Could we build Mt. Rushmore today?

posted at 8:31 am on August 4, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

This was a question that I put out to a number of my friends and contacts last week, on Twitter and across a couple of e-mail lists. Imagine for a moment that Mt. Rushmore had never been built and the mountain still stood today as a natural rock outcrop. Could we come together as a nation and build such a monument in 2012? There are a number of questions to be wrestled to the ground on this one. Who would pay for it and how? Who would oppose it and why? And – perhaps most contentious of all – which faces would adorn it?

I received a number of interesting responses. One of the more surprising ones came from John Hawkins at Right Wing News, who opined that we couldn’t, but with a rather unexpected twist. His take was that environmentalists would block any such construction under the guise of protecting the environment. (Presumably the yellow necked sand tit would lose half of its nesting grounds. Or something.)

A less popular opinion came on the spending front. One liberal correspondent (who shall remain nameless) claimed that the Tea Party would block the project if there were any tax dollars involved in funding it. (The actual monument was, in fact, bankrolled with federal funding and the National Park Service took over management before it was even finished.)

The majority opinion was that everyone would pay lip service to the need for this type of memorial, but an immediate battle would break out over which presidents to enshrine on such a monument today. Leaving the monument “as is” with some faces from before the modern era of political schisms might be palatable to a majority, but would there be a rush to put some slightly more modern faces up there? And if so… who?

Reagan is the easy answer for conservatives. I suppose the Democrats would push for Kennedy as an easy out, though there would doubtless be a short lived push for Obama as the historic, first black president, etc. (Hey… he got a Nobel, didn’t he?) Does anyone else in the post Teddy Roosevelt era stand out enough to bump one of the current figures off the top of the hill? Or perhaps a 19th century POTUS who was overlooked before?

I might make a case for Ike, though even I would be pushing it with fairly faint praise compared to the current denizens. So, the question for your consideration this weekend is put forward. Could we do it? If not… why not? And if so, who should be there if we were to start the project from square one today?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

No, or the Panama Canal, Eire Canal, etc……

rob verdi on August 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM

For us Liberals — and from a Historic Import viewpoint — FDR is the obvious choice.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM

N

o, or the Panama Canal, Eire Canal, etc……

rob verdi on August 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM

Or the big dams or the Interstate Highway system.

High-speed rail on the other hand…

Drained Brain on August 4, 2012 at 8:39 AM

No, because environmental lawsuits would so drive up the cost and time required that Tea Party groups would become outraged. Reagan is a cinch and if the libs give us him I’d go for FDR.

Curmudgeon on August 4, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Never . . . this country is so hopelessly and irrevocably divided that agreement would be impossible. The age of the “United States” is over so let’s stop pretending and end this farce.

rplat on August 4, 2012 at 8:44 AM

High-speed rail on the other hand…

No, we can propose high speed rail, borrow a boatload of money to start the project, and then watch it get blocked in court by environmentalists for the next decade or two. Once it is finally approved, the original design will have to be scrapped, as there will be some technological improvement, and any actual work done is now either obsolete or in need of dire repair. So, it is begun again as a new project – which promptly sets off another round of court battles.

michigansahd on August 4, 2012 at 8:46 AM

No. We also can’t go back to the moon either. Reagan and Calvin Coolidge for my choice of faces.

nobar on August 4, 2012 at 8:47 AM

But Boston’s Big Dig would still be approved!

honsy on August 4, 2012 at 8:49 AM

The presidents before were the ones highlighted in every American History textbook.

Based on the “history” studied by children today, you’d have (roughly life-sized) versions of Lincoln, FDR and Clinton. And they’d all be off to the side supplicating and staring adoringly at the rest of the mountain; which would be in the shape of Barack Hussein Obama.

logis on August 4, 2012 at 8:49 AM

I would have to go with FDR and Reagan from the modern era, not for political reasons but because both led us to final victory in wars.

I would imagine the envirowackos would fight tooth and nail against any such monument. The feminists, too, unless a woman would be included (I wonder who they would demand).

It seems ludicrous the Tea Party would have a massive objection to a new national monument, but that could be forestalled by a mix of Federal dollars and private donations. The pedestal of the Statue of Liberty was built in goodly part by America’s schoolchildren donating a penny here and a penny there. Our WWII Memorial was built almost completely by private donations (thank you, Tom Hanks!).

