Opinon of Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY)

[JSojourner]

I like the "opinion of" threads, particularly about politicians who are retired or pushing up daisies.

My answer on this one is...  FF (one of the titans of the GOP and God, how I wish his like existed today.)

[Kaine for Senate '18]

A great man.

[pogo stick]

HP. He was so liberal, that LBJ was moderate compared to him

[Alexander Hamilton]

HP. He was so liberal, that LBJ was moderate compared to him

wat am i compared to lbj?

[Torie]

I was always a bit confused as to what Javits ever accomplished. JS what did he accomplish? He never exuded any particularly great erudition or smarts to me - at least that is my recollection.

It is certainly true that a chap like that could never be nominated - anywhere - in the GOP now, but then the NY GOP back then was totally controlled by Nelson Rockefeller, and primaries were mere formalities in which next to no one showed up. I am not sure even then Javits could have won a primary absent machine control.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

He was so liberal, that LBJ was moderate compared to him

Idiot.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

He was so liberal, that LBJ was moderate compared to him

Idiot.

I endorse this statement

[pogo stick]

HP. He was so liberal, that LBJ was moderate compared to him

wat am i compared to lbj?

A conservative

[Alexander Hamilton]

HP. He was so liberal, that LBJ was moderate compared to him

wat am i compared to lbj?

A conservative

i thought i was a raging liberal

[TeePee4Prez]

Shame he wasn't a Democrat.  It would have prevented 18 years of Al "putzhead" D'Amato.  Then again, who knows?  Could Bob Casey Sr. have prevented 12 years of Rick Santorum?  My political analysis thinks so as with Javits/Holtzmann and D'Amato.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Absolute Freedom Fighter.

[TeePee4Prez]

Absolute Freedom Fighter.

And you have Jack Kemp in your signature?

Oh wait.  I forgot.

[opebo]

A very fine gentleman, but you have to remember, he wasn't really that great for his times.  It is easy to forget how absolutely the condition of america has declined since the 1960s and 70s.

[JSojourner]

HP. He was so liberal, that LBJ was moderate compared to him

Men are talking.  Please be quiet.

[JSojourner]

I was always a bit confused as to what Javits ever accomplished. JS what did he accomplish? He never exuded any particularly great erudition or smarts to me - at least that is my recollection.

It is certainly true that a chap like that could never be nominated - anywhere - in the GOP now, but then the NY GOP back then was totally controlled by Nelson Rockefeller, and primaries were mere formalities in which next to no one showed up. I am not sure even then Javits could have won a primary absent machine control.

Fair question, my friend!

Javits was a leader in the fight for Civil Rights before it was quite in vogue.  Even in the 40's, he was railing against Jim Crow and poll taxes.  His opposition to tailgunner Joe's lunacy was most refreshing.  A lot of people - R and D - were too afraid of the nasty old bastard to stand up to him.  I believe McCarthy called him a Commie Kike or something to that effect.  A badge of honor, if ever there was one.

Though I remain quite critical of Israel and the IDF's behavior today, in certain cases, I am an adamant supporter of Israel's right to exist as a nation.  Javits was a key player in supporting recognition of Israel.

Of course, there's this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javits-Wagner-O%27Day_Act

In later years, he supported Great Society programs and plans (which I know you and I disagree on in a major way -- but it helps explain why I like Javits.)  And he signed onto Cooper-Church, after realizing he -- and millions of other Americans -- were bamboozled by Lyndon and the military industrial complex over the Tonkin matter.

But I admit to this much:  it is his tribe I feel needs to retake the GOP.  Understandably, the far righties reading this will say, "Big deal.  A liberal wants a more liberal GOP."  But it's more than that.  I like choices but when one of the choices is perpetually anti-poor, anti-worker, anti-peace, anti-environment and anti-government...I have none.  I concede there are millions who would say the same in reverse.  But oh well.

[pogo stick]

HP. He was so liberal, that LBJ was moderate compared to him

Men are talking.  Please be quiet.

