Remember: No Phony Democrats!

[Laelth]

No Phony Democrats! That’s how we LOSE.

The first rule in my book is that we have to stick by the liberal principles of the Democratic Party. We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it.

The record the Democratic Party has made in the last 20 years is the greatest political asset any party ever had in the history of the world. We would be foolish to throw it away. There is nothing our enemies would like better and nothing that would do more to help them win an election.

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are--when he stands up ... and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.

Harry S. Truman, May 17, 1952

https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/129/address-national-convention-banquet-americans-democratic-action

-Laelth

[NurseJackie]

1. Oh, brother!

[Laelth]

4. Only 99.44% pure?

Not good enough!

Take up your fight with Truman, Jackie. I think he’s buried in MO, somewhere. Dismiss his advice at your peril (and consider the effects on the rest of us while you are at it, please).



-Laelth

[NurseJackie]

14. Sorry to be the one to point this out... but 2020 is much different than 1952.

It's a different time. It's a different world. The "sage wisdom" of people born just 20 years after Abraham Lincoln was assassinated may have been fitting and appropriate for his time, but not ours.

Dismiss his advice at your peril (and consider the effects on the rest of us while you are at it, please).

What a ridiculous thing to say. Nobody is in "peril" because I dismiss quotes from nearly 70 years ago. GMAB!

[Laelth]

38. You don't give yourself enough credit.

Certainly, your words and your actions have SOME effect on the world.



I hear you. It’s not 1947. It’s 2020. Now the Democratic Party has nearly 100 years worth of liberal reforms to be proud of and to celebrate. We won in 2018 by celebrating the ACA (which is generally loved). We’re in good shape so long as we remain a liberal party.

-Laelth

[NurseJackie]

42. Well...

You don't give yourself enough credit.

Certainly, your words and your actions have SOME effect on the world.

Not as much as you're suggesting, and certainly not in a reckless way that results in some unknown "peril" for everyone.

It's like I'm being compared to that Amazon butterfly who flapped his wings and created a slight puff of air that set off a domino-effect chain of events that culminated with a typhoon.

[Laelth]

46. What you say matters to me, Jackie.

I will leave it at that and wish you well.



-Laelth

[NurseJackie]

49. Thanks.

Stay safe.

[mcar]

2. ...

[Laelth]

23. Only on DU can a quote from Harry S. Truman get a facepalm.

I love this place. Cheers!



-Laelth

[Squinch]

3. Remember! Control of the committees and even the

control of both Congressional houses depends on NUMBERS. Not purity.

The one with the most numbers controls what laws get passed. Whether we agree with each member on everything or not.

[Laelth]

7. I am not calling for Manchin's resignation ... yet.

Unless we win both the Georgia Senate seats, or unless we can convince Collins and Murkowski to become Democrats, the issue is moot.

I am disappointed, but I doubt that the Senator from WV cares about my opinion.

-Laelth

[brooklynite]

47. If you DO call for Manchin's resignation, it will be moot as well...

[Laelth]

55. Obviously.

I am nowhere near as powerful as you think that I think I am.

-Laelth

[Hortensis]

48. Good. Because we do not lose because of what is wrongly

being called "phony" Democrats. Static black-and-white thinking in an incredibly complex dynamic.

Our multi-dimensional diversity is a huge part of our strength and sustainable, liberalism-dominated ideology. As always in the past, our diversity has helped keep us strongly liberally oriented and protected us from the extremism that has taken over the right.

We genuinely need some moderate, progressive conservatives, like Manchin and many of those who elect him, and, of course, we also genuinely need them not to join the authoritarian right against us.

You may have seen this graph on another post. This time, please note that strong, steady blue line protecting democracy. That's us, the liberal big tent, who represent almost all of the many factions Americans identify as. And so far we've always won. That red line is what ideological diversity has protected us from becoming.

[Laelth]

58. I guess Truman was an idiot then, huh?

Your fight is with him. I just posted his words.



-Laelth

[MrsCoffee]

71. Except you didn't just post his words.

Anyone reading your multiple posts in this thread can see this quite clearly.

[Laelth]

76. In the OP, yes. It's 95% Truman's words.

I admit that I have strong feelings about this subject. I have expressed some of them in other threads and in my responses here. That’s OK, isn’t it?

