Election 1944: Pre-convention news

[NormanStewart]

Next inauguration slated for television broadcast

Hollywood, California (UP) –
The next presidential inauguration and possibly the Democratic and Republican nominating conventions will be broadcast by television, Niles Trammell, president of NBC, said today.

He said:

Television is now definitely in the cards. Families will be able to buy television sets for $100 to $200 after the war.

NBC has invested $10 million in television research and will spend another $10 million in post-war expansion, Mr. Trammell said.

[NormanStewart]

Stokes: Middle-of-road

By Thomas L. Stokes

With Willkie in Wisconsin –
Wendell L. Willkie is carefully building up, in his Wisconsin primary campaign, a middle-of-the-road philosophy designed to attract the large independent vote.

Upon this he is resting his chief claim for renomination as Republican presidential candidate.

Mr. Willkie is frank about his objective. As he describes it, the only way the party can win is to adopt a forward-looking program, both domestically and internationally, to appeal to the independent vote.

He estimates that vote as between 35 and 40 percent of the electorate. That seems high. But polls show a much larger percentage of voters undecided this year than usual, which indicates a greater degree of independence.

His is a difficult task. He is trying to show, on the one hand, that he is not a New Dealer, not still a Democrat, not “another Roosevelt” and, on the other, that he is not an old-line GOP-type Republican.

When he arrived here, he found the air full of talk that he is not a real Republican. He has been dangling these rumors before his audiences – rumors, as he describes them, that “I’m a carbon copy of Roosevelt,” that I’m in league with Roosevelt,” that “I’m trying to help the administration.”

He says:

I’ve never talked politics with President Roosevelt in my life.

Not Democrat or New Dealer

Then he reads his bill of particulars in proof that he’s not a Democrat or New Dealer.

On foreign policy, he specifies, he has disagreed in a number of instances with the administration, including most recently the Polish question. He even went so far as to accuse the administration of having no foreign policy.

On domestic policy, he charges the administration with poor administration and the President with having a Cabinet of “yes men.” Outstanding men are needed, he says. He holds up two Cabinet members as horrible examples – Secretary of Agriculture Wickard and Secretary of Labor Perkins.

The independent commissions in Washington, he says, should be more independent. They are too much under the executive thumb.

He saves his heaviest attack for the “power complex” which he attributes to President Roosevelt and the administration, and he describes the New Deal regime as being “tired and cynical,” with a supreme belief that they know what is good for everybody in the country. This, he concedes, is often a sincere belief, but the egotism of it he deplores as the result of people being too long in power.

Tempers criticism of New Deal

He tempers his criticism of the New Deal by admitting that it has achieved some worthwhile reforms. He speaks harshly of those who are against everything just to be against, who react adversely to everything the administration does.

He says:

They are not thinkers – they are just pathological.

On the other hand, he denounces stand-pat Republicanism as bitingly as any Democrat ever did, and, if he should get nominated, President Roosevelt, or any of his campaign speakers, would be able to quote him at length without bothering to coin any new phrases.

He tells time after time, here in Wisconsin where isolationism was so prevalent, how he fought for Lend-Lease and he takes credit for helping to get the bill through Congress, though 80% of the Republican Party leadership, he says, was against it.

In telling an audience at Manitowoc yesterday that they must “bear in mind always that the objective of the party is to advance social relations,” he said:

I’m anxious to remove the impression that the Republican Party is a brutal, cold party that does not recognize social obligations.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (March 24, 1944)

In Washington –
President hints he won’t sign soldier bill

May let it become law without signature

Washington (UP) –
President Roosevelt indicated today that he will permit the new soldier vote bill to become law with or without his signature. He said he expects to issue a statement on it about the middle of next week.

If he planned to veto the bill, he would have to send Congress a message explaining his disapproval. In response to a news conference inquiry whether he contemplated a statement or a message to Congress, he specifically said it would be a statement.

He said that his decision on the measure, calling for use of a federal ballot only by those servicemen whose home states specifically validate such a tally, depended on whether he found more service personnel could vote under existing law or under the bill.

President Roosevelt’s soldier vote poll among the 48 governors was completed when South Carolina Governor Olin D. Johnston said his would not accept the proposed federal war ballot for servicemen.

A final tabulation showed that 16 states definitely will not accept the federal ballot and eight probably will not.

The poll indicates that half the states are virtually committed against the administration-endorsed federal ballot.

Only seven states definitely will permit use of the federal ballot, while 12 others have indicated they might. Three states are doubtful and two are undecided.

