Election 1944: Pre-convention news

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: The hardest way

By leaving it exclusively to the states to provide ways and means of enabling members of the Armed Forces to vote, as a majority in Congress seems determined to do, the statesmen in Washington are deciding that the hardest way is the right way.

The contrary is true. Voting is an inherent right, provided in the Constitution, the same Constitution which created Congress and details what it may and may not do.

Since voting is a basic right, it follows as a fundamental corollary that the qualifications for voting, the methods for voting and the rules for voting should be as simple as possible.

Democracy functions through free suffrage. If suffrage is not free, the functioning of democracy is restricted if not actually endangered.

Any obstacle thrown in the way of full opportunity for suffrage on the part of any group of free citizens is an interference with democracy.

The opponents of a uniform, simply ballot for use of the Armed Forces claim any regulation of voting, save the 48 different systems set by the states, is unconstitutional.

But the Constitution does not say so. It says laws governing the election of members of Congress shall be prescribed by the states, but it also says Congress may “at any time” alter such regulations.

It also says that neither Congress nor the states may abridge the right to vote because of race, color or “previous condition of servitude.” And in another amendment, it forbids abridgement of the right to vote because of sex.

In both articles, Congress is charged with the duty of enacting legislation which will make these prohibitions effective.

Isn’t it logical, then, that Congress also has the power to enact legislation which will prevent the abridgement of the right to vote for other reasons, such as the conglomeration of state regulations which will prevent hundreds of thousands of voters in the Armed Forces from exercising their franchise?

If the opposition Congressmen will read the instructions issued the other day by the Army for the benefit of voters in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Nebraska and Louisiana, they will find an irrefragable example of how to keep the Armed Forces from voting.

Pennsylvania voters in the military and naval forces must apply for a military ballot within the 20-day period which occurs not more than 50 days before the election and not less than 30 days before the election. Election officials must then mail these ballots at least 15 days before the election “to the address furnished by the elector in his application.”

With Pennsylvania voters scattered in hundreds of places around the world, many of them bound to change addresses between the time they apply and the time ballots are mailed, it is manifestly impossible to provide more than a fraction of them with ballots, even if they were thoroughly acquainted with the law.

Nebraska is even worse, for the elector from that state also must apply for a form on which to apply for a ballot!

As the Army suggests:

It is not desirable to burden overseas airmail with applications for ballots where the time interval is manifestly too short to accomplish receipt, execution and return of the ballot.

There is nothing more constitutional than the right to vote. Let’s make the Constitution work by providing a simple, uniform method by which the Armed Forces may exercise their constitutional franchise. Let’s make it as easy as possible for them to vote, not as hard as possible.

[NormanStewart]

Casey: Sneers and smut

By Lee Casey, the Rocky Mountain News

I am becoming excessively weary of listening to unfunny off-color anecdotes, most of them well-worn, about President and Mrs. Roosevelt.

To be sure, this is a campaign year, and in a campaign, we are told, everything goes. Such is the American way. We have always indulged in jesting and even sneering at those in high office.

It is true that some of the current anecdotes have survived the campaigns of 1932, of 1936 and 1940. But, as for these representing any kind of American tradition, even a bad one, I just don’t believe it.

That abuse that was heaped upon Abraham Lincoln offers no parallel. That abuse, unjustified as it proved to be, at least was done in the open. It came from newspapers, from ministers and from politicians speaking in public – in short, from individuals and publications that could be held accountable for their words and acts. It was all wrong, as we now know, but at least it was not speaking.

The lip-to-ear attacks upon President and Mrs. Roosevelt are both wrong and sneaking. They are especially offensive because, for the first time in American history so far as I can discover, these sneaking attacks are being made upon a woman.

Pegler’s duty

Let me try to be very clear upon one point. I’m not remotely suggesting that Mrs. Roosevelt’s activities, insofar as they have a public bearing, should not be subject to the closest scrutiny, examination and criticism. She is different from any other mistress of the White House in that she has deliberately made herself a political figure. Her words and deeds are, therefore, deserving of the same approval or disapproval as the words and deeds of any man or woman in public life.

Westbrook Pegler has been emphatic about this, in accord with his duty as a commentator upon national affairs. He has challenged, and properly challenged, Mrs. Roosevelt’s occupancy under a priority order of a place on a military transport plane. He has challenged, and properly challenged, her right to make distant journeys in military planes as a representative of the American Red Cross. He has challenged Mrs. Roosevelt’s partiality in labor disputes, has charged that her affiliation with groups sympathetic with communism has tended to give administrative sanction to the communist movement.

