A Second Look At President Bill Clinton, and a Change of Heart

This is just a short note to say that after my second viewing of President Bill Clinton's speech presented at Hofstra University (and broadcast on C-Span), I have come to a very different view than I've held for these past several years (and have often expressed in these forums) and now see as largely unfair and possibly even as unjustified.

I was reminded of his many great accomplishments both on foreign and domestic matters, and that not all of his foreign policies c/should be viewed as severely as I've held these past several years, especially considering the geo-political dynamics and conditions Clinton faced in the 90's when he came to office, and all that he inherited culminating from 12 years of very regressive policies of the Reagan & Poppy Bush administrations.

I think Clinton did make some mistakes, but when measured against his accomplishments, on balance he has done more for our country than any other president in the last 40 years. That the mistakes he did make were largely as a consequence of unchartered waters, but that the thinking that went into these policies, were bold and creative, such as Trade With China (which i've been very critical about). When looked at from another angle, these policies made all the sense in the world given that we as a nation had to deal with China either as a global partner or continue on as a "cold war" enemy.

I was reminded that Clinton understood the bankrupt philosophy of treating China as a Cold War enemy, even if he didn't have all the policy details right, but his general intentions were for a better, just and more cooperative world rather than a world constantly on the brink of global nuclear war and/world domination.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not abandoning my positions and criticisms of the undemocratic world trade agreements - I just think these agreements need to be greatly improved upon, and they could be, but that Clinton's larger view and intention behind these agreements were based on economic equality and justice (policies are only as good as the the kind of governance upholding these policies)

In other words, the world isn't perfect, there are rulers who are thugs and tyrants, but sometimes they are in the game and we have to deal with it.

I was also struck with the sense that the vicious players of the Right Wing Noise Machine were really very effective in poisoning the well, muddying up the issues and effectively able to hijack and use the media as a platform to advance their own evil agenda. Nothing in that regard has changed today, if anything it's gotten far worse. This aided in skewing the historical facts of his presidency and sometimes the left media can be just as unscrupulous.

This is an admission of a change of historical perceptions, a change of heart with a mind to remain open to different possibilities, whether we're talking about the Past Clinton Presidency or the possibility of a future Clinton Presidency - which I am not advocating or endorsing.

This is also a heartfelt apology to loyal Clinton supporters who have had to bear the brunt of my own frustrations with regard to many aspects of the Clinton policies, as expressed in the past.

I honestly hope this is taken in the spirit it is intended.


But i still don't like Al From, and I still do not trust the DLC. And it wouldn't make me unhappy in the least, if the Democratic Party either dismissed, dismantled or simply ignored the DLC.. And additionally, routinely gave certain members of the DLC a damn good public spanking every time they start flopping their jaws in (or blog) engaging in "Red Baiting" partisan smear attacks and other campaign shenanigans.

No matter how grim things may appear he always has an upbeat approach. The world as a whole is evidence of the Charm and the Magnitude of Bill Clinton. He is literally adored world wide.

and I clearly the world is a better place because of his contributions.

It's lovely and darn it I'm going to give it a vote :)

:toast:

Okay.

:toast:

After overcoming serious illness, he's accomplished at least two more feats in 2005:

Creation of the Virginia Clinton Kelley Fund to eradicate Breast Cancer

http://www.natlbcc.org/bin/index.asp?strid=781&depid=16

In an environment where crass commercialism and cause marketing threatens to destroy most breast cancer programs in the US, he's focusing on an organization with real solutions.

Raising funds for Hurricane Katrina victims.

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

Which is why it is such a shame that he failed to do so many good things for this country.

Intelligent, skilled and industrious, but what were the results?

Character flaws alone?

To take just a small part of his foreign policy... these sanctions continued under clinton were part of the war on Iraq that began under bush the first, and then continued under Clinton. His Sec of State, when confronted with the destruction wrought with these sanctions, said it was all worth it. Tens of thousands did not matter to him, this was the foreign policy for the elite.

Yes, clinton was more humane than Genghis Khan or George W. -- No doubt.

Is that the standard we set? Realistically, we can do much better. We must.

that they cannot be forgotten nor dismissed, and we must not let that happen.

The standard was set long before Clinton came into office, that's what I'm saying. He came into office which had an established military complex with an world domination institutionalized culture and mindset. It would take a saint or other super human kind of person, to be able to effectively change all of that - it's what Clinton had to deal with, during his presidency, and nothing in the world he could have done would have been able to change it.

This is the point I'm trying to get at...

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

I've established a track record (unintentionally) of enumerating Clinton faults - and 8 years in office and the years following did not hypnotize me to his charm - i've always been able to resist it.

Even with all my knowledge of the crimes he's committed against humanity, Clinton has reduced me to smiles on several occasions (the most recent being Rosa Parks' funeral service). And you know what...if such was his inclination, I think he could convince me to castrate myself.

The man is magnetic, and the most brilliant and talented politico of his generation. That's what makes him so dangerous.

but my point is, he would never convince you to do something this harmful to yourself.... he just wouldn't...

Very hard not to be swayed once you meet him in person. Incredible presence, and very down-to-earth, very humble, especially considering his place in the world. I was truly impressed.

And I'm jealous - I'd love to meet him in person!

:eyes:

And those of us who can see the good that Clinton did aren't waiting for an apology from you.

infinitesimal
Dictionary
in·fin·i·tes·i·mal (ĭn'fĭn-ĭ-tĕs'ə-məl) pronunciation
adj.

1. Immeasurably or incalculably minute.
2. Mathematics. Capable of having values approaching zero as a limit.

n.

1. An immeasurably or incalculably minute amount or quantity.
2. Mathematics. A function or variable continuously approaching zero as a limit.

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

fyi:

it's always been my experience that Red Baiting is done by right wingers...

we could start a thread on the subject, i think it would be interesting and informative... but it's not a good idea to use that tactic during engagement and exchanging of ideas - it only distort the facts, skews perceptions, and does nothing to further understanding which is crucial in order to work together to achieve our common goal.

DerekG's comparison of President Clinton and Ted Bundy really irritated me. Jaysus, it's Junior that's like Ted Bundy...in a certain pictures from when Junior was younger, he even looks like him.

President Clinton wasn't and isn't a psychopath-sociopath.

This is another issue that the Repukes have staked claim too...being anti-Communist...well there are many Democrats that are anti-Communist as well.

at all.. And I agree with you, it is completely over the top to make such charachterizations. It is not only unfair, it's more of the same crap thrown out there by the crazed right wing extremist zealots, and I tend to think that's where it likely comes from... ;)

It was just the Bundy comparison set me off you know?

So I apologize to the moderators for going off on one a bit there.

It's not the charisma, it's the intelligence.

You owe President Clinton an apology.

And after that kind of crap, I won't be reading your posts anymore.

"It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt".

So you would have dropped sanctions all together and let Saddam do whatever he wanted to?

if Poppy Bush didn't illegally invade Kuwait, after setting Sadadm up with a bait and switch, wink and a nod, green light to go ahead and invade Kuwait.

Saddam was set up, he was an allie, and we traded military and bio weapons you do know that right? You know about Ambassador Glaspy right?

...and just a pawn in America's power game?

You really believe that tripe?

I'm sorry, but "innocent" people don't invade other countries, regardless of whether or not they get US permission.

No where do i say anything of the kind, try not to toss out knee jerk reactionary drivel, shall we?

If you don't know anything the history of the border disputes, then i suggest you do a bit of homework.

You said: "innocent people don't invade other countries" -

well, i agree.

So, what's your point?

is that Saddam invaded a country with vast oil resources which, like it or not, the US is dependant on. US foreign policy, going back to the Carter doctrine, is that the US would protect its vital national interests in the Middle East using military force if necessary. I've never had a problem with the Carter doctrine and I think Bush Sr. did the right thing by kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. Apparently you disagree.

History, indeed the current quagmire has proven such doctrines as disasterous policy not only for the regions we invade and occupy in the name of "American Interests" but for the citizens of our own country, economically.

That doesn't even get to a cadry of other issues that these ill concieved doctrines and policies have done in the past 60 years, but that's discussion for another thread.

I think it's rather stunning that ANYONE with a modicum of historical understanding and common sense would conclude that these policies are anything but bankrupt at best.

I do not understand...

Are you saying that the world at large should have ignored Iraq invading Kuwait? Or are you saying that something other than military force should have been used to 'talk' Saddam out of Kuwait?

Out of curiosity, where do you see the world today had Saddam been allowed to remain in Kuwait?

Understanding the historical role of both the United States and Britain, in manipulating events which led up to Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait is essential to addressing these questions.

Scores of books and lectures have been written and spoken about on this subject, addressing the historical underpinnings centered on these questions.

"Iraq and Kuwait: A History Suppressed" is an excellent primer written by Ralph Schoenman published in 1990.

Here's a brief historical outline available on the internet, with links to reference and source materials :

http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html

We sucker punched Hussein after essentially luring him to invade Kuwait. I think. Sanctions were hurting the people, but not really effecting Hussein and were not really necessary because after the invasion of Kuwait, when he lost 90% of his military, Hussein was effectively marginalized.

Your position is that Clinton, being one smart and informed guy, knew all of this and did not do the right thing...easing sanctions and seeking a diplomatic resolution to the Iraqi 'problem' (what was the Iraqi problem again??). Presumably he didn't do the right thing because he was being politically chicken shit. Is that roughly right?

I need to reread the history you linked to when I don't have a cat in my lap and my daughter clamoring for me to watch her latest dance production. I have saved the link so that I can read and ponder it during a less distracting moment. Thank you for the information. My main question right now is why we were playing mind games with Hussein in the first place.

of the real intent, control of the oil. The people on the right that cry the biggest crocodile tears for the starving children knew good and well that Saddam would put most of the money in his own pocket. The oil for food program was just another sweetheart deal for the oil companies and their selected minions. The only reason that the US clamored so loudly to investigate the UN program is because a few folks outside of their inner circle had caught on to how the scam worked and were skimming some of their take.

Think in terms of a drug cartel mule that pinches a bit from each shipment. This would go unnoticed for quite a while until the missing amounts were finally totaled up and the big boys wanted theirs back. Much as they might have liked to, the Oil Cartels couldn't dole out mob justice, so their 'made' politicians were called on to do the investigation 'hit' on the UN gang. Notice how they got one of the most inside Wall Street folks to head it. Had to be sure to steer it, couldn't let the wrong folks get caught up in it. If it ever gets the full investigation it deserves, the scandal of where the $7B ($70B?) US reconstruction money and the the last 3 years of Iraqi oil money went will make Food for Oil look like shoplifting an iPod.

:applause:

The biggest blemish on Clinton's record is the Iraqi sanctions. They were purely political in that western governments knew that Iraq had disarmed its WMD in 90/91, though they carried on citing this as justification. How misguided and immoral that policy was is evident in its giving spurious credibility to the present tragedy.

So the deaths of half a million kids was 'a price worth paying' for the political advantage of having a demonised enemy in the post cold war period. The real reason for the sanctions against Iraq was Iraq's unwillingness to open its economy to the normal 'foreign investor'.

The same situation applies to every country invaded or subverted - the ostensible reason is some concern about 'threats' or 'human rights' but the aim is to open a country's labour and resources to exploitation by capital.

If this lessons isn't understood by the electorate NOW....

I shudder to think what it will take for people to finally get it.. part of the problem is complete and total failure of the corporate news media, especially broadcast and cable "news" shows to inform the electorate on historical facts, especially on global matters and U.S. foreign policies throughout the past several decades.

... funny, sad, tragic, hopeful, triumphant.

They couldn't beat him on the issues, so they had to go after his personal life.

A video history of his presidency:

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/video-landing.php?s=wh

I also have Hillary's book, bought it at the same time..

these are really great photos, by the way..

The way I look back at his presidency, it was definetely more positive on the whole.

At the same time, there is a sense of frustration that can't be shaken. There was so much more that could have been accomplished. Granted, most of the fault lies with the GOP who thwarted any reform at all. Still, Clinton made some compromises I think were unecessary.

But comparing it what we have now, it's a no brainer. Clinton is a brilliant person with the capability and understanding necessary to govern a nation and deal with a changing world. His ability to process different possibilities and outcomes and understand things in shades of grey, rather than view everything in an absolutist messiahnical black and white outlook helped as well.

Clinton understood the need to listen to opposing sides and deliberate rather than just label political enemies, traitors or worse.

It's a rather strange, almost surreal event in our history, to see someone as inept, intellectually lacking, and as utterly unqualified in every way imaginable way as Dubya is, be selected and annointed "leader of the free world" at this juncture in our history - just following a leader with the intellectual stature of Bill Clinton - and for all my complaints of some of Clinton's policies, at least he did what no other president had done which should have pleased a goodly number Conservatives, if any of them have an honest bone in their bodies, and claimed to be serious about economic policies, should have supported Clinton during his administration and turned back the unwarranted attacks from the right.

Instead, the fawned all over this idiot occupying the WH now, defending his egregious policies which has been nothing short of a direct attack on the most valued princples they claim to hold dear.

reevaluate their views with the 20/20 hindsight, and considering the hole we are in now. It was a healthy readjustment and what makes us better than them: we do let facts affect our thinking.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Love it! Thanks!

It would be very easy to rip apart any American President including Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt quoting factually accurate history. But, I do feel they need to be considered also in the light of circumstances, alternatives and prevailing thinking of the time.
That is not to excuse anything. It is simply to grasp a greater understanding of why things happen.

are faced to deal with and rely upon to implement policies, I think is a question largely dependent on how much brick and mortar has been added or chipped away from previous administrations.

For instance, the Iraq sanctions was put into place by the Bush administration - Clinton really had no choice but to continue that policy, especially given the level of distrust the Pentagon and the Military had for Clinton going in. This president being an exception, (W.)i think it's generally really hard for any president to impliment policies that are seen as a radical departure from previous administrations.

your mileage may vary... ;)

If you were to compare what Reagan and his followers wanted to do vs. what they actually accomplished, (IE: almost the total elimination of the welfare state and most of the New Deal and direct large scale military actions with U.S. troops) - it was a good thing that the institutions held back their more radical departures. The Reagan Administration caused enough harm even within those institutional confines.

But let's imagine just for one minute that someone like Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders or John Conyers was elected President. (Let me say I do hope someone like that is elected President someday in the not too distant future). But, how much could they dismantle of the whole post World War II/Post Cold War hegemonic system? Could they actually dismantle the current world trading system? Would they even be able to stop supplying military arms to nasty regimes like Turkey?

I think they could bring about an enormous step in the right directions. But institutionalized policies are going to drive things a lot more than most of us would like and I suspect a lot more than they would like.

Being progressive is about making progress. The important thing is to move in the right direction. Sometimes, progress is not possible and it is about holding the line.

it's when i started looking at the entire system of governance from the angle of the "institutionalization" of politically driven policies within the confines of the existing political dynamics (which it self have become institutionalized)and climate, that makes it seem like progressives are more about holding the line rather than advancing forward - which of course contributes to the sense of frustration and animous.

