Strong or Weak?

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt have what in common?

They are all strong presidents who followed generally weaker presidents.

Washington followed the Articles of Confederation, which had a president, but of Congress, not an executive. His term built the presidency. Lincoln followed James Buchanan who basically did nothing about seceding states, because he didn't think he had the right. At the same time, he didn't think they had the right to secede. Lincoln then saved the Union. Roosevelt followed Hoover, who is blamed for the Great Depression and failed to do much to make it better.

Roosevelt had great popularity because he wasn't Hoover. Washington was successful because the Constitution was fresh and he could interpret it however he wished. Lincoln was successful because most of his opposition seceded from the nation, and he forced himself into emergency powers.

When I consider these cases, I find it difficult not to draw a parallel to Barack Obama. George Bush isn't exactly a weak president, as he did get a lot done, but he was probably a poor one, like Buchanan and Hoover.

Unlike these cases however, Obama does not yet seem to be very successful. Perhaps he just needs his full term and maybe a second to prove his worth.

But what if Congress stays deadlocked?

Could Barack not follow these three examples and instead shift federal politics to be more like those of the Gilded Age?

The Gilded Age is notable for Congress' domination of politics. That, in turn, echoed of the presidents from Taylor to Buchanan. Is it perhaps time for the executive branch to become weaker again?

There's one major problem with weak presidents now that was not apparent last time. When the Gilded Age ended, expansionism began. The United States became firmly, and stays today, involved in the politics of the world. If the single man (or maybe woman) leading the executive branch is not strong, then the country will become weaker on the international field.

That singular leader is needed to be the representative of the United States. And he cannot be a pushover that the world takes advantage of, he needs to be strong but fair.

Thus, we must hope that Obama does follow the scheme of Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. Because a Congress overtaking the president again could be bad for America.

Semi-finals

If you don't mind, I'm reversing the match order. If you do mind, suck it up.

Lyndon Johnson vs George H. W. Bush

Earlier in the tournament, I believe it was Round 1, perhaps Round 2, there was the matchup of Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush. I actually gave no explanation, saying merely "LBJ wins. 'Nuff said."

One may expect similar results from LBJ/Elder Bush.

One may expect incorrectly.

This is a Democrat vs. Republican election, so it is safe to assume that the blue states stay blue and the red states stay red. ...Right?

Wrong. Texas has suddenly become a swing state. Both presidents are from there, and so this large, generally solid red state comes into dispute.

Not to oversimplify matters, but let us assume that the winner of Texas wins the election. This would definitely be true in the case of an LBJ victory, but is somewhat less certain in a Bush victory. However, it is still a generally accurate indicator of who will become the victor in this election.

In past matchups, LBJ has had vast and varied political experience as his greatest asset. Bush has experience in the House of Representatives and as Vice President. His time as Vice President was far more active than most.

In addition, Bush has experience as a pilot in World War II.

With his advantages over LBJ, Bush easily wins Texas. The other swing states would likely be less of a runaway, but still give enough electoral votes to Bush for him to win the election.




John Kennedy vs Barack Obama (tl;dr version included at bottom)

Apparently this is the preferred final match to a number (2) of the readers. I certainly understand why. It may be percieved that these two men are the strongest in the tournament. We will see in the finals if that is true.

But in addition to their strength, they are interesting as a
matchup because they're so similar. Neither has significant amounts of political experience, but both seem to be calm in campaign. They have similar ideological views.

The questions become:
Who wins the Democrats? By how much?
Who wins the Republicans? By how much?
Do the Republicans vote in full force?

First, let us address who the Republican side is more likely to support. Republicans are seen to be a more pro-war party. Thus JFK has a significant margin over Obama in the Republican clothespin voting. But don't think for a minute that Obama won't get a significant minority of Republican clothespin votes. Black Republicans and other Republicans largely in favor of progression of minorities (both of which exist, albeit not in large numbers) would vote for Obama.

I have twice referred to clothespin votes. This brings me to my second point. Republicans will not turn out in full force. Those who would cover their nose and choose Kennedy as the lesser of two evils are more likely to abstain than those who would vote for Obama based upon his race. This appears to give Obama the advantage on the Republican side. But then, Kennedy takes over the Republicans again through all the ones who do not want a black president. And so Kennedy wins the Republicans by a small margin.

The Democratic vote is much simpler to explain. Black Democrats definitely vote for Obama. White Democrats split, probably about 70/30 in favor of Kennedy.

What this fails to take into account are two things about JFK. First, his endocrine problems. But, if he could hide them 50 years ago, he could probably hide them now. Second, his affairs. These would have an effect on his campaign if they became public. However, the effect would be small, mostly taking away Republican votes, but not converting them to Obama. Plus, the morality issues mean less and less to the public as time passes.

And thus John Kennedy defeats Barack Obama. Not by much. But enough to win.

tl;dr version: JFK wins.











And so the stage is set.

JFK vs. George H. W. Bush in the final election of the tournament.

Friday.

What's Wrong With a Foreign Born President?

The Constitution clearly states that all presidents must be natural-born citizens. This has come up as an issue twice in our history, with Barack Obama and Chester Arthur. And I understand that this was originally made to keep foreign intrests out of the White House.

But what purpose is left today?

I know your first thought may be election of some closet terrorist. But do you honestly believe the people would elect someone like that? I have more faith in America than that.

Now I'm not saying let some French guy come over to America for a year than decide to run for president. But why can a man be Governator of California but not be president? We need a Constitutional Amendment allowing Americans born on foreign soil and even naturalized citizens run for president. Make them live in the country for 20 years. Deny anyone who has been a dual citizen with any other country at any point in the past fifteen years. But don't discriminate against good Americans whose parents just weren't in the right place when their child was born.

