Ike's son (John Eisenhower) endorses Kerry

[Tricky]

First Reagan's son, now this.

In a rare public announcement, Eisenhower said he switched his party affiliation from Republican to independent after 50 years after losing confidence in his former party.
...
"Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance," he wrote.
...
""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."

Appeal to authority? Absolutely. Black eye for Bush. Definately.

 

[DavidJames]

Damn liberals, if his father were alive, he'd be rolling over in his grave

 

[Snide]

Damn liberals, if his father were alive, he'd be rolling over in his grave

...and clawing desperately.

 

[Luke T.]

Black eye for Bush. Definately.

Wishful thinking. Before the report, nobody even heard of this guy. He has less impact than the guy at your neighborhood corner bar.

Is this the best punch the Dems can throw? The son of a President from 40-odd years ago? What next? Abraham Lincoln's great-great-grandson votes Democratic?

 

[Tricky]

Re: Re: Ike's son (John Eisenhower) endorses Kerry

Wishful thinking. Before the report, nobody even heard of this guy. He has less impact than the guy at your neighborhood corner bar.

Is this the best punch the Dems can throw? The son of a President from 40-odd years ago? What next? Abraham Lincoln's great-great-grandson votes Democratic?

It is not a knockout punch by any means, but it could swing a few votes, especially among older voters who remember Eisenhower and back when the Republican party stood for fiscal responsibility and they had a social conscience.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Ike's son (John Eisenhower) endorses Kerry

Wishful thinking. Before the report, nobody even heard of this guy. He has less impact than the guy at your neighborhood corner bar.

Is this the best punch the Dems can throw? The son of a President from 40-odd years ago? What next? Abraham Lincoln's great-great-grandson votes Democratic?

Guess what, I've heard of the guy before now.

And he's right. I think his dad would be saying the same thing by now.

This is, after all, the same repugnican party that kicked BARRY GOLDWATER out of it for being too liberal a few years before Barry died, and even changed the name on his library, temporarily.

I'm surprised that more people don't point that out. It shows the extremist intolerance that represents the CENTER of the repugnican party. I mean, they kicked out "Mr. Conservative" for (*&(*&' sake.

It's a fact.

 

[pgwenthold]

A lot of people have recognized how this so-called "republican" administration is anything but conservative. For most people, conservative means things like smaller government, less government intrusion, and spending within ones means. For example, my very fiscally conservative father and brother are exceedlingly reluctant to borrow, unless absolutely necessary. If you can't pay, you can't afford it. Yet this adminstration has been nothing like this at all. Instead of a smaller government, they want to amend the constitution to increase government intrusion. Instead of fiscal responsibility, they run record deficits and just borrow the money. Hey, I won't claim that democrats control spending, but at least they try to pay for what the spend. Tell me again about who are the fiscally responsible ones: The ones who make sure they have money before they spend it? Or the ones who just keep maxing out their credit cards?

From a military perspective, remember in the old days when the republican criticism of democrats was that they were the ones who started all the wars? FDR got us into WWII, Truman got us in Korea, JFK/LBJ got us in Vietnam. Yep, those democrats are the ones who are always bringing us to war. In fact, this criticism was actually used by a Republican candidate in a presidential debate (by Ford, I think). Nowadays, the problem with Democrats is that they aren't gung-ho enough about going to war.

I really can't understand conservatives can support Bush in any way. Of course, many conservatives have made it known that they don't. Time for people to listen.

 

[Luke T.]

I really can't understand conservatives can support Bush in any way. Of course, many conservatives have made it known that they don't. Time for people to listen.

But they can't support Kerry either. Like many conservatives, I am voting against Kerry more than I am voting for Bush.

Now if the Democrats had put Lieberman up against Bush, they just might have gotten my vote.

 

[Luke T.]

Ike's kid should have brought up his beef to the Republican Party long before this election.

 

[jj]

Ike's kid should have brought up his beef to the Republican Party long before this election.

How do you know he didn't?

It took Barry Goldwater's being thrown out of the repugncan party to get a change in Arizona. It's safe to say that Barry was never, ever shy of saying just by (*&&(* he thought, now, isn't it, and that didn't stop them.

 

[jj]

But they can't support Kerry either. Like many conservatives, I am voting against Kerry more than I am voting for Bush.


This conservative is voting for Kerry, on a "least evil" platform.


Now if the Democrats had put Lieberman up against Bush, they just might have gotten my vote.

Leiberman isn't a liberal, he's an arch-conservative democrat. What's the point there?

 

[Luke T.]

How do you know he didn't?

It took Barry Goldwater's being thrown out of the repugncan party to get a change in Arizona. It's safe to say that Barry was never, ever shy of saying just by (*&&(* he thought, now, isn't it, and that didn't stop them.

Goldwater took himself out of the Republican party. He took to calling himself a liberal and favored abortion and gay rights. Hardly a conservative position.

 

[Luke T.]

Leiberman isn't a liberal, he's an arch-conservative democrat. What's the point there?

The point is that just as Bush is influenced by the far right, so Kerry is being influenced by the far left. Of the three, Lieberman seems a far better choice to me.

 

[jj]

The point is that just as Bush is influenced by the far right, so Kerry is being influenced by the far left. Of the three, Lieberman seems a far better choice to me.

