The only truly progressive FDR type candidate is Dennis Kucinich.

[Postman]

I like John Edwards but the facts are the facts.

Dennis Kucinich is untouched by hypocrisy like the other three are.

Kucinich has been consistently anti-war, single-payer national health care, no permanent bases in Iraq, clean energy focused, etc., etc.

P.S. It is outrageous that none of the other candidates spoke up on behalf of Dennis Kucinich and FOR democracy in general in MSNBC deciding who it is that the public should hear views from.

[salvorhardin]

1. Really?

You might try looking into his views on women's reproductive choice and secularism. Also, his recent high appraisal of Ron Paul is rather shocking.

[Postman]

4. How's this...

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Abortion.htm

Q: You started pro-life. Can you elaborate on what that was that made you change your mind?
A: I've always worked to make abortions less necessary, through sex education and birth control. But the direction that Congress has taken, increasingly, is to make it impossible for women to be able to have an abortion if they need to protect their health. So when I saw the direction taken, it finally came to the point where I understood that women will not be truly free unless they have the right to choose


http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/01/13/dennis-kucinich-on-churchstate-separation.htm

Domestically, it important for us to remember that our Constitution protects all of us to worship as we choose in the faith of our choice. Our founding fathers recognized that for us to enjoy religious freedom, there must be a complete separation of church and state. This does not keep spirituality out of our public lives, nor should it. It does, however, ensure that our government does not favor any one religion or another.

To use as an example of hypocrisy Dennis' "High appraisal" of Ron Paul is just plain ridiculous. It's called political rhetoric. You DO realize that outside of his anti-war views, Ron Paul is a lunatic and is antithetical to practically everything Kucinich advocates...

[TheModernTerrorist]

39. a poster said most of the rest

and much better than I could (by posting links I didn't know about), but as for the Ron Paul thing, its common knowledge that he and Ron Paul are good friends within Congress, probably (and this is pure speculation on my part) because they represent ideologies that differ from their more centrist counterparts, though I'm sure they could've just had a nice discussion over lunch or something :)

[TZ]

80. Would you be so aww shucks if

Kucinich was friendly with Lieberman? Somehow I think not.

[TheModernTerrorist]

86. well put

point taken. Don't think I have an argument for that one :)

[Double T]

2. Agreed, but Americans largely prefer the status quo.........

which is the main reason DK polls and receives votes in the low single digit numbers.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Oh yeah? Kucinich is ANTI-CHOICE!

Well, at least he was, several years ago.

But if you're going to distort, at least be thorough about it.

--p!

[DesertRat]

5. Kucinich believes that abortions should always be legal.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm

[Dogmudgeon]

22. Yep. Today.

But a few years ago, he was "pro-life".

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_Dennis_Kucinich_Pro_Life

If Hillary has to bear the burden of being a Goldwater Girl in 1964, then the Kucinich partisans should at least own up to DK's fairly recent anti-choice stance.

Incidentally, I do like DK, and I hold none of these things against the candidates. I am interested in policy and proposals, not screams and rants about who is "corporate". We have at least 4 excellent candidates. This is a cood time to be a Democrat.

--p!

[DesertRat]

24. If you click on the link in my post

You'd see that it addresses his journey from pro-life to pro-choice in 2002. Unlike the Republicans who jump all over candidates for "flip-flopping", I understand and can respect those who have a change of heart on an issue over time.

[Dogmudgeon]

35. Actually I agree

We have all been using our rhetoric loosely; even DK has to an extent. Does anyone seriously think that Hillary is a racist, or that Obama hates gay people? And the frequent cry of "corporate!" is getting embarrassing -- corporatism is a "structural" problem that taints and diminishes us all, and every political leader alive can be tarred with that brush. We risk reducing the word to the level of a teen-ager's insult, like calling someone a "fat fuck" or "douche bag"; we need it to accurately describe an onerous social and political situation.

HRC may have been a teen-age Republican, but she's been liberal-to-radical since college. Many of the neo-cons brag about how they were once leftists, but "saw the light". And while I am not uncritical of her, most of the recent rhetoric against Hillary is not reality-based, but in screeds. We should have no time for screeds of any sort, unless they are directed toward the common enemy, the Right. (Even there, we have to back up our rhetoric with facts. Fortunately, that has been an easy task.)