If I recall, there is a massive sculpture still underway for Sitting Bull (or some other great Native leader). Someone can add details of that, since I don’t know the progress of the project.

A new Mt. Rushmore can be done, but there will be a lot of petty arguing along the way.

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 8:51 AM

No, because environmental lawsuits would so drive up the cost and time required that Tea Party groups would become outraged. Reagan is a cinch and if the libs give us him I’d go for FDR.

Curmudgeon on August 4, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Almost exactly what I was thinking…Envirowackos would kill it cause of the spotted owl or something, Occupoopers would say all were 1%ers, Race-baiting charlotans would kill it cause some owned slaves, Femi-nazis would kill it cause they were all masogynists, gays would kill it cause (except for Clinton & Obummer) they all opposed gay-marriage, Muslims would kill it cause they were all Christian (ACLU would join in on this point), Unions would kill it unless Union labor was used and that would raise the cost so much the Tea Party would go bananas, justifiably so…that being said:

Faces…as is is fine with me, I’d love Reagan, and if we got him I’d be fine with either FDR or JFK. No one living though.

Rogue on August 4, 2012 at 8:52 AM

No, because who would want to deface the beauty of nature with the images of Imperialist swine? -Libtard

catmman on August 4, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Not trying to diminish the significance of Mount Rushmore, but speaking as someone who happens to respect the views of the Native peoples of this country, especially the Lakota nation, Mount Rushmore is carved in what is known as the Black Hills, which is considered by the Lakotas to be their sacred land. It should have been returned to them by the federal government years ago, and should still be returned to them. If it was, I highly doubt we would see Mount Rushmore blasted off the face of the hills, but at the same time, I think the area is one that was promised to be returned to the Lakotas and that promise has yet to be fulfilled.

Again, this is just my own personal opinion.

pilamaye on August 4, 2012 at 8:54 AM

For us Liberals — and from a Historic Import viewpoint — FDR is the obvious choice.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM

Yeah, the architect of the anti-American welfare state. Not happening.

The Count on August 4, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Without taking the time to do a pre-comment ‘home-work’ internet search (and of course, everyone knows you can trust all information on the internet), I seem to remember that (parts of/all of) the Black Hills are sacred to Native Americans. Depending on the accuracy of that memory (not guaranteed) there might be push-back on carving up Rushmore from that end.

Jerub Baal on August 4, 2012 at 8:58 AM

pilamaye on August 4, 2012 at 8:54 AM obviously types faster than I do… ;-)>

Jerub Baal on August 4, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Her we are almost eleven years after terrorists murdered our countrymen and we still have rebuilt those buildings and they won’t be done until next year at the earliest, though I think that date has already been pushed back – again.

By contrast, it took 14 years to carve Mt Rushmore.

catmman on August 4, 2012 at 9:00 AM

If the WWII Memorial is any indication, it would take a long time–require oodles of private donations–suffer frequent setbacks and cost overruns–kind of like well….the Washington Monument.

ted c on August 4, 2012 at 9:00 AM

No.

vityas on August 4, 2012 at 9:01 AM

For us Liberals — and from a Historic Import viewpoint — FDR is the obvious choice.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM

Of course liberals would choose the man who destroyed the presidential tradition of republican self-restraint which limited every citizen to two terms and went back all the way to Washington. Quite telling!

Valkyriepundit on August 4, 2012 at 9:03 AM

The Washington Monument is an obelisk on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., built to commemorate the first U.S. president, General George Washington. The monument, made of marble, granite, and bluestone gneiss,[1] is both the world’s tallest stone structure and the world’s tallest obelisk, standing 555 feet 51⁄8 inches (169.294 m).[n 1] Taller monumental columns exist, but they are neither all stone nor true obelisks.[n 2] Construction of the monument began in 1848, but was halted from 1854 to 1877, and finally completed in 1884. The hiatus in construction happened because of co-option by the Know Nothing party, a lack of funds, and the intervention of the American Civil War. A difference in shading of the marble, visible approximately 150 feet (46 m) or 27% up, shows where construction was halted. Its original design was by Robert Mills, an architect of the 1840s, but his design was modified significantly when construction resumed. The cornerstone was laid on July 4, 1848; the capstone was set on December 6, 1884, and the completed monument was dedicated on February 21, 1885.[7] It officially opened October 9, 1888.

