Was LBJ the last president who was worth a damn?

[DerekG]

Seriously, while Carter and Clinton avoided plumbing the genocidal depths of the peasant-killer extraordinaire (although the latter's complicity in preserving the Iraqi sanctions might refute this), neither offered the American people anything as remotely beneficient and visionary as Johnson's Great Society.

One may be tempted to blame an empowered reactionary movement for Clinton's failure to make a legacy (Johnson, after all, crippled Goldwater and his rightist allies), but that doesn't quite explain Clinton's penchant for triangulation tactics, with help from that depraved vizier of his--Dick Morris. A budget surplus alone won't get you on Mount Rushmore.

I feel so dirty pining for a war criminal (however tragic)...

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Hell, current events make me pine for

(shudder) Nixon.

[blondeatlast]

15. My thoughts exactly.

He was an effing moderate compared to W.rong.

[autorank]

2. 12-step meeting confession.

I'm even pining (in very weak and deviant moments) for Reagan.
OMf'ingG, what have I come to?

[DerekG]

3. Ronald bloody Reagan!

The only two good things to come from him are named Ron and Patti.

[autorank]

8. I know, I know (see reply to Doc). This is how bad it is...

in fleeting moments of despair (which are not too often).

[Doc_Technical]

4. Its not what you have come to autorank,

Its what has become of this country.

[autorank]

7. Doc, will you be my sponsor? Welcome to DU

What's said here stays here. That Reagan pining is only when I think of things like *'s nickname "Bush Bandar" and realize the line of depravity with the * clan. I opposed RR when I was in CA and don't think much of his legacy (although Nancy's foreign policy was brilliant!). Normally, I'm just pissed. I'll do the no more Reagan pining one day at a time.

[Robeson]

5. Yes he was...

...the Great Society was the last push for New Deal hopes. In retrospect, it was probably concessions from Corporate/Military America to him, so that he would push their wars, and feed the energy industry, i.e. oil. Since him, the Corporate/Military Oligarchy basically has totally taken over, and really doesn't even put up the facade of giving a shit, other than producing consumers.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

6. I wish we had LBJ around today in the Democratic Party

I'd love to see him go on the FNC and rip Hannity or some other puke to shreds.

[Robeson]

9. Yep, though we as a group, both male and female, do not lack...

...cajones, our leaders do. And that seems to be one of the big problems we face.

[Oak2004]

27. I've been working from the pragmatic, "lesser of two evils" POV for years

but I think I will have no more of that. The "lesser of two evils" seems to be marching ever further towards the simply evil, but not evil enough to win over the hearts and vote fraud of the purely evil.

Instead I'm going to support only those candidates who actually stand for something worth standing for and who have spine enough to stand up straight and fight for what they stand for. That means, among other things, I'm going to hold our Congressional delegation to that standard. Bernie passes (sometimes barely, but he does), Leahey fails on principle and spine, and my moral jury is still out on Jeffords.

I'm going to fight for the policy of the Progressive Party running a full slate of candidates, and I will push for that to mean, where necessary, electable Senate candidates. It it splits the vote well, so be it -- is that any different than what we're getting in Washington through "lesser of two evil" politics? And you can bet I'll be voting Green in 2008 -- assuming, of course, there is a vote -- unless the Democrats give me a really good reason (ie, a candidate who stands for something other than more evil)

[Robeson]

31. I'm with you, and most Progressives I personally know...

...are also going that way. I, and as stated, many I know, are now going to support the Progressive candidate. We are especially going to support them in local elections and positions like school boards, councilpersons, etc., since seemingly, we no longer have a voice on the national front. If the Progressive candidate is a Dem. then fine, I'll vote Dem. If the candidate is Green, then fine, I'll vote Green. I'll canvas, work, and donate to the Progressive candidate only.

The Dems will either get a backbone, or they will no longer be a viable party. There is nothing sacrosanct about Dems. and in this country's history, political parties have come and gone. If they don't start addressing the needs of those who make up a sizable part of their party, and the ones who are the ONLY activist wing of their party, then the Democratic Party will go the way of the Whigs, i.e. extinction. If that happens, so be it. Something else will fill the void that is left.

[Zinfandel]

10. LBJ was a lying hack..he fixed his Congressional bid in Texas in the 40's

He constantly lied to the American people about the war in Vietnam, absolutely despised the Kennedy's and is one reason J Edgar Hoover and LBJ were so tight with each other. He completely played ball and supported Hoover and allowed him all the power Hoover wanted for illegal wire taps and Hoovers war against anti-war groups. JFK wanted to reel in Hoover's unchecked power. LBJ was a known racist repeated by people who worked for him...was a completely egotistical and arrogant man.

