this is the most frightenng scenario in americanhistory

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

we're about to enter the great depression with the polar opposite of FDR in charge. Instead, we have to hope that Bush, Cheney, Rove, and their ilk will suddenly ive a damn about the rest of humanity.

The shroud of the dark side has fallen.

This could unravel this country at the seams.

[evlbstrd]

1. FDR wasn't elected until 1932.

Three years after the 1929 Crash. The question is, who is the next FDR?

[phantom power]

2. Right, the Great Depression began under Hoover.

And Bush is a decent parallel for Hoover.

[manic expression]

12. Hoover actually cared

to a certain extent, it's just that his policies were failures and his conservative philosophy was a hopeless one. I don't think Bush really cares.

[ck4829]

19. Bush's not caring is what the RW wants

[Gruenemann]

22. Hoover had a brain too

Not to mention a heart. Read his bio here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/hh31.html

And read such tidbits as:

"After the Armistice, Hoover, a member of the Supreme Economic Council and head of the American Relief Administration, organized shipments of food for starving millions in central Europe. He extended aid to famine-stricken Soviet Russia in 1921. When a critic inquired if he was not thus helping Bolshevism, Hoover retorted, 'Twenty million people are starving. Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!'"

I can't imagine Little Boots doing anything like this.

[tk2kewl]

3. Thanks to what FDR started...

we made a lot of progress in civil rights and lifted many millions of peoples standards of living.

It took 2 horrible wars, an economic catastrophe, and a devastating drought to wake people up to a better way. I just wonder what it will take for the people of this country to feel we've hit bottom this time.

[theboss]

6. Cancelling "Survivor" maybe

I dunno.

[tk2kewl]

9. sad

:(

[1932]

18. He actually backed off on civil rights thanks to southern dems.

I'm reading a biography of JK Galbraith (by a guy named Parker).

One of the stories in the first 100 pages is about how the AAA started paying farmers not to produce in order to lift prices and income for farmers. (This was an important move since about half of America had an agriculture-related job; at that time, it was the equivalent of today's hourly service industry or factory job -- it was the job for people at the base of the economy).

There was a unique situation in the southeast because, unlike the rest of America, there were tenant farmers and sharecroppers -- the people who were hurting from low prices and who would be hurt by not producing weren't the owners of the land, as in the rest of America where most farmers owned the land they farmed.

FDR's AAA, good progressives that they were, made the easy choice: pay part of the subsidy to the sharecroppers.

A Democratic Senator from South Carolina named, IIRC, Smith who was the owner of cotton farms walked right over to the AAA and told them to stop writing checks to his black sharecroppers because they didn't know what to do with the money. He said that he should get the checks and that he'd take care of the farmers. Other Southern Democrats sided with Smith. FDR told the AAA to change its policies in order to save the rest of his legislative program for recovery.

So many lessons in that story. If the southern senators actually represented the people and not the powerful, America would have been so much better off. It's also a lesson in compromise. FDR made the right choice. All his programs collectively got enough power into the hands of black Americans so that they could fight for justice later (during the Kennedy and Johnson years). Nonetheless, it was a sad day for black America when the government started writing checks to Senator Smith and his cronies rather than to the impoverished Americans who really needed the government's help during the depression. (Incidentally, Smith and other landowners ended up pocketing the money and tennant farmers were hurt very badly by the AAA's policies.)

Maybe there will be other stories later in the book that tell another story about civil rights during the FDR years.

[LandOLincoln]

4. WKC. n/t

[evlbstrd]

13. How about a Kucinich-Clarke ticket?

[LandOLincoln]

15. Well, first of all, I was talking about

Wesley Clark, not Richard ClarkE.

Second, anyone who thinks the former Supreme Allied Commander should play second fiddle to a gnomish Congressperson from Ohio (and BTW a playa--damn, I didn't know Dennis had it in him, but politically, do you really think Dennis' 3 marriages and numerous affairs with foxes will play better with the sheople than gorgeous Wesley's 35+ year marriage to Gert Kingston? Neither do I...)

No, I think a Clark/Feingold ticket is more likely, although I disapprove of any of our Congresscritters giving up their seats to run for prez.

On edit: typo

[evlbstrd]

17. Sorry for extra letter.

But I understood which Clark you meant.
I don't think the number of marriages or affairs with foxes are relevant. His policy ideas are. Thanks for answering your question for me.

[LandOLincoln]

21. You may not think they're relevant, but you would be in the

minority on that.

Mind you, I don't care, in fact my opinion of Dennis--already very high--just went up by several notches.

But Dennis the Playa would not play well with a Sheople already conditioned to see the Dems as libertines. (And thank you Bill--you know I loves ya, but Monica was a terminally stupid move.)

Nope, IMO Wes Clark is just what the doctor ordered: he's tough, he's ridiculously telegenic--and you oughta see him in person--he's got experience in just about any area you can name, and he's a genuine dyed-in-the-wool Liberal Democrat. Anyone who can't recognize and accept that fact is either a fool or a wingnut (left or right doesn't matter, IMO they're too close to call).

Best of all, politically speaking, he's what someone referred to as a "pre-1960s" Democrat. What does that mean?

It means that when he was asked the inevitable "Did you inhale?" question, he could truthfully answer "Nope, I've never even held a joint in my hand."

Disappointing to us Sex, Drugs & Rock'n'Roll types to be sure, but reassuring to the majority of the country who didn't partake in/wasn't born yet for the the 1960s Cultural Revolution.

And for those of you who refuse to believe this is ALL ABOUT the 1960s, I say

Get over yourselves. Do it now.

Edit for punctuation punctilio.

[evlbstrd]

26. I agree with 60s backlash perspective.

And Clinton's monumental fuckup.
But I think it's possible to point to the failures of the Party of Values and their sexual hypocrisy and say that maybe policies do matter more than perceived behavior.

[1932]

20. Jeez. Is that what Democrats believe?

A General-Gnome hierarchy? Personal life is more important that the policies you promote?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[merbex]

5. At least FDR left us a blueprint on measures to implement when

Repugs,through their greed and shortsighted policies, f*** things up this bad

[K-W]

7. Yep, it took the depression to put power in a populists hands.

Just like it probably will in today's America.

[BrotherBuzz]

14. It really took the Second World War and the GI bill of rights

to place the power in the populists' hands again. All the depression era measures enacted were just stop-gap measures that prevented the entire nation from completely collapsing (Band-Aids). It wasn't until FDR enacted the GI Bill of Rights and the soldiers returned from war to a tremendous gift (read welfare) of free school, cheap farm loans, small business loans, etc. that got things really rolling along and the middle class became empowered. The late forties and early fifties were really the golden age of America, and I feel it can be directly attributed to the one act, The GI Bill of Rights. (just my 2 cents ;))

[GOPFighter]

8. Hmmm. Time for more tax cuts!

To spur the economy. (Bush's answer to every problem)

[tk2kewl]

10. We need someone equally as creative, but the approach needs

to consider so much more, thanks to our the damage we have caused our planet.

this is my suggestion for a beginning:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4525777&mesg_id=4525777

[mzteris]

11. instead of

**we have to hope that Bush, Cheney, Rove, and their ilk will suddenly ive a damn about the rest of humanity.**

we're better off hoping they all get some devastating illness that causes them to all resign.

(Trying to put it nicely instead of what I'm REALLY thinking which might get me arrested......)

:banghead:

I LOATHE AND DESPISE THESE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:mad: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :mad: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :mad:

[no_to_war_economy]

16. so the next FDR is hillary or biden

paaaaaleeease .... those shit brains do not have what it takes to lead a desperate country in a bold new direction

[AlGore-08.com]

24. Visionary leadership? How 'bout the guy who gave us 'The Internets'?

And opposed the Iraq war from the moment it was proposed and the obscene tax cuts and got the nukes out of the Ukraine and got the Navy to release 40 years of classified data on the thickness of Artic ice so we'd all know Global Warming was real and gave us the national organ donor network and a host of other junk like giving us all an extra day off in January to honor Dr. King - - and showed up at every freaking National disaster to, you know, help?



You know, that guy with the shovel.

[no_to_war_economy]

25. ya but you know he has that gay lisp when he talks

</sarcasm>

[MsTryska]

27. don't worry pumpkin.....

Bush & Company are Hoover.


FDR will soon come.