Wilson won because Roosevelt took Taft’s votes away. Taft didn’t even win Ohio in 1912!
Not that Taft was any good. Living in Ohio, you kind of learn to hate the name Taft. I’m no Taft historian, but I hear he was a better Supreme Court Justice than president. (Jordan you know any more about that?)
Looking back, TR was pretty cool. Bully for him for giving it another shot. And yes, I know about the phillipines. All that being said, “the people” voted more to the right than to the left (these distinctions were pretty fuzzy back then anyway). The point is, progressive and old-school republicans split the vote allowing a weak democratic party to still win the big office. So, are pluralities acceptable mandates, then?
I will say that I think Wilson sucked too, for different reasons. Treaty of What? League of What? Then again, it isn’t fair to lay all the blame for WWII or depression on Wilson.
Also, you have a point, Scottie, that the US should pick it’s battles. You vaguely suggest that Afghanistan and Korea were the right battles, Iraq is the wrong battle, and Vietnam somewhere in the middle, but mostly the wrong battle. What about WWI? What dog did the US have in that fight? A point Chomsky made (in the same 9/11 book) that I kinda-sorta agree with is that the US didn’t have a dog in the fight but jumped in anyway. There was the Lusitania, FWIW, …
I wish I could continue, but I can’t keep playing right now.
Posted at 04:42 pm by Johnny B
||Posted by BP @ 12/10/2004 12:45 PM PST
Wikipedia is absolutely one of the best websites on Earth. I can find something on just about EVERYTHING on this site.