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

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

I live there about half the year now but still call it home, having lived there for decades. I think it’s a great place to live, a lot to do, but the City of Houston itself is basically becoming another liberal bastion, but no was as bad as Austin.

TXUS on August 4, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Duh…….I left off the obvious.

Rosa Parks, MLK or some other like Harriet Tubman or that Anita Hill gal from the Thomas hearings.

THAT would cover all the ethnic bases.

PappyD61 on August 4, 2012 at 10:06 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

Hope you realize that I was responding to StoneKrab’s suggestion that we do a Rushmore for the worst presidents to remind us of who NOT to elect in the future.

TXUS on August 4, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Just for fun, y’all might want to jump over to Wikipedia, here, where they have a compendium of “greatest president” polls.

I know you assume that they’re all biased, but the Wall Street Journal has a couple that even you might give some credibility to.

A 2000 survey by The Wall Street Journal consisted of an “ideologically balanced group of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science”. This poll sought to include an equal number of liberals and conservatives in the survey, as the editors argued that previous polls were dominated by either one group or the other, but never balanced. According to the editors, this poll included responses from more women, minorities, and young professors than the 1996 Schlesinger poll. The editors noted that the results of their poll were “remarkably similar” to the 1996 Schlesinger poll, with the main difference in the 2000 poll being the lower rankings for the 1960s presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy, and higher ranking of President Ronald Reagan at #8. Franklin Roosevelt still ranked in the top three.

Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society.[8] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results “to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight.” Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of “average”.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:07 AM

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

Sorry, FDR did not lead us out of the Great Depression, his fiscal policies caused the depression to last 12 years longer than it should have only WWII got us out of the Great Depression, and that is not “My Opinion” that is the consensus opinion of historians.

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 10:08 AM

A better question would be, can we irrigate the San Joaquin valley today? Environmentalists say no, everything else follows.

roy_batty on August 4, 2012 at 10:08 AM

And after all was said and done, we’d end up with a bunch of windchimes.

JSchuler on August 4, 2012 at 10:08 AM

listens2glenn on August 4, 2012 at 9:47 AM

“Beam me up, Scotty!”

BigAlSouth on August 4, 2012 at 10:11 AM

A better question would be, can we irrigate the San Joaquin valley today? Environmentalists say no, everything else follows.

roy_batty on August 4, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Best justification for making it legal to hunt and kill Enviro-Nazi’s evar…

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Sorry, FDR did not lead us out of the Great Depression, his fiscal policies caused the depression to last 12 years longer than it should have only WWII got us out of the Great Depression, and that is not “My Opinion” that is the consensus opinion of historians.

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 10:08 AM

The consensus opinion or revisionist historians like Amity Schlaes and the inevitable cadre of conservative hacks, I think you mean.

Of course, the people who were actually there at the time seem to think that he did an OK job, re-electing him three times. But their opinion doesn’t count, I suppose.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:13 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

When it comes to American history, I’m results-oriented. Politics are a secondary consideration.

FDR did a lot of things that started the liberal/socialist mentality so prevalent today (which I disdain), but good things happened. Hoover Dam, Rural Electrification, and a number of other things that not only put men to work but also advanced American predominance in technology.

FDR wasn’t giving away money to people who produced nothing in return, like under Obama. When government paid workers, we got infrastructure that lasts to this day.

Later, Eisenhower got started the interstate highway system, a government project, which is one of the best ideas ever considered and the most beneficial–more than the transcontinental railroad of the 19th Century.

My personal views is that we can quibble politically, but what are the lasting substantive results?

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Sorry, FDR did not lead us out of the Great Depression, his fiscal policies caused the depression to last 12 years longer than it should have only WWII got us out of the Great Depression, and that is not “My Opinion” that is the consensus opinion of historians.

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Do note that, assuming that the Depression “should have” lasted only two more years (a ridiculously short time to recover from so major a disruption but, whatever) and that it would take a year for any set of policies to have an effect on the larger economy, your “12 years longer than it should have” has the Depression ending in 1948.

Thanks for playing.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:16 AM

The consensus opinion or revisionist historians like Amity Schlaes and the inevitable cadre of conservative hacks, I think you mean.

Of course, the people who were actually there at the time seem to think that he did an OK job, re-electing him three times. But their opinion doesn’t count, I suppose.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:13 AM

To quote Ronald Reagan, “It’s not that liberals don’t know anything, it’s just that so much of what they know is wrong”.

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 10:16 AM

The environistas would probably have a hissy-fit at the idea, which would put the issue on hold for so long that the rains would flatten the rock formation.

But I’d put in my two cents worth for Harry Truman.

new2wnc on August 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Of course, the people who were actually there at the time seem to think that he did an OK job, re-electing him three times. But their opinion doesn’t count, I suppose.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:13 AM

That is because he had the backing of the media at the time thereby shaping public opinion. He paid attention to Lenin and knew that by controlling the narrative he could control the people.

