Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Ike: Anti-Bush Republican

The far right Limbaugh-types of the Republican party never liked Dwight Eisenhowere when he was alive.

Once marginalized, rightist and revanchist elements of the Republican party now rule the White House and Congress.


Many soldiers have since lost their lives in a land they know not.

Now wonder today's Eisehower is appalled.

When John Eisenhower,
the son of President Eisenhower, endorsed Kerry, he let it be known that Bush was abhorrent to values that the name "Ike" signifies.

Obviously, as a military historian and a former Ambassador, Mr. Eisenhower would find Bush to be absurd.

However, it was not just Kerry's heroism, or Bush's military flameout, but an overall degeneration of the Republican party, that brought Eisenhower into the Democratic camp.

Thanks to
Francesca for posting this:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires like H.L. Hunt, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
~President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952 -A letter to his brother, Milton, written November 8, 1954

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
~Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961 Farewell

47 Comments:

At 1:37 PM, Blogger Bob Sakowski said...

Ike was not appreciated during his terms in office. I know that we considered his 8 years to be a breather after WW2 and Korea.

I would not have voted for him (back then the voting age was 21 and, in any case, 1962 marked my first voting experience) but he was an uncommon man possessed of great common sense.

My blog is: GratisNet Blog
My web site is: GratisNet

 
At 1:48 PM, Anonymous Frenchie said...

If America had an Eisenhower in office today I imagine there would be much more diplomacy in order to avoid war which he knew too well.

 
At 1:49 PM, Blogger Irina Tsukerman said...

Your post definitely has value for those who look up to Ike as to an ideal Republican and a great Prez. What about those who do not? Why should they care what Eisenhower would have thought about Bush, and for whom his son voted?

 
At 2:14 PM, Blogger wanda said...

"Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Sadly this is no longer true. They are neither stupid nor small. They are many and they are strong. To underestimate their will and desire to be the sole governing power is to endanger all that we hold dear. The time has come to be afraid. Very afraid.
The weepugs of today worship at the alter of Lord Ronnie & Jesus Bush. Ike is old school and a fool to them. They care not what the greats such as Eisenhower and Roosevelt thought or would have to say regarding the perilous state in which we find ourselves and our country.
Men who have known war tend to be far more likely to avoid it. Knowing all too well the high costs. Chickenhawks on the other hand have no problem with war as long as they can send others to front line. Our present government is littered with those who are all for war, and sacrifice, as long as THEY don't have to serve, or do the sacrificing.
Wanda ( Words On a Page )

 
At 3:10 PM, Anonymous John said...

So I suppose Ron Reagan Jr.'s contempt for Bush and his insistence that he's no Ronald Reagan has equal authority.

 
At 3:34 PM, Blogger amy said...

I really don't think that anyone should be taking Ron Reagan, Jr.'s opinions/thoughts/actions with more than a grain of salt. He's not even worth his own hype. Even mainstays in his father's party don't even recognize him. And if you don't believe me, I've got a hilarious story to share that proves the contrary.

 
At 5:09 PM, Anonymous John said...

My point exactly, Amy. I'm certainly not comparing Ron Jr. to John Eisenhower, but using a son's personal opinions as an "authority" of what their father's public persona means to people diverse and sundry and compare or contrast that to Bush's public persona is as valid as my saying that Bush is very much like Reagan (and unlike him, sure, but there are distinctive similarities).

And all three--Ike, Reagan, and Bush--were from different generations and different backgrounds and presided over different periods of the country.

You don't know how Ike would've responded to 9/11. If it was anything like his invasive performance against the Third Reich, there would be far more than a 100,000 civilians killed.

Eisenhower didn't like war (Who does? Bush and the Bushites?), but he knew how to fight one. He got down and dirty.

Eisenhower was a great president. He ended Truman's Korean War in 1953, and eased domestic Cold War tensions with the censuring of Mcarthy by the Senate in 1954 and proposing a nuclear test ban. He also pressured allies to withdraw from the Suez Canal, alleviating anti-Western tensions there.

But he had the luxury of presiding over an America that had emerged as a pre-eminent world power and, certainly weary--and wary--of war, he concentrated on America's infrastructure and supported the space program.

However, that did not mean he dismantled the checks-and-balances against the Soviets that were established by Truman. The ending of the Korean War was by no means a surrender, but a stale-mate of sorts that established the 38th Parallel and divided the country much like Germany was.

We had a heavy military presence in both Europe and Asia, much of which is still there from Ike's day.

The Cold War was alive and well, but only catching a breather until the light-weight JFK came along, who inspired Kruschev to import nuclear missiles to Cuba.

And the space program itself was partly engendered by military considerations and competition against the Soviet's own race to space.

Eisenhower fought in WWII and helped win it. On the heels of that war was the Cold War, that raged hotly throughout Truman's term. Eisenhower came in and cooled it down a bit and took advantage of America's post-war WWII preeminence.

In that, his positioning, coincidentally, is much like Clinton's, who came in at the end of the Cold War and took advantage of another bump up the ladder of global pre-eminence for our nation-- although the conflict we are engaged in today, the IWOT, was (as the Cold War was in Eisenhower's day), still brewing beneath the surface and making itself known with some regularity throughout the nineties, with increasing boldness, climaxing with 9/11.

The difference is that the Soviets respected Eisenhower's strength of character and avoided stepping on his toes, while the terrorist organizations were increasingly emboldened and empowered for eight-years in what they recognized as Clinton's weakness of character (hence Bin Laden's characterizing of America as a "paper tiger").

In his positioning at the beginning of a new global conflict, it isn't fair to compare Ike to Dubya, as one presided over a time of relative peace, and the other is a wartime president.

Ike's quotes about the small and stupid cabal of Texan oilmen who wanted to undermine Social Security was in the context of a program that was still relatively new and working as it was meant to work, with robust viability.

That being said, it's one of those things that make me go: :O

And as Bobski points out, Ike had his fair share of detractors.

And he didn't do much about the segregated plight of African Americans in the South, either.

What, was he a racist, Gotham? Was he an appeaser? Was he a coward?

 
At 7:08 PM, Blogger Phelonius said...

Wow, I had no idea that the conflict in Korea was over. Well damn me I guess. I thought we were still spending billions of dollars fighting a conflict there to the very pewsent day.

Ike was good. He warned us about the growing conflict in indo-china and he was a pertty good fiscal president. He did not, however, pull out the troops defending the border there. Racism aside, he was a cold war president, and he spent a lot of money fighting the impending Communist takeover of western Europe. He simply did not consider Asia to be the main theater of conflict after Japan surrendered. Kennedy and LJB would have been wise to listen to the former Commander in Chief of the western conflict. He did understand war, but he was fully prepared to take action against a Soviet Union that was ready at the time to begin another war if necessary.

 
At 9:09 PM, Anonymous John said...

Indubitably, Phelonius.

Ike ended open hostilities of the Korean War, but that's all.

Perhaps Truman should have let MacArthur do his thing.

Perhaps Ike should have ignored idiot anti-war M*A*S*H doctors like Hawkeye Pierce and B.J. Honeycutt (not Trapper; he's a Rebublican!) and finished the job in Korea (But I understand why he opted for a stale-mate).

Let's here what Condi said just yesterday, OVER A HALF CENTURY LATER:

"I don't think anyone is confused about the ability of the United States to deter--both on behalf of itself and on behalf of its allies--North Korean nuclear ambitions or gains on the peninsula. And, of course, the United States maintains significant--and I want to underline significant--deterrent capability of all kinds in the Asia-Pacific region. So I don't think there should be any oubt about our ability to deter whatever the North Koreans are up to."

Would today's Eisenhower find that "appalling," Gotham, "abhorrent," or "absurd?"

Would his father?

 
At 9:13 PM, Anonymous John said...

P.S. Amy:

What's the skinny on Jr.?

 
At 9:41 PM, Anonymous John said...

Please note:

When I said:

"Eisenhower was a great president. He ended Truman's Korean War in 1953, and eased domestic Cold War tensions with the censuring of Mcarthy by the Senate in 1954 and proposing a nuclear test ban. He also pressured allies to withdraw from the Suez Canal, alleviating anti-Western tensions there..."

That didn't necessarily mean that those specific milestones were what made him "great."

I was just listing some of his accomplishments objectively.

I think his greatness as a man was bigger than his greatness as a president, though he was still a great president, worthy of gracing the fifty-cent piece.

 
At 9:41 PM, Blogger amy said...

John, it's not so much "the skinny," as a funny situation in which he went completely unrecognized.

In 2003, when I was working at the annual Arts Advocacy Day for Americans for the Arts (http://www.americansforthearts.org ... those of you in the NYC Metro area may have seen their ads in either English or Spanish with Chuck D or La Bruja), our Congressional Arts Breakfast was held on Capitol Hill and members of the Creative Coalition attended to speak on behalf of the arts (don't get me started on the Creative Coalition). The CC is a huge group of artists, actors, musicians, etc. - many of whom are "celebrities" of all kinds of stature - who choose the cause closest to their hearts to work with/in. It never fails that the Congressional Arts Breakfast draws some horribly B-List names. That particular year Fran Drescher was the "highlight." Ron Reagan, Jr. came along too ... and he was exactly as I imagined him to be. Annoying. Snotty. Prissy. The Whole 9 Yards.

Anyway, I was standing off to the side of this large, grand room that the event was taking place in, and I happened to be next to one of the Vice Presidents at AFTA who is a complete and total dearheart. Staff members had been placed throughout the room to watch for Congresspersons to walk in so that CC folk could be ushered off the stage during their horribly scripted speaches so that the Representatives and Senators could be recognized and say a few words to their constituents (there were usually 300+ advocates from around the country gathered for this particular event).

