This is what a REAL Democrat sounds like.

[hifiguy]

Fuck the corporatists and their enablers.

[MADem]

1. FDR was a corporatist. His family made their money on Wall Street.

They lived off the returns off of their investments in railroads and coal, for starters.

He was a nice corporatist, with some very good "noblesse oblige" ideas, but don't ever get the wrong idea that he'd roll his wheelchair to the ramparts and shake his fist at the "man" for putting "the people" down. He came from a society where there was an "us" and there was a "them." His "us" was rich, his "them" were the poor unwashed for whom he had a measure of sympathy.

He wouldn't even desegregate the military. It took Truman (raised in a very racist environment) to do that.

Ask George Takei how he felt about spending his childhood, as an American citizen, in a "concentration camp" set up by this guy, because of the way he looked.

He was a product of his time. He did some very good things, and he had some blind spots.


Like most humans.

I don't point this out to put him down, I do it so that people don't begin to fashion an unrealistic, idealistic idea about the man--kind of like what people did to poor Obama before he even spent a day in the job as President, having to deal with people who didn't share his vision or goals.

[RiverLover]

2. *sigh* He grew up in a family of Republicans.

But then became a Democrat, the best that ever was.

He created the New Deal and passed it against STIFF opposition from both Republicans & Corporate Dems~

We can thank FDR for Social Security

We can thank FDR for Glass-Steagall

We can thank FDR for giving 1000s of unemployed work through the TVA

We can thank FDR for the minimum wage law

The list goes on...

It doesn't matter ONE LITTLE BIT if he started out as a Rethug. He did GREAT DEMOCRATIC things for our country that no one has come close to replicating since.

Reagan began as a Democrat, and he switched & fit in as a rethug very, very well.(curse on society that he was.)

[KittyWampus]

7. *sigh* most DU'er bleating about the Third Wayer Corporatist Authoritarians would have hated FDR

For not being Left enough.

[RiverLover]

12. Classy. Total BS, but whatever. I can't believe this is an argument.

What is the point? You don't want to honor this great man, a Democrat, who laid the foundations that made our country great? But instead want to fabricate what you -believe- others would feel? Why on earth? What is the point?

[lovemydog]

13. I've read some books about that era, FDR was vilified by the far left

for being too corporatist and for helping keep Wall Street afloat.

It reminded a lot of current far left criticisms of President Obama.

I'm far left. I love FDR. I also love Obama.

I can't speak for the poster to whom you replied, but I think that might have been the point he or she was making.

[RiverLover]

14. I've read a book too, and it said the opposite, as does what I find online

He fought rethugs and Wall Street Dems~

“No president since the founders has done more to shape the character of American government,” notes historian Alan Brinkley in his biography of Roosevelt. “No president since Lincoln served through darker or more difficult times. The agenda of postwar American liberalism was set out by FDR in 1944, when he called for an ‘economic bill of rights.’

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/04/fear-itself-democrats-duck-fdrs-lessons/

The Democratic Party, with the New Deal, became a liberal party, supported by big city political machines, labor unions and blue collar workers, ethnic minorities, farmers, White Southerners, the impoverished, and intellectuals. This coalition was so powerful that the Democrats won the White House seven out of nine elections from 1932 to 1968, as well as control of both houses of Congress during all but 4 years between the years 1932-1980 (Republicans won small majorities in 1946 and 1952). Starting in the 1930s, the term “liberal” was used in U.S. politics to indicate supporters of the coalition, while "conservative" denoted its opponents (including conservative Democrats).

Republicans and Democrats were both split on the New Deal. Conservative Democrats & Republican opposed it as an enemy of business and economic growth, but more moderate Republicans supported some of it (while promising to improve it). In the 1934 midterm elections, Democrats gained an additional 9 seats in the Senate, and 9 seats in the House. Republicans also lost seats to the Progressive Party, a liberal party allied with the Democrats.

http://www.authentichistory.com/1930-1939/2-fdr/2-reception/index.html

[lovemydog]

57. Read good history books that go into great detail

on the communists and socialists who adamantly opposed what FDR did to save and preserve capitalism. That information is in books, not from googling stuff that might fit the agenda that you seem to want.

[JDPriestly]

93. With very few exceptions, the "left" of today in the US bears utterly no similarity to the

communists and socialists who opposed FDR.

I for one credit FDR with saving capitalism. I do not consider the corporatism we have today to be healthy, creative capitalism.

We have a form of corporatism that cannibalizes what is left of capitalism. Wall Street is still trading with huge, fast computers that mince the money of small investors and regurgitate with the evening champagne dinners of the fat cat hedge-fund managers and cheats in the big houses on Wall Street.

I wonder whether there is a shred of human decency in many of the large corporations we have today. The employees are great. But those at the top and the system they have to survive in regards social justice and the common good as luxuries that our country, our world cannot afford.

Pollute the environment, let the poor starve, profit personally from public education, produce food that makes people sick and does not nourish, produce products that are poorly made of low-quality materials by labor paid near-slave wages. That is the way of corporatism today. And it isn't just in America.

That is not capitalism. That is not the virtue and hard work that a capitalist society is supposed to reward.

That is just cheating. And there is far too much of it. Cheating and corruption. That is what FDR fought. He stood for a capitalism that provided jobs for people and that had the goal of raising the standard of living of everyone -- not just the Koch brothers and their greedy friends.

We need to return to capitalism that has some fair rules so that hard work really does win.

[OrwellwasRight]

107. We're not talking about what socialists and communists think.

We are talking about what lefty Democrats think.

No, FDR didn't please the communists. He was trying to save the Us from communism by making capitalism work. Straw man.

There has never been a US president who would have satisfied the socialists and communists. Are you saying that only socialists and communists are unhappy with Obama? Try again.

[cui bono]

140. +1

And calling yourself "far left" doesn't mean you get carte blanche. We'll see where you stand by your posts. Several BOGGERs think they are liberals. Hell some people actually think Obama is a liberal. At least he has sense enough to describe himself as a moderate Republican.

[billhicks76]

34. Warren VS FDR

To truly understand the dynamic you must study the Faceoff between these two. Warren would've been even 1000 times better. What's upsetting me is how Kerry tried to delay the torture report today until Republicans take over next session where they can torpedo it. What side is Obama on? The Republican run intelligence community side? Is he happy Republicans won the Senate? Sounds ludicrous but what is going on? Makes me wonder if he is being threatened by these dangerous people.

[lovemydog]

60. Warren did not run for President.

I love Elizabeth Warren and if she runs would definitely vote for her in a primary. If she ran and won the nomination I would gladly vote for her to be our next President.

What side is Obama on? Let's see, since the mid-terms, he has infuriated republicans by reaching the most significant climate change accord in history, pushed for immigration reform via executive action and said he will go it alone to get this done, appointed as next Attorney General a woman with a very strong civil rights record.

Prior to the midterms he went against every single republican in Congress to get millions of people more affordable health care and bring us closer to universal single payer coverage. He ended the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, amidst screams from the right that he is soft on terrorists. He has accomplished more for the left than any President since FDR. And bear in mind that when FDR got the significant parts of the New Deal passed he had huge democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate. (Interestingly, the Supreme Court later struck down some key parts of the New Deal but that was after they had already had their most positive impact in helping the poor and in getting us out of the Great Depression).

All of these actions have pissed off republicans considerably.

Regarding whether he is being threatened by dangerous people. I don't know, but I suspect that every President since Eisenhower has been in some way or another threatened by dangerous people in the military-industrial complex. It may not be via direct threats against him. It may be more in the form of showing the President tons of data on the direct threats against American citizens. It's really sad, as I firmly oppose the military-industrial complex and feel that dismantling it will be a key to getting our country more toward a democracy rather than an oligarchy.

[billhicks76]

64. Typo

I meant Henry Wallace not Warren.

[lovemydog]

75. Ah, thanks!

I love history and enjoy discussing it with you & others here. Have a good day.

[Jackpine Radical]

102. I was WONDERING what the hell you were talking about.

Now it all makes sense.

[dflprincess]

149. Even Eleanor said she'd be inclined to support Wallace if FDR wasn't running nt

[billhicks76]

162. True Populist

A real Progressive. He is what we should aspire to now.

[merrily]

124. I doubt it.

If the CIA is controlling our government, it's because politicians want it that way.

Regardless of who did or did not kill JFK, I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that things like every President since Kennedy has been shown the film, etc. and not a single one of them left that info about that in a vault to be opened in 50 years after his death or whatever. And no member of their family knew or told either. For that matter, I find it difficult to believe that no member of the CIA did it on his or her deathbed in a fit of wanting to get into heaven or whatever or a burst of belated conscience.

How many people in the White House and in the intelligence community would have had to have kept that secret since the 1960s? What are the odds of that many doing it?

I think at some point, we just have to face that our politicians are doing what they they want to do and what their biggest campaign donors want them to do--and we're not holding them accountable, even on message boards, let alone at the polling booth. We just keep electing them and reelecting them and paying for them, their staffs, their consultants, their junkets, etc. I think that simple truth is so hard for us to accept, especially when we fall in love with candidates, that we have to come up with other theories.

[billhicks76]

147. E Howard Hunt Confession

He was the #1 Republican operative and bagman. He served time over Watergate. He had a near death confession in 2005 I think it was. He named the whole chain of command. It was a jealous LBG and J Edgar Hoover who coordinated with rogue CIA and Oil Men. McCord too I think... Mary Pinchot Meyers estranged husband who JFK had an affair with. Also RFK privately investigated and thought they killed his brother.

[merrily]

148. Hunt never said the CIA has literally controlled every President from LBJ to Obama.

As my prior post said, I was not referring to the assassination, but to claims that the CIA had literally controlled every President after Kennedy. Your statement about Kerry now allegedly taking marching orders from our intelligence community is what I said I doubted. I didn't say a thing about who killed Kennedy.

[YoungDemCA]

157. E.Howard Hunt was a notorious liar (in addition to being a criminal)

Fuck him and his "confession."

[billhicks76]

163. Yes He Was

But he had a moment of clarity with his son. Check out the story before making stupid conclusions.

[cui bono]

141. The current administration is not on our side.

You can't go after TPP and be on our side.

You can't offer up SS and be on our side.

You can't install Wall Street in the White House and be on our side.


So many more...

[bvar22]

145. In FDR's time, the "Far Left" was the Communist Party,

and, yes, they did not think that FDR went Far enough.

The Fallacy you committed was in assuming that the "Far Left" of the 1930s
is the same thing as the "Far Left" today.

[merrily]

151. It still is, unless you believe Third Way and RW bs about the far left being

traditional Democrats like those who voted for Truman, Kennedy and LBJ. They were not even liberal, just plain ole Democrats. Then New Democrats came on the scene and tried to make us believe a load of bad things about Democratic voters of the Greatest Generation. Well, of course, they didn't put it that exactly way. But, you know what I mean.

What Joe McCarthy left unfinished has been far exceeded--and simply by persistently conflating words like "Democrat" "liberal" and "far left." And people wonder why Frank Lunz is so rich and why I post dictionary definitions on this site.

Of course, common usage changes dictionaries too. So, in a few years, even that won't serve to surface how they're transforming reality. Sigh.

Winton Smith, where are you, now that we really need you?

[merrily]

167. Post that on a Communist board. Most of America, esp traditional Dems, revered him.

The notion that traditional Democrats are the far left is laughable. (So is calling every criticism vilification, but that's another issue.)

[pnwmom]

19. She is honoring him by being truthful about him.

He was a great man, whatever his connections and background.

Too many people honor a person who never existed.

[Trajan]

41. THAT is undeserved speculation ...

The differences between FDR and the current crop off Democrats is the difference between night and day ...

So, now the BOG has to tear down Democratic party stalwarts in order to preserve their sense of superiority ? ... B.S.

[merrily]

166. That's your story? ROFL

[zeemike]

17. +1

Judge him by his works, and they were truly great at a time when this country was in serious trouble...and the corporatist tried to take him out in a coup that failed and was exposed by General Smedly Butler.

His actions made him a democrat and because of it he was hugely popular with ordinary people...that is not the case with democrats today, and has not been for some time now.

[MADem]

24. "Sigh" I'll just invite you to read my other posts in this thread.

Because you apparently aren't taking my point at all.

You're the only one who brought up his Republican roots. I never said one word about his political affiliations. That wasn't even in my wheelhouse.

[JDPriestly]

98. The Democrats of the day disfavored reining in Wall Street.

Last edited Sat Dec 6, 2014, 07:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Barack Obama's big problem is that he is too close to the interests of big money in the country, too cowed by the Kochs and the big Republican propaganda machine. If he just called out the corruption and instructed the federal regulatory agencies to enforce law in the business community including environmental and food and drug and telecommunications law and asked Congress to pass laws that supported more regulation of these business sectors, he would be viewed by a lot of people as a hero.

Instead, he for example sponsors the TPP, an agreement so noxious that we ordinary Americans are not allowed to read most of us and does not really fight Congress and that segment of the wealthy people whose greed knows no boundaries.

Roosevelt maintained capitalism. But he increased regulation. And he won majorities in Congress because people realized in part thanks to his rhetoric that they had to choose more regulation and better government.

Both Roosevelts are to be admired. I wish one of them were here today to run for office and make some changes. Corruption is the big problem confronting us. The two Roosevelts understood corruption and were able to deal with it.

Obama's health care program is great, but it does not adequately deal with the corruption in our health insurance sector. We shall see whether the way that it shifted liability for the costs of medical care of the poor can succeed. There are a lot of problems with the ACA although its goal is commendable. I hope it works well.

[MADem]

101. I've got to say I am a bit sick of this false characterization that he "sponsors the TPP."

He isn't sponsoring shit. Every single country agreed to the protocol for talks, including the USA, and he is the leader of the USA last time I checked. What--he's supposed to say "Fuck y'all?" Please.

There was secrecy surrounding these talks, and the reason they did that is so that people wouldn't be screaming about stuff on the table that WAS NOT GONNA HAPPEN. You can't have a freewheeling conversation unless you are actually FREE to speak FREELY. That includes crazy proposals from people who want their interests met. That doesn't mean that everyone in the meeting will roll over and agree.

Finally, Obama is not the King. "He" is not going to implement the TPP--there's going to be a vote on it, and he doesn't have a vote on it, either. People who claim to not like the TPP need to stop focusing on the President and start focusing on their own Senators. That IS how this stuff works.

But it's easy to scream "Bugaboo, bugaboo, TPP OBAMA" and way too many people pick up a pitchfork or a torch and start yelling "YEAH."

It's tiresome.

As for the Roosevelts, they were grand in their time. I doubt they'd be the "liberals" that people would expect them to be, would that they be transported in Stewie's time machine to this century. They were raised in a particular environment with particular mores. The world is very, very different today. I think they'd have a tough time adjusting.

[JDPriestly]

106. We should not have been involved in the negotiation of the TPP.

Our trade deficit is huge. We should have brought it down before we got involved in another discussion of more trade agreements.

We used to have a high standard of living thanks to high wages. The successive trade agreements have placed in jeopardy the high wages that enabled us to have that high living standard.

These kinds of give-away trade agreements we have entered into since actually the 1970s (that's when the plans to get some sort of top-down rearrangement in the so-called "world order" first became apparent to me) make the America that FDR described in the final portion of the speech in the video in the OP impossible to achieve. We are sinking very surely into a low standard of living. It's very sad. And the trade agreements are among the chief reasons.

[MADem]

126. Half the WORLD is at that table. You're saying we should be isolationists?

That's not how you come to accord, by turning your back.

We don't have to buy in, but we should see what's on offer.

[Cha]

125. Thank you for your post, MADem.. President Obama is the punching bag. .facts be damned.

[Eleanors38]

146. What FDR said is still "grand."

[MADem]

152. Not that bit about those internment camps, or that push back on "integration."

Those comments were entirely acceptable in their time, they don't age well, though.

Again, he was a lion in his time, and one for the ages, too. But he wasn't perfect--no one is. That's not an "attack"--that's just an honest assessment.

[Eleanors38]

170. "he wasn't perfect." It's like a virgin hunt...

Everyone knows there ain't any, but they nevertheless gather 'round the campfire afterwards, bitchin' about everyone else's game not being the 'real thing.'

I think FDR is still ahead of his times and would support his stuff even now.

BTW, most here have read the history books.

[MADem]

171. What a bizarre allegory. I'll just leave it at that.... nt

[chervilant]

177. "But he wasn't perfect--no one is."

I suspect that those DUers who criticize Obama share that sentiment about Obama, and find folks who demand we remain completely uncritical about him disingenuous or "patriotic" as S. Johnson once described.

Unarguably, Mr. Obama has not pursued criminal charges against those who ARE guilty of the crimes, the horrific tortures "some" committed--at least not overtly. I have to wonder what role, if any, he played in the generation of this report, particularly with regards to the timing of the release.

If, indeed, our nation is to recover from these despicable crimes--and change the trajectory of our long history of such injustices--the perpetrators must be held accountable and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[MADem]

180. If people are demanding no criticism against Obama here, they aren't at all successful.

I see more criticism leveled against him here than anyone would expect at an ostensibly Democratic website.

The "BOG" won't let people get rude or nasty, but that's a closed group and they have a right to limit the perspective (there are lots of those on this board--Liz warren, H. Clinton, John Kerry, etc.) --if we had an FDR Group for the historians here, they could cough up similar rules.

Hard to know if POTUS involved himself in any way with the issuance of this report--the bottom line, though, is that if not for DiFi we wouldn't be seeing this thing at all. As for whether Justice can or will prosecute anyone, that's anyone's guess, too. A lot of immunity has been handed out down the years, so it's probably unlikely that there will be any frog marching.

[roguevalley]

110. he was always a dem, the only branch in his family that was

Life Before the Presidency

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was born to James and Sara Roosevelt in 1882. James was a land-owner and businessmen of considerable, but not awesome, wealth from New York. He likely joined the Democratic Party in the 1850s and identified with the party for the remainder of his life, although he voted for Republicans on a number of occasions. A widower, he married Sara Delano, who was twenty-six years his junior, in 1880. Sara, one of the five beautiful Delano sisters, came from a family of considerable means and was notable both for her aristocratic manner and her independent streak.

After graduating from Groton, FDR went to Harvard College in 1900. He had only been in school for a few weeks when his father, who had suffered from a heart ailment for the previous decade, passed away. At Harvard, Roosevelt threw himself into a wide array of extracurricular activities, helping his social standing but hurting his grades, which were mostly average. After receiving his undergraduate degree in 1903 he returned for a year of graduate work; more important, he became editor of Harvard's student newspaper, the Crimson. While at Harvard, FDR apparently declared himself a member of the Democratic Party, although he remained fond of then-President Theodore Roosevelt.

Roosevelt ran for the state senate from Dutchess County in upstate New York, a region dominated by Republicans. He was a good candidate because of his name, his family's wealth, and his seemingly endless reservoir of energy, which allowed him to campaign tirelessly on a clean-up-government platform. FDR won the race by over a thousand votes, the clear beneficiary of his own efforts and a split in the Republican Party between progressives and conservatives.

In the state senate, Roosevelt proved a staunch defender of the farmers in his district, who were mostly Republicans, and a determined opponent of the Tammany Hall political machine that essentially ran New York City's Democratic Party. He even went so far as to oppose Tammany's choice for the U.S. Senate seat, earning him the enmity of that powerful group of politicians. Roosevelt's politics in these years were essentially of the progressive, new nationalist variety. Like his distant relative, former President Teddy Roosevelt, he generally believed that the government had to play a role in creating and maintaining a fair and equitable society, and in protecting individuals from concentrations of economic or political power.

A lot of people 'know' FDR but they don't. He was the greatest President in American history. Long live FDR, the hero of my family and savior of our country at a terrible dire moment.

[dflprincess]

150. I agree with what you said

except, as I recall from Ken Burns documentary, there had long been a split in the Roosevelt family. The Oyster Bay Roosevelts were Republican; the Hyde Park Roosevelts had been Democrats for a long time. And, at the time, the Oyster Bay faction would have been more progressive. Franklin and Eleanor were really key in remaking the Democratic party. I'm sure they'd both be shocked to see what has become of it.

[sabrina 1]

3. And he didn't let that stop him from providing for the people who elected him. In fact

his own 'class' thought of him as a traitor. He mocked them for that. The man had guts and it's funny to see people attempting to try to diminish the amazing work he did for this country's working class. Why? Because some of our more recent Democratic Presidents just don't hold up when compared to FDR?

Maybe if they answered the question 'which president do you most respect' with 'FDR' instead of 'Ronald Reagan' they might try to emulate a great Democrat instead of a not so great Republican.

[MADem]

18. His own class made a FORTUNE off of WW2, that more than compensated for the taxes they paid in

the Great Depression. He wasn't a "traitor"--he was a champion, even if unwittingly, of "deferred compensation." The military-industrial-congressional complex existed before the "Greatest Generation" war, but it was a highly polished, integrated. perpetual motion machine by the time peace was declared--and it had no trouble gearing up to full strength at a rapid clip when Korea came our way. It is now entrenched, it is a part of governance with very little accountability--and that needs to change (a topic for another day).

And speaking of taxes, FDR was a guy who felt that everyone should pay their taxes, but he tolerated regressive taxation (i.e., taxing the poor at a more burdensome rate) in order to get to the taxes of the more wealthy tax-avoiders. On DU today, a POTUS would be called a traitor to the working man if people caught one doing that.

No "recent Democratic President" -- in fact, NO president, ever since -- has had the spectre of a dual front genuine, no bullshit, put all your infrastructure up against it World War to deal with. So no comparison is either fair or apt. When your entire nation is on a war footing, you can get away with a LOT.

And prior to that, no one remembers "court packing" (imagine if Bush had tried to double the size of the Supreme Court, what people here would say...? I'm sure people wouldn't be talking about his "guts" but they would be remarking that he had a lot of another portion of his anatomy to try to pull that crap...).

Of course, no one (save George Takei, perhaps) wants to talk about those camps full of Japanese people, because they're inconvenient, and no one dares bring up how much was known about those far less pleasant camps in Germany....because that requires people to toss off the idealistic rose colored glasses, and see the guy in a more pragmatic way. Sure, his heart was in the right place, but he put essential elements of human compassion, and certainly human liberties, to the side, in pursuit of what he felt was a "greater good." Now, if one is not Jewish nor Japanese, one can probably more easily forgive him his frailties--but it's always about whose ox is gored, isn't it?

And while people rip Hillary for "standing by her man" no one is going to even bring up Eleanor's deliberate ignoring of Missy LeHand or the curious relationship FDR had with the unfortunately monikered Daisy Suckley. And that's just the tip of his iceberg, too--but people didn't talk about that stuff back then, so it makes it easier to ignore.

But here's the bottom line. FDR was a great leader in his time. Other Democratic presidents, including some that some DUers profess to "hate" will be seen as great leaders as well through the long lens of history.

Every President acts in their OWN TIME. To compare a Lincoln to an FDR to a Kennedy to an Obama is simply folly. One can only judge them by how they dealt with the cards that were played to them. If they failed in everything they attempted, if they didn't accomplish any gains that furthered the well-being of We, The People, or strengthened our nation on the international stage, they are generally regarded as failures.

Not really sure who "they" is in your last paragraph but suffice it to say that "they" are not friends of mine--I do not associate with a single soul who would regard Reagan as anything more than a front man, a useful idiot, an actor playing the role of President, who was manipulated by a cabal of wingnut assholes. The strongest leader in the WH during the Reagan years was Nancy.

[sabrina 1]

27. They're not friends of yours? I was referring to President Obama who when asked about the

president he most admired, and I remember the interview, expecting him to say Lincoln, or Washington at least, or FDR, but instead he said 'Ronald Reagan'.

He tried to explain it later after the outcry from Democrats whose votes he needed to win in 2008, but it was a warning sign which we brushed aside, along with a few other things.

They're not friends of anyone, those who support Ronald Reagan's policies except their own 'class'.

I can see you are not too fond of FDR so I'm not going to waste any time on that.

His record is there and needs no defending, it is still benefiting the people he worked so hard for nearly six decades after his death. That's quite a legacy.

Social Security Kept 27 Million Americans Out Of Poverty In 2013

Not sure how the legacies of some of our recent presidents will be remembered six decades from now.

Odd that there is any Democrat who isn't proud of the Dem legacy of FDR. There is no Republican whose policies have so benefited the working class, the elderly, orphaned children, the disabled. And over so long a period of time. SS and Medicare are still two of the most popular Government programs across the political spectrum. But Dems seem almost ashamed of that success for the people.

We know the right wing has been trying to tear it apart for decades. Sad to see Democrats actually putting some of these successful programs 'on the table' for them to attack.

[MADem]

28. He doesn't come over for lunch on Saturday.

I think it's funny how some people can confound an obvious pander with reality.

Would Reagan have repealed DADT? Would Reagan have provided amnesty to immigrants? Would Reagan have worked to bring an ACA to the nation? Would Reagan have provided federal benefits to LGBT couples?

Actions speak louder than words--but I don't expect anyone here to see that. It's too easy to zing on a thing than look at the big picture.

Tell you what--we can get together in six decades and talk to the grandchildren of people whose lives were saved by the ACA, and hear from all the descendants of the Garcias, Ramirezes, Hidalgos, Gomezes, and Riveras, etc. who weren't flung out of this country on their asses thanks to that Obama guy that no one here (who isn't a person of color or minority ethnicity, at any rate) can seem to tolerate. Maybe since Obama lifted that Bush stem-cell ban, they'll actually find a way to keep me alive that long so we can have that conversation. One never knows....

[sabrina 1]

36. Don't ask me those questions, I despise Reagan. Ask Obama why he admired him so much.

As to what Reagan would have brought us, we know what he brought us, but one thing he would have been in favor of is the ACA. That was a Heritage Foundation dream come true, with a few adjustments that have benefited some of the people. What's funny is to see the same Republicans who lauded Mandated Ins, when Romney did it, simply because of that all important letter, are suddenly against what they actually support.

But Dems would have opposed it if Reagan had done it. it took a Dem to get Mandated Ins done.

[Enthusiast]

86. +1

[billhicks76]

35. How Do You View Jimmy Carter?

We know he is the most decent of them all but how did he represent the lower classes? I could read more if course but I'm curious your perspective.

[MADem]

38. I think he was a guy whose heart was in the right place.

Was he perfect? Hell no. Did he mean well and did he have a moral core? Absolutely. He was a bit Jesus-y, but he pretty much stuck to the "least of the brethren, merciful, feed the hungry/care for the sick" bits when he got all faith-based, and that kind of stuck it to the selfish moralists. His "malaise" speech touched upon consumerism and not giving a shit about the needy among us, and I thought that was a fair point.

He supported the ERA, which I thought was emblematic of his essence--after all, the poorest people, the ones who worked the hardest and made the least, were women, not men. He was the first guy to put a fair share of people of color and females on his staff who were VISIBLE--not hidden in the back rooms. He was always in favor of making taxes more progressive, not that he had the clout to do it, but he made that plain--and progressive taxes favor the poor as we all know. He was also strong on federal subsidies to public education, which always-always-always benefit the poorest neighborhoods with the least resources.

Check this out--it's his stances AS A CANDIDATE, before he was elected, from an independent book about him (because no one knew who the hell he was). What's fascinating about him is that he was all in favor of national health insurance and decriminalization of marijuana--back in the SEVENTIES. And that's just for starters....

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Jimmy_Who_Jimmy_Carter.htm

Again, not a saint, but a solid guy with a people-oriented POV.

[billhicks76]

44. Nice. Thanks.

[4Q2u2]

137. Here this some good info

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncarebu21.html

Howard Zinn

Carter does not look to good in it.
Actually alot of people do not.

[4Q2u2]

136. He is another Pres that is getting new make up and lipstick

Howard Zinn's book

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncarebu21.html

In 1979, as Carter weakly proposed benefits for the poor, and Congress strongly turned them down, a black woman, Marian Wright Edelman, director of the Children's Defense Fund in Washington, pointed to some facts. One of every seven American children (10 million altogether) had no known regular source of primary health care. One of every three children under seventeen (18 million altogether) had never seen a dentist. In an article on the New York Times op-ed page, she wrote:

The Senate Budget Committee recently . .. knocked off $88 million from a modest $288 million Administration request to improve the program that screens and treats children's health problems. At the same time the Senate found $725 million to bail out Litton Industries and to hand to the Navy at least two destroyers ordered by the Shah of Iran.

Carter approved tax "reforms" which benefited mainly the corporations. Economist Robert Lekachman, writing in The Nation, noted the sharp increase in corporate profits (44 percent) in the last quarter of 1978 over the previous year's last quarter. He wrote: "Perhaps the President's most outrageous act occurred last November when he signed into law an $ 18 billion tax reduction, the bulk of whose benefits accrue to affluent individuals and corporations

[MADem]

138. That book was written in 1980 and is often quoted by conservatives to tear Carter down.

The author has been dead for four years and the book is 34 years old--that's hardly "new make up and lipstick" and what a curious way to even refer to a Democratic president?

Reviews have been mixed. Some have called it a brilliant tool for advancing the cause of social equality. Others have called the book a revisionist patchwork containing errors. ....

You can read review excerpts here. I'm sorry, I don't take anything Zinn has to say as "controlling." His agenda and world view are all over his writing, and he's not always accurate even though he is very passionate. I have to wonder if Carter's southern roots and USN/nuke power/submariner background didn't put him in the shits with Zinn before he even opened his mouth...?

[4Q2u2]

139. True on Zinn

You can see a certain dint. It does seem that he is writing pissed off because he is the left of everyone, but i think it has it's points. Pretty funny that GOPers would use that, because St Ronnie and the rest of the Halfwit Parade do not look any better.
I was alluding to now, how many view Carter as a perfect President. He was, as you stated, Super Pious, A Balanced Budget Fiscal Conservative. None of those would get you a cup of Coffee around here if spoken outright.

I guess alot of it has to do with what chances were lost in the early 70's that are still reverberating now. Tip wanted Universal Health Care then. He pointed out to Carter that the Dems won and use the power the American people gave them. Expand the New Deal and fix the tax laws to better protect those who needed it most. Strengthen Unions and worker protections.

[MADem]

142. He was flawed in many ways (who isn't?) but his heart was in the right place.

He was constrained by a number of influencers--his background, the environment in which he was raised, his USN experience, his temperament (he had the small command attitude of many submariners; a tendency to micromanage which was on the opposite spectrum of his successor, who didn't know what day it was, half the time), and of course, the "biggie" -- he didn't get a 2nd term.

The GOP will use ANYONE "trashing" a Democrat as "proof" of you-name-it...disarray, failed ideas, whatever. It's a technique they use, to take criticisms or simple observations, which may or may not be regarded as fair or accurate by all liberals, and equate that criticism to some kind of institutional disloyalty. When you see this kind of thing, watch out--you're dealing with someone who doesn't like honest debate.

[merrily]

168. Regardless of who uses the book, the stuff is either accurate or it is not.

Carter is a very decent man. Did he have flaws? Sure. Every President we've ever had had flaws, probably more than we'll ever know. But his major accomplishment in my book was something he got criticized for every single evening of his Presidency--he didn't start a war over the hostages, which would have assured their death and the deaths of many, many others.

[merrily]

132. FDR did not integrate anything because Party loyalty and "pragmatism" directed those actions.

California's electoral votes were going to Republicans then. He knew Democrats would REALLY not be able to survive losing the South.

Truman did integrate the military--and only the military, and got a third party challenge for it, despite World War II. Hence, the famous photo of Truman holding up a newspaper with a "Dewey wins" photo. And, Truman might well have lost if he tried another run.

As far as the so called court packing plan, meh. He and Congress were both desperately trying to save the country before it went entirely down the tubes. Not only the stock market crash, but the Dust Bowl. Grapes of wrath indeed. Meanwhile Hitler was looming. The Constitution gave him that out and he said he'd take it. Was he bluffing? Would he really have done it We'll never know. But he did not propose anything illegal--and he was desperate.

Anyway, he scared the RW Justices enough that they started allowing New Deal legislation. And, for better or worse, the commerce clause got vastly expanded. And he never did "pack the Court," though other Presidents did enlarge it in less dire circumstances and without being excoriated.

[MADem]

153. I doubt you--or anyone here -- would be "meh" -ing if GW Bush tried to pack the court

on his watch. That's not a "meh"--that's a BFD.

As for "party loyalty and pragmatism," that's all fine and dandy, but it's funny that when one brings up a politician's actions in THIS century, and references "party loyalty and pragmatism" that here on DU they get the hand and a load of shit. Every "acceptable" politician has to be a far, far lefty even if their constituency is moderate or even a bit conservative. They're not allowed the "party loyalty and pragmatism" that FDR gets .... because, er...New Deal, whatever. He was a great President but he was human, he manifested some of the biases of his time, and he wasn't perfect. That's not an "attack" even though some here want to characterize it thusly.

When Republicans are in position to decide who the next Supreme Court justices are, that's a BFD. I'd rather have a few less-than-perfect Senators of the Democratic Party persuasion voting on those people than 54 gleeful-and-pissed-off Republicans.

[merrily]

154. As long as we're doing hypotheticals, I doubt everyone here would be upset if Obama did it.

I can imagine cheering and rationalizations up the yin yang. So, I'm not sure what point there is in dueling imaginary scenarios.

As for Meh, my post carefully explained exactly under what circumstances my "meh" applied. I think I am relatively consistent in applying my principles. If Bush had threatened to expand the court--as the Constitution allows and prior Presidents had done, in the exactly the same circumstances and for exactly the same reasons as FDR, I would have said the same thing I said about FDR. Besides, as my prior post specified, you don't know that FDR actually tried it or if he was bluffing. He never did expand the court. All we know for certain is that he threatened to do it and it never happened. Anything else is speculation.

As for "party loyalty and pragmatism," that's all fine and dandy, but it's funny that when one brings up a politician's actions in THIS century, and references "party loyalty and pragmatism" that here on DU they get the hand and a load of shit.