I do believe we could do Mt Rushmore again, but Jazz is right. The red peckerheaded sand twit would stand valiantly in the way. These things take a lot of time–nearly 40 years for the Washington Monument. The trouble is that we probably have less patience nowadays to watch a slowly completed project get underway and then see it through to completion.

ted c on August 4, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Not a chance! At least not with Washington and Jefferson. (figure it out)

oldernwiser on August 4, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Maybe no more monuments in the Black Hills, but there are other locations that would be suitable. That being said, I don’t think it could ever get done. The cost overruns would just be huge.
Enviros would find some insect to protect, OSHA and other federal regualtions would make the cost of carving a mountain side impossible, and agreeing on the faces would be a 10 year battle. The fact that the Freedome Towers are not close to finished is a good case in point.

I think Reagan is a shoe-in, I could be comfortable with FDR or JFK, but I am hard pressed to think of someone else in the 20th century that I would be supportive of (Coolidge maybe).

armygirl on August 4, 2012 at 9:06 AM

I’m sure the envirowhackos would let us if the new version had Teh SCOAMF, Karl Marx, Mao Zedong and Cesar Chavez as its subjects.

Steve Eggleston on August 4, 2012 at 9:07 AM

One of the more surprising ones came from John Hawkins at Right Wing News, who opined that we couldn’t, but with a rather unexpected twist. His take was that environmentalists would block any such construction

That doesn’t seem too surprising to me, more likely than not. I wonder how TR got on there. Maybe because of his involvement in developing the national parks. Can you imagine Carter, or Clinton, or, *gasp*, Obama up there? Gives me the willies.

Paul-Cincy on August 4, 2012 at 9:09 AM

armygirl on August 4, 2012 at 9:06 AM

I’m curious–why Coolidge?

I could think of MLK and maybe Rosa Parks, too, if we go with just four images in a new place like you wisely suggested. I wouldn’t want to see Mt. Rushmore touched, so a second location is along my line of thinking.

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 9:10 AM

FDR and GEN Eisenhower

Reagan

in 150 yrs, consider GDub.

ted c on August 4, 2012 at 9:10 AM

For us Liberals — and from a Historic Import viewpoint — FDR is the obvious choice.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM

A monumnet to the guy who agreed that Stalin could repatriate the refugees who fled him, so he could in turn murder them. The only liberals who deserve any accolades are the ones in the military who choose duty over stupidity.

AubieJon on August 4, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Yes, and Barry plans to put himself in the space between Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln.

bayview on August 4, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Rushmore has always seemed incongruous to me. Each of the (existing) Presidents on the monument did some great things, and I admire them and am happy to honor them; but to carve Colossus-scale statues of them? On a mountain in zillion-miles-from-anything South Dakota? It just never made a lot of sense to me.

Then again, Hitchcock’s North by Northwest wouldn’t have been the same without Eva Marie Saint hanging from Washington’s shoulder…

RegularJoe on August 4, 2012 at 9:12 AM

TR was an obvious choice. A man among men, a visionary, an explorer, a discoverer, a force of personality and truly a guy who was the embodiment of an enlightened thinker who had real skills. His position among Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson is appropriate.

ted c on August 4, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Not to parse language or anything but Mt. Rushmore wasn’t built, it was carved. That aside we can’t get anything done in this country anymore, thanks to Nixon and his EPA.

Rio Linda Refugee on August 4, 2012 at 9:13 AM

For us Liberals…

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM

That’s where I stopped reading.

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 9:13 AM

A man (obama) cannot place himself on a monument. For it to be a monument, his visage must be placed there —by others.

Obama gets one thing….an asterisk (*)

ted c on August 4, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Yes, and Barry plans to put himself in the space between Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln.

bayview on August 4, 2012 at 9:12 AM

There isn’t enough room up there for his ears.

Rio Linda Refugee on August 4, 2012 at 9:14 AM

It would make sense to limit Mt. Rushmore to the Founders, maybe with the exception of Lincoln. But its ridiculous to put Teddy R. up there, while leaving James Madison out.

