Q: I recently heard someone say that Herbert Hoover carried Florida in the 1928 presidential election because of two hurricanes prior to the election. My understanding was Hoover did better in the South than any of his Republican predecessors NOT because of hurricanes, but because his opponent, Al Smith, was a Roman Catholic. -- Jack Sheridan, Houston, Texas
A: It is undoubtedly true that Hoover did better in the South than his two Republican predecessors, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, because of Smith's religion. Though all three lost Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, Hoover did win several Southern or Southwestern states that Harding and Coolidge did not, notably Florida, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Texas and Oklahoma. Smith had a lot of factors working against him in the South, mainly his Catholicism, but also his opposition to both Prohibition and the Ku Klux Klan. It was the worst showing in the South for a Democratic presidential candidate in over 50 years.
But Hoover's involvement in helping Florida following two horrific hurricanes is also thought to have made a difference in the Sunshine State. In 1926, a hurricane that hit the area around West Palm Beach and Lake Okeechobee killed as many as 800 people. In 1928, less than two months before the election, another hurricane hit the same area, and 2,500 were killed. Hoover, as secretary of commerce, visited the area following both hurricanes, the latter one when he was also the Republican presidential nominee. Working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hoover, who was an engineer, helped implement the construction of new channels and levees. His reputation as a humanitarian clearly helped him win votes in the state. As president, he had Congress approve hundreds of millions of dollars for flood control for the area.
Q: With Justice Sandra Day O'Connor staying on the court until Harriet Miers is (presumably) confirmed, how do the justices vote on cases that O'Connor has sat in on? -- Jon Yuengling, West Norton, Pa.
A: Given the fact that it usually takes months between the time the court hears arguments in a case and renders a decision, and given the fact that Miers probably won't win confirmation until December, it seems clear that Justice O'Connor will be around to hear arguments but be gone by the time the court is ready to vote. If that were the case, and the remaining eight justices who heard the arguments vote 4-4, the court would then have to have the case reargued before all nine justices. On the other hand, if the ninth vote would have no impact on the ultimate decision -- say, in a 5-3 or 6-2 tally -- then the case would not be reheard.
Q: Are any former justices of the Supreme Court still alive? -- Al Rosenberg, Brooklyn, N.Y.
A: No. The most recent former justice to pass away was Byron White, who left the court in 1993 and died on April 15, 2002. Other recent deaths include Harry Blackmun, who left the court in '94 and died 3/4/99; Lewis Powell, who retired in '87 and died on 8/25/98; and William Brennan, who retired in '90 and died on 7/24/97.
Q: In your Sept. 12 column, you predicted John Roberts would be confirmed by the vote of 71-29; the actual vote was 78-22. Which senators did you guess wrong? -- Arthur Taylor, Nyack, N.Y.
A: For the record (already with the excuses!), my prediction was posted before the Senate Judiciary Committee began its hearings. Roberts, in my view, put on a magnificent performance, and it was apparent that some likely "no" votes were going to switch. Still, I was surprised by the pro-Roberts votes from the following Democrats: Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl (WI), Pat Leahy (VT), Carl Levin (MI), Patty Murray (WA), Jay Rockefeller (WV) and Ron Wyden (OR).
Q: Is Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) beatable next year? -- Tom Chapman, Arlington, Va.
A: No, and I would have said that even if Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R) had decided to challenge him; she announced on Monday that she would not. There remains the possibility that voters will look at Byrd, who is 87, and decide that they want someone younger and more vigorous. Of course, they were saying that about South Carolina voters for years, and they still continued to send Strom Thurmond to the Senate, even at the age of 94. And Thurmond was not nearly as sharp (or awake) as Byrd is.
I have heard from some Republicans that since West Virginia is a "red" state -- that is, a state that went for George W. Bush in 2000 (by six points) and 2004 (by 13) -- Byrd should be and will be in trouble. I kind of think that Bush won less because the state is going Republican than the fact that both Al Gore and John Kerry simply did not appeal to Mountain State voters. Byrd has been on Capitol Hill for over a half century -- 1953-58 in the House, and since 1959 in the Senate -- and it's hard to find an area of the state that has not benefited from his influence or largesse. In 2000, when Bush became the first Republican presidential candidate to carry the state since Reagan, Byrd was winning an eighth Senate term with 78 percent (albeit against a nearly invisible GOP opponent). I think it is fair to say that Capito, the daughter of former Gov. Arch Moore, would have given Byrd his toughest challenge in years. But methinks whatever advantage she may have had in campaigning on the stump would have been lost had the two gotten into a debate.