As far as "The Great Society" Kennedy laid the ground work and LBJ saw the writing on the wall and viewed it as his legacy.

A very telling photo...On board Air Force One after JFK was killed, we all seen the photo of LBJ being sworn in with a grieving Jackie by his side...the telling photo's are the ones that were never released to the public, of LBJ laughing and joking around right before (and after) the "official" photo, which LBJ insisted that Jackie be in that photo.

Check out the photo's in the book "Blood Money '& Power".

LBJ was a career politician that was very vicious and decietful...I'm a lifetime Democrat & liberal and didn't want to believe any of this. However, the more I read and researched, the more I saw a very distasteful man...He would no doubt be a republican today sad to say...

[Selatius]

11. I agree

I'd say his Great Society programs and the singing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were good things, but we have to be honest with ourselves. He was a corrupt politician. Anyone who digs up the fact would know this.

[lastliberalintexas]

20. Oh, bullshit

I think you're the one who's tried to say that before.

The Great Society and the Civil Rights Acts were NOT the work of Kennedy. JFK didn't have the nerve or the interest in civil rights legislation to push it through Congress. LBJ (who knew where the bodies were buried) did. Eisenhower did more for the advancement of civil rights issues than Kennedy did, for heaven's sake.

JFK was not a bad man by any means, and LBJ certainly wasn't perfect. But give credit where it is due.

[sangh0]

21. You should read the history

LBJ is single handedly responsible for the failure of dozens of civil rights bills as Senate Majority Leader.

[Zinfandel]

23. Absolutely!!! The Texan has stars in his eyes, do the fucking research

on LBJ-- Not only as you correctly pointed out about Johnson's civil rights record...The fucker LBJ was a complete liar & just fucked the American people on Vietnam, extra tens of thousands of young boys died directly from LBJ's lies!!!!

[lastliberalintexas]

24. The "Texan" is a she

And I'm not absolving LBJ of anything associated with Vietnam. But you're mistaken if you think that Kennedy's legacy includes the Great Society or the CRAs.

[Zinfandel]

26. I never said or implied it...

I wrote..."As far as "The Great Society" Kennedy laid the ground work and LBJ saw the writing on the wall and viewed it as his legacy."

Ike and Kennedy started things rolling on civil rights and of course Johnson continued it and kept things rolling. (What else could he do?) The "New Deal" created by FDR is what really started everything and helped the poor and the working class and the unemployed and seniors for ALL people, no matter what their color...that was the base of it then, and when LBJ took office and where we are still at today--- And what Bush & the fucking republicans desperately want to tear apart and completely blow into a million pieces. Forever!!! By making "The New Deal" non workable by under funding it & using the money paid into it by the people, for their own greed and selfish gains and using the cost of the their bullshit war on "terrorism" as the excuse there's no money to fund any of the programs---but there's plenty of money for Texas based Halliburton and the oil companies with their record profits and gigantic tax cuts and hundreds of billions of dollars for the huge military machine... as more young people die each day for these rich to get richer!

"Much has been written about (LBJ) and the 1948 notorious "Box 13" scandal because, throughout Johnson's long career the stolen election was always deemed an important measure of the man. The theft would continue to haunt Johnson until he was reelected to the Senate in 1954 After the election he was solidly entrenched in Texas and he took a certain pride in ignoring the theft and in subtly bragging about how he got away with it." Words from his own lawyer of over twenty years.

[lastliberalintexas]

25. Yes, he did

Did I say the man was perfect?

From what I understand (from people who were there, mind you), he killed them for political reasons, not personal beliefs. Still wrong of him to do so. But it wasn't personal racism that led him to act that way, it was his fear that the Southern Dems would desert the party. Even when he signed the CRA of 1964, he remarked "Congratulate me, boys. I've just handed the South over to the republicans." Not exactly something he wanted to do to the party. He was smart (wily?) enough to know what would happen once the CRA was hung around Dems' necks in the next election. Should he have killed the legislation in the Senate to prevent that? Not in my personal opinion. But again, I'm not saying that the man was perfect.

I simply pointed out the error in the other individual's post in giving credit for the Great Society and CRAs to Kennedy, when it was Johnson who worked for them and, in current political vernacular, used his own political capital to get them through Congress.


And please- no one is perfect. After all, RFK worked for Joe McCarthy. Should we string him up too? :eyes:

[Leilani]

29. LBJ was the WORST Prez of my life, until Dubya!

To me, the very WORST thing a Prez can do is LIE to the American people about reasons to go to war, & then keep it up while thousands are being killed for a lie.


