Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was Franklin D. Roosevelt a Good President?
WND.com ^ | 06-08-04 | Farah, Joseph

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: bush; churchill; communism; condirice; democrats; fdr; fdrwasasocialist; hst; nazism; republican; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-212 next last
To: Conspiracy Guy

I don't have any experience at that, but I'll do whatever I can to help.


101 posted on 06/08/2004 8:10:29 AM PDT by PreviouslyA-Lurker (Any day the chipmunk poops on someone else's pillow is a good day. --- stolen from T'wit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy

"Modern Welfare has no comparison to the WPA."

It was nothing but welfare, designed to make sure that we didn't come out of the depression until the industrial wealth had been stolen and secured. Only when that haqd beern accomplished did he negotiate the attack on Pearl so that the people would accept our entry into WW2.

The proper course of action would have been to award contracts for the WPA work putting the entire economy back into action using equipment to do the work and putting the manufactures of equipment, maintainance, repair, fueling, etc. which would have brought the depression to an end. Just feeding people does nothing but make them subjects of the central government.

As far as Germany, we should have let them destroy Russia before laying them to waste.

I doubt seriously that you had to live through that era and are spouting what some government school planted into your head.


102 posted on 06/08/2004 8:13:27 AM PDT by dalereed (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: PreviouslyA-Lurker

Probably not a good idea in this case.


103 posted on 06/08/2004 8:14:51 AM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (Everything that really matters I learned from a song when I was 3. Jesus Loves Me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

I never claimed to live through it. I wasn't born until 1954. But my parents and grandparents lived through the era. Most of what I know about history did not come from public schools. Even in the 60's public schools could not be trusted with history.

You are entitled to whatever opinion you wish and you might be given some credence if you act civil without your personal attacks. If you wish to attack my education or thinking I can only assume that you are a bit of a delusional "My way or the highway" extremist.

If I misinterpreted your comments on a personal level, I apologize. If I did not, please accept this as my invitation to "buzz off".

Have a nice day.


104 posted on 06/08/2004 8:22:40 AM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (Everything that really matters I learned from a song when I was 3. Jesus Loves Me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy

Oh, still no teacher. Okay, what book should I read to know how to hijack a thread and sell it on the black market?


105 posted on 06/08/2004 8:23:51 AM PDT by PreviouslyA-Lurker (Any day the chipmunk poops on someone else's pillow is a good day. --- stolen from T'wit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Designer
I feel that Reagan's presidency can only be compared to Jefferson's. The fact is that Lincoln, Wilson and FDR were all presidents for whom the times dictated their actions. Reagan, Jefferson and TR were different. They had a vision and pursued it. Reagan was not just a man for his time, but a man who came later than he was needed. Had he not come when he did, the Soviet Union might have lasted another 20 years or more. The death throes may have destroyed the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

What he did, with the USSR, with economics and with the military was nothing less than brilliant and changed the shape of the country even more profoundly than FDR. We live in a Reaganite future. Clinton was even a Reaganite Democrat, whose presidency was more effected by the paradigms put in place by RR than those of FDR.

Lincoln was great, but his entire presidency is seen through the context of the Civil War and the plans he had for reconstruction, which differed from the poor plans that were actually carried out. I would even say that there wasn't a Lincolnite era that followed. To my mind, the presidents who ushered in eras were Washington, Jefferson, TR, FDR and Reagan.

106 posted on 06/08/2004 8:24:11 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PreviouslyA-Lurker

It is not a science, it is an art. It is very organic in execution. No set rules other than hanging loose. This is not the thread to do it on though. The extremists are present.


107 posted on 06/08/2004 8:26:04 AM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (Everything that really matters I learned from a song when I was 3. Jesus Loves Me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy

The extremists are present.

To put it mildly.


108 posted on 06/08/2004 8:30:57 AM PDT by Laura Earl (#40 1911-2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
" . . . which would have brought the depression to an end."

Had the Fed allowed low-interest loans, that might have happened. However, that would have interfered with their plan to destroy individual sovereignty and set up the mechanism for socialism. High interest rates during that period kept money short for many years, allowing a massive transfer theft of equity/property/wealth.

For survival, the common folk had to trade/contract their sovereign Citizenship and its attendant liberties for 14th Amendment federal contract citizenship. . . that which was created by congress. What congress creates, congress rules.

