Katharine Armstrong *IS* the Bush constituency that Ike warned us about

[underpants]

Well at least he mentioned THEM to his brother in a letter (see below)

A side note-the image of this mega billionaire daughter of uber privilege giving TV interviews by the side of a dual divided highway just cracks me up. She obviously doesn't want anyone NEAR the estate house, this actually goes with the rest of this post.

The Armstrongs (from what I have heard and read) are OLD ... BIG Texas money. The family has owned the 50,000 acre ranch since 1880.

Eisenhower had this to say in 1954.

President Dwight Eisenhower, Republican, uttered these words on November 8, 1954:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/ike.asp

Sound familiar? Well these are the people that Cheney really works for and takes orders for...like an errand boy.

This episode shows that W isn't running a damned thing. Cheney has been running the show from day one. Dick didn't even call back into the Whitehouse on Saturday? At all, let alone if he SHOT SOMEONE IN THE FACE? No contact at all? No one on his staff?

I have seen several mentions of how the "common man" is or has taken this story. Well the common man wouldn't be allowed anywhere near this crowd unless they are serving their meals.

The whole thing truly shows the actual constituency of this White House. The point here isn't that the rich get influence and contact it is that the whole image of the "working class" W has basically been blasted in the face.

[NNadir]

1. Wow. Great Quote.

[Tace]

2. It's 50,000 Acres -- NOT NOT 50,000 Square Miles

Cheers

[underpants]

3. Whoops

Cheers indeed. Sorry that was a stupid mistake. My bad.

[LisaM]

4. Is she the woman who pretended to buy his Dallas house in 2000?

I have been trying to find out who the person was who bought his house when they needed to show that Cheney and Bush did not both live in Texas (so they could run together). It's been bugging me, but I know it was a rich Texas woman with GOP ties. I realize that could be a lot of people, but her name sounded very familiar. Does anyone have that reference?

[underpants]

6. According to this DU article no it was Diane T. Cash

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/06/22_cheney.html

There is a wide trail of lies told by Cheney. There is the Iraqi connection, the Enron ties, the India deal, the so on and so on. Cheney also lied about not living in Texas as late as November 2000 in apparent violation of the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He didn't sell his Dallas-area mansion to a major Republican donor until Nov. 30, 2000, according to deed records. I have been by that $2.7 million home several times since Cheney sold it and have never seen any evidence anyone occupies it. The owner, Dianne T. Cash, owns another million-dollar home in Highland Park, one of the wealthiest suburbs in the country. So, she needs two mansions in the same tiny suburb, huh?

[mdmc]

5. nice post!

k+r to the head!

[Scout1071]

7. Are you sure that quote is accurate? I thought the original

mentioned "a few Texas oil millionaires like H.L. Hunt."

[underpants]

8. Check the Snopes link

Save for a few minor details, however, the quote from President Dwight D. Eisenhower cited at the head of this page is in fact an accurate one. It wasn't something he uttered (it was instead something he wrote), and the version reproduced above omits Ike's reference to a specific Texas oil tycoon (H.L. Hunt), but it otherwise is taken verbatim from a letter President Eisenhower penned to his brother, Edgar Newton Eisenhower, on 8 November 1954:
Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

[Scout1071]

9. That's all I meant. By omitting part of it, it's not totally accurate.

I'm familiar with the quote, that's how I spotted Mr. H.L. Hunt missing from it.

But I do appreciate you posting it in it's entirety. That's what I was looking for!