I just pulled in Truman for support of my position. Certainly that’s OK on Democratic Underground. I would hope so.



-Laelth

[MrsCoffee]

83. Indeed.

“We will not win just by increasing the turnout of the people who already agree with us completely on everything,” Obama said. “Which is why I am always suspicious of purity tests during elections. Because, you know what, the country is complicated.”

[Hortensis]

74. :) I bet I have more Truman biographies than you.

He started out as an avowed Dixiecrat, you know, but only LW extremists would call him a phony Democrat and then only when they weren't instead arguing all Democrats were really just phony Democrats.

His entire political life he worked with everyone he could woo into working with him. He was big hearted and and very inclusive, a lot like Biden, and that was a big factor in what would be considered one of the truly great presidencies if it weren't for the Korean War.

[Laelth]

79. I admit that I have not read a lot about Truman.

But what I have read had generated deep admiration in me, and I firmly believe that he has been underrated, historically. He was a GREAT President.



-Laelth

[Hortensis]

86. Agree. :) He's almost too nice for me, actually, but

a GREAT president when we needed him. Now, LBJ -- that's a president I can admire enormously and want to take a stick to at the same time, or at least in the same chapters.

[Laelth]

94. LBJ?

Now, that’s absolutely one of the baddest-assessed Presidents in our history. He was an English teacher (like me) from the South (like me) and a die-hard liberal (like me). His list of achievements is a mile long.

Among Johnson’s liberal achievements are Medicare; Medicaid; Legal Aid; federal funding for education including creation of the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Public Broadcasting Act; the Revenue Act of 1964; the Economic Opportunity Act; the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

http://laelth.blogspot.com/2011/01/turning-american-ship-of-state.html

That’s how I feel about LBJ. The linked article is long, but I would be honored if you would take a look at it.



-Laelth

[Demsrule86]

77. Are you kidding...we will have a 5050 seat if we win the Georgia seats...

We already have new elected senators that are more like Manchin than AOC. If Manchin resigned. Mitch is back in control no matter what happens in Georgia. Moderates took the House and that is a fact. We can't have three members in +30 districts calling the shots unless we want to lose the house as well as the Senate. I do believe some of the messaging as well as the stimulus (which was not our fault) cost us house seats.

Name one liberal/progressive senator who has won in the last 10 years. I hate using the word progressive this way because we are all progressive and liberal.We all have our opinions but everyone one of us here are progressive. But defund the police certainly was not a winning message for us. Consider California... a progressive state. Affirmative action lost in there for God's sake as did the Uber bill,rent control and getting rid of cash bail. We won back three seats from the blue wave year of 2018 in California, but we lost three incumbents. And fucking Issa is back. If we must win by attracting more moderates to a big tent party than so be it. And those squad members complaining when we have to work now to win Georgia Senate and kick Mitch to the curb ...are not helping our efforts. The bottom line is winning is everything. We get nothing if we don't win. We need a big tent party and a 50 state strategy. Our message needs to be 'conservatism sucks and here is why'...not attacking our own.

[Laelth]

85. Many of us will suffer GREATLY for the next two years under a divided government.

It’s that simple. I am not happy about it. Manchin isn’t helping.

We NEED to eliminate the filibuster. We NEED to modernize the SCOTUS. It’s a punch in the gut to hear a Democratic Senator declare that he will vote with the Republicans on these issues.

-Laelth

[Squinch]

99. You'd suffer less without Manchin? (Hint: No. You wouldn't.)

[Spazito]

5. Who do you see as phony Dems? n/t

[dware]

6. How about Joe Manchin?

[Squinch]

11. How about, I don't like him at all. But if he did not have a "D" after his name, these Georgia

Senate races would be completely moot, and we would have no chance of getting control of the Senate.

No mainstream Dem would be able to be elected in his state. Better we have him than we don't.

[Spazito]

12. Really?

Can you explain further?

[dware]

15. His comments the other day,

need I say more?

[NurseJackie]

17. I love Joe Manchin! He's great! So glad to have him there!

[dware]

19. I guess I should clarify myself,

I'm disappointed by his comments the other day, but I too am glad he's there, otherwise we might have some RWNJ filling his seat.