Rio Linda Refugee on August 4, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Do note that, assuming that the Depression “should have” lasted only two more years (a ridiculously short time to recover from so major a disruption but, whatever) and that it would take a year for any set of policies to have an effect on the larger economy, your “12 years longer than it should have” has the Depression ending in 1948.

Thanks for playing.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Typical liberal, can’t even do basic math. 1929+12=1943

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Duh…….I left off the obvious.

Rosa Parks, MLK or some other like Harriet Tubman or that Anita Hill gal from the Thomas hearings.

THAT would cover all the ethnic bases.

PappyD61 on August 4, 2012 at 10:06 AM

You forgot Sacajawea. ~wry grin~

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 10:18 AM

TXUS on August 4, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Thanks. What are some of the communities around Houston would you recommend?

bayview on August 4, 2012 at 10:18 AM

your “12 years longer than it should have” has the Depression ending in 1948.

Thanks for playing.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:16 AM

This assertion has the GD starting in ’34.

Rio Linda Refugee on August 4, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Sharpton and his Flying Circus would boycott the mountain and call it racist because the rock refused to turn black when the carving was done.

cane_loader on August 4, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Of course, the people who were actually there at the time seem to think that he did an OK job, re-electing him three times. But their opinion doesn’t count, I suppose.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:13 AM

That is because he had the backing of the media at the time thereby shaping public opinion. He paid attention to Lenin and knew that by controlling the narrative he could control the people.

Rio Linda Refugee on August 4, 2012 at 10:18 AM

You always blame the referees when your team loses, don’t you.

Typical liberal, can’t even do basic math. 1929+12=1943

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Typical conservative: doesn’t know that FDR wasn’t inaugurated until 1933, and that economies take time to move.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:21 AM

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:07 AM

I dismiss any poll that uses the criterion “ideologically balanced”.

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 10:22 AM

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Typical conservative: doesn’t know that FDR wasn’t inaugurated until 1933, and that economies take time to move.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Wrong answer idiot, FDR’s inauguration has zip to do with the fact that the Great Depression started on Oct 29th 1929, nor did I at any time suggest that the Great Depression was FDR’s fault. But thanks for playing.

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 10:24 AM

In fairness, only one of the four heads – Teddy – would be considered controversial if we had to build the monument from scratch today.

It’s also worth noting that America was a federal republic back then, not a nationalist democracy. We didn’t “come together as a nation” to build things back then. We just built them. The person who actually did the carving – Gutzon Borglum – decided which four Presidents would be depicted, a lack of bureaucracy literally unimaginable today. The first most people knew that Teddy Roosevelt’s face was on a mountain was when they read it in a newspaper.

HitNRun on August 4, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Typical conservative: doesn’t know that FDR wasn’t inaugurated until 1933, and that economies take time to move.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:21 AM

I’ve never understood why you like to post here and take such abuse due to your reflexively contrarian views. It doesn’t seem like a “good” sort of attention, to me. It takes a lot of your time, that you could use by doing something constructive – like growing a garden, or building a workbench.

Why don’t you go be brilliant on a lefty site and enjoy “good strokes” instead of negative ones on a site upon which your views are not making any appreciable progress? Or do something fulfilling away from your computer?

Your state of constant conflict here doesn’t actually give you good vibes, does it? I’m being sincere. Were I in your place, I would not like the feeling of always having people fighting with me. Not good for the soul.

cane_loader on August 4, 2012 at 10:31 AM

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

Why would anyone believe this drivel when this poster can’t even get their verb conjugation right and thus presume to have a command of English as a language.(and presumably facts) Please get some help for yourself. Reading you is tedious because of this and only becomes more gibberish from the Leftinistas.

DevilsPrinciple on August 4, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Four Presidents, no Democrats.

xstatic on August 4, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Faces for Mt. Olympusiad:

Gabby
Missy
Serena
Mary
Katie

:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on August 4, 2012 at 10:35 AM

If Dems built it, it would done on a major fault line and carved out of weak limestone. First good quake and BillyJeff’s peter would fall on the tourists.

cane_loader on August 4, 2012 at 10:36 AM

If Dems built it, it would done on a major fault line and carved out of weak limestone. First good quake and BillyJeff’s peter would fall on the tourists.

cane_loader on August 4, 2012 at 10:36 AM

BWAHAHAH….

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 10:37 AM

I dismiss any poll that uses the criterion “ideologically balanced”.

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Of course you do. If you accepted a poll, you might have to accept facts that don’t align with your worldview, something you’re not capable of doing.

Wrong answer idiot, FDR’s inauguration has zip to do with the fact that the Great Depression started on Oct 29th 1929, nor did I at any time suggest that the Great Depression was FDR’s fault. But thanks for playing.

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 10:24 AM

The quote was “his fiscal policies caused the depression to last 12 years longer than it should have.” For FDR’s policies to have been the cause, the clock can’t start ticking until he’s sworn in. If you want to restate your original assertion to have it mean what you thought it meant, go for it.

