Harry Hopkins: FDR's "Rasputin:" "People don't eat in the long run, they eat every day"

[bushmeister0]

Sign those checks, get people to work. Public works, massive government action.

Check this video out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POsz_MgrBDk&feature=related

This is the kind of ACTION this country needs now!

Harry Hopkins is the sort of man we need now. No one knows about him, but his influence on the past 70 years or so of this country is HUGE.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1610.html

Harry Hopkins as head of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1599.html

put people like Studs Terkel and Orson Wells to work.

http://www.wwcd.org/policy/US/newdeal.html#INTRO

'Even artists have to eat,' to paraphrase Hopkins.

FDR's first inaugural:

"Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.

As FDR said, admitting the failure of his first term to weed out privilige:

"We find our population suffering from the old inequalities, little changed by our past sporadic remedies. In spite of our effort and in spite of our talk, we have not weeded out the overprivileged and we have not effectively lifted up the underprivileged....We have...a clear mandate from the people, that Americans must forswear the conception of the acquisition of wealth which, through excessive profits, creates undue private power over private affairs and, to our misfortune, over public affairs as well. In building toward this end we do not destroy ambition, nor do we seek to divide our wealth into equal shares on stated occasions. We continue to recognize the greater ability of some to earn more than others. But we do assert that the ambition of the individual to obtain for him and his a proper security, a reasonable leisure, and a decent living throughout life is an ambition to be preferred to the appetite for great wealth and great power."



But as he admited in 1936:

"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."

Imagine such sentiments from either Hillary or Obama.

Listen to FDR's words and his actions and compare the the weak-tea being offered as "change" in a time now as critical as what the American people faced more than 70 years ago.

We're in deep doo doo and we need real leadership. Learn your history and reflect. Obama ain't very inspiring when you compare his snappy come back to Hillary's attacks to the sheer audacity of the New Deal years and what they accomplished.

Unless, Obama or Hillary is prepared to really upset the applecart and take this nation in a whole other, radical, direction then what's the point? Things have gone way beyond sound bites and poll numbers.

The American people desperatley want a leader and, sadly, none of the above is capable.

FDR:

"The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership."

Where is it? Where is this generation's rendesvous with destiny? (it's not Obama)

[MichiganVote]

1. Reading about Harry is amazing. FDR never could have accomplished what he did w/o him.

[bushmeister0]

4. Indeed, he was FDR's legs.

You wouldn't happen to know where I could find a link to info about Hopkin's work to clean out the tunnels of the New York Subway of silicosis, would you? I hear tell that his poneering work in this field to prevent many workers building the subway from getting that disease, which was a huge concern back then, led to his position as head of the American Lung Association.

[MichiganVote]

32. There are some references to HH and his work in occupational health in the following,

Deadly Dust, by David Rosner, Gary Markowitz
http://books.google.com/books?id=YwM1XgD2_ncC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=harry+hopkins+and+silicosis&source=web&ots=859GXnTwaE&sig=
PcSwd6Q4lKkX0EQi_h6CQFvYj7k&hl=en

Harry Hopkins,Sudden Hero, Brash Reformer, by June Hopkins
http://books.google.com/books?id=IP2S0Dd02b8C&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=harry+hopkins+and+silicosis&source=web&ots=8GyJWdIcsc&sig=
lNfEtI9sxgztoLIhCmYzw05PuKE&hl=en#PPP1,M1

Both books are available through Amazon.

[scarletwoman]

33. Thanks for posting those! (nt)

[bushmeister0]

62. Hey, that's great thank you.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Eleanor. Ickes. Hopkins. Woodward. Etc. -

They rocked.

[bushmeister0]

5. Ah ER, way ahead of her time

"By the early forties Eleanor Roosevelt firmly believed the civil rights issue to be the real litmus test for American democracy. Thus she declared over and over again throughout the war that there could be no democracy in the United States that did not include democracy for blacks. In The Moral Basis of Democracy she asserted that people of all races have inviolate rights to property.

