Friday, December 26, 2008

Take a Vote on it, Boys

There seems to be a divide on the left when it comes to elections, folks. On the one hand, you have this bevy of simpletonian bloggers. Their consistent message is that Eisenhower's blockage of the Vietnamese elections in 1954 caused the entire Vietnam War (never mind the fact that subsequent presidents lied and/or failed to de-escalate the situation). It is their surmise, evidently, that, whether or not the institutions usually associated with Democratic societies are present (free press, etc.), free elections must always be allowed/honored, encouraged even. Kind of an interesting take, huh?...................................................And, yes, I ask you to contrast this position with that of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Both of these fellows are clearly on the record as saying that President Bush committed a grave error in allowing the Palestinian elections to happen. They say that Bush should have realized that the terrorist group, Hamas, would indeed have a very good chance to chalk up victory - an eventuality that clearly would hamper any sort of peace process down the road. Elections aren't always the answer. I guess that that's their basic message here. Also, interesting....................................................But you do see what I'm saying about a divide, though, right? Of course, it also might be something as simple as the left not thinking that the other side can do ANYTHING right - situational ethics clearly being one huge aspect of partisanship....with, yes, both sides often having their extra digits in it.

32 comments:

Stella said...

Your post, Will, is another example of forgotten history. Ike was a decent individual and a moderate. and questioned Billy Graham about how people can be certain they are going to Heaven after death. (LOL: If I'd only been that fly on the wall.)

Upon full discovery of the death camps that were part of the Final Solution (Holocaust), he ordered camera crews to comprehensively document evidence of the atrocity for use in the war crimes tribunals. He made the decision to reclassify German POWs as Disarmed Enemy Forces (DEFs), depriving them of Geneva Convention protection. He also supported the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

Why don't more conservatives remember these words? We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose and insidious in method..." and warned about what he saw as unjustified government spending proposals and continued with a warning that "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex... 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. Try telling that to Chimpy and Cheney. And where is our "alert citizentry"?

He was imperfect: Ike campaigned for Nixon and Truman would not ever forget Eisenhower's not denouncing Senator Joseph McCarthy during the 1952 campaign. [From Wiki.

The only reason he sent people to Viet Nam is at the invitation of the South Viet Namese president. The Cold War mentality was rampant, just as the Middle East paranoia is today. Chimpy did nothing but commit grave errors: he bankrupted yet another in a long line of corporations—The United States.

Sorry about my Ike rant: he's not my favorite president, but I would preferred his policies for the last eight years than those of the current administration.

You're absolutely right, Will: we need bipartisanship. I communicate with conservatives because, as one of my Republican friends said, "You can't learn anything in an echo chamber."

We definitely need to bridge the divide, Will. And I think Obama's doing a good job. I don't envy him the work ahead.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

This is interesting, Stella. In a recent interview, Obama was asked who he thought the great presidents were. He listed Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and Eisenhower. Maybe he was paying back Susan Eisenhower for her support but, I'm telling you, I see a lot of Eisenhower in Obama; a prudence, a pragmatism, etc.. I'm praying that I'm right. P.S. If Ike was alive today, I'm pretty sure he'd be a Democrat.

Anonymous said...

If Eisenhower hadn't blocked the elections the insurgency of 75% of the southern population wouldn't have begun for the CIA to manipulate, claiming an invasion of the country by people who used to live there.


BTW John F Kennedy DID try to deescalate the war in the summer and fall of 1963, but for some reason some people wanted him dead.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Yes, Kennedy did come to his senses (to his credit), but only after 2 years of poorly executed foreign policy. Johnson and Nixon, they, on the other hand, never came to theirs. Unfortunately. As for Eisenhower's decision, I think we've all concluded, in retrospect, that it was a mistake. But to think that Ho Chi Minh (a ruthless Bolshevik if ever there was one, a miniature Mao) would have led Vietnam into a new era of enlightened Democracy, that's probably a little naive, too.

Anonymous said...

Well junior you DON'T know about Ho's request for the US to help him establish a democracy in Vietnam right after WW2 before the French had been able to reestablish colonial control do ya spunky?

After the US turned Ho down and helped the French try to reestablish their colony, and Mao beat the western backed Chaing forces in China Ho looked elsewhere for help.

Damn son is all your history right out of high school?

Anonymous said...

