Posted on 06/08/2004 6:19:25 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Was Roosevelt a good president?
Posted: June 8, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Condoleeza Rice said in a newspaper interview last week that President Bush will some day rank in leadership history alongside Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.
Which begs the question: Was Roosevelt a good president?
If Roosevelt is George W. Bush's model for leadership, his first term begins to make sense.
Roosevelt led the nation through World War II and certainly contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan – for which we should all be thankful.
However, Roosevelt also arguably presided over the creation of more unconstitutional domestic action by the federal government than any of his modern predecessors. As such, he remains the hero of modern-day socialists and an icon for today's Democratic Party extremists.
Is that what Bush wants to be remembered for?
If so, he must give himself extremely high marks. Yes, he has ably led the nation in the war on terrorism. But his administration has also given us unprecedented domestic spending increases.
Perhaps Rice and Bush should also be reminded that while Churchill provided great leadership of the United Kingdom in World War II, he was quickly turned out of office at the war's conclusion.
My guess is Bush will be turned out of office long before American achieves a victory in the war on terrorism. So, perhaps there is some validity to that comparison as well.
Notice that Rice did not compare Bush to a more recent popular Republican, two-term president – Ronald Reagan. Perhaps she understood that such a comparison would be laughable to too many Americans – especially those Bush still hopes to win over before Election Day.
"Statesmanship has to be judged first and foremost by whether you recognize historic opportunities and seize them," Rice said in an interview with Cox Newspapers.
I would agree. But I would not agree that Bush has met the challenge.
He came into office with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives and Senate. He saw that control strengthened in mid-term elections in 2002. Yet he governed like a Democrat – expanding spending for the Department of Education and other agencies the GOP once swore to eliminate.
"When you think of statesmen, you think of people who seized historic opportunities to change the world for the better, people like Roosevelt, people like Churchill, and people like Truman, who understood the challenges of communism. And this president has been an agent of change for the better – historic change for the better," said Rice.
Roosevelt and Truman understood the challenges of communism? Who does she think gave us Alger Hiss? And who does she think sold Chiang Kai-Shek down the Yangtze River?
Until I read this interview, I had an extraordinary amount of respect for Rice's intellectual achievements and her understanding of history. No longer. But it gets worse.
It was Bush, she said, who first recognized "that it was time to stop mumbling about the need for a Palestinian state" and spoke out in favor of a two-state solution to the decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict.
Indeed he did – one of the foreign policy tragedies of his administration. In fact, he has retreated from that position recently, suggesting there was no longer any rush to create a Palestinian state. And why should we want to create a new Middle East state that was founded on terrorism? Why should we support a state whose official policy is "no Jews allowed"? Why should we want to continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results?
Does Rice really believe all she said in this interview? Or is she just being a good political soldier? It's hard to know for sure.
But now I know why the Bush administration has achieved so little in four years. Apparently, from the get-go, it never had the right goals.
Still, you are aware that the (once popular among Republicans) Newt Gingrich is a big booster of the FDR legend.
i don't know, do they?
He deferred entirely too much to his wife
Really, I was under the impression that he paid no attention at all to Eleanor. She did as she pleased, and what about Joseph Lash? What about Lucy Mercer Rutherford? Eleanor is lionized mainly by the popular Hillary Clinton and some of her feminist minions.
No. Terrible, but famous, and a favorite of the Socialists and One-Worlders. Poor Mrs. Reagan, Bless her heart, is just echoing what she has heard for many years from the liberal socialist managed media. Anyone who knows the truth about FDR, Wilson, etc., would not utter Ronnie's name with the likes of them. Ronald Reagan was much better.
Carter has the distinct "Worst Overall" title.
Yes, but, GA Jimmy did not preside over the death of so many Americans as did his Democrat predecessor, the popular LBJ.
The best thing I can say about FDR is that he kept even more radical figures from getting power during the dark days of the depression.
Of course, that is like saying a mugger isn't that bad because he only robbed you, and didn't kill you.
FDR was an economic disaster as well as imposing dozens of unconstitutional laws on us.
We can't be right 100% of the time, now can we.
As I recall, the CA GOP ran an Asian American for the Senate, and he was creamed by the popular Barbara Boxer.
Second worst, after Lincoln.
I need to read more about him, hopefully from a concise, historical point of view.
The late John Flynn wrote a book exposing FDR years ago, but I don't think it is in print. Maybe you can get it from an inter-library loan source. I cannot think of the title right now.
(Defy the media elite - vote Bush in 2004!)
Puddleglum, this mantra has already been used UNSUCCESSFULLY. Some supporters of GHWB used the slogan "Annoy the Media: Reelect Bush" in 1992. The result: the popular "Bill" Clinton.
The post should have read........
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FDR was the worst president we ever had.
It was his administration that set up all the socialist/communist programs that are sucking money from the tax payers to this day.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Second worst, after Lincoln.
Well if you say Lincoln and FDR are the worst presidents (and you may have a point there considering that one fought secession and the other ushered in the Cold War), you are inadvertently raising the stature of the men they succeeded: the unpopular James Buchanan and the more unpopular Herbert Hoover.
He sold out the Eastern Europeans at Yalta and condemned two generations of people to Soviet rule. Yalta helped create the Berlin wall and a lot of the Cold War. (The Cold War would have still happened but more countries would have been free.)
Either he was too friendly with Stalin or he didn't correctly percieve how evil he was. This mistake is a large black mark against him and pulls him down off the "greatest list."
His wife had a lot, (too much) to say about how things were done. She influenced him enormously with her socialism. We have her to thank for all the socialist hogwash she injected into the Democratic party and by extension, the country... associations and ideas from which it has NEVER withdrawn. Thanks Eleanor.
He sent Stillwell to Asia and cast him to the wolves
My knowledge of "Vinegar Joe" Stillwell (or is it Stilwell?) is lacking. Could you kindly explain this comment in a paragraph?
The 93 year old Grandfather on Moms side still refers to the time "Roosevelt stole everyones gold". 'Nuff said for me...
FDR was also called "that man in the White House" by his conservative critics. Some left the country and vowed not to return until FDR was out of office. Little did they know that they would have to wait 12 years -- and then to be under HST at that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.