Must See TV !!!!!! (I don't advocate much TV viewing)

"Working quietly, Attorney General Cummings drafted a bill that, on the surface, appeared to streamline the entire federal court system. But the real target was the Supreme Court. Cummings proposed that Congress pass a law granting the president the power to nominate an additional judge for every federal judge who, having served a minimum of 10 years, did not resign or retire within six months after reaching age 70. In effect, this would enable FDR to add up to six more justices to the Supreme Court as well as nearly 50 more lower-court federal judges. Of course, the Senate would still have to approve his nominations"

....but he did say (about SC appointments, during one of the 2000 debates), "What we need are some good Conservative judges."

So while he may not have "threatened" to pack the Court, he sure expressed his desire to do it.

It's a long way from expressing an opinion that the court needs to be more conservative, and thereby appealing to your base, to formulating legislation to pack the court. Of course, since FDR led the way...

FDR inherited the worst economic crisis this country has ever faced (from the Republicans, incidentally), and a people utterly unwilling to consider intervention in the European war. Every Administration prepares responses to the conflicts around it and keeps it quiet. But the difference between Bush and FDR is that Bush declared war on a country which was as we have discovered manifestly no threat, while FDR kept us out of a war where American interests were involved (Europe) and awaited some precipitating event that would unite the country. Bush split the country by his invasion. FDR united it by careful waiting and some moderate provocation of the Japanese.

FDR was edging toward convoying American supplies using American warships by September 1941 and without congressional or national approval. The USN destroyer Reuben James was sunk by a German U-boat in that month if my memory is accurate, and a couple more sinkings like that and we would have been in the war against Germany.

Consider:

"Yesterday, December 7th, 1941, a date which will live in infamy, the United States was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the Naval and Air Forces of the Empire of Japan.

versus

19 civilian terrorists with box cutters hijacked 4 passenger jets. Were they soldiers? No. Did they represent a country? No. Were they officially sanctioned by any nation? No Did they have anything to do with Iraq? NO.

I love FDR, but I deplore some of his chicanery, though I deplore the short sightedness of the American public in not recognizing Hitler for what he was even more. Had FDR and America stepped in to stop Hitler, would Japan have attacked? Not a chance.

All available documents show Japan was working hard to convince itself that the US was too weak and disunited to fight in any coordinated way. And they were right for most of 1942. The US got lucky at Midway, though it was the luck of a group of very dedicated, prepared, and heroically courageous men, and the presence of a seriously damaged aircraft carrier which was somehow patched up and sent out and its crew who ultimately sacrifice itself to offer that tiny edge between victory and defeat. It is a wonderful and tragic story. I suggest you look up the details of the USN aviators who fought at Midway, and few of whom in the Attack squadrons, Torpedo or Dive Bombers, survived.

FDR was the ultimate crafty pol. If you can't see that and still acknowledge his brilliance and his carin for America you're in deep trouble. Republicans could and did work with FDR and even Republicans wept when he died.

If you're looking for fruitless outrage, by all means watch the program with a jaundiced eye. If you're looking for a complex and extraordinary story of politics which benefitted everyone in the United States, not just George Bush's "base" then watch and wish we had someone like him again.

Rob Boyter

Not bad for off the top of my head with no references used.

Canadian History TV. It's has a different line up and some programs take a few weeks to come through.

Rob

that is far from clear (it has been suggested that FDR knew far more about the impending attack on Pearl than was ever admitted; did FDR sacrifice American lives to reach his objective?). The problem comes from attempting to condemn George Bush for far less drastic things, most of which he never did, while defending FDR's actions. That's hypocracy.

No, it's not a revelation. Just a timely reminder and an illustration of applying a double standard.

..... but FDR did have a success with which most will agree...

He brought this country together and sparked deep-felt patriotism in war time, and made us willing to do what we could to support the war effort, including financing it.

As far as sex, I personally do not think it enriched my life at all for it to be later revealed to have been a failing from our Founding Fathers on. And after they and most of the others were dead.

Angeline


click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

the Depression came first, and was the proximate cause of most of the legislation the thread started with).

But war always brings 'collateral damage' off the battlefield, from camp followers to selling bad beef to soldiers. In recent history it has brought warfare "home" in the form of restrictions on civil liberties. These, then, can be counterproductive in terms of making citizens less likely to support and more likely to oppose the war and the measures used to pursue it.

