America at war! (1941–) – Part 3

4158

americavotes1944

Woman starts beating drums for Willkie

Idealism, charm are stressed
By Daniel M. Kidney, Scripps-Howard staff writer

Washington – (March 11)
Change the “We Want Willkie” battle cry of 1940 to “Women Want Willkie: and you have the situation as depicted today by the politically-wise woman who is heading the Women’s Division of the 1944 Willkie pre-convention campaign.

She is Mrs. Grace Reynolds, Republican committeewoman for Indiana, who is attending a women’s meeting at party headquarters here. She is a vice chairman of the Republican National Committee and member of the Executive Board.

Mrs. Reynolds expects shortly to open a Willkie headquarters for women in New York.

Anyone who watched Wendell campaign in 1940 could readily see how he won over the women voters, Mrs. Reynolds said.

Personality cited

The reason is that he is a great idealist and combines that with a sincere and charming personality. With men at war, the woman vote will be of great significance. I am convinced that the majority of American women are for Willkie and against a fourth term.

A lovely looking lady of middle years, Mrs. Reynolds is experienced in Republican politics. She was twice elected Indiana state treasurer and has been national committeewoman since 1936.

Hoosiers get hot about politics, even in off years. When a President is to be chosen, they drop practically everything to attend to it. However, the Republican organization in the state has not come out for Mr. Willkie as its “favorite son.”

For there are plenty of old-line party members in the state who put Mr. Willkie even ahead of President Roosevelt when listing their political hatreds. Mrs. Reynolds knew all of that when she took the assignment to boost the New York Hoosier with the women.

Wants ‘open’ corporation

She asserted:

Republican hatred of Mr. Willkie is senseless. When you pin people down to expressing a reason for their anti-Willkie feelings, they have very slight foundation. In fact, the basic underlying cause of that hatred is because he once was a Democrat.

How does that make any sense? Surely the Republican Party cannot come back into power if it is to be a closed corporation from which persons are barred from active participation unless they can show that they have been Republicans from birth, or at least from the time they cast their first ballot.

Mr. Willkie made us lifelong Republicans think in terms of the world of today. He has prodded us forward and convinced us we cannot turn back. In that way, he already has done a great service to his party and the country.

I believe that he can win renomination by demonstrating in state primaries that he is the most popular leader we have. The rank and file, particularly the women, are for him. He can beat Roosevelt or any other Democrat this time.

4159

americavotes1944

Poll: Most GOP voters pick Dewey in 2-man test with Willkie

64% favor New York Governor, gain over survey results of last November
By George Gallup, Director, American Institute of Public Opinion

Two questions frequently asked today by those who keep their eyes closely trained on political developments are:

  • If the field is narrowed to Governor Thomas E. Dewey and Wendell L. Willkie, which would the present rank and file supporters of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Governor John Bricker and LtCdr. Harold Stassen prefer?

  • What are the particular merits of the five leading candidates as seen through the eyes of their supporters?

The figures below show that Dewey stands to gain more than Mr. Willkie if Governor Bricker, Gen. MacArthur or Stassen should leave the race. On a nationwide basis, Governor Dewey has picked up strength as compared to November when a similar survey narrowed the choice to the two men. The question asked of people who indicated a preference for a Republican President is this:

If your choice of Republican candidates for President were limited to Wendell Willkie and Thomas Dewey, which would you prefer?

Here are the results today, compared to those in November:

Today November 1943
Dewey 64% 55%
Willkie 27% 35%
Undecided 9% 10%

The following is a table showing how present rank and file followers of Gen. MacArthur, Governor Bricker and LtCdr. Stassen vote if the choice is limited to Mr. Willkie and Governor Dewey.

Dewey Willkie Undecided
Bricker supporters 77% 11% 12%
MacArthur supporters 60% 18% 22%
Stassen supporters 55% 31% 14%

In the November 1943 survey:

Dewey Willkie Undecided
Bricker supporters 69% 17% 14%
MacArthur supporters 56% 24% 20%
Stassen supporters 50% 38% 12%

That Mr. Willkie’s popularity is greater in New England, on the West Coast and in the South is shown by the regional vote in the survey as follows:

Dewey Willkie Undecided
New England 50% 42% 8%
Mid-Atlantic 69% 25% 6%
East Central 74% 16% 10%
West Central 63% 27% 10%
South 47% 39% 14%
Mountain 63% 29% 8%
West 56% 36% 8%

In surveys on candidates, the Institute has asked voters why they think their choice of candidates is best.

Governor Dewey’s supporters praise his administrative record in public office, particularly as Governor of New York. They say he has shown a remarkable grasp of the problems of government since he took officer, that “he gets things done without quarreling with people all the time,” that his administration has been level-headed and prudent.

Governor Dewey also receives praise or being fearless and energetic – a “go-getter.” For example: “He’s a fighter and would get things done in Washington… we need a young man with new and aggressive ideas… he’s resourceful.” Conspicuously absent are comments on his ability to handle foreign policy questions better than other candidates.