[Spazito]

25. So, you are upset with him but don't see him as a "phony Democrat"....

Last edited Fri Nov 13, 2020, 12:34 PM - Edit history (1)

correct?

I have read some people are upset with other politicians left of Senator Manchin for what they have said but have never seen them being called "phony Democrats" and I sure hope that is not going to be a label used by anyone toward any Democrat.

Edited to add the missing word "hope".

[dware]

28. Correct.

I don't believe he's a phony dem, but some of his actions and comments are disappointing to me.

[Spazito]

32. I don't think you are alone in that at all...

thanks for responding.

[FoxNewsSucks]

27. Other than the numerical need for his presence,

what exactly makes him "great"?

[NurseJackie]

36. He may not vote with the Democrats as often as we'd like, but he does so...

He may not vote with the Democrats as often as we'd like, but he does so MORE than an actual Republican would do. Thirty percent (or whatever the number may be) is a hell of a lot better than ZERO percent. Isn't that enough for you?

But you're an intelligent individual, you don't need me to explain all this to you. Obviously he's not a Vermont-style senator with those types of sensibilities or priorities. He's a reflection of his constituents and it's important to accept that fact. Most rational people understand that the New England-type of politicians who are most adored by the far-left of our party could NEVER be elected in West Virginia... surely you can agree with me on that.

I live in the real world. We're damned lucky to have Joe Manchin. I think he's great!

Count your blessings.

[FoxNewsSucks]

56. I am glad he's there,

by numerical I was meaning the head count for control of the Senate, not his voting record. I'm perfectly fine with his votes when they aren't essential. What gets people angry with him is going out making the kind of statements he did earlier this week, on votes that are essential.

Even the republicons allow some vote-defectors at times, for the obvious same reason. But when it's something they really want (Beer-bong Brett comes to mind) they stay loyal to their party. For the good of the country, Manchin should do the same.

As I've said elsewhere, if Democrats hadn't dropped the ball on this country's media, we would not be in such a bad position. And those "New England-style" politicians would actually have a good chance of getting elected all over the country if their policies and positions were presented objectively.

So until that changes, I'll certainly agree with the necessity of Joe Manchin and his voting record, I just wish he'd be a little less eager to go on TV announcing his opposition to things the Democratic party wants and needs.

[Demsrule86]

82. Me too Jackie...some here need to read about who was reelected in California on our side and

what measures passed. We live in a center left country...and all our Senate gains have been moderate to conservative lately.

[Laelth]

9. Today, I am still grinding my teeth over Joe Manchin's recent remarks.

That said, the post is a reminder to all Democrats of all stripes, everywhere.

-Laelth

[Spazito]

20. So, if I read this correctly, your OP, it is a reminder for the....

future and not calling Senator Manchin or any other Democrat a "phony Democrat", good to know.

[Laelth]

26. Only on DU can a quote from Harry S. Truman generate such scrutiny.

I love this place. Thank you, and cheers!



-Laelth

[Spazito]

29. Isn't it great!

Nothing passes without scrutiny and request for context here which is why I love it so much. We learn from each other, question each other and support each other when needed.

[FoxNewsSucks]

37. I don't know if I would consider attempting to

goad other posters into using a rule-breaking phrase to be "support".

We need to remember that the real enemy is the republicon party and its enablers. Their policies hurt the vast majority of Americans, but because they control nearly all the media and have manipulated the election process, that minority gets their way far too often.

We here should not be each other's enemy.

[Laelth]

41. It's Truman's phrase, not mine.

If a quote from Harry S. Truman constitutes rule-breaking on DU, perhaps the forum should change its name.

-Laelth

[Demsrule86]

80. +10000

[BComplex]

30. We used to have a phony dem called Joe Lieberman...and he ran as VP to Al Gore.

Those were sad days.

[Spazito]

35. Actually Joe was a Democrat, a conservative Democrat to be sure...

and not my favorite one. I was disappointed when Gore chose him and thought it was a mistake but I don't believe he was a "phony Democrat" but, rather, one I didn't often agree with.

[BComplex]

39. Seeing as how he spoke at the republican convention for bush the next time around, I'd say

he was a phony democrat.

[Spazito]

45. Well, he was listed as an "Independent Democrat", I believe...

separating him from the usual "Democrat" designation, at the time he spoke at the 2008 Convention endorsing his long time friend Senator McCain for President so you might well have a point.

