Eisenhower was prepared

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Gus Talwynd
    July 8, 2008 8:39 p.m.

    RE: roland (5:15 p.m.)

    Republicans did not lead the way on civil rights, but Dwight Eisenhower is credited for taking some steps that would be criticized by Republicans today.

    Also, Eisenhower was pushed by members of his administration to step in get involved with Vietnam. American involvement increased under Kennedy and expanded completely under Johnson. However, the neoconservatives today would howl if there had been around with Eisenhower in the post-Korea period.

    The point here is that Republicans today would repudiate Dwight Eisenhower and the talking heads of wingnut radio would call him a socialist and every evil slur they could make up in their brain-storming strategy sessions.

    Finally, Barry Goldwater was unhappy about the Republican Party getting more involved in cultural issues and drifting away from its conservative roots. It is doubtful that he would find much to be proud about with current Republican candidates and the issues they support most. He believed that government must stay out of people's personal lives and allow them choice.

  • John
    July 8, 2008 7:26 p.m.

    Anonymous | 5:24 p.m. July 8, 2008
    Terror! Terror! Terror!
    Security! Security! Security!
    If you dare vote for a Democrat - you are a traitor and must hate the troops and America, and apple pie, and ... Disneyland ... and ... Boy Scouts and ... everything good.

    This message was approved by the National Republican Committee. :>"

    Not really funny. Mostly just ignorant. Democrats HATE the troops, and HATE the military. Care to refute that with facts?

    Democrats HATE the Boy Scouts, and Democrats HATE the Constitution. Democrats also HATE Christians and Jesus Christ, but they ADORE Muslims, and New Agers.

    I would say, you have much to learn about politics, and facts.

  • John
    July 8, 2008 7:23 p.m.

    LOL | 2:23 p.m. July 8, 2008
    Mitt was the biggest flip flopper. Why didn't this bother Utah republicans :-)"

    Because he is not a flip flopper.

    Care to list them, or are you just building yet another straw man?

    Times change, and there is little wrong with a man admitting he was doing something wrong and has changed his mind. You will have a hard time naming three things that Romney really 'flip flopped' on. All you got, is the MSM mantra. Facts have nothing to do with the MSM.....

  • re: RE:roland 5:15
    July 8, 2008 6:04 p.m.

    "Do liberals have a brain or not?"

    I see the Rush Limbaugh Show must be over for today.
    And its playtime again for the kiddies.

  • Anonymous
    July 8, 2008 5:24 p.m.

    Terror! Terror! Terror!
    Security! Security! Security!
    If you dare vote for a Democrat - you are a traitor and must hate the troops and America, and apple pie, and ... Disneyland ... and ... Boy Scouts and ... everything good.

    This message was approved by the National Republican Committee. :>

  • RE: roland
    July 8, 2008 5:15 p.m.

    It helped with chinese, vietnam, etc.

    HE was the master when it came to foreign policy.

    RE: GUS

    Are saying in was republicans that lead the way in civil rights?

    ON point seven: that happened during the vietnam war under democratic congress and president.

    Bush/cheney have nothing to do with it.
    Haliburton basically fired cheney, and now he wants to help them?

    Do liberals have a brain or not?
    A logical though or not?
    Botton line is I guess republican presidents are actually pretty good.

  • Mary Beth Sorensen
    July 8, 2008 4:38 p.m.

    Can those who insist that Barack Obama provide quotes of what the man previously said regarding a position and what he now says that is the opposite and provide references to what was said?

    You can easily make stuff up just to provide "proof", but documenting the cited statements will help validate your point. All that I can find is his changes on FISA, but his position on Iraq remains unchanged.

    I was particularly dismayed that McCain has dramatically changed his position on torture. He went from outright condemnation of the practice (using his own experience to demonstrate how wrong it is) to now supporting it in the way George W. Bush and Dick Cheney proposed. And this was not "a single flash of insight on the way to Damascus". It was a calculated political move to ingratiate himself with the wingnuts of his party.

    McCain is no longer a maverick. He is mainstream in the mold of Bush & Co. Unfortunately, his appeal to independents is rapidly diminishing as he moves more to the Right and mimics the Bush policies of extending the tax cuts to the rich and saying that the 90% making less than $250K will benefit!

  • Mark B
    July 8, 2008 4:25 p.m.

    I salute Eisenhower, the last great moderate Republican, a man who didn't have to prove that he loved war because he had helped our side in the biggest war of all. But of course, Eisenhower wasn't the reason Frank O. wrote, was it?

    It seems silly to blame the Parties for not producing candidates you like. Who are the Parties? They are us. At one point there were almost 20 presidential candidates from the two major parties, but then they were sidelined one by one, not because their campaigns were so terrific, but because they WEREN'T so terrific, yes, including Mitt.