Valkyriepundit on August 4, 2012 at 9:14 AM

NO ! Liberal environmentalist legal challenges would sap the patience of every common sense thinking American. For some modern day points on what these people do: How are we doing on that keystone pipeline? Drilling in ANWAR? How are the farmers in California’s central valley doing getting their irrigation pipes turned back on?
As I look at the memorial, I think there is only one spot remaining next to Lincoln. Otherwise there would be overcrowding which would visually ruin it. Ronald Reagan is the hands down choice for that final spot.

nikophil on August 4, 2012 at 9:16 AM

They are called the Black Hills because from a distance the pondarosa pines look black. OSHA would not let it be built as the work was too dangerous. Every rock, trail, mountain and stream ever trod upon by a Native American is considered sacred if someone wants to do something there, like hike, bike, hunt, drill or mine. Most of them today don’t even have a clue as to why that particular area is considered sacred. The other statue is of Crazy Horse.

Kissmygrits on August 4, 2012 at 9:16 AM

I could think of MLK and maybe Rosa Parks, too, if we go with just four images in a new place like you wisely suggested. I wouldn’t want to see Mt. Rushmore touched, so a second location is along my line of thinking.

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Mt. Rushmore has 4 Presidents, the “bedrock” of our country’s political system. Three of them are, as Obama would say, those “Presidents on our dollar bills”. The subjects of Mt. Rushmore are unique.

Paul-Cincy on August 4, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Why would we?

Like the King memorial we would simply hire a Chinese artist to make it in a Chinese rock and ship it via a Chinese ship to the Chinese run L.A. dockyards.

Limerick on August 4, 2012 at 9:17 AM

No, it couldn’t be done today for all the reasons already stated.

My choices, if it could be: Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.

TXUS on August 4, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Yes, and Barry plans to put himself in the space between Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln.

bayview on August 4, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Obamandias…

Drained Brain on August 4, 2012 at 9:18 AM

For us Liberals — and from a Historic Import viewpoint — FDR is the obvious choice.

urbane effeteist on August 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM

For trying to pack the Supreme Court with Activist Democrat Justices?

Face it, Democrat “Historians” (is there any other kind?) have been lying truth their teeth about what FDR “accomplished” as President for the past 67 years, and they will continue to lie thru their teeth about him for the next 67 years.

Del Dolemonte on August 4, 2012 at 9:20 AM

We could not even be allowed to build a new Hover Dam to create power for several states with zero CO2 production. It might harm a little fish or pond scum that live in the river chosen. If they find a new mountain to carve into “they” would find a moss that lives on the rocks and shut down the whole protect no matter how much money has been raised by private donation with zero tax dollars needed.

tjexcite on August 4, 2012 at 9:21 AM

TR was an obvious choice. A man among men, a visionary, an explorer, a discoverer, a force of personality and truly a guy who was the embodiment of an enlightened thinker who had real skills. His position among Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson is appropriate.

ted c on August 4, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Even if TR is “second tier”, Obama seems like such an insignificant man next to him.

Paul-Cincy on August 4, 2012 at 9:22 AM

To answer your original question. Hell no. We fight over fried chicken.

StoneKrab on August 4, 2012 at 9:22 AM

I don’t know that the environmental lawsuits would even be needed. The state and federal environmental and historic bureaucracies would probably just go ahead and kill it on their own. And if it were being done as a private project, it would likely not get past local zoning, storm water, land development regulations. People show up at a zoning meeting and gripe that it would create noise and traffic, and the board wouldn’t gran the variance (and a variance would be rqd because I doubt “giant rock busts” is a permitted use in many places).

forest on August 4, 2012 at 9:24 AM

We could not even be allowed to build a new Hoover Dam to create power for several states with zero CO2 production.

tjexcite on August 4, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Hoover Dam? We can’t even build a new coal-fired power plant. Obama would “bankrupt” (his word) it.

Paul-Cincy on August 4, 2012 at 9:24 AM

As an award to the “middle class” or such, one of the faces would be left incomplete (or a mirror) so each could claim a “participation award” in the monument.

J_Crater on August 4, 2012 at 9:25 AM

I would have to go with FDR and Reagan from the modern era, not for political reasons but because both led us to final victory in wars.

Actually, Truman led the US to victory in WW II. Rossevelt was gone prior to the end of the war in all theaters.

DevilsPrinciple on August 4, 2012 at 9:25 AM

For us Liberals — and from a Historic Import viewpoint — FDR is the obvious choice.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM

As a conservative I would also agree that FDR be there, Reagan, Kennedy, FDR and Truman. That would work for me.

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 9:26 AM

nope, no way to get the tailings (debris) taken care of.
cannot just blast and let them fall.

dmacleo on August 4, 2012 at 9:30 AM

As an award to the “middle class” or such, one of the faces would be left incomplete (or a mirror) so each could claim a “participation award” in the monument.