Holding candidates up to criteria of perfection is an easy way out for those who do not want to take the risk of supporting a particular agenda or candidate. We have a choice in primary season and in the fall election, and that is my focus.

So, yes -- I understand both Dennis Kucinich and Hillary Clinton's changes of heart. And similar changes on the part of Barack Obama and John Edwards and Al Gore and John Kerry ... etc. After all, this is the era for it.

--p!

[TheModernTerrorist]

40. did he ever do anything

or make any actions to ban abortions? Just because he was pro-life himself does not mean that he attempted to enact any policies that barred women from this. If so, I'd love to be educated :)

[timtom]

70. "But a few years ago, he was 'pro-life'."

So, don't vote for him a few years ago!

[Clark2008]

92. And a few years ago, Edwards co-sponsored the war, whilst

HRC voted for it. Edwards co-wrote parts of the PATRIOT Act and they both supported NCLB.

Just a few weeks ago, Edwards, HRC AND Obama all put forth health care plans that didn't take the middle man - for-proft insurance companies - out of the picture.

I'm not sure who you're for, but our Dem slate is pretty bare, if you ask me.

[King Coal]

6. That is crazy Postman. Gompers maybe.

[Postman]

7. Back up your criticism with facts...

n/t

[King Coal]

31. Well, the fact is that comparing FDR with Dennis is crazy. That's a fact, Jack.

[timtom]

71. You are passionate

but you do not persuade...

[DesertRat]

8. Kucinich is the ONLY person running for President who:

1) voted against the war
2) voted against funding the war 100% of the time
3) voted against the Patriot Act
4) stands for a universal single-payer not-for-profit healthcare system.

[barbtries]

52. i would add a number 5:

advocates bringing the criminals in the WH to justice.

this issue is huge to me personally and DK is the only candidate i've heard whisper one word about it.

[timtom]

72. Reply to 8 AND 52

Doesn't it make ya wanna slap your forehead? How much clearer can it be?

All the political punditry, all the armchair strategists can only attempt to hide the truth.

But they cannot erase it.

"As for me and my house, we will vote Kucinich!"

[DesertRat]

82. Thank you.

Yes, your #5 is a huge issue to me as well. :thumbsup:

[mithnanthy]

91. Your #5

is a BIG issue with me also!

[Johonny]

9. FDR type

Didn't FDR win the presidency 4 times? Kucinich is having a hard time getting a delegate. Clearly Kucinich lacks something that FDR had...

I think most people see Kucinich as McGovern. A person who's ideals they like, but also person that apparently can't organize a presidential campaign.

[Pastiche423]

10. Different era

and different M$M.

The republic had yet to get a stranglehold on the media when FDR was running. BIG DIFFERENCE.

[Kucinich4America]

14. Fortunately, there wasn't much media to control.

Hearst had some control over the newspapers, but radio was open at the time, and FDR played really well on the radio. Could you imagine a polio survivor in a wheelchair campaigning on cable news networks? :scared:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. Polio and wheelchairs are more popular than Kucinich.

[fascisthunter]

30. Goofey Posters Even Less So

[timtom]

74. I've never seen a post of any substance from you.

You are now one of 2 others on "ignore".
Good night.

[Pastiche423]

20. The radio helped FDR in that very few people knew he used a w/c

He was rarely photographed in his chair and could still stand up.

Although we have had a senator (Cleland) and a representative (James Langevin) in Congress, I seriously doubt America is ready for a crip president.

Signed
A crip

[wintersoulja]

12. most people simply dont know who he is

thats the facts jack.
FDR came from entirely different circumstances and his legacy has probably been more misunderstood and abused than Reagan's. albeit for entirely different agendas.

[Johonny]

23. You know

It's not like the race just started. It's not like he hasn't been on the stage with the other candidates. If people don't know who he is, isn't that part HIS fault. There is certainly something lacking in his ability to organize a national campaign.

[wintersoulja]

27. I disagree, he gets unmentioned almost always

but hey, I can always lay back and enjoy it when Edwards supporters complain about him not being mentioned for taking 2nd place, right?
You surely dont need me to point out any particular examples of the way he gets left unsaid, long before he was disinvited, right?
He aint superman, but he has more support here than any other candidate among my acquaintances.
Thats a fact too. Very few voters are remotely informed on facts, issues or history, thanks to the media.

I gotta mention that early debate photo where they cropped him out of the picture. Wasnt that hilarious?