All this has been done directly, openly – and forcefully, Mr. Pegler has criticized and challenged Mrs. Roosevelt in her public capacity. That is not only his right but his duty. That is the business he is in.

Bogus wit

Mr. Pegler’s way and not the way of innuendo, is the true American way.

The slyness, the bogus wit – yes, and the smut – are not characteristic of this country. Those who use such methods are this country’s disgrace.

Some of the supposed witticisms designed to besmirch the President and his wife touch upon the interest both he and Mrs. Roosevelt have shown in protecting the rights of minority groups of citizens. The intended effect is to belittle and sneer at the fact that President and Mrs. Roosevelt are showing the same interest in the welfare of their fellow-citizens that is characteristic of any civilized human being.

The whispering campaign against Al Smith when he was a candidate was slimy enough. So was that against Warren G. Harding. This one is more pernicious than either because it carries smut along with slander. It is doubly despicable because it is hidden. As Edmund Burke asked, who can refute a sneer?

Approval or disapproval of the administration’s policies has nothing to do with one’s attitude toward this sniping from undercover. Decent people owe it to their own decency to refuse to listen to such pernicious chatter. It seems to me the campaign of falsehood and malice disguised as humor should come to a sudden end.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (February 14, 1944)

Democrats face convention fight on Wallace vote

Vice President actively campaigning for renomination; conservatives want party stalwart on ticket
By Lyle C. Wilson, United Press staff writer

Washington –
Vice President Henry A. Wallace’s active campaigning for renomination on his transcontinental tour foreshadows a bitter contest at the forthcoming Democratic National Convention.

Conservative Democrats, finding themselves unable even to impede momentarily the fourth-term nomination of President Roosevelt, may attempt to wreak their vengeance on Mr. Wallace – if they can. They want a party stalwart on the ticket.

Whether the question of Mr. Wallace’s renomination reaches a convention floor showdown will depend on Mr. Roosevelt. If Mr. Roosevelt wants him again, he will have to lick the party regulars to put Mr. Wallace over.

Many observers here believe the President decided last summer to discard his 1940 running mate.

Clashed with Jones

That was when Secretary of Commerce Jesse H. Jones and Mr. Wallace disputed conduct of foreign economic policy. Mr. Wallace then was head of the Board of Economic Warfare and an important figure in Mr. Roosevelt’s war councils.

The President adjusted the dispute by relieving Mr. Jones of certain duties under circumstances entirely satisfactory to Mr. Jones and by stripping Mr. Wallace of every shred of power and authority except his elective office and the trivial ex officio duties pertaining to it.

But Mr. Wallace came up smiling and undertook a series of speaking engagements, frequently before labor or left-wing audiences, in which he has undoubtedly made himself solid politically with the New Deal wing of the political coalition which put Mr. Roosevelt in office in 1932 and has kept him there since.

Talks fourth term

Meanwhile, Mr. Roosevelt has been under occasional and scattered fire from the left. It is reasonable to believe that Mr. Wallace is attempting to establish his own political prestige with the left-wingers sufficiently to persuade Mr. Roosevelt to keep him on the 1944 ticket.

Mr. Wallace is making his own campaign almost synonymous with the movement to draft Mr. Roosevelt for a fourth term. On the West Coast and now on his return journey, Mr. Wallace is telling questioners that Mr. Roosevelt should be renominated.

There is no hint of White House displeasure over the persistent draft-Roosevelt campaign of which Mr. Wallace now seems to be the principal spokesman.

Farley, Garner put heads together

San Antonio, Texas (UP) –
Former Postmaster General James A. Farley visited former Vice President John Garner at Uvalde yesterday.

Mr. Farley said that they had talked of politics “past, present, and future,” but that none of their conversation was for publication.

Willkie outlines Far Eastern trade

San Francisco, California (UP) –
Immediate establishment of trade ties with Russia, China and other transpacific countries “without waiting for any post-war golden age” was advocated by Wendell Willkie last night.

In a radio address devoted largely to the industrial prospects of the Pacific Coast, Mr. Willkie said:

Narrow nationalism, domestic economic ineffectiveness and feeble leadership may well cause these hungry markets of the East to seek other sources of provisioning; for if we do not meet their needs, others will, and this section of the United States will be unimportant in the new economic pattern.”

Mr. Willkie spent yesterday afternoon in Sacramento with Governor and Mrs. Earl Warren, but refused to say whether they discussed political questions.

Browder: Retain Roosevelt

Boston, Massachusetts (UP) –
Earl Browder, Secretary of the Communist Party, said yesterday that the reelection of President Roosevelt in November and the strict enactment of the Tehran program are the only ways the world can reach security through victory and

Speaking at Symphony Hall, Browder said that:

Patriotic men and women of all parties must unite to convince Roosevelt that the country demands his continued leadership.