'We have never been willing to face this problem, to line it up with the basic, underlying beliefs in Democracy.' Racial prejudice enslaved blacks; consequently, 'no one can claim that . . . the Negroes of this country are free.' She continued this theme in a 1942 article in the New Republic, declaring that both the private and the public sector must acknowledge that 'one of the main destroyers of freedom is our attitude toward the colored race.' 'What Kipling called "The White Man's Burden", she proclaimed in The American Magazine, is 'one of the things we can not have any longer.' Furthermore, she told those listening to the radio broadcast of the 1945 National Democratic Forum, 'democracy may grow or fade as we face problem.'"

http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/abouteleanor/erbiography.cfm#yr1933

How crazy is that? About 25 years ahead, to be exact.

[Captain Hilts]

27. Here's one of my favorites relevant to today...

http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/documents/articles/challengetoamerican.cfm

I can well understand the bitterness of people who have lost loved ones at the hands of the Japanese military authorities, and we know that the totalitarian philosophy, whether it is in Nazi Germany or in Japan, is one of cruelty and brutality. It is not hard to understand why people living here in hourly anxiety for those they love have difficulty in viewing our Japanese problem objectively, but for the honor of our country, the rest of us must do so.

[rasputin1952]

65. I give a tremendous amount of credit to Eleanor...

tiresless, always looking out for the "common man/woman", right up till the day she died, she was a force to be reconned with. An absoluely amazing person who helped to change this nation is so many ways...all good!

[wellstone dem]

3. The overpriviledged......

that is a concept that is not discussed enough. The failure to equitably compensate those who create the goods, do the labor, in favor of over compensation of those at the top is where the moral contract has failed greatly.

[bean fidhleir]

6. "FDR admitted the failure of his first term to weed out privilege"

As historians of the period have determined, and Huey Long before them, FDR wasn't really interested in getting rid of privilege, he only played a reformer on radio. He was interested in saving capitalism and staying president indefinitely, and was very successful. Whatever he did for working stiffs like us, he did in the service of those real goals, not because he cared about us.

Eleanor's rhetoric had something behind it, but FDR's? Nope.

[bushmeister0]

7. Not so black and white.

FDR: "I am fighting Communism, Huey Longism, Coughlinism, Townsendism. I want our system, the capitalist system; to save it is to give it some heed to the world thought of today. I want equal distribution of wealth.'

Huey Long's share-the-wealth program, which called for a radical redistribution of wealth, something even FDR would have been frightened by, and the overall hatred of the capitalist system running around the world leading to the rise of the likes of Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, and the agitation of the Communists here in the US based on the 'great successes' of Stalin's economic miracle in Russia, made it imperative that something be done here in the US to avoid a complete meltdown.

Roosevelt, citing Huey Long's solution to the misdistribution of wealth, said: 'To combat this and similar crackpot ideas it may be necessary to throw the wolves the forty-six who are reported to have incomes in excess of one million dollars a year. This can be accomplished through taxation. The thinking men, the young men, who are disciples of this new world idea of fairer distribution of wealth, they are demanding that something be done to equalize this distribution.'

http://imnotworthy.blogspot.com/2007/12/past-is-future-when-will-we-ever-learn.html

[bean fidhleir]

11. Pretty much black and white

His "throwing to the wolves" never happened, except in the minds of the prospective throwees (whose motto - "all for ourselves and nothing for other people" - was condemed in 1776 by Adam Smith). There's also evidence that he wasn't even slightly serious about it, because he laughed when he made the comment in their presence (or the presence of at least one of them, I can't quite remember; it's documentd by Alan Brinkley).

And of course Huey's Share The Wealth proposal was far from being a "crackpot" idea, except in the minds of FDR and his wealthy-elite peers. Huey didn't have the mechanism completely worked out, but he understood intuitively that it could be done, as in fact it could have been and still could be (and will need to be, if we want to keep going as a species).

[bushmeister0]

17. Oh common. Huey Long was a crackpot and a crook. Give me a break.

You don't know what the hell your talking about.

"Principles and platform:

1. To limit poverty by providing that every deserving family shall share in the wealth of America for not less than one third of the average wealth, thereby to possess not less than $5,000 free of debt. . .

To share our wealth by providing for every deserving family to have one third of the average wealth would mean that, at the worst, such a family could have a fairly comfortable home, an automobile, and a radio, with other reasonable home conveniences, and a place to educate their children. Through sharing the work, that is, by limiting the hours of toil so that all would share in what is made and produced in the land, every family would have enough coming in every year to feed, clothe, and provide a fair share of the luxuries of life to its members. Such is the result to a family, at the worst.

