PDA

View Full Version : Elections Who would be the least electable past president in today's world?


Rain Man
06-03-2012, 04:13 PM
Let's have two categories.


Category 1. Personality and resume. Assume that the candidate could update his policies to today's world, but that his personality and resume wouldn't change. So for example, Ulysses S. Grant would be a war hero with a beard and a little bit of a drinking problem under the scrutiny of the modern media.

Category 2. Personality, resume, and policy platform. A little harder, but assume that the president came forward with the same policy platform that he had in his own race. So for example, Andrew Jackson or whomever would have a policy statement regarding his plan to relocate Native Americans, and Franklin Pierce would advocate allowing states to decide whether they should be slave or free states.


In Category 1, my first thought would be that Andrew Jackson might be problematic. He tended to shoot people and probably wouldn't hold his temper very well in a debate. The war hero thing would help, but I don't think it would carry him through the election.

In Category 2, I'm no expert, but it seems like Pierce would have some problems with his platform. Jackson might be second, but this is an area that I'm pretty uneducated about. Others may have better thoughts.

VAChief
06-03-2012, 04:24 PM
Probably GW Bush and Carter just because of the familiarity with their records, unless you are assuming their records as POTUS are not known, then I would rate them both much higher as they were both very engaging as candidates.

cosmo20002
06-03-2012, 04:26 PM
Your premise is kind of interesting but a little too complicated. I just know that today, Ronald Reagan would be cast of out of the R party as a socialist.

BucEyedPea
06-03-2012, 05:09 PM
Your premise is kind of interesting but a little too complicated. I just know that today, Ronald Reagan would be cast of out of the R party as a socialist.

No he'd be cast out being labeled an anti-Semite and a peacenik on the ME—the exact kind of Bill Kristol has boasted about getting rid of in the Republican party labeling them Arabists. He puts Baker and Scowcroft in this category.

BucEyedPea
06-03-2012, 05:12 PM
Let's have two categories.


Category 1. Personality and resume. Assume that the candidate could update his policies to today's world, but that his personality and resume wouldn't change. So for example, Ulysses S. Grant would be a war hero with a beard and a little bit of a drinking problem under the scrutiny of the modern media.

Category 2. Personality, resume, and policy platform. A little harder, but assume that the president came forward with the same policy platform that he had in his own race. So for example, Andrew Jackson or whomever would have a policy statement regarding his plan to relocate Native Americans, and Franklin Pierce would advocate allowing states to decide whether they should be slave or free states.


In Category 1, my first thought would be that Andrew Jackson might be problematic. He tended to shoot people and probably wouldn't hold his temper very well in a debate. The war hero thing would help, but I don't think it would carry him through the election.

In Category 2, I'm no expert, but it seems like Pierce would have some problems with his platform. Jackson might be second, but this is an area that I'm pretty uneducated about. Others may have better thoughts.
Jefferson


The left would say his platform was anarchy. The new right, folks like Donger, would call him a kook.

banyon
06-03-2012, 05:28 PM
My best estimates:

Category 1: Buchanan. gay dilettante would be quickly ruined in today's 24 hour news cycle. Of course, Pierce was a dedicated alcoholic, so he's a close 2nd. Many presidents thought of as great though, like Teddy Roosevelt and James Madison might not fare well in the TV world with their small statures and shrill/small voices.

Category 2: Chester A Arthur in terms of resume might come in problematic in today's atmosphere: Customs clerk/tax collector?

Policies are kind of hard to translate, since they are generally an artifact of the era. For example, Madison had a terrible policy on making the aggressive move toward the British in the War of 1812 with an unprepared military, but that doesn't really have and relevance today.


Have to disagree on Jackson. People like an aggressive lout on occasion. He's most similar IMO to GWB than any other president. Who else tells the Supreme Court to go f*ck themselves?

Okie_Apparition
06-03-2012, 06:42 PM
THey're actually starting to say nice things about Carter
It could be because he's next inline to be layed out

AustinChief
06-03-2012, 07:20 PM
Oh geez. That's tough since I'd wager that MOST wouldn't be electable toady. My favorite ex-pres is Truman. No way in hell he could get elected today. Hell he was barely electable in his own time.

Bewbies
06-03-2012, 07:45 PM
It'd be the early Presidents, big on merit, self reliance, duty, honor, personal responsibilty, and a very small gov't.

Garcia Bronco
06-03-2012, 07:52 PM
Andrew Jackson would be very electable. He stopped the British in New Orleans. He took Florida from Spain and in the process stopped terrorism along the Georgia/ Florida border. His platform was to empower the people to vote, when previously they did not.

Rain Man
06-03-2012, 07:52 PM
Your premise is kind of interesting but a little too complicated. I just know that today, Ronald Reagan would be cast of out of the R party as a socialist.

Yeah, I don't think I can answer it knowledgeably, but thought others might. I just thought it would be kind of humorous to imagine a guy like Ulysses S. Grant running for president today. It would be highly entertaining.

Great Expectations
06-03-2012, 08:11 PM
Without the KC Mafia Truman would never had a chance.

tredadda
06-03-2012, 09:09 PM
Andrew Jackson would be very electable. He stopped the British in New Orleans. He took Florida from Spain and in the process stopped terrorism along the Georgia/ Florida border. His platform was to empower the people to vote, when previously they did not.

He was also a racist and a man who basically said F you to anyone in government that did not agree with him. While these qualities might have endeared him back when he was president, they would not now.

cosmo20002
06-03-2012, 11:03 PM
He was also a racist and a man who basically said F you to anyone in government that did not agree with him. While these qualities might have endeared him back when he was president, they would not now.

Might not get him elected president, but he'd have a darn good shot to be the R nominee.

Discuss Thrower
06-03-2012, 11:24 PM
Cleveland, simply because he's too fat.

