Teddy Roosevelt Would Be A Democrat

This was originally publish in September 2009 

In case you haven't seen it, Katie Couric, of CBS News, interviewed Glenn Beck, of talk radio, formerly of CNN Headline News, and now also with Fox News. Amazingly, this extremist, right wing provocateur, who will make a bundle off of his new book, I'm sure (folks, what does this tell us about the sanity of this country?), compared John McCain to "weird progressive" Teddy Roosevelt, the former REPUBLICAN President of the United States. If being a conservationist, who set aside many an acre of American lands for national parks; a peacemaker (he won the Nobel Peace Prize for helping negotiate the end of a war between Russia and Japan); a strong supporter of clean, safe food and medications (The Food and Drugs Act); the "trust buster" of monopolies, like John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil; and many, many more accomplishments to make the United States a better place, then I want to count myself among the "weird progressives!"

Senator McCain, whose voice has been noticeably silent during all of the recent right wing hype, now has felt the sting of people he should have spoken out against long ago. Shame on you John McCain, but now I welcome you to the side of some kind of decent debate about the critical issues facing the nation and the world.

With people like Beck seemingly having taken over the Republican Party, Teddy Roosevelt, if he were still with us, would do the right thing, and become a Democrat! He would let these self righteous spewers of venom wallow in their own hatred and bigotry.

WORD HISTORY:
Boost-For a fairly common word such as this, not much is known about it. It was first recorded in North America in the early part of the 1800s, and had the meaning of "push from below." "Booster," which was derived from "boost," came into usage in the late 1800s. The ultimate origins of "boost" remain unknown.

How We Get News/Information

It always seemed to me that the old time television news reporters had tremendous respect for newspaper reporters. Now, am I saying that television reporters don’t have the same respect for newspaper reporters today? Not really, as I’m sure many do, but there is an ongoing debate about how television news personnel, radio news and many bloggers read newspaper/magazine stories, simply refashion these stories in their own words, then broadcast or publish them without any compensation to the news organizations that gathered the original information, or even an acknowledgement of such. * From what I understand, one of the problems is, that so many television networks scaled back on their news operations, that now they are not the same “news gathering” organizations that they once were, so they often rely upon “the wire services” and published articles in newspapers and magazines. At one time, the television networks had news rooms all over the country, and indeed, even all over the world. Now, the networks often rely upon their affiliate local stations to provide reports from various parts of the country. That’s why you may see a local reporter from your area on the network or cable news at times. With communications what they are now, that makes sense, and it saves the networks money.

Two other entities made there own foray into providing information to the public via television; PBS (=Public Broadcasting System), once known more generically as “educational television,” began broadcast of the “McNeil/Lehrer Report,” “Washington-Week In Review,” and even business news programs. Then along came C-Span, which actually allowed Americans to watch their elected representatives at work in Congress; first in the House, then later also with a separate station for the Senate. C-Span also had interviews and other political information when Congress was not in session.

The early 1980s brought a major dose of change to the news business, as Ted Turner brought CNN (=Cable News Network) to cable television. As America gradually got wired into cable television, CNN grew more and more popular, and other cable stations with news type programs sprung up, too. More and more, easy news access was available to us 24 hours a day, and with that 24 hours of news came stations desperate to keep us tuned in with any and all sorts of….ahh…”news.” Not only that, but there came to be stations devoted to just business news, or to the weather, or to sports; all once considered to be parts of any single news program, just as they still are in most local news shows. There also came to be shows that seemed to be “news shows,” but which offered up really a good deal of opinion and entertainment. This eventually brought us to where we are now, shows that mix news, entertainment, and opinion, ** although I’m not sure these items are necessarily in that order. Sorting out what is news and what is opinion is not always easily accomplished. In the early 1980s, CNN introduced “Crossfire,” a political discussion show, featuring a conservative on one side of a particular issue, and a liberal on the other side. The two “combatants” were expected to have different viewpoints, and rarely did I see them in agreement. The question I always had was, do these folks really have this wide divide on EVERYTHING? I didn’t believe so, as I saw at least some of it as “forced.” More and more current events programs began to follow something of this basic format, with a segment devoted to discussion of varying points of view on any given number of subjects offered up by reporters and columnists. The public can now pick from any number of these “talk/discussion” shows on a variety of channels, but again, are these shows more “opinion/entertainment” than “information?” In my opinion, a definite “YES!”

