Posted on 12/24/2007 8:08:12 AM PST by Greg F
How about General Patreaus as our candidate chosen at a brokered convention?
Why not make this a referendum on sanity?
I don’t think we’re going to see someone go directly from the U.S. military into the White House anytime soon. I’m not sure a general is the right kind of person this country would ever want in the White House again anyway.
Conversely . . . I suspect the ranks of the military are filled with a lot of "yes men" who have never had an original idea in their lives.
“”We should all respect what the Bard once wrote. “First we kill all the barristers. (Wow, that would mean all the politicians in D.C.) Then we start over.””
A very good start to the problems. Second to this would be to disallow all citizens who receive more money in benefits than they pay in taxes. This way, they can’t continue to vote themselves more tax money at every turn.
Come to think of it,”Dilbert” and “Beetle Baily” aren’t all that diferent.
Middle manangement suck-ups,upper manangment morons and ignored minions who happen to keep the whole thing running.
Then every once in a while a leader appears who “gets it” thus ending his chances for advancement.
No wonder Patton intentionally sucked at politics and eschewed the whole Machiavellian mess.
I agree. President Grant was simply not up to the administrative requirements of the job, and there found himself mired in scandals due to the people he appointed.
He wasn’t corrupt, personally, nor was he a Stalin-wannabee, a radical leftist nutcase, or a malpractice lawyer. I’d be happy to have him over for supper, which is more than I’d say for any Democrat (and several Republican) presidential candidate.
I don’t like liberals any more than you do. So we get their neighbors to inform on them, and then we hunt them down and kill them? Isn’t that the Petreaus plan?
Washington, yes; Eisenhower, maybe. The Interstate Highway System was Ike's baby and it has surely changed America, although whether for good or ill remains to be seen. The mall-ization of America depended on it and that has had some pretty serious effects on the economic viability of small-town America.
I like the way you think. I feel the same way about direct election of our Senators . . . but some battles are irretrievably lost . . .
Since he went to Princeton, he’s obviously a Ivy-League-Liberal.
Well, Ann Coulter went to Cornell I think . . . Bill Buckley went to Yale . . . Frank Luntz went to University of Pennsylvania . . . Dinesh D’Souza went to Dartmouth etc.
And I think that West also went to West Point so that tends to cancel out a lot of left-wing propaganda . . .
Uh Petreaus that is . . .
For the love of God. It was a joke.
Furthermore, many of our earliest Presidents went to “Ivy League” schools . . .
: )
You can make an argument that Eisenhower was the best President of the last century, even though he was anathema to most conservatives of the era because he did not dismantle the New Deal. He erred in appointing Warren and Brennan to the Supreme Court, which he admitted was his worst mistake after he retired. Along with J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, Eisenhower did nothing to prevent the harsh attacks on Senator Joseph McCarthy by the Democrats. However, with those admitted flaws, the United States was at peace with other nations during his Administration. While we were still extensively involved overseas, we allowed the NATO allies, including West Germany, to carry a greater burden of the defense of Europe. The economy was strong, and the Eisenhower Administration did not add any major new regulatory burdens or social programs.
Stop it. You’re killing me.
Yah, my list of the great Presidents of the 20th Century would be Reagan, Coolidge, and Eisenhower. That’s it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.