Shrub is a modern day Hoover; who will be our Roosevelt

We Americans are going to be needing our New FDR soon. It will have to be someone strong, no milquetoast can clean up these shambles. No chickenhawks, no give-upniks, no DINOS, no corporate whores. A real straight talker who will stand up to the right and make America right again. Someone to tell us we have nothing to fear but fear itself--not someone who stuffs fear down our throats every day. We are going to have to have a "new New Deal" to fix the mess. Something of epic proportions like that. Who will it be?

And also...my apologies to the memory of Herbert Hoover. Sorry to have disgraced him with by comparing him with Shrub.

but the media ignores him because he's more brilliant than they are.

I think Clark has the personality we need. I do not know enough about him to judge how he will carry through. But I do beleive he has what it takes as a human being.

...by learning and teaching others about Wesley Clark,

...then shame on them, and shame on us.

At this time in our nation's history, I truly believe that for the general electorate to learn about General Clark is to see to it that he is elected president.

Let's make it so.

General Wesley Clark.

Has a plan for Iraq.
Well respected internationally.
An Associate of Witt, FEMA head under Clinton
Knowledgable about alternative power.

Straight talker, inspiring leader

That's what drew me to Clark from first learning about him. He inspired me and many others to be involved for the first time in our lives.

Someone once said he is the president we were promised as kids - that rang true for me and and many others who came of age in the '60's. We grew up with hope that we'd be the ones to change the future - it's up to us to do what we can to make that hope come true.

My biggest fear is that if Clark starts gaining traction, efforts beyond media blackout will kick in to silence him. We've seen it happen enough to know that it's not beyond Corporate Power to do whatever it takes to hold on to their reign.

Clark is a man with the brains, experience, breadth of vision, eloquence, and progressive principles to undertake the job. Any doubts I had about him vanished when George McGovern endorsed him as a true progressive. If Wes is good enough for McGovern, he's good enough for me.

I was thinking the same thing today

He just had no concept of what poverty was doing to the U.S. I do think he was willfully ignorant for the most part. But Shrub is just ignorant.

he doesn't give a shit.

He was smart and educated and competent and it wasn't enough. He did great work in European relief after World War I. Both he and his wife were Stanford-educated engineers. But, they also had the White House staff jump into closets when they walked the corridors; woe to the housemaid who passed them in the corridor. That classless bullshit is perfect for Bush. He has no clue about people not born to the manor.

And gave them orders to shoot.

And good thing too...I am sure by the time the ID people are done rewriting our textbooks, Hoover et al RWers will be heros. This shooting match was a contributor the undoing of the right in America for a number of years.

The more the citizens hurt, the more he helped the corporations.

Roosevelt's big innovation, prodded by Keynes, was to stimulate consumer demand by seeking full employment and getting money into the hands of the people.

In 1937, his Treasury Sec, Robert Morgenthau convinced him to run a balanced budget and the economy started to slip again without the spending that was helping ordinary people. I believe that convinced Roosevelt that, indeed, helping the people was the best thing to do.

I guess people just weren't thinking in that way back then and it was revolutionary.

the lessons of Keynes and the New Deal BECAUSE it was a social leveler that made people who work more powerful economically, politically and socially.

I think they feel that Hoover was headed in the right direction (economic royalty/laissez faire/invisible hand, etc.) but the Depression (which should have been seen as part of the naturall ebb and flow of economies, off of which money can be made by the wealthy) gave FDR a mandate to make a lot of changes that otherwise never would have been made, so the task is to undo those changes.

he cares about the soldiers as if they are of tin, and about their his pretty green money from his oil war. And little else.

The only man with the honor, courage and intellect to pull this country out of the sewer that Bush has put us in. We need him because he's above politics.

I fear that the fallout from this massive storm could possibly bring on 1929 v2.0.

And it will take 1929 v2.0 to wake up enough sheeple to get our new FDR in power. That is a sad commentary on America today, that so many could be so deluded into a pack of lies.

I doubt he'd want it, but that would just make it more impressive.

I know this sounds crazy. But hell... who else has the stature, as well as the credentials. And if we're gonna do dueling dynasties, I'd take a back to the future trip with ole Ted.

OK... next bong hit.

:hippie:

I love ted (or at least I love his politics) and would vote for him in a heartbeat but if anything, he's too old. We need a fresh face.

We just had this discussion in GD: Politics last night. It was a short one (eight posts). He won't run. Because he can't. His last name is Kennedy and he has opposed our nation's modern wars, including the one we're currently in. If the "ultraliberal" label the right would effectively paint him with didn't do him in, that other thing would. You know what I mean. And I love Ted, he's one of my personal heroes, so I'm not going to go any farther except to say that I would sooner believe that FDR himself was going to rise from the dead (tommorow) than that Ted Kennedy will be anything other than a good senator forever.

The original neo-con. As for 2008, I like either Edwards, Kucinich or Oprah Winfrey.

We cannot win with another veteran such as Clark. They would swift boat him for sure. Though he'd respond, by that time it would be too late--the election would be about personalities, and not policies, and when that's the case, the one with the bigger war chest wins. So no more vets. Ever.