So in walks Senator Thad Cochran, Republican from Mississippi (and Trent Lott's nemesis ... and if you don't know THAT story, just ask). We were actually recognizing Senator Cochran for his work on arts education over the last 20 years so we really wanted him on stage as soon as he arrived. He comes to the front of the room, on the sidelines where I happen to be standing near the VP and I say to my coworker, "Hey, that's Senator Cochran."

He pulls him gently out of the way and tells him that we'll get him on stage to present him with his award as soon as that guy on stage shuts his yap (he merely just pointed at Ron and said it wouldn't be long, I'm exaggerating somewhat for effect). So Sen. Cochran, a remarkably intelligent and sweet Southern man, stops and takes it all in for a second, seeing how many people have gathered (the room is packed almost elbow-to-elbow) and he looks on stage and somewhat tilts his head. You can tell he's thinking. So he turns to my coworker and says, "Who's that guy up there talking?"

Looking at my coworker in disbelief, I almost died while waiting to hear what he'd say as a reply.

"Senator, that's Ron Reagan, Jr."

*blank look*

"You know, President Reagan's son?"

*blank look followed by a long pause; looks back to the stage; back to my coworker*

"Ohh ... *pause* ... huh."

My coworker looks over at me and we do our best to not completely burst out laughing at the scene. Not only did he not recognize the President's son, but he could've cared less that he was there.

The end-all and be-all of the situation was that when Sen. Cochran finally took the stage to receive his award and make his remarks, Ron stood behind him, his effervescent smugness oozing from every one of his greasy Hollywood pores, and Sen. Cochran literally took a jab at him by talking about his father and how he cared for the arts, and did this and that. And that Ron had a lot he could learn by his father's example. I thought the rest of us might die ... it was oh so beautiful.

So when you're watching the dog shows on Animal Planet and you hear that annoying, nasally voice talking about Australian Cattle Dogs and Miniature Schnauzers, just remember, the son of a former President - no matter how the President is remembered in life or death - is nothing when he's a complete and utter pain in the ass.

 
At 10:42 PM, Anonymous John said...

lol You captured it well. I feel like I was there!

Thank you Amy. I rest my case. GOTHAM.

 
At 8:25 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Irina - It should be noted that many neocon today DO not like Ike and never did, because the evolved away from being Truman Democrats.

But it is important to bring this up, because Ike is a Republican icon and if the great mass of Republican contributors saw people in today's GOP dissing Ike, it would serve as a divisive wedge.

The headquarters of the Republican party are housed in the "Eisenhower" building. Eisenhower is a hero to many old tyme Repubs- his name is used in many fundraising requests.

The comparison to Ron Jr. is specious and almost everything else John says is delerious. John Eisenhower is a military histortian and a diplomat. Formidible men like Kerry , who obtain support from conservatives like John Eisenhower do so because of good reasons. Ron Jr. is a liberal. That is dog bites man, not man bites dog, when a liberal supports Kerry. When conservatives like Eisehower do, that is news.

 
At 8:28 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Frenche is correct. For Ike, war was not like Playstation, as it is for the Boy Bush and the Bushbots. Also, provincialism and militant ignorance was not celebrated by Ike and his crowd the way it is with Limmaugh-types and the Bircher=types.

 
At 8:32 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

We forget the name of the movie, but in it Robert De Niro plays Al Capone. He takes a baseball bat and beats people in public at table. That's what we feel like doing to John's silly comments, but the Elliot Ness side of us cousel's restraint.

 
At 10:36 AM, Blogger amy said...

I think there might be a problem with weighing the opinions of children of elected officials in general; regardless of their educational status, occupation, etc. Does anyone really care what Ron Reagan, Jr. has to say about the arts? I don't, and I lobbied for them (and we can use all the help we can get). Your point about Little Eisenhower is valid, but the only reason his opinion is being heard is because his last name is Eisenhower; it has little, if anything to do with the fact that he's a military historian. And as much as I adore Caroline Kennedy Schlosberg and her many books on the Bill of Rights, I fully realize that the real reason they've been so well-received is because she's a Kennedy.

On the flipside of that coin, the only reason people care that Jenna and Barbara Bush are out partying like it's 1999 is because their last name is Bush. Any other time nobody would really care what they're out doing, or if they're underage, or if they lied about pursuing a teaching job in the projects.

 
At 10:56 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Man bites dog is news. Dog bites man is not news.

Ron Reagan Jr. is a liberal, so for him to vote against Bush is not news- it's expected.

Eisenhower is a conservative Republican, a diplomat, a historian, and chronicler of Bob Dole and many other GOPers icon - Ike- so when he turns against Bush, that is news.

Ofcourse, Bush is trying to build the Gruesome Society in place of The Great Society, so he invites disdain- one could argue that Bush turned againt modern America before Ike Jr. turned against him.

 
At 10:58 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Ron Reagan Jr. probably is worth listening to when he discussed arts - he was a trained dancer. His opinion on other things, not related to his Dad, is no better or worse than enyone else's.

 
At 11:03 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

John's cialisless comments continue to limp down endlessly from our blog's comments page.

 
At 11:55 AM, Blogger Irina Tsukerman said...

Cialisless?

 
At 11:59 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Impotent.

