PDA

View Full Version : Best Presidents Who Never Were?



CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-05-2010, 11:49 AM
Aka, Presidents who either had the chance to be President and chose not to be or were President and not re-elected or elected, or who were respected statesmen/politicians who you felt could have been good Presidents if the opportunity had arose.
I'm a bit tired so I'll add more to my list later.

Alexander Hamilton

Thomas Dewey (Not in 1944, he would've been a horrible WWII president, but in 1948. Maybe he should've won.) He might made a very good president for the 1949-1953/1957 and was a very intelligent guy, perhaps moreso than Truman. He might not have involved us so proactively in the Cold War and the next 50 years could've been radically different.

Douglas MacArthur, perhaps in 1956. I say 1956 because I like Ike and think he did a superb job during his first term, but that he shouldn't have had a second term (given his health issues and general self imposed lame duck status for most of his second term which made Americans feel like the nation had grown stagnant) and that time and his firing by Truman might've tempered Douglas' ego and impetuousness. If he served two terms, from 1956-1964, he likely wouldn't have gotten us involved in Vietnam--He advised both President Kennedy and Johnson not to get involved in military activity there, that it would be a waste of resources. He also told Eisenhower to use the threat of nukes during Korea, which Ike did.

Richard Nixon (in 1960). While Kennedy did add a great sense of spirit and optimism to the nation, perhaps the Bay of Pigs would've been successful and we'd be vacationing in a free, Democratic Cuba; Maybe we might not also have gone to Vietnam had been elected. He also might've dealt with the Russians more aggressively and invoked fear in them, and perhaps caused them to moderate or tone down their policies/rhetoric. Had he been elected we might not have seen the Berlin Wall's construction. The only reason we came close to nuclear war in '62 was not due to Kennedy seeming aggressive but due to him seeming weak in the eyes of the Kremlin.

George McGovern (in 1972) While some of McGovern's economic and social ideas were good, his Vietnam policy might've been a disaster. Considering though what the re-election of Nixon, though I like him, put us through with Watergate, McGovern might've been the better candidate with the benefit of hindsight. Nixon would've left the Presidency in 1973 with a generally intact and great political career and reputation, as well. If I lived in 1972 I'd have voted for Nixon though.

Gerald Ford (should've won in 1976). While 1976 was not a great year on either the Dem or Republican side, I think we can safely say he probably would've done a better job than Carter. I do wish however that he would've picked Reagan as his running mate instead of Dole in '76. Ford and Reagan would've made a good team (Reagan thought so too as he offered to make Ford his VP in 1980), Ford's moderate-center left policies being balanced with Reagan's conservative views . If Ford did a good job, Reagan might've been a shoe in for '80 anyway and we could've avoided the Carter embarrassment.

William H. Taft (1916); He was the best out of several mediocre to poor candidates that year. If he re-elected, he might not have gotten us involved in WWI, which I believe we shouldn't have been involved in and only created more trouble in the long run, he might not have promoted the League of Nations, and he could've perhaps undone some of Wilson's racist policies which set back race relations by decades. He doesn't seem to have been as demented or as self righteous as Wilson. I think Wilson had a messiah complex of sorts, and was a liar amongst other things. He campaigned in 1916 on being the ''peace-keeper president'' who promised to keep us out of WWI, and the very next year after winning the election sent us off to war.

Jfor
06-05-2010, 12:02 PM
sounds like another class project.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-05-2010, 12:12 PM
sounds like another class project.

I've met this accusation many times here yet to this day have yet to bring a single class project to this forum. I used to do papers for other people as favors, you really think I need guys on an internet forum to do my papers for me? Don't flatter yourselves ladies and gents.
There are some people who should've (and could've) been presidents but weren't. I enjoy history as well as speculative history.

Finally, if this were a class paper, would I really have my opinions all laid out if I was coming here to ask you guys to do it for me? I've already labelled who I think should've been Presidents that weren't.