He said the Tehran program can be summed up in one word: “Security.”

And that means not only physical security which provides safety from attacks by aggressors. It also means economic security, social security, moral security – in a family of nations.

[NormanStewart]

In Washington –
Deadlock bogs soldiers’ vote in conference

Taft compromise for count by states given new consideration

Washington (UP) –
Prospects of a hopeless deadlock between House-Senate conferees on the soldier vote issue today revived interest in a compromise plan – already rejected three times by the Senate – placing the emphasis on state absentee ballots.

The conferees were expected to begin Wednesday their attempts at a compromise, but a stalemate appeared in the making because five of the 10 conferees were string supporters of the state ballot while the other five were equal ardent backers of the federal plan.

Plan another look

The conferees indicated that they would take another look at the thrice-rejected plan of Senator Robert A. Taft (R-OH), allowing use of a federal ballot by overseas service personnel only if they are unable to get their own state voting blanks.

Senator Taft’s plan was in the form of middle ground between the House-approved plan, which calls for use only of state ballots; and the Senate’s Green-Lucas bill, which provides that federal ballots for President, Vice President and members of Congress be used generally overseas.

Martin’s challenge

Meanwhile, House Republican Leader Joseph W. Martin Jr. (R-MA) challenged President Roosevelt to make the soldier vote fight an issue in the coming presidential election. Recalling that the President had denounced the states’ rights bill as a fraud, Mr. Martin said:

The Republicans will meet the issue head-on. We won’t run away – and we don’t fear the result.

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: An issue for the campaign

While the contest for the Republican nomination for President, and the ensuing battle for the presidential election in November will attract the headlines and the popular interest, this is also a year in which the full membership of the national House of Representatives and one-third the membership of the U.S. Senate will be at stake.

In the Congressional elections, equally important with the presidential contest, the principal issue will be the soldier-vote issue.

The Congressmen who have opposed a simple, uniform method of enabling the members of the Armed Forces to cast a ballot must be held accountable to their constituents, in the primaries and in the general election.

Pennsylvania’s primary will be held April 25. The campaign is already underway. Most of Pennsylvania’s Congressmen are already on record on the soldier-vote issue. Those who oppose them in the primary or in the general election should be required to announce their position on this issue.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party in this state, the majority Congressional delegation has voted solidly against a reasonable, effective plan for giving the Armed Forces a maximum opportunity to vote.

To make their position even worse, the Republican Congressmen from this state voted solidly against a “stand-up-and-be-counted” roll call on this issue.

In this district, the Congressmen who voted in this manner were D. Emmert Brumbaugh of Claysburg, Leon H. Gavin of Oil City, Louis E. Graham of Beaver, Robert L. Rodgers of Erie and Harve Tibbott of Ebensburg.

Congressional elections should be settled on issues, and independent of the presidential or any other contest. Here, then, is a basic issue, an issue which should be thoroughly exploited in the coming primary campaign – and again in the November campaign.

It transcends other issues because it involves a fundamental privilege of hundreds of thousands of free citizens who have demonstrated their willingness to make the supreme sacrifice for their country.

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: Dewey speaks out

Whether Governor Dewey will or will not be a presidential candidate, his Lincoln Day address stated the issue of the coming campaign.

That is restoration of the spirit of constitutional government, which preserves separation of powers of the coordinate branches of the federal government and reserves the function of the states.

We cannot return to horse-and-buggy administration in an air age. But not even the most efficient and honest national administration could solve our problems without virile local government and self-reliant citizens. Rule from the top is not representative government. There is either democracy at the bottom, or there is no democracy.

The dangerous trend of the past 11 years has been the near-abdication of the states, and the willingness of the people to look to Washington instead of to themselves for solutions. The great promise of the future is that Americans are now turning away from that reliance upon an all-powerful Washington run by one man.

But there still are some who think return to more representative government should be postponed until after the war, and until after the peace is made. Governor Dewey answered that argument. He showed how the recent strengthening of state government in New York and elsewhere has advanced the war effort and prepared for the post-war period.

In the field of foreign affairs, a return to balanced representative government is essential. Even if President Roosevelt were the sole source of wisdom and leadership – and he is hardly that, or he would not have left leadership for post-war international cooperation to the Republican Mackinac conference – there could be no effective American foreign policy without Congressional participation and ratification.