 
At 12:03 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Interesting to note that John blames Truman, not the communists, for the Korean war- Truman's war. But he right that Ike ended it. Would Bush have ended it.
Recall Ike telling England, France, and Israel to pull out of Suez, when they invaded behind his back.
Ike threatned to sink the British currency if England did not pull out. That had gut-but in England the blimps went nuts.
Do you think Bush would have the guts do the same thing -to stand up to Blair? HA HA!
This is important because Suez marked the last gasp of dying British Empire and Ike pulled the plug. That too guts -guts that Bush does not have.

 
At 12:15 PM, Blogger amy said...

But does Ron Reagan, Jr. discuss his dancing? Nope. Does he like to throw around his father's name in vain? Yup!

 
At 12:18 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Irina writes:
"Your post definitely has value for those who look up to Ike as to an ideal Republican and a great Prez. What about those who do not? Why should they care what Eisenhower would have thought about Bush, and for whom his son voted?"

Glad you said that- by writing about things Ike did that divide today's Republican coalition, I am helping to drive a wedge between diffferent factions of the party. Lot's of Republicans don't have strong opinions or are nor informed about Ike, but thet respect him as a heritage figure-and they would be very upset to find any conservative dissing Ike-
I am hoping to show divisions in the modern Republican coalition - divisions that will lead to anger and loss.
The GOP has been doing this to the good guys for a while- dividing white ethics from feminists, urband v. suburban etc.

 
At 12:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL
Cialisless!
Cialis = impotence pill
cialisless = impotence
Good neologism!
Re: John
Call your Doctor.
ROFL LMAO KMAMFO!
-SLA

 
At 2:16 PM, Blogger Irina Tsukerman said...

WC, your efforts to divide the Republicans will fail, because you're targetting too narrow an audience! ; )

There's no point trying to guess what Bush would have done, because we're living under a different set of circumstances. Blair & Bush are political pals on the war in Iraq, & Blair is much more straight-forward than Eden was. Besides, UK can't afford any more political scandals of any sort.

 
At 3:10 PM, Anonymous John said...

In Gotham's mind, 'Cialisless" = impotency.

So, in his mind, potency=cialis.

Tsk-tsk. TMI, Gotham.

 
At 3:24 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

John trying to be clairvoyent? Tsk-tsk. Cialis has nothing to do with potency in *our* minds.

In fact, if we tried to make any claims about it , their coporate legal department would probably file suit against us.

Rather, as anyone with a TV set or a pair of eye and ears knows, cialis is marketed as a drug to treat impotence. The very corporation (you love corporations,don't you Johnny?) is the one who equates the two.

How you ,in your mind ,transferred that fact, onto we, is something only Doctor Freud could explain with equanimity.

 
At 3:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

John reveals his ignorance again, He did not even know what Cialis was marketed for! Typical winger. WC - he's giving you the credit for coming up with that!

 
At 3:46 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Word!
John thinks the conflict in Korea is over! He probably thought the first Bush won the Gulf War too! He probably thought the second war was over when the monkey went on the aircraft carrier and pranced around in a flight suit!

 
At 9:10 PM, Anonymous John said...

Ah, Gotham, Gotham, Gotham. Your backpedaling, self-conscious panic as you flail wildly about with your fingernails after failing to castrate the Alpha Male is very unseemly and compromises your gravitas as the host here.

"Peter, why reveal so much?"

You said:

"John's cialisless comments continue to limp down endlessly from our blog's comments page..."

The fair Irina understandably asks:

Cialisless?

WC sniffs:

Impotent.

SLA gets tickled by that and properly equates:

"LOL
Cialisless!
Cialis = impotence pill
cialisless = impotence
Good neologism!
Re: John
Call your Doctor.
ROFL LMAO KMAMFO!
-SLA"

Ha ha, SLA. You might want to take a closer look and form your own prognosis.

Then I made the proper--and quite insightful--analogy that if "Cialisless=impotence" (as Salieri explicitly and most insidiously whispered to the fair Irina, and SLA discerned with NO DISSENT from him), then it stands to reason that Gotham equates potency with Cialis, in his mind.

Gotham realizes his strategic blunder, turns deep red, panics, and tries to insert this most flaccid of denials (as the fair Irina pouts and ponders quite precociously):

"Cialis has nothing to do with potency in *our* minds," he briskly shakes his head and flatly states (to the fair Irina).

And yet "Cialisless" has everything to do with impotency? It "equals" it?

Quickly shrinking (even more), WC tries the shriveled "Don't-look-at-me-I-saw-it-on-television" alibi:

"Rather, as anyone with a TV set or a pair of eye and ears knows, cialis is marketed as a drug to treat impotence."

And then some anonymous stooge of yours incoherently sneers:

"John reveals his ignorance again, He did not even know what Cialis was marketed for! Typical winger. WC - he's giving you the credit for coming up with that!"

I can't even respond to that one, because it's even more arcane than Joyce's Finnegan's Wake (though at least Joyce had a method to the madness).

You're dismissed, Anon.

I have a television, WC. And a pair of eyes (20/20) and ears, too, and I didn't know that. And yet he closes his eyes, twirls his temple with his forefinger, inhales vapors like the oracular Pythis at Delphi, clairvoyantly channeling Jung's communal unconscious and divines that "everyone knows that"-- right after he tries to be cute and says, "John trying to be clairvoyent? Tsk-tsk"!

BTW, it's "clarvoyant." Misspelling a word once is a typo. Misspelling a word all the time is bad spelling.

I heard the name "Cialis" on commercials, but I didn't pay attention because it didn't concern me. I thought it was another one of those anti-depressant drugs ("that may cause headaches, upset stomachs, diarrhea, AND impotency--BUT YOU WON'T BE DEPRESSED! LMAO!!!).

In fact, truly, when I first saw WC's ingenious new contribution to Roget's thesaurus for the entry of "impotency"-- i.e. "Cialisless"-- my reaction was precisely that of the fair Irina's: "What is that?" I'm serious. I thought he misspelled "classless" or something.

So anyway, I found it curious--but not surpriing-- that WC equated potency with Cialis.

Then WC clumsily tries to turn the tables on me:

"How you ,in your mind ,transferred that fact, onto we, is something only Doctor Freud could explain."

He already has. He called it "Projection." Milton called it "Inversion."

As to Ike.

Look here at Gotham's Orwelliam m.o., the true purpose of his post:

"But it is important to bring this up, because Ike is a Republican icon and if the great mass of Republican contributors saw people in today's GOP dissing Ike, it would serve as a divisive wedge."

Divide and conquer. That's how he operates here.

The fair Irina said:

"WC, your efforts to divide the Republicans will fail, because you're targetting too narrow an audience! ; )"

But for his purposes, Irina, the audience here, in the henhouse, suits the sly Renyard just fine, particularly in his dastardly but perpeually foiled attempts to separate the rooster--me--from the hens he's trying to trick into believing that those sharp little teeth beneath the bonnet aren't for eating; no, they're for "Enlightening" (quotation marks, not asterisks).

Cock-a-doodle, do, girls. *Beware the liberal, demagogic fox!*

Beware Salieri "tutoring" in the conservatory!

Don't you worry. Just pay attention to my Magic Flute.

In the meantime, Salieri/Renyard/WC continues his campaign that combines a rooster with the function of a defensive lineman in football (I think you know what I mean), and discredits my superior reasoning in that endeavor:

"The comparison to Ron Jr. is specious and almost everything else John says is delerious."

It's spelled "delirious." And it's not specious at all. You gave John Eisenhower "special" authority on his critique of Dubya because he is Ike's son:

"Now wonder today's Eisehower (!) is appalled.
When John Eisenhower, the son of President Eisenhower..."

That's how you introduced him. That was your introductory qualification.

And that's precisely like someone saying: "No wonder today's Reagan is appalled. When Ronald Reagan Jr., the son of President Reagan..."

You anemically give Mr. Eisenhower the proper credentials later, here:

"John Eisenhower is a military histortian and a diplomat."

Is "histortion" a conflation of "historian" and "distortion"? Well, good enough. But I can easily find a slew of other military historians and diplomats who would disagree with his assessments, quite legitimitely.

But you discriminate him from the others in the same way you think Livingston is "forgivable"...

Because of his genes.

Why choose him over anyone else--who agrees with him?

Because of his name and genes. You thought that gave your argument extra weight.

I properly corrected your very un-American premise by pointing out that Ron Jr. does not have the last word on his father, and certainly doesn't represent his legacy to the country.

Amy illustrated exactly what I meant, and added (Irinesque emphases mine):

"I think there might be a problem with weighing the opinions of children of elected officials in general; *regardless of their educational status, occupation, etc.* ...Your point about Little Eisenhower is valid, *but the only reason his opinion is being heard is because his last name is Eisenhower; it has little, if anything to do with the fact that he's a military historian.*"

You understood your error in outlook, but instead of thanking us, or prudently staying silent, you concur in the kind of face-saving tone meant to transmit, "I knew that alla time!":

"Eisenhower is a conservative Republican, a diplomat, a historian, and chronicler of Bob Dole and many other GOPers icon - Ike..."

Okay. That was good. And you could of even added, at the very end: "...Ike-- who happened to be his own father."

That would leave the reader to understand on their own the proper extent of the significance.

But you originally premised it as THEE significant qualification.

Of course, you disqualify ANY qualification for President George W. Bush by virtue of being the son of President George H. Bush.

In fact, that was used most vociferously against him from the Left.

Yes, you should have just left it alone, but your fragile, liberal ego compelled you to spew out a cavalcade of non-conceding concessional rationalizations, about "Man bites Dog" being more newsworthy than "Dog bites Man," in a pathetic attempt to "prove" that conservative John Eisenhower's negative assessment of conservative Bush is more of a "Man bites Dog" situation, and hence more valid by its sheer novelty, than liberal Ronnie Jr.'s negative assessments of Bush, which are more of you're run-of-the mill "Dog Bites Man" situation.