Bewbies
06-03-2012, 11:46 PM
Might not get him elected president, but he'd have a darn good shot to be the R nominee.

Racists in govt are on the left. Always been that way. The party of Lincoln is not the party of Byrd.

BucEyedPea
06-04-2012, 06:31 AM
He was also a racist and a man who basically said F you to anyone in government that did not agree with him. While these qualities might have endeared him back when he was president, they would not now.

Lincoln was a racist too. Wanted to deport all the blacks and said he was not fighting to end slavery. He even met with the Confederates in the middle of the war, and promised the south they could keep their slaves if they would just come back into the union.

Still, I'd bet most of the left, as well as the right, would elect him today.

Amnorix
06-04-2012, 06:32 AM
300+ pound Taft would have serious problems in the modern telegenic world.

So would Abe Lincoln, who wasn't a very good looking man.

Great exchange involving Lincoln, which shows so many facets of his skill and wit. Another politician who had a beef with Lincoln was berating him and stated "Sir, you are two-faced!" Lincoln replied "If I had two faces, do you think I'd wear this one?!"

BucEyedPea
06-04-2012, 06:32 AM
Oh geez. That's tough since I'd wager that MOST wouldn't be electable toady. My favorite ex-pres is Truman. No way in hell he could get elected today. Hell he was barely electable in his own time.

His nationalizing steel mills would be popular on the left though.

Bewbies
06-04-2012, 06:45 AM
Lincoln was a racist too. Wanted to deport all the blacks and said he was not fighting to end slavery. He even met with the Confederates in the middle of the war, and promised the south they could keep their slaves if they would just come back into the union.

Still, I'd bet most of the left, as well as the right, would elect him today.

Lincoln wasn't a racist, he just wasn't a hardcore abolitionist until he realized it was the only way to save the country. Have you ever read anything about Lincoln other than on some nutjob website? Do you believe what you write?

Amnorix
06-04-2012, 06:49 AM
Lincoln was a racist too. Wanted to deport all the blacks and said he was not fighting to end slavery. He even met with the Confederates in the middle of the war, and promised the south they could keep their slaves if they would just come back into the union.

Still, I'd bet most of the left, as well as the right, would elect him today.


Because I usually am forced to correct your innumerable fundamental errors every time you open your mouth about anything that happened relating to Lincoln or the Civil War, I thought I'd take this opportunity to note that your post is pretty much entirely correct. Well done.

BucEyedPea
06-04-2012, 06:53 AM
Lincoln wasn't a racist, he just wasn't a hardcore abolitionist until he realized it was the only way to save the country. Have you ever read anything about Lincoln other than on some nutjob website? Do you believe what you write?

It's not a matter of belief. It's a fact. He was definitely a racist, a vulgar one, just no more than others during his time.
You need to stop reading court historians, that omit info to lionize politicians and seek more viewpoints. There's plenty of quotes on his racist comments that have already been posted in this forum. Try reading Lincoln Unmasked. Lincoln, besides FDR, is one of our most white washed presidents. Just not to boobus americanus types who rely on middle to high school history books.

Let me know if you, or anyone else, are going to completely hijack this thread now by delving into more detail.

Amnorix
06-04-2012, 06:53 AM
Lincoln wasn't a racist, he just wasn't a hardcore abolitionist until he realized it was the only way to save the country. Have you ever read anything about Lincoln other than on some nutjob website? Do you believe what you write?


I'd describe him as far less racist than many Americans, but he'd still be viewed as a racist today.

Most of the rest is technically true. He had hoped to come up with some kind of voluntary relocation plan for African-Americans, knowing full well that there was no way for ALL of them to leave (there were far too many), but he was very concerned about how the two races could get along in the long run, especially if slavery were eliminated.

He said he was not fighting to end slavery, which is true. The South fought to keep slavery. The North fought to save the Union.

He didn't "meet" with the South, but in the early/mid war he made it clear that he would let the South retain slavery to restore the Union. It was all about the Union. His famous quote was something like "If I could save the Union by freeing all the slaves I would. If I could save it by retaining them, I would. If I could save it by freeing some and retaining others, I would do that also."

That would be (obviously) before the Emancipation Proclamation.

He believed slavery was wrong, but his number one goal was saving the Union.

Amnorix
06-04-2012, 06:56 AM
Lincoln wasn't a racist, he just wasn't a hardcore abolitionist until he realized it was the only way to save the country. Have you ever read anything about Lincoln other than on some nutjob website? Do you believe what you write?

It's not a matter of belief. It's a fact. He was definitely a racist, a vulgar one, just no more than others during his time.
You need to stop reading court historians and seek more viewpoints. There's plenty of quotes on his racist comments that have already been posted in this forum. Try reading Lincoln Unmasked. Lincoln, besides FDR, is one of our most white washed presidents.


Given BEP's very biased, and frequently utterly incorrect, views on Lincoln, I'd suggest you read other materials that are more balanced. BEP sticks to rip jobs published by people with a very firm underlying political agenda. The same fools who tend to believe that several Amendments to the Constitution are illegal/unenforceable, or that the Constitution itself was adopted illegal and therefore is unenforceable, and other complete rubbish.

Amnorix
06-04-2012, 07:02 AM
Racists in govt are on the left. Always been that way. The party of Lincoln is not the party of Byrd.


ROFL Never heard of Strom Thurmond eh?

And when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act and stated that he had lost the South for a generation, and led by Strom Thurmond the "Solid South" went from Democrat (Dixiecrat) to Republican and stayed that way for 50 years, that was mere coincidence?

Unless you're arguing that racist Republicans are automatically "left", somehow, your claim is beyond having no merit. It's entirely laughable just based on an ordinary understanding of history.

