Favorite president?

[Jesda]

Mine is Calvin Coolidge followed by Reagan and Cleveland.

You want a real maverick? His name was Grover Cleveland. He told the Democrats and Republicans to piss themselves while he pushed for lower trade barriers, the gold standard, and vetoing every ounce of wasteful BS that came from the legislature. Unfortunately, he also helped create the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Reagan was one of those man-for-the-time types. He set some lofty goals and actually achieved many. Same for John Kennedy.

Coolidge kept his hands off business and was also heavy on using vetoes. Some called him lazy, I call him a champion of small government. Fittingly, he quit after one term.

I agree with Jefferson the most, philosophically, but don't much agree with how he actually governed.

[Cold_Zero]

I was thinking of starting my own 'Favorite Chancellor of Germany?' thread but you beat me to the idea.*drat*bud

[themadscientist]

Reagan, the bulletproof don.

[Q451990]

Reagan... without a doubt. Mark Levin broadcast his 1964(?) speach that was somehow related to Barry Goldwater on last night's show, and it was absolutely chilling how relevant it was... it seems nothing changes in politics.

The only thing I found depressing, was that it took him 16 years to get elected... with a lot of pain and suffering inbetween. I hope we don't have to wait until 2024 for our Reagan.

Heath

[themadscientist]

JESDAS PANTS IN 2012.

[sensibleS13driver]

James Madison - one of the greatest thinkers of the last millennium, and good hair.

[marlin29311]

George Washington.

[HashiriyaS14]

As men, I most admire Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and James Madison. This is completely leaving aside policy.

Truman in particular walked into an awful situation that FDR had created for him (not briefed on ANYTHING, had no idea what secret agreements had been made at Yalta) and made lemons into lemonade. I respect competence, even if I don't agree with his politics.

In regards to policy, I am also a really big fan of Coolidge. Bookended by two huge turds though (Harding and Hoover).

Oh, and Chester Arthur, for his fearlessness in breaking with party dogma to do what he thought was the right thing (whether it was or not, but he had a set of stones on him).

In regards to recent Presidents, I think that Clinton had the best eye for pragmatic policy of perhaps any twentieth-century President, and Bush 41 was our best foreign-policy mind in recent memory.

[WDRacing]

Reagan - My family has been Military in some fashion all the way back to Scotland. Reagan was pro defense and pro Military, nuff said.

[HashiriyaS14]

pro defense and pro Military

Is any President really "anti-defense"?

Reagan spent a ton on the military to help bankrupt the Soviets, it was good policy at the time.

Hopefully future unmanned warfare technology will allow us to maintain the same combat capabilities for far less money. The fewer Americans employed in combat roles in the military the better, both in regards to expense and, primarily, in regards to keeping people safe.

I need to get a T-shirt that says "I have a boner for unmanned warfare"

[Jesda]

Clinton pushed to close bases and facilities. Make of it what you will. It was part of a very odd approach to smaller government in that he laid off numerous federal workers but never actually did much to get government regulation out of the lives of people and businesses. I think he misinterpreted what a lot of libertarian-minded types were asking for. I'm surprised he didn't have the white house demolished and rebuilt at 1/10th scale.

[phil4watching]

Reagan

[HashiriyaS14]

Clinton pushed to close bases and facilities. Make of it what you will. It was part of a very odd approach to smaller government in that he laid off numerous federal workers but never actually did much to get government regulation out of the lives of people and businesses. I think he misinterpreted what a lot of libertarian-minded types were asking for. I'm surprised he didn't have the white house demolished and rebuilt at 1/10th scale.

LOL, all perfectly fair.

[hsckris]

As president:

James Madison - one of the greatest thinkers of the last millennium

I liked Reagan as well.

As a man:Teddy Roosevelt.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Clinton pushed to close bases and facilities. Make of it what you will. It was part of a very odd approach to smaller government in that he laid off numerous federal workers but never actually did much to get government regulation out of the lives of people and businesses. I think he misinterpreted what a lot of libertarian-minded types were asking for. I'm surprised he didn't have the white house demolished and rebuilt at 1/10th scale.

An arguement can also be made that Clinton's downsizing without reinventing of the U.S. military has had drastic negative implications in our current situation. I mean, the real problem in OEF is that there's barely enough troops there to keep the status quo. Noone should be debating we couldn't do more with several divisions more ground troops and 2-4 more carrier battle groups.

U.S. History isn't a strong suite, but Teddy was an impressive figure in U.S. history. Reagan was almost too good, as the Republicans have fallen into the Democrat's old JFK trap.

[HashiriyaS14]

Noone should be debating we couldn't do more with several divisions more ground troops and 2-4 more carrier battle groups..

We presently maintain 11 carrier strike groups, and we have total air superiority over Iraq and Afghanistan at present. Additionally, we are not currently carrying out a massive quantity of strike sorties, and so our CSG presence is more than adequate.

In regards to troops, Clinton's downsizing is not the reason we don't have more troops deployed. We're not reaching our recruitment goals in part because it's an unpopular war. Even if we had the recruitment however, the political will does not presently exist to put another 2-4 divisions in harm's way for the same reason, unpopular war.

SOME trimming of the military after the Cold War was most certainly in order, as we had built it up for a specific reason that was no longer relevant. Personnel cuts made in the Clinton administration are not directly affecting our ability to put troops on the ground in our two current conflicts.

Hopefully the next couple decades will see only one or two more carriers commissioned before the CSG goes the way of the dinosaur. Hopefully the X45 UCAV and any combat-capable designs that come out of the project will render CSG's obsolete in favor of minimally-staffed "arsenal ships" that require fewer escorts and can loiter longer without resupply.

The current arsenal ship designs don't provide aircraft launch capability, but that is the next logical extension of the design concept.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101...p.htm

Part of the Clintonian military cuts involved re-thinking the military to fight future wars instead of past wars. The way the military operates needs to be re-thought as the drivers are very different now than in previous conflicts. Killing projects like the XM2001 Crusader and backing projects like UCAV's is a good start to that re-thinking. The "new military" will surely have lower personnel requirements than in days past, however as it will retain the same capabilities, this is not a bad thing.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

We presently maintain 11 carrier strike groups, and we have total air superiority over Iraq and Afghanistan at present. Additionally, we are not currently carrying out a massive quantity of strike sorties, and so our CSG presence is more than adequate.

Carrier Battle Groups are less for air superiority/air strikes than force projection. Parking one near a recalcitrant nation pretty much matches or dwarfs their air force. With many of ours tied up in the Gulf, we've lost much of our ability to force-project.

In regards to troops, Clinton's downsizing is not the reason we don't have more troops deployed. We're not reaching our recruitment goals in part because it's an unpopular war. Even if we had the recruitment however, the political will does not presently exist to put another 2-4 divisions in harm's way for the same reason, unpopular war.

Buying that huge TV a month ago in now way effects your ability to spend cash now, lol. It's easier to recruit to maintain than it is to recruit to increase, even if you're dealing with different numbers. Not to mention, even if we got a FLOOD of new recruits, the military is ill prepared to handle them, as they've not had to in the past decade. As for getting warm bodies in, in my little end of the AF, we're experiencing record numbers.

Part of the Clintonian military cuts involved re-thinking the military to fight future wars instead of past wars. The way the military operates needs to be re-thought as the drivers are very different now than in previous conflicts. Killing projects like the XM2001 Crusader and backing projects like UCAV's is a good start to that re-thinking. The "new military" will surely have lower personnel requirements than in days past, however as it will retain the same capabilities, this is not a bad thing.

The "new military" they've been planning for the past decade got bruised. The thinking then was a small-powerful, mobile Army able to rapidly get places, "police" the area, then leave. That plan kind of fizzled.

"The Army’s mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders"

Boots on the ground. We're fast learning that we can't replace that.

Now, the Air Force (and to a smaller extent, the Marines) can still make use of a "smaller, faster" approach. Even UCAVs need people, though. The Air Force is facing a UAV pilot shortage as-is.

Please start a new thread on the subject so we don't crap on this one.

[Bubba1]

Back to topic

George Washington, FTW.

In the 20th century, I'd pick Truman.

[Jesda]

Truman was a neat guy, and while his outgoing approval was 22%, time has placed him in the top 10.

[Loki]

FDR's my homie.

[jdansmith]

Reagan,Truman, JFK