    You can still vote for whoever you like, of course. Bo Gritz, Adlai Stevenson, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Jackson, Wendell Wilke. No one will stop you. Bob Barr (easy to spell), Ralph Nader (easy to remember), Mr. Rogers (no longer with us), Mr. Roberts (fictional). The only thing I would warn against is taking advice from Frank O. I fear he does not have an open mind. Maybe he'll write in next week and tell us.

  • Gus Talwynd
    July 8, 2008 4:22 p.m.

    Isnt it ironic that Dwight Eisenhower would not be even considered as a viable candidate in todays Republican Party? After the dramatic changes in the partys ideology following the ascendancy of Ronald Reagan, the conservative Dwight Eisenhower would probably be branded a socialist because of the progressive nature of some of his policies. Certainly, expanding Social Security and getting the government involved in the integration of Arkansas schools would be looked upon very negatively by the conservative talk show hosts and Fox News today.

    It is evident that the conservatives of old, Eisenhower, Goldwater, and Robert Taft would only appeal to a small segment of Republicans today because of their support of basic conservative ideas. However, the growth of social conservatism leaves no place for these men in the modern Republican Party. They would have to become Blue Dog Democrats.

    Modern Republicans like Reagan, Bush II, and the new John McCain are very different from these early leaders. Not only did they dramatically change the direction of the modern conservative movement, the incorporated policies that ran directly counter to the pre-Reagan political world.

  • Roland Kayser
    July 8, 2008 3:49 p.m.

    Richard Nixon was as experienced and "qualified" as anyone who has ever been elected president. It didn't seem to help him much.

  • can't fill stadiums
    July 8, 2008 3:03 p.m.

    Let's put it THIS way.
    Obama can fill and entire stadium just about any place he goes to relate to people who understand and appreciate where he's coming from.
    At the last fundraiser in Utah (the reddest state in America) the orginal plans for a large hall (Little America, I believe) went bust and the best the GOP could muster was a small gathering in somebody's personal residence. AND THIS WAS IN THE BASTION OF REPUBLICANISM!
    Bye-bye GOP.

  • LOL
    July 8, 2008 2:23 p.m.

    Mitt was the biggest flip flopper. Why didn't this bother Utah republicans :-)

  • Timj
    July 8, 2008 1:15 p.m.

    Obama experienced in flip-flopping?
    Oh boy.
    I remember when McCain was much more of a moderate. He didn't tolerate torture. He was a maverick. Mainstream Republicans didn't care for him because he made his own choices instead of just following the party line. Now he's lined up pretty nicely with other Republicans.
    Obama has a long way to go before he flip-flops nearly as much as McCain has.

  • Thanks Rush
    July 8, 2008 1:06 p.m.

    Earl Warren was a republican. Warren would have ever let the court elect Bush. Bush as been a blessing. Bush has shown Americans the trickle doesn't work. If you don't pay for a war you pay more for gas with a devalued dollar.

    There would be no Obama if there hadn't been Bush.

    When republican loose this year, it will be those whose blindly voted for Bush and who are calling Obama a socialism that made Obama president.

    Thanks Rush and your minon of fools.

  • lost in DC
    July 8, 2008 12:10 p.m.

    BO is experienced - in flip-flopping. Now that he has secured the demo nomination, he is switching all his extremely left wing positions and moving towards the center. Just like any experienced politician. Of course, that doesn't mean he's an experienced leader.

    Gus, I'm glad you have enlightened us on some of the negative things Ike did to us. The ill effects of the Warren Court are still with us and the expansion of social security means it will go broke long before it can fulfil all its commitments.

    I see there are still a few poor souls who seem to think GWB is running again. Nope, he's not. So sad that your best reponse to anything negative about your boy BO is "Oh Yeah? Well Bush...!!!" Apparently you are unaware of any BO positives to use as a counter-argument, so you fall back on your standard GWB bashing. As original as Rush Limbaugh's self-absorbed blather.

  • Lew Jeppson
    July 8, 2008 11:23 a.m.

    It's true, Ike's stock has steadily risen through the years as people have learned more about him. It's too bad folks here in Utah can't remember his remarks about the "military-industrial complex." I was just a kid when I heard these remarks on TV but they have left an indelible impression on me. That prediction has become all too true. So in remembering Ike, remember how accurately he anticipated our out of control military with its corporate handmaidens.

  • Ultra Bob
    July 8, 2008 9:51 a.m.

    This election has been brought to you by the Conspiracy section of the Conservative Republican party.

    The first goal of the conspiracy is to not allow the candidates to talk about their actual programs and plans. Direct the flow of words toward past history, candidates friends (and pastors) and in general make the candates act like kids on the school playground.

    The second goal is to elect the weakest and most unelectable candidate in the primary. This was accomplished by the early acceptance of John McCain thus freeing up many so called independant voters (who always vote repuplican) to vote in the democrat primary.

    The third goal was to disrupt the primary by setting democrats in Florida at a disadvantage by setting the Florida primary date in conflict to the Democrats rules.

    There are probably many more parts to the conspiracy, but these are the ones most obvious to me.

  • CHris PLummer
    July 8, 2008 9:45 a.m.