Why Willkie is favored

Mr. Willkie is liked for his courage as a thinker – for speaking his mind on national and international problems. “He thinks ahead and says what he thinks, even if people don’t go for a lot of it… He’s not afraid to call a spade a spade and tell people where to get off.”

His second great asset, in the opinion of the voters, is that he has a broad grasp of international problems. “He knows what’s going on abroad… He’s a man of convictions about international policy and willing to speak his convictions.” Others like him because of his “progressive and liberal ideas,” or his experience as businessman.

Noticeably absent are comments on how good an executive he would make, or on how he would handle domestic problems during and after the war.

Why MacArthur is favored

Gen. MacArthur’s appeal stems mainly from his familiarity with war problems. His supporters say he understands the war at first hand. They maintain that since the big issue is winning the war, the best military minds should be in power and that Gen. MacArthur is best suited for such leadership. They also speak of him as a “strong man,” independent of political parties and political influence. “He has high qualities of leadership; he knows how to get along with men.”

Why Bricker is favored

Voters who back Mr. Bricker do so usually for his record as Governor of Ohio. Many point out that of all the Republican candidates, Governor Bicker has had the “longest actual experience in government.”

As in the case of Governors Dewey and Bricker, followers of LtCdr. Stassen praise his record as Governor of Minnesota. He receives the support of a good many “because he understands the farmer and his problems.” Others view him as “openminded… progressive… practical… more experienced in politics than the other candidates.” Still others like him because “he seems to have definite understanding of world affairs.”

4160

americavotes1944

Fourth term foe to run again

Washington (UP) – (March 11)
Senator Guy M. Gillette (D-IA), who opposed a third term for President Roosevelt, yesterday announced that he was opposed to a fourth-term nomination.

Mr. Gillette’s announcement came a few hours after he had revealed that despite an earlier decision to retire, he would accept renomination if Iowa Democrats want him.

Mr. Gillette said:

As a Democrat, I reserve the right to support for the nomination a candidate of my own choice. After the nomination is made, it becomes another matter.

He declined to say whom he would favor for the Democratic presidential nomination.

4161

americavotes1944

Campaign rules draw approval

Backers of officers seem satisfied

Washington (UP) – (March 11)
Congressional sponsors of military men for the 1944 Republican presidential nomination expressed general satisfaction today with the Army-Navy agreement outlining conditions under which members of the Armed Forces on active duty may seek and accept election to public offices.

The agreement, approved by President Roosevelt, gave preferential treatment to reservists over Regular Army and Navy men. A regular must be “drafted.” He must be offered the nomination without direct or indirect activity or solicitation on his part.

No campaigning

Reservists do not have to wait for a draft. They are authorized to file evidence of their candidacy as required by local laws without the tender of a nomination.

Neither regulars nor reservists, however, may engage in any way in political management or political campaigns.

Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg (R-MI), one of the first sponsors of Gen. Douglas MacArthur for the Republican presidential nomination, said the agreement was “satisfactory.”

Comments show approval

Senator Joseph H. Ball (R-MN), backing LtCdr. Harold E. Stassen, former Governor of Minnesota now on active duty in the South Pacific, for the nomination, said that as far as he was concerned, the agreement “is OK.”

Chairman Andrew J. May (D-KY) of the House Military Affairs Committee expressed confidence that the agreement wouldn’t raise political issues or create political disturbances in the armed services.

Rep. Eugene Worley (D-TX), who resigned a naval commission when elected to the House, described the agreement as a “fine thing.”

Coloradoan objects

Objections were voiced by Senator Edwin C. Johnson (D-CO), who favors Gen. George C. Marshall for the Democratic presidential nomination.

He said:

If a man wants to be a candidate and the people want him, let him go to it. Personally, I think being an officer is the biggest job a man can hold now. But if an officer does not feel that way, I think he should be free to become a candidate for office.

Observers noticed that no provision was made in the agreement for determination of a military man’s active or inactive status between the time he is nominated and the time of his election or defeat.

4162

‘Exit laughing’ –
Tree, nourished by his ashes, urged by Cobb as monument

Memorial services to be in Paducah; Negro choir to sing requested songs

…

4163

americavotes1944

Cobb called Willkie ‘the only Democrat’

New York – (March 11)
Despite the fact that he was in ill health in 1940, Irvin S. Cobb campaigned vigorously for Wendell L. Willkie.

One of his statements follows:

I am supporting Wendell Willkie for President because I am a lifelong Democrat and he is the only Democrat running for President this year. There are at least 12 other reasons why I am for him – one is Madame Perkins and Harold Ickes is the other 11.

