http://clerkweb.house.gov/histrecs/history/members/clay/biblio.htm
Four times! Clay was elected Senator four time!
is my favorite>>> LBJ?
Neither Jefferon nor Madison were bothered by a strong third party candidate on their 2nd elections. Neither Monroe, Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, nor FDR squared off against a Senator their second go around. DDE squared off against Adlai Stevenson twice, so it wouldn’t be him.
Cleveland won a very tight race against James Blaine in 1884, then was defeated by former Senator Benjamin Harrison, then defeated HIM. But his wife, Frances, was a popular first lady. Axe him.
It could be Jackson (where the Nullification party and Anti-Mason party drew votes), but I wouldn’t call him a charming fellow by any stretch of the imagination. Nixon’s victory in 1968 was VERY close, with George Wallace running a respectable third. And he ran against Senator McGovern in 72. But charming? Geez, did anyone think so even before Watergate? And I thought Pat Nixon was a pretty popular first lady, too.
Reagan definitely fits the bill, esp. with the recession and how much people hated Nancy. There were a lot of times he said, “I don’t know.” to questions about Iran Contra, etc. But people seemed to love him. He was also charming and charismatic. There were lots of third party candidates in 1980 and Mondale is a former Senator.
Perot may have taken votes away from Bush in 1992, but the economy was good. So no on Clinton.
Sooooo, I guess I’ll have to say Reagan.
Sorry, Pundit Lisa, but unless Astorian says a mistake was made in the criteria listed, it CANNOT be Reagan.
Ford defeated Reagan in 1976 when Ronnie sought the Presidency. Also, I am not sure Mondale was a senator in 1984 (and I voted for ol’ Fritz). Does anyone remember if he was?
I would also hesitate to say Fritz was the most respected Senator.
IMO, the best choices remain Jackson (he was popular with the common people of the time – you must remember people then would view attacking one’s enemies differently than most of us do) and Wilson.
It has to be Jackson. He’s the best fit.
There’s even a little clue in the OP, about getting away with murder.
His duel with Dickinson, whom he fatally wounded, was regarded by many as murder.
If you’re hot, that’s good.
If you’re cool, that’s good.
I don’t get it.
Rats… here I thought I had found a sneaky way to make a seviously subtle point, but it’s all undone because people here are WAY too knowledgeable, good at trivia, and sticklers for detail.
Tracer and Boris, of course, caught on to what I was getting at immediately… though Boris also noted some sort-of mistakes in my presentation. This “quiz” was not reall ya quiz at all. My point was to get people of widely different beliefs to notice just how eerily similar Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are, in a host of ways! Their most devoted admirers would be horrified by the suggestion, but there are all kinds of common bonds between the two.
Did I exaggerate a tad? Of course. Was I wrong to imply that 1980 was the “first” time Reagan ran for President? Oh… all right, I guess I was (I knew he’d tried unsuccessfully to get the GOP nomination twice before, but only counted the first time he actually GOT the nomination). But I certainly didn’t think my errors would lead people to Andy Jackson!!! Actually, I thought my clues were dead giveaways.
Did ROnald Reagan do SOME things to earn the affection of the right wing? Sure. Has Bill CLinton done a few things to merit the devotion of the left. Yeah, a few. But on the whole, Reagan and Clinton governed as moderates. I mean, in 1982, Pat Buchanan asked (rightly), “Except for James Watt, is there anyone in this Cabinet who’d have looked out of place in the Ford/Rockefeller administration?” The answer was… NO! And with the exception of Donna Shalala, I could say the same thing about the Clinton Cabinet. Would Lloyd Bentsen or William Cohen look out of place in a Bush administration? I hardly think so.
Early in their administrations, both Reagan and CLinton tried to govern as ideologues… but quickly gave up. Reagan would TRY to slash a budget, he’d get some criticism for it, and would promptly retreat (while blaming somebody like Dave Stockmann for the idea). Similarly, CLinton tried to issue an executive order to allow gays in the mi,itary… but quickly backed off when the military objected.