Some of these type shows took on a more “ideological” point of view, and later, Rupert Murdock, the very conservative Australian owner of several news sources established “Fox News,” a cable station. Former Republican political strategist and media consultant, Roger Ailes, was put in charge of the station. The station’s tag line became, “Fair and balanced,” but of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While the station had an obvious tilt toward conservative views, it wasn’t outrageous, and I often watched certain shows on “Fox News.” Hey, you don’t have to agree with them. Don’t like it, don’t watch it, but getting a variety of opinions doesn’t scare me. In fact, I would argue that we have become so “politically and ideologically” specialized in how we get our information, that this is at least partially why the country is so polarized. Too many Americans watch, listen, or read only the things that confirm their own basic beliefs about a subject, not things that make them THINK or QUESTION those beliefs. More recently, in my opinion, “Fox” has had a tendency to go over the top on some issues, and “PERHAPS” has even been involved in helping to organize recent protests.*** Do they have that right? Certainly, but “fair and balanced?” They can’t have it both ways. Just my opinion, but the station seems to have also given a much more substantial voice to very far rightwing views.

I’d guess back in the earlier 1970s, Phil Donahue had a show that presented all sorts of talk/interviews. Often, but not always, his shows were about politics. Phil Donahue falls on the left of the political spectrum, and some would say, far left. I watched his shows, too, but I’ve got to admit, especially by the early to mid 1980s, he started airing some strange stuff, not only political in nature, and some folks with some way out views, both rightwing and leftwing. This is America, and these folks are entitled to their opinions, but to give them a public forum is not my idea of being a responsible program. (I can hear the civil libertarians howling!) If I remember right, old Phil, who is from here in Cleveland, would more or less say that he felt Americans needed to know about these various fringe groups, but the problem is, in my opinion, who out there in television land is watching with their own unstable minds? ****After a while, I lost interest in his show, mainly because of this type of nonsense. My point is, both left and right have their extremes.

To be continued… (A word history is below the notes)

* The print media also complain, with good reason, in my opinion, that bloggers could at least offer up a link to the newspaper or magazine website, or to the actual article. Advertising rates for websites are set by how many visits are made to that site. If you have a business of your own, and you want to advertise online, you would want to know how many people actually go to a particular media website, on average, in any given period of time, and therefore, how many people might see your ad. When people just essentially copy a story or column, and then publish it on their own, without a link to where they got the story, that site gets zilch for their efforts. If it is a news story, the company had to pay a reporter or reporters and assistants to get the detail of that particular story.

** News programs always had some small element of entertainment to them, just as I mentioned that the “Huntley/Brinkley Report” often ended with a humorous story, but these were separate stories, and easily understood as “entertainment” by members of the public, unless of course, you were one of those folks listening to the news and trying to learn to play bridge from the newspaper at the same time.

*** I saw a clip of a recent protest rally, where “supposedly,” and I want to emphasize that, a woman involved with Fox News was egging the crowd on. It “seems” that when she realized that someone was filming her actions, she hurriedly ducked out of the picture.

**** I know that “Hitler analogies" get overused, but I’ll dare to be trite. In 1923, Hitler was the leader of a two bit political movement that was little known outside of the German state of Bavaria (southern Germany). His failed attempt to seize the Bavarian state government ended up paying him big benefits. He was put on trial, where his extreme nationalist views were given a public forum, and these views found an audience of anxious Germans, even supposedly with the presiding judge, who gave Hitler a light sentence. The future dictator spent only about a year in prison, and a rather comfy prison at that. So comfy that he actually wrote most of his famous book, “Mein Kampf” while in that prison. He was even allowed to “dictate” (no pun intended!) the book to associates who were permitted into him. Don’t forget, he tried to OVERTHROW the state government, by force!!!

WORD HISTORY:
Thrive-This word came to English from Old Norse (a North Germanic language) "thrifask" during the 13th Century. The Old Norse meaning was "to grasp to oneself;" thus, came the meaning "to prosper." The Norse word seems to have gone back to "thrifa," which meant "to grasp, clutch or seize." Modern North Germanic languages have forms of the word: Swedish has "trivas," and Danish has "trives;" both meaning "to thrive, to flourish." Unfortunately, all sources I checked cannot carry the word back further in history, so where North Germanic got it, is still unknown.

