So King thinks there should be a limitation of statues?

I'd put JFK somewhere closer to the middle of US presidents... Bay of Pigs was Eisenhower's plan and JFK implemented it under some pressure shortly after he took office to demonstrate that his youth and inexperience did not make him a dove.
Numerous researchers have credited his admin's choice of the "soft" option in the Cuban missile crisis -- a naval blockade -- over the mid-level option of air strikes as a key in avoiding war with the USSR.
He did increase the US presence in Vietnam and loses big points for his approval of overthrowing the Diems. But many researchers have found he planned to back out of Vietnam, not escalate the US presence from advisors to frontline troops as LBJ did.
His CIA did muck about a lot (Iraq and South America, iirc). But he gets credit for stands on civil rights (opposing Wallace), creating the Peace Corps and pushing the space program.

Bay of Pigs was Eisenhower's plan and JFK implemented it under some pressure shortly after he took office to demonstrate that his youth and inexperience did not make him a dove.

So we're not supposed to hold Kennedy's inexperience and legendarily bad decisionmaking against him? It's one thing to agree to the plan - a bad enough decision, and being mau-mau'd into it is no excuse for chrissakes! - but to back out halfway through? That's an inconceivably bad decision.

Oh, how about his appointment of RFK as Attorney General, so he could harass the Kennedy family's personal and political enemies and authorize the wiretapping of Martin Luther King? Kennedy made his own brother Attorney General. This howling bit of corruption and nepotism would never be tolerated today and should never have been back then.

But curiously, you got five of the seven of them right.

Which two don't you agree about? I'm guessing Roosevelt and Kennedy? (Please don't defend the disgustingly racist, foreign-policy bungling, civil liberties-crushing Woodrow Wilson.)

No, you got it right: JFK and FDR. I'd rate FDR as our best president of the 20th/21st century and Wilson right down there with Bush. It is rather amazing how Wilson brings together a rather unusual coalition here, and surprisingly, for many of the same reasons.

Kennedy had some pretty bad moments, but after stalling for over two years he finally showed a bit of leadership on civil rights in his last few months. Though Bull Connor and a few hundred other southern sheriffs deserve most of the credit for that. But I'm surprised that you don't give him any credit for some of his tax policies. Other than his jawboning of the steel companies, he wasn't exactly the most anti-business president.

And FDR is a theological matter which I don't want to get into on the Sabbath, at least not this close to sundown

This howling bit of corruption and nepotism would never be tolerated today and should never have been back then.

Sure it would be. If GWB had named Jeb to a major cabinet post in 2001, no one would have howled about it, at least not among the supporters of Bush.

Besides, since both of the Kennedys were murdered, it's kind of hard to argue it was tolerated back then, anyway.

Although, Bill Clinton giving his brother Roger a cabinet position would have created a bit of a stir.

Sure it would be. If GWB had named Jeb to a major cabinet post in 2001, no one would have howled about it, at least not among the supporters of Bush.

I supported Bush back then, and I would have been deeply upset at that. Talk about the "theory of the unitary executive."

Sure it would be. If GWB had named Jeb to a major cabinet post in 2001, no one would have howled about it, at least not among the supporters of Bush.

No way. I wasn't a Bush hater back in 2001 (I'd describe my attitude as "cautiously optimistic," alas), and I recognize that part of getting elected to public office involves rewarding your cronies with cushy, phony baloney jobs, but I would have gone ballistic if Bush tried to pull a stunt like that. I can't even imagine the MSM response... They'd be cleaning Paul Krugman's skull fragments off the walls at the NYT.

2.) Andrew Johnson

My opinion: Andrew Johnson has gotten too much of a bum rap in the historical record, though this may have been virtually inevitable for anyone who followed Lincoln.

The purchase of Alaska is just about right up there with the Louisiana Purchase among the best negotiated deals by our head of state ever.

My opinion: Andrew Johnson has gotten too much of a bum rap in the historical record, though this may have been virtually inevitable for anyone who followed Lincoln.