[NormanStewart]

Stokes: Political feud

By Thomas L. Stokes

Milwaukee, Wisconsin –
A human-interest drama, as old as men and politics, is being played here as an accompaniment to the Wisconsin presidential primary.

It concerns the personal relations of two prominent political figures, once staunch allies, now divided by ambition.

One is Wendell L. Willkie, who is moving about this state, like a circuit-riding evangelist, seeking to aroused the people to elect his slate of delegates in the April 4 primary so that he may continue to seek renomination as Republican presidential candidate. He is warming up. The hair is beginning to fall down over his eyes.

The other is the much younger Harold Stassen – he is 36 – thrice-elected governor of neighboring Minnesota, now a lieutenant commander on the staff of Adm. Halsey in the Pacific.

Wendell Willkie is the once-defeated presidential candidate who is trying to comeback.

LtCdr. Stassen is the younger man who, like youth forever, thinks it is now his turn.

With that idea his friends entered him in this primary against the older man he helped four years ago, despite the fact that he had removed himself from politics to go into the service.

Perceptible coolness develops

The story begins back in the spring of 1940 when the strapping Governor of Minnesota became interested in the aspirations of Wendell Willkie to become President. Mr. Stassen had been selected as keynote speaker of the 1940 convention and he became a figure in the convention.

At the appropriate, dramatic moment he came out for Mr. Willkie. His skill as floor manager of the Willkie campaign was quite a factor, it was generally recognized, in the victory against some of the shrewdest political operators in the party. In the campaign, that followed Governor Stassen did yeoman service.

He was reelected governor. There began to be talk of him for 1944. A perceptible coolness developed between the two men. Mr. Willkie never for a moment gave up the idea of renomination and he worked at it constantly. But the young man had ideas of his own. He let Mr. Willkie know that he was now on his own.

Governor Stassen’s stature grew when he was reelected a third time, revealing vote-getting ability which the party so needs. He announced during the campaign that he was going to resign after his legislature adjourned and go into the Navy, which he did.

Meanwhile, with the aim of building up a national reputation, he made speeches and wrote magazine articles. He developed a plan of post-war world organization, with a very specific blueprint, that attracted national attention. It was reflected in the Ball-Burton-Hill-Hatch post-war resolution in the U.S. Senate. Then he left for the service.

Gives lift to campaign

His friends did not give up their dreams of him as President, nor, it seems, did he, for just the other day he put himself into the running by his letter to Secretary of the Navy Knox, saying he would accept the nomination, though he is not a candidate, and he would ask to be retired to make a campaign if the convention picked him. this gave a lift to his campaign here.

Mr. Willkie resented this show of ambition by his one-time ally, and revealed it in his statement of reaction.

Likewise, LtCdr. Stassen’s friends here resented Mr. Willkie’s demand that the young man withdraw from the race, since he could not be here to discuss the issues. They point to his record and his fulsome discussion of national issues before he went away.

The irony of this rivalry between the older man trying to come back and the young man who wants his chance, is that both attract the same sort of support here, and each probably will hurt the other by splitting that vote.

It recalls, too, another famous political feud, between an older man who wanted to come back and a younger man who wanted his chance. The name of one was Alfred E. Smith. The name of the other was Franklin D. Roosevelt.

[NormanStewart]

Willkie scores primary foes

Kenosha, Wisconsin (UP) –
A few years in public office does not necessarily qualify a man for the Presidency, Wendell Willkie told an audience here yesterday in an attack on three of his opponents for the Republican presidential nomination.

Mr. Willkie aimed his remarks at backers of New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey, Ohio Governor John W. Bricker and former Governor of Minnesota LtCdr. Harold E. Stassen.

Measure personalities?

Mr. Willkie said:

I hear it said that the Republican Party should sit down and measure personalities and then select a candidate on the basis of his experience in public office.

It is suggested that some man who may have served one, two, three, four, five or six years as a governor is qualified for the Presidency, irresponsible of his stand on issues.

If followed to its logical conclusion, such an argument would require the reelection of President Roosevelt because he has already held three terms, Mr. Willkie added.

Too much experience

He said:

No one has ever said as much experience as Mr. Roosevelt and I hope no one ever again has as much.

Mr. Willkie, making a statewide tour on behalf of his slate of convention delegates at the April 4 primary, spent the remainder of his speaking time criticizing anti-Willkie forces which claim he “is in league with President Roosevelt.”