What Would Presidents Do? Christmas attempted bomber

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.

Chester Arthur is special

...and not just for his facial hair. He's the only president to have no animals while in the White House.

There were some interesting animals over the years. Jefferson had bear cubs. John Quincy Adams had alligators. Badass Andrew Jackson had fighting cocks.

I can understand the idea of having a dog, like Bo Obama, or a cat. But Teddy Roosevelt had at least 25 animals. Is it really necessary to have a one legged rooster, TR? Really?

I was amazed by the media surrounding the First Family of Obama as they were picking out a dog. War in Iraq? I haven't heard about it. But did you hear that Obama got a Portugese Water Dog? I know, I expected a Chesapeake Bay Retriever in honor of TR's "Sailor Boy."

Presidents have the right to have a nice family pet. But the media needs to learn the world doesn't depend on it. And the First Families need to keep it under control. The president doesn't need to become like the crazy cat lady, except instead of cats they have alligators, badgers, cows, duikers, and all this other crazy stuff.

Don't Lynch Me

What do Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding, and Barack Obama have in common?

Correct, they were all presidents, but that should be pretty evident, looking at the title of the entire blog. In addition, according to J.A. Rogers, they are all of African descent.

In his book from the 1960s, The Five Negro Presidents, Rogers gives information on the first four men, as well as Hannibal Hamlin (15th Vice President) and Alexander Hamilton, suggesting that they all have Africans in their geneology.

Honestly, I haven't read the 19 page book, nor do I plan on purchasing it to do so. The jury is split as to the validity of the claims made about these men. Some believe it to be factual, some believe it to be less so.

Now, what does this mean for Barack? Does he have to take this book off the market, remove it from memories, and censor all information sources Rogers used?

First, no he doesn't because how many people are actually going to hear about this? Not many. And how many would believe it anyway? Even less.

Second, this doesn't change the fact that Barack is visibly black. None of the other men appeared to be black, though it is said some had a dark complexion. Regardless, a dark complexion is still white.

Lastly, what does it matter if Barack isn't the first black president or even if he was just a white guy? Would his policies change? Would he suddenly not be considered Messiah by some and Satan by others? Of course not!





I really just like to justify Andrew Jackson's badassness as a possible side effect of being black.

Barack Obama (2009-)

"A good compromise, a good piece of legislation, is like a good sentence; or a good piece of music. Everybody can recognize it. They say, 'Huh. It works. It makes sense.'"

Barack Obama is not God.

Barack Obama is not Satan.

Come up with a good compromise on him for now.

It works. It makes sense.

The Elections of 2008 and 1880

Obama haters in the election of 2008 came up with the wonderfully original and wonderfully valid idea to say that Obama had not been born on American soil and that he was thus ineligible to be president. Of course, this claims were extremely false, Obama produced proof that he was eligible, and all was good with the world.

Vice Presidential candidate of 1880, Chester A. Arthur was son of a Vermont woman and an Irish man. Arthur Hinman was hired to look into the circumstances of his birth. First he tried to claim Arthur was born in Ireland, and came to America as a teenager. Later he claimed Chet was born in Canada. Of course, these claims did not prevent Chester Arthur from taking the office after Garfield and he had won the election, no one took them too seriously.

Anybody see the parallel yet?

I knew of this connection the moment I heard about accusations against Obama's American-ness. But nobody else seemed to know. I was distraught that it didn't seem to come up whenever a news story about Obama possibly not being natural-born came up.

But one day, I did find a source that connected the two. Stephen Colbert. It took a parody of news to make a connection of present issues to a past event. Americans really need to learn their history as it's pertinent. I can understand the common citizen not knowing this right off the bat, but some experts should have come out and taken Obama and Arthur and showed the nation why the two men were connected through this event.


While I'm talking Obama/Arthur, Chester Arthur was the first President to have Native American in his blood. Many people believe Obama is the first president to have African in his blood. I don't buy it, but that's another blog.

Facial Hair

William Howard Taft is the last president to have facial hair in office. Between Lincoln and Taft (11 presidents), 9 presidents had a moustache and/or beard. Lincoln has quite possibly the most famous beard in America. Andrew Johnson was clean shaven. Ulysses S. Grant had an admirable beard. Rutherford B. Hayes has the undoubtedly best beard of all the presidents. James Garfield had a beard that isn't one to scoff at. Chester Arthur and his "Chester Arthur" or "Friendly Mutton Chops" probably forms the greatest facial hair of history. Grover Cleveland had a regular moustache. Benjamin Harrison had a hobo beard, but it worked for him. William McKinley was clean shaven. Theodore Roosevelt has his moustache, which looks much better than any other moustache I've seen. And lastly, Taft has his moustache as well. Before Lincoln's administration, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, and Zachary Taylor all had sideburns.

But since then, we haven't had a single president with any form of maintained facial hair. The closest we've gotten is Nixon and his persistent five o'clock shadow. Why can't a man just man up and grow a beard? You could even just be fashionable to our times and get a goatee, or a soul patch, or a neck beard! But come on, presidents! We need a new era of facial hair!

Perhaps we just need to restart the cycle. A president needs to go for some sideburns, then a couple other presidents will do the same later. And then before you know it WHAM era of Republican beards and Democrat moustaches. Or you can break down party lines this time, let everyone grow a beard, moustache, or friendly mutton chops as they desire, regardless of their political affiliation! In fact, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Article VII might just require this desegregation of facial hair.


On the off chance someone in the White House reads this:
Mr. Obama, you promised us change. Now stop being so conservative and give us a liberal dosage of facial hair!