In fact, if you look here, and click on the “current dollar and ‘real’ GDP” link, you find that the economy grew 64% between 1933 and 1937, a robust 16% a year. In 1937, listening to the Paul Ryans of his day, FDR famously tried an austerity budget, throwin the economy into a one-year recession (as the Brits, Irish, Spanish etc are currently throwing their own economies into recession). The economy then jumped back, growing 7% between ’38 and ’39, and 10% between ’39 and ’40, before war production shot things into the stratosphere.

The economy doubled between 1933 and 1941 — greater than 10% annual growth even including the recession.

So, all dates aside, your fundamental assertion is simply laughable,

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Candidates for Rushmore II:

Billy Jeff’s Pork Sword,
Sheila Jackson Lee’s hair sculpture-animal-thing
Rush Limbaugh
Charlie Sheen
Jeremiah Wright

CorporatePiggy on August 4, 2012 at 10:45 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

Lol! Hey, casinos are sacred too!

Eren on August 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Actually it couldn’t be completed back when it was being carved. Borglum had a final proposed sculpture in miniature (seen at Wikipedia) to show just how much of the sculpture remained to be done. It had to be adjusted for faults in the rocks as things went on, which is why Jefferson’s head is leaning slightly back, and other adjustments would doubtlessly have to be made if it was ever completed.

So, instead of asking ‘could we build it today?’ a better question might be ‘why didn’t we finish what we started?’. Considering the WTC went up in next to no time when it was initially done (and considering all the permits were validated quickly back then indicates some of today’s problems) and the slow rate of today’s work on a new WTC (not a replacement with improved insulation and some better fire systems based on the old and structurally sound design), a simple bit of carving with modern high intensity water jets should be something that could be done in less than a decade. Less blasting, more environmentally friendly carving and even putting modern CAD/CAM with computer run water jets to use should cut down on actual manpower needed.

Mind you, Crazy Horse will be sitting astride a horse… some figures still mostly in rock ought to be a piece of cake.

Now if we could only maintain the roads, bridges, tunnels, water supplies, sewer systems and harden while expanding out other infrastructure so we could just keep what we already have. But, really, fine social welfare programs are far more important than maintaining the infrastructure… because the infrastructure ‘projects’ don’t ever set aside proper O&M budgeting and that budgeting should be the LAST thing on the table to be cut, not the first.

Cutting figures out of rock in the modern day? Easy.

Keeping potable water running to your house, and making sure the roadways don’t crumble under us? Why, we would have to cut SOCIAL SPENDING to do that… can’t have that as they are the ones who ate up our O&M budgets in the first place.

ajacksonian on August 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Your state of constant conflict here doesn’t actually give you good vibes, does it? I’m being sincere. Were I in your place, I would not like the feeling of always having people fighting with me. Not good for the soul.

cane_loader on August 4, 2012 at 10:31 AM

I got into this because I like to peruse Conservative World and see what’s up. If I want to know what liberal yuppies think, I just look in the mirror, so sites like this are instructive and, occasionally, illuminating. And, like everyone, when opinions are expressed, I tend to like to respond. I have a thick skin — it’s only the Internet — and I’m only here occasionally, so when the thrill wears off, I go back to real life. And, a lot of times, I try to stick to lighter subjects (dueling endorsements today).

Speaking of which, I’m here today because I’m procrastinating from work, so I’m likely to fade away soon.

Cheers.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Of course you do. If you accepted a poll, you might have to accept facts that don’t align with your worldview, something you’re not capable of doing.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:41 AM

You’re the idealogue in this matter, not me.

When it comes to actions of personages of historical note, ideology is a silly and pointless factor to take into consideration. As I explained earlier, I’m results-oriented when it comes to actions of history.

Maybe your judgement of history relies on ideology, but I find that to be a false premise unless your politics takes precedence.

In your case, being a liberal, you use–and need–the filter of you liberalism to justify yourself.

I don’t.

And you wonder why Conservatives are glad they’re not liberals like you?

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 10:54 AM

And another thread swerves wildly off-topic. Meh.

All we need do is refer to the Freedom Tower project (a semi-commercial project in one of the most urban landscapes in the world) to know that Mt. Rushmore today would be totally impossible.

The national mood is much different.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on August 4, 2012 at 10:58 AM

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Really–If FNC said it did a poll that was ‘ideologically balanced’, you and all other liberals would call it into question. As should everyone else.

But you, being a liberal, need the win.

Good job there of you, shutting down what might have been a good discussion for everyone reading here.

Typical liberal.

Pffft!

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 10:59 AM

So, all dates aside, your fundamental assertion is simply laughable,

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:41 AM

You really are a complete imbecile.

The New Deal Debunked
Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Macroeconomic model builders have finally realized what Henry Hazlitt and John T. Flynn (among others) knew in the 1930s: FDR’s New Deal made the Great Depression longer and deeper. It is a myth that Franklin D. Roosevelt “got us out of the Depression” and “saved capitalism from itself,” as generations of Americans have been taught by the state’s education establishment.

