Within months of its passage on August 6, 1965, one quarter of a million new black voters had been registered, one third by federal examiners. Within four years, voter registration in the South had more than doubled. In 1965, Mississippi had the highest black voter turnout—74%—and led the nation in the number of black public officials elected. In 1969, Tennessee had a 92.1% turnout; Arkansas, 77.9%; and Texas, 73.1%.

...

Blacks winning the right to vote changed the political landscape of the South. When Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, barely 100 African-Americans held elective office in the U.S.; by 1989, there were more than 7,200, including more than 4,800 in the South. Nearly every Black Belt county in Alabama had a black sheriff, and southern blacks held top positions within city, county, and state governments.

More at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Rights_Movement

than any other modern President. How can you be against voting rights for citizens? I guess maybe the founding fathers and the south believe that citizenship was never intended for blacks.

He'd know just how to handle the Bushies ...

:D

Thanks!

americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/prestapes/lbj_haggar.html

best audio clip of all time

there should be a red word that says "Listen"

click that, it should open up a REAL thingy that plays the clip

That was just too funny. Can you imagine what that must have been like to have that conversation with the President? :rofl:

Direct link without the pasting: http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/prestapes/lbj_haggar.html

Click on listen, it is SO worth it!

Plain speaking Lyndon, I sure do miss him!

but you should here the tapes of him talking to jackie kennedy after john`s death....lyndon was quite the ladies man!

but I think all our great DEM presidents are ladies men....and I swear that is what the GOP get so pissed. They (GOP) aren't getting enough so they write stupid porn and try to make love to their wifes in ways that won't mess up their shellaced hair. They want to pass punitive laws so no one will have more fun in bed than they do.
The first Prez I remember was JFK, but as a child of Texas-I understood and loved LBJ. It is a Texas thang I guess. He never forgot his poor roots and despite some of the questionable things he did....he always tried to do right by the less fortunate. I remember him fondly and find his plain talk reminiscent of many old time farmers here in Texas. I can honestly say he would have had the Bushes shitting in their pants and had Carl Roves balls for breakfast (with some hot sauce on them of course). We raise scrappy DEM's down here.

when he was on the toilet if he wanted to talk to them. Think of how humbling it is - not only are you talking to the most powerful man in the country, but he's multitasking and talking to you is equivalent to a bowel movement.

Now THAT'S a management style I'd rather not experience.

he must have been supplying old Democrats for years after this episode. I always thought it was strange, but you know the fabric did relax a bit helping out in those sensitive areas. :rofl:

could'nt givr a damn.

LBJ is a hero of mine but what he was first and foremost was a politician. He would want every nursery and old folks home named after himself.

I'd rather have him in my tent pissin' out than outside my tent pissin' in.

He created the US Dept of Ed as a separate entity.

If not for him, there wouldn't have been a Southern Strategy.

Good grief, according to the Republicans, every man, woman, and child in the nation should worship the memory of Ronald Reagan.

:crazy:

There's a dam named after Hoover, and a law school named after Bush's relative, Franklin Pierce, another incompetent in the family line. Warren G. Harding even has a high school or two named after him!!!

great political figures in the last century.

Incident, sure.

Without him, we would never have walked on the moon, JFK notwithstanding. Kennedy made "the speech", but Johnson was the man who made it so.

Then Johnson pushed everything through in the shell-shocked hundred days.

But he couldn't bear to lose a war, so he let Americans die and die and die.

He also didn't want to admit that the war drained the economy, so he ran up the deficit to fund both the social programs and the war. Funny, George ran up the deficit but couldn't manage to find the money for the social programs.

I do remember saying, way back when, that Nixon would make Johnson look good...but, for a minute, we were just glad he was gone.

deserves to have the Dept of Education building named after him--somebody who actually did something for education.

Given Delay's attitude in the OP's article, I hope he has to write a nice big fat check to the school, also.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3404417

Half of the eight corporations charged last year with making illegal donations to Rep. Tom DeLay's political fundraising committee were required to write checks to a University of Texas program studying money and politics to help settle their cases.

In exchange for dismissal of charges, the four companies also pledged not make any more improper campaign contributions in Texas, and to cooperate with prosecutors in their investigation of DeLay and others accused of misusing corporate donations to influence the state's 2002 elections.

