General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHistorian Tells CBS: Fox News Would Have ‘Loved’ To Show FDR With Polio ‘At His Most Helpless’
David Edwards
14 Sep 2014
Historian Geoffrey Ward told CBS News on Sunday that Franklin D. Roosevelt would have difficulty running for president with a disability like polio today because Fox News would have loved to show him at his most helpless.
During a panel discussion about the PBS documentary The Roosevelts: An Intimate History, CBS host Bob Schieffer noted that Roosevelt could have never hidden his inability to walk from the public today.
Hopefully, the public today would be much more understanding and glad to have somebody that had overcome this kind of problem, historian Doris Kearns Goodwin agreed.
I differ with Doris a little, Ward said. I think if he were running now, sadly, I think TV crews would compete with each other to see who could get the footage that showed him at his most helpless. He had to be carried in and out of buildings. He had to be helped to remove his braces and so on.
And I think Fox News would have loved that, he pointed out.
MORE...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/blog/2014/09/14/historian-tells-cbs-fox-news-would-have-loved-to-show-fdr-with-polio-at-his-most-helpless/
Gman
(24,780 posts)While "experts" blabbed about what it all means with such a weak prez.
Blue Owl
(50,427 posts)n/t
dsc
(52,162 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)lastlib
(23,248 posts)...and another one from Kilmeade.....
lobodons
(1,290 posts)Take the stairs
WillyT
(72,631 posts)deafskeptic
(463 posts)Frank Cannon
(7,570 posts)We'd all be saluting the Twisted Cross and Der Fuhrer every morning today. And we'd be loving every minute of it.
spanone
(135,844 posts)JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)"disproving" that Republicans had total control in 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, and 1931, and that therefore they weren't responsible for the Great Depression.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)In the 1930 election, the Senate ended up 48-47-1, 48 GOP, 47 Democrats, 1 Labor-Farmer (Who voted with the Democrats).
Technically, since the GOP had the Vice President who could break a tie it remain GOP, but just barely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1930
The House went DEMOCRATIC in 1930, thus the Democratic Party controlled the HOUSE in 1931:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1930
Technically the Democratic Party won only 216 seats (and Minnesota's Labor-Farmers won one seat, who voted with the Democrats), while the GOP won 218 seats, the problem was before Congress convened in March 1931, the GOP had lost another four seats in special elections, thus the Democrats were in control from March 1931 onward.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/72nd_United_States_Congress
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)through 1930. However, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN FACTS AND DATES, by Gorton Carruth, says that the Democrats took a 220-214 lead in the House because of the 11/4/1930 election.
The POINT is that Republicans had TOTAL control for many years leading up to the Great Depression, and that nobody seems to be aware of it.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)And when they jump on such an error, they ignore the whole point you are trying to make and by citing the "Error" over and over again, they call into question your premise. This is typical GOP tactics and you have to be prepared to address them, first by saying it was a minor error, and then correcting the error. On the other hand, when we are discussing things among ourselves we should point out errors by others, so that if you get attack by the Right Wing you are prepared.
Just a comment to be careful with facts, just because the GOP ignores facts does not mean we should.
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)I put this together. I have never seen it anywhere else. I have posted it in various versions about a dozen times and you are the first person to notice the error.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)If I know it, others know it, but they are NOT talking for it is minor (and that would be my opinion, except I have been caught by such "minor" errors by people who jump on such "errors" rather then dismiss them as minor).
Thus double check your data, Wikipedia is a good place to double check data (Wikipedia has errors, some of them are huge, but it is a good place to start).
Just remember housing prices dropped 90% from 1927 to 1938, a fact no one wants to even address today. In some ways it is worse then 90% for in 1934 FDR devalued the Dollar from $20 to an ounce of gold to $35 to an ounce of gold (a value the dollar would retain till Nixon).
On the other hand, houses in 1927 tended to be America Four Square (With Bungalow a distant #2), a large home, not a McMansion but a large home. In 1938 what was building built were bungalow and Ranch style homes (With Ranches replacing the Four Square as the most popular style, it was more compatible with the automobile and cheaper to build).
Most popular were Ranch Style homes (through some four square were also built). Ranch provided about 1/2 to 1/4 the internal space of a Four Square. Thus the 90% price drop also reflected a downsizing of homes by 50-75%.
Using the devaluation of the Dollar, you can claim housing prices drop 95% (the additional 5% attributed to the 40% cut in the value of the dollar with the devaluation to $35 a ounce of gold).
On the other hand, you can say the devaluation was only 25% for people were buying Ranches that were 1/4 the size of the Four Square, thus most of the 90% drop in price reflected a change in housing that was wanted, the Four Square were old Fashioned the Ranch was the design of the future. The problem with that argument is people were buying Ranches for that is all they could afford, where four square were available and people could afford them, they still sold as late as WWII (The problem is the ability to PAY was so reduced that no one had money to buy a four square, so they stopped being built post WWII).
I bring up how housing type change to show how bad the Great Depression was AND how the far right do they best to make it appear less bad then it was.
Would you perfer to live in a Four Square, which can run from a small four square:
To a large four Square:
or a Ranch?
Remember housing resumed in 1938 (housing died in 1927, and did NOT pick up till the Giant Stimulus package FDR did in 1938, you be surprised what was built under the program, it was the program that got the US out of the Great Depression NOT WWII).
I tend to like Four Square, it provides the most internal space, at the lowest cost with the smallest imprint on the land. For those reason it was the most popular housing design from the 1890s till WWII (It derived from Frank Lloyd Wright's Prairie style home, which looks a lot like a Four Square for that reason, the Four Square tends to be a Square unlike the rectangular Prairie and Ranch style homes).
LittleGirl
(8,287 posts)And that's how it switched as far as I can remember about that political time. The democrats split with the republicans during the depression and during the race riots in the 60s. Those democrats were their own breed back then. Not today's democrats. Good and bad alike.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Then when the rich fuck them they're ALWAYS surprised.
Frank Cannon
(7,570 posts)They just blame it on the poor people.
They never, ever connect the fucking dots.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Frank Cannon
(7,570 posts)There are no poor or even middle-class right-wingers, just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Thank you, Purveyor.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Initech
(100,081 posts)They would have painted George Washington and James Madison as radical left wing extremists and we'd still be under British rule.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)We would have universal health care and might actually be a more civilized society
Initech
(100,081 posts)If Fox News were around during colonial times, they probably would have been complaining that King Henry VIII wasn't conservative enough. And our founding fathers would have been painted as brown shirts.
LittleGirl
(8,287 posts)good point. reality would suck wouldn't it?
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)rustydog
(9,186 posts)like he did with Michael J Fox.
No honor, no integrity, no humanity...sad
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,841 posts)UTUSN
(70,711 posts)tartan2
(314 posts)simply because our mainstream media is sick and disgusting.
Johonny
(20,851 posts)Roosevelt doesn't golf enough next on Fox.