February 21, 200917 yr In defense of FDR you have to consider when his last two elections were held. 1940 the US was finally coming out of the depression and World War loomed. FDR knew this and didn't think it was time to change with that crisis ahead and knowing we would eventually get into that war. He did not want an isolationist to lead the nation. 1944 the US was winning the war and he wanted to see it through. I can't blame him for that and most presidents want to see the conflict through. Just noting four terms is not enough IMO. You have to examine when he ran and how grave the stakes were in those elections. I disagree with this. What if Bush had used this logic with the war in the Middle East? Do you think it would have been acceptable? I have a very hard time putting FDR near the top of my list. Between my belief that the Great Depression was elongated and the fact that he took 4 terms, I think he is overrated. If he instilled confidence back into the American people, that is a good thing, but I wasn't there so I can't even say for sure if that happened, or how you would measure it.
February 21, 200917 yr In defense of FDR you have to consider when his last two elections were held. 1940 the US was finally coming out of the depression and World War loomed. FDR knew this and didn't think it was time to change with that crisis ahead and knowing we would eventually get into that war. He did not want an isolationist to lead the nation. 1944 the US was winning the war and he wanted to see it through. I can't blame him for that and most presidents want to see the conflict through. Just noting four terms is not enough IMO. You have to examine when he ran and how grave the stakes were in those elections. I understand 1944 easily. I do not fault him there in any way. He did what was needed and any change in leadership during a crisis like that would have been a disaster. That said, why is it that other presidents don't get that kind of consideration? For what it's worth I think he did what was necessary in 1940 and 1944 but I still have my doubts that he would not have run again in 48 had he lived. At that point he could have run on not wanting to change leadership with the looming threat of the Soviets.
February 21, 200917 yr I disagree with this. What if Bush had used this logic with the war in the Middle East? Do you think it would have been acceptable?The Constitution prohibits the President from running for a third term. Bush wouldn't have run again, for he would have been trounced by just about any Democrat with a pulse.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.