The Party of Eisenhower

[Hawkeye2j]

I am an old Republican. I am religious, yet not a fanatic. I am a free-marketer; yet, I believe in the role of the government as a fair evenhanded referee. I am socially conservative; yet, I believe that my lesbian niece and my gay grandchild should have the full protection of the law and live as free Americans enjoying every aspect of our society with no prejudices and/or restrictions. Nowadays, my political and socio-economic profile would make me a Marxist, not a Republican.

I grew up in an era where William F. Buckley fought the John Birch society and kicked them out of the Republican Party. I grew up with -– in fact voted for the first time for –- Eisenhower. In 1956, he ran a campaign of dignity. A campaign that acknowledged that there are certain projects better suited to be handled by the government. See, business thinks in the short term, as he said. That’s the imperative of the marketplace. I invest and I expect that in a few quarters, I garner the fruits of my investment. Government, on the other hand, has the luxury to wait a few years, maybe decades, for a return on a given investment. As a former businessman, I know that first hand. Am I a Marxist for thinking that?

http://www.frumforum.com/how-the-gop-purged-me

[Revere]

Eisenhower was a marginal bureaucrat turned general turned marginal President. His only claim to fame for what is "better suited to be handled by the government" is the interstate highway system, the scourge of green whackos everywhere.

[Hawkeye2j]

Eisenhower was a marginal bureaucrat turned general turned marginal President. His only claim to fame for what is "better suited to be handled by the government" is the interstate highway system, the scourge of green whackos everywhere.
Eisenhower was the last decent Republican President

[Hawkeye2j]

5. He Sponsored and Signed the Civil Rights Bill of 1957.
This was the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction. Much to Eisenhower's dismay, Congress amended the bill and critically weakened its effectiveness.


4. He Sponsored and Signed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.
This gave birth to America's interstate highway system. Eisenhower worked hard to get the bill passed and it was his favorite piece of legislation.


3. He Balanced the Budget, Not Just Once, But Three Times.
Despite much pressure to do otherwise, he also refused to cut taxes and raise defense spending. His fiscal policy contributed to the prosperity of the 1950's.


2. He Ended the Korean War.
He alone had the prestige to persuade Americans to accept a negotiated peace and convince the Chinese that failure to reach an agreement would lead to dire consequences. Eisenhower considered this to be his greatest presidential accomplishment.



AND EISENHOWER'S NO.1 ACCOMPLISHMENT AS PRESIDENT:

1. He Kept America at Peace.
Eisenhower was confronted with major Cold War crises every year he was in office: Korea, Vietnam, Formosa, Suez, Hungary, Berlin, and the U-2. While more than once America seemed on the brink of war and those around him clamored to drop the Bomb, Eisenhower always kept a level head. He dealt calmly and rationally with each situation, always finding a solution that avoided war without diminishing America's prestige.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/eise/5accompx.htm

[Revere]

He left loose ends in Korea that still torment the world more than a half century later. The dire consequences are today, idiot.

The world was too broke to go to war again.

He was a marginal bureaucrat who inherited the beginning of a Cold War boom.

[Hawkeye2j]

The dire consequences are today, idiot.

Why the namecalling?

[mrmeangenes]

The dire consequences are today, idiot.

Why the namecalling?

Somebody didn't read the notice , Hawk - or has decided it cramps his/her style.

(Also, somebody doesn't know squat about the Eisenhower years - other than what he learned from (Hmmmm...? John Birch Society ??)

[Revere]

For all Eisenhower's gum flapping about the "military industrial complex," the interstate system had undeniable military underpinnings. It was envisioned as a transport network for times of war, and many stretches were ordered to be straight for predetermined distances in order to land military aircraft.

North Korea is the way it is today thanks to the way he ended that war.

As for the watering down of his civil rights legislation, well, he had Democrat controlled Congress except one session of the Senate.

[Citizen]

The dire consequences are today, idiot.

Why the namecalling?

If someone keep posting here saying dumb shit all the time (nevermind just some of the time) then they deserve being called out. Civil discourse can not proceed without intelligence.

[Hawkeye2j]

If someone keep posting here saying dumb shit all the time (nevermind just some of the time) then they deserve being called out. Civil discourse can not proceed without intelligence.
This coming from someone who has not yet written an intelligent statement on this board.

[Revere]

This coming from someone who has not yet written an intelligent statement on this board.

Ah, the irony in that statement.

Anyhoo, all the the Eisenhower brand of the Republican party had to show for itself for 30 years was Richard Nixon as an elected President, and no majorities in Congress.

What the fuck is the use of THAT legacy?

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

For all Eisenhower's gum flapping about the "military industrial complex," the interstate system had undeniable military underpinnings. It was envisioned as a transport network for times of war, and many stretches were ordered to be straight for predetermined distances in order to land military aircraft.

North Korea is the way it is today thanks to the way he ended that war.

As for the watering down of his civil rights legislation, well, he had Democrat controlled Congress except one session of the Senate.