But you're absolutely correct, there is no advancing forward policies that are viewed as a "radical" departure of institutionalized policies by electing a Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich. I keep thinking about policies that most Americans Citizens - throughout the entire political spectrum would agree with - that would assist in advancing progress, such as policies centering on election reform and universal health care.

But that's a topic for a different thread... ;)

:hi: :toast:

"they need to be considered also in the light of circumstances, alternatives and prevailing thinking of the time."

I never stopped liking him and his accomplishments, although I would have given a LOT if he hadn't had the personal scandals. They were not a basis for Impreachment, neither were they admirable.

His charisma is almost infinite.

Remember when he spoke at the Convention and it was like there was electricity in the air?

Then he said that he hears people talk about Edwards being young, energetic, charismatic. And then almost under his breath he said, "I really resent that."

Too honest and very funny.

;)

Oh and kudos to RadioProgressive for a public change of heart!

guess, i missed it.. (or just forgot)

back at ya.. ;)

It wasn't supposed to lead to where we are and wouldn't have with Gore as President. Even Bono and similar activist groups say the way out of global poverty is commerce and trade, which is what Clinton was trying to implement. Yeah, I think they foolishly trusted corporations way too much, but I also think they have learned and would have pushed for the labor, human and environmental rights. I think the goal was to get some money and cultural exchange going, which would give us the leverage to force the other changes needed to lift people into better lives. Of course, the Bushies are the exact opposite and much worse than anybody could have imagined. I really can't think of worse pillagers than this bunch.

I think the basic theory Clinton was operating was philosophically driven as much as it was seen as bold and creative economic solution to our huge defict problems.. but as they say, the "devils in the details" my impression, after watching Clinton's speech again today, that in hindsight - some things might have been done differently... this is not actually stated specifically with regard to NAFTA, I'm merely inferring this in the context of his speech.

it's too hard to pin point anything specific beyond that, but one is left with the impression that he understands how it got screwed up and he would have tweaked it better as time went on.

There were all those other issues to deal with and get done, despite the Lewinsky and White Water nightmares.

and would have informed himself about the history of so called "free trade agreements", he would have known it would not reduce poverty.
Chances are that he did know, but i'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Although it doesn't exactly instill trust if politicians support legislation that they haven't read.

they haven't read..

but in this case...if nothing else Clinton is known as a brilliant 'economic policy wonk' - i can only assume he did read those agreements, since of course i haven't read or heard otherwise.

Could it be, that in his enthusiasm for what he believed would be good for america, he simply overlooked certain details that pointed to flaws, or that might have thought those would be tweaked, eventually??

This is one of those huge issues that I'm trying to be fair about.. so don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for excuses in order to avoid accountability, i'm simply trying to weigh in a bit of perspective as to the institutionalized political and economic realities at the time Clinton took office.

does this make sense?

NAFTA is not a minor issue.

It would however be perceived by many as a radical statement, given what the norm in the MSM is these days.

It seems to me that he did hint of flaws with NAFTA, (short of specifics, or even with clear and direct pronouncements)

The idea of public statement on the matter of these agreements would I think, give a huge benefit for the public domain and discourse on policy issues such as this one, and would also be a huge benefit to the party as a result.

Is there the political will among the rank and file to further this discussion in the public fora vis a vis town-hall meetings and other public speaking events, and invite Clinton to revisit this policy (among the rank and file, not just the washington elite) with an aim to help develop improvements for the benefit of the American Working Class as well as the "global economy".

It would certainly improve public opinion as to his legacy and a potential future Clinton presidency. (i think).

he or any of the other high profile Dems.

Guys like Kucinich and Bernie Sanders will probably have some critical remarks about NAFTA, but it won't make it past CSPAN and NPR.
Free Trade Agreements are a complete non-issue in the MSM, and therefor in the public mind.
That's not in the last place because the MSM are owned by corporate conglomerates that benefit from those free trade agreements.
For a big-shot politician to bring up the issue of how bad FTAs work out for the local populations, would be to break a code of silence.

and his program is in "prime time" back east.

now, i think he's a libertarian and he goes off on tangents that's more zenophobically oriented, (is that a word?) but he does manage to highlight the issues from a working class pov just the same, and so i do think that the problems will need to be addressed politically as more and more people become better informed about the mess it created, it seems to me..

the silence is not complete.
But Dobbs is only one voice (though granted, a voice in the MSM), and he's not a high profile Dem.
Given how many people suffer as a result of FTAs - i'd even go so far as to say that much of the poverty on earth is maintained as a result of FTAs - the topic warrants much more attention then it gets.

:toast:

from a Rohnert Park neighbor.

You seem to have given this a lot of thought and I appreciate your analysis. I really do believe Bill Clinton did what he thought was in the best interest of our country and a lot of what he did was "unchartered waters" as you so aptly put it.

NAFTA didn't work out as planned and Clinton knew it needed to be revised because it wasn't creating the opportunities he wanted it to. He wasn't given the chance, however, and he was literally hamstrung by the Republicans during the impeachment. I'm amazed that he got anything done at all.

:hi: Rohnert Park Neighbor!

It's true...I have given this a lot of serious thought and tried to put aside my own personal pov, while i listened to it for a second time, only this time with a more open mind... Tried to put myself in his shoes, given the politics of the time and the "vast right wing conspiracy" that was out to get him the moment he took office.

and you do put it quite well...


psst... do we know each other???

from the rightwing, the media, and your former self (and others). I feel whatever Bill's shortcomings are, and I know he has many, he took enough grief to pay up karma for a couple lifetimes.

He is a brilliant politician, a highly intelligent man, and although I have no tangible evidence of this, I believe he's a good and decent man that wanted to do the best he could for America. And in light of the 8-year jihad against him, I think he did a damn good job.

the paperback version of the Starr Report at the check-out counter of my grocery store.

Could they have humiliated him more?

maybe i just didn't want to see it...

soft porn i think she said...

that's pretty disgusting .. which is why our impeachment proceedings should demonstrate to the world, what is truly worthy of impeachment and prosecution with Bush and Cheney, Rice and Rummy.

It was none of my business.

Apparently the moralizing right-wingers couldn't get enough of the salacious material.

The thought that I share anything in common with those witch-hunters is awful. But he handled it with such grace and strength. That alone makes him a great role model for so many. I have nothing but admiration for him, personally and politically.

forgiveness before 06. here is what Turley had to say: "Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of
defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism. I'm surprised that
many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act.
This operation violated not just the federal statute but the Constitution. For Republicans to
suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position
during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle. We have finally
reached the constitutional Rubicon. If Congress cannot stand firm against the open violation of
federal law by the president, then we have truly become an autocracy."
-- Jonathan Turley, Clinton-hating bastard telling the truth this time,

I caught some of his interview on Hardball today, but i didn't hear these specific remarks.

at the time of Clinton's impeachment, i tuned it all out. just worked on my music and tried to avoid hearing any mention of it, because it was way too painful. (I did however catch some of the hearings on C-Span)

So, I didn't recognize Turly from those days. I'm happy to see these statements now and I sure hope it gets amplified on right wing radio and faux snooze.. as well as the rest of corporate media.

it's sad our choices are so limited.

...dumped his VP because he was too liberal...

...called for, not just welfare reform, but welfare elimination...

... appointed two Republicans to high level positions...

... cut social spending to almost 0%...

... unjustly imprisoned thousands of Americans...

... and may have known about the worst attack on America up to that time before it happenned.

... but we did have him. FDR.

I'll bet we can hold Clinton up to any Democratic President of the past 100 years and he'll still look good.

It's sad that people have to spin comparisons to make 'their' candidate look good.

The sad reality is that people overlook the flaws their candidates or heroes have but are quick to criticize those of others.

Yawn. Get serious folks, and focus on Bush.

at least we agree on somethingO8)

I cringed at hearing Clinton's public praise and call for the resusitation of the "Truman Doctrine" ...

This is an item on that long list which shall not be named in this thread, and I would have like to forget about for the time being... :(

no need to argue about what happened a long time ago

I find it hard to believe that he created welfare and then called for the elimination of it. Unless, he was replacing it with another social program...like for example the Constitutional right to have a job...which he did advocate for. But if this is what you are talking about, then it seems a very dirty trick on your part.

How about some references for the "cut social spending," the reason he dumped his VP, and his advocacy for elimination of welfare?

I could pull the typical anti-DLC routine and either ignore the request for references, demand you find it yourself, or write a long winded piece full of my own opinions, but I won't...

I find it hard to believe that he created welfare and then called for the elimination of it. Unless, he was replacing it with another social program...like for example the Constitutional right to have a job...which he did advocate for.

Well, you can theorize all you want to (and you can even show me how having a job is a constitutional right), but the fact is that in his 1935 State Of The Union Address, FDR said, "Continued dependence upon welfare induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit... It is in violation of the traditions of America. ... The federal government must and shall quit this business of relief."

Also:

FDR wanted to end direct relief, for as he told Atlanta businessman Chip Robert, the head of the U.S. Wage and Price Administration's Wage Commission, "We don't want a dole system. It's been the damnation of England."

** William Anderson, The Wild Man from Sugar Creek: The Political Career of Eugene Talmadge (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1975), p. 172.

How about some references for the "cut social spending,"

"Housewife activism peaked in an explosion of protests in the early 1940s after Roosevelt cut social spending..."

** The Dynamics of Social Welfare Policy
** by Joel Blau, John Ruston Pagan, Mimi Abramovitz Pg. 206

"Roosevelt tried to appease conservatives by slashing the WPA budget by nearly 25% and by impounding nearly a third of the money earmarked for the National Youth Administration and nearly half of the CCC's funds (reducing human resource spending to just over 2.00%.)"

** The Sixteen-Trillion-Dollar Mistake: How the U.S. Bungled Its National Priorities from the New Deal To The Present
** by Bruce S. Jansson Pg. 42

"Less well known is FDR's decision to slash nondefense spending by over 20% between 1942 and 1944. Among the programs that were eliminated entirely were FDR's own prized creations. By 1944, such pillars of the New Deal as the Civilian Conservation Corps, the National Youth Administration and the Work Projects Administration had been abolished. In 1939 those three programs had represented one-eighth of the federal budget. Roosevelt and the Congress of his day knew what to do in an emergency. Indeed, FDR chose to begin the reordering of budget priorities long before Pearl Harbor. In October 1939, one month after Hitler invaded Poland, Roosevelt
wrote Harold Smith, his budget director, ordering him to hold budgets for all government programs "at the present level and below, if possible." The next month he told Smith that "the administration will not undertake any new activities, even if laudable ones." He told reporters the next year that his policy would be to cut nonmilitary programs to the bone. He kept his word. Between 1939 and 1942, spending for nondefense programs was cut by 22%.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007246

Franklin Roosevelt decided that, in order to unite the country and to muster the resources to prosecute the war, he would shelve his ambitious domestic agenda. "Dr. New Deal," he later declared, had given way to "Dr. Win the War." The White House has studied this example, but it has gleaned precisely the opposite lesson. The administration's thinking once again finds its crassest expression in the person of Mitch Daniels. In an op-ed published a year ago, titled "A WARTIME BUDGET," Daniels cites the fact that, under Roosevelt, "non-war spending was slashed more than 20 percent. Among the early casualties were several of F.D.R.'s own (social) inventions."

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030310&s=chait031003&c=2

How about some references for the reason he dumped his VP

Anyone with any knowledge of Dem party history knows this. But I guess you need the references.

"In 1944, as FDR's health began to fail, there was a growing likelihood that Wallace, as his running-mate in the upcomming presidential election, would succeed him. Thus due to concerns over his far left beliefs, perceived naivete regarding Joseph Stalin, and unorthodox New Age tendencies, the Democratic Party bumped Wallace from its ticket in 1944 The Democrats replaced Wallace with Missouri Senator Harry S. Truman as the new Vice Presidential candiate."

Franklin D. Roosevelt placated Wallace by appointing him Secretary of Commerce. Wallace served in this post from March 1945 to September 1946, when he was fired by Harry S. Truman, who had become president upon Roosevelt's death midterm, and who regarded Wallace as too critical of Truman's foreign policy.

In 1952 Wallace published Why I Was Wrong, in which he explained that his seemingly-trusting stance toward the Soviet Union and Stalin stemmed from inadequate information about Stalin's excesses and that he, too, now considered himself an anti-Communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Wallace

During the Second World War Wallace headed the powerful Board of Economic Warfare. Wallace's left-wing views made him increasingly unpopular in the Democratic Party and Roosevelt came under pressure to drop him as his vice-president in 1944. Roosevelt was unwilling to protect Wallace and Harry S. Truman got the nomination. However, Roosevelt continued to value Wallace's abilities and when he was re-elected he appointed him as his Secretary of Commerce.

Wallace, who was Secretary of Commerce after the war, favoured co-operation with the Soviet Union. In private he disagreed with Harry S. Truman about what he considered to be an aggressive foreign policy. Wallace went public about his fears at a meeting in New York in September, 1946. After complaints from James F. Byrnes, Secretary of State, and James Forrestal, Secretary of Defence, Truman sacked Wallace as Secretary of Commerce.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm

In 1944 FDR sent him on a disastrous trip to East Asia. In the Soviet Union, the Russians fooled him by turning the slave labor camp at Magadan into a Potemkin village and in China, the columnist Joseph Alsop persuaded him to cable the president recommending that Gen. Joseph W. Stilwell be recalled. Wallace was really too naive for a hard world. Though he remained the favorite of labor and the liberals, FDR dumped him as his running mate in 1944 in favor of Harry S Truman.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/schlesinger_wallace_bio.html

Although I don't doubt that there are those who reported it.

According to Theodore H. White's book "In Search of History" which recalls Mr. White's years in China--Gen. Stillwell was infamous in many circles for his utter contempt for Chiang Kai-shek's nationalist government and openly advocated that the U.S. form an alliance with Mao Tse-tung and the Red Army. Why would those sympathetic with the Chinese Communist want Gen. Stillwell recalled and replaced with a staunch allie of Chiang Kai-shek?

As far as Vice President Wallace's seemingly rosy view of the Soviet Union, that was pretty standard fair coming out of the Administration when we were so closely allied with them in common cause against Nazi Germany. In 1943 at the request of the White House, Hollywood actually produced a movie, Mission to Moscow, based on the four years spent by the first U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Joseph E Davies. In this film Stalin and the Soviet Union are presented in a flattering light. This was standard U.S. war time propaganda during that period.

Henry Wallace was a farmer, scientist, businessman and originally a Republican. He never ever held privately or publicly Communist or even Socialist sympathies. He did believe that peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union was both possible and advisable.

for more on Henry Wallace:

http://www.winrock.org/wallacecenter/wallace/bio.html

I enjoyed your summary and thanks for the link so that I can learn more...

:hi:

It's (for the most part) enjoyable, intelligent and even civil.

it isn't something i said, is it? :wow:

You may recall that last year the Editor of the New Republic, Peter Beinart called for expulsion of the "Henry Wallace/George McGovern Wing" of the Democratic Party.

Guess who was Editor of the New Republic 1946-1947?

Henry Wallace?

I vaguely recall, but didn't know the specifics...

It's discussed in Edwin P.Hoyt's To the Marianas: War in the Central Pacific, 1944 (New York: Avon, 1961).

It was also discussed by the Columbia Journalism Review by Eric Alterman (yeah, that Eric Alterman) in his review of the book I'VE SEEN THE BEST OF IT BY JOSEPH W. ALSOP WITH ADAM PLATT

Alsop admits that "with full conviction" he suggested to Chiang and his advisers that they "declare General Stilwell persona non grata and blame him, in large measure, for China's feawrful situation." Alsop also suggested General Albert C. Wedermeyeas Stilwell's replacement and drafted the telegram Chiang sent to Roosevelt expressing these sentiments, along with another from Vice-president Henry Wallace in support of the original from Chiang.

http://archives.cjr.org/year/92/3/books-alsop.asp

It's also discussed in the book Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time

It didn't say anywhere in your references that FDR dropped his VP because he was too liberal like you claimed.

Also, Roosevelt wanted to drop welfare for better things like a Constitutional right to a job and a Constitutional right to a home. That's very different than what you imply. You imply a move to the right. No, Roosevelt's would be a move to the left, toward socialism.

You also left out that the social programs were not so much needed due to the war itself, which is what Hippo_Tron is claiming. Who says he would not be for the programs again once the war was over? But that's okay. I'll give you a 1/3 of a point for this answer anyway.

dixiecrat segregationist because Wallace believed passionately that Civil Rights must be made a central issue. It finally was made a central issue four years later in 1948 -- leading to Strom Thurmond leading the dixiecrat walkout from the convention and the Democratic Party.

Actually Vice President Wallace was all positioned to be renominated and the maneuver was a last minute job largely instigated after the nomination process had already started. He actually received the plurality of delegate votes on the first ballot. But some stalling and armed-twisting changed everything.

I'm unaware of any far-left beliefs that Henry Wallace advocated.

He was dumped in '44 because of his perceived far left views and naivety concerning communism.

But what did that constitute, far-left views? He was dumped in a last minute maneuver, in large measure to placate segregationist.

He definitely did believe in peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union. I don't think that would have been so unorthodox in 1944.

As far as General Stillwell, that I don't know. In only know that General Stillwell believed that the U.S. should seek a relationship with Mao.

I mean - I've shown links that state what I claim.

And whereas Wallace was a staunch supporter of civil rights and Southern Segregationists in the party didn't like him, Wallace's views on those rights were a bit radical at the time, yes?

So given the fact that he had foreign policy disagreements with the President over his apparent embrace of Stalin and communism (which were considered far left), coupled with his embrace of civil rights (also considered a departure from the mainstream), the fact still remains he was dumped over his percieved far-leftness.

If you want to differ over which aspect of his liberalness got him canned, so be it. But the fact remains he was canned for having views considered too liberal or far left.

Henry Wallace had both supporters and detractors -- that is undeniable.

there are links with have a different interpretation:

http://www.winrock.org/wallacecenter/wallace/bio.html#anchor4

""The future belongs to those who go down the line unswervingly for the liberal principles of both political and economic democracy regardless of race, color, or religion. In a political, educational, and economic sense there must be no inferior races.... The future must bring equal wages for equal work regardless of sex or race."

Wallace won the first ballot with 429.5 votes to Truman's 319.5, but it wasn't enough to secure the nomination, and in the third ballot, Truman was swept into the vice presidency.

In the end, Wallace's unabashed liberalism and his refusal to set aside principle for political gain cost him the support needed to retain the vice presidency. Southern, conservative Democrats disliked his liberalism, particularly his outspokenness on race, and the big city machine bosses distrusted his idealism."

...for whatever reason you want to assign to it - be it his embrace of civil rights or his embrace of communism.

Which still supports my original claim.

liberal. I agree that was how he was perceived by many. I don't think I disupute that. He certainly never embraced communism or even socialism.

You responded to Don1 from post 116 who said, "It didn't say anywhere in your references that FDR dropped his VP because he was too liberal like you claimed."

Your response, from post 117 was, "actually FDR was pressured to drop Henry Wallace by the dixiecrat segregationists... I'm unaware of any far-left beliefs that Henry Wallace advocated."

Your reply clearly implies that Wallace wasn't dropped for being too liberal but rather for embracing civil rights which was, in fact, a far left position at the time.

And yes, Wallace did embrace communism. I've already shown that.

n 1952 Wallace published "Why I Was Wrong," in which he explained that his seemingly-trusting stance toward the Soviet Union and Stalin stemmed from inadequate information about Stalin's excesses and that he, too, now considered himself an anti-Communist. The piece explainined his shift from sympathy for the aims of the Soviet Union to a deep distrust of these aims.

If he suddenly considered himself anti-communist in 1952, what was he before? Pro-communist.

not the phrase too liberal. Terms like "far left" have implications to them

Henry Wallace believed that peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union was both possible and desirable. In that the Soviet Union was an extremely important allie during World War II - the diplomatic language coming out of the administration at all levels at that time was much more friendlier and "rosier" than it became a few years later. None of this constitutes "embracing communism" or being "pro-communist".

That is how historians describe him. You can disagree all you want.

Face it. The man was a kook.

A lifelong fascination with mysticism and the occult appears to have made Wallace an easy mark for charlatans, among them a faux-Indian medicine man and opera composer named Charles Roos, who was given to addressing Wallace as "Poo-Yaw" and "Chief Cornplanter." Wallace considered Roos a soul mate. In the 1930s the two men purchased a tract of land together near Taylor Falls, Minnesota intended for spiritual retreats where they could, in Wallace's words, "find the religious key note of the new age." More politically damaging was his friendship and correspondence with none other than Nicholas Roerich, whose Peace Pact is the topic of FDR's letter. Wallace eventually gave Roerich a Department of Agriculture expense account and sent him on a $75,000 expedition to Central Asia in search of drought resistant grasses.

http://www.fdrheritage.org/fdr_museum_preview.htm

I still can't believe you're still clinging to the "he only believed in peaceful coexistance" when his own piece stated he once believed in the aims of Stalin.

Where is YOUR links for what you say?

I suspect there was a great effort to discredit Henry Wallace.

But let me say that I find negative implications to the term "far left" that I do not find to the term very liberal.

Go find someone who's going to say, "I don't care what Wallace himself said, this is how it REALLY was..." :eyes:

Here's something else for you to chew on:

The onset of the Cold War had divided American liberals. Most New Dealers believed that liberalism and communism had nothing in common, either as to means or as to ends, and joined Americans for Democratic Action, a new liberal organization that excluded Communists. On the other hand, the Progressive Party represented the last hurrah of the Popular Front of the 1930s. As the radical journalist I.F. Stone wrote in 1950, "The Communists have been the dominant influence in the Progressive Party. . . . If it had not been for the Communists, there would have been no Progressive Party."

Wyldwolf's note: Wallace became the Progressive Party's candidate in 1948.

Wallace, in a messianic mood, saw himself as the designated savior of the republic. Naively oblivious to the Communist role in his campaign, he roundly attacked the Marshall Plan, blamed Truman for Stalin's takeover of Czechoslovakia and predicted that Truman's "bipartisan reactionary war policy" would end with American soldiers "lying in their Arctic suits in the Russian snow." The United States, Wallace said, was heading into fascism: "We recognize Hitlerite methods when we see them in our own land." He became in effect a Soviet apologist.

Wyldwolf's note: My God! Wallace compared Truman to Hitler and said Truman was taking the US into fascism!

In their sympathy for their subject, Culver and Hyde do not do justice to the principled objections American liberals had to Wallace's alliance with the Communists. Eleanor Roosevelt herself led the repudiation of Wallace in column after column. "The American Communists," she wrote, "will be the nucleus of Mr. Wallace's third party. . . . Any use of my husband's name in connection with that party is from my point of view entirely dishonest." Only one prominent New Dealer, Rexford G. Tugwell, supported Wallace, and the Communist presence led him to drop out of the Wallace campaign before its end.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/schlesinger_wallace_bio.html
reprinted from: Los Angeles Times, 12 March 2000

we all know that phrases can be incorrectly quoted and quoted out of context.

The level at which some in this thread are arguing against documented facts based on nothing at all but what they've previously believed or want to believe is astounding.

The old "taken out of context" excuse is so tired, too. People do tend to fall back on that when their other arguments lose steam.

I'm not one for doctrinal purity at all. I'm one of DU's biggest fan of the "big tent" status of the Dem party. But sheesh! I recognize the political realities of anyone - including FDR and Henry Wallace.

and i'm also puzzled at the level of red baiting - the standard Right Wing "anti-Liberal" kind of polemic seeping through this discussion in trying to advance a point about certain policies or cabinet officials under FDR...

what's that about?

I'm merely giving insight into the history of the party, more specifically, that of Henry Wallace.

I cannot change the fact that he was a communist sympathizer and that he lost his job in part based on that.

No red baiting on my party but a presentation of fact.

Are we not supposed to speak of such things, even if true, because they might offend?

I'm not given to "anti-communist" oriented debates -

i grew up with this all my life, eventually when I became an independent young adult I learned there is a certain level of true-isms mixed with a whole lot of propaganda intended to muddy up discussions on any given social policy issue. Throwing out the term "Liberal" is supposed to sum it all up. Or even throwing the term Socialism as extremist is somehow suppose to make the case against Liberalism.

Some would argue, that was the primary goal of the NDP/DLC, to eliminate traditional Liberalism from the frame work of Democratic Political philosophy and discourse. And in a way, wasn't that really one of Clinton's highest achievements?

In other words, Al From's edict issued from the podium at this same seminar at Hofstra University (where Bill Clinton was invited to speak) he said that the party needed to purge itself of those "who have dominated the party for too long", (referring to progressives) is much of the same line that you seem to be expressing while citing minor historical events during FDR's adminstration, unless i am misintrepreting your intentions?

You'll see that my post that began this was to show that no Democrat can stand up to the scrutiny Clinton gets from his own party.

To demonstrate that, I list a set of facts about FDR that would have DU wailing and gnashing their teeth if these facts were true of Clinton.

Some tried to differ on several points and I had to provide evidence to support the points. One of those points was that FDR dumped Henry Wallace as his VP becuase he was percieved as too liberal are too far left. That is a fact.

Wallace believed in Stalins aims for Communism. That isn't my opinion. It's a fact. Communism is a far left philosophy. That isn't my opinion. It's a fact.

Wallace later admitted he was wrong to trust Stalin and wrong on his feelings about Communism. That isn't my opinion. It's a fact.

My personal feelings about communism have never entered the discussion.

but i also understand that it wasn't necessarily considered by the PEOPLE as too far left, only by the Conservative hard liners, and then virtually became a national political policy.

But if politics were in the hands of the PEOPLE and not left up to Big Business Owners and their Conservative hardliners, we'd have a very different narrative running throught this discussion today, I'm pretty sure.

It was FDR new deal Democrats.

and I am mindful that we are drifting a long way from the original subject of the main thread.

but here is an excellent, scholarly and I do believe balanced article about the political thinking of former Vice President Henry Wallace including his views regarding the Soviet Union.

I believe the authors were trying to be fair, neither canonizing or demonizing. If one is interested, they can read it and decide for themselves what and how they would describe Henry Wallace's political philosophy -- I personally think, very liberal would be a fair statement:

http://www.mnemeion.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/PORTRA_1/portra_11.HTM

I wasn't familiar with this person but since he was introduced in this thread, it's nice to have more background. I've bookedmark this site for a more thorough read on at a later time, and i appreciate you taking the time to post it here.. all things considered.. ;)

I realize we go waaaay off topic.

anyway...HAPPY NEW YEARS!!!

... unless Don1 and Radioforprogressives want to argue that "very liberal" isn't the same as "too liberal" in the context of Wallace being sacked for his far left views.

for incompetence regarding his political abilities with Stalin in addition to other things like being too "New Age" and appearing too left. Your sources say this. This is different than your claim that he was too liberal. It is also different than your claim that FDR sacked him for being too liberal.

FDR sacked him because he gave in to the establishment. It was only a coincidence that some of the reasons that the establishment wanted Wallace dropped had to do with ideology. Only SOME of the reasons had to do with ideology. Yet, you claim that it is not only just ideological, but also specifically just "too liberal."

Your references contradict you very much.

:shrug:

involved in that movement. And I do think Henry Wallace was definitely wrong for involving himself in that Party. That was indeed a tragic error of judgement on his part.

I do not think he was wrong in everything he did and said.

...he was wrong several things.

Bill Mandel is my main source on the politics in this country in those days...

He won't be with us much longer, check him out: http://www.billmandel.net/h/HUAC.shtml

time: http://www.billmandel.net/h/HUAC.shtml


do you know of William Mandel?

You did say your sources confirm what was stated in post 143 concerning Henry Wallace.

I know a little about Mandel.

go to website and purchase a book online or go to the library...

IF it were a fact (which it isn't) more than just Mandel would have knowledge of it.

When the Mullah's are elected as leaders of Iraq - completely perverting the very principles of democracy, shall we collectively denounce democracy as a result of the horrors that are soon to be actualized as a result of our actions in forcing our philosophy of governance down their throats, and with our boots on their necks?

my point is, it's the autocrat that needs to be rightfully vilified, the political and philosphical machine that they operated on deserves scrutiny, but needs to be judged separately and on it's own merits.

According to a pretty close acquaintence of mine, and this nation's formost leading expert on Sovietology, William Mandel - Communism is a "Failed Experiment".


Yes, the same Bill Mandel who was heard around the world at the now infamous HUAC hearing:

"Honorable beaters of children, sadists, uniformed and in plain clothes, distinguished Dixiecrat wearing the clothing of a gentleman, eminent Republican who opposes an accommodation with the one country with which we must live at peace in order for us and all our children to survive.

(snip)

If you think that I am going to cooperate with this collection of Judases, of men who sit there in violation of the United States Constitution, if you think I will cooperate with you in any way, you are insane! This body is improperly constituted. It is a kangaroo court. It does not have my respect, it has my utmost contempt. "

See and Hear this short speech that shut HUAC down forever, and whose words were heard around the world and continues today in news clips and documentarys.

Here's that Link: http://www.billmandel.net/h/HUAC.shtml

I said FDR dumped his VP because he was too liberal...

My sources said, "Thus due to concerns over his far left beliefs, perceived naivete regarding Joseph Stalin, and unorthodox New Age tendencies, the Democratic Party bumped Wallace from its ticket in 1944."

Do we REALLY want to debate this point? Nevermind, of course you do. Semantics might just be the only way you can come out of this feeling as though you've made any points. People on the left are liberal. People on the far left would be considered by many (myself and apparently FDR and the Dem party in 1944) as being TOO liberal.

Also, Roosevelt wanted to drop welfare for better things like a Constitutional right to a job and a Constitutional right to a home.

Laughable.

You have ZERO proof of this and I defy you to provide it. So come on, pony up. Prove it.
There is no constitutional right to own a home or have a job. Show me the Article. The Amendment.

You also left out that the social programs were not so much needed due to the war itself, which is what Hippo_Tron is claiming.

So what? I proved what I claimed and Hippo_Tron didn't (nor have you.) My sources showed he cut social spending under pressure from the conservatives who had gained 100 house seats from 1938 to 1942 and that he planned to cut no-defense spending "to the bone" before we ever entered the war.

Who says he would not be for the programs again once the war was over?

Gee. I dunno. Perhaps you can provide some sort of link indicating that?

But that's okay. I'll give you a 1/3 of a point for this answer anyway.

That's ok... I would have expected no less from someone like you.

wyldwolf's original claim was that FDR "dumped his VP because he was too liberal."

wyldwolf: "My sources said, 'Thus due to concerns over his far left beliefs, perceived naivete regarding Joseph Stalin, and unorthodox New Age tendencies, the Democratic Party bumped Wallace from its ticket in 1944.' "

"{F}ar left" and "too liberal" are not the same thing.

"{N}aivete regarding Joseph Stalin" and "too liberal" are not the same thing.

"{U}northodox New Age tendencies" and "too liberal" are not the same thing.

"FDR and "the Democratic Party" are not the same thing.

Are you really trying to draw a distinction between FDR and the Democratic party in regards to Roosevelt's VP choice? What a desperate litte last grasp for credibility. OF COURSE FDR bumped Wallace from the ticket. Remember, I also said, from the OTHER source I cited, During the Second World War Wallace headed the powerful Board of Economic Warfare. Wallace's left-wing views made him increasingly unpopular in the Democratic Party and Roosevelt came under pressure to drop him as his vice-president in 1944. Roosevelt was unwilling to protect Wallace...

Far left and too liberal are exactly the same thing:

far left

adj : radical or extremely liberal

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Naivete regarding Joseph Stalin isn't the same thing as "too liberal" but an embrace of Stalin's communism is.

So, since I've proved you wrong AGAIN, when are you going to back up your outragious claims? Hmmm? My guess is you won't.

considered "liberal". Stalinism is extremely authoritarian/totalitarian in nature. I can't imagine in my wildest dreams a way in which one could twist the definition of the word "liberal" into meaning "belief in extreme and violent authoritarianism". The fact is that "far left" does not mean the same thing as extremely liberal. You find all kinds of authoritarian, anti-liberal ideologies on the far left, or are you going to call Mao and Pol Pot liberals? In fact, many people on the far left disparage and express extreme contempt for liberalism. I've debated people on the far left before and encountered that attitude.

I agree with you about Wallace. I believe that I actually posess a book by him which is essentially an apologetic of Stalinist communism, but that does not make him "too liberal".

I can't believe the two terms are being used in the same breath...

:banghead:

I don't understand why a certain poster has decided to hijack a really nice thread about Bill Clinton and turn it into a pissing match about someone who was Vice President over 60 years ago. I mean, it may be a valid topic for discussion in its own right, but in a thread about Bill Clinton? Particularly in a thread whose aim is reconciliation and peacemaking on this board? And then to go on and try to equate Stalinism with liberalism. On a liberal board.

I'm really just mystified by the whole business.:shrug:

to see nothing but something resembling typical right wing, Cato Institute style reactionarism and resistance to the very concept of socio-economic justice and equality that FDR CLEARLY hoped to advance and envisaged in a more fully developed New Deal.

totally trashing a thread i had hoped would be an opening for a broader perspective...

Who the hell is looking for a Cato Repuke Lite mind set representing Democratic party thinking?

eeeegggads...

Refusing to give sources of claims when asked for them, saying things were "common knowledge," big-brother style "I'm right, you're wrong facts be damned" mentality, then storming off after hurling personal insults.

VERY rightwing (and leftwing) reactionary style thinking. Who the hell is looking for that in a logical fact driven discussion of
a Democratic party subject?

eeeegggads...

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

Well then so be it. I'll take that as an All American and time honored compliment - our very founders were accused of the same and much worse.

On the other hand, for those who do not see with their own eyes, that we as country are no longer being governed by our constitution (which was meant to be defended and protected by the very elected officials who now have disregarded it so completely) who want to continue to act as if nothing has changed, no serious violence has been done to our constitution, are something far worse and dangerous than lunatics.

And it shows a lack of knowledge of the constitution and history and civility

1. A national recall election is unconstitutional.
2. A controversy at a Pacifica radio outlet is not a constitutional precident.
3. You can call people Republicans and rightwingers when they disagree with you, but chances are that post will be deleted.
4. You can accuse people of redbaiting after you detailed communist revolutions.
5. You prove once more your stunning knowledge of FDR.

Just on this one point:

Do you agree with the proposition that great violence has been done to our Constitution by this administration?

Remember? This Thread was about Clinton, not FDR.

Please answer the question if you dare..

Now, answer ANY of my questions (the one specifically that you keep refusing to provide sources for)... If you dare...

Your continued denial that evidence has been provided here in this thread, is not absence of evidence - indeed it is evidence of something of quite a different nature at work here.

The question put to you is not complicated, does not require research - and does not require you to provide evidence.

It's a question solely asking your OPINION of the state of the Constitution today, whether or not great violence has been done to the Constitution by this administration.

I'm only asking your opinion. What's the problem? Why are you playing these games trying to avoid offering your opinion on THIS question?

Provide evidence that FDR wanted a constitutional amendment.

What's the problem? Why are you playing these games trying to avoid offering proof on THIS question?

what has presented three and four times (if not more, I've lost count)in this very thread speaks volumes and your refusal to offer your own opinion on a simple question that goes right to the heart at issue concerning our democracy today also speaks volumes....

...of your assertion and claiming you did. This very thread speaks volumes and your refusal to offer proof on a simple claim and then trying to veer off into another direction also speaks volumes.

good bye....

Remember? This Thread was about Clinton, not FDR.

Please answer the question if you dare..

All kidding aside, you seem motivated to diminish and even disclaim what many consider as the better aspects of FDR's domestic policies and intentions. (and others will argue the opposite point of view as you seem to want to do here)

Perhaps the debate would be better served if we first framed the policy issues at question, in the context of a "good for America" or "Bad for America" and/or "Good for the Democratic Party" or "Bad for the Democratic Party" analysis (in a thread of it's own) rather than this sort of selective cherry picking and revisionist banter which does little to inform or elucidate on the current "direction" of the party, and many say goes to the heart of the "Republicanization" of today's Democratic party.

I think that would be more useful, what do you think?

you seem motivated to diminish and even disclaim what many consider as the better aspects of FDR's domestic policies and intentions.

How so? By accurately and factually pointing out that FDR gutted his own programs - first in response to conservative pressure and then in response to the war?

What a complete misrepresentation.

Perhaps the debate would be better served if we first framed the policy issues at question, in the context of a "good for America" or "Bad for America" and/or "Good for the Democratic Party" or "Bad for the Democratic Party" analysis (in a thread of it's own) rather than this sort of selective cherry picking and revisionist banter which does little to inform or elucidate on the current "direction" of the party, and many say goes to the heart of the "Republicanization" of today's Democratic party.

The context of the sub thread wasn't one of of the policies themselves or whether they were good or bad for America but rather if FDR gutted them - first in response to conservative pressure and then in response to the war. Indeed, you won't find find many here who will disagree that the policies were good for America.

But you're changing the subject in this reply - not once but twice.