[Johonny]

32. Yip it never the candidates fault

He might have a lot of support with the people you know, but the polls say you don't know enough people:)

It's pretty clear every person that is losing in this election has supports making excuses for why their candidate isn't winning. It appears no supporter wants to admit maybe just maybe some fault lies actually with their candidate.

Do I really want to vote for someone that blames everything(one) else for their mistakes? No. I don't believe Dennis is this type of person.

Personally I think Kucinich isn't stupid and learned a lot from this presidential run. As Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and dare I say Bill Clinton showed there's a lot of ways to generate free media for yourself. Losing in an election cycle does not mean you may never eventually win. Many people have lost their first time through the process.

[wintersoulja]

38. whos losing this election?

are you saying its decided already?
whos making excuses? Im pointing out factual things that are as indisputable as what happened yesterday. The interesting part is how important it is for certain people to suggest alternate realities. Yeah, Kucinich was dealt a fair hand and bungled it, no denying that, no sirree mister, no sirree....

[fenriswolf]

45. when people watch fox news and all they see

is hillary and obama their gonna vote for one or the other. Even if they hear and agree with what kucinich says they are gonna register that they see hill or obama more often and so they are by default more mainstream and viable candidates because if kucinich was the one that was more viable then he would be seen more right? right?? oops thats right the mainstream media has its own agenda.

[wintersoulja]

59. Cant speak too much on this

because I dont watch the noise. But from what Ive seen, Fox has been likelier to have DK on, while people howl that hes a traitor, and ALL outlets censor DK's name. Newspapers, the big three, online news services, and PACIFICA! Amy Goodman seeming to be the strict exception minus Davey D's coverage at the NH circus. This is an across the board blackout. Judge a man by the enemies he makes.
DK must really be something special.

[FREEWILL56]

64. Even the other networks are doing this dirty deed to DK.

You can't even file a motion to impeach the vp and get notoriety. Even the impeachment is pretty much left unmentioned by the MSM. When it is mentioned, it is done in a way that people don't really get a good handle on who is doing what and why. They do a verbal equivalent of burying him with a brief on page 52 next to the classifieds if he's even mentioned at all. I guess it's his fault he doesn't have millions to run ads that the MSM may or may not wish to run for him as it is a free country for the MSM to ignore not only a real Democratic candidate for the presidency, but are well off enough to be able to forego any such high priced ads by him if it were to be offered by him keeping in mind they would refuse anyway seeing as how DK is targetting the coruption and bull shit coming from many areas and this also includes the MSM which is nothing more than more corporations.

[hootinholler]

57. Most people I talk to don't have a clue who he is. n/t

[timtom]

73. Specious and shallow

The media had not been deregulated at that time.

[flvegan]

11. Agreed and Rec #5.

[misternormal]

13. Kucinich doesn't have a chance...

Time for him to kiss it off and lend his support to someone else, and not split the vote any further.

[KoKo]

33. Nah...he should stay in for his RIGHT to BE IN!

He's "step by step" pointing out the flaws in our Election/Voting System in America which has been perverted, corrupted by the McCorporate Media and our OWN PARTY SYSTEM.

Kucinich is bringing up issues that need to be addressed and we have Progressive Interest Groups who can use his "challenges" to write better Legislation based on the actions he has brought...and they can find the "loopholes" to make the CHANGES!

Dennis is using this election to POKE HOLES in "Fair Elections" and to CHALLENGE THE SYSTEM FOR REFORM..that's so badly needed. :applause: for Dennis...he deserves it.

[fenriswolf]

46. if kucinich had backed out by now

I would never have seen so blatent political engineering by a corporation as I saw nbc (GE) do with their debate. They still have no reasnoble excuse as to why they did it after they invited him. To those of you who are glad that he is gone so he doesnt take up anymore time need to have your head checked. He is the only person who is always has and always will stick up for us.

[harmonicon]

61. I know it would go unheeded, but this is the kind of statement that I think should get a big "alert"

Maybe one of the rules on DU should be not badmouthing the very concept of democracy, and/or actively campaigning against democracy.

[robbedvoter]

15. Adding Mike Gravel here

[timtom]

75. As a Kucinich supporter...

I back you 100% on that.

[OzarkDem]

16. Edwards will get us farther

We need Dennis back in his district running for re-election. He can still put the pressure on in Congress.