Also, overpasses are designed to be easily blown and removed. The roads were built for your example but much more they were built (as pertaining to the useability by the military) for heavy equipment movements from borders to borders.

However, the interstate system was necessary to maximize our industrial advantage post WWII. To also make it ideal for moving our military was a no-brainer bonus Eisenhower took from examining problems of same by WWII battlefield nations. Supply transport problems.
Another plus was the employment gained directly due to the building of it itself.

MIC isn't about the mechanics of troop movements, such as the interstate, but is instead about the function - defense contractors (who played zero part in the building or developing of the interstate) using influence ($) to garner false scenarios that would fill their coffers. Combined with our nation's oil-based foreign policy, politcizing war objectives gives avenue to the MIC that Ike warned of, and we've seen time and time again. Iraq is a prime example but not the only one.

NK? Widen your scope and I'd agree. The failure of North Korea is prime example of the politicizing a war hence the failure. The reason for going there? A lie, the 'threat' of communism. This tired horse was then used for VN, was the underlying confrontational philosophy that directly led to the missles of October. Kuwait. Iraq. To a large extent Afghanistan. Oil and Defense Contractors, a MIC nuance (combined with America's corporatism) that Ike didn't quite nail in the scope of his speech.

[Revere]

So North Korea is not a threat?

[Hawkeye2j]

Also, overpasses are designed to be easily blown and removed. The roads were built for your example but much more they were built (as pertaining to the useability by the military) for heavy equipment movements from borders to borders.

However, the interstate system was necessary to maximize our industrial advantage post WWII. To also make it ideal for moving our military was a no-brainer bonus Eisenhower took from examining problems of same by WWII battlefield nations. Supply transport problems.
Another plus was the employment gained directly due to the building of it itself.

MIC isn't about the mechanics of troop movements, such as the interstate, but is instead about the function - defense contractors (who played zero part in the building or developing of the interstate) using influence ($) to garner false scenarios that would fill their coffers. Combined with our nation's oil-based foreign policy, politcizing war objectives gives avenue to the MIC that Ike warned of, and we've seen time and time again. Iraq is a prime example but not the only one.

NK? Widen your scope and I'd agree. The failure of North Korea is prime example of the politicizing a war hence the failure. The reason for going there? A lie, the 'threat' of communism. This tired horse was then used for VN, was the underlying confrontational philosophy that directly led to the missles of October. Kuwait. Iraq. To a large extent Afghanistan. Oil and Defense Contractors, a MIC nuance (combined with America's corporatism) that Ike didn't quite nail in the scope of his speech.

You nailed it.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

So North Korea is not a threat?

There is a huge difference between being threatening and being a threat.
No, they are not a threat to the US. They aren't even a threat to South Korea. They are a rhetoric spewing government that's spinning everything hard and fast to retain power in their rather pitiful nation.

Looking at it realistically, how are they a threat? Remember, any action they would make would have an immediate reaction from us and the world. They simply don't have and will never have a real threat ability, so the 'and then' part is the deterrent all on its own.

This isn't the 50s, NK's military wouldn't last a week against our traditional standard military response. New York is safe from North Korea.

[Revere]

There is a huge difference between being threatening and being a threat.
No, they are not a threat to the US. They aren't even a threat to South Korea. They are a rhetoric spewing government that's spinning everything hard and fast to retain power in their rather pitiful nation.

Looking at it realistically, how are they a threat? Remember, any action they would make would have an immediate reaction from us and the world. They simply don't have and will never have a real threat ability, so the 'and then' part is the deterrent all on its own.

This isn't the 50s, NK's military wouldn't last a week against our tradictional standard military response. New York is safe from North Korea.

Response to what? We let them hit first?

[Revere]

It's not the 1950s. They did not have nuclear weapons in the 1950s.

[Revere]

Anyhoo, the notion that a political philosophy such as Eisenhower's which kept Republicans back benchers for 30 years was better, is just asinine.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Response to what? We let them hit first?

So now you're supportive of nuking them first? Insane and irresponsible.

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

It's not the 1950s. They did not have nuclear weapons in the 1950s.

If I'm in a tank and you're carrying a knife, are you armed for battle?

[Revere]

So now you're supportive of nuking them first? Insane and irresponsible.

Compared to state sponsored assinations?

[PursuitOfHappinessParty]

Compared to state sponsored assinations?

As to what? Give an example of same.

Taking the two threads of your posts on this matter what I'm hearing is you want to nuke them based on the ill-defined and massively argueable ability of theirs to do us harm. Nuke em first.

I'm in the traditional military and world opinion response camp.

However, if circumstances really warrant it (and the only recent example would be a marine sniper drawing a bead on OBL on 9/12) then I way prefer a single .50 caliber round to one head as opposed to generic willy-nilly nuclear bombing of a population.
Yeah, I can face world opinion with that. I can sleep with that. My tax dollars can support that.