Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
67 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
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 May 2013 #26
"But he also had a supportive Democratic congress." ProSense May 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 May 2013 #30
I think what it shows between now and then (FDR's time).... ReRe May 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 May 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 May 2013 #23
Which party are you with? DisgustipatedinCA May 2013 #24
FDR made plenty of mistakes MannyGoldstein May 2013 #25
Maybe you are not aware of precisely what FDR did. longship May 2013 #31
Are you buzzed? ReRe May 2013 #33
I'm afraid you've got it bass-ackwards, BC RufusTFirefly May 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 May 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 May 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

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
2. Could you imagine 998 press conferences by President Obama?
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:32 PM
Apr 2013

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

Thank goodness this is not happening. LOL!


 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
7. He could do group press conferences with Simpson, and Bowles
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:38 PM
Apr 2013

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

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
6. Imagine how different things were then. The press was it.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:38 PM
Apr 2013

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.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
8. It was unthinkable before FDR did it
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:40 PM
Apr 2013

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.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
9. I'm sure he did, and it would still be useful today, moreso.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:45 PM
Apr 2013

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

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
10. A prepared speech is somewhat different from answering pointed questions.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:50 PM
Apr 2013

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

RudynJack

(1,044 posts)
13. The Press was also very different then.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:57 PM
Apr 2013

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.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
14. Actually, they did report that he was paralyzed.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:04 PM
Apr 2013

Although he did his best to hide it.

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

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
18. If FDR were alive today and giving press conferences
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:11 PM
Apr 2013

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.

longship

(40,416 posts)
26. He actually did have a strong congressional opposition.
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:21 AM
May 2013

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.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
35. "But he also had a supportive Democratic congress."
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:48 AM
May 2013

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.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
43. People likely didn't
Wed May 1, 2013, 01:18 AM
May 2013

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/

quakerboy

(13,923 posts)
46. Technically, people have gotten smarter over the years
Wed May 1, 2013, 05:25 AM
May 2013

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.

Lionel Mandrake

(4,076 posts)
20. There was radio.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:26 PM
Apr 2013

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.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
22. I think President Obama
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:57 PM
Apr 2013

"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.





 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
30. And imagine how different ...
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:31 AM
May 2013

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.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
32. I think what it shows between now and then (FDR's time)....
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:37 AM
May 2013

... is how secretive our government is now.

 

datasuspect

(26,591 posts)
51. we had statesmen who STOOD for office way back when
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:17 PM
May 2013

now we have corporate lackey hacks who RUN for office.

there's a difference there.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
59. LEADERSHIP!!!
Wed May 1, 2013, 01:11 PM
May 2013
[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]
 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
21. I'll confess to being taken aback at the recent deification of FDR.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:35 PM
Apr 2013

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

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
23. Say what?
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:02 AM
May 2013

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.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
24. Which party are you with?
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:06 AM
May 2013

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

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
25. FDR made plenty of mistakes
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:06 AM
May 2013

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.

longship

(40,416 posts)
31. Maybe you are not aware of precisely what FDR did.
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:32 AM
May 2013

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!

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
33. Are you buzzed?
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:43 AM
May 2013

... 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!

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
34. I'm afraid you've got it bass-ackwards, BC
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:44 AM
May 2013

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.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
49. You're the only one who understood, but I didn't make it clear.
Wed May 1, 2013, 08:11 AM
May 2013

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.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
42. My mom was a teenager and young adult during FDR's presidency.
Wed May 1, 2013, 01:16 AM
May 2013

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

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
48. Voted for Nixon, too. And Ron Paul against Reagan.
Wed May 1, 2013, 08:07 AM
May 2013

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

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
57. FDR: "I welcome their hatred"
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:35 PM
May 2013

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

treestar

(82,383 posts)
63. Especially when it is clear that AT THE TIME
Wed May 1, 2013, 04:26 PM
May 2013

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.

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:
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:22 AM
May 2013

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.)

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
37. Aw, don't feel so bad....
Wed May 1, 2013, 01:03 AM
May 2013

...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.

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
40. My side?
Wed May 1, 2013, 01:07 AM
May 2013

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.)

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
44. Thanks...
Wed May 1, 2013, 01:27 AM
May 2013

I am very sensitive (ask Manny ) about the non-use of the sarcasm thingy. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
47. I got it, but sarcasm is tough to telegraph these days
Wed May 1, 2013, 07:17 AM
May 2013

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

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
50. Fair enough.
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:16 PM
May 2013

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.

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
67. For the record, Manny:
Thu May 2, 2013, 12:49 PM
May 2013

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.


Historic NY

(37,460 posts)
53. Wonder how FDR would have done with the internet........
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:21 PM
May 2013

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....

 

Cooley Hurd

(26,877 posts)
54. FDR's press conferences were different than the ones by the President nowadays.
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:30 PM
May 2013

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.



treestar

(82,383 posts)
56. You would have thought FDR a corporatist at the time
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:33 PM
May 2013

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

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
58. He was a raging, unambiguous success for the 99%. That's my big issue.
Wed May 1, 2013, 12:53 PM
May 2013

So I don't think you're correct.

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

treestar

(82,383 posts)
62. Still seems like a need to have a hero
Wed May 1, 2013, 04:24 PM
May 2013

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.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
60. The problem is that the president doesn't seem to have
Wed May 1, 2013, 02:54 PM
May 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I was wrong about FDR hol...