I would not, could not vote for a tax raise, oh no I won't,
I would not, could not vote for them on a boat.
I would not, could not vote for a tax raise in a maze.
I would not, could not vote for them in a haze.
I would not, could not vote for a tax raise on holidays.
I would not, could not vote for them if it pays.
I would not, could not vote for a tax raise, oh no I won't,
I'd rather blow my brains out of my throat.
So vote for a tax raise I won't.
He'd be a New Deal/Great Society liberal, right? Not a Reaganite Republican!
It would be interesting if his views on the Japanese were dug up.
Could you expand on this for those of us who have no clue what you mean by it (like me, say

) or point us to a link that does?
The darkest thing I can imagine is that he was bigoted against Asians or maybe just the Japanese in general--but that would just put him on the same page as a whole lot of Americans before the war. Even a number of otherwise liberal/progressive ones. And I am having trouble imagining how that could lead to some kind of dissent re occupying Japan, unless he was so crazy on the subject that he feared mere contact with Japanese people would irrevocably corrupt the soldiers or something extreme like that. I'm having trouble imagining him having such a mindset. Conventional anti-Asian bigotry, sure (though I hope not!) but how upset were most Americans of this mentality at the notion of ruling a devastated Japan our way?
The other way I guess he could get in trouble re occupying Japan would be if he were
not racist and had a high appreciation of the Japanese culture and went around begging for more gentle and considerate treatment of the Japanese as fellow human beings. So that's a great way to get embarrassingly out of step with the American consensus both before and of course especially during the war and for some time thereafter. But if that's how he made enemies, IMHO they'd be the right enemies to make.
So I'd Google the man and probably the first hit would be Wikipedia which is sneered at here but which frankly I wind up citing pretty freely--is that where these knowing remarks about his awkward stances on Japan or the Japanese would be cleared up at last?
Because this is the first I've heard of it and I'm running late for work...

----
Nevertheless I couldn't run off without at least trying; sure enough the first, non-Wiki hit I found ignored the whole issue. The Wikipedia bio shows that he was a typical American on the subject during WWII. Here's the relevant quote:
Theodor Geisel said:
But right now, when the Japs are planting their hatchets in our skulls, it seems like a hell of a time for us to smile and warble: "Brothers!" It is a rather flabby battle cry. If we want to win, we’ve got to kill Japs, whether it depresses John Haynes Holmes or not. We can get palsy-walsy afterward with those that are left.
Now that, in context, does not make the man a rabid racist. And apparently the real controversy was that after the war he did indeed get "palsy-walsy!"
Whether that would be some fatal stumbling block for a political career I am not sure at all, but the enemies he'd be making strike me, again, as the right ones to make.