This realization on the part of macroeconomists comes in the form of an article in the August 2004 Journal of Political Economy entitled “New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis,” by UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian. This is a big deal, since the JPE is arguably the top academic economics journal in the world.

“Real gross domestic product per adult, which was 39 percent below trend at the trough of the Depression in 1933, remained 27 percent below trend in 1939,” the authors write. And, “Similarly, private hours worked were 27 percent below trend in 1933 and remained 21 percent below trend in 1939.”

This should be no surprise to anyone who has studied the reality of the Great Depression, for US Census Bureau statistics show that the official unemployment rate was still 17.2 percent in 1939 despite seven years of “economic salvation” at the hands of the Roosevelt administration (the normal, pre-Depression unemployment rate was about 3 percent). Per capita GDP was lower in 1939 than in 1929 ($847 vs. $857), as were personal consumption expenditures ($67.6 billion vs. $78.9 billion), according to Census Bureau data. Net private investment was minus $3.1 billion from 1930–1940.

Cole and Ohanian write as though they were surprised—even shocked—to discover these facts, not so much because they were bamboozled by the Myth of the New Deal, but because of their devotion to “neoclassical model building” as opposed to the study of economic reality. They label as “striking” the fact that the recovery from the Great Depression was “very weak” (a dramatic understatement). And why is it so striking? Because “[t]hese data contrast sharply with neoclassical theory.”

The neoclassical theory of depressions might well be thought of as a Frankenstein’s Monster theory. As explained by Cole and Ohanian, “The weak recovery is puzzling because the large negative shocks that some economists believe caused the 1929–33 downturn—including monetary shocks, productivity shocks, and banking shocks—become positive after 1933.” Thus, according to neoclassical theory, the economy during a depression is somewhat like a prostrate Frankenstein’s Monster, with economists playing the role of mad scientists who “shock” the beast into becoming a living being once again. They do this with various “injections” of government spending or easy credit that will supposedly cause a “roaring” recovery (just as the rejuvenated beast roared as he left the laboratory to terrorize the townsfolk in the movie, Young Frankenstein).

“The monetary base increases more than 100 percent between 1933 and 1939,” the authors write, making the case that such a “monetary shock” should have returned the economy to normalcy. They invoke the authority of well-known macroeconomists Robert Lucas and Leonard Rapping, who once proclaimed that “positive monetary shocks should have produced a strong recovery, with employment returning to its normal levels by 1936.”

But as Murray Rothbard showed in America’s Great Depression, it was the easy money policies of the early and mid-1920s that created all the malinvestment that was the trigger for the Great Depression. The only wise thing to have done was to allow the liquidation of hundreds of overcapitalized businesses to occur. Instead, the Fed increased the monetary base by 100 percent in five years, causing more of the same overcapitalization problems that were the source of the problem in the first place.

On top of that, virtually every single one of FDR’s “New Deal” policies made things even worse and prolonged the Depression. Austrian economists have known this for decades, but at least the neoclassical model builders have finally caught on—we can hope.

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Actually, I focused on the Wall Street Journal polls because I figured that they were most likely to challenge my prejudgements — the Journal being very conservative, you know. You appear to be be the one covering your ears and and yelling “I can’t here you” lest your assumptions be challenged. I’m curious to see what the other side thinks.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 11:02 AM

I agree with Urban Elitist. Where’s the fun in only visiting sites that are like an echo chamber. Its fun to get dueling opinions. Nothing wrong with that. Far as the topic goes, no..we wouldn’t be able to build it. The environmentalist would oppose it because it would harm a bird, the tea party would oppose paying for it and the democrats and republicans would never agree on which presidents should be there.

Politricks on August 4, 2012 at 11:02 AM

I figured that they were most likely to challenge my prejudgements

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 11:02 AM

What a big fat lie. Nothing on the face of the earth could change any of your prejudgements.

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 11:06 AM

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 11:00 AM

A single monograph by a third-tier academic associated with a radical fringe think tank. And a neo-Confederate at that. Impressive backing you have there.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Actually, I focused on the Wall Street Journal polls because I figured that they were most likely to challenge my prejudgements — the Journal being very conservative, you know. You appear to be be the one covering your ears and and yelling “I can’t here you” lest your assumptions be challenged. I’m curious to see what the other side thinks.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 11:02 AM

The concept of ‘ideologically balanced’ is, to me, a totally stupid premise and/or criterion. If a Conservative poll of such were taken, I’d dismiss that out of hand, too.

Really–are we going to do ‘retroactive Marx’ or ‘retroactive Reagan’? Ideologies change with the times. As a student of history, I want results first–what makes a man great and what did he do to earn that distinction?

Bringing up ‘ideologically balanced’ is a useless nomenclature to me. I almost seems like and escape clause for the poll takers.

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 11:09 AM

What a big fat lie. Nothing on the face of the earth could change any of your prejudgements.

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Certainly not you and Mr DiLorenzo.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 11:11 AM

The Father of our Constitution, James Madison is a must before anyone else is mentioned.

