Baseball

UPDATED: On Jackie Robinson Day, Let's Remember When He Was Fired From the New York Post for Being Too Republican

Some heroes are just too complicated for canned history

|

The first black columnist for a major white newspaper in U.S. history. |||

Today is the 68th anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking Major League Baseball's notorious de facto ban against players having skin tone a shade or two darker than pure Castilian soap. As is the annual tradition, all MLB players today are wearing Robinson's #42 in homage.

As I (and plenty of others) have long argued, Jackie's awe-inspiring legend has, if anything, given short shrift to what a colossally competitive, accomplished, and complicated man he really was. He has as good a claim as anyone else at being the best all-around athlete of the 20th century (he was also a national champion long jumper, league champion collegiate basketball scorer, and All-American halfback at UCLA). He was a prolific if underappreciated author. A passionate and righteously angry civil rights activist. A banker/entrepreneur, active Rockefeller Republican, and the first black columnist for a major non-black newspaper, The New York Post. Which fired him for being too pro-Nixon.

Wait, what?

Sweet cover. |||

There was an entertaining collection of Robinson's newspaper and magazine writing brought out two years ago, titled Beyond Home Plate: Jackie Robinson on Life After Baseball. The intro, written by the civil rights historian Michael Long, is an almost anguished attempt to explain how this anti-racist hero could have belonged to the yucky Republican Party. Sample:

It may seem strange to us now that Robinson found a home in the Post, but at this point in history the newspaper was known for its liberalism. It was simply impossible to find the politically conservative opinions that are so characteristic of its op-ed pages today. And as a liberal paper, the Post had given Robinson, and larger civil rights issues, favorable coverage through the years; it was one of the few racially progressive media outlets of its time.

OK, so what happened with the Nixon/Kennedy business, then?

On November 4, 1960—Election Day—Post Editor James Wechsler informed Robinson that he and Dorothy Schiff had decided not to resume his column. (Robinson had taken a leave of absence to serve on Richard Nixon's campaign team in September 1960.) Wechsler, a Kennedy supporter, apparently felt that Robinson's pro-Nixon sentiments had led to unfair reporting during the presidential campaign[.]

Jackie's retort, published at his new home in the New York Amsterdam News in January 1962, is filled with some classic Robinsonian acid:

No one will ever convince me that the Post acted in an honest manner. I believe the simple truth is that they became somewhat alarmed when they realized that I really meant to write what I believed. There is a peculiar parallel between some of our great Northern "liberals" and some of our outstanding Southern liberals.

Some of the people in both classes share the deep-seated convictions that only their convictions can possibly be the right ones. They both inevitably say the same thing: "We know the Negro and what is best for him."

Ouch.

UPDATE: New York Post Associate Editorial Page Editor Eric Fettmann writes in to dispute Robinson's account:

Your piece (and, I presume, the book on which it was based) is very incomplete and misleading.

Dorothy Schiff and Jimmy Wechsler knew all about Robinson's Republican leanings and had no problem with it. (The Post, after all, had all but endorsed Rockefeller in 1958, pulling its endorsement of Averell Harriman at the last minute in a front-page editorial.)

But there were two problems, which are clear if you consult a different book—a collection of Robinson's correspondence over the years.

1) Robinson never told The Post he was taking a leave from his column to work for Nixon. But he did tell the New York Times—which is where Schiff and Wechsler first found out about it. Not a good way to treat the people who are paying you.

2) Jackie Robinson had almost nothing at all to do with the column, which was completely ghost-written by a long-time aide. At best, he chose a topic (or agreed with the one that was chosen) and then gave it a read before it was submitted.

This was the excuse Wechsler cited in declining to resume the column after Election Day, saying they'd agreed to it in the first place with misgivings, but appreciated his marquee value. But the real deal-breaker was his having publicly embarrassed his publisher and editor.

It had nothing to do with his being a Republican—The Post, after all, ran William F. Buckley's column (and Evans and Novak) long before Murdoch bought the paper.

NEXT: Federal Judge Declines to Reclassify Marijuana

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But…we’ve made so much progress.

