Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Henry Wallace was US vice president from 1941 to 1944. He was also a Communist dupe. Ned Lamont is Henry Wallace with a Web site   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

822 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Aug 2006 at 2:11 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



43 Comments     (+0 »)
 
2006-08-20 11:29:50 AM  
Not that I like Ned, but who the hell is Barry Castleman? An asswipe with a website.
 
2006-08-20 11:31:55 AM  
Oh look: The republicans are beating a dead horse named Joe McCarthy.
 
2006-08-20 11:32:05 AM  
Be afraid, be very afraid. Drink some more Kool-Aid, it's tasty, and so good for you!
 
2006-08-20 11:33:22 AM  
Henry Wallace has a big, fancy interpretive center across the river from here. (Hyde Park, NY)
 
2006-08-20 11:37:04 AM  
Where are the hundreds of threads showing Mr. Bush's accomplishments?

Not one of the pseudo-cons are running on their records.

Yet, they still whine, still pull out the Fear Stick, continue to warn about the commies (by Marx and Engel how they miss the commiie horde), promises of fiscal restraint suddenly pop up in their stump speeches, and yet... they're the adults we were told who would be in charge.

They've failed horribly.
 
2006-08-20 11:46:05 AM  
Opinions are like assholes...


It's hilarious that the simpletons still have their panties in a twist over this race in CT.
 
2006-08-20 11:47:59 AM  
I'm still looking for the part in that opinion piece where the author makes a convincing comparison between Henry Wallace and Ned Lamont.

His logic goes like this:

1. There once was a politician named Henry Wallace of whom I have a low opinion.
2. I have a low opinion of Ned Lamont.
3. Ergo, Ned Lamont is the new Henry Wallace.

Next.
 
2006-08-20 11:50:01 AM  
Wow, talk about desperation. Lamont really scares the panties off our pugs.

Putting sucky ReallyFuzzyPolitics on Yahoo is like spraying graffiti on a dumpster.
 
2006-08-20 11:54:37 AM  
Anyone who pisses off the RNC this much is someone I want in Congress...
 
2006-08-20 12:03:18 PM  
Would you believe this man has gone as far
As tearing `Wallace' stickers off the bumpers o' cars,
And he voted for George McGovern for President.
 
2006-08-20 12:19:27 PM  
Wallace's predecessor as Vice President was John "Cactus Jack" Garner, who famously told Lyndon Johnson many years later that the job of Vice President "Wasn't worth a bucket of warm spit." Allegedly that comment was an edited version of the original, in which he used the word "shiat."

/Not entirely relevant to the thread, but probably more entertaining than the flame war that is resulting.

Ragnar
 
2006-08-20 12:25:13 PM  
Ragnaroks: probably more entertaining than the flame war that is resulting.

"Flame war." You keep on using that phrase, I do not think it means what you think that it means.
 
2006-08-20 12:31:10 PM  
tonkin: And he voted for George McGovern for President.

He's a friend o' them longhaired hippy-type pinko fags
I betcha he's even got a Commie flag
Tacked up on the wall inside o' his garage.
He's a snake in the grass, I'll tell ya guys
He may look dumb but that's just a disguise
He's a mastermind in the ways of espionage!
 
2006-08-20 1:37:29 PM  
Heh. I think the Democrats need to elect MORE people like Lamont! And the Republicans need MORE people like Orrin Hatch!

Yeah! that's the ticket!
 
2006-08-20 1:48:42 PM  
Mr. Wallace was U.S. vice president during almost all of World War II; but he opposed the Cold War afterwards, saying that Soviet communism was not a threat.

So Wallace had a smart analytical head on his shoulders (or was a lucky guesser) and history proved him right.

And since Wallace = Lamont I should... not vote for Lamont? Even I'm not as cynical to suggest idiocy as a chief prerequisite for a good political candidate, sheesh.

I spent far too long reading this article, I think.

/in the old days, I could use it as toilet paper
 
2006-08-20 2:17:38 PM  
Ewww... somebody pinched off a big stinky Real Clear Politics article in the Yahoo News pool.

I want the entire pool scrubbed, sterilized, and disinfected!
 
2006-08-20 2:18:04 PM  
So Ned Lamont is a multimillionaire...businessman...Communist?