From the worst to the best there would be no limit to opportunity. One might become a millionaire or more. There would be a chance for talent to make a man big, because enough would be floating in the land to give brains its chance to be used. As it is, no matter how smart a man may be, everything is tied up in so few hands that no amount of energy or talent has a chance to gain any of it.

Would it break up big concerns? No. It would simply mean that, instead of one man getting all the one concern made, that there might be 1,000 or 10,000 persons sharing in such excess fortune, any one of whom, or all of whom, might be millionaires and over."

http://www.ssa.gov/history/longsen.html

"Huey didn't have the mechanism completely worked out, but he understood intuitively that it could be done."

Indeed!

[bean fidhleir]

36. Read your history, for godssake

The part he didn't have worked out was how to deal with the non-monetary wealth. He was a country boy from the backwoods, born just after capitalism was made the law of the land. Wealth to him was cash in a sock. Capitalist wealth was outside his experience, and he didn't completely know how to map it onto something he did understand. But he was working on it, and was certainly smart enough that he would have got there had they not killed him.

Read your history. Try Williams's Pulitzer-prize biography for a start.

[bushmeister0]

20. btw, why are you trashing the greatest President this party ever had?

Strange behavior for a DUer, no? Just wondering. As far as a legacy goes, FDR is pretty hard to beat.

[bean fidhleir]

37. Don't try pulling that McCarthyist crap on me, okay?

I don't feel the need to be guided by received dogma, nor to submit my opinions for approval by you. I form my views of FDR by reading reputable historians.

[bushmeister0]

61. "Reputable historians" huh? Okay, whatever. You're in no danger of being blacklisted

so calm down.

[Captain Hilts]

28. Had FDR been a dictator, things might have been different. But he had a conservative congress...

to deal with.

He cut corners at times he should not have done so, but with the Congress - and Supreme Court he had, he did pretty well despite them.

[bean fidhleir]

39. He was opposed by a reactionary court, for sure. But a conservative congress?

I don't think you can support that part. I believe the record shows that Congress gave him everything he wanted at first. That's where the claim that it only took him "10 days to save capitalism" (or whatever that claim was, I don't think I quoted it quite right). It was the reactionary court that hobbled him, and then his court-expansion idea ran into trouble in Congress.

[Captain Hilts]

40. After that the Dixiecrats and Republicans tied his hands on racial justice, etc. nt

[bean fidhleir]

43. I don't think there's any evidence for him having personally cared about "racial justice, etc"

I believe Eleanor's the one who created that image for him - her concern rubbed off on him in the popular mythos. If you know of evidence to the contrary, I'd welcome a cite.

[MichiganVote]

35. Actually, what FDR did was to weed out historical privilege that aided and abetted

the very things that we have today. FDR was a man of privilege himself. However he subscribed to the somewhat dated notion of honor among those so chosen by fate or providence to enjoy generational wealth. Huey Long did support Roosevelt while appearing to also support other candidates. His sphere of influence was politically astute and Roosevelt learned to respect it even as he managed to get around it.

Roosevelt's 1st nomination as the Dem. candidate is a fascinating expose of Roosevelt, Long and old style aristocracy within democracy.

Roosevelt was not interested in staying office indefinitely. As for the intent of his various administrations, the supposition that he did not care about US citizens is open to many, many contradictions.

Signed, Roosevelt History Buff

[bean fidhleir]

42. I was born near the end of his third term. So I grew up with that mythology that he was

"a traitor to his class" and "honorable" and all that. But modern scholarship shows him to have been clay-footed. Not an awful person by any means - better than JFK, for example - but definitely a class-bound politician who appointed people based on their wealth and social connections, which very often put the foxes in charge of the henhouses.

We're in the crapper today in large part because the people he appointed decided that our society must remain 100% capitalist and must be consumption-oriented to distinguish it from communism and fascism. So we've been exploiting and trashing the rest of the world now for 60+ years because of political decisions made by a few wealthy capitalists to whom he gave power.


"Roosevelt was not interested in staying office indefinitely. As for the intent of his various administrations, the supposition that he did not care about US citizens is open to many, many contradictions."