You've become boring again will bye-bye.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And it was us who caused him to kill and starve people simply because they "owned" land? Oh, and who was it who refused to help Ho now? That would have been Truman, huh?

Mike said...

Will said "There seems to be a divide on the left when it comes to elections"


REALLY and theres NO DIVIDE on the Right?

Why do you ALWAYS try to undermine and divide the Left but except for a few indefensible morons like Bush, Cheney, O'Reilly, you ALWAYS defend the Right.............but your not a partisan of course.


You did that with Rick Warren and you did that with the elections and thats only the past few days.

your delusional if you think your fair and balanced.

Mike said...

Will said "On the one hand, you have this bevy of simpletonian bloggers. Their consistent message is that Eisenhower's blockage of the Vietnamese elections in 1954 caused the entire Vietnam War (never mind the fact that subsequent presidents lied and/or failed to de-escalate the situation)."


REALLY now Bill a "Bevy of BLOGGERSSSSSS" huh I believe you claimed to Stella that all the bloggers here are Clif.............so which is it mr doubletalk is there a Bevy of bloggerSSSSS in the plural claiming that or JUST CLIF?


Because I have NEVER said anything derogartory about Eisenhower thats YOUR strawman or lie take your pick........My first bookreport I did on Eisenhower..........I think Ike was basically a good man that was misled and had his presidency to an extent highjacked by radical Right wing ideologues like Dulles and Prescott Bush.

Ike was smart enough however to realize his presidency and foreign policy was highjacked by people who had their own best interessts at heart instead of regular Americans..........hence the beware of the Military industrial Complex speech and his disdain for Nixon who was a puppet of Duulles and Bush.

Mike said...

Finnally Will I have to ask you which side of this issue are YOU actually on..............or as USUAL is it whichever one you can use to make the left look bad at the moment?

are you for democrartic elections or only for the ones that work out the way you want.


The way I see it there is only one answer for people who TRULY support democracy..........if you support democracy its none of our business who gets elected in another country we have neither the right to support or oppose elections in foreign countries nor to control or alter the outcome whether we like the results and who gets elected or not.

Mike said...

Why do you gleefully ALWAYS trot out Right wing talking points and wedge issues.........and why is ANYONE who disagrees with you and who you dislike "far left"...............its "interesting" that you seem to equate the left with your enemies but your not right wing bo sirree.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

So much idiocy, so much paranoia, where do I start? 1)The left isn't my enemy, bozo. I voted for Nader in 2000. I voted for Kerry in 2004. I voted for Ned LaMont (over Leibermann) in 2006. And I voted for Obama in 2008. And (just in this frigging post, for Christ!) I said that Obama reminded me of Eisenhower. I meant that as a compliment, Mike. God! 2) Not fair and balanced, huh? Well, I'll tell you one thing. I'm a hell of a lot more f. nad b. than your girlfriend there. Like I said "over there", if a President McCain had invited Rick Warren to speak at his inaugural, Lydia (with good reason) would have had an aneyurism. Obama does it, though, NOTHIN'! 3) I don't always defend the right, Mike. That is absolutely preposterous. I do just as many posts that are critical of the right. You just either ignore them or you paranoiacly see them as some sort of charade. Kind of makes it hard for me to win, doesn't it? As for THIS issue, I'm addressing it only because of Cliffy. He continues to propogate simplistic notions about Vietnam. And, besides, I mentioed Nixon, too, in my criticism. As best as I can recall, he was a Republican. 4) I never said you slammed Ike, Mike. This post was in response to Clif, etc.. No straw dog, brother. Only paranoia on your part. 5) Right-wing talking points, huh? For Christ sakes, Mike, your the one who labels people who disagree with you (yes, even part of the time). I don't agree with the religious right and I don't agree with the neocons. But I don't agree with collectively calling Republicans repugs. I like Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Linc Chaffee, Chuck Hagel, Bill Cohen, Warren Rudman, etc.. You ever heard of Stewart McKinney, Mike? He was a Republican - a Republican who did more to help the homeless than a lot of Dems I know (the McKinney Act, google it). 6) As for these so-called wedge issues you mention, I tried to find common ground on abortion, the tax-code, and the auto bailout (I disagreed with you AND Rusty on this one). And on the torture and gay-rights issue, I've consistently sided with the LEFT!!!!! 7) As for the Democracy issue, I have a tendency to agree with you. But I also think that Obama makes a good point, too. Elections aren't always the magic bullet that we think they're going to be. Hopefully, I've cleared a few things up for you (not that I'm ever going to totally please you, of course).