Kay
06-05-2010, 12:20 PM
I'll be thrashed about the head and shoulders for this, but one you could add might be
Gen. Colon Powell. He's too liberal for my personal liking, but in the overall picture it
would have been interesting to see what he might have done as America's first black
president. He damn sure would have done more to bring both sides together than
Barry did. And I think he would have at least understood the war on terror we face.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-05-2010, 12:36 PM
I'll be thrashed about the head and shoulders for this, but one you could add might be
Gen. Colon Powell. He's too liberal for my personal liking, but in the overall picture it
would have been interesting to see what he might have done as America's first black
president. He damn sure would have done more to bring both sides together than
Barry did. And I think he would have at least understood the war on terror we face.

And while he may be a Liberal, I don't think he's a socialist. And he's a very intelligent man, very analytical and measured; even headed, but also a proud warrior. He understands war in general better than Clinton, Bush or Obama did or do having witnessed and taken part in it first hand, and perhaps given our current times a man who knows both the price of war and how to wage it truly is what is needed. I wish he had ran in 1996 or 2000. I don't know if he would've won against Clinton had he been the GOP nominee that year, but maybe 9/11 wouldn't happened if he had served from 1997-2001 or 1997-2005. He might've won against Al "The Robot" Gore in 2000 I think, though given how close the race was anyway we can never truly know.

Kay
06-05-2010, 12:49 PM
His prime time to have run was in 2008 against Barry. If the election had been between
Barry and Colin Powell it would have been interesting to see how the black population
would have voted. That match up would have shown the true colors of those on the left
that want to constantly throw up the race issue to the right.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-05-2010, 01:00 PM
I'll be thrashed about the head and shoulders for this, but one you could add might be
Gen. Colon Powell. He's too liberal for my personal liking, but in the overall picture it
would have been interesting to see what he might have done as America's first black
president. He damn sure would have done more to bring both sides together than
Barry did. And I think he would have at least understood the war on terror we face.


His prime time to have run was in 2008 against Barry. If the election had been between
Barry and Colin Powell it would have been interesting to see how the black population
would have voted. That match up would have shown the true colors of those on the left
that want to constantly throw up the race issue to the right.

I don't think the GOP would've nominated him in 2008 given the rightward turn it took.. I think Powell was too liberal for the 2008 GOP. It indeed would've been interesting to see the black turn out, though. And how would it have shown the true colors of the racial left?

Besides, I think 1996 or 2000 might've been better because as I said a 1997-2001/2005 Powell administration wouldn't have been mired in sex scandals from 1998-1999 and could've defeated, captured or killed Osama while he was more available, possibly preventing 9/11. We may not have had to go to war in Afghanistan if Bin Laden and his associates were taken out during the late '90s, and as far as Iraq we could've just done with Saddam what we do with Kim Jong Ill--Just roll our eyes at his sabre rattling. With him still in power, albeit not as our ally, Iran would've focused on pestering him and not us.

Or perhaps a Powell administration could've toppled the NK regime long before they had a nuke.

I think he might've in retospect, on the foreign end, done a better job than Clinton, even though I like Clinton. The domestic side might've been the same as they're both center-leftists.

Kay
06-05-2010, 02:04 PM
I don't think the GOP would've nominated him in 2008 given the rightward turn it took.. I think Powell was too liberal for the 2008 GOP.

Duh....there's no way Powell would ever get the GOP nomination. I'd never vote for him
if he did. That was just a hypothetical since your opening post is a hypothetical question.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-05-2010, 02:43 PM
Duh....there's no way Powell would ever get the GOP nomination. I'd never vote for him
if he did. That was just a hypothetical since your opening post is a hypothetical question.

Even if it was between Obama and Powell, you wouldn't vote for him?

Kay
06-05-2010, 02:58 PM
Well yes, if those were the only two choices I had.
You got me there.

I tried to think of someone else that would have been interesting hypothetically
as president, but nobody else comes to mind. There hasn't really been anyone
in the past few decades that I was really passionate about that wasn't elected.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-05-2010, 04:10 PM
Duh....there's no way Powell would ever get the GOP nomination. I'd never vote for him
if he did. That was just a hypothetical since your opening post is a hypothetical question.