[NormanStewart]

Roosevelt aides alarmed by left-wing activities

By Lyle C. Wilson, United Press staff writer

Washington –
High administration figures were described today as alarmed by the current prominence of left-wing laborites and Communists in the campaign to continue President Roosevelt in office for a fourth term.

The New York newspaper PM, which loyally supports Mr. Roosevelt, raised the question of administration anxiety in a Washington dispatch which was, in part, as follows:

This fear has mounted as a result of the intensive drive recently undertaken by leading Congress of Industrial Organizations left-wingers to rally public support to a fourth term.

It is now felt that such efforts give the Republicans a valuable propaganda theme… They will undoubtedly cite pronouncements of left-wing CIO leaders, echoing the line of The Daily Worker and demanding that labor extend unconditional support to the President.

Reply expected

Some move to rectify this situation may be expected shortly. There is no question that the White House is alert to the dangers involved in an exclusive left-wing campaign and that, as the campaign gets warmer, steps will be taken to broaden the base of the drive.

The situation causing most of the anxiety mentioned by PM evidently is that developing in New York where the American Labor Party is engaged in the bitterest intraparty political row this country has seen since the Alfred E. Smith and William G. McAdoo forces battled over religion, Prohibition, and related issues in the 1924 Democratic National Convention.

The opposing ALP leaders are saying things about each other that scarcely can fall to damage Mr. Roosevelt’s cause if the Republicans make the expected use of them.

Loyal to Roosevelt

Both ALP factions shout their loyalty to the President.

One faction is led by Rep. Vito Marcantonio (ALP-NY) and Sidney Hillman, a long-time political associate of Mr. Roosevelt and now head the CIO Political Action Committee. Mr. Hillman and Mr. Marcantonio seek to ally the Political Action Committee with the ALP. Theirs is known as the left-wing movement.

Right-wing leaders, who oppose the Hillman-Marcantonio plan to merge CIO political effort with the ALP left wing, are Dean Alfange (last year’s ALP gubernatorial nominee), David Dubinsky (who, like Mr. Hillman, is a garment trades labor leader) and Alex Rose (ALP secretary).

ALP vote important

From the average Republican or Democratic standpoint, both wings of the ALP would be considered radical and the left wing is supported actively and effectively by Communist leaders.

The ALP itself is of major importance in New York because without its support this year it is not likely that Mr. Roosevelt would be able to carry the state against a well-managed Republican candidate.

Mayor Fiorello H. La Guardia of New York, whose fortunes are tied to the ALP, is trying to compose the party differences. In a statement yesterday he absolved Mr. Hillman and several others of the left-wing clique of ever having been members of the Communist Party. His absolution, however, did not include Mr. Marcantonio who represents a Harlem district in the House.

Switched after invasion

Mr. Marcantonio voted against all national defense proposals before Germany attacked Russia, but thereafter became one of the foremost advocates of U.S. preparedness and opposition to the Nazis.

The Mayor’s peace bid was spurned by the right wing, however. In a statement signed by Mr. Rose, Mr. Alfange, Mr. Dubinsky and Dr. George S. Counts, state chairman, the right-wing leaders described the peace plan as an evasion of issues and an attempt “to confuse the party’s enrolled voters.”

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (March 25, 1944)

GOP attacks foreign policy

House ‘freshmen’ confer with Hull

Washington (UP) –
Republican freshmen of the House, unimpressed by Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s outline of U.S. foreign policy, today appeared ready to project into the 1944 political campaign what they described as the administration’s “do-nothing” attitude on international affairs.

They generally agreed that “more action” was necessary and that it would be well to press for a clearer definition of this nation’s relationships with other world powers.

Mr. Hull met with the 24 first-term GOP members yesterday, but later announced that he was not authorized to reveal what had been discussed.

Not convinced

The House members, however, emphasized they were not convinced that U.S. policy is all that it should be and few had comments favorable to Mr. Hull.

One Congressman described Mr. Hull as concerned about many phases of world affairs and relations among the Allies. He quoted the secretary as saying that Great Britain and Russia are no longer on speaking terms because of the Polish border dispute.

There was no confirmation of his observations at the State Department.

Policy called ‘silence’

Rep. Clare Boothe Luce (R-CT) observed that:

Silence is still the settled policy of our State Department.

The Congressman who gave his version of Mr. Hull’s talk said the Secretary told in detail how he had taken to Moscow a blueprint of a plan for post-war treatment of Germany even though he had been advised by the Soviet Ambassador here that the Moscow conference must be confined to ways of defeating the Germans.

He quoted Mr. Hull as saying that he did not try to bring up the plan at the formal discussions, but finally gave a mimeographed copy to British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden and Soviet Foreign Vice Commissar Maxim Litvinov with a request that they look it over.

On ‘right track’

Mr. Hull reportedly said that Eden and Litvinov, when asked four days later how they liked it, both thought it was on the “right track” but that neither has said another word about it since.

The same Congressional source said Mr. Hull told the conference that the Polish border dispute was holding up many important international negotiations. It was then that he allegedly said Britain and Russia are no longer on speaking terms.

Farm story told

Asked about the United States’ policy on the Polish border dispute, Mr. Hull was quoted as saying that Britain and Russia were like two farmers arguing over the dividing line between their respective farms, and that the U.S. would play the role of the clear-headed third farmer and keep out of the argument, although try to bring about a peaceful settlement.

The Congressman quoted Mr. Hull as describing the Polish border dispute as “microscopic” and that in truth border controversies would be settled after, not during, the war.

[NormanStewart]

Dewey blasts curbs placed on war news

Several cases cited by New Yorker

New York (UP) –
Governor Thomas E. Dewey, a possible candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, charged last night that apparently “newspapers are being denied the right to print all the news” and laid part of the blame to “administration policy.”

Mr. Dewey told the annual meeting of the New York Press Photographers Association:

Unfortunately there have been increasing signs of late that our newspapers are being denied the right to print all the news.

Vital news withheld

Important matters have repeatedly been withheld for months until they leaked out and became the subject of such widespread gossip that they could no longer be suppressed.

He mentioned several alleged instances of news suppression.

He asserted:

Only now do we learn, because it leaked out, of the shooting down of 23 transport planes and the killing of 410 American paratroopers in Sicily, eight months ago. Even after a presidential broadcast, we still know precisely nothing of what really happened at the much-heralded conference in Tehran.

Pravda’s attacks cited

We only know of the disquieting evidence of disunity which have since occurred in the Pravda attacks on the British and the Vatican, followed by the startling repercussions, brought out by the President’s announcement of the three-way division of the Italian fleet.

He said that it was understood that certain news of a military nature should be withheld but that:

The events of which I speak have not been suppressed to keep information from the enemy so much as to keep them from our own people.

Mr. Dewey praised the U.S. press in cooperating with voluntary censorship, but added that:

The stakes in this war are too high for it to be fought in the dark. The issues are too momentous. It is time we had light as we fight for freedom.

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: The Republicans miss a bet

In some Republican circles, the idea got around, earlier in the year, that it would be a smart thing to divide up the ballot for the November election.

No definite plan was made public, but it was indicated the proposal would be submitted to the special legislative session which Governor Martin plans to call to enact soldier vote legislation.

There were varying notions of how the ballot ought to be divided. Some favored putting only candidates for President and Vice President on a separate ballot; others preferring to include the offices of U.S. Senator and Congressman on the presidential ballot. The other ballot would be for state and local offices.

The idea is not new. Governor Bricker induced the Ohio Legislature to enact such a law before the 1940 election and he, a Republican, was safely reelected although President Roosevelt carried the state by a substantial majority.

The plan has been proposed at several sessions of the Pennsylvania Legislature but always rejected by leaders of both parties.

Now the Republican Executive Committee, under the chairmanship of Senator M. Harvey Taylor of Harrisburg, one of the leaders who has helped scuttle the plan in previous sessions, has decided to oppose a split ballot.

This action is not based on any idealistic reason. Senator Taylor explained it himself when he said:

We are confident that Pennsylvania will go overwhelmingly Republican.

Political leaders, both Republican and Democratic, are against this plan because straight ballot voting enables them to load up an election ticket with run-of-mine candidates, easily bossed, who can ride into office on the coattails of the head of the ticket.

But such politicians are short-sighted, especially the Republicans. If the ballot had been split in the 1936 and 1940 elections, Republicans might have fared better. And if it had been split in the 1938 election, when the electorate voted against Governor Earle, the Democrats might not have lost so many Congressmen.

But aside from the practical political issue, which is relatively insignificant, the split ballot is in the public interest. Election laws would be even more in the public interest if straight-ticket voting were eliminated altogether.

By encouraging votes for candidates, each on his individual merit, instead of parties, voter discretion would be greatly enhanced, a better class of candidates would be developed and public officials would become more responsive to the wishes of the electorate.

