If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby Master Po » Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:57 pm

Even tho I "voted" for Ike in this thread, I get catson's point about Iran 1953. Well, none of these guys gets away clean.


I hadn't really thought about Truman -- I guess I was thinking of him still in the WWII era, but of course he was a post-WWII president for most of his time. I really don't know much of anything about his presidency, and am now surprised at myself for that lack.
Master Po
 
Posts: 2641
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: north coast USA

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby gh » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:03 pm

Marlow wrote:
gh wrote:I detested Nixon at the time, but in retrospect, not sure he wasn't actually fairly decent at the job. I probably find his Watergate shenanigans easier to forgive than Clinton's wild willy. (and I'm no prude)

Really? I'm just the opposite. Clinton's problem was a sin of the flesh, while Nixon's was an actual crime. ...


I chalk Nixon up to getting caught at "politics as usual."
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby kuha » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:24 pm

I've definitely become more accepting of Nixon over the years. Absolutely hated him at the time, but now see that--severe personal flaws aside :? --he was intelligent, worldly, and even daring. By today's standards (but ONLY by today's standards), he'd be seen as a leftist.
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby gh » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:57 pm

And this is what's so fascinating about political labels (left v right); not only are they time-dependent, it also depends on what country you're in. What passes as the "conservative" party in some countries is probably to the left of mainstream Dems in the U.S.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby lonewolf » Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:58 pm

Ronald Reagan in a landslide.
Second choice: Harry Truman
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby shivfan » Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:06 am

lonewolf wrote:Ronald Reagan in a landslide.
Second choice: Harry Truman

I'm glad to see that you're the only one blowing Reagan's trumpet, and that most posters on this thread rightly think reagan is grossly overhyped by the Republicans who are looking back on history thru rose-tinted glasses....

I don't have a problem with Americans revering Ronald Reagan, and building statues to him in the US, but I certainly object to statues to him being built in the UK, even if it's in front of the US embassy....

1) Unnecessarily brutal invasion of Grenada.

2) Supported brutal landowners in vicious civil war in Nicaragua.

3) Took credit for end of Cold War, when the credit really belonged to Gorbachev.

4) Imposed harsh economic conditions on Central America, which kept them in poverty.

5) Despite the ending of the Cold War, he still maintained the ridiculous expenditure on the arms race.

6) Instead of providing support to Gorbachev, his selfish stance led to the rise of Yeltsin in Russia, and led to the country being the way it is now (not a good thing!).

7) Offered support to the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Seven reasons why there should be no statue of Reagan in London....
shivfan
 
Posts: 2588
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:30 am
Location: Just outside London

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:07 am

No matter what you think of Reagan, he deserves credit for making peace with the Russians. Gorbachev said that Reagan was the only President they could have ever made peace with because he's the only one they ever trusted. Of course many Republicans, including Dick Cheney, believed Reagan gave the store away at the time.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby tandfman » Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:43 am

FWIW, I'm not the only one who likes Truman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... ted_States
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby kuha » Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:56 am

tandfman wrote:FWIW, I'm not the only one who likes Truman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... ted_States


Lots of good stuff here...thanks.
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby bad hammy » Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:23 am

kuha wrote:I've definitely become more accepting of Nixon over the years. Absolutely hated him at the time, but now see that--severe personal flaws aside :? --he was intelligent, worldly, and even daring. By today's standards (but ONLY by today's standards), he'd be seen as a leftist.

Nixon did some great things. Number one on my list is killing the military draft a year before I was eligible. China and the EPA were pretty good too . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby bruce3404 » Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:47 am

bad hammy wrote:Nixon did some great things. Number one on my list is killing the military draft a year before I was eligible.


Just remember that killing of the draft had nothing to do with being a magnanimous gesture on Nixon's part. At that point he had both draft age kids and their parents ready to take to the barricades, thus it was the politically expedient thing to do. I wish we still had a draft during wartime since it probably would have kept us out of all the stupid conflicts we've become involved in since Vietnam. As it is, draft age kids no longer bother to protest much of anything since their asses aren't on the line.
bruce3404
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:00 am
Location: Track Town, USA

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby kuha » Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:53 am

bruce3404 wrote:Just remember that killing of the draft had nothing to do with being a magnanimous gesture on Nixon's part. At that point he had both draft age kids and their parents ready to take to the barricades, thus it was the politically expedient thing to do. I wish we still had a draft during wartime since it probably would have kept us out of all the stupid conflicts we've become involved in since Vietnam. As it is, draft age kids no longer bother to protest much of anything since their asses aren't on the line.


Good point. The draft ensures that a good percentage of the population actually has a stake in our foreign/military policy, and that's a very good thing. When wars are fought with professionals and borrowed money, the population has little (immediate) reason to pay any mind at all.