No. You can  have your lovefest for a far-left Republican while I bash him.

[Mechaman]

I was always a bit confused as to what Javits ever accomplished. JS what did he accomplish? He never exuded any particularly great erudition or smarts to me - at least that is my recollection.

It is certainly true that a chap like that could never be nominated - anywhere - in the GOP now, but then the NY GOP back then was totally controlled by Nelson Rockefeller, and primaries were mere formalities in which next to no one showed up. I am not sure even then Javits could have won a primary absent machine control.

Fair question, my friend!

Javits was a leader in the fight for Civil Rights before it was quite in vogue.  Even in the 40's, he was railing against Jim Crow and poll taxes.  His opposition to tailgunner Joe's lunacy was most refreshing.  A lot of people - R and D - were too afraid of the nasty old bastard to stand up to him.  I believe McCarthy called him a Commie Kike or something to that effect.  A badge of honor, if ever there was one.

Though I remain quite critical of Israel and the IDF's behavior today, in certain cases, I am an adamant supporter of Israel's right to exist as a nation.  Javits was a key player in supporting recognition of Israel.

Of course, there's this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javits-Wagner-O%27Day_Act

In later years, he supported Great Society programs and plans (which I know you and I disagree on in a major way -- but it helps explain why I like Javits.)  And he signed onto Cooper-Church, after realizing he -- and millions of other Americans -- were bamboozled by Lyndon and the military industrial complex over the Tonkin matter.

But I admit to this much:  it is his tribe I feel needs to retake the GOP.  Understandably, the far righties reading this will say, "Big deal.  A liberal wants a more liberal GOP."  But it's more than that.  I like choices but when one of the choices is perpetually anti-poor, anti-worker, anti-peace, anti-environment and anti-government...I have none.  I concede there are millions who would say the same in reverse.  But oh well.

I know I get asked the same question in reverse alot but really let me ask: Why does the thought of "anti-government" politicians freak out some people as much as the rest of the points you just mentioned? It's not like more government=more freedom.

Would you feel safe with voting for a Left Libertarian who was for helping the poor, the worker, pro peace, and pro-environmentalism yet was against government intervention?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

HP. He was so liberal, that LBJ was moderate compared to him

Men are talking.  Please be quiet.

No. You can  have your lovefest for a far-left Republican while I bash him.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

HP. He was so liberal, that LBJ was moderate compared to him

Men are talking.  Please be quiet.

No. You can  have your lovefest for a far-left Republican while I bash him.

You are really, really stupid.

[Mint]

But I admit to this much:  it is his tribe I feel needs to retake the GOP.  Understandably, the far righties reading this will say, "Big deal.  A liberal wants a more liberal GOP."  But it's more than that.  I like choices but when one of the choices is perpetually anti-poor, anti-worker, anti-peace, anti-environment and anti-government...I have none.  I concede there are millions who would say the same in reverse.  But oh well.

Bush was a Democrat?

In all seriousness I share the frustration on a lot of the above, albeit for entirely different reasons.

[Rob]

Moderate Hero

[Mechaman]

Suffers from the Moderate Godhood disease. I definitely wouldn't put him into "Lincoln Chafee overrated moderate hero" levels though. He did do some good in regards to civil rights among other things. I tend to view pro-civil rights politicians as universally FF, so yeah: FF.

[Mint]

Yes that pretty much su..

Did I develop a sock suddenly?

[JSojourner]

HP. He was so liberal, that LBJ was moderate compared to him

Men are talking.  Please be quiet.

No. You can  have your lovefest for a far-left Republican while I bash him.

See, that's just it Lil' fella...you can bash him.  But you might want to offer a bit of substance beyond, "he's a liberal" or "he hates Israel".

I'm not saying you should stay on the porch with the pups while the big dogs run.  Because I'm no big dog.  I am saying you might at least pull away from the bitch's teat (that's for Coburn) long enough to even get ON the porch.

Two ears, two ears, one mouth.  Use the former two, restrain the latter.

[JSojourner]

I was always a bit confused as to what Javits ever accomplished. JS what did he accomplish? He never exuded any particularly great erudition or smarts to me - at least that is my recollection.

It is certainly true that a chap like that could never be nominated - anywhere - in the GOP now, but then the NY GOP back then was totally controlled by Nelson Rockefeller, and primaries were mere formalities in which next to no one showed up. I am not sure even then Javits could have won a primary absent machine control.

Fair question, my friend!

Javits was a leader in the fight for Civil Rights before it was quite in vogue.  Even in the 40's, he was railing against Jim Crow and poll taxes.  His opposition to tailgunner Joe's lunacy was most refreshing.  A lot of people - R and D - were too afraid of the nasty old bastard to stand up to him.  I believe McCarthy called him a Commie Kike or something to that effect.  A badge of honor, if ever there was one.

Though I remain quite critical of Israel and the IDF's behavior today, in certain cases, I am an adamant supporter of Israel's right to exist as a nation.  Javits was a key player in supporting recognition of Israel.

Of course, there's this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javits-Wagner-O%27Day_Act

In later years, he supported Great Society programs and plans (which I know you and I disagree on in a major way -- but it helps explain why I like Javits.)  And he signed onto Cooper-Church, after realizing he -- and millions of other Americans -- were bamboozled by Lyndon and the military industrial complex over the Tonkin matter.

But I admit to this much:  it is his tribe I feel needs to retake the GOP.  Understandably, the far righties reading this will say, "Big deal.  A liberal wants a more liberal GOP."  But it's more than that.  I like choices but when one of the choices is perpetually anti-poor, anti-worker, anti-peace, anti-environment and anti-government...I have none.  I concede there are millions who would say the same in reverse.  But oh well.

I know I get asked the same question in reverse alot but really let me ask: Why does the thought of "anti-government" politicians freak out some people as much as the rest of the points you just mentioned? It's not like more government=more freedom.

Would you feel safe with voting for a Left Libertarian who was for helping the poor, the worker, pro peace, and pro-environmentalism yet was against government intervention?

Good question, Mech.  I hate to even disagree with someone I like as much as you.  But...the whole "government is bad" movement (endemic to Libertarians but certainly alive and well in much of the GOP and even some of my party) is extremely distressing to me on several levels.

We can argue all day and night about good government versus bad government...but I'll never believe in little or no government.  No, not even if Tom Jefferson disagrees.  It's government that builds and maintains roads, bridges, jails and our transportation system.  It's government that enforces the laws, protects us from aggressors -- foreign and domestic.  And it's government that finances flood mitigation projects, national parks, toxic waste dump remediation and job creation initiatives.  Government may do too many of these things, too often.  It may do too few.  It certainly does some of these things too poorly or inefficiently. But to see what life is like where government does none of these things, visit Mogadishu.

Now, a lot of very good people would argue that they are not against government, per se.  Just against federal government.  In short, leave it to the states.  I could accept that.  Really.  Not trying to be a moderate hero or anything.  But I won't accept it until I see it happen with regularity.  Because, at least in Indiana, this is what happens:

People bitch and moan about big government at the federal level.  They want it at the state level.

Then, they bitch and moan about big government at the state level.  And suddenly, they want it at the county or city level.

Then, they bitch and moan about how the county and city  everything up.  And they decide on one of three things.  A).  They want everything privatized  (essentially no government)  B).  they want things handled by the townships, to make government even more "local".   C).  They change their tune and want the feds to get involved all of a sudden...and fix all the local mistakes.

My contention has always been that what's best for our country is a usually large, and often activist government, restrained by law and -- yes -- by peaceful protest.  I would never negate or rule out the prospect of better private sector solutions.  The Salvation Army runs a more efficient soup kitchen than Uncle Sam, for example.  But I refuse to regard privatization as a panacea.

As I said in another thread....intrusive government saved my daughter's life.  So natch.  I am biased.