Do you have any citations for these statements? I'm curious because he certainly didn't hesitate to stand for a fourth term even though his health at that point was not so swell. And as far as his concern for ordinary people went, he was very good at the rhetoric, I'll freely grant that, but it's not clear to me that he did anything for working people that he wasn't pushed into by the fear of revolution or of losing the presidency. Note that he swung to the right without any apparent regret after his hold on the office was secure.

[Zynx]

47. At the end of his second term he seriously considered hanging it up.

If you read Robert Jackson's personal diaries on FDR that is clear. He was concerned that there wasn't anyone capable of keeping the Democratic Party together to fight the Republicans who he felt would be disasterous for dealing with rising fascism. As far as the fourth term, he really feared the consequences in the middle of the war of changing administrations. He did not want to remain president in 1944. Everything I have ever read confirms that. Also, have you seen any videos of him from that time? My goodness.

[bean fidhleir]

49. "He was concerned that there wasn't anyone capable"

Isn't that fairly much the standard excuse, though? Certainly that's a well-documented (e.g. by Peter Drucker) syndrome in business - the founder who claims he "can't" let go because there's no one competent to succeed him.

[Zynx]

71. Those close to him are documented as saying he wanted to hang it up.

In truth, who else could have led the country? Granted, it sounds arrogant, but it wasn't a naked power grab like you suggest.

[Captain Hilts]

48. He also said in the early '30s that Lou Douglas might be a good candidate in "12 years." nt

[bean fidhleir]

50. How probative is that, though? People say a lot of things on which they never act. (nt)

[MichiganVote]

52. The fact that any of us are born during a given administration hardly guarantees an unbiased view.

When one is living in history, one may not be assumed to be a historian of that history. Nevertheless, FDR had to come from somewhere and most presidential candidates did not come from an uneducated, poor, or disadvantaged background.

As to the citations, you seem to have amassed a number of opinions without them. Why ask posters on this board to now provide citations to refute your opinion?

Factually, Roosevelt's health was poor the first time he ran. So the idea that his health is the standard by which to measure his intentions in or out of office seems rather silly.

As Governor of New York, FDR implemented relief initiatives,unemployment insurance, pensions for the elderly, limits on work hours, and massive public works projects. His popularity allowed him to gain reelection as governor, a rarity in the midst of the depression. Similar policies were enacted following his first election as president. Why did Americans like FDR for the office of the presidency? Its pretty clear that he created systems in the midst of chaos. The economy did improve after he took office although it did not recover completely until the advent of WWII. FDR was swept into office in a landslide.

In the "First Hundred Days" of his presidency, FDR pushed through a vast amount of legislation highlighted by a reformed banking program, agricultural subsidy laws, and new plans for industrial recovery. To meet the immediate crisis of starvation and the dire needs of the nation's unemployed, FDR provided for direct cash relief for the poor, and established the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Public Works Administration. Thousands of men throughout the country began working to build bridges, roads, and sewage systems and to plant trees and clean up beaches. Some of the most important "New Deal" measures credited to Roosevelt - federal insurance of bank deposits, the Wagner Act, and public housing - originated in Congress as bills that he either opposed outright or accepted only at the last moment. Usually FDR's opposition was based on budgetary expenditures or as a part of the political process. FDR was infamous for vetoing many, many bills. FDR is said to ask his aides to look out for a piece of legislation he could veto, in order to remind Congress that it was being watched.

By far the biggest share of success during the FDR administration was Roosevelt's ability to convince people to sell his policies,to follow him and put faith in his promises. FDR defeated Herbert Hoover in the 1932 election by a popular vote of 22,809,638 to 15,758,901 and an electoral vote of 472 to 59. He was reelected in 1936 over Alfred Landon by votes of 27,752,869 to 16,674,665 and 523 to 8, again in 1940 over Wendell L. Willkie by votes of 27,307,819 to 22,321,018 and 449 to 82, and yet again in 1944 over Thomas E. Dewey by votes of 25,606,585 to 22,014,745 and 432 to 99; the only president elected 4 times.

Sounds to me as though you have largely ignored President's Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush II for policies that have put us in the "crapper" we are in today. Whereas the aforementioned had many people on staff or in political positions who were involved in scandal or convicted of one thing or another, the Roosevelt administration did not. Indeed, our initial leaders were all men of property or of the "higher" classes. Branding Roosevelt alone as a class elite is superfluous.