The four companies that settled agreed to give more than $200,000 collectively to the LBJ School for Public Affairs at the University of Texas. Retired Adm. Bob Inman, the school's interim dean, said he plans to use the money for a symposium next year on how money influences politics.

"Participants will look broadly at money and politics — what does the law say, what do corporations find they're pressed to do, what do unions do, what do individuals do," said Inman, ex-CIA deputy director in the Reagan administration. Inman said the plea agreement requirement came as a pleasant surprise to the university.

Johnson's civil rights legislation changed our country for the better, while shrub's tax cuts for the rich have put us into the hole for many years to come. Texas loves the shrub, yet will not honor Johnson. Tells you a lot about the state of Texas. Oil is still their God, no matter what the baptists say.

the old timers (farmers that remember the Depression) and many cities like Austin, Houston, San Antonio are DEM's. Most are conservative DEM's. The DEM's need to find their voice and stand up, not be afraid of a good fight. The Texas GOP don't want to honor him because he kicked their asses so good and so hard that they didn't get control of the legislature until very recently, and then only by lying and cheating.

Voted for Kerry. So solidly Democratic that the redistricting cut us in half and stuck us with the righties in DeLay's neighborhood.

Nick Lampson was our rep, but got voted out in 2004...now he moved and is challenging DeLay. :-) Good man, have met him many times.

And before you smugly trash the entire State of Texas again, how about pounding a whole bunch of sand up your ass?

I've heard much worse remarks about Texas on DU, and I honestly didn't think his remarks were so bad. I lived in Texas and still have friends there, so I also don't care to hear broadbrush statements. But IMHO it wasn't a smug trashing of Texas.

edit: It would be just as honest to say that oil is America's God. I can see where a native Texan might be offended. But I remember living in Tennessee, where poking fun of Texas was par for the course. When I lived in Texas, they poked fun at Colorado. In Oregon, they poke fun at California and you should hear the insults I've heard about Texas. On and on it goes.

Did not mean to label all Texans as bad folks - just the ultra right-wingers, especially the repub Texan senators and congressfolk who have a large say right now in running our country into the ground - and they do worship that oil. That so many citizens of the deep south vote repub, putting president putz into office, when their true interests probably lie with the democrats, disturbs me - and has for the last few voting cycles. But I do apologize to Texas and southern dems for generalizing. The dem party also represents, to me, true Christian values, and when I see Baptists and other evangelicals voting repub, its like chalk on a blackboard to this proud democrat.

If my invitation to pound sand makes you just a little more circumspect in future comments about an entire state, I think we've both come out ahead.

Regards,

Paladin
Fifth Generation Texan
Lifelong Democrat
One of 536,000 Texans Who Voted
AGAINST Proposition 2 Last Week

...everyone in Texas, so I guess I'm not eligible for that sand-pounding.

...the man was a ruthless, driven politician who took credit for all of JFK's programs that later became law. He was known to rig votes during Texas elections, and much like Tom Delay, he had everybody on his payroll.

Additionally, many JFK assassination researchers believe that LBJ played some part in JFK's killing. At the very least, he was involved in the Warren Commission cover-up.

Some researchers like to point to LBJ's recorded phone conversations professing no knowledge of the assassination as proof of LBJ's innocence in the affair. They conveniently forget that it was LBJ's recording system and that he knew when it was recording or not.

Otherwise they are rode out of town on a Rail. As to "Kennedy's" Program, yes he month Civil Rights and proposed bills, Kennedy spent NO political Capital on getting them passed. Would Kennedy have forced the Senate to withstand a 90 day Filibuster? Not the Filibuster adopted in the 1970s where the Senate can go on to other business while the Filibuster stands, but the Filibuster that existed in the 1960s where the Senate had to stay on that one subject till either the Filibuster was defeated OR what what was being filibustered was withdrawn. For 90 days the US Senate did NOTHING, literally nothing for there was no debate on Civil Rights during that 90 days and nothing else was done either (An argument can be made that 90 days was lost to any debate on intervening in Vietnam, an argument that should have been made in the election year of 1964 but was not).

To take the country into such a Filibuster was tough and to break the filibuster was tougher, but LBJ did BOTH. Without his efforts the Civil Rights Act would NEVER have been passed, neither would have the Voter's Rights Act nor the Constitutional Provision to Ban Poll Taxes.

