PDA

View Full Version : Rino?



Andrew Craig-Bennett
09-25-2011, 01:21 PM
http://i535.photobucket.com/albums/ee352/acraigbennett/Ike.jpg

Mrleft8
09-25-2011, 01:24 PM
OoooooooooH! You gwine make sum repugnicans mad.... :D

Andrew Craig-Bennett
09-25-2011, 01:25 PM
It seems that Ike had not read the "Project for a New American Century".


He just made sure the last hundred years was an American Century.

Nicholas Carey
09-25-2011, 01:25 PM
Communist! Kleptocrat!
:D :D

Paul Pless
09-25-2011, 01:26 PM
OoooooooooH! You gwine make sum repugnicans mad.... :Dfart

Ian McColgin
09-25-2011, 01:27 PM
This remark, made in 1953 to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, has a wonderful windup that harkens back to William Jenning Bryan.

“This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

Too bad that part didn't fit the graphic.

bobbys
09-25-2011, 01:38 PM
My gun fed a lot of people.

Bobcat
09-25-2011, 02:04 PM
"Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party. Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships. They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and Prohibitionists, the antipapist antiforeigner element. The genial Eisenhower was their man, a genuine American hero of D-Day, who made it OK for reasonable people to vote Republican. He brought the Korean War to a stalemate, produced the Interstate Highway System, declined to rescue the French colonial army in Vietnam, and gave us a period of peace and prosperity, in which (oddly) American arts and letters flourished and higher education burgeoned and there was a degree of plain decency in the country. Fifties Republicans were giants compared to today's. Richard Nixon was the last Republican leader to feel a Christian obligation toward the poor."

Garrison Keillor http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0831-02.htm

Nicholas Carey
09-25-2011, 02:20 PM
This remark, made in 1953 to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, has a wonderful windup that harkens back to William Jenning Bryan.

“This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

Too bad that part didn't fit the graphic.The transcript of the full speech is here: http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3357

You can stream/download a recording of President Eisenhower delivering the speech here: http://www.archive.org/details/dde_1953_0416

bobbys
09-25-2011, 03:19 PM
It seems that Ike had not read the "Project for a New American Century".


He just made sure the last hundred years was an American Century..

Every English warship, every English Gun, Every rocket fired by Britain against the Argentina Falklands and their brave people has denied their people the right to food ,oil and their hopes...

Thank God President Obama is forcing England to negotiate.

Peerie Maa
09-25-2011, 03:56 PM
.

Every English warship, every English Gun, Every rocket fired by Britain against the Argentina Falklands and their brave people has denied their people the right to food ,oil and their hopes...

Thank God President Obama is forcing England to negotiate.

Hi bobbys, you want to try that again with your brain in gear?

bobbys
09-25-2011, 04:01 PM
Hi bobbys, you want to try that again with your brain in gear?.

Study peace and give up the use of your guns to enslave other countries!

Uncle Duke
09-25-2011, 04:02 PM
ACB: re: post #1.
Well done sir.
A nice reminder of historical relevance.

wardd
09-25-2011, 04:05 PM
the right wing is like the child and the cookies

you tell the child he can have a cookie now or if he waits he can have 3 cookies

"gimme cookie, gimme cookie"

Peerie Maa
09-25-2011, 04:17 PM
.

Study peace and give up the use of your guns to enslave other countries!

So Blair should have told Bush Minor to go poke himself over Saddam? Yep, you are right.

bobbys
09-25-2011, 04:24 PM
So Blair should have told Bush Minor to go poke himself over Saddam? Yep, you are right..

Give Ireland back to the Irish and the Falklands back to Argentine then come back with your moralizing!

PeterSibley
09-25-2011, 04:27 PM
.

Study peace and give up the use of your guns to enslave other countries!

From an American !! BY:DBY:D Maybe a New Zealander could say such a thing !

Peerie Maa
09-25-2011, 04:30 PM
.

Give Ireland back to the Irish and the Falklands back to Argentine then come back with your moralizing!
Would that be the London Irish? You find me one person of Argentinian decent living on the Falklands. Till then stop talking bollocks.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
09-25-2011, 04:35 PM
bobbys is just having fun - I appreciate an American who gives as good as he gets in the ironical humour line. :D

wardd
09-25-2011, 04:44 PM
Guns don't feed people; People feed people.

if not, then guns kill people

wardd
09-25-2011, 04:45 PM
:D.


