Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: MaxCUA
First off, the premise of Mr. Peters' article is preposterous. Clearly he dislikes Mr. Bush and his policies, but it's silly to suggest that Bush is not a man of character. He put his presidency on the line and stuck to his guns where it really counted.

Second, this ridiculous elevation of Sarah Palin to the levels of Reagan, Ike, and Truman is just that -- ridiculous. It smacks of the same worshipful attitude that marks Obamassiah-worship on the left. It's all hope and hormones.

There is nothing in Ms. Palin's experience or writing/speaking to show she has what it takes to a) command Allied forces in Europe (Ike) and lead a Cold War; or to simultaneously restore an economy and win a Cold War (Reagan). There is absolutely no comparison.

Truman is perhaps the closest point of comparison ... but unlike Palin he had the advantage of military experience and a long political career at the national level.

It's worth remembering that -- even with that long experience -- he got steam-rolled at Potsdam, and his missteps there were partly responsible for the start of the Cold War. His record as president was spotty at best, but he did have the wherewithal -- not to mention a couple of eventful and formative years as President -- to engage in the Cold War in 1947 when it became obvious what was happening. But he badly bungled Korea.

Palin doesn't even have Truman's background. She probably does have character -- but that's not enough.

28 posted on 03/17/2010 9:04:07 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: r9etb
But he badly bungled Korea.....

__________________________________________

Strongly disagree. Truman faced the first instance of overt communist aggression in history as leader of a country that was tired of war and wanted no part of another one, as CIC of a drastically ill-prepared and diminished fighting force and as the first POTUS to have to wrestle the UN into action.

He met the aggressor head-on, checked his advances and pushed him back to square one. Any further action (cross the Yalu or drop the bomb) would have led to another World War with the US and UK (maybe) standing alone against China and the USSR.

It was Ike, not Truman who was POTUS in 1953 when the shooting stopped.

HST made his mistakes but his courage on Korea saved the world from global tragedy unpredictable only in its scope.

42 posted on 03/17/2010 10:45:03 AM PDT by wtc911 ("How you gonna get down that hill?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: r9etb
Palin doesn't even have Truman's background. She probably does have character -- but that's not enough. She has been in the kitchen longer than any of politician as of today or ever and has taken the heat!!!
233 posted on 03/18/2010 12:32:20 PM PDT by factmart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: r9etb

What’s ridiculous is putting the corrupt, leftist, incompetent (sound familiar?) Truman in the same sentence as Ronald Reagan. Truman wasn’t fit to sell Ronald Reagan a suit.


273 posted on 03/18/2010 7:57:49 PM PDT by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN | NO "INDIVIDUAL MANDATE"!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: r9etb
Truman is perhaps the closest point of comparison ... but unlike Palin he had the advantage of military experience and a long political career at the national level . . . His record as president was spotty at best, but he did have the wherewithal -- not to mention a couple of eventful and formative years as President -- to engage in the Cold War in 1947 when it became obvious what was happening. But he badly bungled Korea.

Your second of those two statements is quite right. As for the first, I can't really imagine that an examination of the record as it was would really inspire even the most diehard of Palin diehards to want to imagine her as any kind of new Truman. I said as much to another poster here a few months back (I wish I could remember which post and which poster), when said poster wrote: Sarah is a female Harry Truman. The similarities are amazing. Harry was part of the KC/Pendergast political machine, but he did not do their bidding. He took care of the taxpayers' money.

I couldn't resist launching my reply then with the famous line from the Old-Timer in the ancient Fibber McGee & Molly radio show: That's pretty good, Johnny, but that ain't the way I heared it!. Because, machine politics aside (I don't recall anyone, even her worst enemies actual or alleged, suggesting Sarah Palin was in any way, shape, or form a machine politician),

* Harry Truman took such good care of the taxpayers' money that his administration was the most severely-accused of influence peddling (read, specifically: government loans to significant enough Democrats, not to mention the infamous "five percenters"---old war pals of Give 'Em Hell Harry who benefitted rather large from Truman-inspired largesse) in the years between Teapot Dome and Watergate.

* He took such good care of the taxpayers' money that he tried to marshal every last kilowatt of his political power toward thwarting the postwar economic boom and sticking it right down the taxpayers' throats. He sought, according to numerous sources and the record as it is, nothing less than a full-out barrage of wage controls, price controls, credit controls, confiscatory taxes, state allocation of investment capital, continuous money printing, low-rate borrowing, a major Federal housing program, tax hikes even up from the levels already high enough from the war, a national health insurance program (!), and tax loopholes on behalf of industries he favoured. Most of which were presented in September 1946. All of which equaled the famous Republican landslide of two months later. ("Had enough? Vote Republican!" was only the most famous campaign slogan of that season.)

* He took such good care of the taxpayers' money that, in November 1947, after the new Congress had scuttled most of the rest of the price controls he'd begun to surrender very grudgingly, Give 'Em Hell Harry tried again (Harry was often enough slow on the uptake, as you alluded elsewhere yourself): new price controls, new consumer credit controls, federal spending on certain industries, and consumer goods rationing. Having been ignored there, and ever the steward of the taxpayers' money, Truman ordered a special session of Congress eight months later during which he sent a boatload of bills to the Hill knowing in advance they were going to be spurned soundly enough, yet allowing him to prattle about "that good-for-nothing, do-nothing Eightieth Congress" on the 1948 campaign trail. Want to know what this steward of the taxpayers' money wanted through those spurned bills? How do price controls (are we beginning to see a pattern here?), expansion of federal housing programs (which were turning merely poor neighbourhoods into slums already), national health insurance (stop me if you've heard that before), federal regulation of school boards, federal water projects for subsidised electricity, grab you?

That's what that good-for-nothing, do-nothing Eightieth Congress thwarted. Pity they couldn't have stayed in power long enough to thwart Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, which is exactly what Give 'Em Hell Harry's bid at taxpayer stewardship was, a decade and a half before Johnson gave it a name.

* He took such good care of the taxpayers' money that he didn't have to do the Pendergast machine's bidding in the White House---ever the steward of the taxpayers' money, Give 'Em Hell Harry took care of the cronyism and favouritism all by his lonesome.

* He took such good care of the taxpayers' money that, after his unexpected re-election in 1948, Harry sent just about the same program to Capitol Hill yet again, throwing in a repeal of the Taft-Hartley Law just to break up the monotony. (That's a joke, son.) And again his plans got ignored, even with a few less Republicans on the Hill, though our faithful steward of the taxpayer dollars had to give up on the idea of blocking decontrol of natural gas prices the better to shore up support of a key midwestern Senator. For all the good that did him.

* Did I mention that he took such good care of the taxpayers' money that, three months after North Korea attacked South Korea, he found just the shield he needed for the Defence Production Act---an umbrella under which he managed, at long enough last, to slap on the economic controls he'd been pushing for five years only to have had them shoved back down his throat. And guess what that got Give 'Em Hell Harry? It gave him hell, politically: the Democrats lost five Senate and twenty-eight House seats in the 1950 elections.

* And I haven't even begun to talk about how Truman had presented himself in 1948, contrary to the nostalgists' eventual hosannas, as one of the most savage campaigners in the history of American presidential elections---and this in a profession that's managed to survive the likes of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore. Give 'Em Hell Harry was just crazy enough, even, to try suggesting the Communists wanted a Republican win in 1948, his "proof" being their support for Henry Wallace's quixotic Progressive Party campaign. And if that wasn't wild enough, he made one very notorious campaign speech in Chicago in which he came right out and charged Thomas E. Dewey---who never answered in kind, perhaps foolishly enough---with fronting "the cliques" that had backed Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.

That was Harry Truman. And people want to see Sarah Palin on a list with him, considering all that? If she's a female Harry Truman, and if she would take care of the taxpayers' money the way he did, then she would deserve to be drummed right the hell out of the rightward camp. If she's a female Truman, and would tend the taxpayers' money as he did, it would prove her to have her head so far up her ass she couldn't see the moonlight over the Bering Strait without moving her tongue to one side.

You'd think the lady would want anything but purported supporters wishing to anoint her in the oil of Harry Truman. Harry Truman---who gave 'em hell, forged a reputation for plainspoken bluntness that served as little more than a coarse and vulgar patina for one of the most vile rhetoricians and craven, unapologetic statists in the history of the American presidency.

It's one thing to suggest that Palin may well be just a plain old politician after all, as several do suggest, often athwart that contingency which sees her as God's begotten granddaughter*. But it's something else entirely to suggest she's Harry Truman's kind of plain old politician, something even she does not resemble even from a distance. Thus far.

(* That's a joke, kids. Though I do happen to think the Almighty tends to learn His lessons a lot quicker than we learn ours---He did, after all, try warning us, via my explicit ancestors, what was likely to happen if we [they] were damn fool enough to want to be like all the other nations and just hadda have a king. For those who didn't get the original memo, it's been preserved in I Samuel 8. I'm pretty sure He hasn't had much taste for getting mixed up in His children's political business since, never mind what a few too many clergy have tried to propagate since. And, by the way, those kings of antiquity were downright pikers compared to King Washington DC . . . )

294 posted on 03/19/2010 2:09:10 PM PDT by BluesDuke (Another brief interlude from the small apartment halfway up in the middle of nowhere in particular)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson