John Eisenhower Hates America?

[JPhillips]

Is there any other explanation for this:

From the N.H. Union Leader

Another View:
Why I will vote for John Kerry for President
By JOHN EISENHOWER
Guest Commentary



THE Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.

Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.” We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.

As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.

Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.

In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.

Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, “If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.” I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.

The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.

The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.

Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.

I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.

John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, served on the White House staff between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his father in writing “The White House Years,” his Presidential memoirs. He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.

[clintl]

Well said, Mr. Eisenhower.

[CamEdwards]

perhaps he and Ron Reagan should write a book.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.

Well said

[Swaggs]

I wish Kerry could state his message this clearly.

[Senator]

what do you believe?
why is it important to you?
Who most closely represents these things?

Vote.

[CamEdwards]

I myself urge everyone to visit Democrats.com, where I found this piece linked. Not to imply guilt by association, because I'm sure Mr. Eisenhower is a very fine man. I just wonder how he likes his op/ed piece lumped in with articles entitled "Jeb's Gestapo Intimidates Black Voters in Orlando", "Bush's Biggest Rally - a White Supremacist Triumph?", "Insider Says Media Polls are being Systematically Manipulated to Achieve Specific Objectives", and my favorite "Bush Dealings on Iran so Hypocritical they are Comical"

No kidding, if I were Mr. Eisenhower I'd demand that site delink to his article. A lotta loons tend to drown out a single voice trying to speak reasonably.

[JPhillips]

Remember that Democrats.com is an INDEPENDENT site. It is not a site run by the DNC or Kerry.

So Cam, your point is that any nut who links to a story lessens the merit of a story? Eisenhower can't control who links his commentary on a newspaper website. That's ridiculous.

Also, if you want to have a nutball fight off you've got plenty of them on your side. Just start with Little Green Footballs, who I believe you link to. Do their paranoid ramblings invalidate all of your opinions?

[CamEdwards]

Paranoid ramblings? About what? I also link to Democratic Underground, albeit for the UIC. In fact, after reading the headlines at democrats.com I'm inclined to link to them as well.

As to nuts linking to stories lessening the merit of a story, I think I was pretty clear that I think he's a fine man. In fact, I believe that was the exact phrase I used. But if I found one of my posts linked to a wacked-out site that believes John Kerry's the anti-Christ... I'd be asking them to remove the link. I wouldn't want to have my work associated with nutjobs.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I wish Kerry could state his message this clearly.

He needs to have a message to be able to state his message.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I wish Kerry could state his message this clearly.

Kerry has a message??







dammit.... eaglesfan beat me to it

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I myself urge everyone to visit Democrats.com, where I found this piece linked. Not to imply guilt by association, because I'm sure Mr. Eisenhower is a very fine man. I just wonder how he likes his op/ed piece lumped in with articles entitled "Jeb's Gestapo Intimidates Black Voters in Orlando", "Bush's Biggest Rally - a White Supremacist Triumph?", "Insider Says Media Polls are being Systematically Manipulated to Achieve Specific Objectives", and my favorite "Bush Dealings on Iran so Hypocritical they are Comical"

No kidding, if I were Mr. Eisenhower I'd demand that site delink to his article. A lotta loons tend to drown out a single voice trying to speak reasonably.

Yeah, well, Cam, I wouldn't want to be a black voter in Florida. Let's put it that way. Tho, Gestapo is pushing it. White Supremacist Triumph and Iran as Comical, also blown up rhetoric.

But the polls *are* being systematically manipulated to whoever is offering them- haven't you seen the big blowup between Zogby and Gallup over their normalizations? This has been a huge media story as people are basically saying "don't trust polls as far as you can throw them" because different sources are coming up with such different answers using methods that favor the outlet that ordered them.

SI

[CamEdwards]

There's a big difference between "don't trust the polls because of weighting and oversampling" and "Polls are being Systematically Manipulated to Achieve Specific Objectives".

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I wouldn't want to have my work associated with nutjobs.

I guess you momentarily forgot that you work for the NRA.

[timmynausea]

Dola - that was supposed to be a joke so I hope noone is terribly offended, but I'm kind of kidding on the square.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Dola - that was supposed to be a joke so I hope noone is terribly offended, but I'm kind of kidding on the square.

What the hell does that mean? I'm only joking so don't get mad, but at the same time know that I'm actually serious?

Damn... you must be a Kerry man.

[timmynausea]

Well, it's not that complicated. I said it primarily for humorous effect, but it happens to be true. I guess in retrospect I'm sorry that I was trying to be cordial, so yeah. I think it's ridiculous/hilarious that a guy that works for the NRA righteously proclaims he doesn't want his work associated with nutjobs.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

I think it's ridiculous/hilarious that a guy that works for the NRA righteously proclaims he doesn't want his work associated with nutjobs.

