I always read him but rarely agree with him. The subject today is IKE. I am not informed enough on the artistic merits (or lack there of) surrounding his proposed monument but my opinion of the man's presidency has really changed in the last 30 years. What I find most interesting about Will's column today is that while extolling Ike's numerous virtues,Will somehow neglects to mention that Eisenhower would NEVER get the nomination from todays Republican Party. I find Will's failure to address that fact both astonishing and very telling. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eisenhower-memorial-misses-the-man/2012/02/16/gIQAJkehKR_story.html

"Will somehow neglects to mention that Eisenhower would NEVER get the nomination from todays Republican Party. "

That alone would make me want to contribute to a monument in his honor.

"Will somehow neglects to mention that Eisenhower would NEVER get the nomination from todays Republican Party. I find Will's failure to address that fact both astonishing and very telling."

I've never seen Will say anything close to that. I don't think he believes it. I certainly don't.

Half the rightwingers running around today would call Ike a socialist. They think virtually everyone is a socialist, unless they are Marxists. LOL!!

"I've never seen Will say anything close to that. I don't think he believes it. I certainly don't. "

I'm somehow guessing that if the GOOP had a choice between Dwight Eisenhower and Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney, they'd choose Eisenhower. Unless he favored a tax increase on the wealthy.

Things do change over the years. Many of the policies JFK had would be considered conservative today, hardly appealing to the far left wing that currently controls the party. He tried to cut taxes and blocked his liberal advisors who wanted deficit spending in 1961. He strongly opposed Walter Reuther who represented the far left wing of the AFL CIO. He had Douglas Dillon, a conservative businessman as his Secretary of Treasury. On foreign policy was there anyone more aggressive than he? He was also a Catholic, which is a target these days. I wonder how he would have felt about someone challenging the Catholic Church?

"The men who create power make an indispensable contribution to the Nation’s greatness, but the men who question power make a contribution just as indispensable, especially when that questioning is disinterested, for they determine whether we use power or power uses us."

"And so, my fellow americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."

Fascinating

The point is that he DOES'NT say that Eisenhower would be too far to the left for the Republicans today. The Interstate Highway system and his use of the 101st Airborne in Arkansas would be enough to get him a seat next to Saul Alinsky at the Kenyan Ramadan Festival.

A conservative Democrat has a far easier time with his or her party than a liberal Republican. In fact,outside of Collins and Snowe (not REALLY liberal) I am hard pressed to name any.

Even though it was very different times, the charisma factor JFK had would still play very well today. I always find historical figures interesting to revisit. Based on what I know now, if JFK were running today I would vote for him easily over anyone in this race.

1. Stimulus money for a massive countrywide highway program.

2. Tax rates above 90%

3. Warns country of military/industrial complex.

In todays Republican party Ike would be as hated as FDR. LOL

It is fun to revisit political figures and their opinions versus what their party stands for today. My opinion of Eisenhower AND Nixon have changed for the better over the last few decades. By contrast,my opinion of Woodrow Wilson has changed for the worse. It is deliciously ironic that the party of Lincoln is strongest in the former Confederate States of America and that the POTUS who wanted to make the world "safe for Democracy" was probably the most racist POTUS since one of them actually owned slaves.

It is amazing how things change. My 8th grade History teacher was way ahead of his time with this stuff. A lot of things he said back then seemed way off the charts and it turns out that sonavu was right about a lot of things.

Always interesting to see how things shift. Truman is another one that seems to have been under appreciated in his day.

Yes, as the first Catholic prez (a huge deal back then), he had to address the concerns of potential voters and why he wouldn't impose his beliefs in his role as POTUS. I think he would be equally disgusted by a POTUS who would do that.

Yep. Harry was revered for his guts in dropping atom bombs on civilians.

Yes he was. I think that history will be kind to Bush 41 too. I also expect FDR to make a big come back in public opinion in the years to come. It seems as though he has taken a beating in the post Reagan era and that should change in the not too distant future. We can argue about whether Washington or Lincoln is #1 with the other taking the 2nd spot but FDR should be a solid #3 in my opinion.

The bomb probably saved lives but I still have a problem with the Nagasaki bomb.

I'm not sure about that 2nd one either, but not having lived during that time is part of it.