My dear friend, PLEASE think about what it is you're defending...

Titus, seriously, you can't have it both ways ... and in two areas no less.

First, you can't on the one hand tell me that the programs and laws passed under FDR that have benefited the US in the 80 years since ARE a part of the Roosevelt legacy, yet the programs and initiatives that were utter failures or were unsustainable in the 80 years since are the fault of subsequent administrations, and not part of the FDR legacy. For example, either he gets the credit for the FDIC and the blame for SSI, or he gets neither. If subsequent administrations get the blame for screwing up his "brilliant" policies that averted another catastrophic depression, then subsequent administrations get the credit for keeping in place, shoring up, and expanding the successes. You don't get to have your WPA cake and eat it too.

Second - what you're telling me is that without actually saying the words "I don't like America", President Barack Obama has demonstrated to you that he does not like America? Ok, fine. But PLEASE, for the love of all that is good and holy, look at the examples you cited which have convinced you of this reality, and tell me I can't make the same case - based on your standard - about FDR. Obama in a 2000 Chicago NPR interview, as an Illinois state senator, described the Bill of Rights as a "charter of negative liberties." I was the first to criticize that description here, and in fact I linked to the You Tube audio on this very site. He went even further to say that instead of simply saying what the government can't do "to you", that it should state what it "must do on your behalf." Dear Lord in Heaven Titus - FDR went on national radio, as a sitting US President, and not only offered a rhetorical critique of the Bill of Rights, but went so far as to actually LIST those things the government "should do on your behalf." In fact he didn't just list them, he actually called them a "2nd Bill of Rights." That's going much, much further. You think Obama is arrogant and disapproves of the nation as founded? FDR in essence said, yeah Jefferson and the boys, they almost got it right, here's what they should of added. FDR was also much more prone to ignore the Constitutional limits on his office - you acknowledge the disaster that was court packing, then move on, as if it was unrelated to New Deal. That's like Obama trying to add 2 justices now so as to keep intact the individual mandate and then an apologist acting as if it was unrelated to Obamacare - we'd cry for his impeachment! Again I urge you, think about what you're defending. It was New Deal's (the policies you describe as an overall "success") continual slap down that prompted the court packing attempt. It's as much a part of New Deal legacy as the TVA. Brother, the bootom line is the collectivist, big government, planned economy model that Obama advocates is LIGHT YEARS less radical (leftward) than FDR's. For example, Obama is getting roundly criticized right now (and rightly so) for this gimmick called "The Buffet Rule." Yes, lets base an entire nation's tax policy on one secretary's returns, but don't bother to release her returns... whatever. The point is that you could raise Warren Buffet's income tax rate to 100% and he would still pay zero. He doesn't earn an "income" as defined by the IRS. Obama knows this, and he's getting hammered because in essence he wants to raise capital gains to be on par with income tax. And you oppose this as doomed to fail, and worse, not capable of raising the desired revenue to state coffers. FDR advocated a 100% tax, let me repeat - A ONE HUNDRED PERCENT TAX - on all monies earned as income above $250k. Who's the "radical leftist" here?Again, I ask you, stop defending the war time president and think about the economic policy/ideology you are defending in FDR, whilst simultaneously criticizing Obama's. You don't like tossing around the word "socialist" because you think it shuts off debate rather than encourages it - fine, fair enough. But I urge you to reread that second bill of rights and look at the economic model Roosevelt advocated - CLEARLY the man defined "freedom" differently than you or I. Freedom from want, freedom from worry, freedom from choice is ultimately what he was advocating. You can claim "he meant well", or that it was a desperate response to desperate times, I'll accept any of those motivations. What I can not accept is your defending FDR as an overall economic "success" while hounding Obama for proposing much, much less radical policies. If New Deal was an overall success then you need to reexamine your political ideology, the two do not match.

You noted that my assertion "they're cut from the same mold" was (I'm paraphrasing) too broad, because FDR didn't "hate" America. Ok, fine. Perhaps I should have said the same "economic mold", or "Constituional mold." Because buddy, FDR clearly, clearly saw the Constitution as a flawed document. As something to overcome, to "progress" past. FDR was literally trying to reshape the US economic model because he felt justified (amidst the Depression this might be easy to do) in calling the model set forth thus far a "failure." Now let me make this point clearly - did FDR "hate" America? I don't think so. My point is though, if there is enough circumstantial evidence to convict Obama of not approving of America as founded, then there is enough circumstantial evidence to convict FDR of the same thing; and there's certainly enough evidence to describe FDR as a definitional "socialist."

Whatever the motivation of the two men - one born of desperate times and seemingly irrefutable proof that the US economic model was a failure; or one born of a Marxist, communist rearing - they clearly share the idea that the Founders didn't quite get it right. That the Constitution was inadequate to match the needs of the time in which they lived. That if given enough time and power THEY could make those necessary corrections to the founding fabric of our nation and set the US on a course more sound than what the Founders intended.

The bottom line is, no matter how far down the wrong road you think Obama is when it comes to economic policy, and how incorrectly he views the proper distribution of wealth and resources, FDR was - in almost every instance - much, much further down that wrong road.

I'll close the way I started - my dear, dear friend, think about what you're defending. Away from D-Day, away from VE Day, away from "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself", and just put the man's economic policies and ideological inclinations into another body, another face, another person, and tell me you wouldn't oppose THAT MAN on every level. That you wouldn't decry as doomed to fail such top down initiatives. That you wouldn't see any gains occurring within the time period of those policies as a mirage, or in spite of, rather than because of such policies. You can't possibly stand for what you do today and maintain that the policies of the 1930's "worked." How can you oppose success? Everything you are, everything you believe to be true about the proper functioning of economics and man's right to self-rule is in diametric opposition to the President... you tell me which president I'm talking about, Obama or FDR?

What continues to baffle me is that in 2012 you oppose - in both principle and practical application - what you claim was an overall "success" under FDR. If it worked then, why do you stand for its' polar opposite today? Why not advocate for our generation what was a proven success in the 1930's? And just for the record, I think it is fair (even if I disagree) to argue that even if New Deal was an overall "failure", that his presidency was an overall "success." I mean, you still have that little thing called WWII to point to... I'm just saying.