And yes, having not taken money from corporations or lobbyists, Edwards will be far more likely to impeach than the other two.

[eridani]

54. We need Kucinich pushing Edwards to be even more populist

Also, Edwards might get a clue about our Constitution from Kucinich.

[timtom]

77. Response to 16 and 54:

These are not bad answers.

[malaise]

17. It's outrageous but why are you surprised?

They've been shutting him out for months.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. When it finally crashes they will not have any choice

Look at history... FDR did not, let me repeat this, DID NOT run on the New Deal.

Far from it...

He implemented it and saved capitalism from itself

Whoever gets elected may have the same faustian choice... do what is needed or face pitchforks, tar, feathers et al

[Spike89]

21. Great point

I sometimes despair that learning from history means making it fit your current views for most people. You're right FDR was originally elected not as a great liberal/populist, but on a much more pro-business platform. He changed in office, in reaction to circumstances...essentially, he tried to throw just about everything he could think of at the great depression, the stuff that stuck and worked became known as the new deal(although some argue that we'd have come out of the depression had he done nothing too).
Another "surprise" was LBJ--although he has a very mixed legacy, especially among liberals because of Vietnam, he was surprisingly effective at getting a remarkable amount of very liberal social projects enacted.
If history actually shows anything, it is that presidents aren't always defined by their candidacy and that the best of them are pragmatic enough to actually change their minds/stances when the situation requires it.

[Desertrose]

25. I sure as hell hope you are right...however

did those you mentioned owe their souls to their corporate overlords?

I truly hope that whoever gets in the WH can do something for the people rather than the big moneyed interests, but I somehow have a hard time envisioning this.....

[fascisthunter]

29. This is True. He Ran on a Conservative Platform

if I'm not mistaken.

[whirlygigspin]

41. bang on nadinbrzezinski

you know it

[fenriswolf]

47. right

FDR was great. But his presidancy dealt with an economic disaster. ours is economic, and plus we have the rise of facism in this country as well as a great many foreign relations issues.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. You do know that FDR was bankrolled entirely by wealthy donors

Amongst them less than savory characters like Joe Kennedy. He also completely caved on civil rights in order to get southern support for the New Deal.

FDR did some great things for the country but in order to get those things done he had to compromise with some pretty bad people. Kucinich doesn't compromise with anybody and that is part of the reason that he will get nowhere.

[nonconformist]

34. Great post

:thumbsup:

[Strawman]

65. Exactly

One of his biographers, Jonathan Alter, recently argued that Obama is the most FDR-like http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882

You could make a case that Kucinich's rhetoric is closer to the 1936 FDR's maybe ("I welcome their hatred"). But that FDR suffered more defeats in trying to pass his economic agenda.

[bean fidhleir]

79. He did "some great things" in large part because Huey Long was forcing him to

Insiders in FDR's administration admitted that the second New Deal, which created the WPA and Social Security, was an attempt to "steal Long's thunder".

Long had originally backed him because FDR was making wealth-redistribution noises. But when FDR got into office, he backed off and started making nice to the wealthy. At which point Long abandoned him in disgust and decided to run against him in '36 on the strength of Long's hugely popular "Share Our Wealth" program.

Long was shot dead in 1935.

It's a measure of how scary Long was to the wealthy and the corporations that his memory is still demonized. During his life, he was called a dictator, a fascist, and a communist. As with Hugo today, the only people who loved Huey were the poor.

[Hippo_Tron]

83. Huey Long was notoriously corrupt...

And he had about as much respect for the rule of law and the constitution as the current administration. He did take on the powers that be in Louisiana, but he wasn't someone I would want in the White House.

BTW, as I recall the second New Deal came about because the NRA was declared unconstitutional.

[bean fidhleir]

90. And his corruption was worse than other corruption how?

The big problem seems to have been that he was intelligent, ruthless, and refused to sell out. So everyone heard about his "corruption" from the people who were no longer getting any.

To the wealthy elites, owning and controlling everything is the natural order of things, and anything else is a perversion of nature and ipso facto wrong. One elite woman, with unconscious irony, was quoted in Williams's biography of Long as saying "We weren't hurting anyone, we just wanted to keep what we had". She and her ilk wanted to preserve the antebellum plantation culture in Louisiana since they owned the plantations. Nothing corrupt about that - to them. Huey started dismembering it and wouldn't be bought off, which obviously made him a terrible person. They tried over and over to get rid of him - to discredit him, impeach him, convict him, anything. Nothing worked. So they killed him.

A lot of people who should know better sign up for the elite worldview. It's very helpful in preventing change.


"BTW, as I recall the second New Deal came about because the NRA was declared unconstitutional."

Google the phrase "steal Long's thunder".

[fascisthunter]

28. Recommended

That's why he isn't in the debates.....

Randi proved this on her show today with the Energy Bill.

[GreenPartyVoter]

36. Didn't FDR start out more conservative but then co-opt the Socialist/Populist candidate's

platform?

Or maybe it was the Progressive? *foggy brain*

[ozone_man]

37. That sounds a bit like John Edwards.

:)

Both populists. I remember Edwards talking about two Americas in 2004 campaign, so his conversion wasn't that dramatic. But he has changed to being the progressive populist, of the electable candidates that is.

Kucinich and Gravel represent my political positions best, but the election process is a compromise, if you play that game. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I voted for Nader twice, but I see JE as different from the other two. So does Ralph.

[eridani]

55. Why do you have to compromise in the primary?

Especially if you live in a caucus state.

[ozone_man]

60. If a compromise candidate has a chance to win the primary.

Kucinich has no significant chance to win the Democratic primary. Maybe in 2012 when we are in a serious depression, we will be willing to evaluate candidates on more than superficial levels.

Edwards is a compromise candidate for me, and he has a significant chance of winning still. He is a progressive, though not as progressive as Kucinich. But I think he could be an FDR for where we are going in terms of the economy.

I don't see that much difference between Obama and Clinton, so I would make a vote of conscience for Gravel or Kucinich, if Edwards were not running

[eridani]

84. I'll compromise for Edwards (maybe) and LD and higher level caucuses

No reason to vote for anybody but Kucinich at the precinct level, IMO. In primary states, it all depends on whether it is still close at the top after 2/5. If it is, then voting for Edwards might keep him viable. If not, then Kucinich is a far stronger protest vote than Edwards.

[DemBones DemBones]

43. FDR used Huey Long's ideas. nt

[DemBones DemBones]

42. It is outrageous that Clinton, Edwards, and Obama allowed Kucinich to be excluded

from the debate. Biden, Dodd, and Richardson have withdrawn from the campaign, Kucinich has not. He should have been allowed in the debate.

I won't forget that Clinton, Edwards, and Obama allowed, perhaps supported or even encouraged, the exclusion of Kucinich.

They will be wanting my vote and my money and I will tell them why they will get neither.

[fenriswolf]

48. was kucinich even mentioned in the debates.?

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. No. No mention of UFO's either

[LulaMay]

88. Refreshingly, no!

[fenriswolf]

95. sure is refreshing

for the corporatioins to stop playing around and start choosing our candidates for us. Glad we can now listen to just one candidates.....er i mean three candidates who are backed by the same company....I mean the people.

[TwilightZone]

62. I wasn't aware that Clinton, Edwards, and Obama were responsible for the debate criteria.

It seems that the network had something to do with it.

[harmonicon]

63. don't forget the gravel black-out as well

What they did to DK is even more egregious, because he'd already been invited to the debate. Still, if there were five candidates there, there could be a real debate instead of celebrity show boating.

[LulaMay]

89. Yes, I missed Gravel's 'Who am I? How did I get here? schtick.

You mean he was serious?

Oh.

[harmonicon]

96. yeah, you know, one of those people who actually accomplished something while in the senate.

[LulaMay]

98. I applaud that. His performance in several debates was not good though.

It wasn't benefiting the party or adding to the debates.

Sorry if my quip offended you.

[varelse]

44. Agreed 100%

Dennis has shown courage of conviction and integrity rarely seen in the American political scene of late.

<3 DK

[dansolo]

49. Complete and utter bullshit

If Dennis was President in 1932, I don't believe for a minute that he could have gotten us out of the Depression. And don't even get me started on everything that FDR leading up to WWII. For starters, there is no way that Dennis would have pushed for the Lend-Lease program, which probably prevented Britain from falling to the Nazis, and FDR's war preparation enabled us to win the war. While I do agree that the current "War on Terror" is a joke, I wouldn't want Dennis as president under any circumstance, and to compare him to FDR, the greatest president in the 20th century, is ridiculous.