Well yes, if those were the only two choices I had.
You got me there.

I tried to think of someone else that would have been interesting hypothetically
as president, but nobody else comes to mind. There hasn't really been anyone
in the past few decades that I was really passionate about that wasn't elected.

Do agree with any of the guys I picked--I think some of them would've made superb presidents, or at least better than the guys who were actually elected.

I wonder how William Rehnquist would've been as President if the situation ever came up.

Articulate_Ape
06-05-2010, 05:00 PM
I've met this accusation many times here yet to this day have yet to bring a single class project to this forum.

I'm going to have to go ahead and agree with you on that one.

fettpett
06-05-2010, 05:21 PM
William H. Taft (1916); He was the best out of several mediocre to poor candidates that year. If he re-elected, he might not have gotten us involved in WWI, which I believe we shouldn't have been involved in and only created more trouble in the long run, he might not have promoted the League of Nations, and he could've perhaps undone some of Wilson's racist policies which set back race relations by decades. He doesn't seem to have been as demented or as self righteous as Wilson. I think Wilson had a messiah complex of sorts, and was a liar amongst other things. He campaigned in 1916 on being the ''peace-keeper president'' who promised to keep us out of WWI, and the very next year after winning the election sent us off to war.

it was 1912 he was reelected, not 1916, but an easy way to get Taft re-elected. Roosevelt dies before trying to get a third term.

the League of Nations was Wilson's baby, his idea and I believe the only reason he wanted to get involved with WW1. If Taft is elected WW1 probably drags on another year or so to 1919 with a German victory. Taft might be able to get Germany to stop the unrestricted Submarine warfare against all shipping from the US, particularly if the US ships to both sides or leans toward Germany. The French were wiped, British had no reason to keep going with the war as it was a huge drain on them.

but one thing to remember, Taft aboslutly HATED being President and didn't really want to be it. He wanted a seat on the Supreme Court (which he eventually became Chief Justice)


um...i might post this on AH.com :D

warpig
06-05-2010, 07:09 PM
Sen. George "Macaca" Allen?? I thought he would have been good.

Kay
06-05-2010, 07:34 PM
Do agree with any of the guys I picked

I saw George McGovern on your list and stopped reading actually.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-05-2010, 08:13 PM
I saw George McGovern on your list and stopped reading actually.

Even with Watergate? I like Nixon but I mean that whole affair just put the country through two years of added misery after Vietnam and really made Nixon a 1 termer anyway. I mean he left in '74, if McGovern won he would've been in office till '73.

NJCardFan
06-05-2010, 08:14 PM
I don't think the GOP would've nominated him in 2008 given the rightward turn it took..

Are you serious? Rightward turn? You do realize that the GOP nominated McCain, right? Hardly a Reagan conservative. And the mainstream Republicans killed McCain for choosing Palin as his running mate. The GOP right turn didn't come until after Obama was elected. During the 2008 election cycle, the GOP tripped all over themselves to appear more progressive and centrist. Believe me, if the GOP took a decidedly right turn, the Tea Party movement would never have been.

As for your subject, I actually like this one. Very thought provoking and since I'm one of your chief critics, this does not smell of a class project(especially considering most, if not all, colleges are not in session). But I do have to take you to task for McGovern. His policies are slightly left of what we have now. There is a reason why a loon like Nixon carried the entire country. McGovern was way, way too liberal. Bordering on extreme.

As for who I think would have been a great president, how about Barry Goldwater? Given the Great Society that Johnson fed to us, Goldwater would have given us Reagan-esque economic policies. We also would have been in Vietnam to win it. I also don't think Bobby Kennedy would have made a bad president. He was tough on crime and like his brother, he believed in cutting taxes to help the economy. Why Ted took such a hard left turn I'll never know.

NJCardFan
06-05-2010, 08:16 PM
Even with Watergate? I like Nixon but I mean that whole affair just put the country through two years of added misery after Vietnam and really made Nixon a 1 termer anyway. I mean he left in '74, if McGovern won he would've been in office till '73.

What was so bad about Watergate? He was spying on the competition. Who cares? He got caught doing exactly what other politicians do.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-05-2010, 08:48 PM
I saw George McGovern on your list and stopped reading actually.


What was so bad about Watergate? He was spying on the competition. Who cares? He got caught doing exactly what other politicians do.

It was the cover up that did him in.
And the fact that it was 2 year long drama which really furthered shattered America's morale. First their faith in America's military might fell with Vietnam and then to find out the President was essentially a crook, plus all the stuff of the '60s.
It just wasn't needed.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-05-2010, 08:58 PM
Are you serious? Rightward turn? You do realize that the GOP nominated McCain, right? Hardly a Reagan conservative. And the mainstream Republicans killed McCain for choosing Palin as his running mate. The GOP right turn didn't come until after Obama was elected. During the 2008 election cycle, the GOP tripped all over themselves to appear more progressive and centrist. Believe me, if the GOP took a decidedly right turn, the Tea Party movement would never have been.

As for your subject, I actually like this one. Very thought provoking and since I'm one of your chief critics, this does not smell of a class project(especially considering most, if not all, colleges are not in session). But I do have to take you to task for McGovern. His policies are slightly left of what we have now. There is a reason why a loon like Nixon carried the entire country. McGovern was way, way too liberal. Bordering on extreme.

As for who I think would have been a great president, how about Barry Goldwater? Given the Great Society that Johnson fed to us, Goldwater would have given us Reagan-esque economic policies. We also would have been in Vietnam to win it. I also don't think Bobby Kennedy would have made a bad president. He was tough on crime and like his brother, he believed in cutting taxes to help the economy. Why Ted took such a hard left turn I'll never know.

I'm not a big fan of Goldwater personally. First all of he was for open gays in the military, something I'm very much against. He was closer to a libertarian and someone like Ron Paul than Reagan imo. I mean if you like Paul that's fine but most mainstream conservatives I've talked to don't.

And Nixon was further to the left than McGovern. I mean he proposed a Universal Healthcare system which virtually mirrored the one Obama passed ironically and proposed the idea of a guaranteed income for all Americans, as well as doubling the size of the Great Society programs, plus founding the EPA, Amtrak, getting us off the Gold standard, etc. Nixon was a very liberal president.

And I agree with a few of the Great Society programs, personally, just not not fluff like the NEA and NEH nor the extent to which welfare extended or the way the various programs have been expanded over the years. For example, Social Security (not part of the Great Society but I'm using it as an example of how the different programs have expanded beyond their intentions) was supposed to be a supplemental income, now it's usually one's whole income. Welfare should be workfare. I have no problems with most of the other programs, especially the Space Program, Educational Grants, and Environmental Legislation that was a part of the Great Society.

And Bobby Kennedy was further to the left than his brother Jack. He was hard on crime, but mostly organized crime. There's a reason why Nixon built his campaign in '68 around the theme of "Law and Order", he was able to paint the Democrats as weak on crime.

fettpett
06-05-2010, 10:58 PM
the main reason people don't like Ron Paul is due to his isolationist stance, plus he sounded like a leftist nutter during the 08 campain when talking about Iraq and pulling out. the guy is great on domestic, but horrid on forgien.

Yeah, Nixon was a pretty liberal President and most of the stuff he passed should have made the leftist love his sorry butt, but he was Republican therefore "EEVEILL!!"

Oh and Vietnam and the pull out, Democrats fault. Nixon had the war won, till those dipshits pull all the funding out from under them.

malloc
06-07-2010, 05:45 PM
the main reason people don't like Ron Paul is due to his isolationist stance, plus he sounded like a leftist nutter during the 08 campain when talking about Iraq and pulling out. the guy is great on domestic, but horrid on forgien.