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

There's this blogger named Gadfly. He does a blog called the Future was Yesterdy. About a year ago this guy referred to me as a member of the "Obama police". Seriously! Go figure, huh?

Anonymous said...

Can you prove that?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The blog is called the Future was Yesterday. It was about a year ago. Go check it out.

Stella said...

Hmmm... interesting site, Will. I don't know if I can find the actual post, but it's a good force.

Of course Eisenhower screwed up (no where near as badly as Chimpy): He was human. I am pretty much as progressive as they come, but I don't argue until I listen to the other person's opinion.

In fact, Kennedy did escalate in Viet Nam, then recognized his error and changed course. We also need to remember the Bay of Pigs, which put our nation precariously close to starting another world war. Again, Kennedy changed direction and acted wisely. As for me, I would have been overjoyed to see RFK as president. Obama reminds me more of him.

Mike, Warren is a bigot and a misogynist. However, this is Obama's selection, along with Rev. Joseph Lowrey, who is an extremely progressive minister. Obama is giving both perspectives a voice.

I agree with Will: both Ike and Goldwater probably would have been moderate Democrats today. Every president screwed up in some way. Wilson was an ass because he strongly went after the Suffragists, tortured them, and did not believe in women's right to vote; nor did TR, for that matter. If you don't believe me, look it up.

Mike, the "Clif" thing is a joke. Of course, not all Repubs are "indefensible morons." Despite TR's anti-woman stance, he also started the environmental program in this country.

I agree Ike was basically a good man that was misled and had his presidency to an extent highjacked by radical Right wing ideologues like Dulles and Prescott Bush. That would be the same Prescott Bush that traded with the Nazis during WWII, right? And I agree about Ike's disdain for Nixon.

And to "Anonymous" (hello, name please?) or "Clif," be careful. I got significant historical and political education. Obviously, from what I can read in Will's writing, so did he. There's no need to be rude: that behavior stymies understanding. I also agree with Will's responses. He, too, has much wisdom and deserves more respect on his blog.

Now, how do I join Obama's police force?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You've got it right, Stella. All of these guys are mixed bags. Even Bush, who I think is the worst president of my time (20 years from now, if I'm alive, I might say otherwise) gave a lot of money for AIDS relief in Africa. LBJ screwed up Vietnam but he was a bear on civil rights. George H.W. Bush, when he was a congressman from Texas, was one of the few southerners to vote for Johson's Housing Bill - this despite dozens of daily death threats. Churchill was one of the great leaders of the 20th Century but he's the one who ordered the gratuitous carpet-bombing of Dresden. Ike inserted the Shah in Iran but he also integrated the army. Mixed bags, all of them. Ike and JFK - they just happen to be my personal favorites.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

We can debate Prescott Bush's culpability during the years prior to WW2 (contrasting it to Averill Harriman, Henry Ford, the Dupont family, etc.). But I don't think it's accurate to call him a right-wing idealogue. Bush was a liberal Republican from Connecticut (most Republicans from CT have been liberal; Lowell Weicker, Stewart McKinney, our current governor, Jodi Rell, to name a few). He was a champion of MANY liberal causes such as planned parenthood and the United Negro College Fund. He was in fact more liberal than Rockefeller, even more liberal than some of the Dems of his day (people forget that back then BOTH parties had a conservative and liberal wing). He was a mixed bag, too, I guess is what I'm saying.

Anonymous said...

About a year ago this guy referred to me as a member of the "Obama police". Seriously!


Can you prove this statement?

Or are you making it up like most of your accusations, will?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I don't make stuff up. The Alzheimer's Association doesn't honor liars.

Voltron said...

The page doesn't exist on blogger anymore, but here is google's cache...

The Future was Yesterday

Voltron said...

As to the rest of the conversation, "no comment".

Voltron said...

Oh and why is it that most liberals think Obama is "bridging the divide" when most conservatives don't?

Is that kinda like how Democrats feel "bipartisanship" is when Republicans go along with whatever Barbara Streisand they come up with?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Voltron, thank you so much, man. I know you don't like Obama much (heck, I still have a reservation or two myself) but your an honest guy and Clif could learn a lesson or two from you. As for Obama and his "bridging the divide", I have to tell you that I have in fact heard a fair amount of praise from conservatives for him. Even Bill Bennett on CNN said some good things. I know that this election is still raw on a lot of people but, me, I'm willing to let it shake out a little more. I think he (Obama) might be a little more like Bill Clinton (a nonpromiscuous version, hopefully) than FDR, LBJ, etc. (not that that's bad or good, mind you, just a feeling I have).