You don't think that a mythic, American icon of Conservatism like Ronald Reagan having a son who is a dancing Liberal and who is outspoken against his own father's party is a "Dog Bites Man" situation, WC?

Couldn't I just as easily--and irresponsibly--used Jr.'s testimony against Conservatism and the Republican Party as some sort of statement, and highlight his tergiversation to Liberalism as some kind of "proof" on the folly of both Conservatasim, the GOP, and his father to boot, arguing that he knows first-hand what they are all about and is therefore the best authority?

Of course I can, and that would certainly qualify for a "Man Bites Dog" situation (It's his own SON!), but that would be an argument riddled with fallacies, and I'll leave such methods of arguing to you.

"Formidible men like Kerry..."

LMAO!!!!

"Frenche is correct."

Frenchie's a fool.

"For Ike, war was not like Playstation..."

I bet "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is going to be an awesome X-Box game! I can't wait!

"Also, provincialism and militant ignorance was not celebrated by Ike and his crowd the way it is with Limmaugh-types and the Bircher=types."

And Gothamimage. "Provincialism?" Look at the name of his blog. "Militant ignorance?" Look how he attacks me--and even hits below the belt with that "Cialisless" insinuation--all because he militantly takes umbrage at my pointing out the flaccidity of his reasoning in front of the females, and his ignorance.

"We forget the name of the movie..."

"The Untouchables"

But he persists:

"John thinks the conflict in Korea is over!"

Here is what I said:

"Indubitably, Phelonius.

Ike ended open hostilities of the Korean War, but that's all."

He continues with his militant ignorance:

"He probably thought the first Bush won the Gulf War too!"

He did. The mission was to evict Saddam from Kuwait.

"He probably thought the second war was over when the monkey went on the aircraft carrier and pranced around in a flight suit!"

When the Commander-In-Chief--a trained fighter pilot with wings--paid the war-weary troops a visit in that splendid way, their rejuvenated jubilation was quite evident.

The first phase of combat operations was over. We had entered Baghdad, toppled the regime, sent Saddam and his sons on the run, and took control of the country, of which we are still in control of today.

The insurgents are losing.

Why? Because we erected a position, and it stands tall against any impotent asaults on its firmness, and works steadily towards consummation of the mission at hand, a goal very worthy of our excellent ideals, and one that is greatly desired, as it will prove beneficial--and joyful-- for both parties involved.

You, on the other hand (or in the right, WC?), characteristically--and grudginly, because it's too "icky" a business for your refined sensibilties-- wanted a quick encounter and an even quicker withdrawal, to leave before the sun came up, and bypass the spooning required to win trust and affection, bypass the watching of the rising sun, as it shines upon a new beginning.

Yes. Quick-draw McGraw here prefers to make his presence remembered only by the bedsheets he soiled and the dissatisfied frustration he leaves behind as you, W.C., shrink, wilt, and wither away from a mission that demands attentive patience, endurance, and cultivation of affection.

Why, WC, because it's too hard?

Au contraire. I think your problem is that it's not hard enough (if ya know what I mean).

 
At 9:18 AM, Blogger Irina Tsukerman said...

OK... from a bar/pick up joint/vomitorium, this place is progressively turning into group sex therapy. What's next?

 
At 11:40 AM, Anonymous John said...

I hope armwrestling.

 
At 7:56 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Armwrestling John?

"What, art a heathen? How dost thou understand the
Scripture? The Scripture says 'Adam digged:'
could he dig without arms? I'll put another
question to thee: if thou answerest me not to the
purpose, confess thyself--"

Hamlet, First Clown, Act V, Sc.1

In the begining was the word, then came Adam, then came image, then came Gothamimage.

It came to pass, the arms of Adam, were handed down to the image of Gotham.

"I know thee not, but I see thee still," said the man whose name was John.

The arms of Gotham were weary -

"Armwrestling," said John, who begat many words.

"We know thee not," Gotham demurs

"Cudgel thy brains no more about it, for your dull
ass will not mend his pace with beating; and, when
you are asked this question next...."
First Clown, V,I

"We are weary..." replies Gotham

"But age, with his stealing steps,
Hath claw'd me in his clutch,
And hath shipped me intil the land,
As if I had never been such.."
First Clown, V,I

Good night, Johnny Agonistes, may future posts sing you to fight again!

 
At 9:39 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

"...these three years I have taken a note of
it; the age is grown so picked that the toe of the
peasant comes so near the heel of the courtier, he
gaffs his kibe..."
~Hamlet V,I

Gotham say - peasant may go and rest, the age is pickeled, it has declined, and Bush is to blame.

 
At 12:14 AM, Blogger wanda said...

"...I don't think there should be any oubt about our ability to deter whatever the North Koreans are up to."

Well, there's ability and then there's ability. While we may have the arsenal to wipe N. Korea off the map, thereby detering their nuclear aspirations. We have neither the man power nor the arsenal to deal with the repercussions of such an act.
Therefore the ability is pretty much useless. Ms Rice would be wise to remember N.Korea is a baby bear playing around in the back yard of a very big, very bad bear. A bear we dare not awaken. Especially since not only can they kick our asses real bad, but they own us in the financial arena as well. I'm not sure which would be worse, all out nuclear war with China or for them to forclose on their enormous loans to us. Either way, they own us.

 
At 1:43 AM, Anonymous John said...

Gotham: Sooooo...I guess you'd rather Hamletize in the corner to yourself than come to the table and armwrestle, mano y mano.

Yes, I can hear you:

"Am I coward?...Hah, s'wounds, I should take it; for it cannot be But I am pigeon-livered, and lack gall...Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave that I...Must like a whore unpack my heart with words, And fall a-cursing like a very drab, A stallion."

Hamlet II.ii.571, 576-577, 582-583, 585-587.

That's right, Gotham. Know thy master.

Wanda: You're right in the sense that we owe China a lot of money, and when they decide to overtly challenge the claim that we are not the "sole super power" we became with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but have company, they'll be able to do so with some legitimacy.

However, Secreteray Rice was not engaging in empty boasting which the Chinese could laugh at.

The American Left loves to belittle the United States (especially when a Republican is president) and magnify the "superiority" of rivals when doing so.

Hence the magnification of murderous, terrorist thugs in Iraq--who are losing both their strength and P.R. value because of the very fact that their most ruthless operatives engage in suicide missions against Iraqi civilians-- as some nation-wide "insurgency" that will at any time swarm and overwhelm the coalition forces like orcs against the Fellowship in Moria.

And hence the idea that China "owns us and can kick our asses real bad."

Well, it didn't help any that Clinton enabled perhaps the second or third greatest security breach (after Pearl Harbor and 9/11) in our nation's history by recklessly allowing Chinese agents to pilfer the blueprints for the neutron bomb (among other things) at Los Alamos, after trying to outdo Nixon as Mr. Nice Guy by inviting the Reds over to the White House for coffee in exchange for campaign cash (bribes).

Secondly, we're a huge market for them (the biggest, I think), and they would feel the impact of something like a Bill O' Reilly boycott (as France has felt), so, in that sense, they need to keep good faith.

Thirdly, as in Iran, there is a large, youthful demographic there that yearns for Westernism, as we saw erupt at Tiananmen Square in 1989. With the re-assimilation of super-capitalistic Hong Kong, I would think that they have at least invited Adam Smith to sit at the same table as Karl Marx.

Fourthly, don't underestimate our military capabilities, as Dr. Rice reminded.

Aside from the fact that if matching WMD against WMD there would be mutually assured destruction (in a best case scenario for China; they still need to loot our laboratories to keep up with our military technologies), we have--by far-- the best army in the world (not to mention pilots, sailors, and Marines).

Trainees within the new Iraqi National Army are saying: "We want to learn how to fight like Americans," for good reason.

Don't think the Chinese sneeze at us. If they did, they would've invaded Taiwan long ago.

 
At 8:16 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

"Bill O'Reilly boycott" -yeah, France really is taking it on the chin- we heard they had to cancel mashing season in Burgandy.

Please...

China is 20-40 years behind the US in military capabilty. They don't have a deep water Navy to speak of. That is not the issue- the issue their ability to leverage our debt, the way Saudis leverage oil prices- also, unpatriotic corporations and their cheer leaders like John - continue to emiserate America by transferring manufacturing to China.

John and Wanda may fear a Chinese invasion of Tonawanda, but gothamimage thinks those are mirages.

 
At 8:19 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Gothanimage: We know thee not

John: But thou read wee still

Gothamimage: Good morning spiced knave, the devils have sung you to post again.

John: Yes, Milord.

 
At 9:25 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

"Doctor" Rice

Interesting - it seems people started calling the bloodthirsty Henry Kissinger "Doctor" Kissinger around the same time that most medical insurance companies started demoting doctors linguistically by calling them Primart Care Providers(PCP)

Looks like John, calling Condi "Doctor" is just feeling the effects of lack of proper equality of mental health on his tax-payer subsidized health insurance.

Heal thyself, Ms. Rice.

 
At 9:28 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Adam Smith believed in highly regulated market. He believed in heavy welfare programs. Karl Marx John? More like Harpo.

 
At 12:52 PM, Anonymous John said...

WhisperingCampaign said...

"Bill O'Reilly boycott" -yeah, France really is taking it on the chin- we heard they had to cancel mashing season in Burgandy."

What I said was:

"Secondly, we're a huge market for (China) (the biggest, I think), and they would feel the impact of something like a Bill O' Reilly boycott (as France has felt), so, in that sense, they need to keep good faith."

I said *something like* the Bill O' Reilly boycott, which France felt. It may not of hurt, but it certainly registered on some economic seismograph, if only as a blip...

...which is like a tremor for France's sorry economic state.

