Jump to content

Talk:Everett Dirksen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Untitled

I think Senator Dirksen was not "liberal". His voting records show he was a conservative senator.--61.214.129.244 08:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By today's standards a liberal is mainly from the Democratic Party, but 50 years ago a liberal was considered a mover shaker. Someone who wanted a change to make an improvement in society. Democrats today and yesterday didn't want change. I don't know why Demos are called liberals, because they certainly don't exhibit these traits. Dirksen was indeed a liberal in his time; a Republican that wanted change. The Civil Rights Bill in 1964 was meant to change the way blacks and other minorities were treated in the US. This bill was underpinned by Republicans; those who were liberal and wanted change. The Democrats as a body didn't vote for this bill. The Demos did not want change.

I agree with you. I think most Republicans are liberalists, and shoud be called liberals. However, in the United states, "liberal" is used in a specific way. (see American liberalism) This "liberalism" is today closely linked to Democratic Party.("liberal Republican" did exsisted.) Senator Dirksen was not liberal by American standard. His voting records show this. Here is a plot of liberal-conservative dimention of members of Congress. This plot is based on voting records. [1] Senator Dirksen is located at 0.313. This plot shows he was fairly conservative.--58.89.206.244 04:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed true unfortunately that opposition to the civil rights act was initially strongest in the Democratic party. However after passage, over the next couple of decades there was a process in which opposition to civil rights became concentrated almost entirely in the Republican party. This is probably an artifact of the fact that Goldwater ran as a Republican against the Civil Rights Act in 1964, and while unsuccessful his coalition would eventually successfully wrest control of the party from the fractious alliance of liberals, moderates, and conservatives that had dominated it before. Meanwhile factions of the Democratic party that were opposed to the Civil Rights Act would slowly be reduced to irrelevance, with liberals mostly taking over the party. I also highly disagree with the narrative that the liberalism of the Democratic party is any less truly liberal in a broad sense than the "liberalism" of the Goldwater administration. And the Republican party has become much less liberal in any sense over the past 20 years since you wrote your comment. While I respect his contributions to the Civil Rights act, I do not respect his later conservative activism for amendments that I believe would have greatly weakened it.2601:140:8D01:C90:7557:6D9B:4586:7D32 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-Someone said "The Democrats as a body didn't vote for this bill." That is impossible. They held a majority so had they not wanted it to pass, it wouldn’t have done so. LBJ was the major mover of the bill and he was a Democrat. However, he worried that Republicans would filibuster. LBJ came under heavy attack from both the left and right but many conservatives left the Democratic Party around the end of the 60’s. Take Strom Thurmond for example. In 1957 as a Democrat he filibustered the Civil Rights Act (of 57), talking for 24 hours and 18 minutes. He switched parties in 1964. It appears to me that Mr. Dirksen was a very non partisan man and had no problem supporting Johnson. From the Senates webpage: 88th Congress (1963-1965) Majority Party: Democrat (66 seats) Minority Party: Republican (34 seats) Other Parties: 0 Total Seats: 100 http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.226.225.228 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement was "The Democrats as a body". The Democrats split. According to wikipedia the real division was along regional lines:
  • Southern Democrats: 1-21 (5%-95%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 46-1 (98%-2%)
  • Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)
(As someone noticed, this adds up to 102 senators, so it needs correction.)
—wwoods 23:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the alleged quote by Dirksen saying McCarthy had lost his senses had a note that a citation was needed in 2007 I decided five years is long enough to wait and removed the groundless bias but since wikipedia is manifestly liberally biased & slanted and has the deck royally stacked against McCarthy I'm sure the bias crowd will restore the slant I deleted, proving the manifest bigoted tools attacking McCarthy do so without actual evidence for their cheap tricks. http://rue-st-michel.blogspot.com/2008/01/joe-mccarthy-exonerated.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.224.110 (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Ev and Charlie Show" incorrectly described

The article describes "The Ev and Charlie Show" as a term invented by Herblock mocking the appearances on frequent television news programs of Dirksen and Charles Halleck. This is incorrect.

The "Ev and Charlie Show" was the nickname for a weekly press conference held at The Capitol by the Senate and House minority leaders. Its official name was "The Republican Congressional Leadership Statement."

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Ev_and_Charlie_Show.htm

I don't have the technical ability to make the edit on the main page. I hope somebody who knows how to do it will correct the error.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.232.77 (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

president william mckinley

is everett related to william? if so, in what way? Kingturtle 08:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it was the custom of the 1890s for young U.S. parents to name their male children after leading statesmen. Bigturtle 00:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pekin is listed as a "suburb of Peoria." Pekin is not even in the same county as Peoria is.

It does not have to be in the same county to be a suburb.Parkwells (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note on Pekin

Until the mid-60's, Pekin had no African-American residents but did have a sign on the city limits that read "No niggers after 6pm". The local high school's team was the Chinks (named for Peking China) when I visited there in the mid-1970s. It was also home to the most active Klan in the area.

Content needs sources to be used in article.Parkwells (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quotable quotes

Dirksen was a brilliant orator. Everyone loved to listen to him. One of his less listenable quotes is used in the article: "The mind is no match with the heart in persuasion; constitutionality is no match with compassion." This obviously seemed wonderful to somebody but seemed really clunky to me. Student7 13:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A billion here, a billion there

More info on this alleged quote here: [2] Shtove (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Everett_Dirksen — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdRicardo (talk • contribs) 13:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although often quoted, it seems Dirksen never actually said this. The Dirksen Congressional Research Center made an extensive search when fully 25% of enquiries to them were about the quotation. They could find Dirksen did say "a billion here, a billion there", and things close to that, but not the "pretty soon you're talking real money" part. They had one gentleman report to them he had asked Dirksen about it on an airflight and received the reply: "Oh, I never said that. A newspaper fella misquoted me once, and I thought it sounded so good that I never bothered to deny it." EDLIS Café 13:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

COPD

It was my understanding that Dirksen was persuaded to support what was then called "emphysema awareness" by taking some physical test in front of the media on the Capital steps. To his shock, he was diagnosed with "emphysema" quite unexpected by him and the people wanting publicity for the disease. I guess this wound up being cancer and not emphysema at all, but was masked as that for awhile. Obviously need cite for this. Student7 (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Everett Dirksen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Everett Dirksen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

Text and references copied from Everett Dirksen to Large numbers. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Everett_Dirksen&oldid=1228689881"