Mr. Roosevelt has not been able to provide that cooperation with Congress. Americans are aware of the cost of that failure. As Mr. Dewey put it:

They know that with a self-willed executive who wars at every turn with Congress, they will have a repetition of the same catastrophe which happened in 1919.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (February 15, 1944)

Democratic Party loses House numerical majority

Republicans in 5 states press for byelections to capitalize on GOP trend
By Lyle C. Wilson, United Press staff writer

Washington –
Democratic membership in the House again has fallen below a numerical majority and Republicans in five states are pressing for byelections to capitalize the trend toward the GOP.

The five states are those with Congressional vacancies. The latest is in Illinois’ 7th district, a thickly populated Cook County constituency in the political domain of Chicago Mayor Edward J. Kelly.

Rep. Leonard W. Schuetz, a Democrat who represented that district, died here Sunday, reducing the Democratic membership of the House from 218, a bare numerical majority, to 217, which is just below the majority line.

The Democrats fell to 217 once previously in this Congress but had just received their 218th seat again last week in a special election to fill the vacancy created by the death of Rep. Henry B. Steagall (D-AL).

4 held by Democrats

Of the five vacancies now existing, four are for seats formerly held by Democrats. They are those of Mr. Schuetz and of the late Lawrence Lewis (D-CO), Joseph A. Gavagan (D-NY) and Jack Nichols (D-OK), both of whom resigned. The fifth vacancy was created by the death of Rep. William H. Wheat (R-IL).

If and when byelections are held, Republicans might take all five seats. Mr. Gavagan’s district in New York City is probably the safest for the Democrats. Mr. Nichols’ Oklahoma district will send a Republican or a staunchly anti-New Deal Democrat to the House, according to reports from there.

GOP confident

Republicans are confident they can carry Mr. Lewis’ Colorado district despite the fact that it lies in Denver and the Democrats uniformly find their greatest strength outside the South in urban communities.

Mayor Kelly’s Cook Country machine is formidable. But even there the Republicans believe they have a better than even chance to pick up a seat. Mr. Schuetz won in 1942 by only 2,000 votes of 257,000 cast. That margin is so slim that the slightest thing could reverse it.

Oregon man named Willkie manager

Portland, Oregon (UP) –
Wendell L. Willkie, Republican candidate for President in 1940, officially threw his hat in the ring last night and announced his candidacy for the GOP nomination, naming Ralph H. Cake, national committeeman from Oregon, as his pre-convention manager.

Mr. Willkie also named Mrs. Frank Reynolds, national committeewoman from Indiana and a former treasurer of the Hoosier state, as head of the women’s organization and promised as “active and intensive campaign would be waged in every state where a primary contest developed.”

Campaign workers would be organized in all states, he added.

His candidacy would probably be no surprise, Mr. Willkie explained, since he had already announced his entrance in the primaries in Nebraska, Wisconsin and Oregon.

The Republican Party must demonstrate through its platform that the “war can be brought to a conclusion, or can be fought effectively, or more effectively” with a change in administration, he said and that:

It has a better comprehension and understanding of domestic, economic and social questions and can handle the adjustments with which the United States will be confronted when the war is over.

Wallace urges people’s peace

Minneapolis, Minnesota (UP) –
“In the peace to come, the New Deal will not be dead,” Vice President Henry A. Wallace declared last night, “but if it is dead, the Democratic Party will be dead, and well dead.”

The Democratic Party is the people’s party, Mr. Wallace told a mass meeting at the Minneapolis Auditorium.

The war, he said, is a people’s war and the peace must be a people’s peace.

Mr. Wallace added:

By looking toward peace, the farmers, workers and soldiers will increase, not diminish the intensity of our all-out war effort.

Mr. Wallace urged the adoption of post-war policies which would give greater industrial, economic and agricultural strength to the West and South where the “ten million poorest people live.”

Earlier in the day, Mr. Wallace made a plea for continued support of the Roosevelt administration and told leaders of the Minnesota Democratic and Farmer-Labor parties that:

If Mr. Roosevelt is elected again, he will be helpless unless you send Congressmen to support his administration.

He said:

It is not fair to allow a fine progressive President to be left in a position to kowtow to a conservative crowd.

Retain Democrats, Truman pleads

Jacksonville, Florida (UP) –
Senator Harry S. Truman (D-MO), describing the coming national election as the most important in history, said last night that a Republican victory could affect adversely the progress of the war.

Mr. Truman said at a Jackson Day dinner here:

Democratic defeat at the polls this year could hamper, delay, and confuse the conduct of the war and imperil the peace.

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: Snails and soldier ballots

Since Congress has wasted so much time playing politics with the soldier vote bill, the last the Senate and House conferees can do is to arrive at their compromise quickly. There is no excuse for more delay. There is a very practical reason for speed.