[FoxNewsSucks]

65. He changed that

to "independent Democrat", and made his own party-of-one after losing the Democratic primary.

He worked very hard to sabotage the ACA, and supported republicons.

Ex-Democrat is the title he deserves now.

[Spazito]

69. Ex Democrat is definitely the title he deserves now...

he did vote for the final ACA bill but was responsible for the removal of the public option and that was despicable in my eyes. As I said in other posts he was certainly not my favorite Dem, in fact, I didn't like him at all.

[Laelth]

52. Lieberman ignored the results of the CT primary and ran AGAINST its candidate.

He ran under the banner of the “Lieberman for Connecticut” party. That’s not a Democrat, in my book.

-Laelth

[Spazito]

57. and that's why the Democratic Party distanced themselves from him at that time...

by giving him the designation "Independent Democrat", an Independent that caucused with the Democrats in reality.

[Laelth]

61. He did caucus with us, yes, but I would have preferred Lamont. n/t

-Laelth

[Spazito]

64. Oh, me too, no argument again from me on that...

Lieberman irritated me beyond belief and I would mute my television when he is on and, truth be told, I do that to Manchin sometimes as well. I have a problem, however, using "phony Democrat" to describe either. Lieberman did and Manchin does support key Democratic bills in the Senate and that, to me, is more important than putting labels on them.

[FoxNewsSucks]

68. Those things may be true,

but Manchin announced this week that even if we get the two Georgia seats, on key Democratic needs (such as undoing republicon damage to the courts) he will oppose the Democratic position so there will be no tie for Harris to break.

That's beyond irritating.

[Spazito]

73. Manchin has often made public pronouncement like this...

but when push comes to shove and key bills are dependent on his vote he actually votes for them so I tend to take what he says publicly with a big grain of salt.

I have no doubt there is always a behind the scenes negotiation with him which allows him to vote against some bills but only when there are enough other Dem votes to get the bills across the line and that happens with more than just Manchin, imo. Allowing Dems to cater specifically to their constituents, be they left for right, by voting against some bills where the overall vote will pass it anyway is not new or particularly rare, imo.

[Demsrule86]

84. Joe Lieberman was primaried and ran as an independent...it is my opinion had we not

primaried him, we would have a public option today.

[Spazito]

54. That definitely seems like a Dixiecrat Dem, the epitome of "phony Dem"...

for sure. No argument there from me.

[Demsrule86]

87. He is not a Democrat and has resigned his seat.

I fail to see your point.

[lagomorph777]

8. We agree on WAY more than we disagree on.

Let's focus on that for 2022 (and Jan 5th, 2021).

Manchin may be an exception. We'll have to wait and see whether that much compromise actually returns any value.

[Laelth]

13. That's quite true.

The 2019 Democratic Debates were a joy to watch. Our party is more universally liberal now than it has been in decades.



-Laelth

[BComplex]

31. I'm totally with you, Laelth!

[Laelth]

62. Cheers! n/t

-Laelth

[Turin_C3PO]

10. Besides Manchin

most of the elected Dems stand by liberal values such as fairness, equal rights, healthcare for all, etc. Of course even Manchin is a necessary evil given that he's representing a very conservative state.

[Laelth]

16. I agree, and I am thrilled to see it.

Please note post #13, above.



-Laelth

[Turin_C3PO]

24. Yes, I agree with that post!

I'm very happy that Dems seem to no longer be afraid of what Republicans say about us. Of course, many MSM outlets still ponder every hour what the Dems should do to be more like Repubs. Screw that, we're liberal and proud of it!

[beachbumbob]

18. Hate to tell you but America is not a liberal country

[Turin_C3PO]

21. It's a centrist country.

Nonetheless, right wing wackos manage to win. If they can win moderates over to their side then we can too. Actually, Joe Biden did win most many moderates and he's definitely a liberal despite some in our party trying to paint him otherwise.

[FoxNewsSucks]

33. Actually, it is.

This "centrist" and "center-right" crap is what the corporate media want people to think.

People here want liberal policies. The best example is how even republicon voters, when asked, favored every individual aspect of the ACA, but when asked about "obamacare" they said they hated that "socialism".