If *something like* the Bill O'Reilly boycott was imposed on China--with us being it's top cash cow-- as a retaliatory reaction to some exploitaition of our borrower status, which would certainly rally viewers of both Fox and CBS (I would guess), and perhaps even--EVEN-- be explicitly called for by Nancy Pelosi, that would not only be "felt" by China, but it would hurt, too.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of Americans would be surprised just how many goods that they take for granted are manufactured in China (Levi's jeans aren't manufactured here anymore, folks; "ALL-AMERICAN" LEVI'S JEANS!).

The days of "Made in America," and what that meant, are behind us.

"China is 20-40 years behind the US in military capabilty. They don't have a deep water Navy to speak of. That is not the issue-"

That was the issue I was responding to. Wanda said, "they can kick our asses real bad," militarily.

I said: "Fourthly, don't underestimate our military capabilities..."

WC instructed:

"...the issue their ability to leverage our debt..."

Good boy, Gotham. You're paying attention:

John said...

"Wanda: You're right in the sense that we owe China a lot of money."

"...also, unpatriotic corporations and their cheer leaders like John -continue to emiserate America by transferring manufacturing to China.

"Emiserate?" Is that a conflation of ""eviscerate" and immiserate"?

You and your "poetic license"! Oh well. I've seen worse neologisms (like "Cialisless").

How about this one: "Decayance," which is "decadence" + "decay".

It would be a word redundant unto itself. It would be inherently redundant, but it would save time and space.

No, I don't "cheer" the loss of manufacturing to cheaper labor abroad (how you arrived at that conclusion can only be explained by Scientology)--but I recognize the reality of globalization and the widening of the Free Market (which forms unspoken alliances).

That's generally good. And they are still companies that operate under an American banner.

What compells them to move abroad is not "unpatriotism," but liberal tampering through the labor unions and the EPA championed by a liberal Congress that artificially--and irresponsibly-- raises wages and imposes unreasonable environmental regulations on a corporation which not only compromises the bottom line and its ability to compete here, but invites multitudes of illegals to take advantage of the proletariat's paradise.

It's the liberal's fault.

"Adam Smith believed in highly regulated market. He believed in heavy welfare programs."

I contrasted him to Marx for obvious reasons. They are night and day in the fact that Smith popularly represents private property and laissez faire market policies and Marx represents statist control of the market and outright ownership of capital.

You took the statist elements in Smith to compare him to Marx to suggest that he was not an economic Libertarian. I never said he was.

"Karl Marx John? More like Harpo."

That's a non sequiter, Chico.

What I said was:

"With the re-assimilation of super-capitalistic Hong Kong, I would think that they have at least invited Adam Smith to sit at the same table as Karl Marx."

At the grass-roots (or rice-roots) level, anyway.

WC, having suffered many a righteous pasting from my superior argumentative abilities, I've noticed that your strategy now essentially involves laying roadside bombs of poetry or throwing lexical sand in my face or digging holes and filling them with paradoxical quicksand to slow my ineluctable progress towards domination of Gotham as you hope to create a quagmire of words that would discourage the mission and cause me to flee, with my boots heavily caked with a pasty mud of gibberish.

This is why my commentaries are so long, because, if anybody has noticed, I spend over half of my time correcting what WC intentionally--and quite muddily-- misconstrues.

But s'okay. I like it down and dirty.

 
At 1:29 PM, Anonymous John said...

Behold the mighty army of the Evil Empire at your door, Gotham:

The fair Irina, the charter president Inginuity, the dreaded Phelonius, mois, and may I presume that M. Simon has provided a starboard flank?

Ha ha! And Amy cannot help but waver in her centrist neutrality and climb aboard-- sooner or later, Mwa-ha!

All others are welcome. The more the merrier. Strength and Honor. Long Live the Republic.

 
At 8:27 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Forward Recon outside the Camp of The Saints, is not a mighty army.

Just the bivouac-ing of the bewitched, bothered, and bewildered.

France - suffering under the "O'reilly boycott," or John suffering under stupid propaganda? Paris is depressed now - you can get a hotel for 1000 Euros a night, rather that 1001.

 
At 8:59 AM, Anonymous John said...

I didn't say the French economy was depressed. I said it was in sorry shape. There's a difference.

 
At 6:56 AM, Anonymous John said...

Word!

WC snidely said:

"Interesting to note that John blames Truman, not the communists, for the Korean war-"

I do blame the communists. I didn't use the descriptive "Truman's War" in the same way I use "Clinton's War" (i.e. whatever that was over Kosovo, concocted by Bill Clinton) but in the sense that Ike inherited the conflict from Truman.

Then Gotham FINALLY agrees with something I said:

"But he right that Ike ended it."

But that was AFTER I clarified that Ike didn't really "end it" so much as he arranged a stale mate, so WC agreed to something I had technically disagreed with and rephrased:

"Ike ended open hostilities of the Korean War, but that's all."

So I said that Ike ended the Korean War, but then clarified that he didn't *really* end it. Then WC agrees that he did end it.

But then, incredibly:

"Word!
John thinks the conflict in Korea is over!"

Wow. I wonder what the warning labels on Cialis say.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home