Proud to be an Eisenhower Republican

StewartG · 04-05-2006

WARNING: This is another political thread! I know some people are getting tired of them - if you are one of those people, TURN BACK NOW!

I was surprised today when I read that someone on this board was a "registered Republican" when, based on what I had read of his political views, I just assumed he was a Democrat.

It got me thinking... Then I realized - the "so called" Republicans of today, the "neo-conservatives" are not really Republicans at all! They are a completely new breed - a breed that is, in my opinion, very dangerous to the future of this nation and the security and peace of this planet. I have sometimes jokingly refered to myself as a "modern day Democrat or an Eisenhower Republican." I then found this statement, written by a fellow "Eisenhower Republican" with exellent credentials just before the 2004 election:

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.)

Sooo... To all my friends I have been debating with over the past few days... What do you think? Are you Eisenhower Republicans as well?

ThrushJockey · 04-05-2006

spooner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

StewartG · 04-05-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThrushJockey

spooner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

???

ThrushJockey · 04-05-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by StewartG

???

???????????????????????????????????????????

We are getting to old for this..........

StewartG · 04-05-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThrushJockey

???????????????????????????????????????????

We are getting to old for this..........

I was trying to figure out what "spooner!!!!!!" meant!

Seakony · 04-05-2006

That's his opinion... he could be wrong. Slim votes the way his parents did..democratic. My parents voted democratic. I haven't voted for a democrat since Ann Richards, for govenor and Jimmy Carter...we know what happend there, great man, lousy president. I tend to vote for the man not the party, but Dukakis, Kerry, and Gore just flat scared the hell out of me. Clinton was just too skanky for me. GWB is not the best president either, but crap happens.

David Eisenhower talked about responsibility, but he left out personal responsibility, and there are just way too many people abusing the system and sucking us dry.

Like I said.. that's his opinion and he can think and vote whatever he likes. I will use my consience to vote the way I want and I think many voters today decide who they vote for regardless of the way their parents voted...unless they grew up in Union country...then the union tells them how to think.

ThrushJockey · 04-05-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by StewartG

I was trying to figure out what "spooner!!!!!!" meant!

Looking for a good argument......

trouble maker..............

instigator.......

Seakony · 04-05-2006

wisenheimer!

StewartG · 04-05-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seakony

That's his opinion... he could be wrong. Slim votes the way his parents did..democratic. My parents voted democratic. I haven't voted for a democrat since Ann Richards, for govenor and Jimmy Carter...we know what happend there, great man, lousy president. I tend to vote for the man not the party, but Dukakis, Kerry, and Gore just flat scared the hell out of me. Clinton was just too skanky for me. GWB is not the best president either, but crap happens.

David Eisenhower talked about responsibility, but he left out personal responsibility, and there are just way too many people abusing the system and sucking us dry.

Like I said.. that's his opinion and he can think and vote whatever he likes. I will use my consience to vote the way I want and I think many voters today decide who they vote for regardless of the way their parents voted...unless they grew up in Union country...then the union tells them how to think.

I wasn't trying to argue with him, disagree with him or second guess him in any way...

I was simply trying to figure out what he meant by "spooner!!!"

BTW, I agree with you about way too many people abusing this country's public assistance "social safety net." I've posted about that a few times - I think we should crack down on fraud and punish it harder than we currently do. Most of my fellow Democrats agree. But I do NOT think we should eliminate our social safety net as the current neo-conservative Republicans do.

Abuse of the social safety net system only provides ammunition for those either heartless enough or neo-conservative enough to want to eliminate the vast majority of these programs, even for those who truly need the help and have no other option. These ultra-right wingers then use these examples (far too many, unfortunately) of abuse of the social safety net system to support their argument to ELIMINATE the system rather than to advocate fixing the problems. I have no problem with a portion of my tax dollars going to people who TRULY need the help, and I think most Americans agree with me. Unfortunately, abuse by a few jeapordizes the availibility of these safety net programs for those with true need.

Seakony · 04-06-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by StewartG

I wasn't trying to argue with him, disagree with him or second guess him in any way...

I was simply trying to figure out what he meant by "spooner!!!"

BTW, I agree with you about way too many people abusing this country's public assistance "social safety net." I've posted about that a few times - I think we should crack down on fraud and punish it harder than we currently do. Most of my fellow Democrats agree. But I do NOT think we should eliminate our social safety net as the current neo-conservative Republicans do.

Abuse of the social safety net system only provides ammunition for those either heartless enough or neo-conservative enough to want to eliminate the vast majority of these programs, even for those who truly need the help and have no other option. These ultra-right wingers then use these examples (far too many, unfortunately) of abuse of the social safety net system to support their argument to ELIMINATE the system rather than to advocate fixing the problems. I have no problem with a portion of my tax dollars going to people who TRULY need the help, and I think most Americans agree with me. Unfortunately, abuse by a few jeapordizes the availibility of these safety net programs for those with true need.