The problem is a rightwing owned and controlled media that gets so many people to vote against their best interests. Turning your back on liberal policies that make the Democratic party great is a mistake. So is giving in and allowing republicons to get their way.

[Laelth]

44. +1

Poll after poll has shown, for decades, that Americans prefer liberal policy.

-Laelth

[Demsrule86]

88. Liberal policies are great and we need to do a better job selling the policies...but the reality is

this is a centrist country.

[bullwinkle428]

40. America still absolutely loves some liberal policies, even if many don't want

to admit it.

CASE IN POINT : The state of Florida voted for both Trump AND a $15 minimum wage in 2020.

[Demsrule86]

89. And that is how we win...popular policies without labels...we push them hard. The ACA

made America believe that health care is a right.

[Laelth]

43. The United States is a BASTION of liberalism.

Liberalism = sane capitalism in which government attempts to distribute the riches and benefits of capitalism (including tremendous freedom) to all the nation’s people in a fair and equitable manner.

That’s why we are the richest and most powerful nation on Earth. We are, fundamentally, liberal.

-Laelth

[Demsrule86]

90. It really is not. Look at the Senate and the house races.

[mopinko]

22. on this one i'm right there w ya.

and the squad. fuck appeasement.

[FoxNewsSucks]

34. AMEN!

Fuck appeasement, and fuck republicons.

[brooklynite]

50. Yes! Being in charge is overrated!

Ideological purity is much easier when you're in the minority, and have plenty of excuses for not accomplishing things.

[Laelth]

72. LOL. Such a realist. So sane. So pragmatic.

Can’t we liberals be just a little mad that one of our own just promised to back the Republicans if we try to eliminate the filibuster or modernize the Courts?

I’m pissed about it, and the point of this thread is that Harry S. Truman would be pissed about it too. We need to stand TOGETHER, now more than ever. Manchin doesn’t get a pass in my book just because he’s from WV.

-Laelth

[brooklynite]

78. So you're upset because Manchin's opinion is the same as Biden's?

[Laelth]

81. My hope is that Biden is flexible.

My hope is that if his Democratic Congress demands these changes that Biden will go along with them (perhaps reluctantly).

It’s a long shot, I know, but a lot of Americans (including me, in particular) are going to suffer greatly if the republic is stuck with divided government for the next two years.

-Laelth

[Demsrule86]

92. Exactly right. If we follow this purity crap, we will lose forever.

[Laelth]

70. Thank you. n/t

-Laelth

[Klaralven]

53. "The record the Democratic Party has made in the last 20 years is the greatest political asset"

Compare and contrast the record of the Democratic Party 1933-1952 with the record of the Democratic Party 2000-2020.

Is it "the greatest political asset any party ever had in the history of the world?"

From 2000 to 2020 the leadership has been ---

Presidents - W 8 years, Obama 8 years, Trump 4 years?

House - Hastert 6 years, Pelosi 4 years, Boehner 5 years, Ryan 3 years, Pelosi 2 years?

Senate - Daschle 2 years, Frist 4 years, Reid 8 years, McConnell 6 years?

From 1933-1952 the leadership was --

Presidents - FDR 13 years, Truman 7 years.

House - The speakers were Democrats from Texas, Tennesee and Alabama, except for a 1.4 year stint by Henry Thomas Rainey (D-IL)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Speakers_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

Senate - Joseph T. Robinson (D-AR) 5 years, Alben W. Barkley (D-KY) 9 years, Wallace H. White, Jr. (R-ME) 2 years, Scott W. Lucas (D-IL) 2 years, and Ernest W. McFarland (D-AZ) 2 years.

[FoxNewsSucks]

59. Republicons would like for everyone to forget

what the Democratic party accomplished from 1933-1952.

They fear it might happen again.

[Demsrule86]

93. That is on paper...what have we accomplished in the last 20 years ...I would say healthcare

and LGBTQ rights. Pres. had six years where we accomplished very little because we lost the house. And the only path to the Senate runs through red states. We will lose social security if we don't start winning. And pretending we are uber liberal is just foolish. This is a center left country at best.

