To: DavesM who wrote (173810 ) 7/16/2006 3:06:43 PM From: NightOwl Respond to of 793772 Well Mr. DavesM... I think I'd say... that if a Roosevelt (take your pick Ted or Frank, its all the same to me) is considered the Father of modern liberalism, then old HHH has to be considered a Step-Father... minimum. I don't pretend to know every member of Congress, but considering the course of post WWII history I frankly can't see any current member of Congress holding a candle to or ever having a larger impact on the liberal agenda than HHH. Comparing him to either Clinton or Lieberman would be like confusing MLK with Jessie Jackson. I wouldn't want go there. <g> I'd also say Teddy designed the house, Franklin built it, and HHH, albeit with LBJ's providing the labor crew, did the major renovation. This crop at the helm today is just moving the furniture around and putting up new drapes. You've got to have leadership before you can even think of achieving what HHH and his fore bearers got done. This Congress just doesn't have the vision and/or star power to get it done. Whether you are a fan of liberalism or a critic, today's politicians just don't come close to matching their fathers and grandfathers. Of course this lack of any leadership that can sell a plan isn't limited to the "liberals" among us. GW has all the leadership skills of a turnip... Wilson or Taft come to mind. But I'm not complaining. Sometimes great leadership can be more of a curse than a blessing. And when you have the uncontested power of the United States, it could be best for all concerned that we have lost the ability to get this sucker clicking on all cylinders, rushing down some highway with no speed limit. History might suggest than when one group or the other finds a leader than can galvanize enough support to reconstruct this "Great Society" again, we'll all be in danger of collapse or worse. If that's the case then I'd just as soon live out my final days with idiots and panderers in charge. <vbg> 0|0