As far as domestic programs, he didn't budget for them...he wanted "guns & butter", which laid the foundation for the out of control inflation & economic woes of the 70's, & laid the groundwork for the Reagan Revolution.

And Zinfandel is completely correct about LBJ's character, or lack there of. He was arrogant, ruthless, & would stoop to any level to get what he wanted. Very comparable to our current Leader:He stole elections, lied, & cheated. When he left the Presidency, he was an enormously rich man, who profited by sweetheart deals on radio & TV channels.

And he surrounded himself with yes-men, who he then humiliated & degraded.

[Zinfandel]

33. Thanks Leilani. Yes, the parallels between LBJ & Bush are frightfully

similar and indeed disheartening and arrogantly outragous...All you said about Johnson's wealth and his slimy strong-armed dealings are all too true and we see Bush doing the exact same with his tax policies and corporate give-aways...Johnson said and did anything to stay in power (like Bush again)...LBJ lying about why we went to war and the escalation and the lies that continued to allow more Americans to die, the same as Bush has done... Truly shameless men. His "guns & butter", is much the same as Bush's favor of huge military spending at the expense of the people to where the tax revenue is generated from. Screw the people.

"And he surrounded himself with yes-men, who he then humiliated & degraded." As well as LBJ stealing an election. Does this also sound like Bush? I couldn't of said it better myself.

The Texas good old boy network was and is alive and thriving.

What few know besides LBJ's shrink, is the pain he allegedly went through after leaving office--- All alone with no power, just his ill gotten fortune, pretty much forgotten, left to himself on his ranch...a very fitting karmic ending to a very indecent disgusting man...

People won't accept the truth simply because of the media's portrait and that he was a democrat (in name only). Just like the republican will never accept all the above about the heartless elitist Bush!

[Historic NY]

12. But you all have to admit ........as ruthless as he was he did make the...

Repugs look like a bunch of monkeys. He knew how to play down and dirty, perhaps that is what is need today in the Democratic Party as we are dealing with a bunch of thugs. LBJ's take no prisoners tactics allowed him to win and do things (some which were stupid). I especially like his way of dealing with losing in the polls to a Repug when he issued a press release saying that the opposition was having carnal knowledge with barnyard animals. Brilliant and do it on a Thursday afternoon at say 4:30pm it works for the whole weekend.

[Silverhair]

16. Not anymore.

"Brilliant and do it on a Thursday afternoon at say 4:30pm it works for the whole weekend."

That timing doesn't work anymore. News now is 24/7, and the internet moves quicker.

[AngryAmish]

13. The man really knew how to order pants

[robbedvoter]

14. Clinton's failure to make a legacy? huh? Are you nutz?

Where were you those 8 years? It took W 4 and he needs more to erase Clinton's legacy. Whacha talking about. Willis?

[Gyre]

17. Mass psychosis

is the ONLY explanation for this post and it's supporters.

Gyre

[DerekG]

18. What do you take exception to?

As is readily apparent from my OP, I make no attempt to absolve Johnson for his part in genocide; I do, however, laud his genuine concern (which I do not detect amongst the "New Democrats") to dispel the specters of poverty and racism from this country. His efforts--primarily in '64 and '65--reflect political cunning of the highest order and moral courage (bye bye South).

And if my jab at Clinton bothers you, what can I say, I'm a lefty who will never cease to be mystified by the near-deification of St. Bill. That he presided over a widening gap between the rich and the poor, an ever-growing "defense" budget, Plan Columbia, preservation of Iraqi sanctions, an escalated drug war and burgeoning prison industry (part of that "law and order" theme), Welfare Reform, and NAFTA kinda puts me in a tizzy.

[sangh0]

22. All of it

None of it true. It's a total distortion. And you repeat it:

I do, however, laud his genuine concern (which I do not detect amongst the "New Democrats") to dispel the specters of poverty and racism from this country

How did LBJ's "genuine concern" with racism lead him to defeat dozens of civil rights bills when hr was in the Senate?

ANd your ahistorical bias is obvious in your next comment:

That he presided over a widening gap between the rich and the poor, an ever-growing "defense" budget, Plan Columbia, preservation of Iraqi sanctions, an escalated drug war and burgeoning prison industry (part of that "law and order" theme), Welfare Reform, and NAFTA kinda puts me in a tizzy.