Ideas interesting, newsletter subscription, etc.
 
2006-08-20 2:23:52 PM  
What a brilliant article, this is the best piece of crap that I have seen today.
 
2006-08-20 2:29:01 PM  
"Party above Principle" is a well-known strategy in American politics. If it isn't a very successful one, it is always seems the safe and ineffective way.

And here I thought the reason Lieberman was defeated was because of his principles. How naive I must be.

The fact that so many conservatives are telling the Democrats how badly they screwed up over Lieberman tells me the Dems did the right thing.
 
2006-08-20 2:34:02 PM  
Mr. Wallace was U.S. vice president during almost all of World War II; but he opposed the Cold War afterwards, saying that Soviet communism was not a threat.

MusicMakeMyHeadPound : So Wallace had a smart analytical head on his shoulders (or was a lucky guesser) and history proved him right.

Argh. That view is about on a par with someone saying - "Well, they caught the Seriel Rapist in the Nurse's Dorm BEFORE he broke into MY house - so obviously he was not a threat!"

We well COULD have lost the Cold War - in fact the foremost US diplomat at the height of it (Henry Kissinger) thought we WOULD - that we were only "fighting" a delaying action. The smug post-CW assurances that the Soviets were never a real threat rings hollow to anyone willing to open their eyes to the multi-millions who died at their bloody hands - or the entire nations held in painful captivity for generations. Sheesh.
 
2006-08-20 2:35:37 PM  
"Lieberman's "great sin" is that he followed the principle of foreign policy bipartisanship, the very same policy followed by Senators Harry Truman, Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey and virtually all the great Democrats for the past 65 years."

The same policy that today's Republican party follows, right Barry? "Majority of the majority" and all that. Today's Republicans call bi-partisanship "date rape".

Bi-partisanship only works when both sides do it. Otherwise, it's sodomy.

\no HTML skills, sorry.
\\popped my slashie cherry!
 
2006-08-20 2:58:09 PM  
Now, I'm liberal, but to a degree
I want ev'rybody to be free
But if you think that I'll let Barry Goldwater
Move in next door and marry my daughter
You must think I'm crazy!
I wouldn't let him do it for all the farms in Cuba

/this thread needs more Dylan
 
2006-08-20 3:03:53 PM  
bmasso:

That view is about on a par with someone saying - "Well, they caught the Seriel Rapist in the Nurse's Dorm BEFORE he broke into MY house - so obviously he was not a threat!"

You just beat me to it. Communism killed more people in the 20th century than every other war combined--more than 150 million. But now that it's a problem only in Cuba we can pretend it was never a threat?

Yeesh. 1991 wasn't THAT long ago, folks.
 
2006-08-20 4:07:46 PM  
Weaver95: Heh. I think the Democrats need to elect MORE people like Lamont! And the Republicans need MORE people like Orrin Hatch!

Yeah! that's the ticket!


Any why not? Healthy debate requires input from all sides. Only by considering all options can the best solutions to the problems that face society be found - thas is, if we are dealing with adults.
 
2006-08-20 4:17:56 PM  
TheHighlandHowler: Yah, cool, nice to see another Ulster County person. I'm just 10 minutes away from ya up in Ulster Park.

Hyde Park, BTW, gorgeous town. Also has a real, honest-to-God drivein. Fun.

And communist is not evil.
 
2006-08-20 4:26:30 PM  
The biggest communist dupe is GW Bush. Thanks GW for literally selling us out to the Chinese.
 
2006-08-20 4:26:47 PM  
yes, we get it. anyone who thinks the war in iraq was a bad idea is in love with terrorism and osama bin laden and wants to have another 9/11 every other friday.
 
2006-08-20 4:30:14 PM  
Lamont disagrees with Bush on the war... okay, how else is he this evil leftist liberal danger to America the RNC keeps saying he is?
 
2006-08-20 4:36:26 PM  
saintstryfe : "And communist is not evil.

Not sure you're right.
Everytime it's been tried the folks subjected to it
(as opposed to the folks running it)
have suffered.

After the fifth or sixth time you see that someone getting hit in the skull with a hammer (&/or sickle) is harmful to them, you gotta think that the pro-hammer (and/or sickle) crowd MIGHT be either evil or just plain oblivious to reality.

