Right On The Right

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.

Presidents' Day isn't just about celebrating a few Presidents, it's about celebrating our whole crap of heroes and rejects. Every year, Gallup does a poll asking Americans which President they'd like to see come back and serve another term. The results:

John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan are each chosen by about a quarter of Americans as the former president they would most like to bring back as the next president of the United States if they could. That is not to say Americans would choose Kennedy or Reagan over all of the current candidates for president. Rather, if they could select from the presidents whose images now hang at the National Portrait Gallery, these would be their top choices.

Bill Clinton and Abraham Lincoln are roughly tied for third (chosen by 13% and 10% of Americans, respectively), with Franklin Roosevelt trailing closely behind.

Billy Jeff has been steadily slipping in these polls, and I'm guessing that his numbers will continue falling after this election cycle. Independents chose Reagan over Kennedy, but only by a few points. Now, onto the worst, or at least one of the worst three:

Few would deny Mr. Carter's place in infamy. I will confine myself to his actual time in office, although Jimmy Carter arguably has actually been as detrimental to freedom, democracy and the American ideal as during his catastrophic tenure.

One horrific President followed by one of history's greatest. Paint me biased however, because if it was up to me, Ronald Reagan would've already replaced the socialist-leaning FDR on the dime.

Ralph E. Luker, a blogger for the History News Network, has been watching The View, or at least clips of the show. This isn't another video exposing Joy's idiocy on political issues, or Whoopi's outspoken liberalism. This is a video we should all cringe that though:

Any time you compare wars, you're going to get criticized. Liberals tried to compare the War on Terror, specifically Iraq, to Vietnam (needless and bloody, in their minds). President Bush made the same comparison recently and talked about the ramifications of leaving, comparing the Khmer Rouge to an al-Qaeda takeover. This war however, probably more than any other, has been compared to World War II.

Each war began with a surprise attack on the American homeland. Each time, the enemy hoped that the attack would break our will, and each time we responded with unmatched force. Each war was a multi-front war where we faced like-minded enemies.

I supposed Michael Yon's recent picture, showing Iraqis pulling together to rebuild a church, sparked all of this thinking. Then, I was inspired to write about the comparison after reading a Mudville Gazette post entitled How the War was Won (Part One). The entire article is a must read, comparing some military actions with what we're doing today, and explaining how the change in Iraq has occurred. The final point of the article:

How did we win this war? Simply put, we won because we are the best. The finest soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines in the world, and the best hope for people seeking hope for a future. And we are tired and hot is turning cold and we are far from home and soldiering on but you can't take that from us, and we won't let anyone take it from them.

Is the article unbashingly optimistic about the changes on the ground in Iraq and about the progress our military is making? Yes, as it should be. We're winning this war, and the defeatist rhetoric needs to end at home, so the victory-enabling support can begin.