    *sigh*

    1. We’ve made heaps of progress, everything has gotten progressively worse.

      1. During Nixons time, the president wiretapping his office, maintaining an enemies list & engaging in extralegal larceny created a national furor that took down the President. Today, the president is wiretapping the entire country, maintains a kill list & engages in extralegal kidnapping, torture and assassination as a matter of policy.

      2. Oh ain’t that the truth.

  2. Proof that Unicorns actually exist.

    1. In my world a unicorn is the sweetly-titted funzie required to turn a successful dyad into an ever-lovin triad. I’m the b. after your a. so it’s jazzy, B.

    2. A woman that is a 9-10 on the looks scale and below a 5 on the crazy scale?

      1. So in other words there are no unicorns.

  3. “Some of the people in both classes share the deep-seated convictions that only their convictions can possibly be the right ones. They both inevitably say the same thing: “We know the Negro and what is best for him.””

    No one tell Bo since it will be awfully sad watching him try to explain how Jackie Robinson is engaging in a tired claim believed only by right-wing white people.

    1. I believe we should break with official policy and offer Mr. Robinson a posthumous honorific from the OWGB.

    2. Tired claim… 50 yrs. ago.

      And the Northern ‘liberal’ has only proliferated as the Southern variety languished.

    3. Didn’t get his comparison was of Northern “liberals” and Southern liberals, eh Irish?

  4. They both inevitably say the same thing: “We know the Negro and what is best for him.”

    But it’s not just the Negro.

  5. Keep up the southern strategy myth as long as they can. See after 1960 the Republicans magically turned all racists and the Democrats magically got clean.

    Uh huh…

    1. Robinson was one of the most vocal national critics of the Southern Strategy.

      1. You’re just dying to get on MLB TV to talk about this, aren’t you? 😉

        But hey, what a game the Angels had today.

    2. What’s the myth?

    3. Yeah, there was no realignment where the regions which opposed the CRM went from Blue to Red. Just a myth, like Athena bursting forth from Zeus’ brow.

      1. So why did Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms et al switch teams?

        1. And why George Wallace stayed a Democrat. And why Democrats ruled Georgia until just over ten years ago.

          1. The post-Civil Rights “Southern switch” is far more complicated than the left makes it out to be, but the Republican Party wasn’t an innocent victim in the whole thing. The Southern Strategy wasn’t as simple, uniform, or perhaps as prominent as many leftists make it out to be, but it was a real thing that actually happened.

            1. Nixon won 48 states, doesn’t seem very ‘southern’ to me

              1. The South was a reliable Democratic stronghold even in the worst of years nationally, so that is still significant even if he won in a landslide. The Southern Strategy goes beyond Nixon and lasted past his presidency. It wasn’t entirely racial by any means, contrary to modern liberal perceptions. But it was real. Take Lee Atwater’s word if you don’t take mind.

            2. The post-Civil Rights “Southern switch” is far more complicated than the left makes it out to be

              Yes, I highly doubt it took Georgians 38 years to realize the Democrats supported civil rights for blacks and suddenly vote Republican.

              Also I’m highly annoyed that the Southern Strategy is considered an awful thing by the Republicans but the fact that the Democrats used anti-black terrorism to gain and hold power is not really the Democrats fault. Despite the fact that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were most heavily supported by Jim Crow States and LBJ, the Clintons and Jimmy Carter benefited heavily from this.

              1. “Also I’m highly annoyed that the Southern Strategy is considered an awful thing by the Republicans but the fact that the Democrats used anti-black terrorism to gain and hold power is not really the Democrats fault”

                One was much more recent, and the Dems went through a quite public fight in which the end result was a pretty strong repudiation of their former stance. That hasn’t really happened re: the GOP and Goldwater and the Southern Strategy.

                1. Yes, instead they just run non-whites for high offices such as governor and senator and have them win.

                  I know. Its as if actions speak louder than words.

                2. the end result was a pretty strong repudiation of their former stance

                  Care to find articles in which Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton admit shame for their early activism in favor of racist state parties and that the their state parties (and themselves) benefited from this racism?

                  And I would think that actively supporting segregation and benefitting the monopoly it gave them is far worse then taking advantage of its collapse.

                  the GOP and Goldwater

                  Ha ha, of course the GOP is very Goldwaterite. And the Southern Strategy is more associated with Nixon and Reagan than Goldwater.