I agree too that there are people who need help through no fault of their own. But when we are getting into 3rd and 4th generation welfare families, then a line needs to be drawn. Too many see how easy it is to get. Their parents didn't work , so why should they? What ticks me off is when I see people who worked their whole lives, granted they never made alot of money, but they fall in the cracks when they need help.

I have been to the welfare office on behalf of an elderly aunt. She worked as a hotel maid...and she wasn't real bright. Her hubby was a security guard. He drops dead, only enough insurance to bury him. She gets cancer. She moves in with my folks because her income alone won't cover her bills. Her medical bills sky-rocket... I went to SOcial Security and Medicaid. Both turned her down. Yet I could not understand why all the signs and forms were in English and Spanish. The case worker showed me a file of a woman who had 2 illegitimate kids, in public housing, welfare, food stamps, etc... and she also had an illegal man living with her. Yet a woman who worked till she was 65 got squat. All we asked for was help on the medical bills.

jeffandbecky · 04-06-2006

BTW, I agree with you about way too many people abusing this country's public assistance "social safety net." I've posted about that a few times - I think we should crack down on fraud and punish it harder than we currently do. Most of my fellow Democrats agree. But I do NOT think we should eliminate our social safety net as the current neo-conservative Republicans do.

The anwser is very simple, don't punish the people looking for help. That is cruel and heartless, sack the government employee who enables the fraud. The same applies for immigration. Hit the employer, then there is no problem.

Jacko · 04-06-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by StewartG

I was trying to figure out what "spooner!!!!!!" meant!

Spooner equals "pot stirrer"

Daddy B · 04-06-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by StewartG

I was surprised today when I read that someone on this board was a "registered Republican" when, based on what I had read of his political views, I just assumed he was a Democrat.

"He's a pussycat, really"...

Nerak936 · 04-06-2006

When I woke up this morning, the first thought that popped into my head was, "Gee.... I hope there's a new political thread started in the Forum today!"

Daddy B · 04-06-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerak936

When I woke up this morning, the first thought that popped into my head was, "Gee.... I hope there's a new political thread started in the Forum today!"

We make your dreams come true!

04-05-2006	#1 (permalink)
StewartG commie pinko Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: The Kremlin (when not at my dacha in Houston) Posts: 15,520	Proud to be an Eisenhower Republican WARNING: This is another political thread! I know some people are getting tired of them - if you are one of those people, TURN BACK NOW! I was surprised today when I read that someone on this board was a "registered Republican" when, based on what I had read of his political views, I just assumed he was a Democrat. It got me thinking... Then I realized - the "so called" Republicans of today, the "neo-conservatives" are not really Republicans at all! They are a completely new breed - a breed that is, in my opinion, very dangerous to the future of this nation and the security and peace of this planet. I have sometimes jokingly refered to myself as a "modern day Democrat or an Eisenhower Republican." I then found this statement, written by a fellow "Eisenhower Republican" with exellent credentials just before the 2004 election: 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.) Sooo... To all my friends I have been debating with over the past few days... What do you think? Are you Eisenhower Republicans as well? __________________ ¿Dónde están mis pantalones?

04-05-2006	#2 (permalink)
ThrushJockey añejo Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,844	spooner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

04-05-2006	#6 (permalink)
Seakony añejo Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 16,151	That's his opinion... he could be wrong. Slim votes the way his parents did..democratic. My parents voted democratic. I haven't voted for a democrat since Ann Richards, for govenor and Jimmy Carter...we know what happend there, great man, lousy president. I tend to vote for the man not the party, but Dukakis, Kerry, and Gore just flat scared the hell out of me. Clinton was just too skanky for me. GWB is not the best president either, but crap happens. David Eisenhower talked about responsibility, but he left out personal responsibility, and there are just way too many people abusing the system and sucking us dry. Like I said.. that's his opinion and he can think and vote whatever he likes. I will use my consience to vote the way I want and I think many voters today decide who they vote for regardless of the way their parents voted...unless they grew up in Union country...then the union tells them how to think.

04-05-2006	#8 (permalink)
Seakony añejo Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 16,151	wisenheimer!

04-06-2006	#11 (permalink)
jeffandbecky añejo Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Driftwood Posts: 2,101	BTW, I agree with you about way too many people abusing this country's public assistance "social safety net." I've posted about that a few times - I think we should crack down on fraud and punish it harder than we currently do. Most of my fellow Democrats agree. But I do NOT think we should eliminate our social safety net as the current neo-conservative Republicans do. The anwser is very simple, don't punish the people looking for help. That is cruel and heartless, sack the government employee who enables the fraud. The same applies for immigration. Hit the employer, then there is no problem.

04-06-2006	#14 (permalink)
Nerak936 añejo Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: South Shore of Baahhstun, Massachusetts Posts: 23,227	When I woke up this morning, the first thought that popped into my head was, "Gee.... I hope there's a new political thread started in the Forum today!"

register to remove these adverts