The Republicans, in scotching this idea, have missed a practical political bet and have rejected a plan which ultimately would lead to more satisfactory political organizations.

[NormanStewart]

Federal probe urged by Bricker

Birmingham, Alabama (UP) –
Governor John W. Bricker of Ohio, making a bid for the support of Alabama Republicans in his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, last night proposed an investigation of the “entire governmental structure” of this country and the immediate liquidation of all agencies not performing “an essential function.”

Mr. Bricker charged that the “New Deal’s ineptitude in administering even the ordinary affairs of government” had resulted in a “labyrinth” of agencies and bureaus, making coordination:

…hopeless and impossible to attain in the face of duplication, confusion, inefficiency and the totally unwarranted waste of manpower and money.

[NormanStewart]

Stokes: MacArthur

By Thomas L. Stokes

Milwaukee, Wisconsin –
The word here is that Gen. Douglas MacArthur is a receptive candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.

“It has been indicated to prominent Republicans that he won’t do anything to get the nomination, but if he gets it, he will accept it,” was the way it was put by Lansing Hoyt, manager of the MacArthur campaign for convention delegates in the April 4 primary in which the general has three rivals – Wendell L. Willkie, Governor Dewey and LtCdr. Harold Stassen, ex-Governor of Minnesota.

Mr. Hoyt added mysteriously:

I can’t tell you how I found that out.

He is hopeful that Gen. MacArthur will roll up such an impressive vote in this state, where he spent his youthful years, that it will set off a national movement that will sweep into the Chicago convention next June. He has so contrived it that the general will have every opportunity for a popular demonstration.

Gen. MacArthur is the only candidate of either party in the primary who is entered also for the presidential preference vote as distinct from the vote for delegates. The popular preferential vote has no relation to the selection of delegates, but a heavy popular vote might make an impression.

Mr. Hoyt was chairman of the America First Committee of Wisconsin and the whole tenor of the MacArthur campaign is to appeal to the isolationist sentiment once so predominant in this state. There still seems to be some latent isolationism.

MacArthur an ‘all-American’

Why are the isolationists supporting Gen. MacArthur?

Mr. Hoyt replied:

Because they think he is all-American. Anybody who’s been out all over the world realizes that the other nations are trying to put it over America. Gen. MacArthur feels the same way, we think. We feel that the United States has to assert its own rights.

Mr. Hoyt, a tall, slender, amiable gentleman with thinning gray hair, a dabbler in Wisconsin politics for years and an engineer by profession, has traveled widely, particularly in the Orient. He has developed a strong anti-British attitude.

With a twinkle in his eye, he related that he was in charge of Wendell Willkie’s 1940 campaign meeting in Milwaukee.

He is directing the MacArthur campaign from three small, sparely furnished rooms in an old office building here. He has no paid staff. The movement is entirely voluntary, he said.

The “native son” angle is being stressed in the campaign. Gen. MacArthur went to grade school and high school here. From here he was appointed to West Point. His grandfather moved to Wisconsin in 1837 and was fifth governor of the state. His father was raised here.

The general is hailed in a campaign dodger widely distributed as a representative of “American interests,” for “his ability to make friends of labor” and as a military man and an administrator. A studied effort is made to meet the argument that the general should remain in command in the Pacific, which Mr. Hoyt labels as “that old New Deal propaganda,” by the counterargument that he should sit in Washington where, as President, he could direct the whole war.

Points to 1940 primary

Mr. Hoyt claims victory for Gen. MacArthur on the basis of the 1940 presidential primary here in which Governor Dewey got 60% of the votes – and all the delegates – and Senator Vandenberg of Michigan got 40%. He expects Gen. MacArthur, he said, to get the Vandenberg 40%, with the other 60% divided among the governor, Wendell Willkie and LtCdr. Stassen.

The former Dewey support, he contends, will be split with Messrs. Willkie and Stassen because Governor Dewey is classed as an “internationalist” on account of his advocacy of a British-American alliance at the Mackinac Conference last September.

With some pride, Mr. Hoyt related how President Roosevelt’s name was withdrawn from the popular preference vote – though a full slate of Roosevelt delegates are entered in the Democratic primary – just an hour after he had filed Gen. MacArthur’s name for the preference vote on the Republican ticket.

“They didn’t want a contrast,” he said.

Democrats are the third party in this state.