Perhaps your politics lean more in the direction of socialism. And that's fine. Yet the historians who have chronicled the FDR administrations hardly regale FDR with being a rabid capitalist. The old guard upper class capitalists hated Roosevelt and the progressive socialists of the day thought he fell well short of the revolutionary change they wanted to see happen.

The United States first became a major military power during Roosevelt's presidency. Under FDR, Congress established peacetime conscription and after Pearl Harbor put millions of men and women into uniform. The birth of the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, and the atomic bomb occurred during the FDR administratons. it is hardly FDR's fault that while during his administration, business answered to the goverment, subsequent administratons allowed for the reverse to become the norm.

[bean fidhleir]

54. Oh for christ's sake I only mentioned my age in passing, to point out that I was

raised when the FDR mythos was in unexamined flower.

As for citations,

"The Roosevelt reforms went far beyond previous legislation. They had to meet two pressing needs: to reorganize capitalism in such a way {as} to overcome the crisis and stabilize the system; also, to head off the alarming growth of spontaneious rebellion in the early years of the Roosevelt administration--organization of tenants and the unemployed, movements of self-help, general strikes in several cities.

That first objective--to stabilize the system for its own protection--was most obvious in the major law of Roosevelt's first months in office, the National Recovery Act. ... From the first, the NRA was dominated by big businesses and served their interests. ... The unorganized public, otherwise known as the consumer, along with the members of the fledgling trade-union movement, had virtually nothing to say about the initial organization of the NRA, or the formulation of basic policy."

(Zinn's People's History, p 392)


"This colorful oratory {against the "economic royalists"} cloaked policies with only limited impact. Garbed in rhetorical abrasiveness, the Revenue Act of 1935 was institutionalized oratory, with political teeth but without an economic bite."

(Mark Leff, The Limits of Symbolic Reform: the New Deal and Taxation, 1933-1939 p166)



"In WW2, the income tax ceased to be an indicator of affluence and became a mere token of citizenship. ... No more than 5% of the population {paid income tax} in the '30s; during WW2, the ranks swelled to 74% ... by the end of the war, {the very rich} accounted for only 13% of the revenues. Treasury Secretary Morganthau {the wealthy "gentleman farmer" neighbor of FDR's that he had appointed to the position} observed that "for the first time in our history, the income tax is becoming a people's tax". "

(Leff, p287)


"The New Deal's main concession to workplace democracy was NIRA Section 7(a), which declared workers' right to "organize and bargain collevily...free from the interference, restriant or coercion of employers." But it soon became apparent that corporate executives did not intend to obey this part of the law; and that Washington would not force the issue. The New Deal showed time and again that a federal declaration of labor rights was merely a piece of paper."

Pricilla Murolo and A. B. Chitty, From the Folks Who Brought You The Weekend, p193



I could go on, but it's your turn now.

[MichiganVote]

57. No thanks. I don't think you and I are on the same page when it comes to discussion.

[bean fidhleir]

74. If you mean I'm not a communicant of the Cult of Saint Franklin, you're right

If you read the pseudo-transcripts of the 1787 convention, you'll see that we working people were regarded by most of the elite as little more than animals - gullible, distractable, emotional, easily led and manipulated.

It's not any different today. That's why the ones in Congress know they can ignore us. All they have to do is throw out some red-meat rhetoric a few days before the election and all their betrayals are forgotten. We positively beg to be treated that way.

Until enough of us learn to see what's really there, and refuse to be gulled, distracted, excited by empty words, led, and manipulated, we're going to remain draft animals, doing the work of the elites as long as they need us, and slaughtered when they don't.

[rasputin1952]

66. You are wrong, while he was most certainly a capitalist...

he saw first hand how greed and avarice corrupt the wealthy. Like TR before him, he had a serious distaste for corruption, and tried to get a handle on it.

There is nothing wrong w/capitalism in a form where the greed is tethered, but there is no such animal...greed is a powerful driving force and no # of laws can contain it.

[kentuck]

8. One of my favorite quotes.

Thanks!

[vickitulsa]

9. I worked as a underprivileged secretary for 33 years...

mostly as a "temp" because I had a little more control over my life and my jobs that way, but never did my pay go above $30K/yr. I was a crackerjack executive secretary with topnotch skills, and I could step into a job behind almost any desk working for top CEO's and Veeps and the like and make things run smoothly in short order.

For 33 years I typed 130wpm and turned out documents that made the bosses look great. I copied reams of papers and took minutes of meetings and transcribed them accurately within a couple of hours. I answered phones, took care of clients, made reservations and travel plans and generally held down the fort when the big bosses were out of the office. I filed enough paperwork to sink the Queen Mary II.

And yes, I made coffee -- and served it, with crescent rolls and crumpets if necessary -- to the boss and his clients, at least in the earlier years and sometimes even in the later ones (the late 90's).

When I became disabled from being worked half to death, I learned I could collect $531/month in SSDI (Disability) insurance payments. That's what I'd worked for, crippled my body for, all those years.

And the real kicker in all this is that half the time I was smarter and more capable than my bosses. Quite often I would have to keep their fat out of the fire, bail them out when they screwed up, cover for them when they made bonehead mistakes, and take the blame for it when they got in trouble with those who signed their checks. (They don't need timesheets -- who cares how much time they actually work?)

On plenty of occasions, I had to DO their job for them, even though they were earning about 100 times my salary.

And yet I didn't receive any benefits to speak of until the last years of my career, and that was too little too late to repair my body they had worn out.

I used to work a lot in downtown Tulsa, and did the same in Dallas and other places from south Texas to Alaska, from Boston to California. As a temp, I was often requested to return to companies which had been pleased with my work. I mastered all the technology of my trade, the computer programs and complicated systems used by businesses, and often had to teach them to my bosses.

Sometimes at noon or at five o'clock when I'd ride down the elevators to the streets of downtown Tulsa or Dallas for lunch or to go home, I'd look around me at all the others who worked in offices and think, "You know, if there were some catastrophic event and all these people who shuffle paper around in offices had to turn out of their buildings like this and be of some real USE, most of them would be utterly lost and could serve no useful purpose without training!"

It's all a big game, and the name of the game is "GIVE ME THE MONEY!" And the big boys are the ones who have always played it craftily and to their advantage at every turn. The ones who do the WORK, who produce products and create goods and come up with ideas that keep things running or make them run better -- what do they get from this game? I tell ya what they get -- a broken body (and sometimes mind) and $531/month. And Medicare, if they're lucky.

They've given me "cost of living increases" in tiny increments since I went on Disability, so I now get a whopping $747/month. I used to get $80/month in food stamps too, but every time they increased my SSDI they reduced my food stamps by the same amount. Now they've decided I don't need food stamps (or food, I guess) at all anymore. And my lot rent alone just went up to $400/month. Do the math.

And all those "big guys" who half the time don't even know what paperwork is used for what in their own businesses, what do they get at the end of their career? Golden parachutes to the tune of many millions of dollars! For WHAT? Beats the hell outta me! Useless parasites, most of 'em, and yet they skim the cream off the top of the game pile and smile all the way to the bank -- if they don't OWN the bank.

What's wrong with this picture of the United States of America? Where the much-touted "American Dream" is supposed to be available to anyone who is willing to "work hard"?

In my mind, just about everything!


Overprivileged, indeed.


Sorry, I just had to sound off. This country has failed, and just keeps pn getting it wrong. No more voting for "hope" or "change" for me, even though I do believe we need both badly. We lost control of those in office in our government a long, long time ago. They laugh at us as we trundle along to our jobs and to our polling places and do our best to try to rein them in, knowing they can go right on ignoring us, oblivious to our suffering, because they're all in this game together, and against us. I do believe they LAUGH AT US.


From their ivory towers.

I see no sign of any "new FDR," or those who advised him, anywhere in our future ever again. The government's been "fixed," all right, but not in the way it needs.

Edited to make this "document" correct, caught my own typo! :)

[bushmeister0]

12. Wow, Vicki, an amazing piece. Every DUer wasting endless hours

debating the attractiveness of Hillary's latest pantsuit or the controversy on MSNBC regarding Obama's flag lapel should read this and wake the F up!

This is what they also have to look forward to in the later part of their years if they don't start demanding more from their Party. And pay more attention to their history and the sacrifices those who came before made to ensure their ability to spend endless hours bullshitting online.

This is the true test of any candidate I would be inspired to vote for:

"Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me‹and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match.

