Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (5249)	3/5/2004 10:06:22 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

re: FDR Here's a very interesting article. 2004 election offers voters real choice So different are President Bush and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry - in everything from personal style to their approaches to major international, domestic and cultural issues facing the country - that voters have, in effect, a choice between ratifying America's current path and charting a new one. Like other historic elections, in 1980, 1964 and 1932, the outcome of this year's vote could usher in a radically different way of governing. It's worth noting that the three earlier elections produced landslides. But whoever wins, and by whatever margin, the outcome will have important consequences for Americans' prosperity and safety and for their country's role in the world. "The difference couldn't be more stark," said Susan Dunn, a presidential historian and co-author of a new book on George Washington. What changed to produce today's once-in-a-generation turning point? As in the 1980 and 1932 elections, the political system experienced a shock. In 1980, the country was suffering economic stagnation and the humiliation of its embassy personnel held hostage in Iran. Pious Democratic President Jimmy Carter offered a stay-the-course approach and painted Ronald Reagan as a dangerous radical. Reagan offered voters change, along with an easy smile and upbeat manner. In 1932, the Great Depression was the shock. Republican Herbert Hoover was the stay-the-course candidate and Gov. Franklin Roosevelt of New York was the fresh, silver-tongued alternative. While Roosevelt sounded moderate as a candidate, he had a record as a government activist that he returned to after winning the White House. In 2004, the country has been attacked and has lost 2.2 million jobs, the worst performance since Hoover's term. Bush's reactions to those shocks coaxed to the forefront a sharply conservative philosophy largely obscured in the 2000 election. As in the election of 1964, which pitted Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater against President Lyndon Johnson, the out-of-power party decided to sharpen the differences. Against Johnson's plans for the greatest expansion of the government since FDR's New Deal, Goldwater offered "a choice, not an echo." This time around, Democrats have rebelled after going along with Bush on the war in Iraq, revamping education and other issues. Many of them blamed their 2002 midterm congressional losses on their party's acquiescence to Bush. Their anger, at Bush and their own party, fed former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's early run for the Democratic presidential nomination. It also forced Democratic candidates to emphasize their opposition to Bush at every opportunity. mercurynews.com