[NormanStewart]

Willkie warns of invasion tie-up

Beloit, Wisconsin (UP) –
Although the Allied invasion of Europe will have a profound effect upon the thinking of the American people at election time, the crisis will not necessitate the reelection of President Roosevelt because the country never again will live in a placid hour, Wendell Willkie said yesterday.

Mr. Willkie, making a 13-day statewide pre-primary speaking tour on behalf of his slate of Republican delegate-candidates, predicted the western invasion would begin the next “two or three months.”

He said:

If the present administration is reelected on the basis that this will be a critical moment, it will be reelected again and again, and again because no one in this country who didn’t live before World War I will know what it is to live in a placid hour.

Mr. Willkie called upon the Republican Party to stand for “greater, more effective” contributions and sacrifice for the war.

He denied that a new President would “dismember” America’s fighting units, and said a new Chief Executive would “enliven the Army and give it new power and inspiration.”

Earlier in the day, in an address at Burlington, Wisconsin, Mr. Willkie said he was wholeheartedly behind the administration’s dealing with Éire, and didn’t believe Irish-American Democrats would swing over to the GOP because of the President’s stand.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (March 26, 1944)

Barkley praises party’s record

Charleston, West Virginia (UP) – (March 25)
Senate Majority Leader Alben W. Barkley (D-KY) reviewed the legislative accomplishments of the New Deal tonight and observed that it was unnecessary to emphasize the need for “continuity of leadership” during the war and in the peace to follow.

Senator Barkley told West Virginia Democratic leaders, at a $25-a-plate Jefferson Day dinner, that Americans were “sensible and level-headed people” and that they would not vote in November according to “temporary inconveniences” which he said would never have been tolerated except for the emergency.

In his first major political address since the recent disagreement with President Roosevelt over the tax bill veto, Senator Barkley said there would be those during the coming campaign who would seek to “magnify irksome restrictions and exploit sore toes,” but there such “political ineptitude” would be unavailing.

He declared that there had been “some domestic differences” between Congress and the Chief Executive, but that, on the whole, the Congress had supported the President to an extent never before achieved in American history and that the United States had made greater progress in the prosecution of the war because of that fact.

Oklahomans to hear Senator Barkley

Muskogee, Oklahoma (UP) – (March 25)
Senator Alben W. Barkley will keynote an all-out “party unity” campaign upon which the Democrats base their hopes for victory in next Tuesday’s important second district Congressional election which has attracted national interest as a “border state” political thermometer.

[NormanStewart]

Hull claims comment garbled

Washington (UP) –
Secretary of State Cordell Hull said today that accounts given by some Republican Congressmen of their foreign policy discussion with him yesterday were “garbled and inaccurate in important respects.”

Mr. Hull’s brief statement, made in response to a request for comment, follows:

As is usual when a few people get to talking about an off-the-record discussion, second-hand accounts are garbled and inaccurate in important respects, as in this case.

The State Department would not undertake to give what it considered a correct version.

The Republicans, describing the administration as having too much of a “do-nothing” attitude on international affairs, appeared to be preparing to inject that theme in their political campaign.

[NormanStewart]

‘Get into open,’ Dewey dared by Hannegan

Governor is called ‘blushing violet’

Boston, Massachusetts (UP) – (March 25)
Democratic National Committee Chairman Robert E. Hannegan tonight described New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey, leading potential candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, as a “blushing violet” and challenged him to “come out into the sunshine.”

Speaking at a Jackson Day dinner, Mr. Hannegan also challenged minority party spokesmen to discuss openly and frankly government scandals and other incidents that transpired under Republican rule following the end of the Civil War and World War I.

Without identifying Mr. Dewey by name, Mr. Hannegan said his challenge was inspired by predictions of newspaper correspondents that the Republicans would nominate for the Presidency a man who is not even a candidate in the party primaries.

‘Smirking and lurking’

Mr. Hannegan said:

They report that he is smirking and lurking and dodging behind the pretense that he is not a candidate for the Presidency, and hence has no obligation to discuss the fundamental problems which lie before the American people.

If Republican leaders plan to put over such a candidate, then we propose to turn on the searchlight of truth so that all may know their plans.

He described as “arrogance” and as a “libel on our citizenry” a statement which he said Republican National Committee Chairman Harrison E. Spangler made to the effect that the GOP “can win the Presidency with anybody.”

‘Offer nothing’

Mr. Hannegan said:

This means that the Republican Party, in the opinion of its leaders, needs to offer the American people nothing at all – which, in the way of constructive principles, is exactly what the Republican Party has.

