December 25, 2009 a man attempted to set off a bomb on a plane in the United States that had come from the Netherlands. How would past presidents react to this act of terrorism?
Andrew Jackson would go to this man and beat him senseless with his cane. Then he would challenge the man to a duel to take place a week later, which Jackson would win and kill the terrorist. He would then proceed to seek a complete war against Terrorism and subvert Congress' decision to not allow such a war by going ahead and sending troops and subsequently he would be impeached.
William McKinley would move with caution. He would not seek military action until he was forced to by public opinion. Currently the public isn't too big on the idea of sending more troops so McKinley would not go to any war. How things would progress after that would be out of US control, but McKinley would probably stay a popular president.
Theodore Roosevelt would pull out his big stick by moving toward a war. However, how he would go for a war against a somewhat intangible group is unclear. He would definitely take some action because negotiations and diplomacy would be worthless.
James Buchanan would seek allies in a war against terrorism. But he would only do this after an official declaration of war by Congress because he won't overstep Constitutional bounds. If he gets a declaration, all signs point to him being a wonderful diplomat. He should be able to find allies and make treaties well.
Barack Obama finds himself in a difficult position because he recently called for a surge in Afghanistan but the newer and possibly more relevant front is Yemen. If he calls for even more troops, the public will disapprove. If he chooses to reroute the Afghanistan surge to Yemen, he may be viewed as indecisive. Thus he's in quite the predicament for now. If he's lucky, he issue will blow over a bit and the decision to focus on Afghanistan will turn out well for both his popularity and the welfare of the country.
We'll see how he goes about the issue in time.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
If I were President: Part 1
I've had dreams about running for president. Like the kind when you're asleep, not the aspirations kind.
Each time, I see myself in a laid-back position. I suppose it's peacetime and good economy and all, so a candidate like that would have a decent chance. I always become pretty damn popular, but there's a sizable minority (far right people, in my dreams) that say I'm too uneducated about issues and indecisive and that I'd make a terrible president and such.
So this got me thinking, what if I was president? Would I be horrible? What would my goals be? If I had to manage a war, how would I do so?
And so I'll tackle what my main goals would be today.
I was actually asked this question in a dream debate. My answer was basically:
1. Be a better president than James Buchanan
2. Bring facial hair back to the presidency
3. Rise above factions and parties, like Chester Arthur
In actuality, all three of these would be important goals to me. As president, it would be important in my eyes to not be controlled by whatever party I ran for. I consider myself to be a fairly moderate individual and I would want to stay that way even if I got to live in the Executive Mansion. I would have to pick a Vice President aligned with the same party as I, for political reasons, but I would try to diversify my cabinet geographically and ideologically.
Being better than James Buchanan is really just a way to make me feel better about myself if I'm not perfect.
And I've already written a blog about the whole facial hair thing. But, damn, why not?
Each time, I see myself in a laid-back position. I suppose it's peacetime and good economy and all, so a candidate like that would have a decent chance. I always become pretty damn popular, but there's a sizable minority (far right people, in my dreams) that say I'm too uneducated about issues and indecisive and that I'd make a terrible president and such.
So this got me thinking, what if I was president? Would I be horrible? What would my goals be? If I had to manage a war, how would I do so?
And so I'll tackle what my main goals would be today.
I was actually asked this question in a dream debate. My answer was basically:
1. Be a better president than James Buchanan
2. Bring facial hair back to the presidency
3. Rise above factions and parties, like Chester Arthur
In actuality, all three of these would be important goals to me. As president, it would be important in my eyes to not be controlled by whatever party I ran for. I consider myself to be a fairly moderate individual and I would want to stay that way even if I got to live in the Executive Mansion. I would have to pick a Vice President aligned with the same party as I, for political reasons, but I would try to diversify my cabinet geographically and ideologically.
Being better than James Buchanan is really just a way to make me feel better about myself if I'm not perfect.
