Posted on 09/09/2008 12:03:44 PM PDT by ikeonic
Why we should still like Ike and back Mac
From Chicago Magazine:
"He was a Democratic presidential candidate from Illinois, a celebrated orator and an intellectual running against a military hero at the time of an unpopular war. His political resumé was relatively short, and his appeal formed in part around his call for a change in the practice of politics in this country. Critics claimed he was an elitist, and Republicans accused him of being weak and naïve about America's enemies. He got crushed in the general election."
Coincidence? I think not!
Read the rest of the article here and the HuffPo reaction here
Ned Temko at the UK's Guardian says it's "All About Adlai":
..."for Obama, the decisive issue may not be Iraq, or universal healthcare, or energy policy. This time around, it's not even likely to be the economy, stupid. It will be all about Adlai."
Back in April, I discussed how Obama's mama thought so little of Eisenhower's America in the 1950s and how her revulsion to Ike and Kansas shaped the woman she became and the values she imparted to her son, Barack "Adlai" Obama.
Since April, I've discussed just how much I believe McCain is the second coming of Ike, the forgotten conservative. I believe modern day conservatives would do well to read this 1966 interview with Ike and read his thoughts on democracy, government, LBJ and the Great Society. Just as McCain surprised many conservatives when he revealed his true colors at the Saddleback Forum, I think they'd be surprised to find out Ike was no RINO either and was conservative to the core.
Don't believe me? Listen to these terrific quotes by Ike from that 1966 interview:
On the role of the federal government:
On welfare:"The centralization of power in Washington—when we talk about this, we must also consider the need to strengthen city and State government, to make it better. So you must argue for improvement in local government."
"These problems do exist—in health, education, welfare, and other things. They must be solved. But the closer you can bring the action to the local level—that is the best way to do these things."
On Democracy:"All Americans are concerned with real need-where people are not getting a proper education, are not being fed and clothed properly, but we are getting the feeling today that we are not just taking care of the needy, but that we are acting unwisely to the extent that we are actually using the Federal Treasury to encourage and reward laziness and malingering. I would like to see more efficiency in determining who actually are the needy, and who it is that just wants to get an easier living."
"In our welfare programs, an effort should be made to make sure that the needy have proper support. But the idea of temporary relief seems to be giving way to a new idea that hard work is not the way to make a living, that you should look to the Government to take care of you."
"How are you going to get ahead in the world? By hard work—that was always the American way. But now, no longer do all our people take pride in good work well done."
On Vietnam:"Our experiment in self-government is still going on today, just as much as when the Founding Fathers first conceived of our form of democracy, the American Republic. The older I grow, the more certain I am that only by education can we really save our form of government."
"Self-discipline is what we need. We must teach this across the board in the press, in the schools, at home, in the churches, in Government. It must be some kind of movement."
"Today, people scoff at the word 'crusade.' But a great force brought on the Crusades-a great belief. What we have to do in America is generate a great belief in democracy. One of the things it demands is respect for law and order."
"If we can achieve this self-discipline, this self-government, then all the rest of our problems will take car of themselves."
"I do not believe in 'gradualism' in fighting a war. I believe in putting in the kind of military strength we need to win and getting over with as soon as possible."
When his advice was sought several years ago, General Eisenhower said in effect: Don't delay. Don't procrastinate. If you are going to do this, then summon all necessary military strength, do what you must do quickly, and get it over with. Don't give the enemy time to build up his own strength, and disperse his military targets. But this advice went unheeded by the [Johnson] Administration. Now, General Eisenhower says, "the war has been going on too long, and something has to be done to bring it to an honorable conclusion."
Service, reform, peace, prosperity.
McCain is echoing everything Ike stood for and Obama is the egghead, elitist Adlai all over again.
It's time to take back our country and stop the earmarks and out of control federal government. Reform the federal government and return control to the state and local governments. Stop the runaway gravy train in Washington. The time is now and the cause is just. If you need further inspiration, look no further than the above quotes by Dwight David Eisenhower. If you want a President who puts you and this country above partisan politics and pork barrel spending, look no further than John McCain. He is a true Eisenhower Republican. Susan Eisenhower should be ashamed to be backing Obama. Her grandfather would be a strong McCain supporter were he alive today.
Join together, my fellow Americans... come to the aid of your country and Back Mac in 2008 just as we backed (and liked) Ike in 1952.
Bookmark bump. Great interview with Ike.
Only an idiot would believe that, and only a moron would say it.
Ike is one of the forgotten Great Presidents thrown down the memory hole by the left wing MSM.
I just wish McCain could be as good a Chief Exec as Eisenhower... but I'm skeptical. We sure could use another Eisenhower today. Maybe McCain is him, but I just don't know.
And Cleveland was a very good president, as was McKinley. Byron would have been a Carter-like disaster.
I totally forgot to include Michael Gerson's terrifc analysis of the Saddleback Forum:
"...the [Saddleback] forum previewed the stylistic battle lines of the contest ahead, and it should give Democrats pause. Obama was fluent, cool and cerebral -- the qualities that made Adlai Stevenson interesting but did not make him president. Obama took care to point out that he had once been a professor at the University of Chicago, but that bit of biography was unnecessary. His whole manner smacks of chalkboards and campus ivy. Issues from stem cell research to the nature of evil are weighed, analyzed and explained instead of confronted."
Read more here
Why do you think Ike was so bad at helping the GOP downballot?
Of course aside from 58 there were 2 more rat surge years in 64 and 74.
Bryan marked the ascension of socialism in the democrat party.
He simply didn’t really do much about it. As somebody whom had prior to ‘52 really never actively was involved in GOP party politics (remember, Truman was trying to recruit him to run as a Democrat to succeed him, and Ike probably could’ve just as easily served as one without their having been much of a difference).
Frankly, I think the Dems were shocked at how well they did under him. Supposedly after the Dems regained Congress in 1954, which would turn out to be theirs for eons to come, the then-Minority Leader, former and incoming Speaker, Sam Rayburn, didn’t leave his House Minority Office and switch it with Speaker and incoming Minority Leader Joe Martin because Rayburn (the Dem) was absolutely convinced Ike would win reelection in ‘56 and sweep the GOP back into power and then he’d have to give back the Speaker’s office to Martin once again. No doubt Joe turned it over to Mr. Sam in ‘56 and said, “Well, looks like you were wrong.” No Republican would occupy it again until Gingrich.
Worse, yet, Ike’s inaction in ‘60 essentially cut Nixon loose to fend for himself. Despite his on-again, off-again health problems, a decent side-by-side schedule with Ike would’ve helped Nixon to overcome the fraud of that cycle to win.
Why is it that Ike is to blame for the GOP losing Congress in 1954 and Nixon losing in 1960? Ike left office one of the most popular Presidents of the 20th century. He did a lot to promote and restore the Republican brand, which was lost in the wilderness after 20 years of FDR and Truman. Don’t blame him if the party failed to capitalize on what he achieved. No man can do everything by himself.
Bush has abysmal poll numbers and the GOP lost Congress in 2006 in large part because they’ve spent like drunken sailors and Bush’s pre-surge ineptitude in Iraq. If McCain wins, it will be in spite of all they have done to poison the well. In fact, it’s a great testament to McCain that he’s even ahead in the polls in a year when any Democrat ought to be able to take the White House. But if McCain loses, Republicans will blame McCain and McCain alone. They won’t blame Bush and the Republicans in Congress that spent money like crazy.
But we’re supposed to blame Ike for the GOP losing Congress and Nixon’s loss to JFK? Ask not what your party can do for you, ask what you can do for your party. Nixon should have done exactly what McCain is doing... offense, offense, offense. Ditto for Republicans running for Congress. If they lose, they have no one to blame but themselves. Stick to conservative principles, make a great argument and they will win. Rush is right about that much. When they lose, it’s because they didn’t argue their case well enough, not because conservative principles can’t win.
As for not being a partisan prior to 1952, he was a little busy serving his country in other ways. Ike could have been a Truman Democrat, but he could never be a Democrat today (word to Zell Miller!) He put his country first, always. In his heart, he was always a conservative who believed individuals, not government, had to take responsibility for their own actions and their own governance. His worst fear was that government would seize more and more control of our daily lives which would sow the seeds for our own version of Hitler or Stalin. He feared the imperial Presidency and advocated for an active legislature and full participation by citizens in the democratic process. If we’d listened to Ike, our republic would be much better off today. More local control, more active participation, less dependence on the federal bureaucracy, better and more educated citizens. Instead, we’re headed towards more and more creeping socialism administered by DC bureaucrats.
Last, but not least, Ike was the last President we had who truly hated war as only a soldier can and knew better than to send our armed forces where they weren’t needed and it wasn’t in our strategic interest. When McCain says he stood up to Reagan over Lebanon and talks about hating war, he is echoing Ike. I know McCain will never use the military unless he feels like it absolutely necessary... but when he does, he’s going all in with guns blazing. That, more than anything, if the number one reason I support John McCain. I remember too well how Bill Clinton misused the military and I will never forgive LBJ for his bungling of Vietnam. We can ill afford to find out how incompetent Obama will be as Commander-in-Chief.
