Charlie Rose

MittsterMeister  10/16/2012 07:15 PM Report

Dwight Eisenhower wouldn't have any thing to do with people who call themselves republicans of today. Eisenhower would have them all Shot! For being Hypocites and BETRAYING the trust of conservatives. For behaving like irresponsible liberals by selling out the American standards that formed and made this country what it was before the pigs took over the political process.

Dream about That, Buddy

NeilMacCallister  10/14/2012 04:13 PM Report

Hah!! ..3 years ago Mr. Thomas was singing quick praises for "The Inspiring and Historic Election of Barack Obama"

3 years of economic devastation later -- he dreams of Dwight Eisenhower.

YeOleMittster  10/13/2012 02:30 PM Report

I like Evan Thomas; he seems to be a reasonable guy.

What a lot of people don't realize is that we all have embellish the Truth to a certain degree (some more than others) to make living.

"If one is honest with oneself, one will know the Truth."-YeOleMittster circa right now

tabs  10/11/2012 03:30 PM Report

"Eisenhower was the best Clerk I ever had." McArthur.

The closest that Mr Evans gets to it is, "The self effacing class of 1910." Very simply put Ike was the last of the born in the 19Th century Presidents, after that it was the "Greatest Generation" Presidents from which it wasn't long (LBJ in 1968) that the long slide in oblivion began, which is just now beginning to be understood. The difference between the generations is that Eisenhowers formative years were in an era of limited government and government power where one had to be self reliant and where risk had consequences that one had to pay for. Also one should not forget that Eisenhower was brought up in the Mid West where these were the traits of the 19Th century frontier. With JFK going forward their formative years were in an era of increasing governmental activism in both society and global war. In other words by the time the Greatest Generation arrived on the scene America had arrived as a world power (the US became the largest economy in the world in 1920) and was flexing its muscles.

REMant  10/10/2012 12:35 PM Report

Actually, Eisenhower invites comparison with George Washington a lot more than Sam Ervin: two no-nonsense men with tempers they kept under control, whom those not knowing them, came to regard as dopes, but who were anything but. They were both self-effacing and indispensable. And then there's their similar farewell speeches.

Rivals made a lot of Washington's mistakes made in the French and Indian War and criticized his non-confrontational "Fabian" or "guerilla" tactics, and alike of Ike's lack of combat experience. However, tho Ike was a major for 16 years and made LTC only in 1936, he was on an inside track almost from the end of WWI, indeed given a DSM for his role in developing tank tactics during the war, and running into some hostility on that account.

He was graduated first in his class at Leavenworth and sent immediately to the War College after the obligatory year as a battalion commander. During the early yrs of the Depression he served in Plans at the War Dept and became MacArthur's aide as chief of staff and in the Phillipines. But once WWII began he quickly moved up to one-star, and assigned again to planning, becoming chief of the War Plans Division (Asst Chief of Staff for Operations), whereupon, in 1942, he replaced the European theater commander.

Ike always said too much was made of his differences with MacArthur. While Inchon might be considered lucky, MacArthur had the plenty of experience doing the same thing in the South Pacific, and his strategy was perhaps better than the island-hopping urged by the Navy. He ran the Japanese occupation pretty well, too.

If Ike can be considered by some as a "moderate" for building schools and highways, these came directly out of studies of pre-war preparedness, with which he had had first-hand experience. He ran the economy conservatively and well, and still managed to rebuild a military depleted by Truman, too, if playing a lot of golf. I've several times quoted the 1964 Saturday Evening Post piece "Why I Am a Republican" regarding his feelings about inflation and deficits, which can be found online. By all accounts, except perhaps those of its liberal faculty, Ike ran Columbia very well, too. Frankly, I think he would have run the Civil War a lot better than Lincoln, if he'd have run it at all.

While he ran for president as an anti-Communist, he attempted to avoid conflict with them, and that's where the U2's were invaluable because they told him there was no arms gap. The Soviets would have been wiser to have simply kept quiet about it. He likewise tried to avoid engaging in a space race and realized Sputnik was only of propaganda value.

But he was no isolationist, and might not have minded covert operations, tho he certainly thought little of removing Mosaddegh, but I doubt very much he would have gone in for drones and assassination squads, because he understood honor, and never articulated any such doctrine as "responsibility to protect." He became involved in places like Iran and Vietnam to support the old colonial powers, but he quickly got the French and British out of Suez. He may have bemoaned the loss of China, supported Dulles and talked about dominoes, but it is unlikely he would have undertaken a war in Asia. His attitude seems much more like Romney's than Obama's. And I think Ike would recognize the positions taken by the parties today to be the same as 60 years ago. Which hopefully why there's renewed interest in him.

BTW, Obama may not be playing golf, but he sure isn't holding press conferences or talking to members of Congress either. And I really think the Cuban missile crisis has been overblown like a lot of other stuff re the Wunderkind.