              2. “Yes, I highly doubt it took Georgians 38 years to realize the Democrats supported civil rights for blacks and suddenly vote Republican”

                Your main point is correct, but it’s important to note that perceptions of the state Democratic parties didn’t necessarily change as fast as the national Democratic party, for obvious reasons. Georgia voted Republican several times before 2002 in presidential elections. Furthermore, you have to take into account that a lot of Southern states have large black populations that vote overwhelmingly Democratic. The white vote is and has been a lot more tilted towards Republicans than the total numbers would suggest.

                I don’t disagree that Dems often get a pass from people on the left over racial issues, but the Southern strategy was a lot more recent and more relevant than stuff that happened in the early 1900s. Part of the reason why some of that stuff doesn’t get as much attention is because Northern Democrats ended up overwhelmingly supporting civil rights and took control of the national platform. White Southern Democrats gradually shifted out of the party and into the GOP (though not entirely for racial reasons). As a result, the racism of Woodrow Wilson and the FDR-era Democratic party doesn’t get as much attention.

                1. The Southern Strategy was real, I don’t disagree, but the notion that Southern Whites immediately ditched the Dems for the Republicans because of the CRA is a myth. Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms were the exceptions rather than the rule. And in states like Texas, North Carolina, Arkansas and Georgia the shift was so gradual that it can’t be purely due to race. For example the shift of Texas, Florida and Virginia to the Republicans in the Presidential elections started even before school desegregation.

                  more relevant than stuff that happened in the early 1900s.

                  Well it is a bit more relevant when you realize that Jim Crow had destroyed the Republicans in many Southern States and it took many decades for the Republicans to make headway at the State level. And that Jimmy Carter and both Clintons benefitted from the lingering effects of segregation since the Republicans were still weak in their states.

                  1. “The Southern Strategy was real, I don’t disagree, but the notion that Southern Whites immediately ditched the Dems for the Republicans because of the CRA is a myth. Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms were the exceptions rather than the rule. And in states like Texas, North Carolina, Arkansas and Georgia the shift was so gradual that it can’t be purely due to race. For example the shift of Texas, Florida and Virginia to the Republicans in the Presidential elections started even before school desegregation.”

                    I agree with all of that. I haven’t argued differently.

                    “Well it is a bit more relevant when you realize that Jim Crow had destroyed the Republicans in many Southern States and it took many decades for the Republicans to make headway at the State level. And that Jimmy Carter and both Clintons benefitted from the lingering effects of segregation since the Republicans were still weak in their states.”

                    True, but that’s not as direct as actually engaging in the Southern strategy (though if I recall correctly, Carter, while not explicitly segregationist, didn’t really openly oppose it either in his runs for governor, and at times appealed to the racist sensibilities of the population, mainly in the primary against Sanders, a more liberal Democrat). The fact they overwhelmingly won the black vote also helps soften accusations of racism, fair or not.

                    1. Let’s not forget that Lyndon Johnson won the majority of the Southern and white vote.

                    2. I recall correctly, Carter, while not explicitly segregationist, didn’t really openly oppose it either in his runs for governor, and at times appealed to the racist sensibilities of the population, mainly in the primary against Sanders, a more liberal Democrat).

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Callaway


                      Jimmy Carter, who had sat out the Democratic runoff election between Arnall and Maddox much to Arnall’s outrage, finally endorsed Maddox, having described the Democratic state platform excluding racial matters as “more progressive and more liberal” than the Republican alternative

                    3. True, but that’s not as direct as actually engaging in the Southern strategy…

                      Again, though, caldisident, as I point out to Bo below, the growth of Republican voting in the South didn’t mostly come from racist precincts. It came from suburban precincts that grew as a consequence of the Sunbelt migrations of the 50s-80s.

            3. The “Southern switch” also took place during the latter days of the Vietnam War and into its aftermath. The Democratic Party became significantly anti-military, a posture that continues to this day. The South was, and is, much more pro-military than the Northern blue states. Just check the enlistment records to see that the South is disproportionately represented in the military. The pacifists takeover of the Democratic Party is surely a contributing cause to Southern Republican shift and, IMO, rivals or even surpasses racial politics as an explanation.