4164

Yanks, Chinese wipe out 2,000 Japs in Burma

Hukawng Valley conquest in sight
By Harold Guard, United Press staff writer

…

4165

‘Date is only question’ –
Gen. Montgomery: Allied victory is certain

Eisenhower warns ‘much remains to be done,’ urges all to do their duty

…

4166

Gangster’s body found in trunk

…

4167

Peggy Hull: Private tells the general where the bullet struck

‘Twas a tense and terrible moment, but flamethrower Wiercinski didn’t falter
By Peggy Hull, North American Newspaper Alliance

…

4168

Union to add health clause to demands

UAW chief cites accident losses

…

4169

In Washington –
Lend-Lease ‘torrent’ hits enemy on every front

…

4170

CIO protests seniority loss in draft call

Michigan ruling called a hardship

…

4171

British offer to help build line expected

Officials to confer soon on oil policy
By Marshall McNeil, Scripps-Howard staff writer

…

4172

First post-war auto seen resembling 1942 model

Packard head predicts a few minor refinements to improve appearance of car

…

4173

Peggy Hull: Yank would kill all the Japs – but he gives bus seat to one

Most young officers show maturity in reaction to atrocity stories
By Peggy Hull, North American Newspaper Alliance

…

4174

Editorial: WPA press

…

4175

americavotes1944

Editorial: Servicemen in politics

Members of the Armed Forces who are not in the “regular components” of the Army or Navy may become candidates for political officer, but they may not solicit votes, make speeches or otherwise campaign in their own behalf. And if elected, they must leave the service. For regular officers, the regulations are even more stringent.

This old military regulation was emphasized by the President Friday in making public a joint Army-Navy agreement.

In short, when you elect a soldier or sailor to office you vote him out of the war – and the government loses all it has invested in training and equipping him. This loss is particularly heavy when it involves officers.

This is something Republicans should consider carefully in the case of Lt. James G. Fulton of Dormont, a candidate for the Republican congressional nomination in the 31st district.

Quite aside from his qualifications, Lt. Fulton voluntarily entered the Navy and has received extensive and expensive training. There is no reason to believe that he could perform in Congress more valuable service than he is now performing. Moreover, of the others entered in the same contest, several are capable men.

If Lt. Fulton wanted to run for Congress, he shouldn’t have entered the Navy. But he did so, voluntarily – receiving a commission.

Lt. Fulton attended a meeting of 31st district leaders Friday night, spoke on behalf of his candidacy and outlined some of the policies he will support if elected – this on the same day that the Army-Navy prohibition of active participation in a campaign was issued.

We predict that as the public considers this problem – particularly families with members in service – they will be extremely reluctant to vote candidates out of the war. After all, the veteran will enjoy great political advantage when the war is over – and the more who wait until then, instead of leaving now, the sooner it will end.

4176

Editorial: He helped us laugh

…

4177

americavotes1944

McFarland: Soldier votes and the Constitution

By Kermit McFarland

In the soldier-vote controversy now embroiling Congress, the opposing sides agree – so they say – that it is essential to provide a method by which the Armed Forces may vote in this year’s election. Both sides protest that it would be an outrage if the Armed Forces were deprived of a vote merely because of their absence from the country.

The differences on which the issue has hung, more than three months now, are based, so the antagonists say, on varied interpretations of the Constitution. Opponents of a federal ballot for the Armed Forces – necessary only in the interest of uniformity and simplification – say control of the ballot is reserved exclusively to the states by the Constitution. Advocates of the federal ballot deny this.

So far, the so-called “states’ rights” group has had the controlling hand.

Justice Stone’s opinion

But there is another authority on the Constitution – the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Supreme Court has not passed on the soldier-vote issue, as such. But in 1940, Justice Harlan F. Stone wrote an opinion which some eminent legal authorities, not engaged in the Congressional controversy, consider immediately applicated to this issue.

In this opinion, the Justice, now Chief Justice, said:

While, in a loose sense, the right to vote for representatives in Congress is sometimes spoken of as a right derived from the states, this statement is true only in the sense that the states are authorized by the Constitution to legislate on the subject… to the extent that Congress has not restricted state action by exercise of its powers to regulate elections…

Mr. Justice Stone, with the Court majority, even held that Congress could regulate primary elections.

And that is precisely what the Constitution says in Section 4 of Article I: The states may prescribe the rules, but Congress, “may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.”

This Supreme Court opinion, in the judgement of high-ranking legal authorities, effectively takes care of the issue.

Presidential electors

But the “states’ rights” lawyers in Congress probably will answer that this is applicable merely to elections involving representatives in Congress. They will point to Section 2 of Article II which says that each state shall provide the manner of choosing its own presidential electors.

And since a federal ballot would involve the election of a President and Vice President as well as Senators and Congressmen, a federal ballot, they will say, is unconstitutional.

But the states have already provided a method for choosing presidential electors, who in turn technically elect a President. And that method is the ballot. There is nothing in the Constitution which says the federal government ay not provide the ballot.

The federal ballot in no way interferes with the methods already prescribed by the states for choosing presidential electors.

And Mr. Justice Stone, in his opinion, repeated an old dictum of the Supreme Court that matters which are “appropriate” to the Constitution, which are “not prohibited” by the Constitution and which are consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution are constitutional.

He said:

That principle extends to the Congressional power, by appropriate legislation, to safeguard the right of choice by the people of representatives in Congress secured by Section 2 of Article I.

And Mr. Justice Douglas, in the same case, said the Constitution was “designed not only for temporary needs but for the vicissitudes of time.”

The absence of millions of voters in the Armed Forces is certainly a “vicissitude.”