My sexual comment was irrelevant and out of line; sorry.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

...remember the Depression, and saw its effects. I also saw what the WPA and CCC accomplished.

During the war one couldn't get a new tube of toothpaste unless one returned the empty one. Rationing went OK in my family. There was fraud and crimes associated with it, of course. But most were happy to "do their part".

IMO, that is what is lacking now. I can support our troops, use gasoline wisely, etc. Though we have Homeland Security, we don't have a Home Front. Those "in the trenches" who hold mock disaster drills, for instance, are doing something positive.

We responded after Pearl Harbor, and for a while after 9/11.

I realize it is a different age, a different breed of enemy, a different war.

Angeline


click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

for him to hear supposed stories of affairs (only 2 that I know of Lucy Mercer and ?)? We all make mistakes, and within his class and time I doubt that he was even fifth tier philanderer, just as I am very skeptical about the "lesbian" allegations about Eleanor Roosevelt. Women were much free-er to support one another, and to hug and kiss and hold one another in the 19th and early 20th century. Given what we know of her character the allegations appear baseless to me.

Rob

Accusations of sexual misconduct have not been limited to past or newer Presidents. They've been happening for centuries, even among the non-powerful.

Some feel that our Presidents should be held to a higher standard. For me, the higher standard is that they are better leaders than the average person, can inspire confidence, unite the country, pick good advisors, be willing to compromise, and accept that the buck stops with him. (I am aware that they have to be politically savvy, and have great "handlers" to be elected.) Of course, I wouldn't want one who used illegal drugs, was an abuser , or committed felonies.

Otherwise, I am electing a man (I'm not ready for a female yet), and I do not expect him to be the Second Coming.

Angeline


click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

am at least involved in the discussion despite your entry. Can we assume that all are permitted their opinions or is in now conservative doctrine that once a conservative has invaded a discussion no one else may reply, no matter what their prior involvement in that thread?

Just like a conservative to limit the terms of discussion to suit themselves. I just didn't realize it included contributors and not merely contributions.

Rob

..... he has not run for President.

If he does, he does not satisfy the criteria that I cited.

Angeline


click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

I find myself a bit confused. It would be fair to say that you and I don't always see eye to eye on issues -- particularly politics -- but while we often disagree, I have admired your consistency on most issues. This is why my radar went up here. You have made statements regarding Guiliani basically discounting him because of his "affair" with Judith Nathan. That seems fair enough, but when juxtaposed with Bill Clinton it seems hardly consistent. His lapses with fidelity were well known enough ahead of time to warrant the 60 Minute Makeover. I think the purpose of that stunt was to assure the American public that, although there may have been indiscretions in the past, they were private matters and, in the PAST. In other words, the underlying message to the voting public was that we wouldn't have to worry about that should he get elected. Had I been one to have voted for Clinton while swallowing my convictions regarding personal behavior or public officials on this promise, "utter betrayal" would be the only term to describe the outcome.

Unless someone actually thinks that "I didn't inhale" meant he didn't use illegal drugs, I believe Clinton fails on this criteria. Add to that the far greater body of evidence of cocaine use (witnesses that are willing to be identified by name as well as his brother on tape!) than for Dubya, and it is hard to see how he could pass this criteria. I don't recall Guiliani admitting drug use. His public policy re: drugs has been to nip crime in the bud by putting drug users behind bars. Some say this is crazy -- but the reduced violent crime rates during his administration demonstrate otherwise.

Clinton's history as an abuser ... well ... let's boil it down to a comparison to Guiliani, who I don't recall even allegations in his case.

As to leadership and getting results, Guiliani's track record in NYC far outshines Clinton's as Governer or even President. On any of his great initiatives, nothing of consequence ever ended up getting done. The same can't be said for Guiliani who transformed NYC -- especially in the realm of crime and quality of life, and that was pre-9/11.

Back to the fidelity issue ... because this was really what I was asking about in my "why so hard on Rudy" query. If we can accept that Presidents (and other public officials) shouldn't be held to higher standards of fidelity in office, it would seem we could at least still apply some standards.

The whole flap about Nathan being allowed in Gracie Mansion while the divorce was going through was a farce. GM is the residence of the MAYOR. As soon as the divorce was initiated, it was Hanover who should have found other living quarters, and taken the kids with her if she wanted. This is not like a divorce where a home owned by the couple is involved -- temporary residence tends to be given to the mother and kids and Dad moves out (usually regardless of who files for divorce). It was a joke that the Governer was forced to move out of the PUBLIC quarters for his office. It was probably not the best thing for Guiliani to go public with his relationship with Nathan at the time, but MANY people date before divorces are final on paper. While there will forever be speculation that they were involved prior to the split, it is not known for certainty. The strains of the Hanover-Guiliani marriage were known almost from the get-go and she is certainly not innocent in flaming the fires of the public face of that relationship either. Sad that it has to be highlighted so much, but moving on romantically from a relationship that is in the formal process of splitting up is miles different from getting oral sex from a woman scantly older than one's daughter in the public offices of one's public office, and while occasionally doing the public's business

I don't think I would want Guiliani as President. He would be much better as AG IMO.

Evie

As I said before, RG has not become a presidential candidate, for which my criteria is based. I heard he did some good things re: crime in NYC. He apparently is a good politician.

He did what a Mayor should do after such a tragedy as 9/11.

Otherwise, he has not impressed this non-New Yorker. I have heard some of his speeches and interviews, and found him average.

I am not naive enough to expect one man to meet all of my list. Nor does to which party he belongs matter, as I find both of them very wanting. So the one who will get my vote is which impresses me (in the eye of the beholder, I know). If I'm impressed enough, I'll campaign for him. If it's like in 2004, I won't.

You are a Northeasterner, so know the politicians and their records there better than I. The same goes for me as a Southeasterner. Sometimes the good they do does not make much national media coverage. The bad is what makes the headlines!

As far as consistency, I have lived too long to not know that total consistency means stagnation and no personal growth. (One reason why I want a leader who will be willing to compromise.) I have changed my mind more than once, but on this I remain firm - a candidate's personal life should remain personal. Let's wait until they are out of office or dead to proclaim their human failings. We didn't have the scoop on our Founding Fathers, but this country has done quite well without having known.

Angeline


click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

about our immediate future? It doesn't. It does talk about the ultimate second coming of Jesus, but we don't know if that will be tomorrow or 500 years from now.

?For this is what we tell YOU by Jehovah?s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep [in death]; because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel?s voice* and with God?s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with [the] Lord. Consequently keep comforting one another with these words.? (1Th 4:15-1

But he didn't live to see that. Another JW false prophet, I suppose.

*This is, of course, our Lord Jesus restored to his prehuman condition as Michael the Archangel.

I dont obey the New World Translation. The Lord the Christian worships is clearly distinguished apart from the angels. There are angels and then there is the Son who is better than the angels because the angels worship Him-Hebrews chapter one.

is somehow wrong? What does your bible say?
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

How can you "comfort one another with these words" when more than half the Jehovah's Witnesses dont even believe they are going to be "with the Lord" It's tragically ironic.

"More than half"
Many fewer, actually; only about a tenth of a percent of those now alive on the earth. Your sources for JW beliefs are seriously out-of-date, if they're not wilfully ignorant. FYI I consider myself in the majority, not in the heavenly .0013.

Please let me address a 'silent question' that's often underlying yours: 'Poor Witnesses; why do you let some old guys in Brooklyn tell you that you can't go to Heaven?'

Answer is another question:
What do you make of Ps 115:16?
"As regards the heavens, to Jehovah the heavens belong,
But the earth he has given to the sons of men*."

At "sons of men" the NWT margin shows six cross-references. See what you make of their application. Then, compare their picture of the earth with the planet we now live on. Do you find the bible's teaching 'comforting?' I certainly do.

*Further, God blessed them and God said to them: ?Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.?? (Ge 1:2

?When the Most High gave the nations an inheritance, When he parted the sons of Adam from one another, He proceeded to fix the boundary of the peoples With regard for the number of the sons of Israel.? (De 32:

?The righteous themselves will possess the earth, And they will reside forever upon it.? (Ps 37:29)

?For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the [true] God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited: ?I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.? (Isa 45:1

??I myself have made the earth, mankind and the beasts that are upon the surface of the earth by my great power and by my stretched-out arm; and I have given it to whom it has proved right in my eyes.? (Jer 27:5)

?And he made out of one [man] every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of the dwelling of [men],? (Ac 17:26)
Regards, Doug in New Mexico