Pres. Eisenhower's son John endorses Kerry

[Eloriel]

Another View:
Why I will vote for John Kerry for President
By JOHN EISENHOWER
Guest Commentary

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657


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.

-- more at link --

[alittlelark]

1. Wow, well thought out..

He sounds like an honorable man. A TRUE republican (I can respect those).

Good to have him on the team!!

[carpetbagger]

2. John Eisenhower is not stupid. Bush is a failed tactician.

He is a military historian. He wrote a book on the Mexican-American War, which is one of the best examples of war waged with a divided electorate on suspicious grounds our nation can provide.

There are many things I could give Bush a pass on in the invasion of Iraq. If we could create a stable nation, even if we could replace Hussein with a lesser dictator, those things might be worth both the 1000 lives as well as the lies to procure the war. Maybe.

What I can't give Bush a pass on is his horrendous record directing military campaigns. In Iraq, we went in with an economy package of forces that could not restore order, we went out of our way to make enemies and then failed to act on our challenges, we chose our puppets poorly, and our supply lines were the stuff of Civil War stories of the Age of Shoddy.

If anyone can get their hands on a copy of "So Far From God: The US War With Mexico 1846-1848" by John Eisenhower, do so and read the introduction.

On edit: here's a passage from that book's introduction I find prophetic...

"Polk's reputation among historians and the publica alike remained low for decades after he left office...Those with a military background are often offended by the contempt that Polk showed for the military in general and for Scott in particular. And Polk's secrecy often gave cause for bitter resentment-especilaly in the questionable way that he managed to present Congress with a 'war in being'. That inceident, in which Polk deprived the Congress of any options regarding war or peace, frustrated many Whigs, whose party produced most of the historians for the next few decades. It also gave rise to the nickname 'Polk the Mendacious'.

"In modern times, however, the growing enchantment with 'strong', manipulative presidents has raised Polk's position in the eyes of some historians...anyone must admire his resolve. Despite his guile and consuming obsession with partisan politics, he was effective as an executive."

The rest of the book then talks about how Polk and his generals carried out a logistically difficult war to achieve concrete ends. Successfully. I think everything in the end of Eisenhower's introduction is directly applicable, except for the last statement I quoted "he was an effective executive". Here Eisenhower's objective and relatively neutral view of Polk ceases to apply to Bush, and he (JE) knows it.

[billbuckhead]

3. This moron of a President got us in a needless war & is now losing the war

And Americans like this guy and want to re-elect him?

[Eloriel]

4. Good post

However, you can let go of your fanciful notions about giving Bush a pass on anything re Iraq.

There are many things I could give Bush a pass on in the invasion of Iraq. If we could create a stable nation, even if we could replace Hussein with a lesser dictator, those things might be worth both the 1000 lives as well as the lies to procure the war.

Near as I could tell, Iraq WAS a stable nation. Any and all dreams of making something BETTER out of Iraq than it was under Hussein are pipe dreams. There just aren't any of the ingredients for stability, and this was well known and widely discussed (except in the public arena, of course) well before the war. In fact, in contemplating the whole thing I surprised myself by coming to a conclusion close to one of your own upon the realization that when things are as eff'd up as Iraq politically and religiously, maybe a dictatorship IS the right governing model -- at least until the PEOPLE start working for something different and more democratic. That, of course, wasn't happening in Iraq, nor can we MAKE it happen.

AFAIC, we've been in the dictator-propping-up role too damn long. Time to let go of those delusions, they always seem to come back and (rightfully so) bite us on the butt. There was NO justification for this war, AND we don't have the right to pre-emptively go running around meddling with other countries' political life uninvited. Pure and simple. I don't know of a single case in which what meddling we did was successful in the long run at making things BETTER (except for corporations, of course). And I'm tired of my tax dollars going for any of these misadventures, and I'm a little tired of being a citizen of a newly minted, overtly rogue nation (which we've been for decades now if not a century or more, but now it's overt and very, very ugly).

[maveric]

5. I'm surprised that the Union Leader is running a story as such.

That paper has always been a RW rag of the nth degree. My Dad was fired from the UL in 1961(By William Loeb himself), for writing positive stories about JFK.

[Kanary]

6. Well, I'm up a tree without a paddle, then......

as Radar would say. :)

Cuz, if we aren't supposed to vote "as we always have", that leaves me with voting........ R...?????

No, I don't think there's anyway I could ever do that, no matter how they paid me. :hi:

Kanary

[Octafish]

7. 'Today’s 'Republican' Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar."

Wow. Heck of an endorsement.

Thanks for the article, Eloriel. I'm passing that around.

There are a lot of Republicans in Michigan I consider "Real Republicans," the kind who put the nation ahead of their party. They are getting forced out of the way by a new wave of ideologues.

Many put their property above all else. Many others of these equate "GOD" with "GOP." They couldn't be further from the truth.

I am very heartened that Mr. Eisenhower understands who's who and what's what.

[Eloriel]

8. Yeah -- it's almost as good as Ron Reagan's endorsement, huh?

I love the Rockefeller and Eisenhower Republicans, if only for the fact that they are the only part of the Party I think of as having ANY principles other than seriously and grotesquely perverted ones.