It means that the Republican Party is expecting America to accept its own social and economic bankruptcy – take it and like it. It means that our people do not desire nor deserve leadership based on principles of freedom and equality, in the opinion of leaders of the Republican Party.

Mr. Spangler has repeatedly said that he was misquoted in the “win-the-anybody” statement made at a press conference in Chicago during the meeting of the GOP National Committee recently. He contends he said the party could win with anyone the convention nominated, explaining that it “would not nominate a weak candidate.”

Irish issue mentioned

Mr. Hannegan touched lightly on the recent refusal of the Irish Free State to accede to President Roosevelt’s request that Axis missions in Éire be closed for the duration on the ground that they are the sources of espionage activities which threaten the safety of Allied forces poised in England for the invasion of the continent.

Noting that many of his listeners were Irish, Mr. Hannegan said:

The land of our forefathers is in the news these days – not as we Americans would have it, not in the time-honored tradition, not in the great part that Ireland has ever played through the ages in man’s fight for freedom.

Three problems listed

Today, he said, “there is frustration; there is bewilderment. Irish eyes are not smiling.”

Three major problems, he said, will face the post-war world:

• Formation of a just and equitable plan for taking care of the nation’s 11 million returning soldiers and sailors.

• Reconversion to peacetime needs of America’s vast and sprawling war machine.

• Adoption of a peace plan providing cooperation with other nations to banish war from the face of the globe.

[NormanStewart]

Gen. Hurley is mentioned as keynoter for GOP

Washington – (March 25)
Maj. Gen. Patrick J. Hurley, Secretary of War in the Hoover Cabinet and now roving ambassador for President Roosevelt, is being discussed here as a possible keynoter for the Republican National Convention at Chicago in June.

Gen. Hurley’s name, put forward by Rep. Leo E. Allen (R-IL), elicited a favorable response in many Congressional quarters, where it was agreed that he not only would be an excellent choice as the keynote speaker, but that he might develop formidable strength as a vice-presidential possibility.

His colorful career, his military record and his forthright manner of speaking qualify him, in the opinion of his backers, for a place in the front rank of contenders for these posts, while his strongly nationalistic views, coupled with his “energetic support” of Mr. Roosevelt’s foreign policy, would make him an asset to the entire Republican campaign.

The choice of a keynoter will be made by the Committee on Arrangements which will meet April 18 and 19 in Chicago. Others mentioned as possible keynoters are: Rep. Clare Boothe Luce (R-CT), Senator Edward H. Moore (R-OK), Senator Chapman Revercomb (R-WV), Pennsylvania Governor Edward Martin and Illinois Governor Dwight H. Green.

Started as miner

Born in the Choctaw Nation before it became Oklahoma, Gen. Hurley made his way from a humble beginning as a coalminer and a cowboy to positions of prominence in the legal profession and in government. his military record is unusual, in that he has held every rank in the Army from private to a major general.

During World War I, he participated in the Aisne-Marne, Meuse-Argonne and Saint-Mihiel offensives. President Hoover appointed him Assistant Secretary of War when he formed his Cabinet in March 1929, and, late in the same year, promoted him to the secretaryship.

On domestic issues, Gen. Hurley opposes governmental ownership in general, and is an ardent believer in private enterprise; yet, abhorring communism and those who advocate its adoption in this country, he is a strong believer in Russia as a world power.

At Tehran Conference

He has long been a member of the English-Speaking Union and believes that the future peace of the world rests upon the maintenance of Great Britain in her present position of eminence.

As one of the President’s aides at the Tehran Conference, he drafted the Iran declaration guaranteeing the independence of Iran and reaffirming the principles of the Atlantic Charter. For several months, moreover, he has been ironing out differences and difficulties between the British and the United States in Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Near Eastern countries.

He thus is being suggested by his friends as the logical answer to the problem which the Republicans face this year in charting a course between the isolationist elements of the party and the interventionist supporters of Wendell L. Willkie.

[NormanStewart]

The New York Times (March 26, 1944)

Support of fourth term is growing despite anti-New Deal feeling

By James E. Crown

New Orleans, Louisiana – (March 25)
Theodore “The Man” Bilbo (D-MS) pointed probably to the most authoritative political trend of the Deep South when, in addressing the joint session of the Mississippi Legislature, he urged the renomination of President Roosevelt for a fourth term.

