Eleanor Roosevelt was a woodchuck

This is from a letter she wrote to a member of the DNC in 1935, in response to heavy criticism that her husband was getting from the left:






Thanks to Pirate Smile for providing this and much, much more in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x407004

That is, if there is an unrecommended squad, which I'm not necessarily saying.

... because it ain't necessarily so. Not necessarily.

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

all seem to be enacted quickly, while we have to struggle for the slightest movement toward ethical policies and laws.

Nice guys finish last, you know.

:thumbsup:

Her overbite wasn't THAT bad.

Eleanor:



Woodchuck:



Nothing like a woodchuck's, I'd say.

lol, too funny.

FYI: I just recently UN-rec'd another posting here, suggesting that Robert Gibbs will soon be on Faux Noise! I LOVE my DU Community, but frankly a few whining weenies are beginning to get on my nerves! After 2008, the upcoming election WILL be the most important one for a looooong time. So keep your eye on the ball for at least till November. Is that asking asking for too much?

Obama is not like "a second" FDR by any stretch of the imagination. His performance so far is not at all like or equivalent to FDR's. And his critics and their criticism has nothing at all in common with FDR's.

And if Eleanor Roosevelt were alive today, I would bet everything I have left in this world that she would not be standing up beside Gibbs and patting him on the back and defending what he said to progressives, here and now in this context today.

I. DON'T. THINK. SO.

That post and this one applauding it is some of the the most shameless propaganda I have ever read on this site... and against DEMS. Un-frickin-believable. But then, that's just how bad it is today. Pathetic.

to stop pouting for their pony. Do you? She was pushing equal rights for women and for black people, for all kinds of people and uphill, too sometimes, when the rest of the cabinet wasn't in favor.

A post like this is the equivalent of tagging DU. Seriously.

She had a bully pulpit and used it, both in words in deeds.

The OP is disrespectful to ER.

I bet she'd have something to say about this one!

JFK was too far to the right for Eleanor. And this doofus thinks she would align herself with today's "centrists"? Blasphemy!

The critics from that day sounded just like those of today. It's almost as if they went back and researched it for their own purposes.

Good grief.

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

I love ER but the OP is pure, contrived BS.

--a perfect mirror image of Father Coughlin's rants? On what planet?

:wow:

"When the smoke had cleared and the panic eased, critics and supporters alike had an opportunity to evaluate the first stage of the New Deal. There was something to please--and annoy--everyone. Some progressives felt that Roosevelt had not gone far enough and some conservatives feared government interference with industry and increased executive authority, but the urgency of the national crisis seemed to take precedence. While there was criticism of specific legislation, most were pleased that something was being done and Washington was in motion." http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma02/volpe/newdeal/hundred_days.html

I think most people want to see jobs, education, and peace. I think most don't like the tax payer money being spent on bankers big salaries, war, and tax breaks for the wealthy.

do keep up the attack though. It certainly is an interesting way to try to influence people. Here is what the Roosevelts actually stood for:


In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

Obama hasn't said anything remotely resembling "I welcome their hatred" when referring to the wealthy and powerful and to imply he is a second FDR is so far beyond ridiculous as to be pathetic.

I sincerely mean that. She walked the walk and talked the talk, and used her bully pulpit to advance civil rights for everyone. Taking one statement out of context to align her with a frigging right centrist agenda is vile.

The fact of the matter is that Eleanor Roosevelt was much more liberal than her husband, and much further to the left than a lot of the country. Your attempt to claim her for the mushy middle fails. Go educate yourself, cure that historical ignorance of yours.

When FDR took office in March of 1932, he did so an OVERWHELMING mandate, both in electoral votes as well as popular votes. He didn't have to jump through hoops to get a sixtieth Senator. He had WELL more than enough (including a substantial fraction of the "progressive" Republicans). The equivalent of the Blue Dogs, the Southern Bloc (much later to be the Dixiecrats)? They were well under his thumb, and remained "loyal" to him until AFTER the 1936 election. His opposition? Small in number and in disorderly disarray, AND clearly perceived by most as the Party of the Plutocracy.

What Eleanor Roosevelt said then was both APT and appropriate to this moment in time.

The White House would be a very different place and the OP would be seen as preposterous. ER might very well write to say so!

has benefited from in some way.

Even if it's just as "the old, old story" that never seems to end.

right...yeah, that's the same thing...nice try, apologist.

Andrew Johnson, and Martin Van Buren if you move fast enough...

and is trying to do more when in fact he has undercut efforts by others to strengthen legislation and publicly praised the ''leadership'' of the most corrupt members of his party who undermined it.

MLK would approve of their affirmative action policies.

FDR did far more than Obama has attempted. Obama had the public support to do far more and pressure the amoral, corrupt minority in the Democratic Party to vote for more.

MLK would approve of their affirmative action policies.

FDR did far more than Obama has attempted. Obama had the public support to do far more and pressure the amoral, corrupt minority in the Democratic Party to vote for more.

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

:shrug:

When the DAR refused to let Marian Anderson perform at Constitution Hall, ER resigned her membership and helped arrange the concert at the Lincoln Memorial.

Not an especially popular or expedient thing to do - but not caving into bigots was (and is) the correct thing to do.

"You had an opportunity to lead in an enlightened way and it seems to me that your organization has failed." Powerful words.


And a pic of the results:





http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/eleanor.html

I don't believe I ever saw the text of it before.