[ProudDad]

51. You can hear Dennis Kucinich's responses in the debate here

http://www.democracynow.org/

[leftofthedial]

53. the silence of the party and the other candidates over the exclusion of Kucinich

is inexcusable

[Political Heretic]

56. I disagree.

[lonestarnot]

58. Damn shame isn't it....

:cry:

[MGKrebs]

66. MSNBC isn't obligated to host debates at all. Why should they be obligated

to use your invitee list?

Are the candidates obligated to show up? What about their responsibility to get their views out?

Should ALL candidates have to be invited to ALL events?
Or is it just debates?
Won't they just not call them debates then?
Wouldn't the networks just stop hosting them if it got to be too much of a hassle?
Or are we going to MAKE them host debates?
WHO has to host?
What list of organizations has the obligation? Just media companies?

[GreenTea]

76. Yes! Just media companies!

Like General Electric, Murdoch, Viacom, Disney, Time-Warner, CBN, who so desperately want the truth to be told...

You're the voter - Electronic voting machines decide for you!

Don't be unaware of the proprietary software owned by the republican companies that sell, program, maintain and operate the machines with no verification and no way to do an accurate recount what the easily hackable machines reads is who wins....not your vote!

[Whisp]

81. would it be okay with you if only One candidate was given

all that air time?
which one exactly would you support for this, and which one would you not?
seeing as the word 'debate' has been so mangled.
Kucinich is a viable candidate, no matter what you may think about his low support %, he is in the race whether you like it nor not and has a right to participate and have the front runners squinch a bit over his honest and direct comments and questions.

after all, it's private airwaves and NBC can do whatever the hell they please. so having one One candidate 'debate' should be okey dokey :sarcasm:

[MilesColtrane]

67. But can he beat any of the Republican candidates in a national election?

(...or even one of his own party's primaries?)

Magic 8 Ball says, "Doubtful".

[LulaMay]

68. HOW SILLY...I'm GLAD he wasn't in the debate.

In my opinion, he conceded when telling his supporters to vote for Obama if they can't vote for him. He endorsed another candidate and therefore had no place in a debate. I thought he was insincere about his motives for being included.

I question them since he made that endorsement and demanded the recount when Senator Clinton won NH. He has a very poor track record with women's rights, being anti-choice for a long time, and is still less than pro-active on the issue. I think his goal is to support Obama, work against Hillary. He appears to have a problem with women to me.

I'm also glad he wasn't there to mar the atmosphere of the TRUCE our party desperately needed, so the focus could be put back on Bush and the Republicans like it should be.

[Yuugal]

69. Welcome to DU!

"I'm also glad he wasn't there to mar the atmosphere of the TRUCE our party desperately needed, so the focus could be put back on Bush and the Republicans like it should be."

Me too. Dennis decided to endorse Obama rather than a more progressive candidate. That was all I pretty much needed to see to be turned off by Kooch.

[LulaMay]

87. Thank you! He basically conceded when he endorse Obama.

He had no real place in the debate after that.

[2Design]

78. media is denying his voice for the voters - I am sick of the meida n/t

[Maddy McCall]

85. I see from the number of recs that 42 people don't know their American history.

Because comparing Kucinich to FDR is completely laughable.

I guess a lot of people see FDR as a much greater liberal than he really was.

[Skittles]

93. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

shame on DUers who are toeing the corporate media line

[NoPasaran]

94. An interesting comparison, FDR to Kucinich

Considering that Roosevelt:

• Instituted the first peacetime military draft in American history
• Traded fifty destroyers to Great Britain in exchange for overseas military bases
• Had the US Navy provide combat escorts to convoys in the North Atlantic while the US was at peace (which led to the sinking of the USS Reuben James and the loss of 115 of her crew
• Provided weaponry free of charge to Britain and the Soviet Union while the US was at peace through the Lend-Lease Program
• Gave the go ahead for the Manhattan Project, which developed the world's first nuclear weapons
• Signed the Smith Act, under which hundreds of political radicals would be tried and imprisoned for sedition
• Issued Executive Order 9066, under which more than a hundred thousand Japanese residents and Japanese-American citizens were sent to internment camps

I've studied Franklin Roosevelt, and believe me, he's no Dennis Kucinich.

[Freddie Stubbs]

97. After 9/11, a " truly progressive FDR type" would have sent American Muslims to internment camps