Think about this: if you had asked a joyful Moral Majority member at the Reagan Inauguration “What wonderful things do you expect Reagan to do,” you’d have been told, “He’s going to abolish abortion, abolish the Dept. of Education, bring back school prayer, and balance the budget.” Uh… nope, no, uh-uh, and wrong-o. Moreover, Reagan was hardly a model of “Christian family values.” HE’s divorced, is largely estranged from his children, and never goes to church.
As for Clinton… the man who implemented welfare reform is beloved by black America! The man who smokes cigars and treats women like dirt is adored by anti-smoking crusaders and women’s groups!
Both men, despite their perceived politics, were FAR more interested in being liked than in governing.
There’s one more similarity I see… but it involves the future.
Both Reagan and CLinton had Vice PResidents who were perceived as nice, decent, honest intelligent guys… but dull as dishwater, embarrassingly bad public speakers, WAY too rich and preppy to connect with ordinary voters. Despite the incumbent PResident’s popularity and the strong economy, it appeared doubtful that the Veep would even receive his own party’s nomination, let alone the PResidency. It looked as if he’d be trounced by a popular, moderate governor.
But… surprise surprise, the Veep had a lot of fight in him, found some issues with which to beat that governor over the head, and emerged victorious.
THis is my roundabout way of saying… (and as a right winger, I HATE saying this), Alg Gore is going to slaughter Bill Bradley. And he’s going to prove a far tougher preisdential candidate than George W. Bush (or anyone else) expects. In spite of all Gore’s current problems, I’d say the odds are much BETTER than 50-50 he’ll be the next President.
The Peyote Coyote wrote:
True, but I interpreted Astorian’s 4th criterion to refer to the first time he ran for President in a general election, not merely in the Primaries.
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.
astorian wrote:
Now now, anti-smoking crusaders mostly target cigarettes, not cigars. And Clinton doesn’t treat women like dirt, he treats them like sex objects! Big difference!
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.
Sorry I derailed your discussion, Astorian. I saw where you were going, too. (You may remember I posted a lot of the same ideas in the summer of '98 when Dick Macy, Chevy55ss, and Optamissed were foaming at the mouth over Clinton.)
However, when the crowd started wandering away from your intent, anyway, I remembered Jackson’s wife, noted the other similarities, and threw out my red herring.
Of course, this simply means that when some rabid right- or left-wing screamer starts in on Clinton or Reagan, I now have two names to throw back at them. < eg >
Tom~
I was surprised at the answer to this quiz. I would have thought it was FDR. As to the similarities between Reagan and Clinton, there is no question that some exist. However, Slick Willie is the worst President since Nixon. He has done more harm to this nation than the last 25 years of mistakes by former Presidents. He is a Communist (read the Cox report) and should be shot for treason. Everytime I think of THAT bastard I get sick enough to puke!
I come from a family of three generations of Union Democrats, and this BASTARD was enough to make me change parties forever! I was in office as a politician myself when I changed parties.
I couldn’t say enough about how he makes me feel. When he was elected the first time I put a bumper sticker on my car that said, “Rescue America, Impeach Clinton”. I was SO HAPPY when it finally happened! It fairly warms the cockles of my heart to know that he will go down in history right next to Nixon as a President that was impeached. Too bad he wasn’t ousted to boot!
When he ran for office the first time all we heard was, “It’s the economy, stupid.” But when he got into office, all we heard was, “It’s fags in the military, stupid!”
The democrats should be proud that it was THIS president that was so despised by the American people that he gave them a Republican Congress. The first one in over 40 years! Nice work, Bill!
If anyone wants to read more about this creep and his wife and the sickness they divide equally between them, I would recommend, Partners in Power. A great book that traces each of their lives from birth.
Thank God that baby-killing, faggot loving, minority glad-handing demon will be out of office soon.
:::::::snorting REAL big to hock a huge loogy at the thought of him::::::::::
BTW, I didn’t mean to offend those of you who think he’s great. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just had to rant here. It is not my normal style and I appreciate this venue for giving me this opportunity. I think many of the posts are great and spend a considerable amount of time reading them. Cheers! And have a nice day! 
Exactly what? Can you be specific?
I seriously doubt it, but so what if he is? Are we now making it illegal to freely and peacefully assemble?