Yes, Vietnam was LBJ's debacle and he even knew it going in, but Remember Vietnam in Context. Today we remember Vietnam, even through it was over 30 years ago, but just 20 years before Vietnam you had the "Who lost China" Argument and the "Who lost Eastern Europe" Argument (And the "Who lost Cuba" argument was making its round). In both cases the GOP made the argument both were lost but Liberal Democrats and had a Republican been President neither would have been lost (I know that is false but that was the political argument). LBJ had to face that music, even Kennedy had to face that Music. Once you understand the level of GOP support for Vietnam and the GOP use of the "Who lost China" and "Who lost Eastern Europe" Argument there was NO way that any President (Democratic or Republican) could leave another country fall to the Communists like Cuba had in 1959 (Which revived the "Who Lost" arguments). In Simple Terms after Cuba fell to Castro in 1959 the US was NOT capable of NOT intervening in any other country to prevent the Communists from taking over that country (Just look at Kennedy's inauguration Speech where he said the US was willing to endure any hardships to help another country "resist" communists).

By the 1960s No President could take the political hit for losing another country to Communists (In Fact it was a Democratic CONGRESS that finally forced the US out of Vietnam NOT President Nixon of Ford). Thus no matter was elected in 1960, the US was going to send in troops to any country whose troops would not stop a communist take over (This was as true for Nixon as for Kennedy).

In the Case of Vietnam, the biggest obstacles to the introduction of US Troops was South Vietnam's President Diem. Diem knew that US intervention would undermine his Political fight with the Viet Cong, but the US did not believe Diem was capable of preventing the Communist from taking over Vietnam (In many ways Diem was viewed as another Batista). Thus to permit US intervention Diem had to go, let Diem let Vietnam to fall like Batista let Cuba fall to Castro.

Once Kennedy approved Diem's assassination the US was intervening. The first lead to the Second, the Second would not occur without the first. The Situation in 1963 was not yet critical but we knew North Vietnam was going to start organizing the Viet Cong into Battalions and higher level units within a year (Much like Castro had done in Cuba in the Mid-1950s). Once formed into such larger formations the war was going to escalate and the South Vietnamese Army in 1963 was not capable of winning such a war (It was barely holding its own at the company level attacks of the early 1960s). The only way to defeat these new Viet Cong formation was to use US Ground Troops. Diem opposed the introduction of US Ground Troops and thus had to be removed to permit introduction of US Ground Troops.

LBJ thus inherited Vietnam with its leadership removed by Order of Kennedy and was ready to fall to the Viet Cong. Diem may have been able to delay it a few years through his political skills, but once Diem was removed there was NOTHING in the leadership of South Vietnam that could have stopped the Viet Cong (Much like Batista had not permitted any strong opposition within his ruling group of his Dictatorship). Without anyone capable of leading South Vietnam the Leadership of South Vietnam had to permit US Intervention to save itself from a Communist takeover.

Diem's assassination was the first step US intervention in Vietnam. Kennedy ordered the assassination knowing that this would throw US Troops into Vietnam within two years of Diem's Death (Such an intervention might have worked in Cuba in the 1950s had the US Removed Batista and intervened like the US had done before in Cuban History). LBJ had to follow the path Kennedy had paved. Once Diem was gone, the only the way the US could NOT have intervene was NOT politically possible in the US (Basically leave Vietnam fall in 1965 to the Viet Cong, which would have added Vietnam to the list of Countries the GOP claimed the Democrats left fall to the Communists). Vietnam ended up killing LBJ's presidency but it was a path paved by Kennedy and forced on both by the political situation in the US in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

Happyslug: most excellent post there. I happened to be in the Navy in those days, and for a period I worked at NSA. You know your stuff. Most of us in the service in the 60's and early 70's despised Johnson and Nixon for the way they ran that damn war. Officers and lifers were another thing - many of them blindly loyal to their CIC.
But without Johnson's bullheadedness, and plain old meanness, you are 100% correct: the Great Society, authentic civil rights being its cornerstone, would most probably have not come about for many a moon, if ever. Looking back, we have to measure the good and the bad of a president's time in office. Johnson definitely comes out on the good end. We could sure use a dem with his balls these days.

Hell, they called him "Ruthless Robert."

For $.90 per hour, I tutored minority kids after school. Not only did they get help with their homework, I got to know how much alike we all were! It changed my life forever.