Coverage here on ROTR has been light recently, so of course a few of my faithful readers have decided to chime in on what's irking them about my site and about the media coverage recently. Here are two that I've received within the last week:

Justin,

Your site's becoming an echo chamber for the Republican Party and John McCain recently. If I log on to see another video of Barack saying something stupid or another McCain ad, I just might stop reading. The only things I have enjoyed have been some of your links about energy and the economy. Start pumping out that original content again! I'll be hoping.

Dave from Canton

hey,

i just wanted to remind you that there are two candidates and one's not satan. how about some honest barack coverage some time? it's practically racist the way you're slanting your coverage in favor of john mccain. would you be doing that if hillary was the democrat's nominee?

In response to the second e-mail first, yes, I would be fisking Hillary Clinton as rough as I'm currently going after Barack Obama, and it has nothing to do with race, it has to do with ideas. In response to the first e-mail, I'm working on some more original content and this site is no way an echo chamber for either party. I'm sharing a few of John McCain's ads because I think they're inspiring and truthful. I'll try to throw in some more commentary to appease the readership. Feel free to keep e-mailing me, and be sure to mark if you DON'T want the e-mail displayed on the site.

Hat-tip to one of my readers for posting about this in the forums. Apparently, a university is running a bracket to determine which Former President should be the greatest influence for our next President. I missed the first round (which claimed the political lives of both Bush's and Bill Clinton), but I have a slate of endorsements for the next round:

Andrew Jackson vs. James Polk

Both of these men were strong Democrats, setting the foundation for the current party but each having several redeeming qualities. Jackson was a war hero, and Polk pushed a strong foreign policy moderately similar to the current Bush Doctrine. For that reason, I endorse James Polk in this match-up.

Richard Nixon vs. Lyndon B. Johnson

Richard Nixon was one of the most corrupt Presidents in the history of the United States, did very little to fix welfare, and made horrible decisions in regards to the Vietnam War. As bad as that is, Lyndon B. Johnson turned FDR's socialist programs into an outright welfare state, and his Presidency may be one of the most costly in the history of our nation. Out of pure contempt for LBJ, I endorse Richard Nixon in this particular head-to-head.

Abraham Lincoln vs. Harry Truman

This one is actually tough, because I have an extraordinary amount of goodwill towards one of the last Democrats to show an earnest respect for America's military and national security. Still, we can't let that trump the father of the Republican Party and the man who held the nation together. Even with Truman's positives, Abraham Lincoln wins in a landslide.

Dwight Eisenhower vs. Ronald Reagan

The strong military man who railed against the military-industrial complex against the man who won the Cold War but unfortunately ballooned military spending in the process. It's a very unique match-up and deserves a special look. Eisenhower gets major points for his history and his small government views, but Reagan obviously gets points for building the coalition that can still save America. Ronald Reagan barely nudges Ike in this match-up.

Teddy Roosevelt vs. John F. Kennedy

John F. Kennedy had a strong foreign policy in relation to Cuba, but like many other Presidents of the era, he bungled the situation in Vietnam. He did cut taxes, a unique stance for Democrats to take, so he earns a few points. Still, Teddy Roosevelt, the war hero who made Conservatism (environmental and political) popular, is one of the best Presidents we've ever had. Teddy Roosevelt wins with relative ease.

Woodrow Wilson vs. Franklin Roosevelt

The father of American socialism vs. the man who helped lead our nation through World War I. FDR, intentions aside, set the basis for our failed welfare state system which may very well be the downfall of our nation. I may be oversimplifying, but Woodrow Wilson wins this match-up by default and will earn himself further analysis if he makes it to the next round.

George Washington vs. Jimmy Carter

How precisely Jimmy Carter beat James Monroe in the first round is beyond me, given that Monroe is in my upper eschelon of Presidents. George Washington obviously beats the man who turned the Iranian Hostage Crisis into a real crisis of American identity.

James Madison vs. Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson is obviously one of our strongest founding fathers, but he also set forth a plan for increased federal government, and a mis-represented statement on Seperation of Church & State. Madison held the country together through turbulent times, and himself had a major effect on the founding of our nation. In a major upset, I back James Madison in this match-up.

I hope you all go take a moment to vote and support the candidates that I decided to endorse. If you disagree on any of these decisions, feel free to open up the debate.

Update: On the other side of the spectrum, Michelle Malkin is soliciting suggestions for a six word slogan to describe the New York Times. I'm willing to bet they're not going to turn out too positive.

A big six-word craze is flying around the blogosphere, prompted by the morons over at the Freakonomics Blog. These are the same people that proposed a contest asking readers what type of terrorist attack would be most devastating. LGF has opened their comments for the same contest. In response, I am challenging my readers to give me a six-word slogan for Conservatism. Liberals are also welcome to participate...

It's Saturday morning, and that means the ROTR political quiz! At 11 AM Eastern, the quiz will begin, and until then, you can check in here and talk about politics! Let's see how much you really know...

I'd like to open up this morning's blogging by answering an interesting e-mail I got in the overnight. For those of you who may not have my e-mail address (I need to repost several things, including contact information and the paypal link), you can CLICK HERE and shoot me an e-mail. Anyways...

Justin,

I was reading your site and realized that you are pretty absent on talking about NAFTA, CAFTA, and the other government sham-trade agreements. Can you blog a bit about how the assholes in Washington from both parties are screwing us over?

Donnie

First off, I don't get e-mails from readers that often, so thanks for giving me some morning fodder. Secondly, I'll gladly blog about how unfair trade practices are hurting the American worker. I've went on record, several times on this site, saying that tariffs the Chinese are putting on American goods, underhanded business practices, and ridiculous bureaucracy in the way we handle business are all things making free trade something it wasn't designed to be.

Let's take China for instance. Goods made in China hit the docks heading to the United States, and prices are marked down, and the Chi-Comm government rewards the businesses for making low priced goods in a subsidy. Meanwhile, American goods arrive at the same port and are marked up just for being made in the States. The American businesses can't compete and the trade deficit grows. Meanwhile, our own government is making it harder for businesses by putting ridiculous regulations on factory sizes, the number of workers that can be hired, and the types of jobs people can have without certain training. I understand safety regulations but you don't need some sort of license to use some of this equipment. I think we cut trade to countries that are stiffing us with tariffs, and let the American worker do what he's best at, adapt and create solutions. Thanks for the e-mail Donnie, and I'll try to cover this more in the future.