We have seen political icons fade in front of our eyes in debates -- I recall a comebacking Walter Mondale suddenly looking off his game in his 2002 debate in Minnesota against Norm Coleman -- and Byrd has not had to fight for his seat in a long time. But he has been out front on the Senate floor, effectively railing against Bush policies on Iraq and the economy, with no sign of any mental deterioration, and no sign that his support at home is slipping; the latest poll I saw had him with 65 percent approval.
A throwaway line is that Democrats say Byrd is an institution and Republicans say he belongs in one. Still, to beat Byrd you have to have a candidate, and it remains to be seen if Republicans come up with the right candidate. (Many in the GOP are high on Gale Catlett, the former basketball coach at West Virginia University.) A lot can happen in a year, but at this point I say Byrd wins a ninth term.
Q: While I thoroughly enjoyed your review of the history of the New York City runoff and your look back at the 1969 NYC mayoral race, I must say I was disappointed in the characterization of Mario Procaccino [see Sept. 21 column].
As someone who overcame discrimination and who had a natural empathy for minorities, the idea that he embarrassed people by making racially "intemperate" remarks is ludicrous. You are referring, obviously, to one remark, at the Abyssinian Baptist Church, in which he said, "On the outside, my skin is white. But inside, my heart is as black as yours." That is the sum total of Procaccino's "intemperate" remarks and, while it might be over the top today, it was, at the time, his own way of expressing empathies with minorities.
As to why I'm a fan of his, I grew up in Connecticut following the race by reading the New York Daily News. I was thrilled when Procaccino beat all the liberals in the Democratic primary, and I was saddened when, as you note, he and John Marchi split the conservative vote in the general election and Mayor Lindsay won re-election.
During the primary, according to current N.Y. Conservative Party state chair Mike Long, the Conservatives expressed interest in endorsing Procaccino. He declined because, as he put it, "[Dem rival Robert] Wagner will beat me over the head with it. Wait 'til the primary is over."
The problem was that Marchi was a very substantive candidate and very happy to have the Conservative line as he challenged Lindsay in the Republican primary. His defeat of the sitting mayor in his own party was a bigger upset that Procaccino beating Wagner, Herman Badillo and the other liberals.
If Marchi had lost the primary, would Procaccino have beaten Lindsay? Perhaps. But the newspapers, media, et. al., hated and feared him, so that they would have gone all out to make the "law and order" candidate appear evil and/or stupid. Woody Allen even joked that Procaccino was the kind of guy who drinks beer in his bathtub. Talk about intemperate.
Mario Procaccino was a decent man and, I believe, had he been elected, would have been a Rudy Giuliani one generation earlier: holding the line on taxes, supporting the police. As he told me in an interview I conducted with him in 1991, "I just always told the truth, even when people didn't want to hear it. What more could you ask from a politician?" -- John Gizzi, political editor, Human Events, Washington, D.C.
A: You and I may be the only ones who think about the 1969 mayoral race, but I agree with you, it was a humdinger and one worth remembering.
There is a romantic vision of John Lindsay today -- tall, handsome, urbane, someone who "kept the city cool when other cities were exploding" during a time of racial strife. But the truth is, by 1969, he was deeply unpopular with many middle-class voters and especially with Republicans, who were exhausted after four years of rising crime, labor strikes, campus rebellions, higher taxes, and social change. Both Marchi, the GOP hopeful, and Procaccino, the "law and order" Democrat, appealed to those voters.
In the Democratic primary, Robert Wagner Jr., the former mayor, ran like the front-runner he was perceived to be, reminding voters of the "good times" during his three terms in office (1953-65), though his earlier tenure looked better in retrospect than it actually was. And when he lost out to Procaccino in the primary, by some 30,000 votes, he refused to endorse him. He said Procaccino won because he "rode a backlash" by using racist "code words" in order to appeal to bigoted voters.
I grew up in a small town called the Bronx, and though by 1969 I was living in New Jersey, I was going to school in NYC and watched the race up close. You are right; the "my heart is as black as yours" is the Procaccino comment I'm thinking of. He may have been a decent man, earnestly speaking for the "forgotten" New Yorkers that he clearly identified with, and holding in contempt the "limousine liberals" who backed Lindsay. But he was an unpolished candidate and was often ridiculed when compared with the dashing mayor. In truth, Procaccino was never the Neanderthal he was made out to be, nor was Lindsay the savior in shining armor. In the end, 58 percent of New Yorkers voted for change. But with Procaccino and Marchi splitting the opposition, Lindsay won.
Q: Regarding your Sept. 21 column about independents elected to the Senate, was Wayne Morse of Oregon ever elected as an independent? I know he was elected as both a Democrat and a Republican over the course of his distinguished career, and I know he was at one time an independent. Also, in next year's Senate race in Vermont, will Bernie Sanders [the only independent in the House] run as a Democrat or as a Socialist? -- Frank Buckley III, Haddam, Conn.
A: First, Wayne Morse. He was never on the ballot as an independent. Morse was first elected to the Senate in 1944 and re-elected in 1950, both times as a Republican. In October of 1952, Morse -- who had initially been a supporter of Dwight Eisenhower's bid for the Republican presidential nomination -- said Ike had sold out on his progressive ideals and thus would instead back Democrat Adlai Stevenson. Ten days later he resigned from the GOP and became an independent. But by the time he ran for a third term, in 1956, he had already become a Democrat. He was re-elected as a Dem that year and in 1962, finally losing in 1968 to Bob Packwood.
As for Bernie Sanders, while he is a self-described Socialist, he has never run for office under the Socialist banner. My guess is that Sanders will run for the Senate next year as an independent, as he has in the House, and the Democrats will not put up anyone against him.
By the way, in my comments about independent senators, I wrote that I thought the last one who first came to office as an independent was "some guy named David Davis," elected by the Illinois state legislature in 1876. That was obviously a poor choice of words, and Keating Holland, the polling director for CNN, let me have it: "'Some guy named David Davis?' Davis' election to the Senate in 1876 was the principal reason why Rutherford Hayes was inaugurated president in 1877. Davis was a Supreme Court justice and was the one 'independent' on the congressional panel that would award the disputed electoral votes. (Remember: five members of the House, five members of the Senate, and five SCOTUS justices, with seven Democrats, seven Republicans and Davis.) So when Davis left the court to take his Senate seat, Joe Bradley (appointed to the court by President Grant) took his place, resulting in eight Republicans to seven Democrats, which gave the election to Hayes."
Oops.
Q: Your Sept. 21 column, which talked about senators who had mixed success in Senate races, highlighted John Sherman Cooper, a Kentucky Republican. You noted that he won in 1946, lost in 1948, won in 1952, lost in 1954, and then won, for good, in 1956. You should know that Alben Barkley was mainly responsible for Cooper’s up-and-down career. If Barkley had not been on the presidential ticket with Harry Truman in 1948, Cooper would not have lost. Barkley, who left the vice presidency in 1953, was the only Democrat capable of defeating Cooper in 1954, and he did. And it was his death in 1956 that opened up the seat and allowed Cooper to return. -- Al Cross, Director, Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky.
A: You are correct, and your comments prompted the appearance of this wonderful Barkley campaign button from 1954 (seen at left). It is always great to hear from Al Cross, whose political writings when he was at the Louisville Courier-Journal were always a must-read.
Q: Reading your column is even more fun than following baseball -- the political season is January thru December! (Of course, it's especially true this year, since the Mariners wilted early.) -- Linda Hall, Seattle, Wash.
A: Your delightful note came last week, when all of America was holding its breath, not sure if the Yankees would make the post-season. I've said this so many times, but politics is a lot like baseball: the history, the stats, the trivia, the lore. Memorable moments in the New Hampshire primary, game-winning home runs in the World Series. Stirring speeches at the national conventions, gripping pennant races and heartbreaking collapses in baseball. There's nothing like it.
I write this as the Yankees are hours away from taking the field in Game One of their playoff series against the Los Angeles Anaheim California Angels of Anaheim. My heart, which barely survived the Luis Gonzalez hit off Mariano Rivera in Arizona in 2001, the drubbing at the hands of the Angels in 2002, the David Wells disappearance against the Marlins in 2003, and that thing that happened in 2004 (the details of which I can barely remember), is now prepared for more stress.
Still, I can't imagine life without baseball or politics. Kaine or Kilgore in Virginia? Santorum or Casey next year in Pennsylvania? A-Rod or Ortiz for American League MVP? I live for this stuff. The difference is that I don't have a rooting interest in politics. It's what keeps me sane.
This day in political (and baseball) history: Louis Brandeis, the former associate justice of the Supreme Court, dies at the age of 84. On the same day, in Game Four of the World Series, Yankee slugger Tommy Henrich strikes out for what should have been the final out of the game. But Dodgers catcher Mickey Owen lets strike three get away from him, and the Yankees go on to score four more runs and win 7-4. They win the Series that year four games to one (Oct. 5, 1941).
Copyright 2022 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.