[quoter]
and should be shot for treason.
[/quote]
Err . . . yeah.
Yes, he certainly had committed any number of impeachable offenses by the time he was first elected.
Nixon was not impeached. Johnson was, though.
Are there any other groups of people against whom you are bigoted and don’t feel should be allowed to shoot our enemies?
Do you have some evidence that Bill Clinton has killed a single human being, let alone and infant? Offer it up or shut up.
Wow, you really are a homophobe, aren’t you?
Yeah, they really loved that welfare reform.
I got news for you: If you think any of the jackasses who are sucking the collective dick of the Religious Right and masquerading as Republicans is going to win the presidency, you need to up your medication.
I think maybe you out to crawl back under Hate Rock and get your bearings, OK?
“I love God! He’s so deliciously evil!” - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy
pl: LOL that was so funny, I laughed until I cried! REALLY good! My sides hurt! Thanks, you made my day!
That which a man had rather were true he more readily believes.
Astorian, not only are you the Devil’s Advocate, I’m beginning to suspect you’re the Devil him(her? it? damn all assumptions!)self! 
Great post! You’re right: the various respondants answers say more about them than any number of self-declarative posts (I’m almost ashamed to admit I picked Clinton to fit your criteria).
And Phaedrus? You frothing little hate-infested goober? My words for you would immediately get this thread tossed into The Pit, possibly even banned outright, so I shall largely abstain…except to say this:
In the time I wore a uniform in service to this country, I knew and was friends of or acquainted with several soldiers who were, in all probability, gay.
These soldiers served their country honorably and well, and their sexual preferences should in no way detract from the professionalism, integrity and courage with which they served.
Phil was altogether too kind.
<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
<FONT COLOR=“BLUE”>“Damn all asumptions, anyway!”</FONT>
Astorian: Not saying your argument doesn’t stand up as a whole, but there are a couple things I take issue with:
If you mean the Democratic Left, you’re seriously overestimating the support for Clinton. We (may I speak for the D.L.? Thanks!) like some of his policies, dislike a whole lot and basically realize our choice is him or someone a lot worse. But we don’t hold him in anywhere near the same regard as the Republican Right held Reagan.
Most blacks are not on welfare. And most welfare recipients are not black.
Women’s groups’ main concern about the president is how his policies affect women’s lives. I really don’t see what’s so hard to understand about that. (“Adore” is too strong a word anyway.)
Interesting post(s), though.
Dear ExTank:
Being the fool that I am, I am going to aks you what conclusions do YOU draw from our posts. Personally, this has been an amusing intellectual exercise to me, not a session of therapy.
ExTank wrote:
Yeah!
And besides, if you really hated gays, wouldn’t you WANT them in the military? (A la Operation Human Shield, from the South Park movie.)
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.
It tells me that even a hallucinogen-warped canine can have pretty sharp teeth! 
And that I need to do some more studying of American History that my high school glossed over.
<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
<FONT COLOR=“BLUE”>“Alright! It showed me more about myself than maybe I cared to know. Happy?”</FONT>
Dear ExTank:
Hallucinogen-warped canine, eh?
I like that.
I believe he’s referring to Clinton’s veto on the legislation banning partial-birth abortions. For this, I agree with the Pro-Lifers. I think abortions after 15 weeks should be outlawed, but I’m willing to compromise. And PBA’s (that is, abortions in the third trimester) should be outlawed altogether. Cutting apart a fully developed infant is horrendous.
On the other hand, there are several things that Clinton has accomplished that I agree with: 1) He managed to get the line item veto passed. While I realize the Republican controlled congress technically passed the law, it got done while Clinton was in office, and Clinton supported it. Reagan and Bush both talked incessantly about it, but never got enough votes to get it passed. It doesn’t really matter, though b/c the Supreme Court, in all its infinite wisdom, will no doubt strike it down. Oh well. 2) He pushed for an end to underground nuclear testing. The Republicans dropped the ball on this. Love him or hate him, the ** President ** is responsible for determining foreign policy. The Congress should let him do his job. 3) He’s managed to go a whole year without any major debacles. Way to go, Bill!
A “PBA” is not the same thing as a third trimester abortion.