by shostakovich » Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:37 pm
Hi all. I've been away from the BBB for a bit. It seems I dug something of a hole for myself. I'll try to respond a bit here. However, continue with the hijack. It may be more rewarding.
As I look over the predictions, they mostly say Bush will be Bush. The "draft" was an actual prediction. The 2-term limit??
From RichC:
"Shos,
A constitutional amendment will take decades to pass, not years. First to get it through Congress and then have it voted on by each state!"
--------------------------------------------------------
The way W is lining up his ducks, it won't take long to get it to congress. IF it passes, then 2/3 of the states are likely to follow. I'm only guessing that 2/3 ratifying will make it binding on all. Please enlighten me. I may have to read the entire Constitution some year.
------------------------------------------------------------
From Haggis [with me in brackets]: "I almost decided to let you drink the koolaide without commenting, but I'm a sucker for "lost causes".
Shos, please tell me you’re being deliberately oh-so-cleverly ironic to illustrate that if we accept all of your dire predictions and fears as gospel, then that only means that we’ve been here before???
[The predictions are certainly fears. Not everybody sees them as dire. Gospel?? I don't ask anybody to believe (till they happen).]
The good news, of course, is we survived the first American dictator (true, only after he'd been president for almost 16 years and only after he died…) and if you’re hell bent on believing Bush is heading in that direction, well, then, we’ll survive the second American dictator as well.
[I was going from personal memory, the farther back the shabbier. Personal recollections of Roosevelt are non-existent, so I'll accept your facts on him.]
Shos,
Do you have any idea that you’ve just described the United States’ political landscape between 1932 and 1952? The similarities between what you predicted and what the Democrats did for over 20 years are so eerily accurate I'd almost believe you were consulting a history book while you composed it.
First Roosevelt was elected in 1932 [I didn't do it], and then the democrats took both houses of congress in 1936 [I was still busy messing my diaper]. Then Roosevelt began passing sweeping social laws including the military draft [for jobs?], civilian construction brigades [for jobs?], the National Industrial Recovery [for jobs?], Social Security [Now that I get a little, I think it was a smashing idea. However, let nobody imagine it will be enough to live on.] and the Wagner Acts [They are long-winded. Tannhauser has the best ones.].
When the Supreme Court began over turning many of his cherished programs, Roosevelt threatened to pack the court by adding more “favorable” Justices
[favoring what?]
court packing
“In a private meeting with cabinet members and the Senate Democratic Leadership, Roosevelt announced a plan to introduce legislation that would reform the federal judiciary. Under the guise of easing the backlog of cases that faced the "aged, overworked justices," Roosevelt intended to ask Congress for the power to appoint one additional judge to the federal judiciary (including the Supreme Court) for every justice who had reached the age of seventy but declined to retire. While his ostensible purpose was to increase the efficiency of the judiciary, it was clear that Roosevelt was targeting six of the nine Supreme Court justices who had challenged his domestic programs.”
[Bush should only have such domestic programs.]
“The Real Deal: The Battle To Define FDR’s Social Programs” University of Virginia
"The balance of power... has been tipped out of balance by the Courts in direct contradiction of the high purposes of the framers of the Constitution. It is my purpose to restore that balance"
FDR, Fireside Chat march 9, 1937
Shos, you’ll love this one;
“This is the end of this business centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the president that we’re not going to let this government centralize everything. It’s come to an end.”
[I don't know what this was about. Other than that, I'm sure I would love it.]
Justice Louis Brandeis, considered a liberal justice, on striking down the price-fixing powers of Title I of National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) Roosevelt’s central and first major law enacted after taking power- er, after being inaugurated.
(Ed. “we’re not going to let this government centralize everything. It’s come to an end.”
“Sigh, if only”)
Can you believe Bush would even propose such a thing; much less that Congress would begin legislating it as it had begun doing in 1937? [Don't know enough to comment.]
Of course, during WWII FDR’s used E.O. 9066 to lock up Japanese Americans but he also locked up troublesome people and dissenters in St. Elizabeths mental hospital for the duration of the war without due process.
[I heard that German Americans were also put into camps. This is an American shame that we will never live down ------like slavery and elimination of Native Americans.]
By any standards Bush’s Gitmo is a piker compared to Roosevelt.
[I agree here, but Roosevelt did SOME things right by my reckoning. Bush hasn't.]
Serenity mentioned that the president needs to control the media. Well, the press in the 1930’s was as conservative as the press today is liberal.
[My theory is the press opposes the contemporary administration.] Given the example of the blatantly anti-Bush MSM, the advent of the Internet and fax machines, I think control of the press remains a fantasy rather that a reality.
[I hope you are right. I sense (fear) the press is more cowed at televised press conferences lately.]
I’m too busy to illuminate all the similarities, but there are more outrageous examples of an “out of control [???] president” in Roosevelt’s presidency than Bush could ever hope to achieve, just Google “Roosevelt” in combination with most of your predictions.
[I wouldn't say either man was/is out of control]
You do have something to worry about though; after the Democrats took both houses in Congress in 1936 they held that control, except for a brief period in the 50’s, until 1995. If you believe that is a precedent, then we don’t expect the Dems to regain both house until sometime in the second half of the 21st century!
[Oh, Christ, I'll never make it.]
Guys, I’m seeing some relatively reasonable people here talking and sliding themselves in to some kind of dark “conspiracy world” and I’m not sure that’s very healthy. My father seethed and fumed for the entire Clinton presidency, predicting that Clinton would ruin the country and destroy the Constitution, I believe that unrelenting and largely undeserved hatred and bile hastened his death.
[Sorry to hear that. Your advice is good. I'm going to TRY to ease up, but I will continue to believe the election was an American tragedy.]
Against all my father’s fondest, bitterest hopes to be proven right, the country survived and moved on. And against all your fondest, bitterest hopes to be proven right, the United States will “survive” and move on.
[My fondest hope is to be proven wrong. My bitterest belief is that I won't. I actually have made more mistakes in the last 4 years than bush admits to ---- on mystery composers alone.]
--------------------
Haggis