How We Got Our News

Since I never quite know where my writings will lead, I'll just say that this is the first of two or more articles about Americans and news. I actually started out thinking I could write one simple column about the subject, but as I went along....

Until the early 1980s, I’d guess that most Americans got their information about world and national events from television and newspapers. By “television,” I mean one of the three television networks: ABC, CBS, or NBC. For quite some time from the 1950s until about the early 1970s, NBC was often number one in the evening news ratings with “The Huntley/Brinkley Report,” which featured Chet Huntley and David Brinkley Monday through Friday evenings, initially from 6:15 until 6:30,* and a few years later from 6:30 until 7:00. To my recollection, Huntley was usually stationed in New York City and Brinkley was in Washington, D.C. Their show frequently ended with a humorous story, which then shifted to a smiling Huntley who would say “Good night, David,” and then go to a chuckling Brinkley who would say, “Good night, Chet, and good night for NBC News.” This ending became famous around the country. I grew up with these two, as our local station was then an NBC affiliate,** and I was really saddened when Chet Huntley finally retired, leaving just David Brinkley, who, a number of years later, jumped over to ABC and hosted “This Week With David Brinkley,” a Sunday morning info program that featured interviews with various political leaders and usually a lively discussion of the week’s events by the assembled news people, which often included George Will, the conservative newspaper columnist. CBS frequently challenged, and at times overtook, NBC in the evening news ratings with Walter Cronkite, who just recently passed away at age 92.

Then there was “Meet The Press,” a show that is even older than me…ah…I mean than other such programs, with its first broadcast dating back to 1947!!! It is something of a mini news conference, with members of “the press” (including television reporters) asking questions of a high profile political figure, or at times, figures.

Then we had “the Press;” that is, newspapers and magazines. They filled in gaps in the information television either ran by us too quickly, or chose to leave out, as newspapers gave a far wider view of the news. And to be quite honest, and if you’re a younger person, don’t be stunned by what I’m about to write here, but some folks did NOT have television back in the 1950s, so they relied upon newspapers. Even for stories we had already heard about from television, we could sit down and go at our own pace in checking out the information in the newspaper. Magazines often provided detailed stories to compliment the news, and while important, many were only available on a monthly basis, although the number of weekly publications grew as time passed (“Time,” “Newsweek,” “U.S. News & World Report” all come to mind.). The “New York Times” and the Washington papers were the big players in the national news business, and other newspapers all over the country were great sources of news on the local level, including covering things like city halls and county government. All newspapers offered their opinions (and still do) in the form of editorials. Further, local columnists contributed their viewpoints on a wide variety of issues: like explaining confusing ballot issues, or letting us know how a new zoning ordnance would affect our neighborhoods, or even sorting out the multitude of candidates for judicial offices. Many, if not most, newspapers picked up columns from the nationally known writers (“syndicated columnists”) on political matters, something that continues to this day. Not only this, but you could find out the visiting hours for your recently deceased neighbor, work the daily crossword puzzle, get a few chuckles from the comics, and even learn to play bridge, if you were so inclined (is anybody?). I shudder when I think about the demise of so many newspapers, large and small, today. (A word history is below the notes)

* How did we survive on less than 15 minutes of news (when time for commercials is deducted), or even later, less than 30 minutes of national and international news? Further, it should be noted that NBC and CBS were the two competitors, as ABC didn’t have an evening news program until some time in the 1960s.

** Initially this was before cable, and though we had another local station just 20 miles away (a CBS affiliate), reception was not always as clear as the NBC station, and you needed the good old “rabbit ears,” and preferably, a good antenna on the roof to try to get a clearer picture (You still needed the rabbit ears to even get the local station). If indeed you had an antenna, on clear evenings (seldom in the daytime, as there was too much interference) you might then even get a station from 50 to 75 miles away! With all of the technological changes that have come about over the decades, this stuff seems laughable today, but we struggled through, I guess because we didn’t know what we were missing.