All this would change with a draft + war tax on the entire population.
kuha
 
Posts: 9034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby bad hammy » Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:58 am

bruce3404 wrote:
bad hammy wrote:Nixon did some great things. Number one on my list is killing the military draft a year before I was eligible.


Just remember that killing of the draft had nothing to do with being a magnanimous gesture on Nixon's part. At that point he had both draft age kids and their parents ready to take to the barricades, thus it was the politically expedient thing to do. I wish we still had a draft during wartime since it probably would have kept us out of all the stupid conflicts we've become involved in since Vietnam. As it is, draft age kids no longer bother to protest much of anything since their asses aren't on the line.

As to the rationale, Nixon did it - that works for me. As for the effects, I was taking a bit more of a short-term micro rather than long-term macro look at this situation, particularity at the time.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby jeremyp » Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:15 am

catson52 wrote:All those votes for Ike are rather disturbing. He has left one legacy that still makes most Americans see red (and no not communist). That was his sleeping on the job and/or playing at Augusta, whilst the Dulles brothers, egged on by MI5 (or then equivalent) in Britain, engineered a coup against a democratically elected leader in Iran. Still paying the price for that including the hostage crisis of the late seventies. Long term, if Mossadegh had remained in power and proved reasonably balanced in his views (not that unlikely) the Middle East might have reached much better shape 30-40 years back. No need for the Arab Spring in 2011, and we still don't know how that one will turn out.


While I agree that the Mossadeq affair was a huge mistake, I just don't agree that the M.E. would have been any different. What happens in Iran tends to stay in Iran. After all after when Khomeini came to power we did not see a rush of religious fanatics take power elsewhere, just the opposite. Also Ike's move to spank the U.K., Israel, and France for taking over the Suez Canal balanced him out in the M.E. I too am an adult long Democrat and have found Ike to be loking better and better as well. My choice for Prez would probably be LBJ for domestic issues, and Truman for foreign policy issues.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4543
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby jeremyp » Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:31 am

jazzcyclist wrote:No matter what you think of Reagan, he deserves credit for making peace with the Russians. Gorbachev said that Reagan was the only President they could have ever made peace with because he's the only one they ever trusted. Of course many Republicans, including Dick Cheney, believed Reagan gave the store away at the time.


Vis a vis the Russians I think Reagan was in the right place at the right time. Gorbachev was the key. I think many of our Prez's foreign policy can be rated on "timing" rather than brilliance. Nixon: China. JFK: Cuba. Bush Sr., Gulf war.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4543
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:22 am

jeremyp wrote:
catson52 wrote:All those votes for Ike are rather disturbing. He has left one legacy that still makes most Americans see red (and no not communist). That was his sleeping on the job and/or playing at Augusta, whilst the Dulles brothers, egged on by MI5 (or then equivalent) in Britain, engineered a coup against a democratically elected leader in Iran. Still paying the price for that including the hostage crisis of the late seventies. Long term, if Mossadegh had remained in power and proved reasonably balanced in his views (not that unlikely) the Middle East might have reached much better shape 30-40 years back. No need for the Arab Spring in 2011, and we still don't know how that one will turn out.


While I agree that the Mossadeq affair was a huge mistake, I just don't agree that the M.E. would have been any different. What happens in Iran tends to stay in Iran. After all after when Khomeini came to power we did not see a rush of religious fanatics take power elsewhere, just the opposite. Also Ike's move to spank the U.K., Israel, and France for taking over the Suez Canal balanced him out in the M.E. I too am an adult long Democrat and have found Ike to be loking better and better as well. My choice for Prez would probably be LBJ for domestic issues, and Truman for foreign policy issues.

As long as we're talking about blowback, let's not forget about Truman's decision to become the first foreign leader to recognize Israel which was done largely for domestic politics. Here's how the Washington Post's Richard Cohen put it:
The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. . . . . . the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01154.html
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby bambam » Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:48 pm

bad hammy wrote:
kuha wrote:I've definitely become more accepting of Nixon over the years. Absolutely hated him at the time, but now see that--severe personal flaws aside :? --he was intelligent, worldly, and even daring. By today's standards (but ONLY by today's standards), he'd be seen as a leftist.

Nixon did some great things. Number one on my list is killing the military draft a year before I was eligible. China and the EPA were pretty good too . . .


Actually, bad hammy, it was 3 months before my student deferment ran out that he ended it, and with my draft # of 27 I was already planning on it.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby tandfman » Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:50 pm

bruce3404 wrote:I wish we still had a draft during wartime since it probably would have kept us out of all the stupid conflicts we've become involved in since Vietnam.

