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.
NO!
You mean developing it and giving the Atom BOMB and all of Eastern URP to Stalin.... Well I do give him credit and spit on his grave.
Funny how FDR and his friends were NOT wiped financially out by the depression is'nt it.. And since cash was King bought up anything worth anything for pennies on the dollar after the depression. kinda makes you go Hmmm...
True, and started the biggest ponzi scheme in history.
Not only leftists, but FDR's own personal leftists. Thank God that even the Democrat Congress saw through that and put a stop to it. If Clinton had tried it...who knows?
I look at it this way. FDR let the soviets imprison their people then RR set them free. Plus, there was no depression on the west coast until 1939 when FDR screwed with the economy until it broke. Took a war to get out of it.
Long time lurker here, newbie poster. I just had to share this poem about FDR. An old cousin of mine found it last year in a box of his long dead father's things. The author of the poem is unknown.
Rejected
A stranger stood at the gates of Hell,
and the Devil himself answered the bell.
He looked him o’er from head to toe,
and said, “My friend, I’d like to know:
What have you done in the line of sin
to entitle you to come within?”
Then Franklin D., with his usual guile,
stepped forth and flashed his toothy smile.
“When I took charge in thirty-three,
a nation’s faith was mine, said he.
I promised this and I promised that
and calmed them down with a Fireside Chat.
I spent their money on fishing trips
and traveled afar on their battle ships.
I gave them jobs on the P.W.A.,
then raised their taxes and took it away.
I raised their wages and closed their shops,
killed their pigs and burned their crops.
I double-crossed both old and young
and still the folks my praises sung.
I brought back beer, and what do you think?
I taxed it so high that they couldn’t drink.
I furnished money with government loans.
When they missed a payment, I took their homes.
When I wanted to punish the fools, you know,
I put my wife on the radio.”
“I paid them to let their farms lie still
and imported foodstuffs from Brazil.
I curtailed crops when I felt mean
and shipped in corn from the Argentine.
When they’d start to worry, stew and fret,
I’d get them chanting the alphabet:
With the A.A.A. and the N.L.B.
the W.P.A. and the C.C.C.
With these silly units, I got their goats,
and still I crammed it down their throats.”
“My workers moved with the speed of snails
while the taxpayers chewed their fingernails.
When the organizers needed dough,
I closed up factories with the C.I.O.
I ruined jobs, I ruined health
and put the screws on the rich man’s wealth.
Some groups who couldn’t stand the gaff
would call on me and how I’d laugh.
When they got too strong on certain things,
I’d pack and head for Old Warm Springs.
I ruined their country and finances---then
I placed the blame on ‘Nine Old Men.’”
Now Franklin talked both long and loud,
and the Devil stood with head low bowed.
At last he said, “Let me make it clear:
You’ll have to go; you can’t stay here.
For once you mingle with this mob,
I’ll have to find myself a job.”
I just knew when I read the first line how it was going to end. Heh! Thanks for posting this and welcome to FR!
And his little brother billy "I have to fake sleeping at the Funeral" clintoon. All he and his !#$%^ HITLERY wanted was some attention. They learned from fdr.
Well, it would take some time as it is pretty complex and goes back beyond FDR, and even beyond Wilson. Allow me to preface what will be a brief explanation and conclusion with an introduction first. Please feel free to jump in and enlarge upon what is said, as I'm very limited in my library here, having passed most of my stuff on to others through the years. Yes, help me flesh this out.
My take on this would not make much sense to the casual reader without them first knowing the difference between property ownership paid in full by labor already performed and property use paid for by labor un-performed -- a promise to pay.
Labor already performed is evidenced by the posession and representation of a solid medium of exchange which has intrinsic value because someone already labored to produce it. We're talking minted and above-ground silver and gold, of course -- portable wealth.
If I may simplify, way back in history the world agreed to an international medium of exchange because bushels of cabbages and corn were just too heavy to tote around to barter with. I know you know this, and probably everything else I'm going to say, but you know, there are a lot of people out there who don't understand that basic principle. And many more who don't want to understand it for obvious reasons.
The idea was that when you traded your coins for something of value, the item was paid for in full because the coins were paid for in full as well, conveying value for equal value. Neither party to the transaction required further payment, other than the occasional agreed-upon i.o.u.'s to finish paying [digging up more potatoes] at a later date while using the item traded for.
And the idea of gold and silver as a medium of exhange was a basis for not only securing wealth, but insuring individual freedom -- the basis upon which we define and underpin the 'pursuit of happiness,' as chiseled into our Charter, right next to 'life' and 'liberty'.
(to be continued...)
FDR did terrible things to our nation and violated our constituiton. The only thing he did right was to fight WWII as hard as he could. That makes up for a lot, but all his domestic policy was CR@P.
"property ownership paid in full by labor already performed and property use paid for by labor un-performed -- a promise to pay. "
Yes, the ability to OWN property is the basis of freedom. OWNERSHIP of the "means of production" by ordinary families (not a socialized state on their so-called behalf . . . )
Debt is one thing. Taxes only make it worse. You could have even paid all the debt with past and present wages to the mortgagee . . . and STILL lose the property: to the county/state based upon continuing property taxes; or the joint owner/ spouse and dependent children could have to sell THEIR MEANS OF PRODUCTION (small farm/business) in order to pay inheritance taxes -- on property already taxed, paid for with INCOME already taxed . . . taxes upon taxes upon taxes.
Paid for of course with monetized rather than real currency, the value of which is NOT based upon the real value of cabbages raised -- but upon Federal Reserve and currency speculation -- which the CITIZEN is unable to control. Hence, the CITIZEN is unable to obtain the actual value of his labor and cabbages . . .
Waiting with bated breath for more of your history and analysis . . .
There is a lot of sense in CherterBelloc Distributism -- but not much hope of seeing it fairly operating in the economy as it has evolved, ahem, become under past decisions and controls . . .
Stage center, the Highwayman, who found it easier to rob gold from travelers than rustle cattle until folks started putting their gold in protected warehouses so they wouldn't have to risk losing it on the way to town.
Well, always resourceful and motivated, the highwayman built warehouses -- and issued receipts to customers, who then traded the receipts for food, guns and shingles. And excess wealth started building and the future looked as bright as gold for everyone.
But would'cha know, with all that gold laying around in one place, it didn't take long for the highwayman to start shoveling some of it out the back door in the form of short term loans. Well, not the gold itself, but issuing duplicate (counterfeit) receipts for the same bag of gold dust. For surely, he reckoned, not all the owners would show up and want their gold back at the same time.
Now that had a pronounced effect on the price of goods. More 'money' that wasn't money was put into circulation and the highest bidder got the cow. The same cow that would have cost one certificate before the counterfeiting began now cost five certificates. Supply and demand. Let's call them dollars and let's call it inflation.
As a result, those who actually stored their gold found that their dollars were now only worth 1/5th of their original value in purchasing power. Another way of saying a portion of their labor was stolen and given to another who didn't earn it and the highwayman got the lion's share --personal wealth was being re-distributed -- our first form of socialism here. (And the 'Gods of the Copybook Headings' began to stir.)
Let's move forward and consider the ultimate consequences of such a banking system. Certainly the international bankers were in the background here, (thanks to Wilson), lurking and waiting for the moment to spring their October Surprise.
The stock market during the '20's. Margin buying. What was it? Your 10, the bank's 90? Or was it 20/80? Even checking accounts earned interest. That was a 'no-no' as well. So everyone it seems was on board, mortgaging the equity and titles to their wealth. Then when there was nothing left to mortgage, the Fed called in its markers and the rest is modern history and the 'Gods of the Copybook Headings' struck again.
(To be continued . . .)
I'm a Reagan Democrat. So were my parents and theirs and theirs. We had all changed party registrations by the end of the Gipper's presidency. He and FDR were cut from the same cloth. Both were leaders. Both inspired. Both believed in America and her little people.
I thank God this nation had the leadership of Mr. Roosevelt at the time it did. Giving Eastern Europe to Stalin was as much Ike's idea as FDR's. Ike was already running for president at the end of that war and FDR was in terrible health by the time of Yalta.
I excuse none of his mistakes, but Reagan had his Bitburg and Lebanon tragedy and Iran-Contra. Leaders make mistakes. That's what makes them leaders.
Just another Bush-bashing liberal article, worthless except for the main question about FDR. Was he a good president? NO! A thousand times NO!
You'll also enjoy reading Lawrence Reed's article, "Great Myths of the Great Depression," posted here long, long ago by a FReeper who is greatly missed for his thoroughly researched contributions to this forum.
The natural tendency among Republicans is to blame Roosevelt for all that went wrong from 1929 on, but Reed shows that much of the groundwork for the New Deal had been laid during the Hoover administration. Roosevelt just added to it, with the connivance of a Democrat-controlled Congress.
Thank you for your response. Bookmarked for later.
And since cash was King bought up anything worth anything for pennies on the dollar after the depression.
Note how the exact same scenario unfolded in realestate after the S&L "crisis"...
Excerpt from the records
By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. HELMS, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. ENZI, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KERRY, Mr. KYL, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. VOINOVICH, and Mr. DEWINE):S.J. Res. 19. A joint resolution requesting the President to advance the late Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel on the retired list of the Navy to the highest grade held as Commander in Chief, United States Fleet, during World War II, and to advance the late Major General Walter C. Short on the retired list of the Army to the highest grade held as Commanding General, Hawaiian Department, during World War II, as was done under the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 for all other senior officers who served in positions of command during World War II, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
ADVANCEMENT OF REAR ADM. KIMMEL AND MAJ. GEN. SHORT ON RETIRED LISTS
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Delaware, Senator BIDEN, and on behalf of Senator THURMOND, Senator HELMS, Senator DOMENICI, Senator SPECTER, Senator STEVENS, and 15 other of our colleagues, to reintroduce a resolution whose intent to redress a grave injustice, one that haunts us from the tribulations of World War II.
The matter of which I speak concerns the reputations of two of the most accomplished officers who served in Pacific theater during that war: Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short.
They were the two senior commanders of U.S. military forces deployed in the Pacific at the time of the disastrous surprise December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. In the immediate aftermath of the attack they were unfairly and publicly charged with dereliction of duty and blamed as singularly responsible for the success of that attack. In short, as we all know today, they were scapegoated.
What is most unforgivable is that after the end of World War II, this scapegoating was given a near permanent veneer when the President of the United States declined to advance Admiral Kimmel and General Short on the retired list to their highest ranks of wartime command--an honor that was given to every other senior commander who served in wartime positions above his regular grade.
That decision to exclude only these two officers was made despite the fact that wartime investigations had already exonerated those commanders of the dereliction of duty charge and criticized the War and Navy Departments for failings that contributed to the success of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
I've seen other info that indicates that FDR knew. Trying to relocate the material.
I am reading FDR's Folly right now. Just into the first four chapters. Read that and then tell me he was a good president. The US was still in a depression Dec 7, 1941. His policies and behavior was worse than Carter's and he allowed tons of Soviets spies to infiltrate our government. He was a disaster.
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.