I still don't "get" Monty Python:D:D

of course you don't

C. Ross
09-25-2011, 06:41 PM
"Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party. Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships. They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and Prohibitionists, the antipapist antiforeigner element. The genial Eisenhower was their man, a genuine American hero of D-Day, who made it OK for reasonable people to vote Republican. He brought the Korean War to a stalemate, produced the Interstate Highway System, declined to rescue the French colonial army in Vietnam, and gave us a period of peace and prosperity, in which (oddly) American arts and letters flourished and higher education burgeoned and there was a degree of plain decency in the country. Fifties Republicans were giants compared to today's. Richard Nixon was the last Republican leader to feel a Christian obligation toward the poor."

Garrison Keillor http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0831-02.htm


Sigh. He's right, except for the Nixon part. The G.W. Bush disaster is obvious, but for me the Republican Party truly lost its way when Sarah Palin was nominated as the Vice Presidential candidate. I think those pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacled Republicans are still out there, but they spell Republican as I-n-d-e-p-e-n-d-e-n-t.

Would that the Tea Party really became its own party.

ishmael
09-25-2011, 07:28 PM
Interesting quote. I was born during his administration, and came of age to find our inner cities burning, and general unease.

I think part of what is seen in that quote is a quiesence born out of the Allied victory in WWII. At that point, the U.S. was sitting in the catbird seat. It created an economic boom that delineated our middle class.

Fifty years hence, things have changed. The U.S. no longer dominates the world stage economically, and our military dominance is called into question. Every thing is a question mark.

Phillip Allen
09-25-2011, 09:29 PM
My gun fed a lot of people.

he was speaking of arms for the militaries... chill

Phillip Allen
09-25-2011, 09:33 PM
the left is rewriting the truth for the right and the right is stupid enough to let them get by with it...liars and liars...both

Gerarddm
09-25-2011, 09:48 PM
the left is rewriting the truth for the right and the right is stupid enough to let them get by with it...liars and liars...both

Where, where, do people like you come from? Are you proof that Earth has been the dumping ground for alien civilizations? Were you and TylerD separated at birth??

As for bobbys and his gun fetish, well... saying it is a fetish is enough. I like certain weapons as pieces of industrial design, but I don't worship at The Temple of the Gun. Bah.

hokiefan
09-25-2011, 10:51 PM
Interesting quote. I was born during his administration, and came of age to find our inner cities burning, and general unease.

I think part of what is seen in that quote is a quiesence born out of the Allied victory in WWII. At that point, the U.S. was sitting in the catbird seat. It created an economic boom that delineated our middle class.

Fifty years hence, things have changed. The U.S. no longer dominates the world stage economically, and our military dominance is called into question. Every thing is a question mark.

We may not completely dominate the world stage economically. But there is no question of our military dominance. China is a close second, only with sheer numbers. But this military dominance is costing us dearly with regards to our economic place at the table. My $0.02 for what its worth.

Cheers,

Bobby

Chip-skiff
09-25-2011, 10:58 PM
My gun fed a lot of people.

Could I have the recipe?

Lew Barrett
09-25-2011, 11:07 PM
Ignoring what the CIA was doing in Guatemala in 1953-54.

While supporting BP in overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953. A shameful and costly mistake. Otherwise, a great quote and right on.

johnw
09-26-2011, 01:13 AM
A man of sense.


...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 you can do these things…..Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Well, they're not going after the farm programs, anyway.

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-26-2011, 11:50 AM
Interesting quote. I was born during his administration, and came of age to find our inner cities burning, and general unease.

I think part of what is seen in that quote is a quiesence born out of the Allied victory in WWII. At that point, the U.S. was sitting in the catbird seat. It created an economic boom that delineated our middle class.

Fifty years hence, things have changed. The U.S. no longer dominates the world stage economically, and our military dominance is called into question. Every thing is a question mark.


Wrong again. At least in part.
The guy who is head of the Gallup organization spoke at the Cleveland City Club. This guy was font of knowledge about tidbits of knowledge most of us don't know.
The US is the largest economy in the world. Our GDP is about $15 trillion per. The next biggest is China at $5 trillion. If we go down everybody goes with us.

Bonus question:
Which American city was wealthiest 40 years go?

Paul Pless
09-26-2011, 12:00 PM
Which American city was wealthiest 40 years go?I look forward to the answer but might guess Detroit. I know in the Fifties, Detroit had the highest rate of home ownership and highest median income. Not sure if that continued throughout the Sixties and until the Oil Embargo of 1973 began to change the landscape of auto manufacturing in the U.S.

hokiefan
09-26-2011, 12:05 PM
A man of sense.



Well, they're not going after the farm programs, anyway.

Largely because the family farmer has given way to the corporate farming company with tons of lobbying money.

Cheers,

Bobby

boatbuddha
09-26-2011, 12:05 PM
If you ever get to Abilene, the Eisenhower Library is a great place for research. Ike actually fought his own party when they wanted to lower taxes but Ike wanted to keep them high until they paid down more of the war debt.