Because a President, like a Governor, is ultimately responsible for the fortunes of the party of which he presides over. Ike was AWOL as a party leader, most especially in 1960. It doesn't particularly matter if he was "personally popular", since if he FAILED to utilize that to the party's benefit, it is utterly worthless.
"He did a lot to promote and restore the Republican brand, which was lost in the wilderness after 20 years of FDR and Truman."
I disagree that he did a "lot", as I stated above. The brand was not as bad off as you think. It was in the '30s, but thanks to FDR's big power grabs, by '38, the brand was restored. Had Governor Dewey not rested on his laurels in '48 and coasted while Truman outhustled him, we'd have had the Presidency. There's other problems I had with Ike's tactics in '52 that undermined Black Republicanism in the South. In my state of TN, active Black Republicans were Taft supporters (whom I would've voted for in '52, which would've ultimately resulted in a Taft-MacArthur ticket) and the Ike people had to destroy the Black or multiracial local GOP clubs and replace them with their own people (all-White). This kind of undermining really showed up in the following decade when Southern Blacks, which unlike their Northern counterparts, were GOP until the 1960s. This was Ike's version of the "Southern strategy."
"Don’t blame him if the party failed to capitalize on what he achieved. No man can do everything by himself."
That reeks too much of the supporters of Huckster and Slick Willard of Massachusetts... "Not their fault, party's fault that the GOP suffered in those states." Sorry. That's passing the buck, and that doesn't pass the smell test. Somebody has to be in charge. Ike may not have been guilty of incompetence, but he is guilty of negligence. That was the problem with recruiting somebody who only used the party as a vehicle instead of somebody like Sen. Taft, who had been involved in party-building for his entire political life. It's why Taft was better qualified.
"Bush has abysmal poll numbers and the GOP lost Congress in 2006 in large part because they’ve spent like drunken sailors and Bush’s pre-surge ineptitude in Iraq."
He is responsible for a large part of the situation. I don't absolve him, either. He's also (along with Rove) been responsible for exceptionally poor recruitment choices for Congress/Senate, including siding with establishment types that should've been sacked a long time ago, the very reason why the Congressional GOP went down the wrong path.
"If McCain wins, it will be in spite of all they have done to poison the well."
McCain will win because the Dems put up an unqualified opponent with a Messiah complex, not necessarily because it's a singularly positive affirmation of McCain.
"But if McCain loses, Republicans will blame McCain and McCain alone. They won’t blame Bush and the Republicans in Congress that spent money like crazy."
If McCain loses, there will be a lot of blame to go around. Bush still will have played a role. Sadly, in this instance, by NOT campaigning for McCain, Bush is probably helping McCain. That contrasts with Ike in 1960 when his presence was badly needed.
It was doctor's orders because of health problems that were kept hidden from the public. Go see for yourself here
"We know now.. that Eisenhower's health was a vital factor in limiting his involvement in the 1960 campaign. Indeed, at times during the campaign period, the President was actually in danger of death." - The Mortal Presidency by Robert E. Gilbert, p. 114
Tell me, who would you have voted for in November 1952? Adlai or Ike?
Who are you voting for this year? McCain or Adlai Obama?
No politician is perfect and they should be judged on the whole of their merits. We could sit here and nitpick on the finer points of Ike's actions and words until the end of time. But on the whole, he did a lot more good for this country than ill.
As political leaders ? I'm positively mild about both. I stand by what I said that Ike ultimately was a disaster for the GOP.
"Want to know why Ike didn't stump more for Nixon in 1960?"
Then this demonstrated something else. Ike should've RESIGNED as President and allowed Nixon to step in and campaign as the incumbent. The '60s would've unfolded quite differently, indeed.
"Tell me, who would you have voted for in November 1952? Adlai or Ike?"
I would've wrote in Taft & MacArthur.
"Who are you voting for this year? McCain or Adlai Obama?"
McCain doesn't need my vote. My state will likely go for him by over 20%. I'd vote for Palin as a stand-alone if possible.
"No politician is perfect and they should be judged on the whole of their merits. We could sit here and nitpick on the finer points of Ike's actions and words until the end of time. But on the whole, he did a lot more good for this country than ill."
I've heard every excuse under the sun. Either he did what he did, or he didn't. A political leader has to be responsible for his actions. He was a better General than President. Had Taft been elected, the state of his cancer wouldn't have changed and he would've died in the summer of 1953 and Douglas MacArthur would've succeeded him. I'd love to have seen how he would've differed on policy and style as President.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda...
Go waste your vote... I’ve wasted enough time talking to you.
ikeonic
Since Sep 9, 2008
Shoulda be a little more respectful, n00b. If you’re not interested in a substantive discussion of facts, that’s your problem. I don’t do rah-rah cheerleading for subpar Republican/RINO leaders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