[Klaralven]

95. Healthcare has gotten more expensive and I'm not sure it is more equitable either

Healthcare expenses have gone from 14 to 18% of GDP, even as GDP has increased. Big pharma, big testing, big specialty care and big health insurance companies are making big bucks. Hospitals have been consolidating into mega-corporations and the expenses associated with the electronic health records initiative have driven doctors out of private practice and into clinic associations. It's a mixed picture at best.

LGBTQ rights is a good example of a polarizing issue, with a small vocal minority for LGBTQ rights, another small vocal minority against them, and a large mostly uninvolved and detached middle that doesn't much care about the issue.

[Demsrule86]

98. The fact that we have the ACA is a miracle and if some had President's back, we would

have a public option...what you complain about is because of the GOP...those who vote for Trump,Stein or stayed home because of 'her emails ' really fucked us over. The middle class does care about LGBTQ...here is the deal. At this moment we can fix the ACA (assuming we get the Senate), pass some good policy, work on infrastructure, Green policies and Green jobs. The ACA is very important.We won 18 because of it and it has convinced Americans that healthcare is a right. This is an example of how a compromise bill can achieve great things. It is the only sort of healthcare we are likely to get. Those who believe Medicare for all will happen are wrong...in fact it will be a battle to save Medicare. I hope we get the Senate.

[Silent3]

60. Partial agreement

I definitely think, in general, Democrats don't need to be as timid as they often are about championing a progressive message. We can run on a solidly progressive platform (at least in most of the country) and win.

BUT... if someone has already won office, especially a legislative office, and they've got a (D) after their name, it's stupid to reject them or give them a hard time when they might be vital to obtaining majority control, no matter how weak their progressive credentials might be. Purity ain't worth shit if we're the minority party and can't get anything done.

[Laelth]

63. Yes.

And a currently-in-office Democratic Senator has just announced that he will be voting with the Republicans on key matters, such that it won’t even matter whether or not we can secure a majority in the new, 2021-22 Senate.

Frankly, this pisses me off, and I doubt that I am alone in this sentiment. It certainly would have pissed off Harry S. Truman, and that is the point that I am making.

-Laelth

[Silent3]

66. It pisses me off too, but we'd get even less done...

...if he were replaced by a Republican.

[Laelth]

67. True. As I said above, I don't want Manchin gone.

I want him to act like a Democrat.

He hasn’t voted with the Republicans YET. He only announced that he would do so. Time will tell.

-Laelth

[Klaralven]

75. Lots of Democrats also opposed FDR's court packing plan -- Nothing new about that

Court-packing proposal and death (of Joseph T Robinson, Senate Majority Leader, D-AK)

In 1937, Robinson supported Roosevelt's proposal to restructure the United States Supreme Court (the "court-packing plan" ).[3] This support may have occurred in part due to Roosevelt promising Robinson the next appointment to the Supreme Court.[8] Robinson had a much more difficult time with the president's Court Reorganization Act, designed to add liberal justices to the Supreme Court.[3] For weeks in 1937, he spoke, fought, and cajoled for the bill, but he could not stifle the criticism of scores of Republicans and Democrats.[3] The constant strain showed on his face and in the stoop of his shoulders, and his friends began to worry about his health.[3]

On July 14, just as the legislation seemed likely to split his party into two warring factions, Robinson's housekeeper found his pajama-clad body lying face down on the floor of his apartment in the United Methodist building on Maryland Ave, NE.[3] He died of heart failure.[3] Two days after Robinson's sudden death, stunned colleagues, friends, and family attended his funeral in the Senate chamber.[3] His casket, blanketed with flowers, rested in the green-carpeted pit, the site of his greatest speeches.[3] The Senate chaplain gave a brief sermon, and the Capitol Police escorted his body to a funeral train headed to Little Rock.[3] Thousands of mourners traveled to the Arkansas capitol to witness Robinson's lying-in-state ceremony and to express their grief and their enormous admiration for the majority leader: the "fightingest" man in the U.S. Senate.[3]

He is buried at the Roselawn Cemetery in Little Rock, Arkansas. His home in Little Rock, the Joseph Taylor Robinson House, was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1994.

[Happy Hoosier]

91. Let's start an inquisition!!! NT

[Klaralven]

96. No one would expect an inquisition!

[Happy Hoosier]

97. I, personally, am terrified of the comfy chair!!!!NT