J_Crater on August 4, 2012 at 9:25 AM

How about carving a crescent-shaped boundary around it? Why crescent-shaped? Oh, I don’t know! No reason! /creeping Islam

Paul-Cincy on August 4, 2012 at 9:30 AM

For us Liberals — and from a Historic Import viewpoint — FDR is the obvious choice.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM

FDR will be remembered mostly for why the Republicans term limiting the President was and still is an excellent idea. So yes, that much is obvious. The rest, not so much.

DevilsPrinciple on August 4, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Actually, Truman led the US to victory in WW II. Rossevelt was gone prior to the end of the war in all theaters.

DevilsPrinciple on August 4, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Actually Ike led us to victory in Europe and Truman made the final call in the Pacific.

Rio Linda Refugee on August 4, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Let’s not forget another Black Hills monument, namely the one of Crazy Horse. It’s been under construction for 64 years now. The US Government does not fund it.

It’s also on private land.

Del Dolemonte on August 4, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Environmentalists may have gotten their way, but as pointed out earlier in the tread it’d be the American Indians who’d win the day

It wouldn’t even take a treaty to do so, in today’s climate.

eforhan on August 4, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Actually, Truman led the US to victory in WW II. Rossevelt was gone prior to the end of the war in all theaters.

DevilsPrinciple on August 4, 2012 at 9:25 AM

FDR died April 12, 1945, when American victory was a done deal against Germany (Hitler killed himself 17 days later). Japan was never going to win, either, by that point. The Manhatten Project, ordered by FDR, sealed their fate, too. Truman was a Johnny-come-lately, forced by fate to finish all FDR led from 1941 until his death.

I’m a huge fan of Truman; there will never be another Democrat like him. I’m not such a big fan of FDR, but in that war he is the main leader and driver that led us to victory.

History is what it is, my personal preferences aside.

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 9:34 AM

I received a number of interesting responses. One of the more surprising ones came from John Hawkins at Right Wing News, who opined that we couldn’t, but with a rather unexpected twist. His take was that environmentalists would block any such construction under the guise of protecting the environment.
.
excerpt: Jazz Shaw

.
I agree with John Hawkins.

The Environmentalist and Animal Rights activists would be the single biggest impediment to ANY of the landmark construction projects that are synonymous with the U.S., or it’s citizens herein.

listens2glenn on August 4, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Wouldn’t happen. Enviro’s would go crazy. It’s bird nesting season! You can’t set off all that dynamite, you’ll scare the birds! And all that rubble? You’re not leaving it there! And OMG! Think of all the carbon you’re putting into the air! And……

Just two on the mountain. FDR and LBJ, signers of the biggest Ponzi schemes ever!

GarandFan on August 4, 2012 at 9:35 AM

o, or the Panama Canal, Eire Canal, etc……

rob verdi on August 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM

Or the big dams or the Interstate Highway system.

High-speed rail on the other hand…

Drained Brain on August 4, 2012 at 8:39 AM

Yeah, but we wouldn’t need to build those. Somebody else built those!

TugboatPhil on August 4, 2012 at 9:35 AM

As a conservative I would also agree that FDR be there, Reagan, Kennedy, FDR and Truman. That would work for me.

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 9:26 AM

You sir are no conservative if you think these three deserve an eternal place of honor in the American landscape.

Rio Linda Refugee on August 4, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Maybe we should make a Mt. Rushmore with the 4 worse presidents in history to remind America to vote properly??? Too radical?

StoneKrab on August 4, 2012 at 9:38 AM

No, we could not. Yes, the Enviros would block. Also, the Native Americans would also protest any such monument. These a sacred hills to them.

FDR and Reagan are the logical choices for additions. Not sure TR ranks with the other three currently there

EliTheBean on August 4, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Great…. let’s commit more taxpayer money to another feel good project… perhaps they could depict the two picks in the front seat of a GM perched a hundred feet above the ground…..
Two hundred years from now Americans would be saying “what a bunch of dummies”

Bradky on August 4, 2012 at 9:38 AM

The question, could we build Mount Rushmore today, is flawed. We didn’t build it in the first place.

