Who would have made a good US President? (Realistic answers please)

[DrumBum]

While I have little recollection of him, my mom and dad spoke well of Nelson Rockefeller.

[Rick_Kitchen]

@Darth_Panda

Alexander Hamilton. Henry Friendly.

Alexander Hamilton was constitutionally ineligible, having not been born in the US.

[Velocity]

Oliver North, John Ashcroft or Ross Perot.

[Little_Nemo]

@Rick_Kitchen

Alexander Hamilton was constitutionally ineligible, having not been born in the US.

No, he was eligible. The Constitution said that everyone who was citizen of the United States in 1789 was eligible to be President.

[etv78]

Darth, I was underwhelmed by Friendly’s Wikipedia page. Tell me more about him.

BTW, wasn’t Hamilton born in the Bahamas, and therefore, yes ineligible?

[Iggy]

Alexander Hamilton was born on the Caribbean island of Nevis.

As mentioned he was eligible to serve as president as he was a citizen as of 1789.

@Article Two

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

[Rick_Kitchen]

@Velocity

Oliver North, John Ashcroft or Ross Perot.

This is a joke, right?

[etv78]

Thanks Iggy.

[Ranchoth]

@Diceman

(eg, the Syrian rebels, now known as ISIS, who are so bad they’ve even made Al Qaida step back and say, “Dude, that’s some messed up shit, there!”

I’m sorry, but to quibble, this (like similar arguments I’ve heard about the mujaheddin in the Soviet-Afghan war) is just oversimplifying. It’s like saying everyone who fought fascists in the 30s-40s was a hardcore Stalinist.

[Little_Nemo]

@etv78

Darth, I was underwhelmed by Friendly’s Wikipedia page. Tell me more about him.

Here’s a tribute to Friendly.

I have to admit I don’t see anything particularly presidential about Henry Friendly. He was by all accounts a great judge. But while his thorough knowledge of the law and legal theory made him a great judge, it wouldn’t have necessarily made him a great president.

[Wesley_Clark]

Nancy Pelosi would have done a better job than Obama. I don’t know how much better, but she seemed like she was able to corral the blue dog caucus in with the democrats when bills needed to be passed. So I assume she was talented at arm twisting, favors, and all the people skills you need to succeed in congress. Obama seems very aloof and clueless, and like his goal is to be liked and respected more than getting meaningful legislation passed.

Is there anyone like LBJ out there who has the will and ability to get congress to pass bills (up to and including altering the filibuster)? I don’t know tons about politics, the only person I can remotely think of is Pelosi who could do that. Someone who had genuine principles and who knew how to organize the democrats to work together would be a nice president. Who that is, I don’t know.

[cjepson]

@Simplicio

He would’ve spent the first few months of his first term incapacitated with Gout and the rest of it dead.

Yeah, actually in order for him to meet my own criterion of “realistic chance to be President” we would probably have to alter history to make him at least twenty years younger at the time of the Revolution. He was born in 1706, and the Presidency as an institution didn’t start until 1789.

[orangeapples]

@Velocity

Oliver North, John Ashcroft or Ross Perot.

Who are three people who’ve never been in my kitchen?

[Diceman]

@Wesley_Clark

Obama seems very aloof and clueless, and like his goal is to be liked and respected more than getting meaningful legislation passed.

This is pretty much how I read him. He enjoys being the president (ie, the prestige & celebrity factor that comes with the office) but he seems to have little interest in the powers or duties of the president.

I think Colin Powell would be a good president. He was a general, so you know he has leadership skills. He was the Sec. of State, so he has diplomatic skills. And unlike our current Sec. of State, nobody is going to mistake him for a used animatronic figure from Disneyland

[Darth_Panda]

@Little_Nemo

Here’s a tribute to Friendly.

I have to admit I don’t see anything particularly presidential about Henry Friendly. He was by all accounts a great judge. But while his thorough knowledge of the law and legal theory made him a great judge, it wouldn’t have necessarily made him a great president.

It’s hard to convey without stating “read his works” - but what made him great wasn’t his knowledge of the law - it was his unmatched intelligence along with integrity and wisdom. He was also incredibly non-partisan, his care was for the functioning of the law and the government, not for ideology.

here are some snippets:

When he arrived at Harvard College in 1919 at age 16, he had a keen interest in mathematics and took the most advanced course in mathematics available to entering undergraduates. When the grades arrived, he had received the second-highest grade ever received by a student in the history of the course. <snip> It turns out that the competitor had been Marshall Stone … who went on to have a distinguished career as a Professor of Mathematics at Harvard, and is credited with discovering several noted theorems.

He later majored in European history, and when the time came for him to defend his thesis in an oral exam, the number of professors and students who wanted to watch was so great that the event took place in the Sanders Theater at Harvard College.

He went on to achieve an academic record at Harvard Law School that, according to many, ranks even today as the statistically highest performance of any student in the history of the School.

Judge Friendly was an internationalist. His work with Pan Am and his law firm put him at the cutting edge of international business during and after World War II

http://www.texaslrev.com/wp-content/uploads/Davis.pdf

As Dorsen puts it, “Friendly had no agenda. … He preferred an incremental development and opposed extreme positions.” Having rejected the extremes, Friendly would then supply moderate judgments with an unchallengeable authority, stemming not only from his office but from his scrupulousness with facts and the detail of arguments, massive integrity, absolute command of legal technicalities, and above all temperate practical wisdom and common sense.

Local Wisdom

A brilliant, brilliant person who opposed extreme positions and possessed massive integrity along with wisdom and common sense doesn’t sound like a terrible president. He was also an expert in business (having been the chief council for Pan-American and wrote much in the way of corporate law) and was very knowledgable about international affairs (spoke French, was a student of Russian hisotry, etc.).

Herbert Wechsler, who guided the ALI for decades, and who was not given to scattering praises with reckless abandon, wrote with special reference to Friendly’s prolific writings, and his immensely valuable ALI work, “Only the genius that Henry Friendly was could produce scholarly material of this quality and volume
. . . . [N]one of us, of whatever age or station, will see his equal or his like again.”

v15n3_articles_leval.pdf

The articles above do a good job talking about his intellect, but to really understand, you need to read him.

[bibliophage]

Daniel Webster would have made a better president than any of those in whose cabinets he served (W. H. Harrison, Tyler, and Fillmore). I can’t think of anyone in his era who would have done better as president. I think in retrospect that his instincts on most the controversies of the day were right (tariffs, the Bank of the United States, the expansion of slavery, the War of 1812 and the Mexican War), but he sometimes too willing to compromise with his opponents.

[Enright3]

I’m of the opinion that former businessmen, and former governors (and actors ) make the best presidents; whereas I think former politicians (senators, congressmen) and former lawyers make the worst presidents. Yeah I know there that’s not always the case. I’m generalizing.

Businessmen and Governors typically know how to manage better and understand the art of negotiation. The idea that you may not get what you want, but you get a piece of what you want, which is progress. I think that’s what made Clinton and Reagan effective. I think that would have worked in Ross Perot’s favor too. Unfortunately his pick of Adm. Stockdale did nothing to help him get into office. Nixon, Ford, Obama didn’t have a lot of experience managing a business. And isn’t that really what the presidency is? Managing a gigantic business?