So LBJ's not fully funding the Great SOciety in order to continue the Viet Nam War is OK, but Clinton supported war (ie. increased military (no mention of LBJ's increasing military spending ), Plan Columbia (no mention of Viet Nam), Iraqi sanctions (ignoring the fact that it was imposed by the UN. NO, it's Always Blame Clinton), a drug war (as if LBJ was in favor of pot smoking), burgeoning prison industry (as if LBJ wasn't a law and order type. He was enthusiastic about arresting long-hairs), welfare reform (under Clinton we spent more on welfare per capita than we did under LBJ) and NAFAT (as if LBJ protected unions and labor)

Basically, if LBJ did it, it was OK. If Clinton did it, it was wrong, wrong, wrong.

[welshTerrier2]

19. March 31, 1968 ... lessons for Iraq

I remember watching LBJ on TV telling a stunned nation that he would not seek re-election ... i hated Johnson ... outside of Nixon's resignation and bush's trial for conspiracy (be patient, it's coming ...), this speech was about as good as it gets ...

here's a link to LBJ's speech where he told the nation he would not seek re-election: http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/johnson/lbj_1968_0331.html

the speech holds some eerie lessons for the maniacal, neo-con policy in Iraq ... can you say "condemned to repeat it??" ...

if you read the speech, notice the time and effort LBJ put into discussing the importance of turning over military operations to the South Vietnamese so they could "control their own destiny" ... sound familiar ?? ... we all know how that worked out ...

Lyndon B. Johnson Speeches
Remarks on Decision no to Seek Re-Election (March 31, 1968)

Tonight, we and the other allied nations are contributing 600,000 fighting men to assist 700,000 South Vietnamese troops in defending their little country.

Our presence there has always rested on this basic belief: The main burden of preserving their freedom must be carried out by them--by the South Vietnamese themselves.

We and our allies can only help to provide a shield behind which the people of South Vietnam can survive and can grow and develop. On their efforts--on their determination and resourcefulness--the outcome will ultimately depend.

That small, beleaguered nation has suffered terrible punishment for more than 20 years.

I pay tribute once again tonight to the great courage and endurance of its people. South Vietnam supports armed forces tonight of almost 700,000 men--and I call your attention to the fact that this is the equivalent of more than 10 million in our own population. Its people maintain their firm determination to be free of domination by the North.

There has been substantial progress, I think, in building a durable government during these last 3 years. The South Vietnam of 1965 could not have survived the enemy's Tet offensive of 1968. The elected government of South Vietnam survived that attack--and is rapidly repairing the devastation that it wrought.

The South Vietnamese know that further efforts are going to be required:

--to expand their own armed forces,
--to move back into the countryside as quickly as possible,
--to increase their taxes,
--to select the very best men that they have for civil and military responsibility,
--to achieve a new unity within their constitutional government, and
--to include in the national effort all those groups who wish to preserve South

[no name no slogan]

28. The last Democrat with a VISION, yes

Even if you didn't agree with it, at least LBJ had a clear VISION for America, and he was able to present it.

The problem with recent Democratic candidates is that they don't really "stand" for anything anymore.

For example, what was Kerry's unifying vision for this country-- other than to not be Dubya? Was it "I don't agree with Dubya's disasters, but I'll certainly manage them better than he did"?

How about Gore? Was it "I'm gonna be like Clinton, but without bimbo eruptions."?

Even Dukakis had this problem-- his "vision" was to manage the government better than Reagan/Bush, while Bush at least had his "kinder, gentler" nation thing going on.

Sure, Clinton gave us "peace and prosperity", but so did Millard Filmore. Clinton's "legacy" of a budget surplus was pissed away in two short years.

His "booming economy" was built on the speculatory stock market which did almost NOTHING to create 'real' value, but did a lot to shift money up the food chain to the ultra-rich, who made out like bandits shilling 'investments' in the market as manna from heaven for the great unwashed.

While LBJ proposed a "Great Society", Clinton proposed an end to "welfare as we know it". While LBJ pursued 'communism' in Vietnam because he believed the free world depended on it, Clinton launched half-hearted attacks against 'targets' to deflect yet another bimbo eruption. Y

Yeah, LBJ fucked up Vietnam, big time. But he also signed into law the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act-- landmark civil rights legislation that has changed this country forever.

LBJ was no saint-- far from it. But he did have a vision, and was not afraid to stand for something-- ANYTHING-- which no Democratic presidential candidate has been able to do since then.

[dogman]

30. LBJ was in the forefront of setting up the MIC that the GOP controls today

The GOP has seized on the apparaus that LBJ helped establish. The Texas connection lives with GOPers taking over what the Dems had thrown aside after the VN War. He did not achieve humanity until he retired and let his hair hang down.

[Piperay]

32. YES, and if it hadn't

been for Viet Nam there wouldn't even have to be a question about it, it would be a given.