MaxMBJ on August 4, 2012 at 9:38 AM

No, because who would want to deface the beauty of nature…

catmman on August 4, 2012 at 8:52 AM

I’m not going to be popular this morning, meh, but put me in that camp, too. I’m okay with the dams, roads, highways, canals, etc., but not with government aggrandizing people through the arts. Think of the “Hope” posters. As an artist, it really bugs me.

I am sick to death of modern day politicians living high on the hog, being treated like royalty, retiring on huge pensions and then getting memorialized by having buildings and highways named after them for their “sacrifice.:

Why not put faces on some of the ugly wind mills? When they spin, if they spin, the faces would come together. Why screw up a natural rock outcropping? The current Mt. Rushmore is fine, I actually want to see it someday, but if I had my druthers, we’ll never have another one.

Fallon on August 4, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Who would pay for it

The Chinese.

Who would oppose it and why?

Me…because we’re broke.

lynncgb on August 4, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Maybe we should make a Mt. Rushmore with the 4 worse presidents in history to remind America to vote properly??? Too radical?

StoneKrab on August 4, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Great idea, my picks: Obama, Carter, FDR, Wilson

TXUS on August 4, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Maybe we should make a Mt. Rushmore with the 4 worse presidents in history to remind America to vote properly??? Too radical?

StoneKrab on August 4, 2012 at 9:38 AM

They weren’t worth the money they cost us when in office. Why spend more on them now? /snark

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Lets go for a theme park approach… perhaps the worst or best pres/vp picks in history who didn’t win? Maybe John Kerry and Sarah Palin could live in immortality looking over the fruited plains…
In an effort to pay for it tourists would be allowed to throw tomatoes and eggs or reverently lay flowers at the base of one of the two.

Bradky on August 4, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Could we build it today?

Absolutely.

Environmental impact studies, 2012-2023 (with numerous shutdowns, court injunctions and lawsuits).

Planning and administrative reviews and funding issues, 2023-2038.

Oversight, fighting among various tribes, more administrative delays and additional public hearings, 2038-2050.

Actual construction, 2050-2071 (3 year delay because of union infighting, tribal impact analysis, etc.)

Forest fire and seismic disruptions, 2071-2076.

Opens on July 4, 2076.

Images on new Rushmore?

FDR, Washington, Pochantas, Santa Ana of Mexico and Cesar Chavez

PappyD61 on August 4, 2012 at 9:43 AM

If any post-TR presidents made it on at all, it would have to be bipartisan compromise – Reagan would get on only if FDR did, too. As much as Kennedy is romanticized, it’s FDR that usually tops liberal historians’ rankings. And Teddy might get squeezed off, since his stock has fallen somewhat (and he was such an imperialist).

And there’d be some grumbling from the usual quarters that two slaveholders were being honored.

It’s possible that Rushmore could be created, but only after a much longer and more contentious process.

The_Jacobite on August 4, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Liam,
Coolidge was a small government Republican. I think he would be a hard sell, because Hoover followed him and the Great Depression hit. I like Coolidge and think he was a man ahead of his time.

For the rest of the commenters, there is no more “carvable stone” on Mt. Rushmore, so no more faces there. If there were to be a monument such as this done today, doubtful for all the reasons we have all expressed, it would have to be in another location.

armygirl on August 4, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Good work, Pappy.

The_Jacobite on August 4, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Oh yeah, I furgetted, the Commie Chinese would be payin fer it so ya gots at add Mao.

Viva Zedong!!!

PappyD61 on August 4, 2012 at 9:45 AM

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 8:35 AM

You mean for you Fascists?

Dunedainn on August 4, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Hello armygirl,

I think many know about the scarcity of carveable stone. I’m proceeding on the assumption that more rock would be carted in, or a rockface with more space would be used.

The_Jacobite on August 4, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Mt. Rushmore was begun in the 1920s, if I recall. TR is on there because he’s a hero of the Spanish-American War, which I imagine was still fresh in the national mind at the time. But notice, too, his image isn’t as prominent as are the others. He’s there, but ‘behind’ them, as it were.

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 9:47 AM

I’m a huge fan of Truman; there will never be another Democrat like him.


Liam
on August 4, 2012 at 9:34 AM

.
I think former Congressman James Traficant comes close.

My opinion, of course.

listens2glenn on August 4, 2012 at 9:47 AM

After the NAACP threatened suit if two of the three actual participants in the iconic flag-raising in the World Trade Center rubble weren’t changed to a black and an Hispanic (thus killing the project), there is no way this would ever make it out of court. And after all, just Presidents? What about the LGBTQID cmmunity? The Native Americans? The enviromental pioneers? The labor heroes? The civil rights pioneers?