John of Phoenix
09-26-2011, 12:47 PM
Sigh. He's right, except for the Nixon part. The G.W. Bush disaster is obvious, but for me the Republican Party truly lost its way when Sarah Palin was nominated as the Vice Presidential candidate. I think those pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacled Republicans are still out there, but they spell Republican as I-n-d-e-p-e-n-d-e-n-t.

Would that the Tea Party really became its own party. How DID they manage to take over the Republican party?

C. Ross
09-26-2011, 01:21 PM
How DID they manage to take over the Republican party?

Id love to read somebody's smart or insider account.

I have a hypothesis with a couple of reasons. Would like to hear yours.

1. A small highly organized and determined faction can do much against a majority in a membership-type organization like a political party.

2. The Tea Party started after President Obama's election. I think its too easy and wrong to call it racist or even anti-Obama. I think it is one of those populist movements driven by some real events (in this case deep fear and anger about Wall Street meltdown, and the sense of betrayal of the Common Man by elites), a fear of Big Government (and we're engaged in two seemingly endless wars, Bush with consent and supprt from Obama push through a seemingly bottomless TARP "bailout" for Wall Street and the President and Congress pass a nearly trillion dollar stimulus package that is all borrowed money), as well as the normal fuels for populism - a desire for simple plain solutions disengaged from elites and institutions of elites. Populist movements go nowhere unless they have their finger on some pulse...and make no mistake the Tea Party has tapped into something deep.

3. Political professionals are hired to win, without mercy. They saw that another party was not viable, that funds and other resources were ready to take from a Republican Party in shambles at the national and state levels post Bush.

I think the Tea Party will have about the same shelf life as the Yippies and Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground. They are not sustainable in the long term, because zealots lack organization, staying power and persistence in the face of resistence and opposition.

L.W. Baxter
09-26-2011, 06:41 PM
I think after G.W. Bush many of the more sensible Republicans were simply spent.

Bush pushed some big, pet ideas of the Right and the results were messy, if not completely ruinous. There was little energy for the 2008 campaign, and in the aftermath, the Republican party was just scattered and lacking passion for their ideology. The Tea Party walked into an empty room and started hanging up banners and buntings.

wardd
09-26-2011, 06:46 PM
How DID they manage to take over the Republican party?

the t party tendency has always lurked in the soul of the republican party

they were trying to destroy the new deal when it was brand new

johnw
09-26-2011, 08:43 PM
Id love to read somebody's smart or insider account.

I have a hypothesis with a couple of reasons. Would like to hear yours.

1. A small highly organized and determined faction can do much against a majority in a membership-type organization like a political party.

2. The Tea Party started after President Obama's election. I think its too easy and wrong to call it racist or even anti-Obama. I think it is one of those populist movements driven by some real events (in this case deep fear and anger about Wall Street meltdown, and the sense of betrayal of the Common Man by elites), a fear of Big Government (and we're engaged in two seemingly endless wars, Bush with consent and supprt from Obama push through a seemingly bottomless TARP "bailout" for Wall Street and the President and Congress pass a nearly trillion dollar stimulus package that is all borrowed money), as well as the normal fuels for populism - a desire for simple plain solutions disengaged from elites and institutions of elites. Populist movements go nowhere unless they have their finger on some pulse...and make no mistake the Tea Party has tapped into something deep.

3. Political professionals are hired to win, without mercy. They saw that another party was not viable, that funds and other resources were ready to take from a Republican Party in shambles at the national and state levels post Bush.

I think the Tea Party will have about the same shelf life as the Yippies and Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground. They are not sustainable in the long term, because zealots lack organization, staying power and persistence in the face of resistence and opposition.

The way race connects with politics is never simple, and people with racial resentments seldom wear them on their sleeves. Well, okay, sometimes:

http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2010/04/slide_1398_20072_large-300x218.jpg

Personally, I don't think the Tea Party took over the Republican Party. They were already there. Consider this:


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html
Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer. As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later. We can also account for multiple influences simultaneously — isolating the impact of one factor while holding others constant.

Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.

What’s more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.

So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.

More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.

This inclination among the Tea Party faithful to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Mrs. Bachmann’s lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Mr. Perry’s prayer rally in Houston.



If that's the right story, Perry's in big trouble over his policy of giving illegal immigrants in-state tuition. I was thinking maybe it wouldn't be that serious, but if most of the Tea Party stands are window dressing and nativism is what they're about, he could be toast.

C. Ross
09-26-2011, 09:46 PM
Well, the NYT story is interesting enough, but i experienced the religious right surging into republican politics in 1980 and 1982 elections. You could argue Tea Party sprang from the Know Nothings of you wanted to.

Keith Wilson
09-26-2011, 09:51 PM
The "Tea Party" is merely what was the far right wing of the Republican party with a different name. Nothing new, just louder and more extreme.


I think the Tea Party will have about the same shelf life as the Yippies and Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground. They are not sustainable in the long term, because zealots lack organization, staying power and persistence in the face of resistence and opposition.I agree 100%. And they tend not to win elections once people figure out what they're about.


Ignoring what the CIA was doing in Guatemala in 1953-54.That was very inexpensive, as such things go. Hard on the locals, but I doubt it cost the US as much as one nuclear warhead. The Generals only needed a bit of encouragement and some walking-around money.

johnw
09-26-2011, 10:44 PM
Well, the NYT story is interesting enough, but i experienced the religious right surging into republican politics in 1980 and 1982 elections. You could argue Tea Party sprang from the Know Nothings of you wanted to.

What I found interesting from that story was that they identified peoples' political leanings before the Tea Party existed, so they could see who was prone to joining without worrying that the data was an artifact of them having already joined. It's not a new group, really, it's the same folks you were seeing in 1980-82 with whiter hair and wilder costumes. They just found a new way of expressing themselves. I believe all or almost all of the Tea Party Caucus in the House are from Dixie, as well, so it looks like the southern strategy has turned Republicans into an increasingly southern party.

C. Ross
09-26-2011, 11:41 PM
Probably right, John. In the Anglo world perhaps the closest analogue was the takeover of the Labor Party in the UK by the loony left in the early 70s. Our thread starter ACB had to live through that, and many people like me are living through conservativism being associated with the Tea Party.

I suppose it's au courant to call Christian Fundamentalism conservative, and for a bunch of my lefty friends hating the Tea Party is the only thing they still believe in. Personally I see ignorance or violation of the First Amendment, abandonment of pluralism, and insistence on an American Theocracy as radical revolution not conservativism.

johnw
09-27-2011, 12:39 AM
Probably right, John. In the Anglo world perhaps the closest analogue was the takeover of the Labor Party in the UK by the loony left in the early 70s. Our thread starter ACB had to live through that, and many people like me are living through conservativism being associated with the Tea Party.

I suppose it's au courant to call Christian Fundamentalism conservative, and for a bunch of my lefty friends hating the Tea Party is the only thing they still believe in. Personally I see ignorance or violation of the First Amendment, abandonment of pluralism, and insistence on an American Theocracy as radical revolution not conservativism.

Which pretty much makes you an Andrew Sullivan conservative.

We may not have had a loony left takeover here, but there was certainly more influence by the left fringe back in the 1970. I'm fascinated that the Republicans have become the party of ethnic identity politics. I suppose the popular parts of the conservative agenda have already been achieved, now they're working on the unpopular parts. Maybe that's how dialectical idealism works.

Hegel thought "history" was at an end in 1806, because Napoleon's defeat of the Prussian monarchy was a triumph for the liberal ideas behind the French Revolution. Alexandre Kojeve quit teaching philosophy and became a civil servant because he felt Hegel had shown that there was no more work for philosophers. Liberalism was the only viable philosophy.

I think what's happened to the Republican Party shows otherwise. There remains a tension between liberalism, which says we should be ruled by reason, discussion, and agreement, and conservatism, which says we should be ruled by tradition, faith, and respect for authority. For most of human history, we've been ruled by force and faith, so currently and for the foreseeable future, the dialectic will be between those who want us to be ruled by reason and agreement and those who want us to be ruled by faith and authority (although it's a trifle less accurate, I like to call this faith and force.) The latter has the longer (and therefore bloodier) track record, and should certainly not be discounted. Remember, Burke even defended prejudice as the accumulated wisdom of the culture. He was what conservatism produced at its best. At its worst, it produced people like Franco, who did not have the radical fascist philosophy of his allies and lasted as long as he did because he was more of a conservative authoritarian.

I don't think the Tea Party is really an aberration, though I do think its visibility and influence are.

purri
09-27-2011, 03:24 AM
^quite piquant though lacking depth in parts.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
09-27-2011, 07:56 AM
Hegel thought "history" was at an end in 1806, because Napoleon's defeat of the Prussian monarchy was a triumph for the liberal ideas behind the French Revolution. Alexandre Kojeve quit teaching philosophy and became a civil servant because he felt Hegel had shown that there was no more work for philosophers. Liberalism was the only viable philosophy.


Kojeve was wrong: Marx happened to Hegel! :p

Fortunately by the time I got interested Karl Popper had happened to Marx.

johnw
09-27-2011, 12:49 PM
Dialectical materialism is dead. Long live dialectical idealism!