Friday, January 21, 2005

    History 101

    The History channel had a story about some of our presidents last night. I caught only part of one - Franklin D. Roosevelt. I noticed similarities between Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) and our current president G. W. Bush. For example:

    • FDR: created programs so people could work - not just lay around and draw welfare. GWB: created an economical climate so people can have more jobs - those that are willing to work (I still see hundreds of thousands of job openings in many online job sites, and that represents only a fraction of jobs open and waiting to be filled).
    • FDR: When Hitler attacked Poland in September 1939, Roosevelt stated that, although the nation was neutral, he did not expect America to remain inactive in the face of Nazi aggression. GWB: When Saddam Hussein (after attacking Kuwait) continued to pose a threat to the world and only after years of U.N. delay tactics President Bush knew America could not just remain inactive in the face of a terror-supporting dictatorship which continued to remain a threat.
    • FDR: He moved to create a "grand alliance" against the evil Axis powers - a United Nations (little did he know that in the future the UN would become corrupt and a supporter of terrorists). GWB: Created a coalition against the evil of terrorism - a new and honorable Nations United.
    • FDR: Responsible for starting the Manhattan project - build a nuclear weapon to deliver to the enemy. It would also be a warning to other nations that might consider attacking the USA. He was not afraid to do whatever it took to wipe out a threat to the greatest country in the world. GWB: Responsible for initiating the greatest assault upon those that would channel their hate and rage into terrorist activities as well as nations that support these terrorists.
    The big difference? FDR was a democrat. There was a time according to history (before my time) that indicated some democrat leaders were leaders of values, honor, duty, GUTS - leaders with a grander vision. I know that there are now some democrat leaders with those qualities but they don't get much media coverage. Now - the visible leadership that does get the public eye are of the likes of Kerry, Boxer, and Kennedy. I'm not owned by any party, but I feel sorry for democrats - they have no worthy leaders.


    nonpcpundit said...

    It should be obvious, and has been for a long time, that the Democrats have deserted all but the Hollywood rich, and the east coast preppies from monied families. The Republicans, for all their faults, have taken up the void the Democrats left. Which is why the Democrats lost the White House, the Senate, The House, and the governorship of the flagship state for liberal weirdism--California. Not even the pompous George Soros, or that media whiner Ted Turner could affect the election successfully.

    Raven the Pagan said...

    Hi nothing to do with your post. Just wanted to say thanks for stoping by at my blog. I'll be reading through yours today. Peace Out

    Anonymous said...

    First off, please hit up that complimentary spell check that Blogger provides. Not just in this post, but all over your site.

    Your language and attempts at parallels worry me. You compare creating job programs to bolster the morale and livelihood of a hard-hit people to creating a "climate?" A climate? Yes, look at George when he wakes up nice and early, stretches, yawns, and then--like magic--waves his hand in the sky and conjures the Spirits of Crawford to stir the air and create a gentle wind of Jobs. "Climates" (or whatever it is you're referring to) are created by a variety of factors--social, economic, political, etc.--colliding, interacting, meshing and so forth. I'd like to hear how this mystical climate is made. Your in-depth investigation on ("I still see hundreds of thousands...") is ludicrous. Often times many people compete for those jobs. Just that "hundreds of thousands" are available doesn't mean that every able-bodied unemployed person can scoop them up. The job market is neither a candy store nor a fun ride. Not everyone gets a pick, not everyone gets a seat. Also, please explain how outsourcing is nurturing this "economical climate" that Pres. Bush has created.

    Your post is so riddled with holes it is almost incomprehensible. You base your facts on unsupported sound bites and assumptions. You regurgitate party rhetoric ("Nations United"--yeah, high five!!!) and move on, when no ground has been covered at all. Toss in a bit of assumption ("He was not afraid to do whatever it took to wipe out a threat to the greatest country in the world" and you have...TA-DA!! No point. Your follow-up, about GWB waging the greatest assault? Are you referring to Afghanistan, Iraq, to what? Is this against terrorists (what those IRA bastards...grrrr), is it for oil, is it for cronies, is it for revenge?

    You find too much strength in an image, my friend. Every person I've asked why they voted for George W. Bush has given me the exact same answer: "He'll keep us safe." Nothing else. The hard part is: he won't keep you safe, intelligence keeps you safe. And look where that got us.

    Start thinking for yourself, sir, and stop preaching to the choir.

    PS Let me know if you'd like me to leave my name. And my e-mail. And whatever else.

    kilo said...

    Thank you for your comments on my blog. Yours is great and very informative!Keep up the good work.

    Steve said...

    To the anonymous poster:

    I'm your huckleberry...

    You see, this is exactly what the liberals try to do. First, call our President stupid, talk about holes that aren't concurrent with the left's socialist aspirations and then point out the usage of "spellchecker" to call a Bush supporter a "lame ass".

    I often wonder what is going to happen when the left learns what their rhetoric implies and they change.

    Excellent post!

    MaxedOutMama said...


    I don't seem to be as a strong a supporter of Bush as Maddie, but your reply doesn't make much sense to me.

    The tax-cut stimulus was needed to counter a part of the attack upon this country - the economic part. The unemployment picture has rapidly improved. Maddie Dog calls it a "climate" because the money spent was an indirect stimulus, a shift to the economic climate, rather than spent directly on jobs. Anyway, it worked.

    As for the "sound bites", Maddie wasn't writing a doctoral thesis, but reviewing some "radical" attempts of the past and comparing them to what is being done in the present.

    If you ask me, the saddest part of this post is the sentence "I know that there are now some democrat leaders with those qualities but they don't get much media coverage." It's true, but why? Is it that the press simply loves controversy? A lot of the Democrats I truly admire today are working hard to craft solutions instead of indulging in polemics.

    Anon, I don't mean to be surly, but my heart totally sank at some of Kerry's stated positions. There is a problem with Social Security and Medicare. Listening to the claims that every child in America would have health insurance the day he was inaugurated made me want to cringe. The medical plan founded on TennCare blithely ignored the reality that TennCare is going bust. I felt like I needed a lot more information than Kerry ever gave me about how he wanted to handle terrorism. I read Ted Kennedy's speech to the Press Club and just rolled my eyes - my mother laughed hysterically.

    There are two arms of politics today - rhetoric and then reality, and there is a sharp distinction between those politicians of whatever party who are focusing on one versus the other. A lot of people do feel abandoned by many Democrats.

    As for the "he'll keep us safe", think about the logic behind that answer. Americans aren't happy with things in Iraq. Bush promised the American public very little - all he really said was that he'd try to work on the major problems he perceived. In the last election about 51% of the voters believed that Bush was serious about his positions and that Kerry was not, so they voted for Bush as the better choice.

    Any Democrat who wants to have a party about all the polls saying that about half the American public believes that the country is on the wrong track needs to stop and think very carefully about what that implies about the Democratic party. Look at the last election as a no-confidence vote in the Democratic leadership. Think about the way the American public used to feel about the Democratic party, and then read Maddie's post again. She's on to something.

    Btw, I don't believe anyone can keep us safe. I only think that ignoring problems doesn't make us safer. I vote for individual candidates, not parties, and I did vote for Bush in the last election.