What do Social Security and winning WWII have in common?

Yep, they were both done under the leadership of FDR. That's the thing that gets me about the recent Bush win; it was accomplished in part by scaring the crap out of swing voters and offering them a choice: Do you want economic recovery or your life? You can't have both, you know. Sure, pick the Democrats and economic recovery. That will be all fun and games until the TERRORISTS kill you and your children. Because if someone is busy with an economic recovery and a social safety net, he is incapable of accomplishing a military victory.

Well, the Republicans won and they are busy both losing the wars they started and dismantling Social Security, on the theory that a fund that big is put to better use buying Ferraris for investment bankers rather than food for old people. They managed to run a campaign by saying we're at war and only Republicans have the capability of winning wars, an assertion with zero proof behind it.

I was listening to Air America radio this morning and they were fretting over how the Republicans are pissing all over FDR's social welfare programs. I thought, "Well hell they are also pissing all over his military victories, drawing comparisons between their nimrod of a leader and the leadership that won WWII, though they are careful to imply that Winston Churchill was our President at the time."

Dammit, would it have been so wrong to blanket swing states with ads reminding people that it was the Democrats who beat back fascism and thereby are the party of choice to beat back terrorism? Facts is facts, and yeah, the cadre of talk show fascist wannabes would have complained about it non-stop, but I'll bet it would have done a lot to tone down the numbers of people who voted because they are afraid of terrorism and think Bush is gonna save them.