And I've already written a blog about the whole facial hair thing. But, damn, why not?
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Presidential Ranking
With much research and hours of time spent upon a full ranking list of each president, I believe I have finally reached a conclusive list that gives any historian or group of historians a bar to reach in their lists of ranking presidents.
And so, as my Boxing Day gift to all... maybe 2 or 3 readers of this blog... I present to you, my finalized presidential ranking list.
1. Jefferson Davis
...To be fair, nowhere in those first paragraphs did I say it was United States Presidents.
And so, as my Boxing Day gift to all... maybe 2 or 3 readers of this blog... I present to you, my finalized presidential ranking list.
1. Jefferson Davis
...To be fair, nowhere in those first paragraphs did I say it was United States Presidents.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877)
"I have made it a rule of my life to trust a man long after other people gave him up, but I don't see how I can ever trust any human being again."
Some nicknames of Ulysses Grant include "Unconditional Surrender," "Uncle Sam," and "American Caesar." These are all fine and good for General Grant.
However, for President Grant, I prefer the nickname of "Useless S. Grant."
In his first term, his failure to act one way or another on the issue of greenbacks caused economic panic, beginning on Black Friday of 1869. Greenbacks had been issued by the Union during the Civil War as money with no gold backing, and so their value fluctuated from almost a full dollar to about half a dollar, and generally caused inflation and wasn't useful in transactions. If Grant had acted sooner, perhaps this economic trouble could have been avoided.
(At this point, I can't help but think of James Buchanan and his inability to do anything one way or the other about sucession and other pre-Civil War issues. Especially since Grant said he had voted for Buchanan.)
Also in his first term, the Credit Mobilier scandal occurred and was revealed to the public. Basically a company granted government money to itself and swindled money from the government further by sending invoices of about double their actual spending amounts. When it was discovered, stock in this company was used to bribe members of the federal government.
Normally, scandal and economic downturns prevent a president from being reelected. But not Grant. Somehow the public puts him into office without much challenge again.
The second term is not unlike the first. There is the Panic of 1873, not long after he starts the term. In addition, there are more scandals involving more cabinet members and the vice president, notably the Sanborn Contracts.
So basically, we've had two terms of Grant. Two periods of economic trouble. Multiple scandals.
And this man is still favored by the Republicans to run again. Grant was the favorite in 1880 until James G. Blaine threw his support behind James A. Garfield.
I just fail to comprehend how any man, even a successful general, could be so politically prosperous for as long as Grant with so much crap occurring while he's the big cheese of America.
Some nicknames of Ulysses Grant include "Unconditional Surrender," "Uncle Sam," and "American Caesar." These are all fine and good for General Grant.
However, for President Grant, I prefer the nickname of "Useless S. Grant."
In his first term, his failure to act one way or another on the issue of greenbacks caused economic panic, beginning on Black Friday of 1869. Greenbacks had been issued by the Union during the Civil War as money with no gold backing, and so their value fluctuated from almost a full dollar to about half a dollar, and generally caused inflation and wasn't useful in transactions. If Grant had acted sooner, perhaps this economic trouble could have been avoided.
(At this point, I can't help but think of James Buchanan and his inability to do anything one way or the other about sucession and other pre-Civil War issues. Especially since Grant said he had voted for Buchanan.)
Also in his first term, the Credit Mobilier scandal occurred and was revealed to the public. Basically a company granted government money to itself and swindled money from the government further by sending invoices of about double their actual spending amounts. When it was discovered, stock in this company was used to bribe members of the federal government.
Normally, scandal and economic downturns prevent a president from being reelected. But not Grant. Somehow the public puts him into office without much challenge again.
The second term is not unlike the first. There is the Panic of 1873, not long after he starts the term. In addition, there are more scandals involving more cabinet members and the vice president, notably the Sanborn Contracts.
So basically, we've had two terms of Grant. Two periods of economic trouble. Multiple scandals.