As does Denny and Oprah (Oprah??).

Clark wouldn't LET them Swift Boat him. Hell, he tried to defend Kerry and the Kerry campaign puffed up on him for doing it.

Clark, as he said, would kick the shit out of them. And I believe him.

No more senators. Ever.

On the senators thing. No senator has been elected president since... since... John Kennedy? Wow, certainly not, then. We'd be better off with a governor.

There is the whole "never held elected office thing," though that didn't bother Eisenhower, either. Of course, I'll support Clark strongly if he's the nominee. I still like Edwards, and think he could do better if not hamstrung by Kerry.

Oprah could be president anytime she decides she wants it. I'm just glad she's on our side.

about Swift anything..... http://www.dunckleystreet.com/clark/shitout.mp3 (click and play)

:loveya:

At least not until he's been vice-president first. Foreign issues will be just as complicated AND crisis-ridden as domestic ones in '08 and beyond. Still, I'd love to see him on ANYONE's ticket next time around.

... if they dared try to Swift-boat him. If Wes Clarke reacted fast and strong I don't think the slime would have a chance to stick. I don't think the General puts up with too much guff. Plus I think an awful lot of people in this country are getting wise to that trick.

I don't know if he and the country together could make him or let him be a new FDR, but I do like the man. He's sharp as a tack, accomplished, and knows the real nature of the Founding Fathers: that they were sons of the Enlightenment and not fundamentalist born-agains. All of which is thoroughly refreshing.

I say, let's go for Clarke-Edwards. But first we have to clean out the US Congress next year so they have people they can actually work with.

Hekate

#Why won't the Chickenhawk cross the road?#

and put political fantasies about 2008 aside.

A true man of the people and not a corporatist.

and it will be the threshold issue to resolve the problems we confront today.

The balance is so tipped in favor of the people at the top that the whole ship is about tip over.

Find the candidate the corporatocracy hates as much as they hated FDR and you've found the candidate who can return the balance.

Hoover opposed every kind of military involvement not related to regional defense. For Hoover, the Federal Reserve Board only violated the gold standard and rights of bank owners. Unlike Bush, Hoover actually accomplished some things..like reducing the National Debt. Bush has made government intrusive and obstructive to the public in every way imaginable. Bush is a modern day Hitler or Mussolini. I think the next Democratic leader will not be male, and the next election will make FDR's seem mild by comparison.

wanted to profit from other countries arming themselves and destroying each other. They also were excited about the prospect of fascism destroying labor movements.

Deficit spending when things are going bad is a good thing, as Roosevelt proved. Balancing budgets during bad times is very conservative and makes people at the bottom suffer.

FDR's first election was mild. He won in a landslide on an upbeat message about hope.

Rich people hated him with a passion, however.

When he was president, Harvard celebrated its tercentary. President Lowell not only didn't invite FDR('08) to give a speech, he requested that FDR not attend. A few people complained (because it really would have been outrageous for the president not to attend). Lowell backtracked. He invited FDR to speak, but only gave him ten minutes.

In Richard Parker's bio of JK Galbraith, he quotes an attendee who descrived FDR's speech as warm, funny and gracious. However, it was met with a degree derision and scorn by his fellow alumni that it disgusted the person Parker quoted.

Parker's book has story after story of how wealthy interests absolutely detested FDR and everyone else loved him.

:(

Focus on the 2006 Congressional races, people!

but who could be a close second? Gov. Warner perhaps?

Mike Easley!

I certainly have. He's a hero, ran the Veterans Administation, was a Senator, and had his seat stolen by the black box thieves.

He was active in the Kerry campaign. Was active in the Hackett campaign. He's a great speaker and a wonderful man.

Roosevelt was confined to a wheelchair and he was one of the greatest, if not the greatest. I wonder why I'm the only one that ever thinks about Max in the White House. He's inspirational. And we need an inspirational president after the Bush Insanity.

"FDR was able to be President in a wheelchair because he didn't have to be President on TV."

But hey if Max Cleland wants to give it a go, I would certainly consider giving him my vote. I'd certainly much rather have him than Hillary or Bayh.

the first consideration won't be the telegenic factor. I remember hearing a PBS program about Roosevelt that equated his disability with the disability of the nation during the Great Depression.

I think there could be a symbolic convergence between a nation scarred on many levels and a man who prevailed against catastrophic wounds.

And, again, Max Cleland is an amazing guy -- smart, sincere, funny, and giving. He works tirelessly for Democratic causes.

The Democrats who pushed the war and continue to defend it ... and we know who they are ... are finished, in my opinion. American public opinion has moved beyond the Washington Democrats.

I think Hillary Clinton's political stands are very calculated -- I wonder when she will snap to the fact that she blew it on the war. After the 2006 NY Senate election, I predict. I'm also getting that old Wes Clark feeling about 2008. But I'm with you about Hillary and Evan Bayh, and especially Joe "I think Condoleezza Rice is doing a fantastic job" Biden.

and I think that whomever we choose should be his or her own person.

That's the quality that what great leaders in history show us...that there can only be one of each.

Having said that, I'd choose Wes Clark to be the next Wes Clark!

Hoover was actually more of a progressive Republican than Coolidge who has served for 8 years before him and of course the deadbeat Warren Harding who served before Coolidge.

Hoover tried some programs (can't remember their names), but nothing compared to the New Deal. Hoover's biggest problem, though, was that he appeared out of touch with reality, which is the truly valid way that he could be compared to *.

FDR came into office with no political ideology. He actually attacked Hoover for defecit spending during the campaign. However, Roosevelt surrounded himself with economic advisors who followed the philosophy of Keynes (defecit spending is okay in an emergency) and thus he came up with the New Deal.

FDR's greatest gift, though, came in his ability to connect with people. People genuinely felt like he understood what was going on and was doing his best to fix the situation. Basically, think of the way Bill Clinton communicates with people and think of the way tha Shrub communicates with people. Clinton and Roosevelt both had the ability to be presidential. Hoover and Shrub do not share that quality.

Bill back in the WH yet. If you ask me, that's the number one reason all those fears about Bush repealing the 25th amendment are way off base. He can't. Then we'd have Clinton back.

Don't get me wrong, I'd take him back over shrub in a heartbeat, but there are many others who I would rather see occupy the oval office.

My point was, that despite what anyone thinks about Bill Clinton, he had the ability to communicate with people. He had the ability to respond to people who were in pain and comfort them without looking like a completely out of touch moron. Roosevelt was the same way. Hoover and * are exactly the opposite of this.

And even with his foreign policy acumen, there are other folks I'm interested in seeing tackle the mess in '08, as well.

In my opinion, all of those folks, save Edwards, (come to think of it, another reason I can't support him) have something on Roosevelt which Clinton also had--no interest in vindictiveness. Roosevelt had a nasty vengeful streak--much like Bush's (and Kennedy's). That kind of thing is maybe understandable in the face of the opposition FDR and JFK faced, but giving into it creates enemies, and vulnerability. Clinton was wise enough to rise above that. And Clinton, in terms of his ability to connect with those, especially the victimized, marginalized and oppressed, was also one up on Roosevelt if you ask me--unlike Roosevelt, he was willing to let many people in on a halfway personal level. His skill at working any given room had a lot to do with his skill at not only transmitting warmth, but inviting and accepting the good wishes of others. Plus, talk about a quality Bush lacks. Even my beloved John Kerry needs to work on connecting with people in the manner Clinton could.

That would be fun woudln't it? (of course he woudln't take that job)

corporate america wealth and power in the short term.

FDR had a very clear conviction that is sadly unusual for a president. He also had courage and persistence and a brilliant grasp of politics that allowed him to manifest his convictions in policy.

He also surprised the people around him. One of his supporters commented in the first 100 days that FDR's energy, conviction, innovativeness revealed a character that was, paraphrasing, "not the same FDR from the Wilson administration!"

Even his supporters didn't expect much from him. But they got much much more than they bargained for.

An interesting note about Keynes: when Keynes and Roosevelt finally met for the first time in the WH, Keynes said afterwards that he was disappointed that Roosevelt didn't have a better grasp of economic theory. Roosevelt said that he was disappointed that Keynes didn't have a better grasp of politics. So, despite their disappointment, it was probably the greates match of theory and politics ever -- Keynes knew the math, and Roosevelt knew how to turn it into policy that the public would accept.

Roosevelt did genuinely have a desire to help the people at just about any cost. That is one of the things that made him much different from Hoover.

great idea cuz it's true!

"Why are they comparin' the President to my vacuum?"

and maybe people would get the point.

But it's still a little esoteric.

Periodically I've even prayed about it, as I fear so much that our country's very soul will be lost. I just put it out there to the Universe: we need a new FDR for our times.

(And the Repubs think Liberals don't pray! Ha! Since * came to office I started making "political" prayers for the first time in my life. His Horridness drove me to it.)

Hekate

#Why won't the Chickenhawk cross the road?#

Hm. I think anybody we have after this will look like FDR. If I can't have Kerry I want Al Gore if he's going to run.

is this person.

If we get a DLC DINO on the ticket maybe we could get Dean to run as an Independant and expose the DLC republican lite take over of the DNC.

He genuinely believed that he could fix the problems brought on by the crash, and made an honest effort to push through his programs, misguided as they were. Bush? He strums his goddamn guitar while New Orleans becomes Atlantis.

Good call.

but no thanks. Right now we need a Gerald Ford type, someone the nation can trust and who returns that trust, and who can clean up messes without taking more and more power from congress and the courts. Less secrecy would be nice, too.

Bush is actually more like Coolidge or Harding. Hoover was actually a very popular figure before the Depression, a world famous philanthroper, who, I believe, genuinely had compassion for those at a loss during the Great Depression. Coolidge and Harding's policies were actually much more responsible for the Depression than Hoover.

At any rate, I hope your analogy is apt. And I am for the General--he just may be the next FDR!