WORD HISTORY:
Shrill-I've not been able to trace this word back to any Indo European root, and some linguists seem to believe it started as an "imitative" word; that is, our ancestors created a word that imitated the "high piercing sound" they heard. Since I can't find any other Indo European languages with a related word, they may well be correct. (See further below) Old English had "scralletan," a verb form which meant "to give off a loud sound, to sound loudly." It "seems" that this word "may" have given off "schrylle," by the 1300s, as the meaning was so similar, "piercing sound or high pitched voice." Very close English relatives, Low German and standard German, have "schrell" and "schrill," respectively, both with the same basic meaning as our word. This "may" indicate that the word arose in the West Germanic dialects of what is now northern Germany before some of those dialects left that area for Britain, as English and the German dialects are all West Germanic. Now, just to throw cold water on that theory, there is what certainly seems to be a related word, "skirl," which meant "to make piercing, loud sound(s). It is not commonly used, even in Britain, but it seems to have come into somewhat more common usage during the 1400s (that doesn't mean it wasn't around before then), and just from the context of what I've read, I take it that it was used more so in northern England and Scotland, where the Danes (North Germanic speakers) had an influence on English (I read that while archaic, it is still used in reference to bagpipes. Talk about "shrill!") The "sk" versus Old English "sc" (modern "sh") and the German dialects "sch," is one of the differences between North Germanic and West Germanic. Of course, too, the "r" sound is after the vowel in the North Germanic word. So now, what does this all mean? Well, "maybe" after the old Germanic dialects began to disperse, that this word developed in either the North dialects, or the West dialects, and that the other borrowed the word, as these groups weren't all that far apart in distance; northern Germany, Denmark, and Norway are all close. This may explain the apparent absence of the word from other Germanic languages.

Some Civics (Not Honda!)

First, let’s look briefly and superficially at what other democracies have for governments. Now remember, I said superficially. Most other nations have either an elected president or a hereditary monarch as “head of state.” These folks have many ceremonial functions, which may vary from country to country, but usually they have little real power, except that they have a certain not easily measured power to garner public attention to certain issues, if they so choose; after all, if he/she is a president, he/she has been elected by having their own name on the ballot and by a vote of the entire country. If he/she is a monarch, the prestige and tradition of the throne can be used as an asset, although in many cases, the monarch has the power to ask for new elections to the representative body of the nation.

These countries also have a “head of the government,” called variously a premier, prime minister, or chancellor, depending upon the country. This person is in charge of running the actual government on a day-to-day basis. “Usually” they are the head of a major political party, and they become the head of the government because their political party gained a majority of seats in their national legislature, or because their party and one or more other parties have formed a coalition giving this group a majority of seats in the legislative body. Technically, this “prime minister” (I’ll use that term, which is what is used in Britain) was not elected by a vote of the entire nation, as his/her name was not on the ballot for such a position, although in many, if not most, cases, the public is aware who will become prime minister depending upon which party wins a majority of the legislative seats.

So how are we different? Our president combines “head of state,” AND “head of the government.” Further, in a certain way, the president also carries a bit of a monarch with him, as he has the tradition of respect Americans show toward the presidency behind him. Like a typical prime minister, he is also the head of his political party, but unlike a prime minister, a president does not need his political party, or even some coalition, to have a majority of seats in either house of Congress, and it has not been uncommon for a president's party not to have a majority in one or both houses during a presidential term. (Notice I've used "he/him" in reference to presidents, since we have not yet had a woman president.)

In many other countries, there are a multitude of political parties on the ballot competing for seats in the national legislature, or for local offices. In America, we have tended to have two major political parties on the ballot, although other parties are not banned from offering candidates. On occasion, we even have candidates for a particular office calling themselves “independents;” with the implication being that they have no formal political party backing them. Most of our election laws vary somewhat from state to state, with the national law endeavoring to give each citizen access to vote. As such, how “minor” political parties get candidates on the ballot for just about any office depends on the state, and in many states, it can be difficult. That doesn’t mean it never happens, even with the presidency, as vibrant “third party”*** candidates have made appearances, if not always on a truly national basis; that is, on all fifty state ballots and D.C., at least on many state ballots. (See more below)

Our national legislature, Congress, is bicameral; that is, it has two branches, which we call “houses.” First, the House of Representatives is made up of 435 elected representatives, each representing “approximately” the same number of residents (determined by the Census). The Senate is made up of 100 senators, two from each of the fifty states. I dare say that many, if not most, Americans little realize that senators have only been elected by a vote of the people for about a hundred years. Previously, senators were appointed to office by the states.