For some months now, especially in Louisiana and Mississippi, there has been considerable agitation against renaming the President and against the New Deal. The Deep South is still against the New Deal, but opposition to the nomination of Mr. Roosevelt is waning. The tendency in the South now is to select, if possible, a conservative candidate to run as Vice President. In some quarters it is hoped that this man will come from the South. The names of Senator George (D-GA), Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn, and in some quarters, Governor of Louisiana Sam Jones, are being mentioned.

Not only the Deep South, but the entire Mississippi Valley is now trying to form a movement to have transportation facilities of the Mississippi River improved. Advocates of greater use of water transportation are organizing all up and down the great artery.

Last year, according to figures made public this week, more than 9,000,000 tons of freight were floated up and down ole man river.

The transportation problem is one that is being wisely studied in the South. It is believed that river transportation will do much toward development of the states bordering the Mississippi.

[NormanStewart]

Willkie’s campaign arouses the voters; draft causes concern

By Roland M. Jones

Omaha, Nebraska – (March 25)
Interest in the Midwest is focused quite sharply on national politics, particularly on the Republican situation. This stems from the imminence of the Wisconsin and Nebraska primaries, the presence of Wendell Willkie, making his campaign tout, and the approach of conventions in Minnesota, Iowa and Kansas. The issue, as voters see it, tends to crystallize into a question of Willkie or anti-Willkie.

Opinion is common that those Midwestern states which turned thumbs down on the third term four years ago will protest even more emphatically against a fourth term this year, with the expectation that they will be joined by many others. But Republican feeling is not so much that the party can win with any candidate as that it matters more than ever who the candidate is.

Increasing concern is felt over the prospect of further service drafts on the labor supply, emphasized by repeated warnings of State Selective Service directors to local draft boards. It is presumed that agriculture will be less affected than small industrial plants having war contracts, but there is an indication that it will feel some of the pinch by the time the harvest season arrives. Operating farmers are well enough protected, but it seems inevitable that hired labor will be harder than ever to get.

Notwithstanding the attention which has been given the soldier vote issue, there is little to indicate any deep popular feeling about the matter, one way or another. Some state absentee voter laws have already been liberalized and others will be, but there still remains considerable question about how many of the absent sons will ever receive their local ballots.

[NormanStewart]

Chicago Tribune stirs up the voters against Willkie

By Louther S. Horne

Chicago, Illinois – (March 25)
Citizens of the Central states became increasingly aware this week that Col. Robert R. McCormick and his Chicago Tribune, pre-war non-interventionists and harsh critics of the Roosevelt administration, are factors to be reckoned with both in the selection of a Republican presidential nominee here in June and in the fall campaign to determine the next White House occupant.

This belief has long been prevalent throughout Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin, Tribune circulation territory. Here, large numbers of people either praise or denounce The Tribune’s editorial criticism of the war strategy, its tirades against the administration’s domestic and international policies, the Communists, “global planners” and bureaucrats.

Among this segment of public opinion, the Chicago publisher and his paper loomed larger than ever as political influences after Wendell Willkie, speaking in Wisconsin, “read” Col. McCormick out of the Republican Party, a step the colonel had taken against the party’s 1940 candidate some months ago.

Certain defeat and the re-election of President Roosevelt, Mr. Willkie predicted, face the Republicans if the “taint” of The Tribune’s editorial “preachments” of “narrow nationalism and economic Toryism” is imposed upon the party’s nominee and platform. The people, he said, do not want the leadership “of the Col. McCormick.”

This challenge to the colonel and The Tribune from “the barefoot boy from Wall Street,” as the paper terms Mr. Willkie met a quick retort. Asserting that “Willkie is not so stupid as to think he has a chance of getting the Republican nomination,” The Tribune asked, “What game is Willkie up to?”

Col. McCormick, who refused to have his name placed in the Illinois preferential primary by the Republican Nationalist Revival Committee, an isolationist group, favors Gen. MacArthur as the Republican nominee. If Governor Dewey is picked, The Tribune undoubtedly will support him in the election.

But if Willkie is the choice, what will The Tribune do? That is a question often asked.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (March 27, 1944)

Hull: Governor Dewey wrong

Washington (UP) –
Secretary of State Cordell Hull said today that Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York was “100% wrong in the accuracy of his statement” that the State Department had requested the British censors to suppress political news sent to the United States.

Mr. Dewey said last week while awarding prizes at the annual exhibit of the press photographers association of New York:

When we find the State Department requesting the British censor to suppress political news sent to American papers by American correspondents abroad, it begins to amount to deliberate and dangerous suppression of news at home.