Comments on: Obama as Eisenhower

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:07:17 +0000

CS, Bush's name isn't on the ballot, but this election is very much about him and his failed policies. No doubt the R's would like to think otherwise, but thaf won't make it so.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:06:53 +0000

Uh, J? Bush isn't on the ballot this year, so obviously someone else will be giving it a try.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:03:41 +0000

Eisenhower was a moderate and well-liked president, one who didn't inspire and court the sort of division and animosity we've seen for the last decade or more. I see Obama as a leader with a similar temperment. His detractors had their 8 years of opportunity to lead and most folks (barring the blind faith variety) would have to agree they blew it. Time for someone else to give it a try.

By: DWSUWF

DWSUWF — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:58:54 +0000

@cs
Indeed. Blind faith is not subject to logic. It is after all, a leap.

By: DWSUWF

DWSUWF — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:29:31 +0000

Stein suggested his temperament was like Eisenhower's, not that he was Eisenhower.pac

Did you read the title of the piece?

or this?

"common childhood roots in Kansas."

and is it my imagination, or did "channeling" Ike change to "evoke" Ike in this piece?

By: CStanley

CStanley — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:20:04 +0000

DWSUWF: Hear, hear.

Jim- True; if the facts aren't on one's side, then one shouldn't bother.

By: DWSUWF

DWSUWF — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:12:27 +0000

elrod,
I accept that every negative thing that you and partisans on the left say about McCain is true. I also accept that every negative thing that the partisans on the right say about Obama is true. These are both very ambitious men who crave power. That should be obvious to everyone. The good thing about McCain, is that he recognizes that trait in himself. The bad thing about Obama, is that he does not.

I conclude that the best thing for the country, is to never give either party control of the executive, the senate, and the house. In particular to not hand that constitution subverting power to Obama based on a fantasy of who he his derived from a fawning interview vs the evidence of his actual partisan votes and a history of abandoning reformist rhetoric when it is politcally convenient (public financing, FISA, etc.)

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” – James Madison Federalist #51. And the only way to keep the checks balances and separation of power that Madison designed into our constitution from being subverted by single party control – is never permit single party control. The only way that can happen in 2008, is elect John McCain President. That is what this country needs.

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 04:44:39 +0000

elrod, you shouldn't really bother.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 04:41:40 +0000

elrod, sorry, but the examples you cite seem like pretty weak tea. The two US Senate examples were the same ones I cited, and I've already explained that I hardly believe that anyone was 'violently opposed' to the legislation he was supporting. Same with the police issue you mention- I'll take your word on it that Devine opposed him on it, but Obama's record certainly shows a lot more party line voting and cozying up to the Chicago machine politicians than dissention from them, so if this one instance is the only example you have then put me down as 'unimpressed'.

By: elrod

elrod — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 04:16:39 +0000

DWSUWF,
Would you prefer a President who just shot forward with whatever thought first came to his mind and then stuck with it even if it was a disaster?

I've had enough of Bush's “resolve” and I can do without McCain's hotheadedness.

By: elrod

elrod — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 04:15:01 +0000

CStanley,
The police interrogation bill was opposed vigorously by people in both political parties in Illinois. But he was able to listen to the concerns of the police union and was able to convince the very powerful Democratic State's Attorney Dick Devine to back the plan. Devine is representative of the old corrupt Chicago Democratic machine and had no desire to see police powers limited in any way. But Obama was able to work with Devine and some arch-conservative Republicans and craft a video confession bill that is a model for the nation.

In the US Senate, Obama worked with Tom Coburn to develop a budget transparency bill. And he traveled through the former Soviet Union with Dick Lugar to investigate and eventually craft a law that cracks down on loose nukes.

In all three cases Obama worked with Republicans and confronted hostile members of his own party with respect.

No, Obama is not Eisenhower. But Obama does have a temperament like him.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:42:16 +0000

Stein suggested his temperament was like Eisenhower's, not that he was Eisenhower.

By: DWSUWF

DWSUWF — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:47:27 +0000

Yeah. Exactly like Eisenhower. Except for the part about Eisenhower being a war hero and Obama never having served a day in the military. And Eisenhower actually having a record of bipartisan and non-partisan actions, where Obama has a perfect record of 97% toe-the-party-line partisan voting record, and never has actually stood up to his own party. Oh yeah – and that little issue where Eisenhower had to make the toughest decision of any man in the 2Oth century whether to pull the trigger with imperfect information organizing, overseeing, and leading the biggest land and sea military operation in history – as compared to Obama, um who I guess uh ran a political campaign, and is unable to decide what position he should take or Russia invading Georgia until after he has consulted with 200 advisors to determine what is politically advantageous.

But – other than that – they are exactly the same. Because Obama talks a good game on a news magazine.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:24:05 +0000

JSpencer, the point is that Obama's unity is going to be of the 50 + 1 variety, just as W's was, because that's the state of polarity that we currently have. Now, perhaps you'd prefer a liberal agenda being put forth with a 50 + 1 margin, but the 49 who get trounced over are not going to suddenly join hands and sing “My Country Tis of Thee” with you.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:07:49 +0000

DLS, here's your assignment: Put on your thinking cap and pull out your junior citizen reader. Now look up the following phrase : “E Pluribus Unum” Try to think about what it means. You can even write it down a few times if that helps. Good luck!

By: CStanley

CStanley — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:02:52 +0000

One of the things I’m good at is getting people in a room with …different ideas who sometimes violently disagree with each other and finding common ground, and a sense of common direction.

Can anyone name even one instance to back up that claim? At best, his tenure in the Illinois legislature would compare to W as governor of TX (where he had a reputation of being able to work across the aisle- but that's not much of a stretch when the politicians of both parties are generally pretty close ideologically because the state is deep red or deep blue as the case may be.)

And in the US Senate, have there been any examples of him bucking his own party members to reach a compromise with Republicans? The only bipartisan stuff I've seen touted has been ethics bill (which all legislators always agree to, so long as the terms can be written so as to be almost meaningless, and I don't recall any heated debate over that bill) and the Lugar-Obama nonproliferation bill to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists (somehow I have a hard time believing that this was an issue on which anyone disagreed.)

Am I missing something, or are you guys just buying this without any evidence?

By: DLS

DLS — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:37:34 +0000

Moses is next, probably.

“Unity”? Why bother with elections and wasting time voting for someone, then?

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:26:26 +0000

I think Obama has a greater ability to acheive something resembling unity than McCain, whose first major “presidential” decision was choosing Sarah Palin as VP, a gesture pretty much the opposite of unity. And unlike the current occupant of the White house who paid much lip service to reaching across the aisle, but never did, I think Obama would actually make the effort.