Conservative4Ever on August 4, 2012 at 11:11 AM

ajacksonian on August 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I like you thinking. It looks like they started Washington’s lapels. The shoulder is there. However, all that blasted rock is in the way. To finish it would require the removal of all that blasted rock. Given that is if possible with the faults in the rock formation as you mentioned.

LurP on August 4, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Madison and Coolidge

sandspur on August 4, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Bringing up ‘ideologically balanced’ is a useless nomenclature to me. I almost seems like and escape clause for the poll takers.

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Perhaps we can both agree that people come to any discussion — particularly something as politically charged as ranking presidents — with a certain ideological baggage. In addition, it would not be beyond someone putting together a poll to favor academics who run in the same circles they do. Given Schlesinger pere at fils’ roles as court court historians for the New Deal/New Frontier, I’d assume that their sample was loaded with unreconstructed left-ish historians and the results would be weighted by their background. So, without dismissing their results entirely (FDR only comes in 3rd) I’d read them with a certain skepticism. And, equal and opposite if there was a Heritage Foundation survey.

Coming from a relatively respectable, if right-leaning source, a WSJ survey that makes a conscious effort to include a large sample of diverse individuals strikes me as a good bet for an “objective” (such as is possible) analysis.

But, given that you dislike the term “ideologically balanced” and I assume that you distrust “ideologically unbalanced,” what would you look for as a signifier of an earnest effort you correct for political prejudice?

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 11:21 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

No-No-No! Since casinos need you disoriented (and well-lubed) to hold your attention for hours in their womb-like environs, no clocks ever and NO WINDOWS! They may, however, above the casino, carve out an observatory in the shape of Mr. Trump’s head (Mt. Mushmore).

;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on August 4, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Hello Urban Elitist,

I’m afraid the evidence is amle now that the New Deal did not end the Depression. But I will give you WW2, with minor points deducted for Yalta.

The_Jacobite on August 4, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Could we build Mt. Rushmore anything today?

bgibbs1000 on August 4, 2012 at 11:36 AM

But, given that you dislike the term “ideologically balanced” and I assume that you distrust “ideologically unbalanced,” what would you look for as a signifier of an earnest effort you correct for political prejudice?

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I see no reason to ‘correct’ for political persuasion if that’s not noted a consideration from the get-go. I don’t believe it should be. But poll-takers like to add things that really aren’t a factor if you talk to the average citizen, to achieve a desired result.

For example–let me ask you a neutral question, no politics here: What are the five most important American achievements since our Founding as an independent nation?

Liam on August 4, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Hello Urban Elitist,

I’m afraid the evidence is amle now that the New Deal did not end the Depression. But I will give you WW2, with minor points deducted for Yalta.

The_Jacobite on August 4, 2012 at 11:31 AM

He didn’t stick the landing.

Sorry, too much gymnastics.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 11:40 AM

We should take Teddy R off the one we have.

Akzed on August 4, 2012 at 11:41 AM

OT- Standing Ovation in Congress

koaiko on August 4, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Probably late to the party but some time ago I proposed a “Mount Nomore”, Presidents we must not have again if the Nation is to survive.
My picks:
Wilson.
First proposed that government should be run by “The Educated Elite”.

FDR.
Laid the cornerstone of socialism and rule by decree that we suffer still.

LBJ.
Started The Great Society and War on Poverty. Two more steps toward socialism an both failures.

Obama.
Combines the worst of the above with a generous helping of Marxism.

No need to limit it to four, there could be room for Carter and others.

countrybumpkin on August 4, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Del Dolemonte on August 4, 2012 at 9:20

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.

urbane effeteist on August 4, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Bitter? No, I am laughing my getalife off at your utter ignorance.

Actually, FDR prolonged the Depression by 7 years. UCLA economists proved it in 2004. Strike 1.

And that postwar prosperity would have happened no matter who was the wartime President. Strike 2.

And technically the Armed Forces win wars, not their Commander in Chief. And as others here have already noted, Harry Truman actually ended the war. Strike 3.

I notice you conveniently left out something else your Messiah FDR did during WW2: He imprisoned 120,000 people solely because of their Race. You must be so proud of that.

Court Packing? Lincoln alone didn’t suspend habeas corpus, it was also done with Congress. As was Democrat pResident Bill Clinton’s doing the same thing after the OK City bombing. You’re really grasping at straws here.

As for LBJ, the only other “Legacy” he has besides the Vietnam clusterfark was the equally insane clusterfark known as The Great Society. You must be so proud of what that “accomplished” in Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans…

FAIL-

Del Dolemonte on August 4, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Urban idiot
NO your opinion doesn’t count, your just a Democratic shrill, this isn’t my grandfathers Democratic party, its a party of racist”s, communists and fools who pander to whomever they can get to vote them into power to remove our freedoms ……….Moron…..

angrymike on August 4, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Obama would make sure his big ole head got up there.

vcferlita on August 4, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Del
well put…………:-)

angrymike on August 4, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Given the state of our culture and nation these days, I figure we wind up with a 30 foot statue of Snookie getting it on with Spongebob Squarepants.

trigon on August 4, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Sorry, FDR did not lead us out of the Great Depression, his fiscal policies caused the depression to last 12 years longer than it should have only WWII got us out of the Great Depression, and that is not “My Opinion” that is the consensus opinion of historians.

