As my colleague Lisa Johnson reported, the family of Dwight Eisenhower is none too happy that the former president and savior of the free world is being depicted in his proposed memorial as a "as a life-size barefoot young boy, a shrinky-dink tikey Ikey." Unfortunately for opponents of Frank Gehry's vision, members of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission announced this week that they are "unanimous in their total and unqualified support" for the sissified design.
Inspired by Dave Weigel's proposal for the Barack H. Obama National Monument ("A series of unfinished train tracks that lead up to an unfinished statue of the man himself, apparently in the middle of a speech. It costs an estimated $150 billion to build; attendance is mandatory for all American citizens"), I suggest we agree on how to best memorialize our potential presidents now, before time has erased our understanding of these politicians' essence.
The Mitt Romney National Monument
Designed by Jon Huntsman, it is a "perfectly lubricated weather vane." Using the same advanced computing technology that powers Romney, the vane's height is automatically adjusted to the average elevation of the trees in whatever state happens to be a battleground at the moment.
Tags: Barack Obama, Dwight Eisenhower, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Washington DC
Noam Chomsky on the modern Republican Party in relation to its heroes…
"Today, Nixon would be a flaming radical, and Dwight D. Eisenhower would be off the spectrum. Even Ronald Reagan would be on the left somewhere."
That's all well and good, but from what I understand, this Chomsky guy still acknowledges that outdated concepts such as authoritarian states actually exist. So, I don't see why we should care what a fascist like him thinks.
Tags: Dwight Eisenhower, Noam Chomsky, Quote Unquote, Republicans, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan
Nothing is more important to a man than his legacy, especially if his legacy is BEATING THE NAZIS AND USHERING IN THE FREE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT.
Susan Eisenhower said the design of the roughly 80-foot-tall statue, which would go on the National Mall, instead has a "Horatio Alger" narrative that portrays the late president as a "dreamy boy."
According to the design plan, the estimated $100 million memorial park, framed by large metal tapestries depicting Eisenhower's boyhood home in Kansas, is a triptych containing one statue of a young Eisenhower marveling at two later bas-relief versions of himself.
The family has said it finds the main theme of the memorial offensive to Eisenhower's legacy as a two-term president and a Supreme Allied commander during World War II.
I, for one, see their point. Tapestries? C'mon! If you went back in time and told 10-year-old Eisenhower about this plan for his presidential memorial, he would shoot you with a BB gun loaded with bullets made from his baby teeth. Ike was no sissy "dreamy boy." The only dreams he had as a kid were about nuking Communist China, and that was decades before either even existed!
The controversy over Gehry's design began after grandson David Eisenhower resigned from the Eisenhower Memorial Commission. Now, another group called The National Civic Art Society is directly opposing the plan, even hiring an attorney to do unnecessary stuff like this…
Justin Shubow, president of the group and an attorney who litigates cases alleging fraud by the federal government, issued a 154-page report on Sunday saying the memorial's "core of kitsch" is the solitary statue of Eisenhower depicting him "as a life-size barefoot young boy, a shrinky-dink tikey Ikey."
Shrinky-dink tikey Ikey sounds like a great name for a toy from the 1950s, but not for a memorial to one of the greatest Republican presidents of the 20th century. In response to the hullabaloo, Gehry has agreed to be open to other ideas for the memorial. The best solution may be to have him design the memorial for Georgey-porgy Dubya instead.
Photo by Visions of America/Joe Sohm/Getty Images
Tags: Dwight Eisenhower, Military, Washington DC
With so so many problems facing our foundering nation these days, it must be incredibly difficult, as a legislator, to decide where to direct our congressional resources.
Should our elected representatives focus on the crushing unemployment our economic middle and lower classes are experiencing? Should it keep its gaze fixed resolutely upon our skyrocketing national debt? What about our flagging educational system? Our addiction to foreign-bought fossil fuels? Our military presence in the Middle East? The ever-increasing disgust being expressed by the populist uprising on our city streets? Should Congress do anything about any of those things?
Or should it maybe just pass a non-binding GOP-sponsored resolution that our already-agreed-upon national motto "In God We Trust" is still super nifty and we all really like it forever and ever amen? Probably that last one is the way to go…
The concurrent resolution, sponsored by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), would not have the force of law, but instead is aimed at "supporting and encouraging the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools and other government institutions."
The bill briefly outlines the history of government references to God, and adds in that "if religion and morality are taken out of the market-place of ideas, the very freedom on which the United States was founded cannot be secured."
Oh, wow! I have never heard it put quite so eloquently before. "Religion and morality" obviously can't be taken out of "the market-place of ideas." Whatever that means exactly, it would be totally crazy? Can you even imagine our "market-place of ideas" without "religion and morality"? I can't! And only partially because I don't quite know what that means. But it totally rings true!
But, of course, not everybody can see these clear and obvious abstractions with such impeccable clarity…
Democrats argued that at a time of high unemployment and a record-high budget deficit, it makes little sense to spend time on what could be a divisive bill.
"Instead of addressing any of these critical issues, and instead of working to help American families keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables, we are debating whether or not to affirm and proliferate a motto that was adopted in 1956 and that is not imperiled in any respect," they wrote in the committee report accompanying the bill.
But, don't you see? That's exactly the point. Back when President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the 84th U.S. Congress officially replaced the unofficially-adopted "E Pluribus Unum" with "In God We Trust" as our national motto, their intent was clear: To draw a distinction between us (morally-upright, God-fearing Americans) and them (godless Communist Soviet scum).
And this resolution is pretty much doing the same thing, with a minor tweak: To draw a distinction between us (morally-upright, God-fearing Republicans) and them (godless Communist Democrat scum).
"[I]nstead of working to help American families keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables…" What kind of socialist nonsense is that? Hahaha! The Democrats are playing right into their trap!
Photo by Visions of America/Joe Sohm/Digital Vision/Getty Images
Tags: Bill of Rights, Dwight Eisenhower, House of Representatives, Religion, Republicans
I think the takeaway from all this is, if you live in Charlotte, North Carolina, I'd keep my eyes open…
Coverage continues after the jump.
The Daily Show airs Monday through Thursday at 11/10c.
Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, CNN, Dwight Eisenhower, Energy & Oil, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden, John Kennedy, Jon Stewart, Libya, Military, Muammar Qaddafi, NATO, Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, The Daily Show, Video, Wolf Blitzer