Steve CoxKonto zweryfikowane

Well said. This is exactly what I was thinking. I've been doing a fair amount of reading about FDR lately. It turns out, when you say you're going to help people & pass legislation that helps the majority of the country, they re-elect you.

Are you also reading about FDR's VP, Wallace?

Wallace to me seemed to be a necessary prerequisite to balancing out FDR's ticket to make him more palatable to the Southern Democrats, but he was very much a reluctant spectator in the White House almost from the very beginning. Is this more or less how you understand it?

Excuse me, I was thinking of John Nance Garner, the Texan. What did you have to say about Wallace?

FDR opposed the corrupt Democratic machine of Tammany Hall AND the Republicans who sought to undermine his progressive vision. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is for lightweights and amateurs. Genuine reformers work within the system, opposing ALL corruption.

That's not true. A few months after Wallace wrote that in the New York Times, the Democratic Party replaced him as FDR's running mate at the Dem National Conv because he was too friendly to labor and to hostile to business. So when FDR died in early 1945, we got Truman instead.

If you look at the history of labor laws and support for the working class, that has always been driven by Democrats. Blaming the entire Democratic party only augments the Limbaugh talking points and alienates potential allies. Let's talk policies & specifics, not bash parties