I wouldn't say isolationist as he was very much in favor of eliminating or sharply decreasing most tariff's and other obstacles to foreign trade. He was very big on global free trade with the "free" in "free trade" meaning free from government obstacles. By definition one cannot be an isolationist and also favor free international trade.

I can't agree with his 100% pullout from Iraq immediately though. That's a good way to get a lot of people killed. However, I do agree that it's costing us more than we are gaining at the moment, and I would support anyone who can come up with a cheaper option, and a way to accelerate the time line of accomplishing our goals. I also agree with his ideas on lessening defense spending without impacting readiness by closing down bases abroad that no longer serve a legitimate strategical purpose.

One guy I haven't seen mentioned is Barry Goldwater, had he won in 1964 the U.S. would be radically different today. The lure of more government handouts was just too strong in that election.

fettpett
06-07-2010, 06:34 PM
well by isolationist i'm refereing to his stance on our militrary and where it should be stationed. Personally I think some of the bases we have around the world maybe should be closed or brought down but not to competely pull everything back to the US as there are places that we can't do that (aka South Korea) at the expense of stablization and keeping other powers in check

malloc
06-07-2010, 07:17 PM
well by isolationist i'm refereing to his stance on our militrary and where it should be stationed. Personally I think some of the bases we have around the world maybe should be closed or brought down but not to competely pull everything back to the US as there are places that we can't do that (aka South Korea) at the expense of stablization and keeping other powers in check

Ah, ok. Well that I can agree with. I don't think we should close every base abroad either, but some bases throughout Europe and such are vestigial structures from the cold war, and even WWII that don't really offer much in the way of strategical or tactical advantage anymore. Once we move forward and with sea-basing and other promising logistical processes and technologies, we might not even bases in other places, like the Pacific Rim, except S. Korea, and Australia, etc.

Bubba Dawg
06-07-2010, 09:05 PM
Henry Clay.

I just ordered a biography on Henry Clay because he is interesting and accomplished.

noonwitch
06-08-2010, 08:57 AM
What was so bad about Watergate? He was spying on the competition. Who cares? He got caught doing exactly what other politicians do.



Yeah, but in 1972, the public was still capable of being shocked by that kind of thing.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-08-2010, 07:55 PM
Yeah, but in 1972, the public was still capable of being shocked by that kind of thing.

I read something about where I think in 1973 or 1974 FDR's son came to visit Nixon and said in essence, "My father did exactly the things you did--and more--but he never taped himself." Or something to that effect.

Big Guy
06-08-2010, 08:11 PM
Ross Perot, just cause he had funny looking ears and liked graphs. :D

Calypso Jones
06-08-2010, 09:49 PM
Powell was never a republican. AND he was a media pick. We dodged a bullet. He would have been awful. He's got no stomach for standing up for America.

Kay
06-08-2010, 10:31 PM
Pat Paulson:

http://www.fashionstate.com/monkees/4902paulsen.jpg

noonwitch
06-09-2010, 09:28 AM
There's always Gary Hart. If he hadn't dared the press to follow him around, and then fooled around with a woman where they could see him, he may have been president in 1988. He was a far better candidate than Dukakis.


I wonder if he's ever really bummed out when he sees Clinton, who faced much more serious allegations during the 1992 campaign, yet still won the primary and the general election.

linda22003
06-09-2010, 09:58 AM
I'll be thrashed about the head and shoulders for this, but one you could add might be Gen. Colon Powell.

I agree with you, except for the spelling of Colin.

linda22003
06-09-2010, 10:00 AM
Do agree with any of the guys I picked--I think some of them would've made superb presidents, or at least better than the guys who were actually elected.



Not with Dewey, anyway. Hell, Alice Roosevelt Longworth described him as "the little man on the wedding cake", and she was from the REPUBLICAN side of the family.

noonwitch
06-09-2010, 03:25 PM
Not with Dewey, anyway. Hell, Alice Roosevelt Longworth described him as "the little man on the wedding cake", and she was from the REPUBLICAN side of the family.



Alice Roosevelt Longworth was a woman of serious wit. It makes me proud that I share an ancestor or two with her.