(Helen Gahagan Douglas - coined the phrase "Tricky Dick" in referring to Nixon)

(sorry, I gotta do it)

Helen Gahagan Douglas had several distinctions during her short-lived career in politics. She was one of the first women to be elected to Congress, one of the very first who went from an acting profession to politics (and you thought Reagan was the first), and was probably the first to be the victim of the vicious smear tactics employed by another upstart Congressman, Richard Nixon. It was during a particularly virulent campaign that Douglas coined the phrase "Tricky Dick" in referring to Nixon. Nixon, in turn claimed "Douglas was Pink all the way down to her underwear". Ah, the good old days of ruthless personal smears!

Helen Gahagan Douglas was a Congresswoman from California who went on to be defeated in her bid for the Senate in 1948 by Richard Nixon. But up to that time, she was a tireless advocate for Civil Rights legislation and had introduced several Anti-Lynching bills to the House in the 1940's.

This talk, given in 1948 follows that theme, the subject of racial discrimination in hiring and housing.

Helen Gahagan Douglas: “We are a nation blessed by God with material riches beyond all others, Our mountains, our plains, our rivers, our harbors, have given us industry and commerce, agriculture and mining resources that are the envy and the despair of the rest of the world. Our richest and our greatest resource however, is people. People living under free and fair institutions which permit them to develop fully the talents God gave them. We waste this resource if we sanction discrimination.”

Sadly, none of her introduced legislation ever won passage and she left politics after suffering a 59% defeat in her bid for the Senate. She is probably better known today as the Woman Nixon smeared by allegedly tying her to Communist causes. But at the time she was trying to make a difference. History wound up being on her side in the end.

If you discount the 4 inches of snow that fell overnight in Tennessee and the 7 inches overnight in Arkansas, the ruined citrus crops in Florida and another blizzard heading for the East Coast, it was probably a relatively quiet day.

The UAW was in contract talks with Auto makers. A summit conference was called between France and Germany to study the situation in Poland with the Solidarity Movement and strikes sweeping that country.

Gen. Alexander Haig and Hosni Mubarak were in talks regarding Palestinian autonomy.

In California, a boycott of Japanese goods was called by the state's Farmers in retaliation for the ban on California produce exports to Japan because of the Medfly controversy.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's son Mark was the object of a search, as he turned up missing from a road rally from Paris to Dakar. Maggie said not to worry, "he's a big boy".

And the White House couldn't get straight who Norman Mineta was - some claimed the Congressman from California was of Italian descent and others claimed he was Japanese. The guessing game continued - though no one thought to ask Mineta himself.

Just one of those days via CBS News Hourlies from 3,4 and 5:00 am (PST) on January 13, 1982

(Rarely invited - barely a guest)

With talk of Immigration reform looming before Congress, I thought it would be a good idea to start looking at the Illegal Immigration question as its been posed for easily past 50 or so years. Today's particular installment puts us in 1973, a little less than a year after Congressman Peter Rodino introduced a bill to address the illegal immigration issue. It wasn't terribly popular and it ultimately did nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration into the U.S. Here is a documentary produced as part of All Things Considered from NPR on July 16-21, 1973.

Peter Rodino (discussing The Rodino Immigration Bill): “This law is intended to provide some kind of a red flag and penalties for the employer who knowingly employs illegal aliens. It’s a fair bill, it’s designed to provide for an orderly flow of immigration, to eliminate the incentive of the illegal alien who comes into this country believing that here is his only opportunity and I sympathize with him because I know a good many of these people are unable to get jobs which will give them the kind of existence they could find here. But on the other hand, it disrupts the orderly flow of immigration in this country. It swells our welfare rolls, it prejudices the working conditions of those people who are on regular labor standards, it also serves really as a vehicle to exploit the very illegal alien.”

At the moment, it would seem the tidal wave of illegal aliens has subsided simply because there is little or no work to be had. But I suspect the reason there hasn't been an effective piece of legislation dealing with the issue of illegal immigration is that it effectively cuts off a source of cheap and exploitable labor which, lets face it, is a bargaining chip held over many states in lieu of companies packing up and heading overseas. Although, to be fair, most immigrant workers have been field labor in the area of agriculture - and that's something you can't export overseas.

It will be interesting to see which direction this all takes in the coming months/years. Like Health Care, Immigration reform has been something talked about but rarely acted upon since World War 2.

Stay tuned for more examples.

(Oddly, still is)

Since its enactment in 1947, the famous (or infamous) Taft-Hartley Act (or Slave-Labor Bill as some call it) has been in an almost constant state of proposed revision. But never getting off the ground. Initially vetoed by Truman in 1947, it was overridden and set into law by the Republican led 80th Congress. Amendments have been proposed ever since.

In 1949, part of the America United Series, moderated by David Brinkley, approached a panel consisting of a young Eugene McCarthy newly elected Congressman, Thruston Morton, Anthony P. Alfino from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Tom Harris who represented the CIO.

