Bernie Sanders: President Dwight Eisenhower....

[Playinghardball]

Too bad that the paranoid folks will vote for the bomber every time...

[bulloney]

1. Hard to believe Eisenhower was a Republican, given what he stood for.

Had he run on those beliefs today, he'd be branded a "flaming liberal" and attacked endlessly on the RW talk shows and the MSM.

[pangaia]

2. It is not at all...

"Hard to believe Eisenhower was a Republican,.." It is hard to believe that TODAY'S so-called republicans, are....republicans..

[riqster]

5. They aren't. They have become an organized crime syndicate.

[riqster]

4. Not if you remember the parties before Reagan.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25838

[calimary]

8. Yet another reason why ol' "Saint ronnie" deserves the ranking of Worst President in History.

I think he even trumps george w dry-drunk. reagan's "legacy" has been far more harmful, even lethal, to our democracy. HE'S the one who started the mantra about "government is the problem." Amazing that, with such a frame of mind, he'd even want to be part of it. Now they're pretty much ALL like that. To the detriment of all the rest of us.

[immoderate]

9. Right arm!

I am in concurrence. I usually say, that all presidents since the mid 70s have been Reaganites. And they have all adhered to a game of austerity for the underclasses, with public support for the oligarchs.

--imm

[pampango]

18. Early on Ike had no political affiliation. Truman urged him to run as a Democrat.

Last edited Fri Jan 2, 2015, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)

As the election approached, other prominent citizens and politicians from both parties urged Eisenhower to run for president.

Eisenhower maintained no political party affiliation during this time.

At home, Eisenhower was more effective in making the case for NATO in Congress than the Truman administration was. By the middle of 1951, American and European support for NATO was substantial enough to give it a genuine military power.

President Truman, symbolizing a broad-based desire for an Eisenhower candidacy for president, again in 1951 pressed him to run for the office as a Democrat. It was at this time that Eisenhower voiced his disagreements with the Democratic party and declared himself and his family to be Republicans. A "Draft Eisenhower" movement in the Republican Party persuaded him to declare his candidacy in the 1952 presidential election to counter the candidacy of non-interventionist Senator Robert A. Taft. ... In defeating Taft for the nomination, it became necessary for Eisenhower to appease the right wing Old Guard of the Republican Party; his selection of Richard M. Nixon as the Vice-President on the ticket was designed in part for that purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#1948_presidential_election

[appalachiablue]

3. Very important, thanks.

[Enthusiast]

6. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations!

Eisenhower's words are especially significant when we consider we have no nation-state as an enemy.

There is no great navy, no great infantry and no great air force to fight against the supremely equipped US forces as there was in WWII. So what the fuck?

Of course Republican chickenhawks will insist that Iran is our enemy. I call bullshit on that noise. Even if we believed the lying Republicans we must concede that Iran's military is miniscule compared to the USA's.

We do not need this massive military. It's just a gift to the war profiteers.

[MisterP]

7. heck, one fighter jet series has *so far* spent as much money as 12 landings on Mars

(which in turn costs 847 Mars rovers)

and it'll *end up* costing two and a half full-series crewed Mars missions, or a Mars mission plus a full-monty HSR system

[ellennelle]

10. it's not the paranoid so much

that vote for the bombers, but the greedy.

the greedy just use paranoia to get support for their votes for the bombers.

[Initech]

11. We spend 100x more on security and defense than the next 50 countries combined. Fuck the MIC!

[Victor_c3]

14. I know it's all semantics that I'm pointing out here...

It's not security and defense that we are spending our money on. It's war.

If defense and security was our primary objective I'm sure we could satisfy that by spending significantly less than we do. China spends $188 billion on their war budget (or just under 30% of what we spend on ours). If they can buy a military for less than 1/3 of what spend on ours that has us convinced that they are a threat, then surely we could do the same. Hell, Russia spends $87.8 billion or roughly 13.7% of what spend on our budget and they manage to scare the shit out of most of us.

[Blanks]

12. That was before the press was owned by the MIC. eom

[joshdawg]

13. K & R!!

Ike was the last decent republican President.
He was/is night and day different from the rabid right-wingers of today.

[Victor_c3]

15. The same goes for Abraham Lincoln

Republicans like to point out that the man that fough a war to free the slaves and keep our country together was one of them.

