Cleavland!
Polk has got to go. Along with the other imperialists, but him first.
Interstate freeways and a brilliant balance in the Cold War.
I’ll take “Protecting the Western Hemisphere from European colonialism that still hampers Africa and South Asia to this day” for $100, Alex
JFK
Sorry but you lose $100. No matter how noble the motivation, on what great principle was the Monroe Doctrine based? South America is closer to the US than it is to Europe, so Europeans, stay out? Physical proximity = foreign policy rights? Sounds more like the Palin Doctrine.
By my count it’s:
JFK 8
McKinley 5
Taft 3
Monroe 2
LBJ 2
Eisenhower 1
Cleveland 1
Polk 1
Thanks. I meant to do a morning vote count but forgot.
My count has McKinley at 6, however.
ETA: and Kennedy at 9.
And, reminder, voting closes in approximately 2 hours and 20 minutes.
I’ll change my vote to McKinley. Between the two, JFK was much the better President and did more good. Handling the Cuban Missile Crisis alone - c’mon, the guy saved humanity from WW3! Still a model for crisis management and diplomacy.
I’ll change from Taft to Mckinley
I would like to change from Monroe to McKinley in order to save JFK.
Once again Kennedy benefits from shady voting!
Looks like we dodged a bullet there, guys…
**d&r **
Smething Johnny didn’t get a chance to do.
So we have another tie:
JFK 9
McKinley 9
Taft 2
LBJ 2
Eisenhower, Cleveland, Polk 1
The next new or switched vote for either of the leading candidates will eliminate them.
Damn, this is getting exciting. I thought JFK was a goner!
Maybe he still is…
Nor did McKinley, for that matter.
I’ll vote for either LBJ or Taft next round if someone switch over to take out McKinley…
What’s a little Voter Trading between friends?
Assuming it’s considered ethical, I’ll do a trade. You’re McK I’m JFK, right? Why not you and me both switch to Taft for the duration. (I’ve already voted out Arthur: was Taft so much better?) I do not want to vote out McKinley for a while. Sure, his policies could be cast as hyprocritic and immoral, but so could the Vietnam War.
But I will vote anti-JFK next round (or not).
Is there a thread bunking or debunking the allegations in S. Hersch’s Camelot?
Even discounting those allegations, it is a fact that throughout the entire Cold War, White House kept the eye on the ball rather well for 55 years except for a brief period of major blunders: Bay of Pigs fiasco (with U.S. ultimately sacrificing its paid rebels on grounds that witnesses are better dead than alive), the Missile scare itself, assassination plot rumors, miscalculations in Vietnam.
Yes, history fans. During the 55-year period from Truman through Clinton, there were perhaps 5 to 10 major national security blunders. About half of those occurred during one 3-year period! Avoiding such blunders is a very important part of Presidential success.
Whatever his ratings along other criterial dimensions (and of course, there are other Hyde-like aspects to JFK), his dangerous foreign policy decision-making is a big minus. Some people say it was due in part to his go-it-alone approach to major tactical decisions (with Harvard professors just for show). I’m not sure we know exactly who was in his inner circle besides RFK and their father’s friends.
Is I said before. It’s time to separate the Jekylls and Hydes. Mr. Kennedy, you know which exit to take. But for this round, Taft, if ToeJam switches also.
JFK
And with the first new vote, the tie is broken. Next round starts momentarily.