Tom Harris (CIO): “The question you ask, ‘How Should The Taft-Hartley Act Be Amended’ is an easy one in our judgment to answer. It shouldn’t be amended at all but should be replaced with an entirely different statute, along the lines of the Wagner Act. That is essentially what the Thomas-Lezinsky Bill does. We think that should be done because the approach of the Wagner Act to industrial relations was sound. While that of the Taft-Hartley Act is wholly wrong. The ideas behind the Wagner Act were very simple; they were first, to permit workers to form strong unions if they wanted to. Secondly, to require employers to deal with those unions on wages, hours and so on. The authors of the Wagner Act hoped by these means to promote industrial peace and to raise the living standards of workers. With consequent benefit to the entire community. The idea behind the Taft-Hartley Act is also very simple; it’s to weaken unions. The men who wrote the Taft-Hartley Act just didn’t believe in labor unions. The Taft-Hartley Act is a composite of all the anti-union devices which reactionary congressmen were able to think up during the years of the New Deal. When they got into power, briefly as it turned out, in the 80th Congress, they wrote these numerous devices into law. That’s the Taft-Hartley law. And its bad in its entirety and should be stricken from the books.”

In 1949 they wanted to amend it. Still waiting.

(Bourke Hickenlooper - Melvin Laird)

An eerie similarity in recent times, the astonishing lack of specifics in a Republican platform - well, this one was from Meet The Press on June 10, 1962. But you can imagine it from 2009 just as easily. The substance, or lack of it seems just about the same. The only thing different are the characters, the screaming and a bit less noise.Back in the day when "The Loyal Opposition" actually meant something.

Talking about the "Platform" this time is Bourke Hickenlooper and Melvin Laird. Laird, you'll recall, will go on to become Secretary of Defense under Nixon and coined the phrase "Vietnamization", but here he is a congressman.

Bear in mind that in 1962, the Republican Party were still licking their wounds over the 1960 election and the party hadn't been hijacked by the Barry Goldwater contingent until 1964.

Ray Scherer (NBC News): “Congressman Laird, on page four you say that Republicans urged vigorous investigations of fraud at the poles and you recommend corrective action. Is this pointed at a specific instance?

Rep. Melvin Laird: “ Well, it’s pointed at the 1960 elections Mister Scherer. We had certain evidence that Chicago and Texas and Philadelphia and other areas where there was fraud at the poles. And that the Republican minority of the House Judiciary Committee in the so-called Kramer Amendment made certain recommendations. That amendment has not been enacted into law, we believe that it should be vigorously pursued so that the right to vote of each individual citizen is protected."

Scherer: “On the same page you call for effective tax relief for medical and hospital insurance. And you also call for tax relief for financing education. How would this work?"

Laird: “First, as far as Medical and Hospital insurance is concerned, I think you’ll recall that in the Republican 80th Congress and amendment was adopted to the Internal Revenue Code which provided for double exemption over the age of 65. At the present time the Internal Revenue Code there is a three percent provision that you can’t deduct any amount unless it exceeds three percent of gross income. We believe that this provision should be done away with because many people that are buying medical and health insurance at the present time are unable to deduct it from their income taxes. Now in education: We feel that we are opposed to the so-called massive approach of general federal which passed the Senate last year. We are for the selective approach . We believe we can do much more good by giving tax incentives, tax relief. We had some members of our committee that were for a tax credit proposal in this education area. Others for a tax deduction. Our statement gives general support to this idea, but we spell it out as tax relief for the individual paying for the cost of education for himself or for others."

Vague, ambiguous and hoping no one will notice.

Same as it ever was - same as it ever was.

(Rep. John McCormack (D-Mass) - Rep. Hugh Scott (R. Penn.) - lots of love in that room . . .of a kind.)

In case you were wondering if the cantankerous nature of Capitol Hill was some phenomenon of recent years, let me put you at ease by saying no, it's always been that way.

This broadcast, part of the American Forum Of The Air series from July 25, 1954, features Representative John McCormack (D-Mass.) and Representative Hugh Scott (R.Penn.) discussing what the 83rd Congress has accomplished, just as the House and Senate go on their August recess. The subjects range from taxes to the end of the Korean conflict and the bubbling unrest in Southeast Asia - Vietnam in particular.

McCormick: “ There’s a truce made that could’ve been made far better a year, year and a half prior to the time the truce was made. As the result of it, the Chinese Reds were relieved of their commitments in North Korea and they were able to drive down into Indochina and they were able to help the Communist forces in Indochina. Now coming to the Indochina truce . . . .

Scanlon (interviewer): “Do you think the war should have continued Congressman?” –

Moderator: “Hold it . . . .”

McCormick: “None of us . . .we’re not agreed to . . .we’re not satisfied with that. I’m satisfied that England and France have some kind of deals on that are not for our best interest. I’m suspicious of England and France in connection with what’s going on. I think you and I probably would agree pretty much in that respect. I’m very suspicious about this increase in trade which Mr. Stassen has permitted to go on with the Communist bloc as a peace gesture

Hugh Scott: “ Before you change the subject is there any shooting war going on anywhere in the world today, was my statement . . .

McCormick: “Do you think there’s peace in the world today? There’s certainly not peace in the world today. All I know is, that there’s a couple of million more unfortunate people in Vietnam who are now under the Communists, about a million of them happen to be communicants of the Catholic Church of which you and I are also communicants and I can imagine what kind of rough living they’re going to have under the Communists when they consolidate, the liquidation process they’re going to go through, and I hope there’ll be a good pact established down there that will be able to stop the Communists. But I am fearful there will be extreme difficulty in that respect. I’m hopeful and I will join in a bi-partisan way that will bring any efforts to bring about a pact in Southeast Asia that will stop the Communist on-rush.”

Well . . .more prophetic words weren't spoken much that year. But it did signal what would become our endless Vietnam odyssey soon enough.

McCormack and Scott spar and agree on very little, but they hold their ground. In the end it provides an interesting insight as to the historic nature of government and how discourse can work.

At least they were upfront about it.