BucEyedPea
06-04-2012, 07:21 AM
Read this guy on Lincoln.

http://www.visionaryproject.org/bennettlerone/bennett.jpg
He is most noted as the executive editor for Ebony Magazine for decades.
His book Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream is chock full of facts and quotes about Lincoln's racism, including derogatory jokes and the real reason he was against expanding slavery into the territories was not because he opposed slavery but economic reasons for whites.

Bennett says : "the level of ignorance on Abraham Lincoln and race in the United States is a scandal and a rebuke to schools, museums, media, and scholars."

Dave Lane
06-04-2012, 07:25 AM
He was also a racist and a man who basically said F you to anyone in government that did not agree with him. While these qualities might have endeared him back when he was president, they would not now.

So he founded the Tea Party? Wow did not know.

Amnorix
06-04-2012, 07:38 AM
Read this guy on Lincoln.

http://www.visionaryproject.org/bennettlerone/bennett.jpg
He is most noted as the executive editor for Ebony Magazine for decades.
His book Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream is chock full of facts and quotes about Lincoln's racism, including derogatory jokes and the real reason he was against expanding slavery into the territories was not because he opposed slavery but economic reasons for whites.

Bennett says : "the level of ignorance on Abraham Lincoln and race in the United States is a scandal and a rebuke to schools, museums, media, and scholars."


You posted a picture of this gentleman why, exactly?

I don't think there's any question that by today's standards Lincoln was a racist. By the standards of 1860 he was far less racist than most.

Amnorix
06-04-2012, 07:43 AM
Read this guy on Lincoln.

http://www.visionaryproject.org/bennettlerone/bennett.jpg
He is most noted as the executive editor for Ebony Magazine for decades.
His book Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream is chock full of facts and quotes about Lincoln's racism, including derogatory jokes and the real reason he was against expanding slavery into the territories was not because he opposed slavery but economic reasons for whites.

Bennett says : "the level of ignorance on Abraham Lincoln and race in the United States is a scandal and a rebuke to schools, museums, media, and scholars."


The snippet on Amazon summarizing this book shows that it is complete garbage.

Beginning with the argument that the Emancipation Proclamation did not actually free African American slaves, this dissenting view of Lincoln's greatness surveys the president's policies, speeches, and private utterances and concludes that he had little real interest in abolition. Pointing to Lincoln's support for the fugitive slave laws, his friendship with slave-owning senator Henry Clay, and conversations in which he entertained the idea of deporting slaves in order to create an all-white nation, the book, concludes that the president was a racist at heart—and that the tragedies of Reconstruction and the Jim Crow era were the legacy of his shallow moral vision.


Sure, the EP only freed slaves in the rebellion states, but it did free slaves that were in those states within Union lines. So that first comment is crap. It also was as far as he could realistically go, politically.

The rest is just garbage. I don't have time for this at the moment, but it's just crap. Blaming Reconstruction and Jim Crow on him is laughable. Just so absurd it's not even worthy of discussion or debate.

durtyrute
06-04-2012, 07:51 AM
The least electable would spend four years in office and only accomplish war, poverty, poverty and war...wait..........isn't that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

Can't wait to vote and do it all over again.

tredadda
06-04-2012, 08:02 AM
ROFL Never heard of Strom Thurmond eh?

And when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act and stated that he had lost the South for a generation, and led by Strom Thurmond the "Solid South" went from Democrat (Dixiecrat) to Republican and stayed that way for 50 years, that was mere coincidence?

Unless you're arguing that racist Republicans are automatically "left", somehow, your claim is beyond having no merit. It's entirely laughable just based on an ordinary understanding of history.

Funny irony is that on Ft Jackson, SC one of the main buildings on post and I think a main road on post are named after him. To think that the Army (more likely politics played a role in it than the Army naming it after him) would do that for an avowed racist is humorous, especially considering Ft Jackson is their largest of the 4 basic training bases.

Amnorix
06-04-2012, 08:11 AM
Funny irony is that on Ft Jackson, SC one of the main buildings on post and I think a main road on post are named after him. To think that the Army (more likely politics played a role in it than the Army naming it after him) would do that for an avowed racist is humorous, especially considering Ft Jackson is their largest of the 4 basic training bases.


That doesn't even make a 10 top list of stupid names for military bases/ships.

Fort Hood, one of the largest bases in America, is named for CONFEDERATE General John Bell Hood, who not only was Confederate, he was a complete incompetent who wrecked his army the minute he got it.

Fort Devens (Massachusetts) is named for Charles Devens, whose stupidity nearly got the Union Army completely wiped out at Chancellorsville. It's not unfair to say that if darkness hadn't fallen to stop the Confederates, the Army of the Potomac was in serious danger of being made extinct.

Captain, later Commodore, William Bainbridge was not only captured once (without having fired a shot), and then forced BY PIRATES to use his US Navy ship to run a mission for them as if he was an errand boy, he was forced to FLY THE ALGERIAN FLAG while doing so.

Several US Navy ships have been named after him, who may well be the most incompetent commander in US Naval history, his subsequent restoration to command and capture of the HMS Java during the War of 1812 notwithstanding.

I could go on and on...

tredadda
06-04-2012, 08:28 AM
That doesn't even make a 10 top list of stupid names for military bases/ships.

Fort Hood, one of the largest bases in America, is named for CONFEDERATE General John Bell Hood, who not only was Confederate, he was a complete incompetent who wrecked his army the minute he got it.

Fort Devens (Massachusetts) is named for Charles Devens, whose stupidity nearly got the Union Army completely wiped out at Chancellorsville. It's not unfair to say that if darkness hadn't fallen to stop the Confederates, the Army of the Potomac was in serious danger of being made extinct.

Captain, later Commodore, William Bainbridge was not only captured once (without having fired a shot), and then forced BY PIRATES to use his US Navy ship to run a mission for them as if he was an errand boy, he was forced to FLY THE ALGERIAN FLAG while doing so.

Several US Navy ships have been named after him, who may well be the most incompetent commander in US Naval history, his subsequent restoration to command and capture of the HMS Java during the War of 1812 notwithstanding.

