Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:29 PM

I was wrong about FDR holding 600 press conferences.

I don't know what I was thinking.

It was actually 998.

http://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/obama-fdr-and-taming-the-press/

I'll try to do better next time.

67 replies, 7521 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

67 replies	Author	Time	Post
I was wrong about FDR holding 600 press conferences. (Original post)	MannyGoldstein	Apr 2013	OP
rec	SammyWinstonJack	Apr 2013	#1
Could you imagine 998 press conferences by President Obama?	ProSense	Apr 2013	#2
He could do group press conferences with Simpson, and Bowles	MannyGoldstein	Apr 2013	#7
"I'll bet Simpson can tap dance real purdy."	ProSense	Apr 2013	#15
That's my guess. nt	MannyGoldstein	Apr 2013	#16
hahaha!!!	Blue Palasky	Apr 2013	#17
Crap, I meant this as a response in a thread.	MannyGoldstein	Apr 2013	#3
Which thread? n/t	ProSense	Apr 2013	#4
This one:	MannyGoldstein	Apr 2013	#5
Imagine how different things were then. The press was it.	NYC_SKP	Apr 2013	#6
It was unthinkable before FDR did it	MannyGoldstein	Apr 2013	#8
I'm sure he did, and it would still be useful today, moreso.	NYC_SKP	Apr 2013	#9
A prepared speech is somewhat different from answering pointed questions.	MannyGoldstein	Apr 2013	#10
The Press was also very different then.	RudynJack	Apr 2013	#13
Actually, they did report that he was paralyzed.	MannyGoldstein	Apr 2013	#14
If FDR were alive today and giving press conferences	ProSense	Apr 2013	#18
Perhaps.	MannyGoldstein	Apr 2013	#19
He actually did have a strong congressional opposition.	longship	Apr 2013	#26
"But he also had a supportive Democratic congress."	ProSense	Apr 2013	#35
I wonder why it grew?	quakerboy	May 2013	#41
People likely didn't	ProSense	May 2013	#43
Technically, people have gotten smarter over the years	quakerboy	May 2013	#46
The Republicans invented the Great Depression	Progressive dog	May 2013	#55
There was radio.	Lionel Mandrake	Apr 2013	#20
I think President Obama	ProSense	Apr 2013	#22
And imagine how different ...	1StrongBlackMan	Apr 2013	#30
I think what it shows between now and then (FDR's time)....	ReRe	Apr 2013	#32
The differences are completely lost on some	davidpdx	May 2013	#39
It was called leadership. Something we don't see anymore.	rwsanders	Apr 2013	#11
+1000	forestpath	Apr 2013	#12
back when WE THE PEOPLE truly meant something	Skittles	Apr 2013	#29
we had statesmen who STOOD for office way back when	datasuspect	May 2013	#51
LEADERSHIP!!!	bvar22	May 2013	#59
I'll confess to being taken aback at the recent deification of FDR.	Buzz Clik	Apr 2013	#21
Say what?	RobertEarl	Apr 2013	#23
Which party are you with?	DisgustipatedinCA	Apr 2013	#24
FDR made plenty of mistakes	MannyGoldstein	Apr 2013	#25
Maybe you are not aware of precisely what FDR did.	longship	Apr 2013	#31
Are you buzzed?	ReRe	Apr 2013	#33
I'm afraid you've got it bass-ackwards, BC	RufusTFirefly	Apr 2013	#34
You're the only one who understood, but I didn't make it clear.	Buzz Clik	May 2013	#49
My mom was a teenager and young adult during FDR's presidency.	JDPriestly	May 2013	#42
You tell us: you voted for Reagan	Starry Messenger	May 2013	#45
Voted for Nixon, too. And Ron Paul against Reagan.	Buzz Clik	May 2013	#48
FDR: "I welcome their hatred"	Doctor_J	May 2013	#57
Especially when it is clear that AT THE TIME	treestar	May 2013	#63
Shame on you, Manny. If I had been at one of FDR's conferences, here is what I would've asked:	RufusTFirefly	Apr 2013	#27
Aw, don't feel so bad....	ReRe	May 2013	#37
My side?	RufusTFirefly	May 2013	#40
Thanks...	ReRe	May 2013	#44
I got it, but sarcasm is tough to telegraph these days	MannyGoldstein	May 2013	#47
Fair enough.	RufusTFirefly	May 2013	#50
Behold:	MannyGoldstein	May 2013	#61
For the record, Manny:	RufusTFirefly	May 2013	#67
To be fair	ashling	Apr 2013	#28
But then, you gotta tell the truth!	grahamhgreen	May 2013	#36
Forgiven...	ReRe	May 2013	#38
Oh for a time machine, eh?	MineralMan	May 2013	#52
Wonder how FDR would have done with the internet........	Historic NY	May 2013	#53
FDR's press conferences were different than the ones by the President nowadays.	Cooley Hurd	May 2013	#54
There werent very many women in those days, either.	Shrike47	May 2013	#64
You would have thought FDR a corporatist at the time	treestar	May 2013	#56
He was a raging, unambiguous success for the 99%. That's my big issue.	MannyGoldstein	May 2013	#58
Still seems like a need to have a hero	treestar	May 2013	#62
So your argument is basically	MannyGoldstein	May 2013	#65
It is silly to pretend FDR would get your support	treestar	May 2013	#66
The problem is that the president doesn't seem to have	Doctor_J	May 2013	#60

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:31 PM

SammyWinstonJack (44,095 posts)

1. rec

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:32 PM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

2. Could you imagine 998 press conferences by President Obama?

Thousands of thread about "pretty words" and "talk is cheap"

Thank goodness this is not happening. LOL!

Reply to this post

Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:38 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

7. He could do group press conferences with Simpson, and Bowles

They could do songs about shared sacrifice and common-sense belt-tightening. I'll bet Simpson can tap dance real purdy.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #7)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:07 PM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

15. "I'll bet Simpson can tap dance real purdy."

Better than the black guy?

Reply to this post

Response to ProSense (Reply #15)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:08 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

16. That's my guess. nt

Reply to this post

Response to ProSense (Reply #15)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:09 PM

Blue Palasky (81 posts)

17. hahaha!!!

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:32 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

3. Crap, I meant this as a response in a thread.

Ah, screw it, I'll leave it, it's interesting.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:33 PM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

4. Which thread? n/t

Reply to this post

Response to ProSense (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:34 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

5. This one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2779220

Clearly, I need a beer. Long day.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:38 PM

NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)

6. Imagine how different things were then. The press was it.

There wasn't an Internet, there wasn't TV or Cable.

Our population is presently almost three times as large, our economy larger still.

And our reach into other cultures and onto other continents and our military might are exponentially larger than when FDR took office.

I can't imagine how, today, FDR or anyone else would have the time or inclination to spend so much time with the press.

Different times.

Very different.

Reply to this post

Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:40 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

8. It was unthinkable before FDR did it

But then he did it.

And there was a Depression, then a world war.

But he did it.

Perhaps he thought it was worth the effort.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #8)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:45 PM

NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)

9. I'm sure he did, and it would still be useful today, moreso.

Then he spoke with the press and the press printed what they say fit.

Not the best way to get to the people, not as direct as could be done today.

I don't know what I'd have to say if I were president, but I think I'd find things.

President Obama has a weekly address, but it's not to the press; it's not holding a press conference.

If the press wanted to air it, they could. I don't think they want to.

The last one was about ending the sequester:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/weekly-address

Reply to this post

Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #9)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:50 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

10. A prepared speech is somewhat different from answering pointed questions.

Not much drama in the first. Nor much information that doesn't already exist.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #8)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:57 PM

RudynJack (1,044 posts)

13. The Press was also very different then.

Each press conference wasn't a televised event, picked apart endlessly by the pundits, each looking for a major "gotcha" moment.

All those press conferences, and nobody reported that he was paralyzed. They didn't report on his purported affair. It was a different time, and people behaved differently.

Reply to this post

Response to RudynJack (Reply #13)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:04 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

14. Actually, they did report that he was paralyzed.

Although he did his best to hide it.

No questions were off limits. He could answer them artfully, though.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #14)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:11 PM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

18. If FDR were alive today and giving press conferences

daily, he'd be picked apart by the RW media relentlessly, and there would be enough people on the left feeding him to the wolves.

If he had the same Congress, composition and demeanor, that Obama has, he'd be anihilated.

Reply to this post

Response to ProSense (Reply #18)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:18 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

19. Perhaps.

Not sure that the outcome would be worse.

Might be worth a shot.

Reply to this post

Response to ProSense (Reply #18)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:21 PM

longship (40,416 posts)

26. He actually did have a strong congressional opposition.

But he also had a supportive Democratic congress. But the Republican isolationists sure made his support for the UK before Pearl Harbor a very sticky wicket.

Reading the letters between FDR and Former Naval Person (Churchill) is very educating.

Reply to this post

Response to longship (Reply #26)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:48 PM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

35. "But he also had a supportive Democratic congress."

Yes, a 23-seat advantage that grew to 44 seats then to a high of 60 seats. At the start of FDR's second term, there were only 16 Republicans in the Senate, down from 25 at mid-term and 36 at the start of his first term.

That would have translated to Obama starting off with 63 seats, climbing to 74 seats and then to 84 seats.

Reply to this post

Response to ProSense (Reply #35)

Wed May 1, 2013, 12:15 AM

quakerboy (13,590 posts)

41. I wonder why it grew?

Reply to this post

Response to quakerboy (Reply #41)

Wed May 1, 2013, 12:18 AM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

43. People likely didn't

buy into stupid.

"Oh, and for all those older Americans who voted GOP last year because those nasty Democrats were going to cut Medicare, I have just one word: suckers!"

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/privatizing-medicare/

Reply to this post

Response to ProSense (Reply #43)

Wed May 1, 2013, 04:25 AM

quakerboy (13,590 posts)

46. Technically, people have gotten smarter over the years

Im sure we will disagree on this, but it seems fairly apparent to me that the reason he got those increases was that he GAVE the people what they wanted/needed. He and that initial favorable congress acted to improve the situation for the voters, and the voters responded to that with increased support.

Reply to this post

Response to quakerboy (Reply #41)

Wed May 1, 2013, 11:30 AM

Progressive dog (6,554 posts)

55. The Republicans invented the Great Depression

and refused to do anything about it.

Reply to this post

Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:26 PM

Lionel Mandrake (4,064 posts)

20. There was radio.

FDR could and did bypass the Press in his "fireside chats". These radio programs were a very successful means whereby FDR got his message out to the public.

Reply to this post

Response to Lionel Mandrake (Reply #20)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:57 PM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

22. I think President Obama

"FDR could and did bypass the Press in his "fireside chats". These radio programs were a very successful means whereby FDR got his message out to the public."

...is pretty good at getting the public on his side: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022777294

He has been know to crash Capitol Hill servers: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/voters-jam-capitol-phone-lines.php

The last election is a good case in point. The Obama campaign used the Internet effectively, from ads to whiteboards. They took advantage of technology and it showed. Getting hit from all sides, there were a lot of people who really believed the election was going to be too close to call, some nervous and cautious, but some believing the negative hits from both sides were going to result in a one-term President.

He won by a landslide.

Republicans immediately wanted to know his campaign's secrets.

Reply to this post

Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:31 PM

1StrongBlackMan (31,849 posts)

30. And imagine how different ...

politicians were in FDR's time ...

FDR could run rough-shod over politicians of the opposition (and his own party) and NO aid would dare leak word of the meeting ... and you can bet that targetted politician wouldn't hold a press conference whining about how mean FDR was to him!

Yes, times have changed; but they just make the myths so romantic.

Reply to this post

Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:37 PM

ReRe (10,597 posts)

32. I think what it shows between now and then (FDR's time)....

... is how secretive our government is now.

Reply to this post

Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #6)

Wed May 1, 2013, 12:05 AM

davidpdx (22,000 posts)

39. The differences are completely lost on some

It's called irrational thinking....

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:51 PM

rwsanders (2,384 posts)

11. It was called leadership. Something we don't see anymore.

Reply to this post

Response to rwsanders (Reply #11)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:52 PM

forestpath (3,102 posts)

12. +1000

Reply to this post

Response to rwsanders (Reply #11)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:23 PM

Skittles (147,757 posts)

29. back when WE THE PEOPLE truly meant something

Reply to this post

Response to rwsanders (Reply #11)

Wed May 1, 2013, 11:17 AM

datasuspect (26,591 posts)

51. we had statesmen who STOOD for office way back when

now we have corporate lackey hacks who RUN for office.

there's a difference there.

Reply to this post

Response to rwsanders (Reply #11)

Wed May 1, 2013, 12:11 PM

bvar22 (39,909 posts)

59. LEADERSHIP!!!

[font size=3]
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010[/font]

[font size=3]Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses![/font]

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:35 PM

Buzz Clik (38,437 posts)

21. I'll confess to being taken aback at the recent deification of FDR.

Are liberals jealous of St. Reagan and offer FDR as a counterpoint?

Reply to this post

Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #21)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:02 PM

RobertEarl (13,685 posts)

23. Say what?

I know some folks who grew up with FDR and he was like a savior to them.

FDR was a great man that helped a lot of people. LBJ is second to FDR in that regard. No, liberals are not jealous, we are proud of FDR. But are ashamed for Reagan. Reagan, until Shrub, was the worst ever.

Reply to this post

Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #21)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:06 PM

DisgustipatedinCA (12,530 posts)

24. Which party are you with?

In some circles, it's well known that FDR was rightfully considered a damn-near savior.

Reply to this post

Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #21)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:06 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

25. FDR made plenty of mistakes

His genius was partly in knowing that nobody knew the answer - that we needed to try things. Things that failed were stopped, things that worked were enlarged. He did not double down on failure.

His cabinet originally ran the gamut from bankers to socialists. As he found that Liberal policies worked and rightist policies did not, his cabinets became more Liberal.

A very imperfect person, but a very effective President. We can learn from his success, I think.

Reply to this post

Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #21)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:32 PM

longship (40,416 posts)

31. Maybe you are not aware of precisely what FDR did.

I love Churchill's history of WWII. It's six freaking thick volumes spanning from Hitler's climb to power until the end of the war. The story told there is full of FDR, with many of Churchill's correspondences with FDR reproduced. The story told in those pages is astounding. The world was coming apart like none of us here have ever seen. It took people like FDR, and Churchill, and others to put an end to world war.

The 1933 and 1936 elections were no fluke. After all, FDR became the only US president elected four times. People who grew up then adored him... For good reason.

Still, his opposition was tough. It took Pearl Harbor before he could get the US to commit to casting off isolationism, but then it was too late, we weren't just supporting our allies, we were at war ourselves.

Sheesh!

Reply to this post

Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #21)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:43 PM

ReRe (10,597 posts)

33. Are you buzzed?

... That question does not make sense to me. WTF did Reagan ever do that a FDR Democrat would be jealous of? Whatever you're smokin', STOP!

Reply to this post

Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #21)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:44 PM

RufusTFirefly (8,812 posts)

34. I'm afraid you've got it bass-ackwards, BC

Ronnie was artificially deified (how fitting that he was an actor) as a counterpoint to the genuinely beloved FDR.

I sure hope you were being sarcastic, but somehow I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #34)

Wed May 1, 2013, 07:11 AM

Buzz Clik (38,437 posts)

49. You're the only one who understood, but I didn't make it clear.

Manny Goldstein posted a lament a couple of weeks ago that his threads had gotten boring. Everyone was agreeing with him. I told him that I was more than happy to vehemently disagree with every thread he initiates. This was part of keeping my promise.

I neither hate FDR nor adore Reagan. My post was a gift to Manny.

Reply to this post

Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #21)

Wed May 1, 2013, 12:16 AM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

42. My mom was a teenager and young adult during FDR's presidency.

She adored him. In my view, FDR is and always was the greatest president since George Washington.

Reply to this post

Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #21)

Wed May 1, 2013, 12:33 AM

Starry Messenger (32,335 posts)

45. You tell us: you voted for Reagan

http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7713776#7713812

Reply to this post

Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #45)

Wed May 1, 2013, 07:07 AM

Buzz Clik (38,437 posts)

48. Voted for Nixon, too. And Ron Paul against Reagan.

So ... any other questions? I imagine I must have voted for some Republicans in state and local elections in the past 40 years.

Reply to this post

Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #21)

Wed May 1, 2013, 11:35 AM

Doctor_J (36,392 posts)

57. FDR: "I welcome their hatred"

BHO: "I was afraid I would be blamed for flight delays"

We're jealous of the citizens who had a leader in the WH, if that's what you mean.

edited for clarity

Reply to this post

Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #21)

Wed May 1, 2013, 03:26 PM

treestar (80,796 posts)

63. Especially when it is clear that AT THE TIME

They would have seen FDR the same as they now see Obama.

They would have found SS as it was then to be like Obamacare. And FDR had enough of a D majority to get single payer, so I don't see why they aren't calling him a sellout.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:22 PM

RufusTFirefly (8,812 posts)

27. Shame on you, Manny. If I had been at one of FDR's conferences, here is what I would've asked:

How are you going to pay for all this stuff, Mr. President? Social Security? Unemployment insurance?? The Federal Theater Project??? The Works Progress Administration????? The Federal Emergency Relief Administration?????

Are you kidding me???

Don't you realize that this is a Depression?

It should be obvious to anyone that deficit reduction and austerity measures are the only reasonable answers.

Oh, if only Simpson and Bowles had been around back then to provide some sorely needed sanity!!
(And such nice men, too. Not like that swishy foreigner John Maynard Keynes.)

Reply to this post

Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #27)

Wed May 1, 2013, 12:03 AM

ReRe (10,597 posts)

37. Aw, don't feel so bad....

...the right wing did raise hell and scream and holler over his Keynesian tactics. The only reason we are having a problem now is that your side is yelling the loudest. We're going into the 5th year and your way (the deficit-reduction way) of balancing the budget isn't working. Why weren't you guys raising hell back when GWB was in there running up the deficit? PO didn't make this mess.

Reply to this post

Response to ReRe (Reply #37)

Wed May 1, 2013, 12:07 AM

RufusTFirefly (8,812 posts)

40. My side?

I left off the sarcasm tag because I thought my over-the-top post was obvious, Guess I was mistaken. Sigh.
(I'm pretty sure Manny understood what I meant.)

Reply to this post

Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #40)

Wed May 1, 2013, 12:27 AM

ReRe (10,597 posts)

44. Thanks...

I am very sensitive (ask Manny

) about the non-use of the sarcasm thingy. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Reply to this post

Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #40)

Wed May 1, 2013, 06:17 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

47. I got it, but sarcasm is tough to telegraph these days

What you wrote is what most elected Democrats actually believe, or at least act like they believe.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #47)

Wed May 1, 2013, 11:16 AM

RufusTFirefly (8,812 posts)

50. Fair enough.

I figured the over-the-top remarks about Simpson and Bowles as "such nice men", and Keynes as a "swishy foreigner" would provide a tip-off.

Sarah Palin: Now more than ever.

Reply to this post

Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #50)

Wed May 1, 2013, 01:58 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

61. Behold:

Some folks couldn't tell that *this* was sarcasm:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022756481

I can't totally blame them.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #61)

Thu May 2, 2013, 11:49 AM

RufusTFirefly (8,812 posts)

67. For the record, Manny:

I consider your sarcastic posts to be a menace to society and a full-spectrum threat to all that we hold dear in this country. Your Krugman post epitomizes this clear and present danger. For your information, I am hard at work in my spare time (dog bless our American ingenuity) writing a Javascript that will automatically alert anything you post, thus saving all of us time and undue heartache.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:23 PM

ashling (25,771 posts)

28. To be fair

The press gaggles that FDR held were much less formal and there was a much smaller press pool

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed May 1, 2013, 12:02 AM

grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)

36. But then, you gotta tell the truth!

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed May 1, 2013, 12:04 AM

ReRe (10,597 posts)

38. Forgiven...

K&R

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed May 1, 2013, 11:21 AM

MineralMan (144,945 posts)

52. Oh for a time machine, eh?

You could go back and experience it all for yourself.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed May 1, 2013, 11:21 AM

Historic NY (36,486 posts)

53. Wonder how FDR would have done with the internet........

maybe Obama should expand the SCOTUS bench, or have some fireside chats w/ a sweater.

The press corp acts more like a gotcha club then reporters....

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed May 1, 2013, 11:30 AM

Cooley Hurd (26,877 posts)

54. FDR's press conferences were different than the ones by the President nowadays.

FDR would simply invite the WH Press Corps into the Oval Office and chat with them. Plus, there were far fewer press outlets back then.

Reply to this post

Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #54)

Wed May 1, 2013, 04:42 PM

Shrike47 (6,913 posts)

64. There werent very many women in those days, either.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed May 1, 2013, 11:33 AM

treestar (80,796 posts)

56. You would have thought FDR a corporatist at the time

He went into a war
Detention of the Japanese
SS did not apply to everyone. It did not even originally have cost of living increases
Much larger number of Democrats in Congress
Much more political will to change things (a major depression).
Also a rich guy member of the 1% (those are considered wrong for office by today's left).
Who knows how many appointments were of like people.
No internet, all day TV with everyone having a TV, not nearly as many publications

Reply to this post

Response to treestar (Reply #56)

Wed May 1, 2013, 11:53 AM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

58. He was a raging, unambiguous success for the 99%. That's my big issue.

So I don't think you're correct.

I might have been peeved in 1937, but that's about it.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #58)

Wed May 1, 2013, 03:24 PM

treestar (80,796 posts)

62. Still seems like a need to have a hero

SS did not apply to everyone and it would have been considered a major sellout by like minded DUers of today. He was no hero and no better than Obama, may as well consider Obama a hero for Obamacare, it's about the same thing.

Reply to this post

Response to treestar (Reply #62)

Wed May 1, 2013, 08:36 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

65. So your argument is basically

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #65)

Thu May 2, 2013, 12:33 AM

treestar (80,796 posts)

66. It is silly to pretend FDR would get your support

At the time. At the time, it was not enough.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Wed May 1, 2013, 01:54 PM

Doctor_J (36,392 posts)

60. The problem is that the president doesn't seem to have

Any principles that he is willing to stand by. This sequester is an excellent example. Did he really not know when it was enacted that something like the faa thing would happen, and that they would bitch about it? Was whining about it the best he could do? If he believed in it, then he should see it through and make his case.

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)