I'm not sure a draft would have kept us out of any of these conflicts, but it might have enabled us to do a better job with the conflicts that we have chosen to become involved in.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby gh » Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:46 pm

end of the draft one of the worst things that ever happened to the U.S.

Say what you will about all the civil-rights leaders; if we hadn't had an integrated (relative speaking) military, the world would be hugely different.

And now we're back to less mixing of the races (to say nothing of much less learning of discipline), much to the nation's detriment.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby lonewolf » Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:08 pm

gh wrote:end of the draft one of the worst things that ever happened to the U.S.


Right on, brother! UMT should be resumed. Everyone, rich and poor, needs a little basic training and discipline. It is a great equalizer and the nation needs a massive reserve of partially trained men. Six months out of an 18 years old life is nothing.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:16 pm

lonewolf wrote:
gh wrote:end of the draft one of the worst things that ever happened to the U.S.


Right on, brother! UMT should be resumed. Everyone, rich and poor, needs a little basic training and discipline. It is a great equalizer and the nation needs a massive reserve of partially trained men. Six months out of an 18 years old life is nothing.

I think all democracies should institute mandatory drafts without loopholes whenever they go to war.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby lonewolf » Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:21 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
lonewolf wrote:
gh wrote:end of the draft one of the worst things that ever happened to the U.S.


Right on, brother! UMT should be resumed. Everyone, rich and poor, needs a little basic training and discipline. It is a great equalizer and the nation needs a massive reserve of partially trained men. Six months out of an 18 years old life is nothing.

I think all democracies should institute mandatory drafts without loopholes whenever they go to war.

We should also have Universal Military Training when we are not at war. Helps prevent wars.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby valleyrunner » Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:46 pm

First I would say I would elect any of the Presidents who was more interested in makin the tough decision no matter the consequence politically.

At the top of my list would be Truman and Clinton. Eisenhower was limited in his scope of accomplishments he should get full credit for but would be right behind my top 2 and I do like much of what Nixon accomplished. I see Nixon's undoing thanks to Watergate as much like Jim Tressel's botched handling of Tattoogate. Good overall effort but now forever remembered for their scandal.

JFK had great intentions but not enough experience. If he had waited another 8 years to run he would have been far more effective. LBJ was effective in getting social policies passed such as Civil Rights and the Great Society and is due some commendation for such but this was largely due to his experience in Congress and the arm-twisting he did. He was extremely corrupt on some issues and the man behind the grassy knoll.

Reagan really was worse than Bush, Jr when you consider the many things already mentioned here. Obama can go either way but until he grows a pair and calls the Republicans' bluff he is doomed to be essentially ineffective. His strategy seems more focused on not doing anything to lose the White House rather than just going out and doing what his conviction tells him is the right path. Like many teams that have a large mid-2nd half lead that start playing not to lose and end up choking the game away, this is where I view Obama at the moment.
valleyrunner
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby bman » Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:48 am

Yes reinstating the draft would have good elements to it, such as promotion of diversity, brotherhood with your fellow man, etc. One of the really positive after effects of WWII. And yes it is also undeniably true that it would make wars much more difficult to wage (unless it is truly just like WWII, but there are few of those). I am uncomfortable about the socio-economic divide between our leaders and those who serve in today's armed forces, few in today's government served themselves and I fear the effect that has on their decision making. There was a day when almost everyone in government had served in the military, they knew what it was like. A draft would help all young people get out of their comfort zone and mix it up out in the world, a good thing. I am still a little uncomfortable about the idea that we are training our entire population to be soldiers, I don't know I just don't like the sound of that, but perhaps by preconceived notions here are getting in the way of what the real effect would be. In fact it would probably do good in that it gives a real picture of the military other than the movie/video game one.
bman
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: Columbus

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby gh » Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:54 am

Not everybody is cut out for military life, of course. There should also be an option like Vista or the Peace Corps. Some form of service to the country.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:01 am

gh wrote:Not everybody is cut out for military life, of course. There should also be an option like Vista or the Peace Corps. Some form of service to the country.


I wholeheartedly endorse that.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: If You Could Re-Elect Any President Since WWII

Postby valleyrunner » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:25 am

To all the great arguments in favor of some national service I would add that by having every American serve in some form of national service would remind today's youth there are sacrifices in life. Too many of the young of today think that they are entitled to just about everything without having to work for anything. Not only should we include military service, Vista and Peace Corps but even Americorps or some new programs to allow them to serve here in the US. Getting the international experience would be great but we have many needs here at home that could benefit from such a program as Americorps.

Serving in any program would allow them to learn more about the world and themselves as well which would in turn help them not struggle in their next steps as I see so many who can't handle college as they are not focused on why they are there too often when they leave HS and go straight to college.
valleyrunner
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests