Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She was a controversial First Lady in her time for her outspokenness, particularly on civil rights for African Americans. She was the first presidential spouse to hold regular press conferences, write a daily newspaper column, write a monthly magazine column, host a weekly radio show, and speak at a national party convention.
On a few occasions, she publicly disagreed with her husband's political policies. She also advocated for expanded roles for women in the work place.
After the end of WWII, although no longer First Lady, she was a champion of the rights of the millions of refugees from that conflict.
In my opinion, Ms. Roosevelt significantly reshaped and redefined the role of First Lady.
Well she was an activist and use the First Lady role to push her political agenda. You like her because her politics aligns with yours but what happens if she was the opposite of your political ideology, will you feel the same. I don't want the First Lady to be a political activist for either side. They weren't elected. She represents the whole country for the little time they are there.
Just like news reporters. They shouldn't be activists and hide behind the news reporter shield. First Lady is the same. You can't be both. If she wants to be a politician run and if you are a First Lady act the role.
This country is too politicized even the military brass and sadly it has gone to the First Lady (not all thank God)
Melania Trump really was the one I didn't feel like actually did much as first lady. Some was probably how the media treated Trump but it seemed like she was out there a lot less than any of the other first ladies. Most of my memories of her are giving what felt like forced speeches. I never felt like she really wanted to be there (which is understandable).
I disagree, she was out there a lot but the media didn't want to give her positive coverage because of their hate towards Trump. If you wanted her to be a left wing political activist like Eleanor or Hillary well wrong person. That's not who she is. Let's face it, if Melania was the wife of Bill or Obama the media would fall in love with her and treat her like a product of open borders and make her an activist for that.
Kinda ironic given that Obamacare is basically Romneycare, which was created by a right wing think tank as a response to Clinton trying to get universal healthcare.
And later on, we learn that Romney is actually a RINO, so I wouldn't exactly use him for whatever point you were trying to make. If anything, it goes to show that Obama can't do anything on his own. He had to steal an idea from a Republican instead of coming up with his own plan.
Well she was an activist and use the First Lady role to push her political agenda. You like her because her politics aligns with yours but what happens if she was the opposite of your political ideology, will you feel the same.
Her politics were largely humanitarian, particularly during FDR's tenure as president, like promoting civil rights and combating homelessness. Stances like "lynchings are unacceptable" and "girls should have access to education" aren't partisan politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanJuanStar
She wasn't a good mother, she was in a political arranged marriage and she wasn't elected and she crossed the line many times from her role.
In what way was she a bad mother? Specifically?
She was not in a political arranged marriage. She wasn't in an arranged marriage at all. That's your invention.
Do people have to be elected to be activists? She was already an activist in her own right well before FDR ran for president.
I wonder if she envisioned being more a Jackie Kennedy type of First Lady: mostly ornamental and fashionable, not much in the public eye beyond that? We’ve grown accustomed to First Ladies being highly-educated, with established professional careers before they became First Ladies. Even though it’s not an elected position, the expectations have evolved beyond garden parties and selecting the White House china.
Jackie Kenney went beyond just being a pretty face in nice clothes, though. She was an adept and dedicated hostess, which doesn't sound like such a big deal, until you consider how much skill and effort that requires when you're dealing with Washington egos, international diplomacy, and byzantine political and social relationships. She did a ton of social facilitating on JFK's behalf. I don't think Melania Trump ever stepped up in that way. Not that I fault her for that - clearly she could not have forseen what a political circus her life was going to become when she agreed to become the newer, younger Marla.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58
I like Barbara but I don’t think I’d want to look at her every morning.
You missed Laura Bush. If I was President, I would want a First Lady that didn’t upstage me or embarrass me. Laura was pretty enough and non controversial.
Yeah, because the Georges Bush were such lookers themselves Post your pic.
Her politics were largely humanitarian, particularly during FDR's tenure as president, like promoting civil rights and combating homelessness. Stances like "lynchings are unacceptable" and "girls should have access to education" aren't partisan politics.
Stop! She pushed for her husband's New Deal and power grab. That's like saying: "I'm for the Patriot Act" without telling the public about the fine print or "I'm against poverty" and ignoring the fine print and huge government power grab from the people. Just fool them with kindness and theatrics.
FDR used her to push his politics. FDR used her a lot.
She had socialists and communists ideas and she used her role as 1st Lady for it. An un-elected person.
She held 348 press conferences over the span of her husband's 12-year presidency. She placed a ban on male reporters attending the press conferences because she ONLY wanted females. That's 30 average per year. That's a little too much of her falling in love with herself.
She preached so much about poverty and inequality that she didn't apply that to her own life and spending and the Roosevelt dynasty.
The Roosevelt's wealth was from inheritance. All her wealth was inherited. She got more inheritance money than Franklin. She never work a day in her life. I guess she got white guilt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostnip
In what way was she a bad mother? Specifically? She was not in a political arranged marriage. She wasn't in an arranged marriage at all. That's your invention.Do people have to be elected to be activists? She was already an activist in her own right well before FDR ran for president.
I'm not going to repeat my posts about facts of her life. Believe what you want to. Put her up there with Mother Theresa for all I care.
Stop! She pushed for her husband's New Deal and power grab. That's like saying: "I'm for the Patriot Act" without telling the public about the fine print or "I'm against poverty" and ignoring the fine print and huge government power grab from the people. Just fool them with kindness and theatrics.
FDR used her to push his politics. FDR used her a lot.
She had socialists and communists ideas and she used her role as 1st Lady for it. An un-elected person.
She held 348 press conferences over the span of her husband's 12-year presidency. She placed a ban on male reporters attending the press conferences because she ONLY wanted females. That's 30 average per year. That's a little too much of her falling in love with herself.
She preached so much about poverty and inequality that she didn't apply that to her own life and spending and the Roosevelt dynasty.
The Roosevelt's wealth was from inheritance. All her wealth was inherited. She got more inheritance money than Franklin. She never work a day in her life. I guess she got white guilt.
I'm not going to repeat my posts about facts of her life. Believe what you want to. Put her up there with Mother Theresa for all I care.
So your criticism is that she was too vocal as the first lady and she was wealthy, in spite of all her hard work she wasn't poor so that dismisses here efforts. Most historians rate her as the most influential woman of the 20th century for humanitarian rights, women and minorities.
So your criticism is that she was too vocal as the first lady and she was wealthy, in spite of all her hard work she wasn't poor so that dismisses here efforts. Most historians rate her as the most influential woman of the 20th century for humanitarian rights, women and minorities.
So how do you compare her to Melania.
Why Melania? You could have pick from over 40 ladies. Why not Mary Todd, Edith Bolling,Lady Byrd, Pat Nixon, Rosalyn Carter, Mamie Eisenhower and the list is long.
That's a shallow understanding of my argument. She wasn't elected and she was pushing extreme changes to the country and FDR used her for his power grab. Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro did lots of hard work for the poor. Are we ignoring how they were pushing it and the price or we give people props for their intentions and ignore the details?
We are talking about the #1 First Lady in history for over 250 years. She is not it.
Last edited by SanJuanStar; 07-16-2022 at 08:36 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Post your pic.