He didn't deserve to be impeached, and I don't think any congress has ever made life so difficult for a President -- by a longshot -- but great men rise to the occasion, and Johnson most certainly was not a great man.

The purchase of Alaska is just about right up there with the Louisiana Purchase among the best negotiated deals by our head of state ever.

Wasn't that pretty much entirely Seward's baby?

Seward's another Union College man.

Wasn't that pretty much entirely Seward's baby?

Actually, it was pretty much Russia's baby -- Alexander II and the Russians needed the cash -- they had their own brand of cultural upheaval in the 1860s, as Alexander took the first tentative steps towards freeing the serfs and modernizing Russian society to at least bring it into the same era as most of Europe.

With unrest at home, the Crimean war only a decade before -- Russia had pretty much resigned itself to losing their North American holdings as soon as the next European war sparked, likely to England... so the Russians actually approached the US about purchasing Alaska, pretty much figuring a few million was better than losing it without any compensation.

Well, hell if we are going to credit the Russians for Alaska we might as well credit the French with the Louisiana Purchase.

Kennedy got us into Vietnam, brought us the Bay Of Pigs, and nearly started nuclear war, all while being hopped up on pretty much every drug imaginable and having sex with mafia women.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Well, hell if we are going to credit the Russians for Alaska we might as well credit the French with the Louisiana Purchase.

Fair enough...though saying "yes" to the French also had the bridge of precedent to cross, while saying "yes" to the Russians did not.

Well, hell if we are going to credit the Russians for Alaska we might as well credit the French with the Louisiana Purchase.

And indeed, that is what the majority of historians of the era do, declining to credit Jefferson with any sort of genius or foresightedness for the acquisition. It literally fell into his lap. Anyone who was President at the time would have taken the deal. Jefferson doesn't really deserve all that much credit for being the guy who happened to be in office when the French came a-callin'.

And indeed, that is what the majority of historians of the era do, declining to credit Jefferson with any sort of genius or foresightedness for the acquisition. It literally fell into his lap. Anyone who was President at the time would have taken the deal. Jefferson doesn't really deserve all that much credit for being the guy who happened to be in office when the French came a-callin'.

I'm askin' 'cause I don't know: any chance Jefferson's (excessive?) fondness for France had anything to do with the sale? I know Napoleon was hard-up for cash, and wanted the U.S. to be a counterbalance against England,

I'm askin' 'cause I don't know: any chance Jefferson's (excessive?) fondness for France had anything to do with the sale? I know Napoleon was hard-up for cash, and wanted the U.S. to be a counterbalance against England,

I really don't think so. The US wasn't much of a counterbalance to anything back then. One contemporary said Jefferson's Embargo Act was like a fly trying to stop a dogfight by committing suicide.

They'd be cleaning Paul Krugman's skull fragments off the walls at the NYT.

So you're sayinig it would have been worth it...

Yeah, BTF's third conservative comes out of the woodwork (albeit generally a lurking conservative).

It literally fell into his lap.

Dude, that must have hurt.

And remember folks, statues mean different things to different people. Where I live, we only have one statue: of the guy who led the stock drive to save the team. To an outsider, it's just some guy, but to the faithful, it's a monument to the man that saved Baseball in our city.


Similarly, I'm sure that the statue of Babe Ruth in Baltimore (even though it has the GLOVE IN THE WRONG HAND!) means so many different things too. When I took a tour of Camden Yards, the tour guide said that many fans that come in from out of town ask why the Orioles honor the greatest player in Yankees history, when it's meant to honor Baltimore's long and rich Baseball history (in other words: Babe Ruth grew up here, suck it everywhere else).

So there really is nothing wrong with a statue. It's just a statue. If it means something positive to the majority of people, then it should be there.

Baseball has a tradition of building statues that other sports don’t have, but imagine if there weren’t just a statue of Michael Jordan outside the United Center in Chicago, but also one of Scottie Pippen. And one of Bob Love. And Horace Grant.

No assemblage of Chicago Bulls statues is complete without '70s legend Ken Reeves.

I want the Indians to build a statue of Keith Hernandez sitting in the locker room working on a crossword puzzle....I figured it would be him drinking a beer in the clubhouse.

...or pimping hair coloring with Walt Frazier...stay in the game!

It literally fell into his lap.

Dude, that must have hurt.

If the charge is misuse/abuse of the word "literally" then I plead guilty.

When the Win Shares book came out in 2002, I made up a list of the top WS totals by Presidential administration. The most apropos match was 1902-08: Honus Wagner led Teddy Roosevelt's aministration with 308 Win Shares. TR's on Mount Rushmore, and what's the inaugural Hall of Fame class (Cobb, Ruth, Wagner, Mathewson, Johnson) if not baseball's version of Rushmore?

Teddy was a damn fine athlete himself, too.

And Honus knew a little something about speaking softly and carrying a big stick.

Wagner was the Flying Dutchman. TR was from old Dutch New York stock.

Wagner was from a coal mining family in Pennsylvania. TR was the first president willing to use force to end on strike on behalf of workers --- in a coal mine strike in Pennsylvania.

Both got a new job in their early 40s.

Wagner would hit the ball squarely and TR had the square deal.

TR was scene as a trust-buster and had it not been for Wagner the Cubs would've had a monopoly on the NL pennant from 1906-10.

Roosevelt had a secretary named Wagner and Wagner had a secretary with a mustache.

Wagner was a Pirate, and ask the Columbians about what TR did in Panama . . .

Teddy Roosevelt had a cousin who was also President. Honus Wagner had a brother who was also in the majors.

Can't McKinley and Harrison get some hate? That Hawaiian business was pretty gross.

Roosevelt said he felt as strong as a bull moose; Wagner daily had a bull moose for breakfast.

Roosevelt was shot; Wagner did shots.

Oh, and Coolidge had Hoover's willing help screwing up '27 flood relief. In fact, that was more on Hoover than it was on Coolidge.

Teddy was a damn fine athlete himself, too.

But for some reason he can't win a Presidents Race.

so the Russians actually approached the US about purchasing Alaska, pretty much figuring a few million was better than losing it without any compensation.

So as I understand it:

Russia = Bill Smith
Andrew Johnson = Omar Minaya
Alaska = Johan Santana

I have statues of Cookie Monster

Me thank you. If you like, Cookie Monster come take picture with statue. Me enjoy consecration.

19th Century Tier:

1.) James Buchanan (the worst of all time)
2.) Andrew Johnson
3.) Ulysses S. Grant
4.) Franklin Pierce
5.) Martin Van Buren

Martin Van Buren: The Greatest American President

i think if you got right down to it, for every president we've had, there's someone out there who thinks he was just about the best ever, and has written a paper about it.

Well, the above link wasn't a joke; the point was that most presidents achieve adulation for fighting wars. That's not to say that every war is ultimately popular, but that not going to war is a good way to be unpopular. Look at all the presidents everyone (*) treats as joke presidents; they're all peacetime presidents. Whereas someone like Wilson derives virtually all his reputation from WWI. Van Buren kept us out of war, reduced the size of government, etc. But those sorts of things don't get credit from generally liberal historians.


(*) And by "everyone," I mean "non-libertarians."

No, you got it right: JFK and FDR. I'd rate FDR as our best president of the 20th/21st century and Wilson right down there with Bush. It is rather amazing how Wilson brings together a rather unusual coalition here, and surprisingly, for many of the same reasons.

I get it; it's opposite day.

Kennedy had some pretty bad moments, but after stalling for over two years he finally showed a bit of leadership on civil rights in his last few months. Though Bull Connor and a few hundred other southern sheriffs deserve most of the credit for that.

Did Kennedy show any more leadership than Eisenhower did? Eisenhower pushed through the CRA of '57, and sent troops to Little Rock. Did Kennedy even do that much?

But I'm surprised that you don't give him any credit for some of his tax policies. Other than his jawboning of the steel companies, he wasn't exactly the most anti-business president.