And this man is still favored by the Republicans to run again. Grant was the favorite in 1880 until James G. Blaine threw his support behind James A. Garfield.
I just fail to comprehend how any man, even a successful general, could be so politically prosperous for as long as Grant with so much crap occurring while he's the big cheese of America.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Election of 2012
So, we now consider the election of 2012.
Except, this election is made up of every man who has been president thus far. Washington through Obama.
Who wins?
First, let's put the presidents into their general political leanings. (Not perfect, mind you!)
Far left: FDR, LBJ
Left: Truman, Van Buren, Polk, Cleveland, Wilson, JFK, Carter, Clinton
Center left: Obama, John Adams
Center: Jefferson, Tyler, Garfield, TR
Center right: Lincoln, Arthur, Madison, Jackson, Tippecanoe, Grant, Hayes, Hoover
Right: Eisenhower, Nixon, Washington, Bushx2, Andrew Johnson, Monroe, Pierce, Buchanan, Benjamin Harrison, McKinley, Taft, Ford
Far right: Reagan, Fillmore, Harding, Coolidge
Indifferent: Taylor
Assuming I organized everyone correctly (which I did not, mind you), the right has already lost the election, because there are far too many candidates on their side, and they split the conservative vote too much. There would also be some split on the left. The center would have the best chance.
Of Jefferson, Tyler, Garfield, and TR, the clear winner is TR because of who he is. But what if we didn't know much about their past, and had to go by the issues. I predict a Garfield win. Tyler isn't so much center as flip-flop. Jefferson would probably be controversial for the views he presents, he's only placed center because he used some opposing views when he was actually president. TR honestly doesn't seem like that commanding of a man if you don't think of the things he did as president.
However, there is an issue. With the winner-take-all Electoral College system in place, the person with the most popular votes will almost surely lose. 43 men running to win 50 states. No one would win an electoral majority, and it would go to Congress, who would pick someone from the left.
But what if there were primaries to narrow things down to a Republican and Democratic candidate? In the current state of the economy, someone far left like FDR would be a decent candidate. However, Obama being more centrist would give FDR a run for his money. In the end, Obama would likely get the nomination by a polio. On the right side, the far right wouldn't do too well in a national election, and so Reagan and other extremists in small government would make poor candidates. The center right would be the Republican's best chance. As a result, I believe the Republican candidate would be Lincoln.
So Lincoln vs. Obama. Who wins?
Probably Obama.
...I did not expect that result when I started.
Except, this election is made up of every man who has been president thus far. Washington through Obama.
Who wins?
First, let's put the presidents into their general political leanings. (Not perfect, mind you!)
Far left: FDR, LBJ
Left: Truman, Van Buren, Polk, Cleveland, Wilson, JFK, Carter, Clinton
Center left: Obama, John Adams
Center: Jefferson, Tyler, Garfield, TR
Center right: Lincoln, Arthur, Madison, Jackson, Tippecanoe, Grant, Hayes, Hoover
Right: Eisenhower, Nixon, Washington, Bushx2, Andrew Johnson, Monroe, Pierce, Buchanan, Benjamin Harrison, McKinley, Taft, Ford
Far right: Reagan, Fillmore, Harding, Coolidge
Indifferent: Taylor
Assuming I organized everyone correctly (which I did not, mind you), the right has already lost the election, because there are far too many candidates on their side, and they split the conservative vote too much. There would also be some split on the left. The center would have the best chance.
Of Jefferson, Tyler, Garfield, and TR, the clear winner is TR because of who he is. But what if we didn't know much about their past, and had to go by the issues. I predict a Garfield win. Tyler isn't so much center as flip-flop. Jefferson would probably be controversial for the views he presents, he's only placed center because he used some opposing views when he was actually president. TR honestly doesn't seem like that commanding of a man if you don't think of the things he did as president.