So was this accidental or by design? I think it was by design.

109 posted on 06/08/2004 8:38:08 AM PDT by Eastbound ("Ne'er a scrooge or a patsy be.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
FDR---a great President? Absolutely not! He did nothing while Germany and the Soviets were consolidating their power all throughout the 1930's

He even admired both socialist systems. He was the equivalent of Clinton in the 1930s until events caught up with him.

110 posted on 06/08/2004 8:39:43 AM PDT by eleni121 (Preempt and Prevent---then Destroy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Every Freeper needs to BUY THIS BOOK!
FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and his New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

111 posted on 06/08/2004 8:45:34 AM PDT by Capitalism2003 (America is too great for small dreams. - Ronald Reagan, speech to Congress. January 1, 1984.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative

Also Ronald Reagan adopted FDR's "rendezvous with destiny" line and voted for him four times. Reagan found FDR great because of his political inspiration, not so much because of his actual success. It's what Rush Limbaugh calls the triumph of "good intentions" over actual results for Democrats.


112 posted on 06/08/2004 8:49:35 AM PDT by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: eleni121

There is only one way to kill capitalism – by taxes, taxes, and more taxes. – Karl Marx

We are going to tax and tax, and spend and spend, and elect and elect. --FDR


113 posted on 06/08/2004 8:50:52 AM PDT by Capitalism2003 (America is too great for small dreams. - Ronald Reagan, speech to Congress. January 1, 1984.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

To my mind, the presidents who ushered in eras were Washington, Jefferson, TR, FDR and Reagan.


Yes, this is sound thinking. Of those presidents the voters repudiated TR in the 1912 Republican convention and the general election as well. I think one of the most overrated presidents is HST (whose reputation has been buoyed by Goldwater, Reagan, and Gingrich) and one of the underrated is James Monroe, often called the man who followed Madison.


114 posted on 06/08/2004 8:53:35 AM PDT by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: AMDG&BVMH
Whether a stop to the war before Berlin would have been better is debatable. The less ground the Allies took, the more the Soviet would have. Either that or Hitler may have remained in power.

Patton lemented in his memories that he had to slow down to let the Russians gain more ground first. Roosevelt didn't have to allow such a large "Soviet" sphere of influence.

115 posted on 06/08/2004 8:57:16 AM PDT by Barney Gumble (Socialism is like a dream. Sooner or later you’ll wake up to reality -Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: AMDG&BVMH

Henry Wallace, a former IA Republican (his father was Harding's agriculture secretary), was FDR's first agriculture secretary (1933-41) and second vice president from 1941-45. The delegates replaced him with HST at the 1944 convention. I am still unsure if FDR wanted Wallace purged, or if the delegates did that on their own. Prior to WWII, convention delegates often selected v.p. candidates regardless of the preferences of the presidential candidate. McKinley's people for instance did not want TR as the v.p. choice. Coolidge did not get along at all with Charles Gates Dawes. Harding did not select Coolidge either: the delegates did. Surely Garfield had little to do with the selection of Chester Alan (pronounced EH LON) Arthur.


116 posted on 06/08/2004 8:58:39 AM PDT by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: carton253

So Hoover = engineer
Carter = engineer

So should we elect no engineers president?


117 posted on 06/08/2004 9:02:16 AM PDT by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Truman's reputation is buoyed by two things: (1) his decision to drop the atomic bomb (2) his fascinating personality. His presidential accomplishments were sparse. But he was influential after his presidency ended and was a unifying force in the Democratic party, keeping those who would become Reagan Democrats in the party.

Monroe didn't effect things to come. BTW, I should have added Andrew Jackson in that continuum.

118 posted on 06/08/2004 9:02:53 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Paulus Invictus

What was "Buchanan's blunder"? I missed that. Did it have to do with sending troops to UT in 1857 or so in a dispute over the proposed state of Deseret?


119 posted on 06/08/2004 9:03:25 AM PDT by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Paulus Invictus

Yes, Farah admits to voting for the popular engineer, GA Jimmy, in 1976 and 1980, but he left the Democrat party in the early 80s. Now he is hostile toward both national parties.


120 posted on 06/08/2004 9:04:41 AM PDT by Theodore R. (When will they ever learn?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-212 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson