Not a fan of Governor Corleone.

Bryan is the best representative of populism. Everything from his foreign policy to educational planks and economic theory was based on the "will of the people" and the dictates of the majority. I'd pair Bryan with either E.L. Godkin, founder of The Nation.

I voted for Admiral Dewey. General Nelson Miles could make a decent vice-presidential nominee for the Democrats since it seems like the Spanish-American War has still occurred. The party may as well try to run with "military heroes". General Fitzhugh Lee could also make a good running-mate if Weaver still appointed him to be consul-general at Havana as Cleveland did IRL. Lee was not just the nephew of Robert E. Lee he was also a longtime Bourbon Democrat and served one term as governor of Virginia.

My best idea would be this:



Bill Clinton/Al Gore (D)*: 439 EV; 55% of the PV
Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul (R): 99 EV; 39% of the PV
Dick Lamm/Ted Weil (Ref): 0 EV; 6% of the PV

I do not think Buchanan would have allowed a good number of Republicans to be his running-mate. I would guess his short-list would have been Congressman Paul, Alan Keyes, Senator Rod Grams and, perhaps, some paleoconservative writer. The election would be a great one, no doubt, as both major party candidates are highly intelligent and interested in serious policy discussion. Buchanan would make a lot of gaffes in regard to "racial make-up" in the United States and alienate a bunch of Republicans from voting.

Buchanan's campaign would have focused on two issues: opposition to nation building and assaulting the "culture of decadence" in the Clinton White House. Neither of these issues would have taken fire in the campaign since in 1996 no one cared about nation building misadventures and Dole's own attacks on Travelgate, Whitewater and Nannygate made no impact on the race. Dole ended a bunch of his ads with a fairly strong statement, "Does the truth matter to you?" and the votes in 1996 showed that people felt that Clinton had been truthful enough with them and that they liked the prosperity his administration seemed to have ushered in. As much as I respect Pat Buchanan his campaign would have been a disaster and he would have lost badly.

Buchanan's candidacy would have depressed Republican turnout on election day. In the United States Senate races this probably would mean that Mark Warner would best Senator John Warner in Virginia, Tom Bruggere tops Gordon Smith in Oregon, Tom Strickland defeats Wayne Allard in Colorado, Joe Brennan out paces Susan Collins in Maine. Win Bryant manages to defeat Tim Hutchinson in Arkansas and Ben Nelson defeats Chuck Hagel in Nebraska. The Democrats would have staved off further losses in the Senate and may well have taken the chamber in the 1998 midterm elections. Assuming George W. Bush "wins" the office of president in 2000 a larger Democratic majority in the United States Senate may well have trimmed his tax cut even further then they did IRL and perhaps stalled war talk in 2002 and 2003.

Also, with Mark Warner as a United States Senator in 1997 he may well have been Gore's running-mate in 2000 and that possibly could have changed the outcome of that race. A popular Senator Warner on the ticket may have made up the 8-poin deficit in Virginia that election. Also, if Warner was the VP nominee in 2000 on a losing Gore/Warner ticket he would have been the front-runner against President Bush in 2004. 

I have an uncle who has lived in Minnesota since 1981 and he actually voted for Jesse Ventura in 1998 but then turned around and voted for Tim Pawlenty twice. That just confuses me. Is there any difference between Norm Coleman and Tim Pawlenty?

"Conservative Democrats" are the worst people in Congress. They support huge war budgets, death penalties and oppose personal choice in terms of abortion, marriage, education and other very personal matters. However they are always up for unbalanced budgets, FISA and the Patriot Act. At least someone like Barbara Boxer is a proud progressive who wants tax and spend while protecting civil liberties and personal choice for citizens. Manchin now even has come out against guns which is one of the few saving graces of "Conservative Democrats." Manchin is pretty horrible. He will probably be the new GI Joe Lieberman.

We need not ask "Who is John Galt?" That time has not come. What we need to ask now is "Where is Hank Rearden?"

This is more of a general rant, because I'm sick and tired of having to deal with people like Rooney, Heatmaster, Politico or our new genius Supermariobros.

Yes I do realize that it is very hard to have to deal with people who disagree with you. You as a poster have shown many times you do not like those who disagree with you and refer to them by a whole slew of sophomoric names. However, one must handle disagreement in a civil way and not refer to everyone who holds a different opinion on an historical figure as an "idiot." I realize that I hold an unpopular opinion when it comes to McCarthy. I also realize that McCarthy was not perfect. As the Mikado stated Owen Lattimore was innocent of all charges of being a communist. The Venona Files do not point a single finger his way. I still hold that McCarthy was a more positive than negative figure. If you disagree with this that is fine and I am sure you have good reason for disagreeing as you show in many of your posts that you are well read, logical and progressive in thought. I will not claim that I must "rant" because I am "sick of dealing with people like California Tony" since you hold a view I do not. I advise that you amend the way you address people who differ from you in opinions or else your great knowledge and learning will go to waste and be left asunder on a field of bitterness. Cheers.

Texas v. White disagrees.

That only counts if you believe that Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1819) was a constitutionally sound decision. If you reject that decision then you also reject the White decision.

Lucy Hayes, Grace Coolidge and Louisa Adams are my favorite. I think I like Louisa Adams the most because she was the epitome of class and hung out with the czar of Russia. 

Morris puts forward an interesting theory and it is not an original one. He must have recently read Albion's Seed by David Hackett Fischer. In his book Fischer puts forward that East Anglian puritans traveled to Massachusetts, Southern English cavaliers found their way to Virginia, Quakers made their way to the Middle Colonies and those of Northern England found their home in Appalachia. The book is a good read but it over simplifies the American slave system from colonization to emancipation.

What Morris fails to note is that slavery existed in New England in the forms of indentured servitude and African slavery. Slavery was accepted in New England and the Middle Colonies as much as in the South. For nearly two hundred years the North maintained a slave regime that was more diversified than that of the South. New England slave m,asters chose to use slaves as not primarily agricultural laborers, but they were trained to do many other industrial tasks. New England and Middle Colony slaves were trained to meet the needs of its more complex economy. The slaves were owned mostly by ministers, doctors, and the merchant elite, the New England aristocracy. Enslaved men and women in the North often performed household duties in addition to skilled jobs.

Morris points out in his monologue that it was the "puritan work ethic" that led to the growth of New England's manufacturing economy. While it is true that it was this Puritan ethos that gave men the courage to invest and build Morris does not point out that slavery played a role in creating both the capital and the manpower for the creation of the New England manufacturing empire. Joanne Pope Melish writes in her work Disowning Slavery that "the introduction of slave labor into the New England household economy enabled its expansion from small-time farms to large agricultural production, the expansion of local and regional markets, widespread entrepreneurial activity, and the rise of manufactures." Faneuil Hall of Boston, for example, was built by Peter Faneuil. Faneuil's father made much of his fortune through the slave trade and Faneuil continued to grow his fortune through both the slave trade and slave-based manufacturing.

From the seventeenth century onward, slaves in the North could be found in almost every field of Northern economic life. They worked as carpenters, shipwrights, sailmaker, printers, tailors, shoemakers, coopers, blacksmiths, bakers, weavers, and goldsmiths. Many became so talented in the crafts that the free white workers lost jobs to them.  

This kind of "New England slavery" would eventually catch on in the Upper South in the mid 1700s. The main reason slavery died out in New England was because it simply lost it's profitability.

None of this justifies chattel slavery. As a libertarian I abhor all kinds of involuntary servitude. However, this is posted to show that Morris and Fischer have a theory but one not totally based in fact.

Herbert Clark Hoover has a mixed presidency but one that I would deem to be a failure. In terms of economics Hoover was a progressive who harmed the economy due to irrational fears of stagnant wages and deflation. The fact that he raised taxes during an economic downturn and also hiked tariff rates is one of the main reasons, in my opinion, that the recession of 1929-1930 became the Great Depression on 1930-1937. The Roosevelt Recession of 1937 to 1942 was FDR's fault due to the fact that he overtaxes corporations and that led to mass layoffs in the spring of 1937 but that has nothing to do with Hoover. I applaud Hoover's strong support of the gold standard and his attempts to maintain a balanced budget but his economic policies truly harmed the American economy. Hoover ignored Andrew Mellon one to many times and then Ogden Mills, and this was his undoing.

Those who have pointed out that Hoover lacked conviction and political skill from 1929 to 1933 are astute and deserve praise. Hoover's love of commissions served to supplant a need to make executive decisions. The Wickersham Commission, for example, was a commission that simply told the nation what it already knew: prohibition was not working and the cops in most major cities were corrupt. The commission was not necessary but Hoover pointed to it as "proof" that he was dealing with the prohibition issue. When the commission was attacked as the "Wickersham Sham" Hoover was offended but it was a true statement. I myself find it amazing that the man who served as the doctor of sick mines, saved Belgium from starvation and led both the U.S. Food Administration and the Department of Commerce showed such a lack of leadership when finally given the top executive position. Hoover was not, as many say, a businessman but he was an engineer and as such had leadership abilities he did not show while in office.

The terrible fact about the Hoover presidency is that the places he showed leadership where ones that were horrible. He led the fight for higher tariffs that led to a disastrous international trade war in 1930. He signed off on a plan that deported tens of thousands of Mexican-Americans back to Mexico even though they were born in America. Hoover began the racial component of the Southern Strategy in Republican politics and in doing so began the quick migration of African-Americans to Democratic Party and away from "the party of Lincoln." While it is to be applauded the Hoover vetoed the Bonus Bill it is once again to his discredit that he sent the army to remove the squatters from Annacostia Flats. The D.C. Metropolitan Police would have done a better job and they themselves required that they handle the squatters. Hoover, like Grover Cleveland during the Pullman Strike, ignored the wishes of local authorities and his rash decision has left a dark stain on his presidential legacy. Hoover had a knack for involving himself in the worst parts of the presidency and politics.   

On the bright side, Hoover handled foreign crises which could have grown into war masterfully. Hoover should probably be the patron saint of non-intervention due to the sheer number of times he refused to get involved in foreign conflicts that could have strengthened his very loose hold on the White House. The Rappidan Conference with Prime Minister Ramsay McDonald of the UK helped end the naval arms race of the late 1920s and the Stimson Doctrine established the American tradition of not recognizing territory taken through imperial land grabs. Neither of these decisions required one bullet to be fired.

Hoover's post-presidency was far superior to his presidency. Hoover's work "Freedom Betrayed" is one of the best indictments of FDR as a war-time president that has ever been written. Hoover's reasoned attack on the New Deal, "The Challenge to Liberty", once served as the "Conscience of the Conservative" for pre-Goldwater conservatives. If only Hoover had governed the way he wrote from 1933 to 1964 he would have been one of the greatest presidents.

I do not know if even Peter Weller can save Detroit now.

"I am more interested in the rock of ages than I am in the age of rocks."

Gunner Joe McCarthy was a freedom fighter. The fact that the Democrats recognized the Soviet Union in 1933 and (willingly?) allowed communists to infiltrate the state and agricultural departments from 1934 to at least 1947, as proven accurate by the Venona project, is the main reason I will not vote for them.

Why is this so absurd? Did I use improper syntax or spelling? This is just an opinion which I hold and backed with some logic. It may not be logic that you agree with but I did present facts to back up my opinion. Is it because my statement does not mesh with your own particular view that my statement is "absurd"? If this is the fact than it is YOU who are absurd and deserve a place in this thread.

This is suicide for Denny's. The main reason people eat at that restaurant is because it produces edible, sit down restaurant food for a good, cheap price. We might as well just eat stuff that comes through the car window. It is just as edible.

You are the voice of moderation. This was a huge issue and now that you have addressed it no one will talk about it again. I know this was a difficult stance to take because so much of the forum believes this so I applaud your bravery. "I had to say it"...indeed, indeed.

This just low for Drudge. Talk about an easy target to hit!

He is smart, shows that he reads a lot and has a fine ability to annoy certain posters. He is really a great poster, no doubt.

Tom Davis proves himself to be an attention whore who wants the Washington Post to say nice things about him just like every moderate Republican in history. There is truly no more whiny group of people than moderate Republicans. Thinking of them causes all good men to gag profusely. 

Another for the voting based on platforms and policies from half a century ago or more brigade?

Well, Nathan, as a libertarian there is no reason I would ever vote for a Democrat. What I said was probably a bit of hyperbole on my part but the fact that Roosevelt and Truman defended Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White does play into my dislike of the modern Democratic Party. I do not dislike Democrats however. For example, you are a Democrat but you are probably one of the smartest people I have spoken with so I do not dislike you simply due to your party registration.

Gunner Joe McCarthy was a freedom fighter. The fact that the Democrats recognized the Soviet Union in 1933 and (willingly?) allowed communists to infiltrate the state and agricultural departments from 1934 to at least 1947, as proven accurate by the Venona project, is the main reason I will not vote for them.

I actually find it very funny in a watching-a-train-wreck kinda way.

I quote this as absurd. You apparently find train-wrecks to be funny.

John Quincy Adams by Harlow Giles Unger. This has been a fair treatment of a fairly eccentric historic character. 

I guess that Spielberg was sitting in his den drinking a non-alcoholic beveridge and thought "I feel like getting an Oscar." After he thought for all of three minutes he decided, "Biopic! The academy loves biopics." He then put a bunch of names of popular and PC historical figures into a hat, closed his eyes and picked up a name. The name was "Harvey Milk." "That will never do," said Spielberg, "A movie about him was just made. I will have to wait until at least 2014 to rip that one off." He then pulled out a second name: "Nelson Mandella." "Drat!" thought Spielberg, "A movie about him was just made as well. Also Morgan Freeman is probably booked to be in another movie about an articulate, intelligent black man by now and Will Smith is still considered too 'edgy' by the academy crowd." Spielberg than threw his hands into the hat for a third time and produced the name: "Abraham Lincoln." "This will do," Spielberg said, "All I need to do is have a lot of arguing, over the top dialogue, running through buildings in suits and some preachy monologues and this will win me another Academy Award."