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 10:08 AM

The consensus opinion or revisionist historians like Amity Schlaes and the inevitable cadre of conservative hacks, I think you mean.

urbane effeteist on August 4, 2012 at 10:13 AM

From 2004:

FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

“President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services,” said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. “So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.”

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt’s policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

Read and weep.

Del Dolemonte on August 4, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Urban idiot
are you on a breathing machine? Because I’m not sure your little mind can remind you when your supposed to breath…………..

angrymike on August 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM

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

Pearl Harbor – 2403 dead

9/11 – 3497 dead (+19 cowardly goat-f^!kers)

9/11 hardly “pales by comparison”. Try again.

Solaratov on August 4, 2012 at 12:27 PM

I’ve always thought that the only president whose image should have been graven there was George Washington.

thatsafactjack on August 4, 2012 at 12:31 PM

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:13 AM

But…you leftards just luuuuvs you some “consensus”. Now, however, you decide that consensus doesn’t matter.
That wouldn’t be because the consensus doesn’t fit your leftist narrative, would it?

You leftoid drones are just a joke.

Solaratov on August 4, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Of course, the people who were actually there at the time seem to think that he did an OK job, re-electing him three times. But their opinion doesn’t count, I suppose.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:13 AM

And some people want to give lil barry a second term, too…which simply shows that there are a lot of really stupid (quasi)Americans in every era.

Solaratov on August 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM

John Hawkins is correct. We couldn’t build the transcontinental railroad, let alone a large *public* project like Grand Coulee Dam,. let alone high speed rail today. The environmental process would create such a permitting process that it would become impossible to get the job started, let alone completed. This is one reason manufacturing has fled the USA. Not because we can not produce quality products, but because we allow the environmental and social elites to exercise a NIMBY veto over anything that they don’t like.

Orson Buggeigh on August 4, 2012 at 12:39 PM

If the size of the bust is relative to accomplishments, the best we can do for little Bammie would be a 6″ high Ch’ia head in the Rushmore gift shop.

slickwillie2001 on August 4, 2012 at 12:41 PM

First would come the environmental impact study. We would soon have jostling as it’s determined that South Dakota isn’t a proper site for such a monument, ambitious politicians from left and right would maneuver the project to a swing state. So it would have to be constructed in the Allegheny Plateau or Florida Everglades.

Once the environmental hurdle is cleared, and a location in Florida or Ohio is selected, the memorial commission would be formed. Positions would be appointed by the President and Congressional leadership. While tasked with making a monument to deceased Presidents, the commission would immediately begin to realize the lack of diversity and extend beyond its original plans.

The final monument would then have Theodore Roosevelt, Elvis Presley, Tupac, Sacagawea and an unnamed incomplete figure to indicate the continuation of the American dream. The monument design would require the use Chinese marble, German steel and Iranian Plutonium. Construction would run six years behind schedule and cost three times what the initial estimate would be. Several weeks after opening the monument would be closed because chemicals used during construction have turned the area into a super fund site.

amazingmets on August 4, 2012 at 12:42 PM

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

Definitely agree on Wilson, our first fascist progressive president. History books have whitewashed his reign of terror. He’s the worst of the worst.

slickwillie2001 on August 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Of course you do. If you accepted a poll, you might have to accept facts that don’t align with your worldview, something you’re not capable of doing. urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Which is what YOU did…as I noted above.

Thanks for the laugh, drone.

Solaratov on August 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM

angrymike on August 4, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Second.

(Note to self: Don’t get Del p.o.’ed unless case can be made with facts . . .)

BigAlSouth on August 4, 2012 at 12:51 PM

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.

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

.
FDR gets NO credit for anything good, except WWII leadership. Period.
.

Typical liberal, can’t even do basic math. 1929+12=1943

SWalker on August 4, 2012 at 10:18 AM

.
Typical conservative: doesn’t know that FDR wasn’t inaugurated until 1933, and that economies take time to move.

urban elitist
on August 4, 2012 at 10:21 AM

.
Wrong.

Economies can take-off like a NASA rocket, IF … the regulatory and tax shackles are removed.

Economies can also be brought to a screeching halt, by the imposition of Government regulation and taxes. Kinda’ like 1934.

listens2glenn on August 4, 2012 at 12:51 PM

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

Don’t waste a mountain on these guys, but it is a great idea for that guy that likes to paint with feces!

tims472 on August 4, 2012 at 12:53 PM

A historical note and another paragraph on the gravestone of Keynesianism: Following World War II, Government Spending Cuts Led to an Incredible Economic Boom

slickwillie2001 on August 4, 2012 at 12:55 PM

countrybumpkin on August 4, 2012 at 11:49 AM

.
I think you stop could with the first three, but still a good list.
.
Too many people (like myself) haven’t learned, or are still learning about the damage done by Woodrow Wilson.

listens2glenn on August 4, 2012 at 12:56 PM

It shouldn’t have been built in the first place. America isn’t about, or shouldn’t be about, worshiping politicians or presidents or government, overall. This country wasn’t made by government officials.

rickv404 on August 4, 2012 at 12:58 PM

It couldn’t be built today. Environmentalists and others would have it shut down while an “environmental study” was completed.

And then the left-handed-snooked-snail habitat.

Not to mention the pederast-free zone that would have to be established.

And of course, the “retention/detention” water feature that every gov’t project seems to require now.

ProfShadow on August 4, 2012 at 1:06 PM

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

This is true, I think we really are at least two nations now. If we split the Libs wouldn’t stop. They would just started up again trying to trash everything in their path. The moderate type would enable them.

Kjeil on August 4, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Actually, I focused on the Wall Street Journal polls because I figured that they were most likely to challenge my prejudgements — the Journal being very conservative, you know. You appear to be be the one covering your ears and and yelling “I can’t here you” lest your assumptions be challenged. I’m curious to see what the other side thinks.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 11:02 AM

So you admit to being an idealogue as indicated earlier and therefore invalidating your opinion. Facts only next time. You are dismissed.Your spelling sucks, too. Get a clue.

DevilsPrinciple on August 4, 2012 at 1:16 PM

FDR would be a poor choice.

Even ignoring his failed, hard leftist domestic policies that lengthened the Great Depression, the rest of his record is still poor.

He failed to prepare the United States for WWII, and as President the fault for the success of the Pearl Harbor attack, and other early American defeats, falls squarely on his shoulders.

He sent people to concentration camps based on their race.

He refused to help European Jews fleeing the Germans.

He ignored communist infiltration, and put Soviet agents in positions of authority.

He pursued a pro-Soviet foreign policy even after it was *obvious* that WWII would be won, and the Soviets were become a new threat.

JFK was a below average president, but of all the Democrat President’s since 1900 easily the best they have placed in office.

18-1 on August 4, 2012 at 1:24 PM

The mountain isn’t big enough for Obama’s empty head.

Schadenfreude on August 4, 2012 at 1:31 PM

If it were built today, it would have some ridiculous political meme to it, like how the black panther party contributed to voter access, and how American made firearms are the whole problem with Mexico.

KMC1 on August 4, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Actually, I focused on the Wall Street Journal polls because I figured that they were most likely to challenge my prejudgements — the Journal being very conservative, you know.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Gosh, what a surprise-a Leftist prejudging the WSJ as being “very conservative”.

That might be true of their editorial page, but that is only a small fraction of the entire paper. Which includes the news stories:

In a 2004 study, Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo calculated the ideological bias of 20 media outlets by counting the frequency they cited particular think tanks and comparing that to the frequency that legislators cited the same think tanks. They found that the news reporting of The Journal was the most liberal, more liberal than NPR or The New York Times.

By the way, the WSJ editorial page isn’t all just conservtives, either. Since 1984 in fact they have been pushing for less restrictions on immigration-not more.

Del Dolemonte on August 4, 2012 at 1:48 PM

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

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

Wouldn’t be a bad addition at all. Many of us looking back don’t like him because of his Socialist ideologies, and perhaps some for getting the U.S. into WW II unnecessarily. But I’ve seen the film and pics of average Americans weeping when he died and I doubt they were all Democrats. Also, my parent’s families were very conservative and they never had anything bad to say about the man…and they lived under him-I didn’t.

JFK would be OK with me as I do feel that he was a great president, but his philandering puts me off…unfortunately I’ve given up on the idea of a completely moral man in the White House.

As much as I liked Reagan I think he should have been impeached over Iran-Contra. Be that as it may, he (like JFK and FDR) were adept at giving the American people inspiration and hope.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 4, 2012 at 1:52 PM

If it was done today, it would be four different looks of Barrack Obama or maybe some silhouettes of him over true heroes.

Obama over shadows memorial

maddmatt on August 4, 2012 at 1:54 PM

The consensus opinion or revisionist historians like Amity Schlaes and the inevitable cadre of conservative hacks, I think you mean.

Of course, the people who were actually there at the time seem to think that he did an OK job, re-electing him three times. But their opinion doesn’t count, I suppose.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 10:13 AM

In 1939, the unemployment rate was somewhere around 17%, and at no point during the Roosevelt administration prior to the war did the GDP match pre-Depression levels. Under no way shape or form can you claim that Roosevelt ended the Depression, outside of saying he successfully negotiated the US through WWII.

When the war came, we instituted a draft. Really not much of a trick lowering unemployment when everyone’s drafted. We deficit spent like there was no tomorrow, as is properly done in a war for national survival. And when the war ended, we cut government by record levels, sucked it up through the post war recession of 1946, and the economy boomed, in the absence of most of FDR’s “recovery” programs.

