Benny's World

Thursday, February 11, 2010

O doesn't equate to FDR

My pal Montana Maven has a salient post over at FDL about our current administration which shies away from liberal positions, even if they try to sell them (then back away, using the moniker "they make me do it).

From FDL:
Liberals, who I like, from Mark Thompson on Sirius Left to Les Leopold invoke FDR and the idea that he told activists to "make him do it". Or that Martin Luther King made President Johnson do it. Ergo, it is our responsibility to push Obama. It smacks of a variation on the "personal responsibility" meme of Bill Cosby and shifts the attention away from the Obama administration and their responsibility. And is it even true?

FDR was a natural fighter (and so was Johnson) and became even more fierce with his ongoing battle with polio. He had the first female Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins, and she was often the last person to leave after a cabinet meeting. Who is last now? Geithner and Gates? And quick, who is the secretary of labor?

FDR saw who the enemy was and it was Wall Street or as he said, "entrenched greed." Obama said in his state of the union that he wasn’t interested in punishing the banksters that brought the world economy down. He reinforced this on February 9, 2010 in is latest statement:

"I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system."

But FDR was not only interested in punishing the Wall Street gamblers, he got laws passed to break their kneecaps.

Yeppers, Obama is afraid of the conservatives. FDR was mindful of other considerations, in which his wife was his conscience.

I'm wondering if Mrs. Obama thinks as ER about all of the windows to present to her husband. I hope so but I'm not so sure since she has two little ones to consider. My point is that while she tries to be somewhat like ER (the garden and a few things), ER's children were already raised.

What do you think about Obama compared to FDR as a sound progressive or liberal?

And please, do not bring up JRE's personal life on this thread but if you think his ideas could have been like FDR's, that's appropriate. Otherwise, this is not an intelligent discussion of ideas, which is what this thread is about. Let's discuss ideas!!!

Labels: , , ,


  • "please, do not bring up JRE's personal life on this thread" Really? You've spent years fawning over the man, including his personal life and appearance. Your site still includes this quote:
    "The world is watching, and they are waiting for us. And they are waiting to see what we're made of." --JRE
    You've continued to praise him even after he was exposed for the world to see what he is made of. But now you want to be holier than thou? You can't have it both ways!

    Oh and the pornographic links must be just fine with you since you don't say a word about them. Nice set of standards you have.

    By Blogger JeanLouise, at 1:54 AM  

  • JL--this is about Obama's performance on this thread. If you can't accept it, move along, otherwise, I will delete on this particular thread. I made a specific request and it is my blog after all.

    By Blogger benny06, at 4:02 AM  

  • I am genuinely curious about your thought process regarding this matter. You sang Edwards' praises because of his character which has proven to be a sham. While that is probably very painful to accept and may lead to still being in denial to some extent, continuing to deny the truth is an enabler in Edwards delusion that he can make a comeback of some type.

    It's also a relevant point in the discussion for this thread since it is discussing how politicians present themselves, frame their messages and further or change their positions. As much as people may attempt it, you cannot separate the message from the messenger.

    By Blogger JeanLouise, at 5:35 AM  

  • I don't understand. You don't want to discuss John Edwards, but you indicate that this blog is about him and his wife. I totally agree with JeanLouise. This is disturbing.

    By Blogger AllyOop, at 7:55 AM  

  • JL:

    She made a request and you chose not to stick to it. Now, I have done my share of personal messaging myself, but when the owner of a blog expressly requests you not to bring something up, it is at the very least rude to do so.

    Moreover, it's because of people like you that a lot of us with good ideas and desire to contribute to the political process, feel unqualified to do so. Because we don't have the perfect backgrounds, because we don't have the perfect life circumstances or communication skills. Because, as you put it, you can't separate the message from the messenger.

    Well... to bring it back to Benny's intended topic, if that had been the prevailing attitude back in FDR's day, we wouldn't have been the beneficiary of his ideas.