However, there is an issue. With the winner-take-all Electoral College system in place, the person with the most popular votes will almost surely lose. 43 men running to win 50 states. No one would win an electoral majority, and it would go to Congress, who would pick someone from the left.
But what if there were primaries to narrow things down to a Republican and Democratic candidate? In the current state of the economy, someone far left like FDR would be a decent candidate. However, Obama being more centrist would give FDR a run for his money. In the end, Obama would likely get the nomination by a polio. On the right side, the far right wouldn't do too well in a national election, and so Reagan and other extremists in small government would make poor candidates. The center right would be the Republican's best chance. As a result, I believe the Republican candidate would be Lincoln.
So Lincoln vs. Obama. Who wins?
Probably Obama.
...I did not expect that result when I started.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
"Fact" Book
Today I borrowed a Presidential Fact Book, as the title says, from a US History teacher. I basicially orgasmed when I initially saw it. It was as thick as Harry Potter, but it wasn't about fictional boys saving the world as they go through puberty, it was about something almost as irrelevant to my life but three hundred times as interesting, the presidents of days past!
Excited, I read the chapter on George Washington once I got home with the monster of a book. The first thing I noticed was that in the quick facts at the beginning, it listed Washington as a member of the Federalist Party. This bothered me, as Washington was not officially in any party and is well known for saying we should avoid political parties in his farewell address. But I shrugged this off, because he honestly did prefer the views of the Federalists.
However, later in the chapter, there was a "fact" I could not forgive. It said that Washington's precedent of bowing out after two terms was not broken until FDR was elected to his third term in 1940.
This certainly isn't true.
The book makes the assumption that because FDR is the only president to be elected to more than two terms that he is the only person to break this precedent. However, in order to break the precedent, all that a person would have to do is be elected to two terms and run for a third.
Ulysses S. Grant was president for two terms, then Rutherford B. Hayes succeeded him. Hayes faught corruption, the spoils system, and the political machine in his term. So in 1880, Grant was the Stalwart faction of the Republican Party favorite to be nominated for president. He failed to be nominated because of the rift between the Stalwarts and Half-Breeds, but the point stands that there was effort to get him a third term.
The other Roosevelt, Theodore, ran for a third term in 1912, when he was dissatisfied with the way his handpicked successor was running the show. He failed to get the Republican nomination, but ran under his own new party, the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party.
So the real fact in this matter is that George Washington's precedent of leaving the office of president voluntarily and forever after two terms was broken in our nation's history, and not only by FDR.
Excited, I read the chapter on George Washington once I got home with the monster of a book. The first thing I noticed was that in the quick facts at the beginning, it listed Washington as a member of the Federalist Party. This bothered me, as Washington was not officially in any party and is well known for saying we should avoid political parties in his farewell address. But I shrugged this off, because he honestly did prefer the views of the Federalists.
However, later in the chapter, there was a "fact" I could not forgive. It said that Washington's precedent of bowing out after two terms was not broken until FDR was elected to his third term in 1940.
This certainly isn't true.
The book makes the assumption that because FDR is the only president to be elected to more than two terms that he is the only person to break this precedent. However, in order to break the precedent, all that a person would have to do is be elected to two terms and run for a third.
Ulysses S. Grant was president for two terms, then Rutherford B. Hayes succeeded him. Hayes faught corruption, the spoils system, and the political machine in his term. So in 1880, Grant was the Stalwart faction of the Republican Party favorite to be nominated for president. He failed to be nominated because of the rift between the Stalwarts and Half-Breeds, but the point stands that there was effort to get him a third term.
The other Roosevelt, Theodore, ran for a third term in 1912, when he was dissatisfied with the way his handpicked successor was running the show. He failed to get the Republican nomination, but ran under his own new party, the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party.
So the real fact in this matter is that George Washington's precedent of leaving the office of president voluntarily and forever after two terms was broken in our nation's history, and not only by FDR.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)