Come on. Kerry is moderate to slightly conservative. He doesn't have a whiff of 'far left' in him, look who he's married to, for cripe's sake!

The pendulum is so, so, so far to the right, media included, in this country, that except for those of us old enough to have seen it, nobody knows what a leftist is these days.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The pendulum is so, so, so far to the right, media included, in this country, that except for those of us old enough to have seen it, nobody knows what a leftist is these days.

Well, as long as we all agree it's suspiciously leftist to insist on things like constitutional rights.....lol. [/bitterness]

 

[Jocko]

First Reagan's son, now this.


Appeal to authority? Absolutely. Black eye for Bush. Definately.

So what? I'm a republican and Amy Carter gave me head last weekend.

 

[Luke T.]

Come on. Kerry is moderate to slightly conservative. He doesn't have a whiff of 'far left' in him, look who he's married to, for cripe's sake!

The pendulum is so, so, so far to the right, media included, in this country, that except for those of us old enough to have seen it, nobody knows what a leftist is these days.

Kerry's recent anti-war stance is a clear indication of influence from the left. And he is pro-choice. And has a hardon for "the top 1 percent" as a vehicle to raise taxes, which is pure left rhetoric.

 

[jj]

Kerry's recent anti-war stance is a clear indication of influence from the left.


Luke, anti-war sentiment is not necessarily from any "left" or "right". I know that some of the fanatical right-wing types would like us all to believe that, but any look through history shows that anti-war sentiment is not an indicator of left/right. Why don't we look at the anti-war sentiment in previous generations. It's not necessarilyl leftist, by any means.


And he is pro-choice.


That's a religious issue, not a left/right issue.


And has a hardon for "the top 1 percent" as a vehicle to raise taxes, which is pure left rhetoric.

It's a fact that the most recent tax cuts benefitted mostly the top % or so of people who file tax returns. In that, he's right, it's a welfare program for the people who need it least. Why should any of us support that?

Those are facts. I'm quite sure that at least some of the reason that the tax cuts were arranged so they were was so that they could be defended against "leftism", but that's pure nonsense. The most recent round of tax cuts was nothing more than a present to the ultra-wealthy.

Now, I am not saying that anyone should soak them, I think THAT would be "leftist" rhetoric. We should just have rules that play out fairly for all IN PRACTICE.

Let's look at those tax-cut rules. People with money in funds or stocks make out. People who actually make homes for others by buying and operating real estate (something that the ultra-rich don't directly do) do NOT get a tax cut. That particular, indefensible inequity is leftist in and of itself. The tax cut ITSELF is leftist, in that it's the "soak the property owners" kind of tax cut.

If Kerry is doing anything there, he's objecting to things like that leftist slant to the last tax cut. Goodness, Luke, the facts are clear. I have seen leftist rhetoric. Kerry isn't close. As far as I can tell, he's still on the edge of conservative, not even moderate territory.

The farther-left espouses socialism. Kerry is a capitalist. His wife is an avowed, competent, rampaging capitalist.

The extreme left is communist. Kerry would be one of the first they'd shoot.

The moderate left supports a whole plethora of pseudo-socialistic programs that Kerry hasn't even come out for.

By any sane, sensible, and justifiable standard, Kerry is a right-leaning moderate. That's just how it is. That is, really, an unarguable fact. That we are having this discussion shows just how dishonestly, maliciously biased both this campaign and much of the news media around it actually are.

I suggest that you read about the use of propaganda in the rise of totalitarian states, Luke. You won't like what you read, and you'll find the techniques implied here right up front, with you as one of the major targets of the big lie. Do you really want to allow others to lie to you like that?

 

[TragicMonkey]

His wife is an avowed, competent, rampaging capitalist.

Lol. Great word choice. I shall never be able to see her in the news again without looking to see if she's on the verge of a rampage.

 

[jj]

Well, as long as we all agree it's suspiciously leftist to insist on things like constitutional rights.....lol. [/bitterness]

It does seem that way. When we have deliberate, obvious liars claiming nonsense like "this is a Christian nation" and "the founders were Christian", we see an attempt to dishonestly, maliciously rewrite history in an attempt to destroy everything the founders intended. When we see those who point out the simple, obvious facts of the founding of this country "leftists", we see the dishonest, raving malice involved.

The reason this country rose to greatness was its avoidance of religion in the government, and in the policies around governing, science, etc. The last administration has directly injected religion into things like stem cell research, deliberately, conciously chosen to disable scientific progress, and supported calls for things like "creation science" that are directly opposite the actual thing that made this country great.

Science is what made this country, and now science has nearly failed in this country. Research is failing, disappearing, and being meddled with everywhere one looks. Advancements are happening overseas because of both shortsighted religious and business policies, policies supported by shortsighted tax laws. The fact is simple, an attack on science is an attack on the foundation of this country, and that's what we see from Bush, from the religious right, and inexplicably from the lunatic left, all at the same time.

This country is already headed (look at the statististics, folks, it's entirely visible there) into another round of stagflation like that resuting from Vietnam, another round of global isolation, and this time, unlike the last time, we'll be third-rate in technology as well as in foreign policy.