I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master."

FDR -- October 31, 1936

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/us/fdr1936.html

Anything less is a waste of my time -- and my vote.

[NMDemDist2]

13. one of these times I wish I could nominate a single post

:hug:

[bean fidhleir]

15. Brava! Well-described.

I think it's clear to most women, even those not working in admin, that many male bosses would be clerking or washing cars somewhere if it weren't for their women "assistants" keeping them afloat.

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. !!!

:applause: To quote George Carlin: They call it the American Dream because you have too be asleep to believe it.

Yes hope and change=empty promises and these two candidates know that full well. Say anything to get elected, should be their campaign slogans.

That's all their concerned about, making a name for themselves, historically, not helping the country of the mess they help create.

[scarletwoman]

34. "I do believe they LAUGH AT US." Awesome post, thank you very much for writing it!

I see no sign of any "new FDR," or those who advised him, anywhere in our future ever again. The government's been "fixed," all right, but not in the way it needs.

I completely agree with you, the "Laugh at us" part included.

:toast:
sw

[bobbolink]

46. I'm begging you..... please post this as a thread! This deserves a wider read!

You have written well of your heartbreak, and I have no doubt, from your writing, that you were definitely more accomplished than your rich bosses.

Please consider posting this widely!

Thanks! :applause:

from one who understands and appreciates......

[bushmeister0]

60. I agree! Thanks, though, for posting it on this thread.

[caseycoon]

53. Very well said vickitulsa!

All too true!
:yourock:

[G_j]

73. "fixed"

yes, it is most accurately called "organized crime".

[bobbolink]

76. "it is most accurately called "organized crime".' Well, it SHOULD

be called that.

Unfortunately....

You are spot on!

:pals:

[UTUSN]

10. Why would a Dem, FDR's staffer, be called "Rasputin"? My "My Favorite Martian" antennae are BUZZING

Methinks mesmelleth Operation Chaos.

[bushmeister0]

14. The Republicans back then, direct descendants of W & Co.

couldn't go after FDR directly during the war ("Mr. Roosevelt's war," not theirs, naturally, Mr. Hitler could be reasoned with) so they went after his wife and his advisor's. "Roosevelt's Rasputin" was a common refrain back in the day in the anti-New Deal papers to describe Hopkins.

Nowadays, the Libertarians, who hate FDR and all his works still promote the view that Hopkins was a mole for Stalin. That's how crazy they are and how much they still despise FDR and all the various modern advances in government we take for granted, like the FAA, for instance. The Libertarian view is that if an airline crashes its planes too much people will just stop flying with them and they will go out of business. Why bother with all these cumbersome regulations?

[UTUSN]

18. "antecedents," not "descendants". And my point remains, why would we Dems at a Dem discussion board

be using Rethug terminology, apparently approvingly, especially aimed at other Dems?


But thanks for the instruction.

[bushmeister0]

19. My bad, you're right, of coure, I meant "antecedents."

With the quotation marks I was trying to denote sarcasm. Again, my bad for not making myself more clear. You get the idea, though, I hope.

[scarletwoman]

25. I don't see how your "point remains", the OP explained a very clear & legitimate rationale for using

that phrase, and I think it's use was absolutely correct.

And better than correct, it's an eye-catching subject line leading to a very educational and worthwhile post.

Plus, the word "Rasputin" is enclosed in quotation marks in the title, which at the very least implies that it is being in an ironic manner.

Give people a little credit for being intelligent enough to distinguish between a history lesson and an actual freeperism.

sw

[UTUSN]

26. Uh, it's a series (no, seriesly!1) of at least three threads with "eye-catching" language

(along with misspellings aplenty in his website).

[scarletwoman]

31. Well, if misspelling were a crime, we'd probably have to lock up at least 3/4 of the DU membership.

Other than, I see nothing about which to be perturbed.

Peace,
sw

[UTUSN]

38. Well, *my* mistake was arguing with a 3rd party (you) about somebody else, instead of

addressing issue(s) between you and me, like your lecturing tone (to me).

But now you've gone and deflated my balloon by offering "Peace". Shucks!1


I'm not making the usual accusation of Freeperism (which is against DU rules) based on misspelling, just attempting (apparently poorly) to point out the series of BOMB THROWING threads with that "eye-catching" language.