Whatever the nature of the final measure may be, one thing is certain. The states will have to pass upon and count the ballots. This will be true whether the so-called states’ rights bill of the House is accepted, or the Senate-modified federal ballot bill, or the more probable adjustment of the two.

But the rub is that many states are not geared for this responsibility. Not only changes in state laws are required, but in some cases state constitutions must be modified to make such mass absentee voting practicable. This takes time.

Meanwhile, several governors take the position that they cannot call their legislatures into special session and otherwise start the involved technical preparations for a changeover until they know definitely the scope and requirements of the federal law. So further delay by Congress easily might defeat the purpose of the law by making state compliance impossible in the relatively short time remaining.

Nobody is in any doubt as to where the American public and the servicemen stand on this issue. The demand that the men doing our fighting for us be allowed to vote is virtually unanimous – as members of Congress discovered when they went home for the recent recess.

The point for the politicians to remember is that pious motions and slick parliamentary jokers will not be acceptable to the public this time. Here is one case in which only results will count. If the fighting men are disenfranchised, come November, they and their families and friends and all believers in democracy will hold the politicians responsible. Excuses will not help.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (February 16, 1944)

Soldier vote foe confident

Washington (UP) –
Rep, John E. Rankin (D-MS) said today there is “no question” but that Senate and House conferees on the soldier vote, scheduled to meet for the first time tomorrow, will agree on a state ballot proposal for absentee voting by members of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Rankin said House members of the conference committee voted 3–2 yesterday in favor of the state ballot and that “we are going to stand pat on that.”

Rep. Karl M. LeCompte (R-IA), another member of the conference committee, said he did not believe “the House is in any humor to accept a conference report for anything but a state ballot.”

[NormanStewart]

Will Rogers Jr. to forsake Congress for the Army

Culver City, California (UP) –
Congressman Will Rogers Jr. publicly announced he would not be a candidate for reelection to the House of Representatives in November.

Mr. Rogers made his statement at a meeting of Democratic Party leaders in his 16th Congressional district.

Political sources assumed the 32-year-old son of the late humorist would return to the Army, where he holds a commission as second lieutenant in the artillery. He entered the Army as a private in June 1942, and was elected the same year.

[NormanStewart]

Background of news –
‘Cut and dried’ convention

By Jay G. Hayden, North American Newspaper Alliance

Washington –
An outright declaration by President Roosevelt of his fourth-term candidacy scarcely could have been more conclusive of his intention than the announcement that the Democratic National Convention will open July 19 – on a Wednesday, instead of the usual Monday.

Completion within the week of a convention begun on Wednesday is possible only if its action as respects both candidates and platform is cut and dried in advance. And underlying antagonism among Democrats is so marked that it is doubtful if they could agree within a month on anything excepting the inevitability of another ride on Mr. Roosevelt’s bandwagon.

The reason for the short convention decision goes back to the period, Monday to Friday inclusive, when the Roosevelt-Wallace third-term slate was in the making. Probably Mr. Roosevelt has never spent a more irksome five days than those.

The trouble then was that while President Roosevelt clearly had the votes, James A. Farley, bitterly opposed to the third term, was still chairman of the National Committee and he had entered into a contract with Chicago hotel men to string the convention out at least until after Thursday midnight.

‘Draft’ pretense maintained

The design of Mr. Roosevelt’s managers was to keep both him and his choice for Vice President under blankets until the last possible moment, in order to give the appearance of a spontaneous draft.

In consonance with this plan, it couldn’t be admitted that there were any authorized spokesmen for Mr. Roosevelt in town. Harry Hopkins and the then Senator James F. Byrnes of South Carolina, who actually functioned in that capacity, spent their first four days in Chicago dodging newspaper reporters.

Meanwhile, the anti-Roosevelt leaders were monopolizing the headlines. Mr. Farley was holding press conferences twice daily. His strategy was to admit that the President could have the nomination if he insisted, but to point out at the same time that there were a great many Democrats, including himself, who could not stand for this desertion of the two-term tradition.

Senator Burton K. Wheeler of Montana coincidentally pressed his fight for an anti-war plank, until the administration leaders shut him up by accepting his prescription that:

We will not participate in foreign wars, and we will not send our Army, naval or air forces to fight in foreign lands outside the Americas, except in case of attack.

Bitter fight over Wallace

The one widely publicized variation from this anti-third-term clamor may have annoyed Mr. Roosevelt most of all. It came when a straw boss from Mayor Ed Kelly’s Chicago sewer department rigged up a microphone in the convention basement, from which he interrupted radio transmission of the formal proceedings with intermittent roars of “We want Roosevelt.”

The grand climax came when Mr. Roosevelt’s speech of acceptance, timed for the convention’s final hour, was held off until long past midnight by a bitter rebellion against the White House-chosen candidate for Vice President, Henry A. Wallace.

This year, as indicated by the short-convention announcement, no time is to be allowed for any such opposition foolishness.

President Roosevelt a year or more ago broached the idea of a short wartime campaign, brought about by postponement of presidential nominations until September or even early October. The federal ballot, proposed in the administration soldier-vote bills, fitted this idea in that it was completely devoid of names.

When the House defeated this plan and excluded voting except by names of the candidates, it became imperative that the Democratic presidential nomination be made known no later than the first day of August.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (February 17, 1944)

Background of news –
Convention dark horses

By Bertram Benedict, editorial research reports

Last week, Governor Bricker of Ohio, avowed candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, went to Washington to deliver two speeches and to be interrogated by newspapermen.

Not even the most ardent Bricker men maintain that he will lead on the first ballot at the convention. That position will probably go to Governor Dewey, unless he flatly declines to be considered or unless Wendell L. Willkie gets more support than he has at present from Republican leaders.

All of which brings up the question of how “dark horses” usually fare at the national nominating conventions.

A dark horse is not necessarily any candidate who is not in the lead on the first ballot. In 1940, Mr. Willkie could hardly have been called a dark horse, for on the first ballot he ranked third, with more than 10% of the total votes. In 1920, Governor Cox of Ohio was hardly a dark horse, for on the first ballot he ranked third, with 12% of the votes, while no candidate had as much as 25%.

Cox loses, then regains, lead

Mr. Cox had the almost unprecedented experience of regaining the lead after losing it. He went ahead on the 22nd ballot, with 40% of the votes, to 34% for McAdoo, but by the 30th ballot, McAdoo was in front once more, only to lose out.

In 1920, Senator Harding of Ohio was certainly a dark horse. On the first ballot at the Republican convention, he ranked sixth, with only 4% of the votes. More than one-half of the Harding votes came from his own state. And on the following three ballots, Harding’s vote was lower than on the first three ballots. Even on the eighth ballot, Harding had less than 15% of the votes; he jumped into the lead on the ninth ballot, and was nominated on the tenth.

John W. Davis in 1924 must also be considered a dark horse. On the first ballot at the Democratic convention in New York, he had only 3% of the votes, while McAdoo had 39% and Smith 22%. On the fifth ballot, when McAdoo had 40% and Smith 24%, Davis had only 5%. Davis was not nominated until the 103rd ballot, after the McAdoo and Smith forces had cancelled each other out.

Incumbents have edge

An incumbent President can usually control the party machinery sufficiently to get a renomination, if he wants it. That was true even in 1912, when the primaries showed an overwhelming preference of the Republican voters for ex-President Roosevelt over President Taft. There have been, in the 20th century, 14 major party nominating conventions in which an incumbent President was not again a candidate.

In only two of these 14 conventions did the nomination go to a dark horse – Harding in 1920, Davis in 1924.

In seven of these 14 conventions, the nomination went on the first ballot to the leading candidate – Landon in 1936 (unanimously), Hoover in 1928, Smith in 1928 (after shifts before a second ballot was called for), Bryan in 1908, Taft in 1908, Parker in 1904 (after shifts), Bryan in 1900.

In two of these 14 conventions, the leading candidate on the first ballot was named soon thereafter – Roosevelt in 1932 (on the fourth ballot; needing 66⅔ percent, he had 60½ percent on the first), Hughes in 1916.

In three of these 14 conventions, the second or third man on the first ballot was finally nominated – Willkie in 1940 (on the sixth ballot), Cox in 1920 (on the 44th ballot) and Wilson in 1912 (on the 46th ballot).

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (February 18, 1944)

Soldier vote plans

Washington (UP) –
A meeting of Senate-House conferees today produced three proposals for a compromise path out of the complicated tangle over the soldier-vote bill.

Senator Tom Connally (D-TX) suggested that candidates for state office be printed on the federal war ballot form. Rep. Harris Ellsworth (R-OR) suggested authorizing a supplemental federal ballot in cases where the soldier voter could not get the state ballot. Chairman Theodore F. Green (D-RI), of the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee, offered an entirely new bill, which gives the same priority to both state and federal ballots.

[NormanStewart]

Edson: Old Dr. New Deal changes his name to Dr. New Peace

By Peter Edson

Washington –
You may well watch for the emergence of something that might be called “the New Peace” as successor to “the New Deal.”

President Roosevelt, in his now-famous aside to Dilworth Lupton of The Cleveland Press, just before Christmas, indicated that the New Deal slogan was outmoded and that something like “Win-the-War” would be more appropriate. A month later, Vice President Wallace told the Democratic Jackson Day dinner audience that the New Deal was not dead.

All the evidence would seem to indicate that Henry is right, as a look at the record of the last few weeks will show.

When the President was allegorically amplifying on his own views about how old Doctor New Deal had called in young Doctor Win-the-War to cure a sick country, he explained that although the post-war program had not been settled on at all – except in generalities – it was clear that plans must be made now for an expanded economy which will result in more security, more employment, more recreation, more education, more health and better housing for all, so that the conditions of 1932 would not return again.

Program outlined

There, from the President himself, you have the broad outlines of a post-war New Deal which is now being mentioned as “the New Peace” program.

In reality, it would be a successor to the President’s Win-the-War program.

The New Peace program has been dealt with in both the President’s regular message and in his budget message to Congress.

Basis of this New Peace program perhaps is best stated in the “Second Bill of Rights” passage from the President’s message:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

Political platform

This eight-point program certainly did not get into the presidential message by accident. It is a ready-made political platform if there ever was one.

Whether it merely restates old ideals or states a new peace program, it does not sound like much of an abandonment of the New Deal. Maybe the label will be dropped as something that no longer garners votes, but that’s all, and into the Second Bill of Rights you can read anything you like or don’t like, from socialized medicine or persecution of big business to social security from cradle to grave.

As if to implement this program, the President in his budget message gave clear indications that he would later ask Congress for appropriations to achieve the objectives of strengthening the U.S. Employment Service, broadening old-age and unemployment insurance coverage, providing public works to relieve post-war unemployment and finally, spreading the benefits of stabilized currencies and international management of trade and the production and distribution of food to the whole world.

The New Deal killed by its pappy? Don’t let them kid you. Henry was right.

[NormanStewart]

Midwest cool to fourth term, Wallace admits

But Vice President adds that he believes Roosevelt will win in November; in doubt on own position
By Lyle C. Wilson, United Press staff writer

Washington –
Vice President Henry A. Wallace, back from a transcontinental renomination campaign trip, reports the Midwest the most dangerous hazard to a fourth term for President Roosevelt.

Mr. Wallace cited that situation to press conference questioners here, but reported that sentiment was improving. He is convinced that the improvement will be such that Mr. Roosevelt will win again next November.

His report on Midwest sentiment substantially conforms with some more independent estimates of the situation there, but the question whether sentiment is swinging back toward the administration is sharply disputed.

Slipping in Farm Belt

The 1942-43 voting record shows the administration slipping in the Farm Belt.

At the press conference, Mr. Wallace for the most part answered the same questions he had been asked as he traveled to the West Coast and back making speeches calculated to make him an indispensable 1944 running mate for Mr. Roosevelt.

He reported a swelling liberal sentiment in general, and especially on the West Coast. He said he thought Mr. Roosevelt would prefer to retire to private life if he consulted his personal desires for comfort.

Retard war effort?

But he explained that Mr. Roosevelt’s retirement would retard the war effort because a new man would require so long to obtain the President’s perspective on the problems of all groups – agriculture, labor and business.

Mr. Wallace said he had been discussing politics with soldiers aboard trains and found them in favor of a fourth term. He represented them as taking the attitude: “Let him run the show and win the war.”

He described himself as “sitting in the lap of the gods,” which was interpreted to mean that Mr. Roosevelt has not told his 1940 ticket mate whether he is to have another fling.

AFL leader praises Willkie, hits Bricker

Washington (UP) –
An AFL spokesman today joined other labor leaders offering campaign advice to the Republicans by coupling praise for Wendell Willkie with criticism of Ohio’s Governor John W. Bricker.

Writing in the AFL News Service, editor Philip Pearl contrasted recent statements by the two Republican presidential aspirants and recommended that the party follow Mr. Willkie’s advice instead of Mr. Bricker’s.

He said Mr. Bricker’s record was “undistinguished by exceptional ability, forceful leadership or brilliant statesmanship” and that Mr. Bricker hade decided to take “a sock at labor” in an attempt to capture headlines in his Washington speech last week recommending legislation to prohibit strikes.

The next day, Mr. Pearl said, Mr. Willkie asserted there was no irrepressible conflict between business and labor and that “no man should be elected President who hated either.” Mr. Pearl interpreted these remarks as a “severe reprimand” to Mr. Bricker.

Martin takes hat from GOP ring

Washington (UP) –
House Republican Leader Joseph W. Martin Jr. (R-MA) today gingerly removed his hat from the presidential ring where it had been tossed by his friends in Congress.

A poll of Republican members favored Mr. Martin as “the most able dark horse” in event of a deadlock over a presidential nominee at the Republican National Convention.

Mr. Martin said:

I appreciate this gesture of good will… but I’m not looking for any more headaches…

[NormanStewart]

Roosevelt dodges fourth-term query

Washington (UP) –
President Roosevelt’s batting average in knocking down inquiries about his fourth-term plans continued perfect today in the face of renewed news conference pitching.

A questioner told the President:

The Vice President says you will be elected in 1944 – do you think he is a very good prophet?

At it again, the President said with a laugh.

The questioner added that Vice President Wallace was “not so sure of himself” as the No. 2 Democratic candidate this year, Mr. Roosevelt chuckled.

Incidentally, Mr. Roosevelt scheduled a luncheon conference today with Mr. Wallace, who returned to Washington from a Western tour yesterday.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (February 19, 1944)

Soldier vote hopes

Washington (UP) –
The germ of hope for enactment of compromise soldier-vote legislation was kept alive today as states’ rights adherents and federal ballot supporters mulled over three compromise proposals – but it was a feeble germ.

House and Senate conferees were to consider the proposals when they meet again Monday, but there was no indication that the House conferees would back down from their adamant opposition to any form of federal ballot. They voted 3–2 against considering any plan whatsoever.

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: ‘Scarcity economics’

Vice President Henry Wallace is warning the country against the danger of what he terms the “American fascists of Wall Street” who, he contends, believe in “scarcity economics.”

This philosophy of scarcity economics, he adds, must be displaced by a doctrine of “economic abundance.”

But doesn’t Mr. Wallace recall the days, not so long ago, when pigs and cotton were being plowed under in America on grounds that such “scarcity economics” would end the Depression and lead us to prosperity?

And wasn’t that policy of scarcity economics being administered not from Wall Street, but from Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington – through the office of Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace?

Perhaps there is something to the old saying that the memory of man is short-lived.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (February 21, 1944)

Soldier-vote bill bogs down

Washington (UP) –
Senate-House conferees resumed discussions on the soldier-vote bill today amid reports that the issue was so “hopelessly deadlocked” that an agreement may never be reached.

Senator Carl A. Hatch (D-NM), a Senate conferee, said he and other advocates of the federal war ballot approved by the Senate had made every possible concession to supporters of the state’s-rights plan, but were doubtful that it would help a compromise.

Rep. Harris Ellsworth (R-OR) said the best solution would be to adopt the state’s-rights bill approved by the House to give the states some specific plan on which to work.

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: Where is the plot?

Congressman Rankin of Mississippi, who is the most talkative of the anti-soldier-vote bloc in Congress, says any form of simple, uniform ballot which may be devised for the Army and Navy would be “the greatest fraud ever perpetrated upon the members of our Armed Forces.”

He also claims it “might mark the beginning of the end of constitutional government in America.”

He says:

I realize that is what the Communist Party and its sympathizers want. They want to wipe out the states and set up a system of Sovietized regions.

Mr. Rankin often is tiresome, but seldom even he gets quite so hysterical.

There is no “fraud” in giving the members of the Armed Forces the right and opportunity to vote – providing the system which is adopted is honest and as efficient as circumstances will permit.

By no stretch of the imagination can a simple, uniform ballot, merely because it is set up by Congress, the constitutional representatives of the people, be construed as a threat to constitutional government. On the contrary. What is more constitutional than the right to vote?

As for the attitude of the Communist Party, it is not of consequence in this issue – or any other issue. Establishment of an emergency plan which will enable the Armed Forces to vote while they are overseas fighting a war does not in any manner smack of communism or anything faintly resembling it.

It will not wipe out the states or in any respect interfere with their normal functions. The ballots will be counted, along with the ballots cast by civilians at home, in the home districts of the men and women in the Armed Forces.

The only reason for proposing a simple, uniform ballot, to be provided by Congress, is that it is impossible for the Armed Forces to vote in any strength under existing state laws and it would be impossible for all 48 states to enact, in unison, such a ballot.

If there is any merit in Mr. Rankin’s opposition to legislation which will enable soldiers and sailors to vote, he is not developing it by resorting to such hysterical scare statements.

Mr. Rankin is either seeing something under the bed, or he is hiding something there.

There is no plot nor conspiracy in making it possible for the free citizens of the United States to exercise a right given them by the Constitution.