Our presidential elections are more complicated than most Americans realize, I’m sure. Presidents are NOT directly elected by a vote of the people; that is, in your library club election, “Candidate A” received 100 votes and “Candidate B” received 90 votes, therefore, “Candidate A” is elected president of the library club. U.S. presidential candidates actually compete in fifty separate state elections, and in the District of Columbia, although there is NO requirement that they be on all fifty-one ballots. There are now some variations in states, but usually, if “Candidate A” gets more votes than “Candidate B” in Virginia, “Candidate A” gets all of Virginia’s electoral votes. ^^^ A state’s number of electoral votes is determined by the number of congressional representatives, plus the two senators; this is called “The Electoral College” in popular terminology (since the early 1800s), but the Constitution refers simply to "electors."@@@. Technically, when you go and vote for a president, you are voting for that candidate's electors. This is where candidates from other parties, other than Republican or Democratic, may have a more typical impact, at times. In a close election, minor party candidates can take enough votes from a major party candidate to give a state’s electoral votes to the other candidate, and on some occasions, a “third party” candidate may be so strong in a state, that THEY actually win the popular vote there, thus giving them the state’s electoral votes.

I suppose we all “get our backs up” at times, and we want our “views of the moment” represented by a candidate espousing the same or similar views. Now, here is some opinion: Our two party system has essentially been effective. When it falters, a major “third party” challenge usually scares the hell out of one party, or both parties, and the situation comes back into some balance, as the two major parties compete to get those “third party” votes in the next election. The key is, neither of the major parties becomes so rigid for very long in its beliefs that it commits political suicide by excluding Americans with contrary views on any given issue. Some small political parties and "candidates of the moment" have complained that getting onto many state ballots is too difficult, but in my opinion, it should be difficult, and here's why: other countries at times have so many different political parties on the ballot, and the vote is therefore so splintered, that governing the country becomes difficult, if not impossible, and the government falls and new elections take place. Since the end of World War Two, Italy, for instance, has had more governments formed than Elizabeth Taylor has had husbands…well, at last count, anyway! Our strength has been that our representatives often try to compromise. I didn’t say always!

*** While usually referred to as “third party” candidates in the media, actually there are usually far more than candidates from three parties represented on ballots for president. The “third party” tag is used to simplify things, usually based upon public opinion polls showing a candidate (not running as a Republican or a Democrat) getting more than just a percentage point or two.

@@@ This system of "electors" was formed by the Founding Fathers to give a balance between big states and small states. This was the same basic idea about giving each state two senators, it was based upon some kind of balance between the states, since large population states would have more representatives in the House of Representatives, which is based upon population, but each state would have equal representation in the Senate. Thus, if big states got things that benefited them through the House, the Senate was there to try to level the playing field. Remember, these ideas were developed in the late 1700s, when such matters were very significant. It seems to have worked, as this issue is seldom a major concern.

^^^ There is no requirement that “electors” must vote for the winner of their state’s popular vote, but it is relatively rare for deviation from this, and most electors pledge to vote for the candidate who wins their state's popular vote. Each state sets the rules for how electors are chosen, but essentially each "qualified" political party has a list of “electors,” so if a Republican wins state “XYZ,” only a very disgruntled Republican elector would not vote for the actual party candidate.

Word History:
Sullen-This word came into usage in English during the second half of the 1500s. It comes from a Middle English word "soleyn, which was derived from Anglo-Norman "solein," which came from Old French "soul/sol," which meant "single, alone." This came from Latin "solus," which had the same meaning. In English, the idea of being alone/solitary, led to "downhearted, morose due to being alone, or on one's own." Where Latin got "solus," is uncertain, but there seem to be strong feelings that it was derived from Latin "se," which meant "oneself/himself," which goes back to the Indo European root "so/swo."

Help! I'm Stepping Into The Twilight Zone

This was first published in September 2009. Just a note April 21, 2017: Trump would fit very easily into this story, with Tweets and unsubstantiated claims.

The title refers to the opening line of a former hit song by "Golden Earring," a Dutch rock group. But this isn't about music, rock or otherwise. It is about the old television series Rod Serling's "The Twilight Zone," and an episode from 1962 called "Four O'clock." This episode starred Theodor Bikel as a kooky, self righteous, hate-filled spewer of nonsense, who anointed himself to punish and identify all the "evil people" by shrinking them to the size of the average kid's doll. This was to take place at "Four O'clock."

This demented man lived with his parrot in a dingy, small apartment where he kept a file on each person's supposed transgressions, no matter how trivial. He spent his days thinking about the latest conspiracy invented within his twisted mind, or sending anonymous letters and making anonymous calls to employers, for example, divulging the content of an employee's file, such as, "Your Mr. Jones is a communist sympathizer," and demanding that the person be fired. Of course, he never told the employer HOW he knew any of the information he provided, answering only, "Never mind how I know!" Of course the employers hung up on him, but at four o'clock he was going to set things right, all by himself.

It's a shame this episode wasn't filmed in 1965, as this secret avenger could have accused anyone who even dared to say a good thing about the newly created Medicare system as being a Commie, or at the very least, a socialist (Ah, come to think of it, maybe he did exist, just in the form of some other people). Or what if the show were filmed now? Hmm, WOW... lots of targets for him, including me, I'm proud to say! Ahh, but is it being filmed now with all of the nasty, distorted, divisive disinformation being thrown out there, sometimes anonymously via emails, for instance, and sometimes in person, as at town hall meetings? The 1962 character lives on in these people today, only it isn't just a television show anymore. This is real!

If you've never seen the above mentioned episode of the Twilight Zone and don't want to know the ending, stop reading now! I don't feel right leaving readers hanging there, without knowing the ending.

As the clock struck four and his parrot squawked, this hate-filled man peered from his window and proclaimed to his parrot that all the evil people were now shrinking. But in an instant, the man found himself looking up at his parrot, having shrunk to the size of a Barbie Doll, or I guess, a Ken Doll.

The other day (this was in 2009), I believe it was in New Jersey, there was a town hall meeting. I don't recall if the congressional person was a Democrat or a Republican, but there was a lady in a wheel chair who told of her crippling illness and how she needs help for her condition. In the midst of hoots and shouts at her, she tried to continue. One man, kind of a big burly guy, who obviously was far from underfed, told one of the reporters something like, "Listen to this...even a handicapped person has more rights than I have!" Hmm...I wonder if that guy stopped his clock at 3:59?

Word History:
Rice-This word came to English during the 1200s (one source says during the 1230s). Some linguists feel "rice" ultimately traces back to an oriental origin, but that sources are lacking to confirm that. In Indo European, it does seem to go back to Sanskrit "vrihi/vrihi-s," (first "i" with long sound) which meant/means "rice." Sanskrit, a relative of English much further down the family tree, still exists, although on a limited basis, mainly religious, especially in India, but its history takes it back many, many centuries ago in that southern part of Asia. Presumably, Old Persian got their word for rice, "brizi," from Sanskrit. Old Persian was the ancestor of Persian, one of the main languages of Persia, now called Iran. Persian is also an Indo European language related to English, but again, much further down the family tree, but more closely related to Sanskrit and to Hindi, one of the main languages of India. It seems that Greek picked up the word from one of these old languages as "oryza" (no, not Ore-Ida!), and it then was picked up by Latin as "oriza." Old French, a Latin-based language, continued with "ris," and presumably that is how English got the word, but Greek brought the word to Europe, and for example, German has "Reis," Polish has "ryz," Welsh has "reis," Lithuanian has "rysai," Italian has "riso," and Spanish has "arroz" (as compared to the old Latin form "oriza;" so, much closer).

YIKES! We're Already Socialists!

In 1935, Congress debated and voted on the establishment of Social Security. Of course, Social Security is a government run program, providing what is essentially a base pension for retired American workers, although even some supporters were/are reluctant to use the term “pension” regarding the monthly payments. The program has been amended various times, and since 1935, has added disability payments, among other things, to its support of many Americans. The program required payments into the system by both workers and employers.

Prior to its enactment, many older Americans were extremely vulnerable to the ravages of poverty, and company pensions were fairly rare in those times. Now, has it always been funded properly? No! Have company pension plans always been run properly? No! Remember, in recent years, the auto companies, for example, owed worker pension funds a bundle!

On April 19, 1935, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the legislation for the establishment of Social Security with the following vote total:

372 FOR (284 Democrats-81 Republicans-7 Other party affiliations)
32 AGAINST (15 Democrats-15 Republicans-2 Other party affiliations)
25 Not voting (20 Democrats-4 Republicans-1 Other party affiliation)
2 Republicans chose to vote “Present”

On June 19, 1935, the U.S. Senate passed the legislation with the following vote total:

77 FOR (60 Democrats-16 Republicans-1 Farm Labor)
6 AGAINST (1 Democrat-5 Republicans)
12 Not voting (8 Democrats-4 Republicans)

These tallies seem to indicate that there were 4 vacant seats in the House and 1 in the Senate.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the legislation into law in August 1935.

Thirty years later came the vote to establish Medicare, the health care program for the elderly, and Medicaid, the health care program for the poor. Both health care programs are run by the U.S. Government.

On July 27, 1965 members of the U.S. House of Representatives cast the following tally on the legislation:

307 FOR (237 Democrats-70 Republicans)
116 AGAINST (48 Democrats-68 Republicans)
10 Not Voting (8 Democrats-2 Republicans)
Apparently 2 seats were vacant.

The next day, July 28, the U.S. Senate voted:

70 FOR (57 Democrats-13 Republicans)
24 AGAINST (7 Democrats-17 Republicans)
6 Not Voting (4 Democrats-2 Republicans)

President Lyndon Johnson signed the legislation into law.

I took the following directly from the VA website, in the "History" part:

"The Continental Congress of 1776 encouraged enlistments during the Revolutionary War by providing pensions for soldiers who were disabled. Direct medical and hospital care given to veterans in the early days of the Republic was provided by the individual States and communities. In 1811, the first domiciliary and medical facility for veterans was authorized by the Federal Government. In the 19th century, the Nation's veterans assistance program was expanded to include benefits and pensions not only for veterans, but also their widows and dependents.
After the Civil War, many State veterans homes were established. Since domiciliary care was available at all State veterans homes, incidental medical and hospital treatment was provided for all injuries and diseases, whether or not of service origin. Indigent and disabled veterans of the Civil War, Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, and Mexican Border period as well as discharged regular members of the Armed Forces were cared for at these homes.
Congress established a new system of veterans benefits when the United States entered World War I in 1917. Included were programs for disability compensation, insurance for servicepersons and veterans, and vocational rehabilitation for the disabled. By the 1920s, the various benefits were administered by three different Federal agencies: the Veterans Bureau, the Bureau of Pensions of the Interior Department, and the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers.
The establishment of the Veterans Administration came in 1930 when Congress authorized the President to "consolidate and coordinate Government activities affecting war veterans." The three component agencies became bureaus within the Veterans Administration."

Hmm, I'm telling you, that "creeping socialism!" Even infiltrated the VA. Got our veterans being treated by socialist doctors and nurses. They probably keep their red pins and badges hidden when they're on duty, but it wouldn't surprise me if they all have red handkerchiefs or something, just to signal each other. I'll bet they couldn't have fooled old Archie Bunker. No way! Old Arch knew those un-American folks when he saw them. I can imagine, too, that if Archie were in the VA and one of those "socialist" doctors came into him and said, "Well Mr. Bunker, I'm going to treat you for your ailment, and such treatment usually costs $50,000 in the private sector, but there will be minimal if any cost for you. Uncle Sam, by the goodness of the taxpayers, is paying for your care." I'll just bet old Arch would tell him, "Like hell you're going to treat me, you pinko quack with a medissintel degree! I want a REAL American doc to treat me. I WANT to pay the $50,000! None of this socialist stuff for me, Archie Bunker; no siree. I'll pay the 50 grand, because I'll be collecting Social Security soon."

Word History:
Straw-This goes back to Indo European "streh/struh," which meant "to spread." The Old Germanic offshoot was "strawam," seemingly pronounced "stray-wahm." (And don't make that "stay warm!") This meant, "something that is scattered about, strewn." And "strew," most commonly used in the past form in modern English ("strewn"), is indeed a close relative of "straw." The Old Germanic form evolved into Old English "streaw," and took on the meaning of "stems or stalks of plants," since long ago, such dried plants were "strewn" over floors as a covering. "Streaw" eventually came to be spelled "straw," and similar forms are "strewn" (I couldn't resist that!) throughout the modern Germanic languages: German and Low German Saxon have "Stroh," West Frisian has "strie," Dutch has "stro," Norwegian has "strå," Danish has "straa," and Swedish has "strå," and Icelandic has "strá." The use of the word to mean drinking implement developed in the mid 1800s. Let's see...who has to take out the garbage? We'll draw "straws" to determine the lucky one.