        2. And Richard Russell Jr., Herman Talmaldge, John C. Stennis…

          1. It happened over some time not overnite, in national elections first with state ones lagging somewhat behind and of course many state Democrats in the South prided themselves on being ‘insert Southern state name here’ Democrats to distinguish themselves from the national party. But it happened, a dramatic realignment historically speaking.

            1. I’m sure news of the CRA hit Georgia in 2002. That would explain Shriek though.

            2. In 1983, except the presidential vote, the south was voting almost 75% Democrat. None of those pre 60s, mid 60s, after the 1960’s Republicans became Democrats. Son of racist Al Gore is still a Democrat. Nothing has changed in the pro economic slavery Democrat party.

              1. I think it’s pretty relevant to note that there were significant differences between the state and national Democratic parties. One big one was civil rights – the national party supported it, with almost universal support of its Northern Senators and representatives, and the Southern state parties overwhelmingly opposed it.

        3. After the Conservatives wrote the 1964, 65, and 68 civil rights bills they did not switch parties and join a bunch of Big government racists. No 1948 switch, 1964, nor 1980 switch. Civil rights Republicans did not become Democrats to continue the civil rights fight.

          1. That’s drastically oversimplifying things – while many conservative Republicans did support the bills, they also had overwhelming support from Northern Democrats, as well as the moderate and liberal wings of the Republican party. Neither party was as ideologically cohesive back then as they are today.

      2. There are always leftist revisionists trying to tell us: one day in the 1960s generations of Republicans (tens of millions) woke up one morning and began voting for BIG Government Democrats.
        They say 31 million Southern Democrats voted for Nixon? The 10 million votes for Wallace were from Republicans? Do they realize how freaking pathetically lame that contention is.

      3. That’s a retarded bit of sarcasm, even for you, Bo. The growth in Southern Republican voting largely came out of suburban precincts. And those precincts were hardly known as hotbeds of Jim Crow and racism. What they were “hotbeds” of is Sunbelt migration.

  6. OT: Is Agile Cyborg secretly a ThinkProgress columnist? That’s the only explanation for this one:

    http://thinkprogress.org/immig…..ham-it-up/

    A controversial, anti-immigrant Arizona sheriff and a former Baywatch star will join together at a press conference Wednesday to promote an all-vegetarian diet for prisoners nationwide. In 2013, the Maricopa County jail system, run by the self-proclaimed “America’s Toughest Sheriff” Joe Arpaio, became the first in the nation to serve meat-free meals to prisoners. Pamela Anderson is an animal-rights activist representing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) as a spokeswoman.

    1. Wait til Pam et al find out he plans a strict bread and water diet, never mind they would approve…

    2. Is Agile Cyborg secretly a ThinkProgress columnist?

      I see no need to drag AC’s name through the mud. This is just more “We couldn’t keep animals in cages and execute them against their will, that would be… inhuman.” left-wing, logical-disconnect nuttery.

      1. madly.cas, SusanB wants my angelic android lips on her phalanges in the light of a gleaming pheonix so she is cleverly juxtaposing me with interdimensional vectors trying to find all this neural goodness but her intelligence has been thwarted by my hyperdimensional jot and tiddle. Though, come to think of it…. my robotic muse ponders the possibilities…. Thanks for sweet words, kind mad.

  7. This reminded me of a great piece from Walter Williams comparing Jackie Robinson and Obama, and whether or not black America could “afford” Obama.

    http://townhall.com/columnists…../page/full

    There is every indication to suggest that Obama’s presidency will be seen as a failure similar to that of Jimmy Carter’s. That’s bad news for the nation but especially bad news for black Americans. No white presidential candidate had to live down the disgraced presidency of Carter, but I’m all too fearful that a future black presidential candidate will find himself carrying the heavy baggage of a failed black president. That’s not a problem for white liberals who voted for Obama — they received their one-time guilt-relieving dose from voting for a black man to be president — but it is a problem for future generations of black Americans. But there’s one excuse black people can make; we can claim that Obama is not an authentic black person but, as The New York Times might call him, a white black person.

