FDR talking politics, back in the day.

[kurtyboy]

FDR's Advice for the Democrats ... And His Amazing Prediction
http://hnn.us/articles/8669.html

The election over, Democrats wondered what to do. The Republicans had won back-to-back victories in presidential elections and appeared well along the way toward becoming the majority party. Democratic leaders were disconsolate, wondering what they could do to recover the White House. The year? 1924, not 2004.

Delaware attorney Willard Saulsbury was one of those wondering what the Democrats could do. On November 8, just four days after the election that kept Calvin Coolidge in the White House despite the many scandals involving the Teapot Dome investigation, Saulsbury wrote to his friend Franklin Roosevelt to commiserate about the Democrats' unfavorable position. "I do not know that we would have had any chance to have anybody President at this time," he wrote glumly.

This was FDR's response, which included an amazing prediction concerning the course the economy would take:


I did not answer your letter before this as I tried to get a rest for a week or two after the election and its aftermath were over. Now I a glad to be in New York until the first of February when I go south. If by any chance you are here for even a day, do ring me up.

In 1920 after the poks {?} we got that year, I remarked to a number of my friends that I did not think the nation would elect a Democrat again until after the Republicans had led us into a serious period of depression and unemployment. I still that {sic} forecast holds true, for much as we Democrats may be the party of honesty and progress the people will not turn out the Republicans while wages are good and the markets are booming. Every war brings after it a period of materialism and conservatism; people tire quickly of ideals and are but now repeating history. Nevertheless, the Republican leaders are not through with dishonesty nor will the present prosperity continue unabated. I only wish that the Democrats throughout the country could unite more closely, get rid of their factionalism and their localisms, get a better hearing from the press and put their national organization on a sound financial basis. If we do that and stop talking about candidates for 3 years we may win in 1928!

My wife joins you in warm regards to you both.

For the record, FDR was the ONLY nominee for VP (in the 'modern' era--before the constitution was amended to allow for combined tickets--12th Amendment) who lost and later went on to the Presidency. Most others faded away, and never shone so bright again....looking back a hundred years:

2000-Lieberman Dem, Laduke Grn
1996-Kemp GOP, Choate Ref
1992-Quayle GOP, Stockdale Ref
1988-Bentsen Dem
1984-Ferraro Dem
1980-Mondale Dem, Lucey Ind
1976-Dole GOP, -none- Ind (McCarthy ran without a VP candidate)
1972-Shriver/Eagleton Dem (take your pick), Anderson American
1968-Muskie Dem, LeMay American Independent
1964-Miller GOP
1960-Cabot Lodge GOP
1956-Kefauver Dem
1952-Sparkman Dem
1948-Warren GOP (Yep, Earl--USSC, best exVP cand. ever!), Wright States Rights, Taylor Prog
1944-Brickler GOP
1940-McNary GOP
1936-Knox GOP
1932-Curtis GOP, Maurer Socialist
1928-Robinson Dem
1924-Bryan Dem, Wheeler Progressive-Socialist
1920-Roosevelt Dem, Debs Socialist
1916-Fairbanks GOP, Seidel Socialist
1912-Johnson Prog, Butler GOP, Debs Socialist
1908-Kern Dem, Hanford Socialist
1904-Davis Dem, Hanford Socialist

I will say that Edwards has a better than even chance of remaining a powerful force in politics--but he better find a populist message like FDR did, or he be sunk--along with the rest of us, maybe.