Voltron said...

Will, I'll tell you how worried I am about it.

I'm hoping he's more like Carter than FDR. If he repeats the mistakes of Hoover and FDR we're screwed big time.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The $850,000,000,000 stimulus program does sound a little scarry. But it sounds like a lot of conservatives are talking this stuff, too. Newt Gingrich isn't one of my favorite people, but I think I might agree with his opinion that Paulsen is the worst Secretary of the Treasury ever.

Mike said...

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
This is interesting, Stella. In a recent interview, Obama was asked who he thought the great presidents were. He listed Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and Eisenhower. Maybe he was paying back Susan Eisenhower for her support but, I'm telling you, I see a lot of Eisenhower in Obama; a prudence, a pragmatism, etc.. I'm praying that I'm right. P.S. If Ike was alive today, I'm pretty sure he'd be a Democrat."


Again another good post.................I think those named Are CLEARLY among our top Presidents........I also think Ike would be a Demacrat today...............For the record I dont think Obama was paying back Susan Eisenhower I think he's the real deal.........I think he's a smart man I think he will REALLY focus on Energy/Nation Security and long term economic competitiveness by trying to bring back good paying middle class jobs..............unfortunately with the financial disaster he inherited it might not be enough to save our country or his political career.

Mike said...

Stella said...
In fact, Kennedy did escalate in Viet Nam, then recognized his error and changed course. We also need to remember the Bay of Pigs, which put our nation precariously close to starting another world war. Again, Kennedy changed direction and acted wisely. As for me, I would have been overjoyed to see RFK as president. Obama reminds me more of him."


I agree Stella................think how much better off our country would have been if we would have had RFK instead of Nixon and Gore instead of GWB?

Mike said...

Stella said "Mike, Warren is a bigot and a misogynist. However, this is Obama's selection, along with Rev. Joseph Lowrey, who is an extremely progressive minister. Obama is giving both perspectives a voice."


Couldnt agree more................i'm NO FAN of Warren but he's Obama's choice and at this point I accept it.

Mike said...

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
We can debate Prescott Bush's culpability during the years prior to WW2 (contrasting it to Averill Harriman, Henry Ford, the Dupont family, etc.). But I don't think it's accurate to call him a right-wing idealogue. Bush was a liberal Republican from Connecticut (most Republicans from CT have been liberal; Lowell Weicker, Stewart McKinney, our current governor, Jodi Rell, to name a few). He was a champion of MANY liberal causes such as planned parenthood and the United Negro College Fund. He was in fact more liberal than Rockefeller, even more liberal than some of the Dems of his day (people forget that back then BOTH parties had a conservative and liberal wing). He was a mixed bag, too, I guess is what I'm saying."


Like I said before who cares if he was liberal or not or more liberal than someone else, LBJ was a liberal and so was Hillary and I cant stand them................i'm not a demacrat or a far left liberal...........also who cares if Harriman owned MORE shares or Other business men did wrong also............wrong is wrong and supporting IG Farben that built the Concentration camps and the German idustrial and military base when we were at war is FAR different that mere war profitting with other german companies before we were Offically at war.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Mike, you said "right wing ideologues like Dulles and Prescott Bush". I just wanted to point out that Prescott Bush was not a right-winger at all, but a liberal Republican (ala Nelson Rockefeller, ala Jacob Javits, ala Chuck Percy, ala Ed Brooke, ala Lowell Weicker, ala Dick Schweiker, etc.). As for the Nazi association, I'm not saying that what Bush and other businessmen did was good, or even forgiveable. I'm just doubting seriously whether he OR Averill Harriman OR the Duponts OR Henry Ford OR any of them fully understood the gravity of the situation. I don't even think that Joe Kennedy (who was quite rightly fired by FDR) fully understood it. You're obviously free to disagree with me, of course.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I don't think I'd want to be the guy who walks into FDR's office and tell him that his best friend is a traitor and needs to be hung. You can handle that part of the plan, Mike. And another Harriman was on the management team, the day to day operations of Union Bank Corps. Yikes, huh?