Never mind the fact that the faction that is the most vocal in modern politics when it comes to calling for seccession are the republicans...

[Hoppy]

16. It ain't so much as the voters are snookered. Rather, it don't matter who they vote for.

Money from G.E., Lockheed, and so forth, trump the voters' wishes.

[nationalize the fed]

17. Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex

The people didn't listen

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications.

Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. 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.

[moondust]

19. Reality-based Republicans

are getting to be few and far between. Older Republicans like Ike and to some extent GHWB and Bob Dole who had to face some harsh realities and learn some hard lessons in life are about gone. Too bad.

[Adrahil]

20. The need to advance technology is real....

...but it does not require the purchase of military weaponry. Invest in NASA, the NIH, the development of green tech, and basic scientific research. Imagine what NASA could do with a $100 billion budget.

[Tommymac]

21. We Spend more than the next 8 Country's COMBINED on Defense.

I posted this on another thread a few days ago:

+++++++++++++++++++++
[link]http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6031523[/link]

We have the largest Pork Barrel Defense Budget in the History of the World.

The whole freaking world knows it; Sen. Sanders is intelligent, a realist and a sane sober person, it is implicit in having a responsible fiscal policy.

If he cut's out the unneeded Pork in the budget, a measly 10 or 20%, we would have a lot of $$$$ to spend on Social programs and infrastructure. Just because he is a liberal doesn't mean he is weak. Wanna stop this meme before it gets started.

The U.S. spends more on defense than the next eight countries combined

[link]http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison[/link]
We currently spend more on defense than the next 8 countries combined. Defense spending accounts for about 20 percent of all federal spending — nearly as much as Social Security, or the combined spending for Medicare and Medicaid. The sheer size of the defense budget suggests that it should be part of any serious effort to address America's long-term fiscal challenges. National security threats have evolved over the past 50 years, changing the nature of U.S. commitments around the world. We need a defense budget that matches these new security challenges, not the threats of the last century. We should also recognize that a strong economy is essential for providing the resources to meet future threats, and addressing our long-term structural debts will keep our economy strong. Indeed, as Admiral Mike Mullen, the past Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said: "The single greatest threat to our national security is our debt."

+++++++++++++++++++++

It is time to understand the REAL threat to our National Security is internal - it is the growing divide between the Have's and Have Not's.

It is time to understand the REAL threat posed by the amoral Multinational Cartels that know no national boundaries, that only know the boundaries of greed and avarice so that they may overstep them with stealth and cunning.

It is time to understand the REAL threat lies in granting rights that belong to PEOPLE to those same amoral Corporate entities that can then operate with impunity regarding the Rights of Man.

It is time to understand that Our Nation's strength is not measured in tanks and planes and bombs - but in the Moral Rights first put down in the Declaration of Independence and codified into Our Constitution.

I believe Senator Bernie Sanders does understand these precepts and would make a great Leader and President for We The People.

[Adrahil]

22. Just a note, but the MIC is not unique or new to America.

Read about the conjunction of private and national military interests in the expansionist colonial era. Look at the conjunction of, for example, the the EIC, and the British government interests in India. And WWI was largely fought over the desire to be the dominant imperial power.

[randr]

23. Just as our law enforcement institutions are increasingly used to protect the 1%

Our MIC is used to protect the interest of the fossil fuel industry. We have been brainwashed into thinking that the "American Standard of Living" is sacrosanct and all measures must be taken to protect it.
Driving this false ideology is the lie that we can not wean ourselves from foreign oil and that we can not survive without burning our own fossil fuels to the detriment of our health.
It is becoming a matter of survival that we rein in these monsters and establish an energy program based on independence and discovery of cleaner and more efficient sources of energy.

[iandhr]

24. When I was in school...

my senior seminar was in National Security Policy.

We did cases studies of Presidents from Truman onward.

I came way with a lot of respect for Eisenhower. The way he kept us out of Vietnam. There were some people who thought we should bail out the French at Dien Bien Phu. Ike said if we do that the Vietnamese would transfer there hatred of the French to us.

[DippyDem]

25. What did Nixon do as he came before Reagan?

I understand what Reagan did to screw the working class and the poor over. I was Republican till bout 8 years ago and voted Obama. I was to young to understand things about Nixon. I became very disillusioned with the CRAZY rethugs of 2008. They sure aren't what they used to be. Thanks if you can enlighten me.