    People ARE more complex and situational than researchers thought before... and certainly, when you look at people as complex human beings, you treat them a lot fairer than when you have an essentialist, approach to understanding humanity. Believing a person's character and personality are hard-wired, isn't exactly conducive to compassion for them... or, really, for understanding them.

    By Blogger Frances, at 11:23 AM  

  • Frances,
    Please re-read the information you've commented on because your statements are wrong. I was questioning the logic of the request not choosing not to stick to it.

    Your second paragraph makes no sense at all. Nothing stated here should make anyone feel unqualified to comment. Eleanor Roosevelt said no one can make you feel inferior without your consent. Whatever deficiencies you feel are your issue not due to anyone else.

    Appearances versus reality are supremely relevant in discussions of Franklin Roosevelt. He was elected to four terms as President but very few people knew about his disability. He made a choice to hide that from common knowledge, probably realizing it may have prevent his election/re-election then and would possibly do so even today.

    Finally, I take it you are saying that blogs are for one opinion to be expressed. If you agree with the blog owner, feel free to say so. If you disagree, shut up. Unless, of course, you want to post links to pornography here, which seems to be acceptable. Censorship, warped but still censorship, at its finest.

    By Blogger JeanLouise, at 1:49 PM  

  • I think JRE and EE had the best ideas, many of them reminded me of what FDR and ER would have done.

    It would help if Obama had paid more close attention to the DNC Platform that was built for him and those in Congress. He's all but almost abandoned it in favor of what my pals Montana Maven and Deadrock Dave called "the banksters."

    By Blogger benny06, at 2:36 PM  

  • Benny. You still don't get it. JRE and EE didn't HAVE any ideas. They consulted their people and decided what would play well to the masses. Everything after that was pure ACTING! And you are trying to nominate them for the Academy Award! They were LYING about everything. Both of them! They only said what they said because it's what people wanted to hear. Poverty? Yeah, they cared so much, they built that HUGE, HUGE mansion to show just how much they cared. And the $400 haircuts? There priorities are right there, but you have a blindfold on...STILL. Until now, I really thought you were smarter than this. John and Elizabeth Edwards' charade has backfired on BOTH of them. They were BOTH phony! They were playing EVERYONE! It was all about POWER...for BOTH of them!

    By Blogger AllyOop, at 1:20 PM  

  • One of the most fundamental and significant differences between these two men has to do with their backgrounds. Roosevelt was Governor of NY, Asst. Sec. of the Navy, etc., prior to his Presidency. Obama was in the US Senate for two years before beginning his campaign.

    The difference is leadership experience. While a governor doesn't have much foreign relations involvement, he/she does have to lead a state and the party in that state working with the legislature. Senators, Congresspersons, etc. don't have the same opportunities to develop the skills needed by the President. (Running a campaign and running a state or nation are very different animals.)

    Look at George W. Bush. He was able to get his agenda through Congress. Even when his actions were out of bounds, he still saw them through. Those successes weren't based on the merits of his agenda.

    Obama is too deferential either as part of his reelection campaign or because he honestly believes in three equal branches of government where the President doesn't dictate an agenda. What the latter misses is his role as leader of both the nation and his party. (As for the former, fail to lead and there will be no second term.)

    The responses to the financial crises FDR and BHO faced are perfect examples. FDR saw the abuses in the system and used all the means at his disposal to reform those areas. (He wisely installed Joe Kennedy as head of the new SEC saying to catch the crooks, he needed the biggest crook. Kennedy legally manipulated the system to greater advantage than anyone so he knew where the changes were needed and how to make them without hobbling the entire system.)

    Obama's team is unwilling or unable to take definitive action in any area much less the most egregious abuses. Credit default swaps are making a comeback, too big to fail companies were propped up and are growing again, etc.

    Obama's lack of experience and leadership were his Achilles heel but McCain couldn't leverage it since he chose someone far less qualified as his running mate. Instead of focusing on campaign rhetoric, more attention needs to be paid to skills and experience. If you are hiring someone, do you want to see proven results or a hear a sales pitch?

    By Blogger indyvoter, at 4:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home