    1. Or people could stop being asininely racist and tribal and can realize that a “black” man becoming president has absolutely zero bearing on any other “black” person in terms of having similar colored skin.

      1. Shut up and vote for Hillary, you fucking moron. She’s a huge step forward for women, or something, you stupid asshole.

        1. And if she fails, does it mean that all women will be set back a generation? Because if that means Nicole gets set back…I’m all for it. Did you know she’s the worst?

          1. Epi is correct.

          2. So you…want me to be more like my mom?

            1. …yes?

            2. He just wants your mom, dear.

          3. Hillary Clinton’s biggest accomplishment is proving that Nicole is not the worst.

          4. If she fails?

            More like regardless of how heavy a spin the media puts on it, after she has failed, how widely will her failure be recognized by Americans in general?

        2. Her views, like her snatch, are deep and fishy.

          1. And I don’t mean Nikki’s. That would be Hillary’s.

          2. I may have to boycott HNR until the election in order to preserve my sanity and my lunch.

            1. I’m a firm believer in allowing sanity to live its own journeys aside from the human and maybe occasionally check back in to said Scruffy herder of nerves… Do not preserve le’ sanity, sir. Let that shit rock, ruck, and fuck.

              You lunch however… should be composed of a single blunt with excellent pot, a pita sandwich grilled with three cheeses, spinache, onions, and artisan leftover chicken slathered in the sweet mustards and a single high gravity stout finished off with either a great penetration of a sweet tight pussy or a jerk of the superhero unleashing his hordes to rimming lesbians sucking a humongous black cock and then a smile at the sun… check back in about three hours and bring a 6 pack of golden monkeys and a bottle of jack and a lovely blonde or black girl that loves the fucking heads into the woods for a dynamic romp of sunbelievin… and trips and flights into all sorts of purposes on the streams of lonely dwarves cavorting to the dashes of lost species like ghosts captured on the lasers of lost…

              1. I submit to your sophistry.

                1. Your submission is my winds of kings

      2. You’re adorable.

        1. Don’t patronize me you cis shitlord!

          (Is that the correct insult? I can never be sure.)

          1. It probably depends on your feelings, your intent, the emotional baggage which accompaniedits hurl.

          2. When a man calls you adorable it is time to breathe deeply and reflect on all that is manly… deeply now… and then mark all your teddy bears with as much penis ink as possible. And then when you have your next party throw all the teddy bears into a room full of UV lights, pounding Medwyn Goodall, and behold the adorable glory. If you take acid or a couple of shrooms the penis ink will actually trail in the UV lights like a million lcd crystals. The girls will make a headlong dash into the trails and demand to grant the adorable man the labias and vulvas and vaginas.

            1. Penis……ink?

              AC is an octopus? I suppose that would explain a lot.

              1. tman your adorable dick could shoot sperm booze all over all this read mind, bro.

              2. You know nothing of tentical pr0n, John Snow

      3. Exactly. Failed presidents don’t even ruin their parties chances for much beyond one or two election cycles, and and it makes far more sense to judge future politicians by (recent) past members of their party than their skin color (though it still isn’t all that rational or logical).

      4. Because role models and stereotypes don’t exist!

        1. Bo Cara is like a wind on an umbralla margarita made by that sweet tit lovely on amelia island…..

      5. Notice how no one mentioned that Ted Cruz or Rubio would be the first Hispanic president.

        Amazing how the media can decide to be color blind when it suits their needs.

        1. I think it would probably get talked about a decent amount if one of them got the nomination.

          1. So when Obama ran in the primaries, it was not mentioned?

            Hmm, maybe you are right.

            We’ll see.

            The usual rule is that Republican ethnics aren’t “real” ethnics.

            Though, Obama got some of that, too.

    2. When Obama first got elected, my boss told me that he really needed him to be succesful. My boss was stuck at the VP level and felt that no one took him serious as a potential CEO since they didn’t think a black man was capable. He figured that if Obama failed that thinking would be confirmed and it would take a generation for people to come around again

  8. OT: So did Reason deep-six the desktop version of the site? The link for it is gone now, which sucks because this mobile version runs like frozen constipated shit.

    1. They need to can the swipe left or right functionality. It’s annoying.

      1. YES! I go to resize and end up on a new page. It’s horrible!

        1. ^^ this. I do a lot of my Reason reading on the can (if you want to know why, just read Old Mexican’s comment up above). I try to resize, or sometimes even just scroll, and it swipes the page. Also, if I (dear gawd) click on a link and it opens to a new page, when I go back to the main thread the page reloads. This blows because I’m often deep into the comments and have to scroll down again, possibly inducing yet another page swipe.

          1. Thirded.

    2. So, apparently they didn’t deep six it. It’s linked to zoom. If I zoom in on the webpage more than 2x, it automatically switches me to the mobile version.

      Who the fuck thought that up?

  9. I’m not sure why it’s even surprising that Robinson was a Republican. In 1960 the GOP was, as a whole, more favorable to blacks and had a more illustrious history in that area than the Democrat Party. The latter didn’t replace the former as the party more favorable to blacks until LBJ embraced the CRM and Goldwater got cast as against it.

    1. That’s not entirely accurate. Democrats, at least at the national level, started winning the black vote in the mid-30s – however, there were still a good number of black Republicans and it wasn’t until 1964 that they started voting 90+% for Democrats.

      1. Calidissident

        I’m honestly curious, do you have a cite for the claim about Dems winning the black vote in the 30’s? I heard the Dems made significant inroads when FDR rescinded some federal hiring laws that negatively impacted blacks, but not that blacks realigned that early.

        Of course your main point that realignment didn’t happen overnite is one I concede.

        1. Of course your main point that realignment didn’t happen overnite is one I concede.

          There’s also the fact that Georgia didn’t elect a GOP governor of GOP legislature until 21st century. Didn’t the Dems control the NC legislature until recently? And they sent Dem congressmen until recently.

          And most southern states didn’t reliably become Republican in the Presidential elections until the 1980s and Louisiana voted for Clinton both times.

        2. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/…..tic-party/

          It’s important to keep in mind that while the Republican Party was not as actively hostile to black people as Southern Democrats were, as a whole the party was pretty content to leave the situation as is until at least the 50s. There were some exceptions, but the Republican Party really didn’t treat black people very well between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Era, only relative compared to Democrats, particularly Southern Democrats. This meant that even prior to the Civil Rights Era, there was significant opportunity for Northern Democrats to break Republican dominance of the black vote.

          1. Thanks

      2. And if you go by the stats the shift started even earlier than FDR. WW famously captured an unprecedented portion of the black vote

        1. WW famously captured an unprecedented portion of the black vote

          Interesting…

          1. Prior to the 1912 election, Wilson had said a few (relatively) good things that gave some black people hope he might be better than Taft (who was unpopular in general, and a disappointment to black people for several reasons). Roosevelt was also in that race as a third party candidate.

            He was a major disappointment obviously – I can find data for either election, but it seems that even if Wilson did capture a relatively high share of the black vote in 1912, this evaporated by 1916.

    2. To expand on my previous comment, it’s important to realize that a wide divide emerged between Northern and Southern Democrats leading up to the 1960s. Northern Democrats and liberals were certainly not immune from racial prejudice, as Robinson alludes to, but they did (in Congress) nearly-universally support the major legislation of the Civil Rights Era, while opposition from Southern Democrats was nearly universal as well.

      1. Southern Democrats had their own factionalism too. One of the reasons Jim Crow was enacted was due to their factional disputes.

    3. And Robinson was horrified by Goldwater as a result.

      1. Sadly, Goldwater really was highly responsible for the loss of black voters for the GOP and the influx of whites that opposed the CRM. It’s unfortunate because he was certainly not philosophically disposed to that.

        1. It’s proof that libertarians are evil racists of course. And that Kmele was probably just Tim Cavanaugh in blackface.

        2. didn’t a higher % of republicans vote for the CRM than dems? If only dems were in power, the CRM wouldn’t have passed

          1. Obviously they’re all secret libertarians!

            Goldwater and the CRA weren’t really catalysts for anything, the shifts were already well underway.

          2. Yes, but the regions that supported it and opposed it have to a large degree switched their parties.

    4. The last time a majority of Black Americans voted for a Republican president was Hoover

  10. This sounds weird to me, because the New York Post seems pretty pro-GOP to me. I guess it would have sounded less strange if he was fired from the New York Times.

    1. This sounds weird to me, because the New York Post seems pretty pro-GOP to me.

      Then or Now?

      1. Well, that’s sort of what I’m saying. It sounds strange to me because as long as I’ve known the NYP, it’s been pretty GOP leaning, or at least the articles that I’ve read sounded that way to me.

    2. Perhaps he was hired as the token liberal and it didn’t pan out?

    3. From Wikipedia:

      In 1939, Dorothy Schiff purchased the paper…

      Under Schiff’s tenure the Post was devoted to liberalism, supporting trade unions and social welfare, and featured some of the most-popular columnists of the time, such as Joseph Cookman, Drew Pearson, Eleanor Roosevelt, Max Lerner, Murray Kempton, Pete Hamill, and Eric Sevareid, in addition to theatre critic Richard Watts, Jr. and Broadway columnist Earl Wilson.

      In 1976, Rupert Murdoch bought the Post ….

      You were saying Hyperion?

      1. Well, read my reply to your original post, above. I should have elaborated, but I thought everyone would know what I meant. The thought had occurred to me that the publication changed hands. But I was 16 in 1976, I didn’t read the newspapers and there were no intertoobs.

  11. Greatest athlete? With all due respect to Mr. Robinson, I think that’d have to go to Jim Thorpe. Played pro football, b-ball, AND baseball. Oh yeah, and won the gold in Olympics in 1912 for the Decathlon AND the Pentathlon.

    1. He only did one sport, but no athlete was more dominant in the 20th century than Aleksandr Karelin. When the IOC changes the rules specifically to make you lose for the first time in at least 12 years, you might be good.

      1. You might say the same thing about George Mikan. I wouldn’t call him the world’s greatest, though.

        Being the greatest in one sport wouldn’t be my measure of all-around athleticism. It is still impressive, though.

        Kevin R

      2. Yip. The baddest of the bad asses. Throwing 350# men around like toys.

    2. Bruce Jenner – only woman to win a Olympic gold medal while competing against men.

    3. I put forth Wilt Chamberlain. Just google the stories other freakish athletes tell about him. Not just basketball.

      His stories are like Chuck Norris stories, except corroborated by others.

    4. Baseball was Jackie’s 4th-best sport, and he was the best baseball player on the planet between 1949-53. Thorpe is obviously the front-runner, and was likely the better football player (and certainly better at track & field), but he was a replacement-level player at (segregated) professional baseball.

  12. Some of the people in both classes share the deep-seated convictions that only their convictions can possibly be the right ones. They both inevitably say the same thing: “We know the Negro and what is best for him.”

    Wow, Jackie knocked that one out of the park.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CdVTCDdEwI

  13. I just wristled with my shiba. Dog boys delight so easy like electronic stars making digital beats when actual fucking space is like a humongous scorpion and all those fucking lights out there will kill you…. so I wristle with me shiba… shibas don’t sting or melt. though as a dog they are constant middle finger but I’ll still deal with Yoshi than a fucking red dwarf on my lap…. no fuckin idea why that ever showed up…

  14. hunting for enb… I am so fukin attracted to great femql3 minds….. married to a hot babe for the 20 years and she loves a sweet boy in the windy and me but I love sweet darling vagina minds….

  15. When I lived in the NYC area ( til 75) the Post was printed on pink paper. Did Murdoch change that?

  16. I think Jim “Big Train” Conacher would’ve beat him out for best athlete all-round of the 20th C., though others may have both beat.

    1. Darn, I meant Lionel “Big Train” Conacher. (Jim was no slouch, but….)

  17. And the exact same thing can be said today. Modern day progressives use blacks as a tool to push their agenda, not to better their condition. In other words, they want useful idiots.

  18. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  19. I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.
    For information check this site. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  20. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  21. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week……

    …………..http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  22. Google pays me a ton too – but Matt got dominated with that rebuff from the Post.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.