There was no cherry picking in this sub thread. Multiple sources were quoted to prove my points. The sad part here was the lengths you and others went through, the lapses in logic, the failure of reason, to make your points (all unsourced, as usual.)

Now, I disagree fully that the Democratic party has become "Republicanized." I've written have a thesis on the topic of Party history from Wilson to the present day. Do you want to debate THIS point? I'll tell you, I'll still hold you to the standard "claim it, prove it, links, and sources."

the very idea that a Bill of Rights (by definition) are constitutional amendments. It's one thing to disagree with the meaning of those remarks in the State of Union address in 1944, (which is unconvincing on it's face)but you cannot disclaim in any measure of logic, reason and honesty that the source evidence for that "call" was not provided.

The fact that you continue to assert that no "proof" has been provided compels me to conclude that you sir, cannot be trusted to engage in a reasonable discussion on just about anything. If I insist that the sky is blue, I am now convinced that you will assert that i cannot provide evidence for it, regardless of the universality shared perception. Or that 2 plus 2 equals 4 or that apples and oranges are fruits of a very different species and character.

Yes I changed the subject because of this experience in these exchanges with you, and because it seemed to me what was really at issue for you, wasn't really about FDR's call for a Second Bill of Rights at all - (which you continue to dismiss as having ever occurred despite the source link provided for this in three different posts) but rather you were engaging an argument against the very idea of second bill of rights (no matter who proposes it) should exist at all, so I thought it would be better for all concerned to put forward the idea that this discussion be put squarely on the table in an unambiguous manner. It was merely a suggestion..

I still think it's a good idea... but not in this thread.

- that FDR backed a constitutional amendment. And I provided a legal scholar who agreed with not only me but history itself.

FDR's call for a Second Bill of Rights at all - (which you continue to dismiss as having ever occurred despite the source link provided for this in three different posts)

I've never denied it occurred but that wasn't your argument. You stated he called for a constitutional amendment, which he did not do.

but rather you were engaging an argument against the very idea of second bill of rights (no matter who proposes it) should exist at all,

That's factually inaccurate. Show the good people of DU where I ever argued against the idea.

Links and quotes.

We're waiting.

...my original post on FDR, in response to someone's "lesser of two evils" post, showed that even such reverred presidents like FDR had a history that would make the idealogically pure wing of DU wail and gnash their teeth.

However, when someone questioned my facts, I presented evidence.

to take the bait of one single poster and run with it so long and so hard and bring it into the realms of equating liberalism with Stalinism. What's promoting reconciliation on this board compared with the importance of pounding a point home with a sledgehammer?

Are you a loyal Clinton supporter? Among other things, the OP offered up "a heartfelt apology to loyal Clinton supporters who have had to bear the brunt of my own frustrations with regard to many aspects of the Clinton policies, as expressed in the past." It was good of you to take it in that spirit.

Yeah, you did the right thing and the big thing. I'm sorry I even brought the issue up.

to completely misrepresent what I posted.

Forunately, the thread will be preserved for all to read.

for you to be able to point to what I typically do in them, but I accept the complement anyway, and you're absolutely correct, this thread will be preserved for all to read. I'm sure people will be able to reach their own conclusions about it.

A Happy New Year to you Sir.

Those especially in his district where he is running as a DLC candidate can view how he likes to bash FDR and play with exaggerations.

Can you say the next Joementum?

And that Wallace embraced the aims of Stalin - namely - communism.

but remember, Socialism and Communism was embraced in this country by a goodly part of the population - so it wasn't really considered that "far left" until AFTER it became official policy that Stalin was our enemy.

Communism had been rebuked by both major parties as early as the early 1930s.

i think you need to separate the "party line" and "party leaders" with the population.

that's a significant difference, as always the case.

Communism was NOT embraced in this country by a goodly part of the population as you contend.

His claim was that FDR dropped his VP for being "too liberal."

His source says that the Democratic Party dropped him for being too far left, naivete about Stalin, and being too New Age.

See how the two claims have 4 differences?

For those that have been paying attention:

From post 81:

In 1944, as FDR's health began to fail, there was a growing likelihood that Wallace, as his running-mate in the upcomming presidential election, would succeed him. Thus due to concerns over his far left beliefs, perceived naivete regarding Joseph Stalin, and unorthodox New Age tendencies, the Democratic Party bumped Wallace from its ticket in 1944 The Democrats replaced Wallace with Missouri Senator Harry S. Truman as the new Vice Presidential candiate."

An embrace of communism is a far left trait.

Now, Don1, you've still NEVER proved your constitutional claim.

Still waiting...

my source says:

Wallace's left-wing views made him increasingly unpopular in the Democratic Party and Roosevelt came under pressure to drop him as his vice-president in 1944. Roosevelt was unwilling to protect Wallace and Harry S. Truman got the nomination.

How does that contradict me? And what do YOUR sources say?

Links and quotes, please.

You have a knack for making claims and ignoring calls for proof.

You ignore that wyldwolf's sources contradict him.

I already explained the proof of why.

There is nothing "too liberal" about naivete about Stalin, right? Yes or no?

Furthermore, "welfare elimination" is not equivalent to the implementation of an economic bill of rights that radio4progressives, listed, right?

gave proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that his references contradict him.

Links and quotes, please.

And you can't show where you did

Now are you going to admit how you are a DLC operative or what?

Now are you going to admit you're a communist inflitrator or what?

One of the cornerstones of liberalism is civil rights. Stalin was a totalitarian (like Bush) and liberals would be against him by definition.

far left and liberal are equivalent. The reason is that they have no knowledge of the whole left spectrum.

Apparently anyone who thinks differently than you are rightwingers.

Right-wingers and those with no understanding of the full political spectrum of the left are out making that claim.

How are the others doing? How's the one who says that "DU is ratfucked by the Green Party"?

Show me where I said, ""DU is ratfucked by the Green Party"?

Hey, Joey McCarthy. That works. Holy Joementum. Joe joe.

Are you going to tell everyone how you have been a DLC infiltrator here?

Hey, Dong Stalin. That works. Dong Stalin. Don Dong.

Are you going to tell everyone how you have been a communist infiltrator here?

In the land where White Supramcy Rules all else, oh yea, blacks that don't toe the line need to be rounded up and their voting rights taken from them. As a matter of fact... this is the land where Choice Point has (first it was DynCorp) has a database with every black name that will be a felon in the future - so their names have to taken off the voter rolls too.

and don't you all know? those evil commie bastards hates Racism and White Supramacy - and they don't cotten much to dem Dixie Crats, neither.

they were in the first place, and a deeply racist party.

they were also war mongers, charlatans, crooks, thieves and liars, communists, federal reserve board members, judges, cops and robbers all.

the Democratic party has always been a "Big Tent" as they say, and apparently proud of it.

but the denial of one element, is not evidence of the other.

Maybe the point really is, - just because FDR said it, doesn't necessarily mean he MEANT it.

In other words, maybe the point Wyldwolf is really trying to make is that even the progressives' touted New Deal "hero", was nothing more than a liar and a phony as all of today's Democratic Party officials tend to be today.

Though I wouldn't use language that strong.

The left has raised FDR to a cult hero status when in fact he made political decisions every bit as bad (or perceived as bad) as anyone else, including Clinton, has made.

The only difference is I see the big picture. I see each Democrat as flawed human beings and none as a progressive/liberal savior. To reach the highest office in the land, a President makes compromises and decisions in order to please the most amount of voters. The only problem with that is he/she will offend the fringes of both sides of the spectrum who demand idealogical purity - which is why no one from those fringes make it to the highest office in the land. (Remember, Bush governed TX as a moderate and campaigned as one.)