Just like any organization/institution that feels very strongly about an issue or situation, there will certainly be nutjobs amongst the group. But to categorize the entire NRA as that shows your ignorance, in my opinion.

[TroyF]

I'm not going to bother getting into all of the specific points in this thread because it would just make my head hurt. I'm just going to say the headline offends me.

I'm sick of crap like this on both sides. He doesn't hate America, he's voting for what he believes in. I'm not a brownshirted nazi because I'm going to vote for Bush. Sigh.

[portnoise]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

perhaps he and Ron Reagan should write a book.

Here's your classic example of trying to undercut the content by lightly mocking the speaker. That's been the story of the whole campaign, really.

Look, here it comes again:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Damn... you must be a Kerry man.

I'm not defending timmy's argument that everyone in the NRA is necessarily a nutjob... that's a stereotype. But the Eisenhower article says some important stuff and represents even more. It'd be nice to see a discussion of what he actually says.

And if you're in the mood to mock me lightly, you could start with how I'm canadian and yet I actually care about this stuff.

[timmynausea]

When did I say that everyone in the NRA is a nutjob?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I'm not going to bother getting into all of the specific points in this thread because it would just make my head hurt. I'm just going to say the headline offends me.

I'm sick of crap like this on both sides. He doesn't hate America, he's voting for what he believes in. I'm not a brownshirted nazi because I'm going to vote for Bush. Sigh.

Ever heard of irony?

[CamEdwards]

to continue the light mocking... apparently we don't understand the nuances in Timmynausea's statement.

As to Mr. Eisenhower's actual comments: I disagree with him, I've stated why I disagree with him in countless threads over the past twelve months, and since he doesn't read this message board, I feel no need to explain in detail why I believe Mr. Eisenhower is misguided.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I'm not going to bother getting into all of the specific points in this thread because it would just make my head hurt. I'm just going to say the headline offends me.

I'm sick of crap like this on both sides. He doesn't hate America, he's voting for what he believes in. I'm not a brownshirted nazi because I'm going to vote for Bush. Sigh.

The sooner we all admit that all Republicians are Nazi's and all Democrats are Communist, the sooner we will return honesty to politics.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

to continue the light mocking... apparently we don't understand the nuances in Timmynausea's statement.

I pretty sure he meant there are some nutjobs connected to the NRA. He wasn't saying all, but that there are some (which is a true statement. Sorry.)

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I pretty sure he meant there are some nutjobs connected to the NRA. He wasn't saying all, but that there are some (which is a true statement. Sorry.)

actually, you'd be surprised. Most of the people I'd consider to be "nutjobs" think the NRA is too moderate or too political and won't join.

Then again, I guess the "nutjob" is in the eyes of the beholder. I've got no problem associating myself with the NRA, and perhaps Mr. Eisenhower has no problem with his column being linked by democrats.com.

[rkmsuf]

People care what John Eisenhower thinks?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

actually, you'd be surprised. Most of the people I'd consider to be "nutjobs" think the NRA is too moderate or too political and won't join.

Then again, I guess the "nutjob" is in the eyes of the beholder. I've got no problem associating myself with the NRA, and perhaps Mr. Eisenhower has no problem with his column being linked by democrats.com.

I've personally known a few nutjob members. I'll introduce you sometimes.

[Bonegavel]

If this guy was a conservative for all these years and now wrote that, I have a bridge somewhere in New York to sell you.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

If this guy was a conservative for all these years and now wrote that, I have a bridge somewhere in New York to sell you.

Why? I've been a conservative my whole life, and I'm voting for Kerry.

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Why? I've been a conservative my whole life, and I'm voting for Kerry.

I stand corrected.

I would seriously like to know what you define as conservative. If you ARE a conservative and are voting for Kerry --- you have a vastly different idea of what it means than I. If you have simply switched ideologies, then I understand.

Don't get me wrong, Bush is by no means the president I would have wanted when it comes to spending and programs, but his aproach to the War on Terror is what I think we need.

[Cuckoo]

I have a lot of respect for GD, and I am no Bush fan, but for a person who considers themself a conservative to vote for Kerry is just crazy to me. I'm not trying to bash you at all, GD. I just don't get it either.

[GrantDawg]

Because I think Bush has made too many major mistakes (and is completely unwilling to admit or correct mistakes), and that 4 more years would put this country in greater jepordy than 4 years of Kerry.

I have never voted for a Democrat in my life, but there is no way I can vote for Bush at this point.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I have a lot of respect for GD, and I am no Bush fan, but for a person who considers themself a conservative to vote for Kerry is just crazy to me. I'm not trying to bash you at all, GD. I just don't get it either.