As a theoretical system, Communism has it's attractions.
As applied to real-world human beings, not so much.
 
2006-08-20 4:44:47 PM  
bmasso

Yes, but you've got to admit that people who think Communism is a good idea and then rape the system are no worse than the people who think Capitalism is a good idea, and then rape the system.


Non sequitor:
Also, Communism or Socialism does not preclude Democracy. I wish Fox News would stop calling Chavez a "dictator". The UN was more sure of his election than of our own president.
 
2006-08-20 4:57:21 PM  
Henry Wallace was an American Vice President under the greatest US President that we had during the 20th century.

Henry Wallace also ACCURATELY described how Fascism was slowing sliming its way into control of America, and he stood firmly behind the working men and women of America who BUILT this country, and firmly against the type of bottom-feeders, opportunists, grifters, con-men, and complete and total amoral scum like the Ken Lays, Cheneys, and other unscrupulous bussinessmen who would sell our constitution down the river for a quarter of increased earnings for thier foriegn-based non-taxpaying multinational corporations.

He spoke out against those who would throw our democracy and our freedoms into the garbage can, so that a tiny cabal of war profiteers could run this nation's government like their own private piggy bank... and treat ordinary Americans as faceless slaves.

If you actually read Henry Wallace's 1944 essay "It Can Happen Here", then you'll see that he was 100% correct in his predictions, and was a true American hero... unlike the anti-American criminals who currently inhabit the White House.

Vice President Wallace said:

"If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. ... They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead."


Wallace was correct... and almost seemed to be predicting the current NeoCon regime... 60 years before it happened.

Wallace also said:

"The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice. It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination..."


And the current NeoCon wedge issues are EXACTLY the sort of thing that Wallace predicted. That's why all the initiatives to discriminate against same-sex marriage were on the ballot in 2004... to get the Fascist-supporting, hatefull bigots out to the polls.

Wallace also said this:

"The myth of fascist efficiency has deluded many people. ... Democracy, to crush fascism internally, must...develop the ability to keep people fully employed and at the same time balance the budget. It must put human beings first and dollars second. It must appeal to reason and decency and not to violence and deceit. We must not tolerate oppressive government or industrial oligarchy in the form of monopolies and cartels."


If you believe that "A government of the People, By the People, and for the People" is a psuedo-Communist idea, then you are a Fascist, and I'm ashamed that people such as yourself are my countrymen.

Henry Wallace was a patriot, a true American, and an intelligent and decent human being, and whichever brown-shirted troglodyte submitted this article is not.
 
2006-08-20 5:22:37 PM  
General Zang: Henry Wallace was a patriot, a true American, and an intelligent and decent human being, and whichever brown-shirted troglodyte submitted this article is not.

Commie.

Seriously, great post.
 
2006-08-20 5:48:19 PM  
Zang, swahn I'll second that. A citation would've been A+, but nowadays the old joke is true.

/How can you tell when the neocons are lying?
 
2006-08-20 5:57:55 PM  
swahnhennessy said:

Commie.

Seriously, great post.


Thanks :)

When combatting the lies and misinformation and twisted "facts" that the Fascists like to use, you can't let yourself fall into their little verbal traps.

You see, they'll try and throw around words like "Communist" and "Un-American" to describe anyone who tries to stand against thier Fascist ideal of the Corporations and the State sharing power in a 20th-century version of Fuedalism.

And then, like fools, the non-Fascists will let themselves be led off into some pointless argument about Communism or some such... because they've allowed the Fascists to frame the debate in a way that will focus the debate anywhere but on the crimes of the Fascist and treasonous activities by the Fascists.

So... don't let them frame the debate. If the Fascist wants to talk about Communism, then we should talk about Fascism.

When the Fascist want to talk about "treason", then we should talk about THIER treasonous hatred for the Constitution of the United States, and their treasonous breaking of half the laws and treaties that the US is a party to.

When the Fascists want to talk about "tax-and-spend Liberals", then simply talk about all of the no-bid contracts for HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of American tax-payer dollars, that were awarded to the company of the Vice President.

When the Fscists want to talk about how horrible it is that Liberals support the democratically-elected President of Venezuela, then we should talk about the horrors of the Fascist, or Theocratic, or just-plain Murderous Thug-ic type folks that the NeoCons consider their "allies" in the "war on terror".

The sheer gall of scumbags who would call the Princes of Saudi Arabia their "friends", and who would call the Islamicist General who siezed power in Pakistan in a military coup over an elected civilian government a "democratic ally" is mind-staggering.

So... don't play the Fascist's little debate game. Don't try and defend yourself from their ridiculous attacks and name-calling, and their little webs of bullshiat.

Instead of trying to defend, attack. When they try some swiftboat style scumbugery, don't sit around like a wimp and go "Oh gee, Sir, you may be wrong on that". Screw that... don't defend against crap... COUNTER ATTACK, and shout out about their crimes, treason, and their plans to destroy the Constitution of the United States so that they can make a quick buck.
 
2006-08-20 6:10:12 PM  
 
2006-08-20 6:26:15 PM  
General Zang: When combatting the lies and misinformation and twisted "facts" that the Fascists like to use, you can't let yourself fall into their little verbal traps.

So Wallace was reall a great pol and a real American hero, eh? Just curious about a few things, then:

When FDR's health started to fail and it began to look as if Wallace might assume the presidency, why did the DNC dump Wallace like yesterday's bran muffin?

Why did Truman fire him from his Secretary of Commerce position?

Why did he come in fourth in his own bid for Prez behind even a racist like Thurmond?

Why did he blow a stack of federal money looking for some secret cave of Kung-Fu in China?

Why did Wallace admit in 1952 in his own book, "Where I Was Wrong," that he'd been duped by Stalin and the Soviet Union and that Communism was actually a dangerous, evil philosophy and not the panacea he'd thought it was?
 
2006-08-20 6:48:31 PM  
The CraneMeister: When FDR's health started to fail and it began to look as if Wallace might assume the presidency, why did the DNC dump Wallace like yesterday's bran muffin?

Because his views were to the left of some of the leadership of the DNC (it had a large conservative wing of Southerners). So he got the boot.

Why did Truman fire him from his Secretary of Commerce position?

Same reason.

Why did he come in fourth in his own bid for Prez behind even a racist like Thurmond?

Because he ran on the Progressive Party ticket. His bid was actually remarkable at the time for its views on race. He was 20 years ahead of his time on the segregation and civil rights issue. This unfortunately put him well outside the mainstream of America at the time.

Why did he blow a stack of federal money looking for some secret cave of Kung-Fu in China?

No idea, but sounds pretty stupid. How much did he spend? If spending money on stupid things while in government is an indictment, then it would have to be a pretty universal one.

Why did Wallace admit in 1952 in his own book, "Where I Was Wrong," that he'd been duped by Stalin and the Soviet Union and that Communism was actually a dangerous, evil philosophy and not the panacea he'd thought it was?

Because he was perhaps honest? Because he learned something and was man enough to realize it? Because his repudiation of the Soviet Union didn't undermine his otherwise good ideas?

Wallace wasn't a saint, but he wasn't a "dupe" either. He was well ahead of his time on many issues that are now taken for granted but obviously had some ideas and affiliations that, in hindsight, weren't that great (surprisingly this puts him in the company of 99.999 percent of humanity).
 
2006-08-20 7:23:36 PM  
The CraneMeister said:

So Wallace was reall a great pol and a real American hero, eh?


I didn't say that. I said that Wallace was a PATRIOT, and a true American.

The fact that you could confuse the word PATRIOT with the almost completely opposite word "pol" is telling. Carl Rove is a "great pol", as well as being a Fascist and a traitor.

Wallace, on the other hand, was a Patriot and a true American.

The CraneMeister said:

Just curious about a few things, then:


You're a curious guy? Me too, so I guess we share that trait. Let's satisfy our curiousity together then... shall we?

The CraneMeister said:

When FDR's health started to fail and it began to look as if Wallace might assume the presidency, why did the DNC dump Wallace like yesterday's bran muffin?


Have you ever been fired from a job, or asked to resign from a job as an alternative to being fired? Please explain the circumstances behind what happened in detail.

Why did Truman fire him from his Secretary of Commerce position?

Does the name "Dave" mean anything to you? Please explain that name's connection with each of the circumstances of your having been fired or asked to resign.

Why did he come in fourth in his own bid for Prez behind even a racist like Thurmond?

What was your class standing at the time of your High School graduation? Why? Please explain in detail your excuses for your having only achieved that standing.

Also, please describe when you last had rascist feelings, and tell us the exact date upon which you last used the word "ni@@4r" to describe an African American.

Why did he blow a stack of federal money looking for some secret cave of Kung-Fu in China?

Has any of your girlfriends ever accused you of spending money unwisely? What was the expense? Were you, in fact, being unwise? Please explain in detail, and also explain whether or not Cathy would agree with your explanation.

Why did Wallace admit in 1952 in his own book, "Where I Was Wrong," that he'd been duped by Stalin and the Soviet Union and that Communism was actually a dangerous, evil philosophy and not the panacea he'd thought it was?

Have you ever admitted that "Ad Hominum" debating techniques were an indication of someone who has no argument to stand on? Where can we find your admissions of the intellectual bankruptcy of "Ad Hominum" techniques in print?
 
2006-08-20 7:56:59 PM  
Henry Wallace--background on his resignation
as Secretary of Commerce


1944, Roosevelt had made him Secretary of Commerce as a kind of consolation prize.
Truman retained him in the office. Wallace was soon off on a foreign policy gambit of
his own. While the administration was taking an increasingly firm line toward the
Soviet Union on the grounds that our wartime ally had broken many commitments
about the postwar order-Wallace favored a policy of accommodation, lest peace be
endangered. He was clearly headed on a collision course with the administration, but
Truman seemed unaware of it.

On September 12, Wallace was to address a political rally in New York's Madison
Square Garden. Two days before, he called upon the President with a copy of his
speech. Wallace had some critical words about the Soviet Union, but he also
inveighed against American policy being unduly influenced by Great Britain, spoke
tolerantly about Russia's increasing influence in Eastern Europe, where he thought the
United States had no business interfering, and argued that "the tougher we get with
Russia, the tougher they will get with us."

Truman clearly gave the speech his approval. That was evident at his press conference
on the afternoon of September 12. Reporters had obtained advance texts of Wallace's
address; one of them asked Truman whether it represented the policy of his
administration. "That is correct," said Truman, later adding, "I approved the whole
speech." Another correspondent pressed Truman as to whether Wallace's speech
indicated "a departure" from Secretary of State Byrnes' policy toward Russia.
Truman denied it. "They are exactly in line," he said.

The contrary was of course the case. Wallace's speech caused a furor in the United
States and abroad. Newspapers reported it as marking a major shift in American
policy toward Russia; Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, in Paris attending a
conference of foreign ministers, felt he had been both embarrassed and betrayed.
Senator Vandenberg, a member of the U.S. delegation, stated bluntly that "we can
only cooperate with one Secretary of State at a time."

Truman had blundered badly. He could hardly avow his error; instead, two days after
the speech, he issued a clarifying statement. He explained that he had not meant to
convey the thought that he had approved the contents of Wallace's speech. Rather, he
had merely wanted to indicate that "I approved the right of the Secretary of
Commerce to deliver the speech." And he added that there had been "no change in
the established foreign policy" of the government. Reporters were not allowed to
question Truman about his clarification; it could hardly have sustained textual
analysis.

Soon afterward, Wallace announced that he "stood" on his New York speech and that
he would be heard from again on foreign policy. At that point, Byrnes wired Truman
that if he could not keep his Secretary of Commerce from speaking on foreign affairs,
his Secretary of State would have to resign. Within a few days, Truman asked for
Wallace's resignation. Even Wallace's detractors regarded him as a victim-and
Truman as a fool.
 
2006-08-20 10:41:23 PM  
...and the ironic thing is, the right's attacking the crap out of Ned Lamont, and their candidate couldn't beat either him or Lieberman straight up.

It is clear who the right favors in this matchup...
 
2006-08-21 1:00:55 AM  
Well, that's not a fair comparison at all.

I'm sure if the technology were available during wallace's time, he'd have had a website too.
 
2006-08-21 1:07:24 AM  
The Republicans ARE Joe McCarthy. If you are not with us, you are against us.

ARE YOU WITH US?!!!
 
2006-08-21 1:45:33 AM  
Pinks and Lavenders everywhere! And 57 varieties of stooges in all levels of guvmint!
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.