Why not come right out and SPILL THE GUTS on a topic, a this-is-WHAT-I-THINK post, instead of bomb throwing three or four threads? It could be one rant, with, "And another thing... " to add on multiple topics.

My question is, what's going on? Is it Attention Sunday brunch? But then, I was supposed to be talking to YOU!1

[scarletwoman]

41. Sorry, it's my inner schoolmarm.

And I really don't want to carry on an argument with you.

May we figuratively shake hands and go our own ways?

sw

[UTUSN]

44. You got it!1 My guard was up (for "arguing") based on past experience.

This has actually turned out pleasantly!1 So long!1

[bushmeister0]

59. Sorry about the misspellings aplenty. Are the points I make and the information

provided of any use?

Having been a bookseller for over 9 years, I appreciate your anti-typo fervor. However, not only are my fingers stubby, but I think I'm also slightly dyslexic. So please, try to get past my funny take on the English language (which was ruined by the Normans in 1066, it's not my damn fault!) and just decide to agree or disagree with my POV.

[Captain Hilts]

29. ...and Eleanor "that Amazon." The R's got the last laugh. nt

[alfredo]

21. The repugs whole reason to exist is to destroy his legacy

[bushmeister0]

22. Hence the Reagan Dime. As far as I know the Gipper never had polio.

"Having President Reagan's image on the dime will keep Ronald Reagan's memory and achievements fresh for generations to come,' said Grover Norquist, Chairman of the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project and President of Americans for Tax Reform in Washington D.C. 'This is small but lasting way that Americans can show their appreciation for one of their greatest presidents.'"

http://www.atr.org/content/html/2003/dec/120503pr-reagandime.htm

And where's that Reagan memorial on the Mall, already!

[alfredo]

23. Ronald Reagan Memorial urinal.

[bushmeister0]

24. I'm just "flush" with ideas for potential memorials.

How about Ronald Reagan, District of Columbia?

DARPA's newest croud control device: "The Ronald Reagan Raygun?"

New Reagan, New York?

I'm sure Grover has thought of all these already, though.

[alfredo]

45. For crowd control, The Ronald Reagan old man smell crowd control device.

[Captain Hilts]

30. Even most Dems don't know the reason FDR is on the dime. MARCH OF DIMES idiots!!! nt

[caseycoon]

51. K&R This is excellent!

"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."

This really says it!

[bobbolink]

56. I"d feel like living again if we had a president now who spoke this way!

Really, I'd feel like maybe I was actually considered a citizen of these United States.

:cry:

[calimary]

55. K&R! ANYTHING with an FDR angle to it should be required reading/viewing/spreading

here and elsewhere.

We need to resurrect the FDR mentality. We need to bring that back into the public consciousness - as a positive.

FDR and his people, and their ideas, represented and embodied America at its best, rising out of a time of extreme crisis. That's the kind of thing we need, once again.

[bobbolink]

58. Whoever is elected in November, we need to DEMAND that this be the language of the government!

It won't happen if we don't demand it.

"You can't nice the power from them." John Edwards

[calimary]

63. WOW what a great quote! "You can't nice the power from them."

YES!!! I wish everybody on our side would glue or tattoo that quote onto themselves - where it can be easily seen. It's a lesson our Dems HAVE TO take to heart.

I REFUSE to play nice with the republi-CONS.

And I won't change on that, until they do. When they play nice with us, I start playing nice with them. And not a nanosecond beforehand.

[bobbolink]

69. Yes, indeedy. There went this generation's FDR.

:cry:

And Bobby Kennedy.

:cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:

[Bozita]

64. "You can't nice the power from them." - John Edwards

Even thread skimmers deserve to see that great quote.

[bobbolink]

67. Thanks.

:pals:

[scarletwoman]

68. Thanks -- good call. I like the more elegant Frederick Douglass quote as well:

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

sw

[Bozita]

70. "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." - Frederick Douglass

Sometimes we all skim threads. Everybody should see that terrific quote.

[scarletwoman]

72. Thank you! I had hoped you do that.

:D

[Bozita]

77. "The meek shall inherit the earth, ... six feet of it." - Bill McDonald

Bill was my mentor, a long, long time ago.

[midnight]

75. Sadly, but I feel the same.