Truman and JFK did what, that has

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

So you think Pendergast was like Mugabe? I suppose by now I shouldn't be surprised by your wild-hair hyperbole, but sometimes it still makes me shake my head.

rigging elections with violence and corruption? You can't see the similarity?

Sometimes I wonder about your willingness to stick your head in the sand and not recognize right from wrong.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

rigging elections with violence and corruption? You can't see the similarity?

Sometimes I wonder about your willingness to stick your head in the sand and not recognize right from wrong.

See, we are talking about Truman, not pendergast. You are asserting first that Pendergast is as bad as Mugabe, which just isn't true (are they similar? perhaps similar in that they do similar types of things but I suppose Pendergast was also similar to Stalin; similarity is not equivalency) and then you make the huge l;eap from an association with pendergast to being as bad as Pendergast and thus as bad as Mugabe.

If my hallmark is a refusal to see wrong, yours is a remarkable ability to work yourself up over causes that exist largely in your own mind.

[MikeWaters]

Again, how is rising to prominence through a corrupt political machine accurately described as rising to prominence through "hard work and grit"?

You can't come on here and say it's hard work and grit, and then conveniently fail to acknowledge that he was part of a corrupt political machine.

Sorry, I think that's inaccurate and misleading.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Again, how is rising to prominence through a corrupt political machine accurately described as rising to prominence through "hard work and grit"?

You can't come on here and say it's hard work and grit, and then conveniently fail to acknowledge that he was part of a corrupt political machine.

Sorry, I think that's inaccurate and misleading.

I am not ignoring that fact. But I am talking about a balanced and honest view of his entire career. Given the circumstances of politics in Missouri at the time, there is simply no way on earth that he could have been elected without interacting with Pendergast. Truman held his nose and went along but there is no evidence that Truman was involved in corruption at either the state or federal level. In fact, he gained a reputation at both levels for being a reformer and an excellent steward of public funds. At the federal level, he succeeded in spiteof his past connections with Pendergast, not because of them.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I am not ignoring that fact. But I am talking about a balanced and honest view of his entire career. Given the circumstances of politics in Missouri at the time, there is simply no way on earth that he could have been elected without interacting with Pendergast. Truman held his nose and went along but there is no evidence that Truman was involved in corruption at either the state or federal level. In fact, he gained a reputation at both levels for being a reformer and an excellent steward of public funds. At the federal level, he succeeded in spiteof his past connections with Pendergast, not because of them.

I can respect that. But I still think it needs to be qualified and explained to be accurate.