I could go on and on...

No doubt there are plenty of bases and military things named after incompetent people, but the Strom Thurmond one still takes the cake for me. This guy was an enormous racist and to have his name attached to anything that trains Soldiers, and especially Soldiers who are many times minorities is too ironic. I did not know about Bainbridge though, it did make me laugh reading how you described his incompetence though.

Bewbies
06-04-2012, 08:51 AM
I'd describe him as far less racist than many Americans, but he'd still be viewed as a racist today.

Most of the rest is technically true. He had hoped to come up with some kind of voluntary relocation plan for African-Americans, knowing full well that there was no way for ALL of them to leave (there were far too many), but he was very concerned about how the two races could get along in the long run, especially if slavery were eliminated.

He said he was not fighting to end slavery, which is true. The South fought to keep slavery. The North fought to save the Union.

He didn't "meet" with the South, but in the early/mid war he made it clear that he would let the South retain slavery to restore the Union. It was all about the Union. His famous quote was something like "If I could save the Union by freeing all the slaves I would. If I could save it by retaining them, I would. If I could save it by freeing some and retaining others, I would do that also."

That would be (obviously) before the Emancipation Proclamation.

He believed slavery was wrong, but his number one goal was saving the Union.

I would agree with this. Although for such a racist freeing slaves and meeting with blacks as equals in the white house sure is a long way from the white power stance BEP paints.

I just finished the book Giants, about Fredick Douglass and Abe Lincoln's sort of parallel lives, fantastic book. :thumb:

Bewbies
06-04-2012, 08:52 AM
I'll add another, in 2012 there's no way in hell Barack Obama gets elected.

Garcia Bronco
06-04-2012, 09:23 AM
He was also a racist and a man who basically said F you to anyone in government that did not agree with him. While these qualities might have endeared him back when he was president, they would not now.

He'd still win in a walk. He's probably one of the greatest Presidents we ever had. He also destroyed the National Bank, aka, the fed. His platform still plays today in a big way. And today instead of the Sioux it would be illegal immigrants.

Amnorix
06-04-2012, 09:34 AM
I would agree with this. Although for such a racist freeing slaves and meeting with blacks as equals in the white house sure is a long way from the white power stance BEP paints.

I just finished the book Giants, about Fredick Douglass and Abe Lincoln's sort of parallel lives, fantastic book. :thumb:


BEP does overstate things somewhat, but on balance that post of hers is as close to correct as I've ever seen her get on Civil War matters. Usually it's "Lincoln raped slaves!" or "The 14th Amendment was never actually adopted!!" or "the South left the Union over tariffs!!!" and other total nonsense.

Thanks for the tip on the book. I'm not currently in a Civil War phase, but if/when I get back to it (as is inevitable), I'll try to keep it in mind.

Rain Man
06-04-2012, 09:38 AM
That doesn't even make a 10 top list of stupid names for military bases/ships.

Fort Hood, one of the largest bases in America, is named for CONFEDERATE General John Bell Hood, who not only was Confederate, he was a complete incompetent who wrecked his army the minute he got it.

Fort Devens (Massachusetts) is named for Charles Devens, whose stupidity nearly got the Union Army completely wiped out at Chancellorsville. It's not unfair to say that if darkness hadn't fallen to stop the Confederates, the Army of the Potomac was in serious danger of being made extinct.

Captain, later Commodore, William Bainbridge was not only captured once (without having fired a shot), and then forced BY PIRATES to use his US Navy ship to run a mission for them as if he was an errand boy, he was forced to FLY THE ALGERIAN FLAG while doing so.

Several US Navy ships have been named after him, who may well be the most incompetent commander in US Naval history, his subsequent restoration to command and capture of the HMS Java during the War of 1812 notwithstanding.

I could go on and on...

Air Force bases tend to be named after pilots who crashed, and I think there's at least one that was named after a pilot who crashed after running out of fuel on a training flight. That doesn't seem worthy of getting a base named after you.

I wish I could remember which base.

BucEyedPea
06-04-2012, 09:47 AM
He'd still win in a walk. He's probably one of the greatest Presidents we ever had. He also destroyed the National Bank, aka, the fed. His platform still plays today in a big way. And today instead of the Sioux it would be illegal immigrants.

I agree with because he'd definitely be against the big bank bailouts which most people didn't like. The left over plays the race card.

Garcia Bronco
06-04-2012, 09:55 AM
I agree with because he'd definitely be against the big bank bailouts which most people didn't like. The left over plays the race card.

We'll that would be the amusing part since he's the founder of the Democratic Party, aka the left, and the reason their symbol is a jackass. If not for Andrew Jackson I don't think this country exists today,

BucEyedPea
06-04-2012, 10:13 AM
We'll that would be the amusing part since he's the founder of the Democratic Party, aka the left, and the reason their symbol is a jackass. If not for Andrew Jackson I don't think this country exists today,

The Democratic party back then was the party that was against central banking and pro-state's rights. They are not the same party since the 60's "New Left" philosophy took hold of it. The Republican Establishment are the Whigs who the Democrats of yesterday used to oppose.

Garcia Bronco
06-04-2012, 10:25 AM
The Democratic party back then was the party that was against central banking and pro-state's rights. They are not the same party since the 60's "New Left" philosophy took hold of it. The Republican Establishment are the Whigs who the Democrats of yesterday used to oppose.

I am aware, but it's still ironic.

cosmo20002
06-04-2012, 11:50 AM
I am aware, but it's still ironic.

Your post indicates exactly the opposite.

cosmo20002
06-04-2012, 11:57 AM
I agree with because he'd definitely be against the big bank bailouts which most people didn't like. The left over plays the race card.