Yep, that is exactly why I used those words in my post. But, yes, posters here do bring up party loyalty and pragmatism again and again and again and again, just not for FDR. And, if anyone demurs, they call them names and tell them they're not real Democrats and accuse them of seeking to depress the vote and of making "fucking crazy" statements. Besides, I never said it was okay for FDR to do that, did I? I just said why he did it. If people here don't get it about California's having been red in Presidentials, they may not understand that it could have meant waving bye to the Party.

But, I did point out that the choice FDR faced was quite drastic. That choice was lot more drastic than just running a traditional Democrat versus a New Democrat, the kind of thing for which Party critics get called everything but a child of God here.

I'd rather have a few less-than-perfect Senators of the Democratic Party persuasion voting on those people than 54 gleeful-and-pissed-off Republicans.

You're only proving my point. FDR would rather that Democrats had a shot at the Presidency sometime in the century after him, for the Supreme Court and everything else. Given California at that time, it was a real possibility Dems would not have that shot if he ordered integration of the military or of anything else.

[MADem]

158. He never tried it? It's in the history books! He most certainly "tried" it--otherwise,

we wouldn't know about it. And that's fine--he's "our guy" so we know he did it for good reasons. If Bush tried it, his people would feel the same way, but we'd be shitting bricks and spitting hellfire.

Again, you're telling me that FDR was a pragmatist and I know that--I don't have a problem with that, but I am just not sure why it's "OK" for him to be one, but not "OK" for anyone living in this century to be one...?

I understand what FDR did, and why. So do most people. They see him in the context of his time. I just find it odd (and I am not speaking to you specifically) that all these history afficionados can't seem to see our own politicians in the context of their time. Obama wants to grow the party, too, and reach out in areas where we don't have many inroads--he's no different from FDR in that regard.

As I have said, five or ten years from now, a lot of Obama's worst detractors here are likely going to be boasting about how they were "with him" all along. And these are people who accuse Obama and other Democrats of not being "real Democrats" or a "turd wayers" or other debasing remarks.

[merrily]

159. As I said twice before, we know he threatened and we know it never happened. All else is

speculation--except he got what he wanted and then some anyway, even without enlarging the court even by a single Justice. Yet, he still gets excoriated for "court packing," even though it never happened.

You tend to confuse your feelings of certainty with fact. Sorry, but the two are not the same, no matter how confident you are in your own opinions. You are speculating about the intent of a very clever man who was very good at getting done what he wanted to get done and who is now long deceased.

But whatever. I am not going to go back and forth with you over this all night. You either get the difference between what we actually know and your own conclusions or you don't.

[MADem]

161. I'm not speculating about anything. If he didn't try it, it wouldn't have been recorded in history

books. Historians don't generally engage in fantastical suppositions about world leaders.

That's not anything to do with a "feeling of certainty," that is simply fact.

[JonLP24]

164. He also integrated the federal workplace

The two executive orders were made the same day. He also had some other reforms but his opposition mainly had to do with his Civil Rights proposal which faced opposition from even LBJ.

Though your overall message is spot on.

[merrily]

165. Thanks. I did not know that. Good to know for the next round of FDR bashing!

[pnwmom]

20. Who is trying to diminish him? nt

[sadoldgirl]

4. Sorry, but it sounds to me

exactly like a put down. Most of us know that he was no saint and that his empathy
for the people was probably the result of his polio. Yes, like every president he made
mistakes.

Yet I have not heard any other president following FDR to revive those points in the
video. Nor have I heard any of them openly and defiantly welcoming the hatred of
Wallstreet and the corporations.And I for one would love to hear that again.

I think that we ought to give credit where it is due.

[KittyWampus]

8. The reality of FDR is he was chastised by the Far Left and many DU'ers would have called him

a corporate sellout.

[sadoldgirl]

11. I wonder who of all

possible candidates for 2016 would make that

"and I welcome their hatred"
speech? I don't know of anyone who would do that.

[RiverLover]

30. +1 Neither do I...well maybe one person. :)

[paleotn]

23. Oh, please....

....stop projecting current day, third way crap on history. Truman was just as "chastised" as you call it. No one's perfect, certainly. Hell, they're politicians for god's sake, but FDR and Truman were light years to the left of Allison "don't ask who I voted for" Grimes or Third Way Kay. Now what was it that Truman said about republican light Dems?

[RiverLover]

29. link?

FDR was far left, accused of being a socialist by "conservative dems" back then.

I've read books, I belong to the Roosevelt Institute, I've never read or heard what you are saying.

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/

[hifiguy]

67. FDR welcomed the hatred of Wall Street.

Obama and HRC kowtow to them.

[RiverLover]

71. Yep. That couldn't be any clearer, and well-documented.

Yet some people refuse to admit it. Its strange.

[MADem]

10. Well, what you think you hear is a "put down" is simply fact.

So you are wrong on that score.

Precisely where was the "put down?" What wasn't true?

See, your error is in assuming that "most" people know that he wasn't a saint. The bottom line is the exact opposite--many people are horrified to learn of the reality of his life, and will argue like hell against any statements about his reality even when presented with scholarly histories of the man.

No one is NOT "giving credit where credit is due," but it needs to be pointed out that this very human being was no socialist--he would not have tolerated HIS bottom line being abrogated, and that is what makes him entirely human.

You seem to ignore the fact that, in the postwar era (and I am talking post WW2) that jobs were plentiful and benefits were great. You signed on with a company for life, and you got a good pension. You were able to support a family on a single income. There was, for a long time, no need for "any other President to revive these points" because most people weren't in the hurt locker. Truman and Ike and JFK and even LBJ presided over a nation where most people were doing "OK" and had all those "economic rights" talked about in FDR's address. No one jumps up to fix what ain't broke.

Things started to get a bit rough in the Nixon era, and he was followed by Ford and then Carter. Carter--since you are claiming no other President gave a shit--DID give a shit about the poor, the needy, and those requiring the social safety net--and he urged all of us to pull together, turn the heat down, suck it up, work together, and get past tough times. How did we "reward" him? We threw him out and installed Saint Ronnie of Run Up The National Credit Card. He was followed by George HW "Charge It Some More" Bush. And when Clinton showed up, he was the guy who went to the factories and told people "Those jobs are GONE and they ain't coming back no more. But you can learn a new trade and I will help." And look how he's remembered here....

So...."what evs" as the kids say.

[sabrina 1]

37. FDR's social programs have saved millions of lives. Since then every greedy, Wall St crook has tried

to take away from the people what he gave them. That's all I care about when it comes to politicians, 'WHAT DID THEY DO FOR THE WORKING CLASS' You can ramble on about his 'class' and his 'wealth' all you want, the record is there, his own writings about what he wanted to do and WHY and how he did it, regardless of all the opposition he faced.

And the people elected him four times because they knew he was doing good for them, regardless of his class or motives, which he explained very clearly btw, they were actually really 'pragmatic' to use the word CORRECTLY for once.

[MADem]

42. Where is anyone in this thread declaring "FDR's social programs DID NOT SAVE any lives?"

I mean, come off it. No one is claiming that he didn't do a lot of good. Why even lead with that "We hold these truths to be self-evident" type of "argument?" That's not news.

But he MADE HIS MONEY on WALL STREET. That's not up for debate, either. He didn't have a family-run railroad, and a family run coal mine where he sold boutique bags of souvenir coal all tied up with a pretty bow. He made his money off the backs of coal miners in a big way, make no mistake. That's where his family investments were centered.

And the people did elect him four times, the first time because they hoped he would do good for them, the second time because they knew he was doing good for them, regardless of his class or motives, the third time because in 40, we were all but in that war in Europe with lend-lease and it was simply a question of getting our war machine up to speed, and in 44 we were in the thick of a tough slog of a two front war and he seemed to be handling that in a competent fashion....by then, those corporatists were onboard, too, because they were making money hand over fist, supplying that war machine.

I had relatives who worked in a GIRDLE factory that was suddenly making all sorts of stretchy military gear and they had to work double shifts and a six, sometimes seven day week; people who worked in car factories found themselves working double shifts making jeeps and tanks; I had an auntie who was Rosie the Riveter, putting together airplanes. EVERYONE was working their ass off and no one was "poor" at that point in time, anyone who wanted to work could find two jobs if they wanted them, assuming they weren't called for the draft--they needed more workers to keep the war machine churning--that's why so many women entered the workforce in an era when one salary could support a small to medium sized family.

I'm not sure why you're crabbing about my use of the word pragmatic -- go on and look it up, I know what it means, maybe you want to refresh...? I'm not saying FDR wasn't a pragmatist, either--but he wasn't a dewy-eyed, on the ramparts socialist who would be at ease with some of concepts touted today, which is what some people want to paint him as. He was a very decent fellow, with some of the unfortunate biases of his era, who did a very good job indeed in a tough position during a challenging time in history. He deserves all sorts of kudos for that.

Let's not paint him as a cross between MLK and Ghandi, though. And let's not suggest that he'd be a liberal on issues that are important to people nowadays, like LGBT rights, women's equality, drug legalization, "integration" of the races, and things like that. He didn't come from an era that supported those kinds of things. He came from an era where there was a pecking order, racial and class divisions, and what were regarded as "appropriate" roles. Women, as soon as the war was over, were expected to take off their coveralls and get back to the kitchen, do those dishes, wash those floors, vacuum those rugs, dust that furniture, and raise those kids (no one counted on the women not liking that idea, though).

It's impossible to know how FDR would feel, these days and it's rather foolish to even try to pretend to know. If he were immortal, one might assume that it could depend on how well he managed his portfolio. And that's not being unkind, that's just being PRAGMATIC. He was never a sackcloth and ashes type of guy; he wasn't ostentatious, but he enjoyed the niceties of life.

[adieu]

15. Never consider the good as the enemy of the perfect.

FDR was not perfect. We can't attain perfection. What he did and why he did what he did was always after compromises with various fighting factions.

[MADem]

22. Who's doing that? Not me. I am a pragmatist. I see the man as he was, warts and all.

He was an outstanding President--one of the very best.

But--as YOU point out--FDR was not perfect.

The OP would have us believe otherwise.

[Luminous Animal]

50. Could you please show me where the OP is trying to get us to believe that FDR was perfect?

Thank you in advance for your time.

[MADem]

59. Please look at the OP title.

This is what a REAL Democrat sounds like....

As though there aren't any others, that no one since 1944 has lived up to the mark, that present-day leaders are somehow wanting. It's a compare-and-contrast implication. However, if we pull the string, we might find a few comments by that same paragon of Democratic thought that might not sit so pretty with us.

It's a divisive device, designed to divide Democrats. I don't care for it much.

You're more than welcome.

[hifiguy]

66. Nope, not at all.

But FDR stood up for the economic interests of the working man and woman more than any president before or since except possibly for TR or LBJ. He had the good of the people at the heart of his economic policy. And WW II was the last war that HAD to be fought.

[MADem]

81. I am sorry to tell you that I misjudged your intent, then.

It would have been nice if you'd elucidated your reasoning in your OP, given the strife on this board about who is, and who is not, a "real" Democrat, these days. That kind of language can and often is perceived as divisive.

I think if you are a registered Democrat who votes for Democrats, you ARE a Democrat. I think trying to suggest that some Democrats are not "real," or are "bad," is a divisive and disruptive meme that is relentlessly deployed here to provoke angst, ire and in some cases, to devalue members of this community. Frankly, I am tired of it, and I don't think I'm alone.