Why? I don't claim to know the exact reasons why GD is voting for Kerry, but what's wrong with someone saying "I hold most of these beliefs that most people consider to be conservative, but, I just cannot agree with what the conservative candidate has done regarding X(presumably Iraq here), therefore in this election I am going to have to vote against Bush"


Just like I imagine there are people who say "I hold most of the beliefs that people consider to be 'liberal', but, in this election, I just feel that we cannot afford to change leadership in the middle of a war, and I am going to vote for Bush"

I have no problem with either of the above statements.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

The sooner we all admit that all Republicians are Nazi's and all Democrats are Communist, the sooner we will return honesty to politics.

Good point, Comrade Dawgski!

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Radii

Why? I don't claim to know the exact reasons why GD is voting for Kerry, but what's wrong with someone saying "I hold most of these beliefs that most people consider to be conservative, but, I just cannot agree with what the conservative candidate has done regarding X(presumably Iraq here), therefore in this election I am going to have to vote against Bush"


Just like I imagine there are people who say "I hold most of the beliefs that people consider to be 'liberal', but, in this election, I just feel that we cannot afford to change leadership in the middle of a war, and I am going to vote for Bush"

I have no problem with either of the above statements.

I would understand not voting at all for that reason. But I can't understand voting for someone who holds even less in common with what you believe just because you're dissatisfied with the other. It seems to me to be only a protest of sorts and detrimental to the overall goal.

Obviously he can do whatever he chooses. The only reason I comment is that I consider myself to be very close to where he is in dissatisfaction with the current administration, but there's no way I can make that leap to voting for Kerry. Because for all Bush's faults, Kerry's are even greater in my opinion.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I would understand not voting at all for that reason. But I can't understand voting for someone who holds even less in common with what you believe just because you're dissatisfied with the other. It seems to me to be only a protest of sorts and detrimental to the overall goal.

Obviously he can do whatever he chooses. The only reason I comment is that I consider myself to be very close to where he is in dissatisfaction with the current administration, but there's no way I can make that leap to voting for Kerry. Because for all Bush's faults, Kerry's are even greater in my opinion.

I answered why earlier, but I'll repeat myself using different words here...

I believe that four years of Kerry would do less damage to this country internally than four more years of Bush would do both internally and externally.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I answered why earlier, but I'll repeat myself using different words here...

I believe that four years of Kerry would do less damage to this country internally than four more years of Bush would do both internally and externally.

Hey, I was just curious. Perhaps when I said I don't understand, you weren't sure what I was saying. I read your explanation. I just can't understand how you reached that position. And I suspect I never will.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Hey, I was just curious. Perhaps when I said I don't understand, you weren't sure what I was saying. I read your explanation. I just can't understand how you reached that position. And I suspect I never will.

Ok, I did think you just didn't see it. To be fair, I don't know how someone could vote for Bush at this point. (Well, that's not true. I think a better way of saying that is I can understand why, but I disagree with the reason).

[Buddy Grant]

I don't have the time or interest to actually read and research what John Eisenhower writes, but I do seem to recall that he has fathered several dozen children out of wedlock, and wasn't his father a Communist agitator or something?

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Because I think Bush has made too many major mistakes (and is completely unwilling to admit or correct mistakes), and that 4 more years would put this country in greater jepordy than 4 years of Kerry.

I have never voted for a Democrat in my life, but there is no way I can vote for Bush at this point.

As much as I've disagreed with GrantDawg in other threads, I've been a fiscal conservative my whole life and am, for the first time, planning to vote for a Democrat as well.

I hope that my vote, and other votes like it, will send a message (much of it stated by Mr. Eisenhower above) to the Republican party. I once told my wife (who is liberal) that I'd never vote for John Kerry (this was awhile back, prior to any indication he'd be a presidential nominee), and now I have come to admit that there is something worse: Bush's unwillingness to restrain the more conservative elements of his administration which are, apparently, completely unconcerned about personal liberties, local control of government decision making, fiscal responsibility, and even a little bit of international cooperation.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Ok, I did think you just didn't see it. To be fair, I don't know how someone could vote for Bush at this point. (Well, that's not true. I think a better way of saying that is I can understand why, but I disagree with the reason).

Fair enough. I suppose that's what I'm trying to say as well. I understand your reasoning, I just disagree with it.

[Arles]

Not to burst everyone's balloon, but I'm still searching for one coherant thought in his entire article. He rails Bush for not balancing the budget, yet says:

"The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so."

Balancing the budget with an economy that was struggling in 2000-2002 and multiple ongoing wars can hardly been considered the "state of the economy allowed it to do so." I would think many people would put increasing job creation and jumpstarting the economy (which Bush did from 2003 forward) above balancing the budget.

He bounces all over every issue with no mention of any policy that will help outside of raising taxes. He rails about the budget, yet doesn't mention government spending once. He accuses the Republicans of not caring about small businesses, yet advocates raising their taxes (many small businesses end up in the higher income brackets). He says we need to "limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms" but seems to advocate even more social spending when he talks about "the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country". He cites the way George HW Bush agreed to leave Saddam in power after the first gulf war a great example of leading in foreign policy. Yet it is the fact that Bush watered down his plan to go into Kuwait to get more global support that made it necessary for us to go back in and finish the job in 2003.

I don't know what Mr. Eisenhower's political views are, but with his stance on raising taxes without cutting domestic spending and making the protection of the US dependent upon the approval of France and Germany, I definately think he's found the correct candidate.

Arlie

[BigJohn&TheLions]

The only problem I have is with the title of this thread. I would actually say that Lil' Ike Loves America. He is sticking with what he believes and not with his party affiliation. I see a lot of people out here who seem to love being a Republican or Democrat more than they love being an American. I am a registered Democrat who voted for Mike Bloomberg and George Patacki. I used to walk into a voting booth and just yank the Democrat lever, but cannot in clear conscience do that any more. Unfortunatly there seems to be no room in politics at the national level for politicians who are socially progressive and fiscally conservative. It's funny to me that the same people who refer to Democrats as "Tax and Spend" find George Walker Bush to be a great prez even though his policy seems to be "Cut Tax, and Spend More!" If I managed my checkbook like this administration manages the budget I would have more than a slight problem...

[KWhit]

I believe the title of this thread was meant to be a jab at the people who believe that if you do not support the President's policies 100% then you hate America or are treasonous, etc.

You know, the whole "You're either with us or you're against us!" argument.

[JPhillips]

Arles: The reason he talks about raising taxes is because that's the only real option we have. This deficit isn't about short term stimulus. It is so large, and will only get larger, that growth alone can't solve the problem. The only way to balance the budget without tax increases is to severely cut Social Security, Medicare, Defense or everything else by up to fifty percent. We all know that there is no political scenario where that can happen. Without tax increases of some sort we simply can't fix the structural deficit the current Repub leadership has left us. Even Reagan and Bush1 understood that too much revenue decrease can't be compensated for in increased growth.

I must have missed where Eisenhower said that America must base its security on France and Germany. Is that in invisible type? Seriously, Arles, his point isn't that America can't act, but tha the perils of this particular action have been detrimental to the security of the United States. You can agree or not, but he never comes close to justifying the slur you used.

Finally, for everyone, the title was a joke. Since it seems like everyone supporting Kerry is accused of being unAmerican I picked a satirical title.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

There's a big difference between "don't trust the polls because of weighting and oversampling" and "Polls are being Systematically Manipulated to Achieve Specific Objectives".

How do you figure? If you oversample and poorly weigh your polls to who is paying for them, aren't you systematically manipulating [them] to achieve specific objectives?

SI

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: The reason he talks about raising taxes is because that's the only real option we have. This deficit isn't about short term stimulus. It is so large, and will only get larger, that growth alone can't solve the problem. The only way to balance the budget without tax increases is to severely cut Social Security, Medicare, Defense or everything else by up to fifty percent. We all know that there is no political scenario where that can happen. Without tax increases of some sort we simply can't fix the structural deficit the current Repub leadership has left us. Even Reagan and Bush1 understood that too much revenue decrease can't be compensated for in increased growth.

The average American pays almost 50% of what they earn in taxes. If this is not enough to balance the budget, I think it's time to take a long, hard look at what we are spending our money on in Washington.

must have missed where Eisenhower said that America must base its security on France and Germany. Is that in invisible type? Seriously, Arles, his point isn't that America can't act, but tha the perils of this particular action have been detrimental to the security of the United States. You can agree or not, but he never comes close to justifying the slur you used.

He says:

America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance.

The US allowed over a dozen UN resolutions to be broken before even talking about removing Saddam in a serious manner. Once the decision was made by Bush to investigate, he got unanimous UN approval for a resolution promising serious consequences if Saddam didn't come clean. Well, he didn't and Bush went to the UN yet one more time to get support. In the end, France and Germany refused to support the war - a war that the president felt was in the best interest of this country.

So, either the president let France and Germany dictate his country's security or he would go into Iraq without their support. It seems that Eisenhower is saying above that we should have put our own national security on hold until we could get France and Germany on board. And if they refused, we would not go. How is that not "basing its security on France and Germany"?

Arlie

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Arles

Once the decision was made by Bush to investigate, he got unanimous UN approval for a resolution promising serious consequences if Saddam didn't come clean.

That's right, Saddam never came clean and admitted to having vast arsenals of WMD's. Once we found all those WMD's, what choice did we have but to invade...

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

What the hell does that mean? I'm only joking so don't get mad, but at the same time know that I'm actually serious?

Damn... you must be a Kerry man.

Not a Kerry fan at all but I understand exactly where he was coming from. I'm actually not sure who I like less, Teachers' Unions or the NRA.