I love it when I get letters like this from Ken Mehlman:
Dear John,
Yesterday’s era of Democrats like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy brought real ideas and solutions to the table in an attempt to make a better life for the American people. Unfortunately, today’s Democrat Party is not the one your parents knew. Instead, today’s Democrats are singularly focused on obstruction and over-the-top rhetoric, adding nothing to raise the level of discourse and address the concerns of Americans.
Coming on the heels of Rove’s comments, I would just be quiet about over-the-top rhetoric. But what really has me laughing is the deferential treatment of FDR and Kennedy. My grandfather, to the day he died, hated FDR. He called him “that hop-legged son-of-a-bitch.” And don’t even get me started about the Kennedy.
Imagine it is the year 2035, and you get this letter:
Dear John,
Yesterday’s era of Democrats like William Jefferson Clinton and Jimmy Carter brought real ideas and solutions to the table…
You get the point.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
I get several points, but not the one you’re trying to make, I think. First, this whole nonsense about it being more partisan now then ever is crap. Your grandfather and mine were as anti-FDR as Democrats are now anti-Bush. Seeing a guy get elected FOUR TIMES against YOUR guy will breed as much resentment as Florida 2000.
The other point I get is that both FDR (“America must be the great arsenal of democracy”) and JFK (“pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty”) did indeed have policies that would put them well outside the philosophy (if “Whatever the President does, we’ll say it’s stupid without proposing any alternatives” qualifies even loosely as a philosophy) of Dean/Pelosi/DaschleReid Obstructocrats. It seemed like in the Clinton years, we got a steady stream of JFK and FDR quotes from the Dems — now, strangely, not so much.
Since Carter and Clinton are active Bush-bashers (less so Clinton, since he…well…attacked Iraq and sought regime change there because of an unproven WMD threat) in retirement, it is unlikely that they will be recalled fondly, even in 2035. Since neither FDR or JFK lived to Monday Morning QB against Ike or Nixon, they didn’t engender the same ill will to most living Republicans, and their policies and statements can be easily extrapolated to current policies in a way that would be very pleasing to the GOP.
The other point is, if you want to be revered by a mass audience who otherwise wouldn’t give you the time of day…die at the height of your powers. Just ask Kurt Cobain.
Grotesqueticle
Kennedy, one bright shining moment via the cuban missile crisis. Didn’t really accomplish anything positive besides that. I am not his biggest fan.
FDR on the other hand. I understand perfectly why a certain segment of American society hated him so much. The same segment that runs the country now. The same segment that wants to strip away the programs he instituted that form the social safety net for the working class and poor.
All he did was save capitalism from the “evils” of socialism. No mean feat for a liberal.
Rick
Basically, what Compu said. John, you’re just a “kid” who wasn’t around to witness the crack-up of the Democrats in re: Vietnam.
FDR and JFK wer made of sterner stuff than can be found in any plausible party leader these days. And JFK advocated tax cuts, too. Damn fascist, he was.
Cordially…
M. Scott Eiland
For better or worse, FDR and Kennedy *did* accomplish things, including some things that modern conservatives approve of (FDR: fought isolationists and led us to war against evil JFK: tax cuts). Fifty years from now, Clinton’s record is going to look a lot like Calvin Coolidge’s (I’ll give him props for pushing NAFTA through). Carter’s got even less going for him, unless historians fraudulently give him the lion’s share of the credit for what Sadat and Begin accomplished, or if they think it’s cool that he spent a good part of his time after leaving office kissing anti-American dictator ass in order to scare up a Peace Prize or two.
M. Scott Eiland
Hmmm; obviously, there should be a period after “evil”, and the next sentence begins with “JFK” (For the benefit of young people here, FDR did not lead the US to war against JFK’s evil tax cuts). :-)
Rick
M. Scott,
Atop all this, of course, is that former President’s pick up a gloss in memory. What conservatives abhor in the present as “Strange New Respect.”
But time heals most wounds. Or at least, all wounds for most.
Cordially…
ppgaz
Republicans seem to think that history is about which presidents get the monuments. Quick, name a lot of buildings for Reagan before people really look at history and figure out what he really was.
Democrats prefer to think that history is about who looked out for the average Joe. What’s his legacy going to be?
Ask Joe in 25 years when he and his kids and their kids are saddled with the Jupiter-sized ball of debt their country is in, wondering why their grandfathers argued about gay marriage when they should have been paying attention to business, to the imminent world oil production peak, to the refusal to extend CAFE standards and keep pressuring the auto industry into more efficient and less-polluting products, to figuring out how we became a country that launches wars of opportunity with not even enough planning to handle the first two years after “winning” them, to why we sat by and watched serious problems go unresolved while a Republican Congress passes flag-burning amendments and Schiavo bills?
Screw the momuments. It’s the people that matter.
Rick
Democrats prefer to think that history is about who looked out for the average Joe.
ppgaz,
Tut, tut.
To elaborate, you’ve outraged and slander and questioned the patriotism of half the country, just like Deathstar Karl! Wait’ll Mr. Cole gets on your case.
Cordially…
nyrev
Do you really think that, Rick? Really, really? Because if you do think that ppgaz’s comment is in any way similar to Karl’s accusations about Democrats sympathizing with the 9/11 hijackers and Bin Laden– well, no wonder you still support this administration. Delusional people are funny like that.
Stormy70
I am delusional and funny, plus, my Dad hated FDR and Kennedy. He’s old school Republican.
The average Joe now votes Republican, so why would the Democrats be looking out for them now?
Kimmitt
So the average Joe is white, then?
Geoff
The average Joe who votes Republican IS obviously delusional, a ‘useful idiot’ for politicians whose only authentic base is the rich and the corrupt. Stir ’em up with the irrational emotionalism, get elected, and then fleece them and the rest of us. Half the nation is tricked by thier own irrational fear and hatred to vote against their own best interest. Truly an evil thing, but very effective.
Rick
Because if you do think that ppgaz’s comment is in any way similar to Karl’s accusations about Democrats sympathizing with the 9/11 hijackers and Bin Laden– well, no wonder you still support this administration. Delusional people are funny like that.
nyrev,
If you believe that even remotely approximates what Rove said, then you are certainly an expert on delusions people can experience. And not in a good way. I mean, is that how your inner voice translates his remarks?
But, to be charitable, I think you’ve been herded to that position by the escalating gnashing of teeth and rending of garments of the congenitally offended in these parts.
Cordially…
Bob
Democrats sympathetic to the bin Ladens of the world? Hardly.
Well a certain Republican was business partners with them. And while the towers burned and air traffic was mostly on the ground, those private charters whisked lots of uncles back to Saudi Arabia.