Despite what anyone of them have said or done, I'm pretty sure that any president, including recent candidates for president, would have bailed out the banks. The consequences of not doing so would have been too great. Candidates, particularly recent Rs, preach unbending ideology. Presidents have to deal with reality. Reagan bailed out banks under less dire circumstances, and he's apparently the model conservative.

BucEyedPea
06-04-2012, 11:59 AM
Despite what anyone of them have said or done, I'm pretty sure that any president, including recent candidates for president, would have bailed out the banks. The consequences of not doing so would have been too great. Candidates, particularly recent Rs, preach unbending ideology. Presidents have to deal with reality. Reagan bailed out banks under less dire circumstances, and he's apparently the model conservative.

Irrelevant to my post. Jackson got rid of the then central bank. That was really dealing with reality.

mlyonsd
06-04-2012, 12:50 PM
Air Force bases tend to be named after pilots who crashed, and I think there's at least one that was named after a pilot who crashed after running out of fuel on a training flight. That doesn't seem worthy of getting a base named after you.

I wish I could remember which base.

Quick google found this. Interesting too.


PETITION

RENAME POPE AIR FORCE BASE
TO
POPE-PREDDY AIR FORCE BASE

INTRODUCTION: The Air Force often names air bases and air fields after the first aviator to be killed at or near the airport in question.

Many air bases are named for famous aviators native to the area in which the air base is located. Some air bases have been renamed.

There are only two major Air Force installations in NC: Pope and Seymour Johnson.

PRECEDENTS: Pope AFB, NC was named for 1st Lt. Harley H. Pope, killed with his crewman, Sgt. W. W. Fleming, January 7, 1917 when his JN-4 crashed into the Cape Fear River near Fayetteville. Poor visibility and fuel exhaustion led to the fatal crash. Lt. Pope is from Bedford, Indiana.

Seymour Johnson AFB, NC is named for Navy Lt. Seymour A. Johnson, Goldsboro native, killed March 5, 1941 in an aircraft accident in Maryland.

Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona is named for two local early aviators, 2nd Lt. Samuel H. Davis, killed Dec. 28, 1921 and 2nd Lt. Oscar Monthan, killed March 27, 1924.

Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio is named for aviation pioneers Orville and Wilbur Wright and for 1st Lt. Frank S. Patterson, killed June 19, 1918, in the crash of a DH-4. The Wright brothers are from Ohio.

Dyess AFB, Texas was renamed for Lt. Col. William E. Dyess, WWII fighter pilot who took part in the infamous Bataan death march. He escaped from a Japanese prison camp in April 1943 only to be killed in a P-38 crash in December 1943 at Burbank, CA.

Laughlin AFB, Texas is named for 1st Lt. Jack T. Laughlin, Texas native, B-17 pilot killed over Java on January 29,1942.

McConnell AFB, Kansas is named for three brothers from Wichita: 2nd Lt. Thomas L McConnell killed July 10, 1943 during an attack on Bouganville; Capt. Fred J. McConnell killed in a private plane crash October 25, 1945; and Lt. Col. Edwin M. McConnell who died September 1, 1997.


McGuire AFB, NJ is named for NJ native Major Thomas B. McGuire, Jr., P-38 pilot, second leading ace of WWII, Medal of Honor recipient, killed in action January 7, 1945 in the Philippines.

Nellis AFB, Nevada is named for Nevada native 1st Lt. William H. Nellis, WWII P-47 fighter pilot, killed December 27, 1944 in Europe.

Schriever AFB, Colorado was renamed in March 1998 for Gen. Bernard A. Schriever.

Vance AFB, Oklahoma is named for Oklahoma native Lt. Col. Leon R. Vance Jr., 1939 graduate of West Point, Medal of Honor recipient, killed July 26, 1944 when air-evac plane returning to the US went down in the Atlantic near Iceland.

THE PETITION: The Preddy Memorial Foundation seeks petitioners to have Pope AFB renamed Pope-Preddy AFB in memory of the Preddy brothers. A very brief sketch of their lives is below:

Major George E. Preddy, Jr. is from NC, and he is the top P-51 Mustang ace of all time. His 27 aerial victories rank him eighth among American aces, sixth among Air Force aces, third among American aces from the European Theater of Operations, and first among aces from North Carolina. George was killed on Christmas Day 1944 by Allied ground fire. His younger brother, 1st Lt. William R. Preddy, also a Mustang pilot, claimed two victories in March 1945 and was killed while strafing the enemy air field at Ceske Budejovice, CZ on April 17, 1945, just days before WWII ended in Europe.




http://www.petitiononline.com/PPAFB/petition.html

Chiefshrink
06-04-2012, 01:50 PM
They are not the same party since the 60's "New Left" philosophy took hold of it.

You mean the "New Anarchist Progressive Marxists":p

Chiefshrink
06-04-2012, 01:51 PM
Irrelevant to my post. Jackson got rid of the then central bank. That was really dealing with reality.

Jackson/Paul ticket:p

BucEyedPea
06-04-2012, 03:36 PM
Jackson/Paul ticket:p

LMAO

Bewbies
06-04-2012, 04:28 PM
There was a lot not to like about Jackson, however, he's the only President to leave office with a debt free nation. The praise he deserves for that is huge.

Iz Zat Chew
06-04-2012, 10:53 PM
Oh geez. That's tough since I'd wager that MOST wouldn't be electable toady. My favorite ex-pres is Truman. No way in hell he could get elected today. Hell he was barely electable in his own time.HST was elected on one premise, he ended the war with Japan with the H bombs. If the war would have not ended when it did he wouldn't have won the '48 election.

DementedLogic
06-05-2012, 12:58 AM
I'm surprised that noone has answered Thomas Jefferson. Some people seem to think that Ron Paul would be the least electable ever, and Ron Paul is the modern day Thomas Jefferson.

Amnorix
06-05-2012, 05:48 AM
HST was elected on one premise, he ended the war with Japan with the H bombs. If the war would have not ended when it did he wouldn't have won the '48 election.


As gross generalizations go.....that's pretty gross.

Iz Zat Chew
06-05-2012, 07:26 AM
As gross generalizations go.....that's pretty gross.
Do you see it differently? Harry was a fire shooter, but I don't think he had enough to him to get elected on his own. Along with the H bombs he rode on FDR's coattail. Similar thing happened with Bush (41). He was elected basically on Reagans 8 years in office.

The followon's to both HST and GHWB were different type people. Ike seemed reserved even though he was a General, Clinton had great personal presence and even though not a good human being was a good communicator.

Amnorix
06-05-2012, 08:22 AM
Do you see it differently? Harry was a fire shooter, but I don't think he had enough to him to get elected on his own. Along with the H bombs he rode on FDR's coattail. Similar thing happened with Bush (41). He was elected basically on Reagans 8 years in office.

The followon's to both HST and GHWB were different type people. Ike seemed reserved even though he was a General, Clinton had great personal presence and even though not a good human being was a good communicator.


I agree that Bush41 was largely elected on a reasonably strong economy and Reagan's coattails.

The 1948 election being decided "on one premise" from August 1945....not so much.

From the end of WWII to 1948, the Cold War was starting to heat up (as it were -- Iron Curtain speech was given in 1946), the Marshall Plan was adopted, the Greek Civil War was in full swing, the economy was strong (post-war environment etc.), Israel was being formed, etc. etc. It was a very tumultuous time in US and world history.

But if you think he was elected for the ONE reason that he dropped the Atomic Bombs on Japan (note, A-Bombs, not "H Bombs". H Bomb stands for Hydrogen Bomb, which wasn't yet invented by 1945), then you go with that.

cosmo20002
06-05-2012, 09:06 AM
Similar thing happened with Bush (41). He was elected basically on Reagans 8 years in office.


Considering that Reagan was fairly unpopular when he left, I don't think there was a lot of coattail riding going on. The reinvention of Reagan into a phony conservative ideal didn't happen until he died. Its hard to ever pick just one thing, but a lot of a Bush winning simply had to do with that he simply didn't have very strong competition.

Predarat
06-05-2012, 09:12 AM
dubya bush 2, 4 more years of him and there would be no more jobs left in the USA as he would send them all overseas. Almost everyone would starve to death.

ChiTown
06-05-2012, 09:14 AM
Considering that Reagan was fairly unpopular when he left, I don't think there was a lot of coattail riding going on. The reinvention of Reagan into a phony conservative ideal didn't happen until he died. Its hard to ever pick just one thing, but a lot of a Bush winning simply had to do with that he simply didn't have very strong competition.

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/02/05/President_Approval_Poll_Reagan.jpg

Amnorix
06-05-2012, 09:37 AM
Considering that Reagan was fairly unpopular when he left, I don't think there was a lot of coattail riding going on. The reinvention of Reagan into a phony conservative ideal didn't happen until he died. Its hard to ever pick just one thing, but a lot of a Bush winning simply had to do with that he simply didn't have very strong competition.


Grandpa Clueless/the Teflon President still had the nation bedazzled by his friendly, if doddering, ways. Lucky for the nation he had a bright team around him.

Iz Zat Chew
06-05-2012, 11:30 AM
dubya bush 2, 4 more years of him and there would be no more jobs left in the USA as he would send them all overseas. Almost everyone would starve to death.

You are aware that he served 8 years and that is the maximum any president can serve? Bush would never have had 4 more years.

Jump to present, how many jobs has Obama allowed to migrate overseas?

Iz Zat Chew
06-05-2012, 11:33 AM
I agree that Bush41 was largely elected on a reasonably strong economy and Reagan's coattails.

The 1948 election being decided "on one premise" from August 1945....not so much.

From the end of WWII to 1948, the Cold War was starting to heat up (as it were -- Iron Curtain speech was given in 1946), the Marshall Plan was adopted, the Greek Civil War was in full swing, the economy was strong (post-war environment etc.), Israel was being formed, etc. etc. It was a very tumultuous time in US and world history.

But if you think he was elected for the ONE reason that he dropped the Atomic Bombs on Japan (note, A-Bombs, not "H Bombs". H Bomb stands for Hydrogen Bomb, which wasn't yet invented by 1945), then you go with that.

A - H, whatever it takes.

Dropping the bombs made him look strong when he really wasn't compared to FDR.

Don't get me wrong, I think HST was OK, just don't think he was as strong as many think he was.

Amnorix
06-05-2012, 11:50 AM
A - H, whatever it takes.

Sure.

Dropping the bombs made him look strong when he really wasn't compared to FDR.

Don't get me wrong, I think HST was OK, just don't think he was as strong as many think he was.

You don't seem to know much about the history of the timeframe, or Truman in general, if you don't think he was "strong". Marshall Plan, firing McArthur, Korea, nationalizing steel mills, the list is pretty endless in showing that he was a firm and excellent President.

Iz Zat Chew
06-05-2012, 11:59 AM
Sure.



You don't seem to know much about the history of the timeframe, or Truman in general, if you don't think he was "strong". Marshall Plan, firing McArthur, Korea, nationalizing steel mills, the list is pretty endless in showing that he was a firm and excellent President.

All I can say is that opinions vary.

If he was as firm and exellent as you say why did he not run in 1952?

Unpopular incumbent President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) Harry S. Truman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman) decided not to run, so the Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)) instead nominated Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Illinois) Adlai Stevenson II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adlai_Stevenson_II) of Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois); Stevenson had gained a reputation in Illinois as an intellectual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual) and eloquent orator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_speaking). The Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) countered with popular war hero General Dwight D. Eisenhower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower) and won in a landslide, ending 20 consecutive years of Democratic control of the White House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House)

Amnorix
06-05-2012, 12:07 PM
All I can say is that opinions vary.

If he was as firm and exellent as you say why did he not run in 1952?



Because he had served for 7 years, Democrats had controlled the White House for 20, and he would not have won.

But he was unpopular for a number of reasons that weren't exactly in his control. The Korean War, which was a very difficult situation to deal with, was one of the main reasons for it. I think most who have analyzed the situation now agree that he handled it about as well as he could have. Certainly escalating into a full blown war with China would not have been smart. Letting NK crush SK would not have been smart either.

But that didn't make the nation less war-weary. Nor were they happy about "losing" China. The fact that one cannot lose what one never had isn't something the American public easily accepts.

On balance, Truman had to manage through one of the most challenging times any POTUS has had to deal with, and he did it extremely well.

Radar Chief
06-05-2012, 12:23 PM
You don't seem to know much about the history of the timeframe, or Truman in general, if you don't think he was "strong". Marshall Plan, firing McArthur, Korea, nationalizing steel mills, the list is pretty endless in showing that he was a firm and excellent President.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Xfi4s8cjLFI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Iz Zat Chew
06-05-2012, 01:24 PM
Because he had served for 7 years, Democrats had controlled the White House for 20, and he would not have won.

That comment pretty much cancels out your coment about him being "a firm and excellent president" now doesn't it?

Back then if you were doing a good job, at least what I can read in the history books, you were electable. Maybe today with the internet and instant information (right or wrong) you have the ability to feed your political stance with each person running for office.

I don't understand the dichotomy of your sentiment regrding Truman.

J Diddy
06-05-2012, 01:35 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Xfi4s8cjLFI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Great clip from a great movie!

Amnorix
06-05-2012, 01:40 PM
That comment pretty much cancels out your coment about him being "a firm and excellent president" now doesn't it?

errr....no actually, it doesn't.

Back then if you were doing a good job, at least what I can read in the history books, you were electable. Maybe today with the internet and instant information (right or wrong) you have the ability to feed your political stance with each person running for office.

I don't understand the dichotomy of your sentiment regrding Truman.


Three points.

1. sometimes good leadership means making the tough call and bucking the more popular option. I know in today's "what do the polls say I should do" method of political leadership that concept seems entirely foreign, but...

2. sometimes people get handed a big dose of luck, good or bad, that affects their popularity one way or another.

3. most people who have studied the era have rated Truman's Presidency very highly. Why? He was an effective President with many accomplishments both short and long term and ran a very successful Presidency. "Successful" as in "furthering America's key goals" rather than "made him popular".

Note also some things that we now consider either laughable or contemptible, or both, were used to undermine him. McCarthyism and the China Lobby were generally just disgusting displays of putting politics ahead of everything, including ethics, morals and good sense. Partly due to Republican frustration over 20 years of Democratic dominance of the White House, some of them resorted to pretty scumbag political maneuvers.


Anyway

When he left office in 1953, Truman was one of the most unpopular chief executives in history. His job approval rating of 22% in the Gallup Poll of February 1952 was lower than Richard Nixon's was in August 1974 at 24%, the month that Nixon resigned. American public feeling toward Truman grew steadily warmer with the passing years, and the period shortly after his death consolidated a partial rehabilitation among both historians and members of the public. As early as 1962, a poll of 75 distinguished historians conducted by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. ranked Truman among the "near great" presidents.[221] Since leaving office, Truman has fared well in polls ranking the presidents among Americans. He has never been listed lower than ninth, and most recently was fifth in a C-SPAN poll in 2009.[222]

You're hanging your hat on his not being very popular in 1952. I try to assess things with a bit more data than "what was his popularity rating when he left office"?

Would you agree that Bush did not do a good job based solely on his ~30% approval rating when he left office in 2008?

Radar Chief
06-05-2012, 02:47 PM
Great clip from a great movie!

Good answer. I’m going to be watching you. /Professor Terguson

Iz Zat Chew
06-05-2012, 03:52 PM
Would you agree that Bush did not do a good job based solely on his ~30% approval rating when he left office in 2008?Not trying to hang my hat on anything.

Bush did what he had to do at the time. If anyone else was president at the same moment in time they would have most likely done thevery same thing and their rating would have been in the tank as well.

J Diddy
06-05-2012, 03:55 PM
Not trying to hang my hat on anything.

Bush did what he had to do at the time. If anyone else was president at the same moment in time they would have most likely done thevery same thing and their rating would have been in the tank as well.

I disagree. There was no logical reason to go into Iraq.

Amnorix
06-05-2012, 03:56 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Xfi4s8cjLFI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Christ I haven't seen that movie in a zillion years. I had totally forgotten that scene or that Kinison was even in it.

:thumb:

Iz Zat Chew
06-05-2012, 05:06 PM
I disagree. There was no logical reason to go into Iraq.

What information do you have that the rest of us do not have that makes you feel that way? Personal opinion? Based on the activities reported in the papers from after Desert Storm there were plenty of reasons to invade Iraq. There were several times they fired on the planes that were patroling the no-fly zones as set forth by the UN. Unless I've forgotten everything I learned in school, that was an act of war. I agreed with going in the first time and I agreed with the second trip in. The results were good with Saddam taking a dirt nap.

J Diddy
06-05-2012, 05:17 PM
What information do you have that the rest of us do not have that makes you feel that way? Personal opinion? Based on the activities reported in the papers from after Desert Storm there were plenty of reasons to invade Iraq. There were several times they fired on the planes that were patroling the no-fly zones as set forth by the UN. Unless I've forgotten everything I learned in school, that was an act of war. I agreed with going in the first time and I agreed with the second trip in. The results were good with Saddam taking a dirt nap.

There reasoning was based on weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

I agree with the first time and I agree with how Sr. handled it. We had a coalition. The second time, the world knew we were full of it and offered up some troops from countries without a standing army.

Iz Zat Chew
06-05-2012, 05:51 PM
There reasoning was based on weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

I agree with the first time and I agree with how Sr. handled it. We had a coalition. The second time, the world knew we were full of it and offered up some troops from countries without a standing army.

The poison gas used to commit genocide against his own citizens wasn't considered a WMD?

You feel it was wrong, I do not and there is a large segment of the population of the world that is split either way. When the UN Inspectors were suddenly given orders to allow two weeks for Iraq to prepare for inspections did you not suspect anything? They were required to give notice as to which plants they were going to inspect and give two weeks for the plants to be prepared. That's enough for me to consider that something was in the works that should not have been.

How do you feel about Obama going against the wishes of Pakistan when he murdered OBL? That's OK because OBL was suspected of being a Terrorist? What gave Obama the right to violate the borders of an independent nation?

BucEyedPea
06-05-2012, 05:56 PM
What information do you have that the rest of us do not have that makes you feel that way? Personal opinion?

Holy Crap! Where have you been? Under a rock?

Go back and take a look at the debates on Iraq here. You are one naive voter or a dyed-in-the-wool interventionist NeoCon.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2012, 05:58 PM
The poison gas used to commit genocide against his own citizens wasn't considered a WMD?

It was actually not found to be used this way. Lot of missing facts in the msm. You must watch and believe everything Fox tells you.
This whole Iraq debacle, has been parsed endless here during the war of aggression. Is it really going to be taken up again?

BucEyedPea
06-05-2012, 06:01 PM
Jump to present, how many jobs has Obama allowed to migrate overseas?

Uhm, seriously, you think this is due to Obama or any other recent president. This is the result of NAFTA, WTO, Gatt and all those things related to the fake free-trade agreements that all presidents, including Carter on up stood on the stage and supported. It was a bi-partisan screw job. This issue is not about Rs or D's. It's about both of them.

J Diddy
06-05-2012, 06:03 PM
The poison gas used to commit genocide against his own citizens wasn't considered a WMD?

You feel it was wrong, I do not and there is a large segment of the population of the world that is split either way. When the UN Inspectors were suddenly given orders to allow two weeks for Iraq to prepare for inspections did you not suspect anything? They were required to give notice as to which plants they were going to inspect and give two weeks for the plants to be prepared. That's enough for me to consider that something was in the works that should not have been.

How do you feel about Obama going against the wishes of Pakistan when he murdered OBL? That's OK because OBL was suspected of being a Terrorist? What gave Obama the right to violate the borders of an independent nation?

I applauded Obama the same as I would have applauded Bush, if he'd stayed the course. Our beef was with Al Queda.

Iz Zat Chew
06-05-2012, 06:13 PM
I applauded Obama the same as I would have applauded Bush, if he'd stayed the course. Our beef was with Al Queda.

I listened to the speech by Bush after 9/11 he clearly said that if you were harboring terrorists we were coming. There were several terrorist training camps found in Iraq. That alone is enough to justify the action.

I know there is no words to change your position. I won't argue further, it's useless.

If you feel the need to claim victory then you have it. Pretty hollow I'd think, but hey, I'm an optimist.

Direckshun
06-05-2012, 06:17 PM
I actually think Washington might have a tough time.

His general credits would be seen as a plus, but he'd be a billionaire in today's world, and he looked every bit the part. He was a proud elitist. That'd be a really tough to sell.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2012, 06:27 PM
There reasoning was based on weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

I agree with the first time and I agree with how Sr. handled it. We had a coalition. The second time, the world knew we were full of it and offered up some troops from countries without a standing army.

Other reasons were given but more as an afterthought—not as the primary motivation.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2012, 06:38 PM
The poison gas used to commit genocide against his own citizens wasn't considered a WMD?


The genocide word gets thrown around by politicians too easily and it's a word that people don't agree on. Nevertheless, this was the claim for intervening in the Balkans under Clinton when the GOP opposed that as a needless intervention. It's not our job to save the world. That's way too big a mission. But here, we did not get all the facts. This is includes that the Kurds are thuggish and run by a Kurdish mafia; and how the replacement govt in Iraq now tortures the former Sunnis just as they had been tortured. This is the ME. We're not going to change it with military interventions.

Now, the Halabja Incident turned out to be an incident of war —not genocide. The majority of evidence indicates that the gas attack was an Iraqi assault against Iranian forces and pro-Iranian Kurdish forces in the village of Halabja. This is per a Defense Intelligence Agency report accepted by US at the time. Dr. Pelletier worked for the DIA at the time and spoke on this which was video'd and on You Tube. I just went to get the video but it's been removed. Wonder why? I had it embedded in this forum earlier and found the post but the vid is no longer, although I will continue to look. Looks like it's been scrubbed. Must be our new FBI secret police at work.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2012, 06:49 PM
I actually think Washington might have a tough time.

His general credits would be seen as a plus, but he'd be a billionaire in today's world, and he looked every bit the part. He was a proud elitist. That'd be a really tough to sell.

Since when has been being rich a disqualifier for chief executive? Many are rich...even the Obamas.

Obama got rich through political connections having been groomed by elitist oligarchs for office. At least a rich man who made his own money by his own merits can't be bought. On the other hand, Washinton gave Hamilton his ear so today's Whigs would be up to their usual mischief. This would be the NY Federal Reserve characters such as Geithner and Bernanke currently at the Fed. There was a bubble-bust, a real estate bubble, inside deals and inflation after Hamilton had his first US Bank wreck havoc even back then.

Washington was a committed anti-interventionist who opposed entangling alliances as a danger to our independence and peace. The AIPAC would never donate to him and would have him scandalized over at FOX News, The National Review, The Weekly Standard and Commentary. He'd be labeled an anti-semite. Donger would call him a loon and patteeu label him anti-American AND an anti-Semite.

Just read good ole George's Farewell Address.