By the time every lawsuit about “who” was settled, you would probably need something like a mile along the north face of the Grand Canyon.

But as to cost, one could (weakly) argue, “Hey, it’ll be cheaper than the first leg of the California high speed rail corridor…”

eeyore on August 4, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Yes, and Barry plans to put himself in the space between Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln.

bayview on August 4, 2012 at 9:12 AM

For Obama they could just carve the word “Present”.

(Of course, that would be better than seeing his face)

Sterling Holobyte on August 4, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Environmentalists may have gotten their way, but as pointed out earlier in the tread it’d be the American Indians who’d win the day

It wouldn’t even take a treaty to do so, in today’s climate.

eforhan on August 4, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Ironically many of the Lakota tribe are opposed to the Crazy Horse monument I just mentioned.

Del Dolemonte on August 4, 2012 at 9:50 AM

They are called the Black Hills because from a distance the pondarosa pines look black. OSHA would not let it be built as the work was too dangerous. Every rock, trail, mountain and stream ever trod upon by a Native American is considered sacred if someone wants to do something there, like hike, bike, hunt, drill or mine. Most of them today don’t even have a clue as to why that particular area is considered sacred. The other statue is of Crazy Horse.

Kissmygrits on August 4, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Let’s be realistic. In today’s world the top of Mt. Rushmore would have a casino, with a view.

Yoop on August 4, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Great idea, my picks: Obama, Carter, FDR, Wilson

TXUS on August 4, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Oh…I see what you did there. Not only did you name only Democrats, but you also laced your post with sarcasm, and didn’t even leave a sarc tag. Such a rebel you. ;)

StoneKrab on August 4, 2012 at 9:51 AM

PappyD61 on August 4, 2012 at 9:43 AM

.
Well dang, Pappy’.

After reading that, I believe we could do it! : )

listens2glenn on August 4, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Liam,
Coolidge was a small government Republican. I think he would be a hard sell, because Hoover followed him and the Great Depression hit. I like Coolidge and think he was a man ahead of his time.

For the rest of the commenters, there is no more “carvable stone” on Mt. Rushmore, so no more faces there. If there were to be a monument such as this done today, doubtful for all the reasons we have all expressed, it would have to be in another location.

armygirl on August 4, 2012 at 9:43 AM

I grasp your reasoning, and it’s sound. I, too, prefer another location if we decided to build another monument. I’m not big on ‘improving’ something that is lovely as it stands.

But I’m thinking more of actual accomplishments and importance of action rather than politics. That’s why I, as a Conservative, can comfortably include FDR. Toss in MLK, too, while Reagan is a shoo-in for me and my first choice.

The feminists would demand a woman, and I can’t imagine who they might want. Given their lunacy, I can picture NOW demanding Alice B. Toklas or someone else so inane.

Good thing this is all academic. But it’s fun to play with.

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 9:54 AM

The Federal government could not. To many environment impact studies to contend with. And, of course, they would find the red peckerheaded twit, whose only habitat is wherever they wanted to build the monument. No matter the location of the proposed site.

Also, there is the Crazy Horse monument, mentioned in another post, to consider. It has been in the works for 40 -50 years. Not because the government is involved. Rather, it began as the work of one lone man who decided that there needed to be a monument for Crazy Horse. When Sculptor Korczak Ziolkowski passed away The Crazy Horse Memorial Foundation was formed to complete the job. They raised enough money to complete the face. The rest of the work to complete the monument goes on a a slower pace. See http://crazyhorsememorial.org/

The point is that this is being done be a private group that is privately funded via fundraisers and other activities. The Federal government would never be able to do something on this scale again.

As an aside: How come they did not remove all the blasted rock from the base of the mountain when carving Mt. Rushmore?

LurP on August 4, 2012 at 9:54 AM

TXUS on August 4, 2012 at 9:41 AM

OT.
Are you from the Houston area? What do you think of it as a place to live?

bayview on August 4, 2012 at 9:55 AM

His position among Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson is appropriate.

ted c

I admire the man too. However, if you look at his world view he was a progressive. Fact it was his intent then to do what Obama is doing to Congress today. Marginalize it.

Dr. Dog on August 4, 2012 at 9:56 AM

The thing is a disgusting abomination. They defaced a beautiful mountain to fullfill their hero worship desires. At least three of those guys featured would puke or sob like Heston in the Planet of the Apes if they saw it.

Buddahpundit on August 4, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Great idea, my picks: Obama, Carter, FDR, Wilson

TXUS on August 4, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Nuff said.

TugboatPhil on August 4, 2012 at 9:57 AM

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 9:26 AM

You sir are no conservative if you think these three deserve an eternal place of honor in the American landscape.

Rio Linda Refugee on August 4, 2012 at 9:36 AM

It takes a Liberal to be as noninclusive and judgmental as you are being, think about that for a few minuets. Like them or not, FDR, Kennedy and Truman had a greater impact on the direction and climate in America than any so called conservative President in American History other than Ronald Reagan.

FDR would go up there because aside from his Socialistic tendencies, he was the last great monument builder in American History. From the Hoover Dam to the Tennessee Valley Authority America has not done any public works project of that size or scope since.

Truman would go up because it was his decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan that ushered in the modern technological ear.

JFK despite being a Democrat was more of a conservative than any modern President other than Reagan, and it was JFK who defined America as the worlds technological super power with his quest to put a man on the Moon.

That you consider yourself a conservative yet are completely incapable of conceding the accomplishments of anyone whose political party you disprove of, is well less than encouraging.

Yes, I am a conservative, not a Republican, not a partisan and not a blind ideologue.

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 9:58 AM

I dont believe we would ever agree to build it now. However my pic would be
1. George Washington as the father of our country.
2.Thomas Jefferson who purchased half of the country and was an outstanding president.
3. Loncoln who held our country together.
4. Reagan who restored our nations pride and defeated the USSR.

txdonboy on August 4, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Are there any rock formations in Indonesia?

hillsoftx on August 4, 2012 at 10:00 AM

As far as the tribal claims…..if the Federal Government had kept their word the white Europeans would have never left the East coast.

Most of the territory of the US was stolen from the Indians. So Obama is right in regards to the nation being “unjust” over the years and exploitive in nature.

But then again as nation building goes throughout world history the USA has been very easy on those it overcame.

Maybe the World Court will eventually allow the American natives to reclaim their lands.

That way they can go back to their pristine and Eco-friendly lives they had before the “white man” invaded.

PappyD61 on August 4, 2012 at 10:01 AM

For trying to pack the Supreme Court with Activist Democrat Justices?

Face it, Democrat “Historians” (is there any other kind?) have been lying truth their teeth about what FDR “accomplished” as President for the past 67 years, and they will continue to lie thru their teeth about him for the next 67 years.

Del Dolemonte on August 4, 2012 at 9:20 A

Why so bitter?

Led us out of the Depression, set the stage for unparallelled postwar prosperity and the vast expansion of the middle class. And won the war.

Court-packing? How about Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, Washington executing tax protesters and, also, don’t you conservatives have a different view of state’s rights than Lincoln?

If it weren’t for Vietnam, LBJ might deserve a spot. I guess King would be a good substitute.

Maybe Reagan should be not on the next Mt. Rushmore, but on the next Stone Mountain.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Mount Rushmore? Mount Rushmore? Hey Jazz, you want a real debate? Ask if we could build Stone Mountain today!

Seriously, the objection I have to both Mount Rushmore and Stone Mountain is that in a democacy, a government of laws, not men, I question whether it’s appropriate to have massive sculptures of anybody, whether it’s Robert E. Lee or Martin Luther King. That’s the kind of thing the ancient Egyptians and other autocratic societies did. There is a certain charm in FDR’s response, when asked how he would like to be memorialized, that he favored noting larger than his desk.

radjah shelduck on August 4, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 9:34 AM

+1 for fair and balanced thinking.

Say what you will about FDR’s domestic policies (and there’s a lot to be said), but he lead the nation to a global victory after a sneak attack that would make 9/11 pale in comparison.

MelonCollie on August 4, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Maybe we should make a Mt. Rushmore with the 4 worse presidents in history to remind America to vote properly??? Too radical?

StoneKrab on August 4, 2012 at 9:38 AM

To radical? No, but you forget, 52% of our fellow countrymen voted for Obama, in other words, not bright enough to grasp the significance of putting our worst President up there, they would think it was because they were great presidents.

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3