Well, when the top marginal rate is 90%, there's really only one direction to go. I guess he gets some credit for that. I don't think JFK can possibly be said to be near the worst presidents of the 20th century, but he's certainly the most overrated. Well, perhaps Wilson.

Whereas someone like Wilson derives virtually all his reputation from WWI.

No. He also gets it for his 1st term legislation - Clayton Act, Federal Reserve Act, his placing of Louis Brandeis on the Supreme Court. He also had a reputation as a trust-buster.

Van Buren kept us out of war, reduced the size of government, etc. But those sorts of things don't get credit from generally liberal historians.

Presidents due usually get credit for reforms that increase the scope of government, but how many have their stars rise because of war? Aside from Wilson, there's just FDR and Lincoln. And neither are solely supported by liberals, thank you. Hell, Newt Gingrich called FDR the greatest president of the 20th century.

Other wartime presidents -- Madison. He's remembered as the Father of the Constitution, not his past-his-prime work in the Oval Office. War of 1812 was hardly a glorious affair anyway.

Polk - effective, to be sure. But rarely listed among the greats because vitually no one this day wants to publicly laud Manifest Destiny.

McKinley - Imperialism also doesn't get much huzzahs from those pesky liberal historians.

Truman - his supporters bring up everything except the Korea War.

LBJ and Nixon -- suffice it to say, Vietnam really doesn't help anyone's reputation.

Bush - Gulf War seen as his bigget succes, but he generally doesn't get much credit as a president from anyone.

Bush II - Whadaya, kidding me?

No. He also gets it for his 1st term legislation - Clayton Act, Federal Reserve Act, his placing of Louis Brandeis on the Supreme Court. He also had a reputation as a trust-buster.

I find it hard to believe that many people revere Woodrow Wilson because of the Clayton Act. Don't most people credit (or, in the case of libertarians, blame), uh, Henry Clayton for that one? (I mean, I don't normally hear lots of love for Benjamin Harrison over the Sherman Act, do you?)

I'll grant you that Brandeis is probably seen as one of Wilson's biggest successes, but I don't think that it's the basis for his undeserved reputation. I've never heard anybody argue that Wilson was a great president because he appointed Brandeis.

As for your other points -- Polk, McKinley -- sure, imperialism has a bad name, but their reputations are higher than, say, Tyler's or Cleveland's. It's not that the Mexican War or S-A Wars are themselves lauded, but that these wars put presidents on the radar for evaluation as presidents who Did Something. Whereas the Fillmores or Van Burens or Hardings of the world are pretty much just seen as filler, ineligible for ranking among the greats at all.

I find it hard to believe that many people revere Woodrow Wilson because of the Clayton Act. Don't most people credit (or, in the case of libertarians, blame), uh, Henry Clayton for that one? (I mean, I don't normally hear lots of love for Benjamin Harrison over the Sherman Act, do you?)

Wilson was a progressive era president. One of the peaks in progressive legislation came in his first term. He campaigned on the notion of trying to push for more progressive reforms and trust-busting. He's made his reputation as a progressive reformer before running for president. Benjamin Harrison has no such similarities.

Going all the way back to high school I've always learned of Wilson as a leading progressive prior to the war. I've always thought people at BTF are too harsh on him for that reason. (But I don't think that much of him, which I really don't get into it with anyone over him).

As for your other points -- Polk, McKinley -- sure, imperialism has a bad name, but their reputations are higher than, say, Tyler's or Cleveland's. It's not that the Mexican War or S-A Wars are themselves lauded, but that these wars put presidents on the radar for evaluation as presidents who Did Something. Whereas the Fillmores or Van Burens or Hardings of the world are pretty much just seen as filler, ineligible for ranking among the greats at all.

I don't think we have much disagreement on this. Actually, Cleveland's reputation might be higher than McKinley, but that's because of teh weird nature of his presidency with its non-consectuive terms.

Fillmore doesn't have that bad a reputation. He supported the Compromise of 1850, which is something his predescor [sic] didn't.