That said, if your intent was not to disrupt and divide, I regret that your point wasn't terribly clear. All of us who vote for Democrats are "real" Democrats. We support the party platform. We have more in common than we have differences. The constant highlighting and carping about the differences--particularly when the commentary gets vitriolic--is wearying. I especially don't like it when historical figures are dragged up and pointed at, as though they are The Way And The Light. No one knows how an FDR or a (GOP) Lincoln or Thomas Slaveowner Jefferson would react to what is happening in this 21st Century. They were great leaders in their time--the operative phrase being In Their Time.

[WillyT]

45. FDR Was The ONLY Reason We Had The Congress For 40 Years...

[MADem]

56. And the Civil Rights Act and Nixon's Southern Strategy were the reasons we lost it.

So what should we do? Turn back the hands of time, and turn our backs on a substantial portion of our population....? Those racist, conservative Democrats and those that followed them who were part and parcel of that "40 years" switched sides.

In the old days, there used to be liberal Democrats, and liberal Republicans, conservative Democrats, conservative Republicans, and a mess of moderates from both parties too. The liberals favored civil rights--the conservatives didn't. It had nothing to do with party affiliation, it was more a regional and ideological thing.

People forget that Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms started out as Democrats. So did young cheerleader Trent Lott. Democrats ruled the south back in the day. And they were, most of 'em, mean, racist, and conservative Democrats.

I mean, come on. You can't seriously cry over losing those folks. Some of those Southern Democrats were a disgrace to the ideals that we hold near and dear today. We didn't become a "liberal" party until we got rid of that dead weight.

We paid a price for Civil Rights, but I think it was worth it.

[LiberalElite]

46. FDR was a damn sight better

than most of what passes for Democrats in that party today.

[MADem]

53. If you weren't Japanese or Black, or a Jew in a camp in Europe, certainly.

That said, for his time, and IN his time, he was FAR better than most. He was a man for his time (and there was no place for a woman leader in USA at that time, it should be noted).

But trying to drag his corpse into the 21st Century and make assumptions about how he "might" see things is frankly, silly. He was a product of his environment, with all of the biases that attend. I doubt he'd be cheering on the Equality movement, for example. And he might not be terribly enthused with the concept of what was quaintly called "integration" either.

Anyone living in what was regarded as true poverty in the 1930s, if transported to crappy, rundown project homes in this century without decent heat, surviving on food stamps and bottle deposits, would, for a brief moment until they were able to make a comparison with their neighbors, consider themselves wealthy.

Where you stand always depends on where you sit.

[LiberalElite]

54. What use is it

to fantasize what FDR would think about anything now?

[MADem]

58. That's the very point! No one can know--it's an exercise in an Unprovable Thesis. nt

[TheKentuckian]

74. My grandfather was a black man born in the late 1800's who was an FDR man

and guess what he he was NEVER, not for a day excluded from Social Security and he was certainly not the only one and further there were white agricultural workers who weren't and had to wait in line behind some black folks to benefit.

Some folks like to generalize to lie.

[MADem]

78. Lucky him. Not sure who you are accusing of "generaliz(ing) to lie" but that sounds pretty uncivil

a comment to me, to accuse any DUer of lying, even more so when you imply that the lie was somehoe deliberate and nefarious.

I haven't said a single, solitary word about FDR's record on Social Security (and I have always GREATLY admired him for initiating the program, BTW, so I guess the point you're striving for with regard to my POV is lost)--not sure why you're playing a "gotcha" card there with me. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else?

If you were drafted into a segregated military during WW2, and most men of a certain age were, they felt the sting of inequality in a very real way. If you were paid less for doing a government contract job as a consequence of your skin color, the point was driven home that separate and NOT equal was the law of the land. Social security had nothing to do with that.

In any event, calling people liars here is pretty doggone rude--just thought I'd point that out to you, in the event that you are unclear on the concept.

[TheKentuckian]

113. If you want to put the shoe on, no one can stop you from wearing it.

Why are you joining the some people?

[MADem]

114. I'm not the one insinuating DUers are liars.

You're the one with the shoe, and it's on the wrong foot. Your post was uncivil.

[RiverLover]

82. Thanks for telling it like it is...or was. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

51. Who, would you say, are the ideological equivalents of Frances Perkins and Henry Wallace

in Obama's cabinet?

FDR may not have been a Socialist, but he wasn't a staunch Neoliberal, either. And he improved with time.

[MADem]

52. Those kinds of comparisons are pointless. It's not 1933 and we're not in the midst of a Great

Depression. Obama will not be serving a third, or a portion of a fourth, term, nor will he be facing a World War on two fronts that serve as an engine in overdrive to any economy.

FDR was a CAPITALIST. An unapologetic one, too. Not an "unrestrained" one, not a monopolist, and not an asshole.

He believed that a rising tide lifts all boats, like many of us do.

[MannyGoldstein]

62. so I guess the answer is "nobody"?

Noted.

[MADem]

63. No, Manny. The answer is the one I gave you.

Stop putting words or meanings in the mouths of others--note that, if you will.

[Jack Rabbit]

90. I don't thik you and I have the same definition of "corporatism"

Corporatism, to be fair to you, has no formal definition that I know. However, my understanding of the concept is that it is devoid of any concept of noblesse oblige. Corporatism is modern concept that the large private corporation is the only thing that is real and all social efforts must be made for the health and well being of large, privately owned corporation at the expense of the common human individual (but the those who privately control the corporation), human society, the government or even the planet itself.

While most corporatists claim to celebrate the individual against any legitimacy of a "collective" rights, the fact is that a corporation is itself a collective. For example, General Motors cannot be identified with the chief executive officer of GM, as corporatists would have us think, or even with the collective body of corporate officers, the board of directors or the stock holders. A corporation is, in fact, all of those individuals, along with the sum of its employees and can even be extended to the consumers who buy its products, without whom there would be no corporation.

A man who holds the office of President of the United States and uses the bully pulpit to deride those who could rightly be understood to be corporatists as "economic royalists," and who took the kind of strong action to back up such rhetoric as FDR did, cannot himself be a corporatist, no matter pure the silver spoon in his mouth when he was born.

[MADem]

91. He was a member of the club, enjoying the fruits of his family investments.

He wouldn't have tolerated the means of his wealth being removed from himself or his family. He wasn't about to join the great unwashed in a cold water flat to demonstrate his solidarity. He was opposed to USURIOUS corporatism, not corporatism, necessarily. What he was, as I've said, is a capitalist--an enthusiastic, fair play capitalist. And that is what made him one of the good guys in the eyes of most people who saw the upwardly mobile potential of the American landscape.

[Jack Rabbit]

112. I think our disagreement is semantic

I don't regard semantics as all that trivial. You are using corporatism and capitalism interchangably; I am using corporatism as a subset of capitalism: All corporatists are capitalists but not all capitalists are corporatists. My semantics requires no adjective like usurious to distinguish corporatists and capitalists. While I would not use capitlism as a synonym for corporatism, I might use as a synonym for corporatism a term like free market fundamentalism or, to borrow from FDR, economic royalism.

[MADem]

115. I don't know if that is so, but it is an interesting slant to the conversation.

I think that there are benign, limited corporatists (those who think the private sector can do some things better than an unwieldy government with layers of bureaucracy and patronage can), and then there are others who think that Monsanto (or name your poison) should rule the Woooooorld (cue dramatic music)!!!!!

See, I need those qualifiers to distinguish 'em all. I just can't get on board with your definitions.

I wouldn't call guys like this--an owner of a once-large corporation--a royalist, goon, fundamentalist, or anything of that nature. If you own a corporation, have significant holdings in one, get investment income from them, you are--like it or not--a corporatist. You are a member of a system, and you derive benefit from it.

There are good people everywhere, and there are bad people frequenting the same venues, unfortunately. There are unfettered corporatists and capitalists who would beat us bloody and take our last dime without losing a minutes' sleep over it. And there are guys like Aaron Feuerstein.

[JDPriestly]

92. My mother and I agree about most political topics.

She was a teenager and college student during the era of FDR and adores him to this day.

Both Roosevelts, Teddy and Franklin, distant cousins, were raised in extreme wealth.

Teddy Roosevelt in particular, but Franklin as well, hated corruption and tried to limit it.

Neither of them really needed to be corrupt. They knew where to draw the line between necessary accommodation and compromise and crass corruption.

The reason that many of us are so soured on the extreme influence of wealth in our government is that it masks and is linked to corruption. It isn't that rich people are evil. Not at all. It is that they want their opinions and needs to precede those of others.

A teacher who stays after school to help a child develop his or her talents, who gives the great gift of her knowledge, her character and her time to that child is worth far more in our society than the stockbroker who does speed trading and does it so efficiently that in reality he or she is cheating investors with less knowledge and shoddier equipment. But which one of them is not only better paid but HAS MORE AND WIDER INFLUENCE IN OUR GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY?

The Roosevelts appreciated the principle that hard work, discipline, character and fairness are more important than all the wealth they were born with and could have yielded to run the world to suit their own interests.

Wealth is no impediment to virtue if the wealth is accompanied by the determination to achieve justice.

But sadly, most wealthy people today have no allegiance to justice. Couldn't care less about it.

Or at least that is the impression that the rest of us get when we see the rampant corruption in our government. There are exceptions. John Kerry is a very wealthy man who tries to do what is right. There are a number of exceptions like him, but Obama's penchant for appointing Wall Street cronies suggests corruption -- it justifies the perception of corruption. Obama should appoint someone from outside the Wall Street and investment crowd to some of the top Treasury, Commerce, Fed jobs.

There is really an appearance of corruption with the appointment of Weiss.

[MADem]

94. I agree with your point about the rich.

I would only add that "old school" rich people had hoity-toity ways, but they were far less conspicuous in their consumption back in the day than they are today. They were also more attuned to sustainable charitable giving (foundations for pet projects, usually in support of the public welfare, though--not a political idea).

The New Rich have ten houses and a zillion cars, planes, yachts, and consume in an unspeakably ostentatious way. They have So Much Money that it's like a Richie Rich cartoon, their lives.

Old money would wear that raggy ass (expensive, mind you) sweater till the elbows gave out, and then give it to the butler to have the housekeeper put suede patches on the elbows. They're the type who turn down the heat even though they own the electric company. They're frugal-ish...sorta, kinda.

John Kerry is "well off," but he is a pauper compared to his wife. A veritable pauper. Her portfolio outstrips his by leaps and bounds.

I think Obama nominates the people he thinks will get past the gauntlet and do the least damage, and who are amenable to conversation about points of view. If he puts forward an academic or an outsider, the moneyed interests in the Senate will advise against consent, if you will. He's between a rock and a hard place, I suspect, when it comes to some appointments.

[JDPriestly]

103. Obama is such a great guy. I really, really like him as a person.

But when I compare him to the Roosevelts, the Roosevelts, both of them, were ready to take on anybody. They would probably be considered over-confident by today's standards. But they were both great speakers, inspiring speakers.

I understand that Teddy Roosevelt was asthmatic and had a peculiar speech style but spoke endlessly. On the other hand, FDR was disabled more severely but had a patient voice that inspired a great deal of confidence. I don't know if it is true, but I have heard that FDR had someone read to him when he was in college. Hard to believe. But his speeches were inspiring.

Obama is too afraid to really strike out. Teddy Roosevelt was a boxer although not all that great a boxer. Franklin Roosevelt had to overcome a tremendous disability. Thus Franklin had a fighting spirit too. I think it is that fighting spirit that we do not hear enough of in Obama's voice and speeches. He is a conciliator. It's a great personality trait. Brings harmony. But at this time, we need someone who is a fighter for ordinary people.

The economic power has so shifted to that frivolous wealth that you describe so well. And that is really bad for the US. Really bad.

There is no sense of duty any more. Both Roosevelts had a strong sense of duty to their country and to the American people rich or poor, no matter. Although FDR could have done far more to prepare the way for better race relations in our country, I do credit Eleanor Roosevelt for her enlightened and positive stances on that issue. She did what she could. Roosevelt's coalition in Congress included a lot of Southern politicians who could win elections on Roosevelt's economic stances but who would have lost had Roosevelt done the courageous and right thing on race issues.

We see today that the South still staunchly supports candidates who speak out of two sides of their mouths with regard to race. Every president has to be realistic. But presidents should dare to inspire voters to dream. Obama is doing that now on environmental issues. But he needs to have a ringing, emotionally stirring call to action that he takes directly to voters. He needs to practically sing his appeal about the environment and he needs to put a spotlight on environmental scientists and bring them into the public view very conspicuously if he is to win that fight.

The photos of the poor, the victims of the Depression, that were commissioned under the New Deal in part spoke to ordinary Americans and stirred up interest and compassion for FDR's New Deal. Obama needs to get photographers and story-tellers involved in recording and publicizing what is going on with our environment to back up his appeal.

In fact, we should do that on DU. We should have a contest for photographs that support immediate action to heal our environment.

I'm getting way off topic, but my point is that Obama needs to find ways to get his message across more effectively. The old press conference with a Saturday speech is not working.

And Obama needs to distance himself from the fraud and injustice perpetrated by Wall Street on millions of Americans and others around the world. The Weiss appointment may work politically, but sometimes a president has to take risks politically.

This is the time for Democrats to take strong stances that define our Party. This is not the time to compromise with a Republican Party that has done nothing but try to destroy the country and Obama personally and primarily for the past six years. So what if the Obama nominees do not get approved. If Obama nominates people with profiles that are really attractive to ordinary voters, he can do far more for the country than if he kowtows to the Republican penchant for mediocre tools of the corrupt corporations that run our country.

[MADem]

108. Teddy and Franklin weren't black.

Now fine, people can say "But...but...but....Obama was HALF white." No one saw him that way, though. When he walked down the street, he was as black as Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown.

Teddy and Franklin were rich.

They were accustomed to having people "hop to" when they spoke. Money talks, bullshit walks.

The world was different back then, too--people deferred to the rich. The rich were often a bunch of moronic Lord Granthams, running around shooting their mouths off, but people deferred to them for one reason, and one reason only--they had MONEY.

Obama was not given anything. He had to EARN it all.

Franklin Roosevelt's final years in office were as a wartime President. He didn't face much PUBLIC criticism in that regard--after all, one had to hold up the side and present a united front. Obama doesn't have a World War to mute the opposition--nor does he want one (and that's the ultimate measure of the man--he brought troops home that Bush sent off to the meat grinder, when he could have fueled the War Without End machine with just a little tweaking).

As for the environment, what was it Obama said about the Keystone Pipeline? Anyone? Buehler? I watched more shit flung at that man here on this incessant "Obama Hater's Club" website, because oh yeah, he was "gonna" approve that pipeline -- like he had the power to "approve" it (so many who post here don't have a sense of how our government even works, it's infuriating) -- and sumbeeets, lookie do! What did he say about that environmental nightmare? Not on MY watch! Yet he still gets the "not doing enough" line---while Roosevelt--who bought his silk drawers with COAL money--gets a pass? Come on.

I think the long lens of history will be very, very kind to Barack H. Obama. And I think that if many of these comments by posters who are--like it or not--members of the Obama Hater's Club-- are archived and un-erasable, that plenty of people will want to change their user names in ten or twenty years, because they'll be horrifically embarrassed at how harshly they treated the man.

[JDPriestly]

109. You may be right in some respects, but most of us who criticize Obama do not hate him.

We just want him to be stronger. That is a matter of character and personality.

Are we still at war in Afghanistan and Iraq or not. That is unclear to me. We seem to keep extending or renewing our presence in those countries. I'm not criticizing it if we are, but it seems a bit early to claim that we don't have a War Without End machine working right now whether it is our fault or not.

[MADem]

116. He understands that "living to fight another day" is more important than blowing one's powder all

at one go, and having nothing left to fight with. His restraint in the face of point-blank racism and snide disregard (the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Truman Presidency, frankly--everyone hated him because he was a "haberdasher" and he wasn't FDR) is more than admirable, it's frigging HEROIC.

There's no point in pissing off your adversaries to the point where you give them the ammo they so desperately seek. Keep them at a low simmer, make THEM look like the intemperate, unreasonable assholes, and watch for them to freak out and lose it. It's a long game, but then again, it's a long pair of terms. Eight years at a job of that nature requires a measured and temperate approach to many issues.

I think Obama is stronger than most credit him. I also think he has to do twice as much to get half the credit. The only thing he doesn't have to do, is do it backwards and in high heels (to riff on Ginger Rogers' comment about dancing w/Astaire). He is a bit wonky/didactic/professorial, but that's his way. If people want "a guy they could have a beer with" they might want to go for Porgie's brother--who isn't on the wagon and can actually HAVE that beer. Frankly, I don't particularly want or need a President I can have a beer with; I am not fond of beer and don't feel a yearning to drink with world leaders! I do want a competent POTUS who will weigh a course of action before choosing it--not a wee cowboy who starts wars because some tinpot dictator disrespected his "deddy."

As for the War machine, keep an eye on End Strength. That tells the tale. It's falling precipitously, and we're not building robots to replace all those demobbed servicemembers.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp113&sid=cp113lI2q6&refer=&r_n=hr113.113&item=&&&sel=TOC_36809&





https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2014/04/24/88516/a-users-guide-to-the-fiscal-year-2015-defense-budget/

Keep in mind that 2001 number is a pre-911 figure; the outyears numbers represent the smallest end strength in many, many decades.

I don't think you hate Obama--but I do think a lot of people who post here do--or at least use language that is highly suggestive of sneering disdain, if not outright hatred.

[JDPriestly]

117. I thoroughly agree on these points:

"His restraint in the face of point-blank racism and snide disregard (the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Truman Presidency, frankly--everyone hated him because he was a "haberdasher" and he wasn't FDR) is more than admirable, it's frigging HEROIC."

And this:

"He is a bit wonky/didactic/professorial, but that's his way. If people want "a guy they could have a beer with" they might want to go for Porgie's brother--who isn't on the wagon and can actually HAVE that beer. Frankly, I don't particularly want or need a President I can have a beer with; I am not fond of beer and don't feel a yearning to drink with world leaders! I do want a competent POTUS who will weigh a course of action before choosing it--not a wee cowboy who starts wars because some tinpot dictator disrespected his 'deddy.'"

I wish he could get his points across more effectively. It's the professorial personality. I do especially like the fact that he is so thoughtful. But a little more temper would probably be a good thing. That is my major complaint about him. He needs a little more temperament.

Our news is really just disguised product advertisement. Democrats need to play that game a bit more.

The Roosevelts were drama-kings. That was part of their success.

I've been reading a fascinating book about Teddy Roosevelt. The Rise Teddy Roosevelt by Edmund Morris. 2001. It is very long. Great to read while traveling. Well written, but you have to be a history fan to stick with it. It goes into a lot of detail -- even what he ate for breakfast. But what a man. Much as I like Obama, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt were that rare thing, men with great talent, great wealth and devoted to making the world safer, fairer and less corrupt.

I think Obama has the same goals. Maybe our time is tougher. He pledged to try to get rid of some of the corruption. I'm not sure he has gotten very far in carrying out that pledge. He would have had to appoint a very different attorney general to achieve it.

Anyway, we agree on a lot of basics. But I want Obama to be an even greater president than he is. The last two years have been rough. I think the next two may prove rougher for a person like Obama who wants to be liked and believes he can achieve good things in spite of the fact that powerful people are determined to prevent him from doing anything.

I think the next two years might finally bring out the fighter in Obama. Already on immigration, Obama has thrown the ball in the court of the Republicans. If they don't like his executive order, it's up to them to pass legislation they like. But of course, they will have a tough time pleasing the bullies in their party who don't want immigration by anyone but the already rich and successful and the electorate of recent immigrants they want to woo. Obama's immigration executive order was in my opinion a stroke of genius.

So we agree on much but not everything.

[MADem]

118. I absolutely LOVE a long history book, so long as it's good.

Robert Caro's works on LBJ are fascinating to me. I've read the first two, have to finish up one of these days! I also marched through McCullough's John Adams book like Grant through Richmond--very enjoyable, that. Isaacson's Franklin work was a real cracker, too!

I'll have to go looking for that TR book--I sometimes will buy used on Amazon, that way I can read it in the bath without feeling too guilty...! Teddy was an interesting fellow, I didn't care much for his propensity to shoot everything that moved, but he, too, was a product of his times.

Life would be boring if we agreed on everything...so long as we can disagree without being disagreeable, all's well with me!

[JDPriestly]

119. I have the book on Adams but haven't started it yet.

i absolutely love Isaacson's book on Franklin. I also have some good books on Jefferson, but my favorite is a volume of the Jefferson/Adams letters. Considering they were political rivals, they enjoyed discussing all kinds of issues and opinions with each other. It's really a view into their personalities.

Teddy's propensity to shoot everything that moved was definitely not one of his best traits.

[MADem]

121. The Adams is like a gourmet meal--delicious!

If you didn't see the miniseries based sorta kinda on the biography, that's another guilty pleasure--Paul Giamatti was freakin' amazing!

I haven't read anything about Jefferson in a while, but I do love his complicated persona.

[steve2470]

96. +1 nt

[longship]

134. Was this a corporatist?

Or was he just a really great Democrat? Elected to four terms as president. Yup! He was an imperfect person, as we all are. But he was also the best president of the 20th century.

This is what a real Democrat sounds like.

I disagree with your assessment.

And, as always, my best regards.

[MADem]

144. Great speech--one of his finest.

Not sure why you can't grasp that a "corporatist" can also be a "really great Democrat." It's rather like saying an athlete can't be a scholar.

Or are you saying his wealth didn't come from coal and railroads?

[LanternWaste]

135. A corporatist hated by The Corporatists, who vilified him to the point than many simply referred to.

A corporatist hated by The Corporatists, who vilified him to the point than many simply referred to him as "that man in the Whitehouse" rather than utter his name aloud. The corporatist who attempted to pass the Supertax salary cap. The corporatist who had the richest among us paying a 94% tax rate.


I don't pretend to believe your criticism are anything other than the actions of a contrarian for its own sake-- or, you simply do not grasp historicity and historical context. Like most humans.

[MADem]

143. Hated by SOME corporatists--the Nazi Right Wing ones, certainly.

The ones making money off the war machine found him entirely acceptable. Like any matter, where you stand depends on where you sit. He certainly didn't declare war to make money, he did it based on principle (and the fact that Japan attacked us), but he--and many of his friends--did end up making money off that conflict. It's what happens when nations go to war.

I think anyone who demands that people regard FDR's presidency in an unrealistic light is the true "contrarian" without the ability to appreciate "historicity" -- when we forget our history, cartoon it, paint it over, overlook portions of it--particularly the ugly bits, we're condemned to repeat them. You can regard a person as a lion of history, and still appreciate that their mane might not have been perfectly combed.

Except, maybe, here. The cartoonish approach to complex times in our history I see coming from some quarters sometimes reminds me of an eighth grade US history book.

[Wellstone ruled]

5. Until there is some form of mass

media that is trusted,we will never hear or see any new ideas that grows or strengthens the middle class of our Nation. It's a rigged game.

[RiverLover]

9. ...

[whathehell]

72. Warren was nurtured on the same New Deal Policies that most of my generation benefited from

and she wants to bring America back to that good era -- so different than the awful times we now live in.

[KittyWampus]

6. You'd probably have called him sell-out & rejected Social Security cause it didn't cover everybody

[sabrina 1]

39. Really? FDR fully explained his plans for SS AND he had a tendency to ACT FAST on

things he wanted to pass, which is why he was elected so many times. People knew what he wanted for THEM. They trusted him because he kept his promises. When he had an idea that would benefit the people he WENT TO THE PEOPLE. Obama goes to his 'advisers', many of whom are actually Republicans, in his cabinet, and CEOs of Corps like Walmart.

Trust is everything. When someone actually fights for what they believe in, that gets across to the people.

I doubt eg FDR would be pushing the TPP knowing how another disastrous NAFTA type 'agreement' will affect America's workers, our Environmental laws among things.

[pampango]

48. "I doubt eg FDR would be pushing the TPP ..." Who knows but he did push for lower tariffs, the IMF,

the World Bank, the UN and the International Trade Organization (though the republican senate eventually rejected the ITO as too much of an infringement on national sovereignty).

He was a big believer in international engagement and in multilateral institutions to govern international trade, politics and finance.

Back in his day it was the republicans who were the protectionists (having raised tariffs 3 times from 1921 to 1930) and isolationists (accusing FDR of being a 'warmonger' and 'interventionist' prior to Pearl Harbor). FDR did act fast to get congress to pass 'fast track' authority in 1934 so that he could negotiate trade agreements. (Of course, republicans then accused him of "secretly has made tariff agreements with our foreign competitors, flooding our markets with foreign commodities.&quot

[treestar]

95. + 1 zillion

And what about single payer? He didn't get that.

He didn't have to deal with right wing nutcase that we have today. There was no Rush Limbaugh type of effect. The People generally were supportive. The Depression created a political situation where one could change a lot.

[mountain grammy]

16. Let's be clear, FDR was no saint, but he was the man for the times..

He was revered in my family, but my mom was furious about the internment of Japanese Americans and that the military remained segregated. She always said those two huge failures made FDR human.

I loved watching "The Roosevelts" on PBS. Eleanor Roosevelt was the greatest lady America has ever known.

[MADem]

43. BINGO. Right on the money.

I thought that PBS series was great, too.

[hifiguy]

68. This was my real point.

No saint but a remarkably progressive man for his times and he cared about the people ruined by the Depression and did his damndest to help them.

We could use someone like him now as few times before.

[RiverLover]

21. The Democratic Party became a liberal party largely through the "New Deal" policies of FDR

The Democratic Party became a liberal party largely through the "New Deal" policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression. Before FDR, "laissez-faire" or "free-market" policies were the only policies acceptable to America's ruling elites. FDR's New Deal policies used government spending power to create jobs for the masses of unemployed, and used payroll taxes to provide retirement security through Social Security. FDR also created regulatory agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to avoid another financial crisis.

FDR's liberal policies were supported by Democratic and Republican administrations until Ronald Reagan began a conservative counterattack against FDR's policies in 1981. After 8 years of Reaganism, conservative Democrats began embracing the Reaganite assault on liberalism, and called themselves "New Democrats" to distinguish themselves from traditional FDR-inspired liberals. These "New Democrats" drew support from large corporations that wanted a return to "laissez-faire" policies to get out from under regulations.

http://www.democrats.com/new-democrats

[merrily]

127. +1

It's often Opposite Day on DU.

[TheKentuckian]

25. You know who down plays and disparages FDR and hates liberals? Far right Republicans

It is a shame that so many "Democrats" are just right wing but temporarily embarrassed by Teabaggers Republicans joining the advance troops tasked with assimilation aka the DLC aka "New Democrats" aka Blue Dogs aka Third Way aka No Labels all more concisely placed under the Turd Way umbrella but it is probably more honest just to call the whole lot Republicans.

[RiverLover]

33. "...probably more honest just to call the whole lot Republicans."

Yes.

[RiverLover]

26. FDR called socialist by "conservative democrats"~

In the early days of the New Deal, for example, FDR teamed up with Republican Senator George Norris of Nebraska to create the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), our nation’s first major regional supplier of public power. On May 8, 1933, also a part of the famous 100 days, Republican senators Robert La Follette Jr. of Wisconsin and Bronson Cutting of New Mexico joined forces with Edward Costigan of Colorado to sponsor a bill authorizing $6 billion in public works expenditures. Moreover, the director of one of the most important New Deal stimulus agencies, the Public Works Administration (PWA), which among other things built the Triborough Bridge and Lincoln Tunnel in New York, the Washington National Airport, the Bay Bridge in San Francisco, the Grand Coulee Dam, and thousands of miles of public highways, was led by the progressive Republican head of the Department of the Inferior, Harold Ickes. Progressive Republicans even supported legislation aimed at securing the rights of workers to join unions and secure better wages, hours, and working conditions — the National Labor Relations Act and Fair Labor Standards Act — and the vast majority of Republicans in both the House and the Senate voted for the Social Security Act and the establishment of the Social Security Administration, whose first head was the former governor of the state of New Hampshire, Republican John G. Winant.

In the meantime, the Roosevelt administration’s determination to expand the U.S. economy and put people back to work through compensatory deficit spending had raised the ire of many conservatives — including conservative Democrats — who denounced the New Deal as nothing more than a left-wing plot to take the United States down the path of socialism. One of the most outspoken critics was Al Smith, the former governor of New York and Democratic candidate for president in 1928. Smith’s vehement opposition to Roosevelt’s policies led him to join forces with other prominent conservative Democrats like John J. Raskob, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Jouett Shouse, who had served as the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the DNC, and John W. Davis, the party’s nominee for president in 1924, in forming the American Liberty League in August of 1934.

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/bipartisanship-made-new-deal-possible

It sounds like far right democrats(republican lites) fought FDR more than republicans back then. I know he wasn't perfect, but lets not twist things around to fit some ego-based fight's agenda.

[liberal_at_heart]

111. Conservatives have tried to make liberal a dirty word, but there are those of us who have refused

to let it be a dirty word. I think it is time we also stand up and refuse the word socialist to be a dirty word also. I am proud to say I lean to the socialist side.

[JaneyVee]

31. FDR is the greatest President America has ever had.

You don't have to take my word for it. That's where the top 238 Presidential scholars have placed him every 4 years of their survey since it began. FDR #1.

http://www2.siena.edu/pages/179.asp?item=2566

[RiverLover]

32. Thank You JaneyVee!!!!!!!!

[hifiguy]

69. Plus a bajillion!

[Rex]

84. Well some people hate anything that is to the left of Reagan.

And they call themselves Democrats, but I seriously doubt it. Just bring up FDR or JFK and they start foaming at the mouth about all the bad things the two did - just like republicans, but you know they are 'liberals' and won't be questioned about their street cred.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. I was raised by not FDR Democrats but Franklin and Eleanor Democrats....

Can't forget about Eleanor...

[hifiguy]

70. VERY good point! nt

[mountain grammy]

73. Eleanor was the real "true" Democrat, probably the most "real" Democrat

America has ever known. I have to keep referencing my mom, because her wisdom is so memorable. Mom was very reluctant to support JFK in 1960, My mom, like Eleanor, was a Stevenson supporter, and though she didn't want to admit it, Mom was a bit uneasy about JFK being a Catholic. When Eleanor came out for JFK, my mom said, that's good enough for me, and despite protests from our family, the Kennedy signs went up in our windows. Our landlord told her to take them down or move; we moved!

[WillyT]

47. K & R !!!

Thank You !!!

[L0oniX]

49. K & R

[Zorra]

55. Thanks! Recommend. nt

[Doctor_J]

61. Obama said something similar early in his term

"Some in my party have become too attached to entitlements".



Seriously, can someone in the fan club point out an instance where he took on the corporations?

[jhart3333]

85. Maybe he was talking about Social Security

He's tried to throw it under the bus a couple of times.

[Jamaal510]

65. ...

[IMG][/IMG]

[Progressive dog]

76. This speech came in the twelfth year of his Presidency.

It was a campaign speech.
Don't misunderstand me. FDR was a great American president, but just like our present Democratic leaders, he was neither infallible nor omnipotent.

[MADem]

80. Can't wait to hear what the current President will tell us in HIS 12th year....!

Oh, wait....gol-durn it!!! That 22nd Amendment is ruining all the fun!!!!!

(For the irony-impaired--and sadly, one needs to make these little 'asides' because not everyone gets the through the written word--that 22nd Amendment probably spared us Years Without End of Zombie Reagan, and for that, I am grateful.)

[merrily]

130. Before that, he was too busy saving the US while fighting the SCOTUS, Congress, and Hitler and

trying not to die of post polio syndrome and cancer. And it was far from his first good speech.

No one claimed he was infallible nor omnipotent.

[Progressive dog]

174. So now speeches substitute

for results. Would that apply to Obama's speeches?
BTW FDR had HUGE majorities in Congress. He wouldn't have to fight them. As far as SCOTUS, the President has no authority over them.
They serve for life.

[merrily]

175. From my post, you got speeches substitute for results? LOL!

FDR had majorities, but they were far from unified and the New Deal was shockingly revolutionary for its time and met more resistance than ordinary. He had to put together the New Deal coalition.

As far as SCOTUS, the President has no authority over them.

Yep, yet FDR got them to do a 180.

You need to stop trying to knock him down and read some history. Actual info always trumps talking points.

[Progressive dog]

181. Obama had very small majorities, compared to FDR's

and they were far from unified. As for SCOTUS, FDR did not even come close to packing it. The fact that he even tried shows how much support he had in the Congress.
If you have any real history to share, you should do so. You need to stop trying to deify FDR in order to tear down existing Democrats.

[merrily]

182. Yes, FDR got the SCOTUS to do what he wanted without packing it. That was the genius of it.

You need to stop trying to tear down FDR in order to deify New Democrats. Third Way is an epic fail for the Democratic Party. Just look around state houses and Congress.

You need not only to google history, but to understand it.

[Progressive dog]

183. Why do you think FDR had cancer if you

actually read history? History is based on actual evidence, not speculation.

[merrily]

184. Boy, you really know how to zero in on the most relevant issue.

[Progressive dog]

186. You made the cancer claim, not me

LOL
Apparently it was relevant to you.

[merrily]

187. Um, no

Whether it was cancer specifically that he was fighting while in office or another deathly illness was not at all the most relevant part of Reply 130, yet you zeroed in on it because you could not refute anything in the post about FDR, so you took a cheap shot at me instead.

Anyone reading my Reply 130 for meaning, especially in the context of the entire thread, should realize the point was that FDR did an enormous amount during a difficult time for this country despite significant physical limitations and terminal illness. No sane person would deny either of those things. Your seizing on my mention of cancer in Reply 130 to claim that I don't know FDR's history is cheesey, at best, and probably wrong on history, too.

Many historians believe that FDR in fact did die of cancer, possibly a brain tumor, even though he never publicly admitted having it. And, based on my own analysis of their writings, his photos, and some of his speeches, I agree. Reading his history is the only way I would even know to connect cancer to him.

If you can be the one to prove he did not have cancer, as many suspect, be my guest.* But, as stated, whether he was fighting cancer or some other deadly illness does not matter at all as far as the point of Reply 130 let alone being the most relevant point to zero in on. His being deathly ill was what relevant to the post.

*I have not researched this point specificially, but I have not happened across any denial by his widow, or children.

[Progressive dog]

188. So it's not a cancer claim because you could have meant something else

Great Logic
Then you claim that just because historians can't prove FDR didn't have cancer, he must have had it because his wife and children didn't deny it. That would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

[merrily]

189. Whatever, dude. You don't like my replies, don't keep posting to me on a thread from Dec 5, 2014.

Time might be better spent working on your reading comprehension. Actually, never mind. Keep kicking this thread as long as you like.

[Progressive dog]

190. My reading comprehension is fine,

and you are funny. Why would I not want to reply?

[lovemydog]

77. Thank you for sharing this hifiguy. A second bill of rights.

Yes, that is what real strong democrats sound like.

I voted for Obama and support him. I'm a democratic socialist and humanist. I despise the divide and conquer politics of the oligarchs.

I strongly support the protesters in the streets. I hope that out of this great awakening, strong and meaningful organizational infrastructures develop. We need more democratic candidates who sharply distinguish themselves from republicans. And keep fighting toward expanding economic freedom for working people.

[BootinUp]

79. Sure, in the 1930's. But we can't turn back time

to win political victories, we have to do it the hard way.

[merrily]

131. LOL! The hard way, my ass. And "we" are not winning. We're losing. Worse than

we ever did since before FDR took office. Worst losses since 1928--since before FDR's massively enduring coattails. EPIC FAIL. Yet, still not all that much worse than 2010, when the Republicans also got many victories, plus the right to redistrict. What do two historically bad midterm elections say about all the electability bs on this board?

Even if it's sincere--which I really do wonder about, as you may recall-- it's not working. One definition of insanity is repeating the same behaviors and expecting a different result. When you're in a hole, stop digging. Etc.

Pick a meme. None of them will say, "More of the same dramatically losing strategy, please."

The Third Way is not about winning political victories for the benefit of the 99%. When it comes to that, Truman got it right. Al From and Will Marshall did not.

Then again, Truman wanted to get that one right, winning elections for the benefit of the 99%. I am not so sure about From and Marshall. Or anyone of the current Dem think tank bunch: Progressive Policy Institute, Third Way, No Labels, Center for American Progress. All offshoots of the DLC philosophy or worse.

[Rex]

83. "Fuck the corporatists and their enablers." Boy you sure pissed off some 'liberals' with those words

It is funny watching who hears that as a dog whistle. I notice they moved the goalposts 20 times in this thread! Pathetic.

[hifiguy]

99. Indeed.

Not sure whether that is sad or funny.

[Rex]

123. Sad and funny. Sad that they think our intelligence is that low to buy the BS.

Yet funny watching them react to issues that only a freeper would get mad about imo.

[neverforget]

104. Funny how that happens

and how the "perfection" card gets played every time.

[Rex]

122. Well they pretended there was a purge, then they pretended everyone here wanted purity.

Their attempts at disrupting our threads is getting to be a running inside joke. Now it is, 'this site is doomed, because the admins won't ban the people I don't want posting here - so the site is fading away into the sunset'.

[Enthusiast]

87. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

[merrily]

128. It would have, if so many leftists hadn't been banned or didn't give up. As it is, it's over 100.

Last edited Tue Dec 9, 2014, 08:18 AM - Edit history (1)

[ScreamingMeemie]

88. For me, THIS is what a REAL DEMOCRAT sounds like...

I have never felt as good about a politician as I did the day I listened to that. We had some hope.

Thanks again, PassingFair.

[hifiguy]

100. I was a strong Dean supporter early on.

He was a genuine threat, so the media snuffed him out after "the scream."

[merrily]

129. Yep. I still remember the gist of Katie Couric's intro to showing the clip at about 7 am

the next day. She was making faces and saying that his behavior was causing "some" to question his sanity. I am pretty sure she did not actually use the word "sanity," but whatever words she did use conveyed exactly that.

Then, she said, "Take a look and see what you think," or something like that. And, that was the only context viewers had for watching the clip. That week, I must have seen that clip 30 times. It was as though all the major networks had it on a loop.

I didn't follow politics closely then. I was just all in for Kerry, my Massachusetts Senator, but my jaw dropped when I saw what Katie was doing. I used to watch Today every day and her conduct did not strike me as simply "per usual."

That was the first time I thought that the fix might be in, even for Democratic primaries. (By that, I don't mean that Kerry had anything to do with the fix, if there was one. But it did seem msm had their marching orders from somewhere. I just don't know where.)

[Octafish]

89. BFEE hates that guy.

"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime... A prominent executive of one of the largest corporations, told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies. Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there. Propagandists for fascist groups try to dismiss the fascist scare. We should be aware of the symptoms. When industrialists ignore laws designed for social and economic progress they will seek recourse to a fascist state when the institutions of our government compel them to comply with the provisions." -- William Dodd, US Ambassador to Germany, 1933

BBC Radio did a nice report on Prescott Bush and chums: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

[YoungDemCA]

155. BFEE here, BFEE there, BFEE under the bed, BFEE in my head....

nt

[Octafish]

160. Yes. Don't you know, the people who tried to overthrow FDR in 1933 had kids?

And they are the ones* screwing America now.

What's different today, is we don't have Smedley Butler or FDR to stop them.


Baron de Rothschild and Prescott Bush, share a moment and some information, back in the day.

* Of course, it's not just a few rich families's offspring who screw the majority today. They've hired help and built up the giant noise machine to continue their work overthrowing the progress FDR and the New Deal brought America for 80 years.

Why would the nation and world's richest people do that? Progress costs money. And they don't want to pay for it, even when they've gained seven times more wealth than all of history until 1981 put together.

Instead, whey continue to work -- legally, through government and lobbyists -- to amass even more, transferring the hard work and little wealth of the many onto themselves.

And instead of an armed mob led by a war hero, their weapon of enslavement is "Neo-Liberal Economics." To most Americans, that means Trickle-Down. To the planet, it means doom.

[woo me with science]

97. Hear, hear.

[RiverLover]

105. ...

[RiverLover]

120. More Quotes from this real/true/great PROGRESSIVE Democrat~

We all know about "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself", but what about...

Franklin Delano Roosevelt:

"Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education."

"Not only our future economic soundness but the very soundness of our democratic institutions depends on the determination of our government to give employment to idle men."

"I believe that in every country the people themselves are more peaceably and liberally inclined than their governments."

“A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.”

“The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government.”

“True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”

“We are trying to construct a more inclusive society. We are going to make a country in which no one is left out.”

“A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself. Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people.”

“Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.”

“Prosperous farmers mean more employment, more prosperity for the workers and the business men of every industrial area in the whole country.”

“We continue to recognize the greater ability of some to earn more than others. But we do assert that the ambition of the individual to obtain for him a proper security is an ambition to be preferred to the appetite for great wealth and great power.”

“But while they prate of economic laws, men and women are starving. We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings.”

[beerandjesus]

133. Love to see the dude dressed in a tuxedo for the occasion of a radio address, hahaha!

That said, any "Democrat" who's anti-FDR can pretty much fuck off.

Now watch me get an alert for saying that, even though it SHOULD be completely obvious!

[YoungDemCA]

156. What a silly thread

[Octafish]

169. For those who don't know why FDR was a Real Democrat...

Freedom of speech
Freedom of worship
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear

The Four Freedoms Center

The Four Freedoms Center develops bold ideas that are beyond the narrow parameters of the current political debate. They form the foundation of a New Deal for the 21st century.

A Compelling Vision for the Future

As FDR taught us, ideas matter. Powerful ideas about how our government and economy work have helped the conservative movement define the agenda of American politics for 30 years. But the conservative vision has led to a country out of balance, with radical inequality, deep insecurity, and threats to basic rights.

To win America back, progressives need clear and convincing narratives and paradigms around which to organize. Bold ideas and a compelling vision for the future – grounded in evidence, articulated in policy, and moved up and out into the world – can create the kind of common knowledge that shapes the next political era.

Big Ideas

The Four Freedoms Center’s ideas confront conservative dogma without hesitation. We don't think government threatens markets, but that our economy grows and we all do better when a healthy government supports healthy markets. This concept draws on the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist and Senior Fellow Joseph Stiglitz and Senior Fellow Rob Johnson, former Senate Banking Committee chief economist.

Stiglitz, Johnson, and others helped establish the Four Freedoms Center in 2009 as a leading source of ideas and rigorous analysis of the financial crisis. Its Make Markets Be Markets conference set the outlines for the reforms passed in 2010. The Center also worked closely with Elizabeth Warren on conceptualizing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Big Initiatives

This initial work established a theme: Roosevelt takes on the biggest challenges that will change the country in fundamental ways:

The structure of the American economy, and how we create value
The role of government, and how we can rebuild an active government in which we all participate fully as citizens
The U.S. role in the world, and how we can all thrive in an increasingly globalized economy
The major initiatives of the Four Freedoms Center, led by our Fellows, focus on what FDR called “the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy.”

The Next American Economy, led by Bowman Cutter, examines the emerging trends that will define our economy over the next decade and beyond through a series of high-level meetings and publications.

The Future of Work, led by Dorian Warren and Annette Bernhardt, seeks to ensure a strong middle class.

Women and Girls Rising, led by Ellen Chesler, aims to demonstrate how expanding rights and opportunities for women advance global prosperity.

New Voices

The Four Freedoms Center Fellows are the rare individuals who connect ideas to public life. On television, in major publications, in the conversation with activists on the Internet, and in partnership with advocacy organizations and community organizers, they provide the tools and arguments for change.

On reform of the tax system, Mike Konczal has been putting forward both breakthrough proposals and a broad defense of progressive taxation. On reform of the political process, including reducing the power of economic inequality over democracy, Fellows including Thomas Ferguson and Richard Kirsch have been illuminating the problem and crafting new solutions. Sabeel Rahman works on progressive values, and Georgia Levenson Keohane connects those values to poverty alleviation. And Stiglitz, Johnson, and Konczal continue to drive issues of financial reform – focusing, as the crisis evolves, on the mortgage overhang, student debt, and the increasingly significant problem of municipal finance. All this work is grounded in accurate historical perspective by our Hyde Park-based Fellow David Woolner.

SOURCE: http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/

That's from a current day Foundation dedicated to instituting real Democratic action.

Sounds like a completely different world than today? Yeah, it is. These are Trickle Down times when Banksters, Warmongers and Traitors get ahead.

FDR used government to make life better for ALL Americans. That's Democratic.

[hifiguy]

172. The Roosevelt Institute is the Real Deal.

I wonder why no Democratic presidents ever look to it for top-level advisers, cabinet officers and sub-cabinet officers. Gee, I really wonder......

[Octafish]

173. It's a mystery known but to UBS.

After the repeal of Glass-Steagal, Phil Gramm found new company that specialize in all kinds of Wealth Management:

http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

[woo me with science]

176. "Freedom from fear."

What a concept.

Our current corrupt ruling secret government bases its entire ruling strategy on fear.

Fear of terrorism.
Fear of our fellow citizens.
Fear of diseases.
Fear of inaccessibility of medical care.
Fear of homelessness and destitution.
Fear of hunger.
Fear of employers.
Fear of being unemployed.
Fear of...everything.

[woo me with science]

178. kick

[woo me with science]

179. kick

[99Forever]

185. Unfortunately for us...

... we are not free to express our actual opinions of today's Democratic Party leadership on this forum.