    No experience in ANYTHING? please, he is in the senate, you don't get there by knowing nothing. An over exaggeration as bad as the media that you point to.

  • John
    July 8, 2008 9:43 a.m.


    We were not cheated by the parties, we were cheated by the media, who chose McCain and destroyed the rest, and who chose Obama and Hillary, seeing either one as a win-win.

    What happened to all the republicans who were on those debates. There were no Reagans for sure, but McCain never said anything useful during them. Did they defend Romney's right to run in spite of his religion? No, the led the attack. Rudy was dumped for doing less than Clinton did, in the oval office, and the others were simply ignored, and pushed right off the stage.

    The media selected McCain. The republic is dead, and democracy has gone with it. The people no longer choose the candidates. Media does that for us. YOu cannot find too many R's who think that McCain was the best choice out of all those who were attempting to be heard, yet there he is, basically a democrat in R's clothing and he is the choice, because CNN and ABC wanted him there.

    Time to wake up and smell the coffee before its too late, or is it too late already?

  • Wow
    July 8, 2008 9:39 a.m.

    I too look at our choices for president and wonder how this happened. Somehow the system failed.

  • Anonymous
    July 8, 2008 9:13 a.m.

    Let's put it THIS way:
    If an illiterate richie-rich loser with no experience like George W. Bush can become president -
    an intelligent, and compassionate black guy named Obama should have no problem.
    Prediction: Obama by a landslide.

  • Grover
    July 8, 2008 7:22 a.m.

    Gosh Frank I am really sorry that your boy the Mittster didn't pass muster with the majority of Americans due to his chameleon like performance on issues. "Parties should be ashamed of these nominees"? I think either will do nicely and as history shows no one can predict the performance of a president from his prior life. I stand behind the system that produced these two nominees...it's called democracy. If you feel ashamed, I suggest you run next time!

  • Timj
    July 8, 2008 7:17 a.m.

    The choices we have now are better than the choices we had four years ago.

  • Style First
    July 8, 2008 7:11 a.m.

    A long time ago we arrived at a point where the best person to be president would not be electable. The best resume would not get Eisenhower elected in the era of style we live in today. Still, I'm voting Obama. His demonstrated eloquence and intelligence will serve him, and us, well. Every time someone makes statements about Obamas' experience, I can't help but wonder back to what we thought when we sent dubya to office?

  • Mom in MO
    July 8, 2008 4:57 a.m.

    I'm not a big McCain supporter, but how can you say he isn't prepared for the job? Have you read McCain's biography? Or just the one the media has provided you?

  • Agki
    July 8, 2008 4:09 a.m.

    No one is ever really prepared to be president except for those who are re-elected to the office. Was Lincoln prepared? No chance. An election loser whose only experience was lawyering in a semi-frontier state. Was Washington? Not really. He was a good commander and he ran a plantation, liquor distillery, land speculation, and other money making operations quite well but does that mean he was "prepared" for the presidensity (as Pogo called it)? Go through the list. The only one who was actually prepared for the office was Martin van Buren who was specifically prepared for the job by Andrew Jackson. And van Buren screwed it up!

    The fact is we never know what we're getting when we elect a president. The 2000/2004 elections conclusively demonstrate that, don't they? A president establishes his greatness not through specific brilliance at machinations of foreign policy or getting laws passed or enforcing them once they are passed but in the kind of spirit and vision with which he invigorates the nation. McCain's vision seems limited and dominated by the shortsightedness of a preference for wealth and imperialism. Obama seems aware of what this nation's future needs will be. Vote for him!

  • John C.
    July 8, 2008 4:05 a.m.

    Amen Frank.....

  • Gus Talwynd
    July 8, 2008 2:05 a.m.

    Dwight Eisenhower brought both leadership and command skills to the unruly American political landscape. He came with an extremely well-qualified resume which very few presidential candidates possessed. However, to use him as a reference for judging the current candidates only intensifies the spotlight on the inexperience of the current president when he ran for president in 2000.

    There were major accomplishments by the Eisenhower administration that benefited the American people immensely:

    1. He oversaw the the cease-fire for the Korean War.

    2. He enlarged the Social Security program to make life better for many Americans and established the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

    3. He began building the Interstate Highway System that benefits us to this day.

    4. He supported civil rights for all Americans by proposing the Civil Right Acts of 1957, 1960 and initiated integration of Arkansas schools.

    5. He nominated Gov. Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court giving America the benefit of the Warren Court.

    6. He opposed McCarthyism in the early 50s.

    7. He warned America about the dangers of a military-industrial complex that has come to fruitition under the current Bush/Cheney presidency.

    Dwight Eisenhower was well prepared and did much for America.

  • Obama Mama
    July 8, 2008 12:43 a.m.

    Ofrank, can't you see that Senator Obama doesn't need actual experience?

    He's an inspirational leader whose personal life story, O'rhetorical gifts and garden variety policies are enough to see the country into an O'glorius future.