mountain man primitive agrees with a Republican

[franksolich]

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7803454

Oh my.

The mountain man primitive who, like all men, nightly pitches his tent one day's march nearer the mausoleum:

ThomWV  (1000+ posts)      Fri Feb-26-10 06:40 PM
THE MOUNTAIN MAN PRIMITIVE
Original message

A Republican I could agree with

"Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this─in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. "

Dwight David Eisenhower, November 8, 1954. About as conservative a Republican as you would like to find - in fact would love to find these days - said that and I believe he was correct.

Do you believe President Eisenhower was right, that if the mass of the people want the Government to do something, that it can not escape that responsibility, and if you do believe that to be generally true, is it also specifically true of health care?

How can a Government made up of our representatives deny to create for us a service which we demand and for which we are willing and able to pay? In fact how can they deny us this service in the face of learned opinion that as an economic entity we will fail if we do not? How can this be?

RKP5637  (1000+ posts)      Fri Feb-26-10 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
 
1. IMO the corporations rule this country far more than in Eisenhower's time. Today it appears their are basically two choices in USA, Inc. Corporate Rule or Government Rule, and IMO the two are merging into a fascist state.

[thundley4]

How can a Government made up of our representatives deny to create for us a service which we demand and for which we are willing and able to pay? In fact how can they deny us this service in the face of learned opinion that as an economic entity we will fail if we do not? How can this be?

I assume that the DUmmie is referring to the Public Option, yet he still can't show one single poll that shows "the masses" want this. All we know is that the DUmAsses of the DUmp want their drugs for free.

[Alpha Mare]

The rest of the quote:

The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government.

This comes from a letter Ike wrote to his brother, questioning Ike's policy.  I doubt the DUmmy would agree with any of it.
 

You say that the foreign policy of the two Administrations is the same. I suppose that even the most violent critic would agree that it is well for us to have friends in the world, to encourage them to oppose communism both in its external form and in its internal manifestations, to promote trade in the world that would be mutually profitable between us and our friends (and it must be mutually profitable or it will dry up), and to attempt the promotion of peace in the world, negotiating from a position of moral, intellectual, economic and military strength.

No matter what the party is in power, it must perforce follow a program that is related to these general purposes and aspirations. But the great difference is in how it is done and, particularly, in the results achieved.

You say that these critics also complain about the continuance of "controls," presumably over our economy. There is nothing in your letter that shows such complete ignorance as to what has actually happened as does this term. When we came into office there were Federal controls exercised over prices, wages, rents, as well as over the allocation and use of raw materials. The first thing this Administration did was to set about the elimination of those controls. This it did amid the most dire predictions of disaster, "run away" inflation, and so on and so on. We were proved right, but I must say that if the people of the United States do not even remember what took place, one is almost tempted to regret the agony of study, analysis and decision that was then our daily ration.

You also talk about "bad political advice" I am getting. I always assumed that lawyers attempted accuracy in their statements. How do you know that I am getting any political advice? Next, if I do get political advice, how do you know that it is not weighted in the direction that you seem to think it should be--although I am tempted at times to believe that you are just thrashing around rather than thinking anything through to a definite conclusion? So how can you say I am getting "bad" advice; why don't you just assume I am stupid, trying to wreck the nation, and leave our Constitution in tatters?

I assure you that you have more reason, based on sixty-four years of contact, to say this than you do to make the bland assumption that I am surrounded by a group of Machiavellian characters who are seeking the downfall of the United States and the ascendancy of socialism and communism in the world. Incidentally, I notice that everybody seems to be a great Constitutionalist until his idea of what the Constitution ought to do is violated--then he suddenly becomes very strong for amendments or some peculiar and individualistic interpretation of his own.

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm

[franksolich]

The rest of the quote:
This comes from a letter Ike wrote to his brother, questioning Ike's policy.  I doubt the DUmmy would agree with any of it.
 http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm

Great find, Alpha Mare, madam.