JohnGalt23 on August 4, 2012 at 2:02 PM

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

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

Wouldn’t be a bad addition at all. Many of us looking back don’t like him because of his Socialist ideologies, and perhaps some for getting the U.S. into WW II unnecessarily. But I’ve seen the film and pics of average Americans weeping when he died and I doubt they were all Democrats. Also, my parent’s families were very conservative and they never had anything bad to say about the man…and they lived under him-I didn’t.

JFK would be OK with me as I do feel that he was a great president, but his philandering puts me off…unfortunately I’ve given up on the idea of a completely moral man in the White House.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 4, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Well, one has to remember that all those who actually lived under FDR as President only knew about him what the Democrat Media told them, and that Democrat Media hid a lot about FDR from them. Particularly in relation to his physical disability, but also his womanizing.

As for JFK, what made him “great”? He botched the Bay of Pigs invasion and almost started a war with Russia. He also started the buildup in Vietnam, especially the 1963 coup in South Vietnam. And he also sat idly by while his Attorney General brother OKed wiretapping Dr. MLK.

JFK started us on our way to the moon, but also spent a ton of taxpayer money on his New Frontier. I consider him decent, but not Great.

BTW what I said about FDR also applies to JFK. The media covered up his physical disability and also his womanizing. As a result, all we knew at the time (I lived thru his Presidency) was based on what we were told by them.

Another parallel between the two: Democrat “historians” have been whitewashing both of their “legacies” for decades, especially the Camelot Mafia with JFK.

Del Dolemonte on August 4, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Moochelle would demand neon lights and a lobster tank.

viking01 on August 4, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Del Dolemonte on August 4, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I believe that the Bay of Pigs operation was the CIA’s baby and it was hatched before JFK even became president. I don’t blame Kennedy for not widening the conflict by sending in the Navy/USAF to help out, since Cuba was obviously aligned with the Soviet Union. Also, I don’t think the Eisenhower administration did anything to keep Castro from taking over in the first place. We can extrapolate the Bay of Pigs disaster to the Cuban Missile Crisis from their. No Castro in the first place=no Cuban Missile Crisis.

Now, if Eisenhower had sent in troops and/or aid to fight Castro who would we in effect have been supporting? Batista. Yeah, a man known to be a supporter of freedom and democracy./ But at least there wouldn’t have been any Russians there. Same thing repeated over and over and over again in various foreign countries where the cure was every bit as bad as the disease (Communism).

I don’t know when MLK became such a darling of Conservatives. I suppose it was after time and the realization that he was not a subversive. But back in the ’60s that was not apparent. You have to remember there were very radical black Americans saying things back then and they (the government) weren’t sure about Dr. King. Hindsight is 20/20. I suppose that today Dr. King would be welcomed to speak at a GOP convention…after all, he was a Republican and a quite famous one at that…but obviously that didn’t happen when he was alive, so certainly views have changed over time.

With South Vietnam, you’re back to the Castro/Cuba problem. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t because the odious dictatorship will eventually fall without U.S. support, and if it does then you get a Communist dictatorship instead. Do nothing, then the Communists will take more and more and more because they know you won’t do anything about it.

So JFK is sometimes lambasted for being weak against the Communists (and perhaps even sympathetic) because he didn’t do enough get them out of Cuba, and criticized for deepening our involvement in Vietnam because he wanted to…that’s right, stop the Communists. Can’t have it both ways.

Now Reagan is often hailed by us for in fact standing up to the Communists (and rightly so)…but I don’t know how successful he would have been if it weren’t for the treasure the Communists had already squandered in Vietnam and a dozen other countries around the world, the Prague Uprising in ’68, and the Solidarity union uprising in Poland. Add to that Nixon’s visit to China which did much to hurt us down the road economically, but helped drive a bigger wedge between Moscow and Peking. And it also goes back to JFK forcing Moscow to back down over Cuba as that had a huge effect on the rest of the world’s perceptions concerning the U.S. and its strength, and the relative weakness of the Soviet Union.

Well, one has to remember that all those who actually lived under FDR as President only knew about him what the Democrat Media told them, and that Democrat Media hid a lot about FDR from them. Particularly in relation to his physical disability, but also his womanizing.

Surely…but that same media also covered up the fact that General Ike had an English girlfriend during his days at SHAEF…that didn’t come out until how many decades on?

Like it or not, we simply do not know when President Reagan began to suffer from Alzheimer’s. I know his son’s a Libtard , but there again who knows? If there was a cover up over this while he was still president, I would consider that to be more serious than FDR being a paraplegic. Besides, what purpose would it have served to show FDR struggling to get out of his wheelchair for public appearances in newsreels? Everyone knew about his disability, it wasn’t a state secret.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 4, 2012 at 3:09 PM

It could never be built today, mainly due to the deep-ecology crowd.

Instead, we would get another monument on the Mall, probably called “Six Apparitions Of The Exalted One On A Volt”.

That would cost about eight times what Rushmore cost. Adjusted for constant dollars, at that.

(Extra credit for anybody who recognizes the art allusion above.)

clear ether

eon

eon on August 4, 2012 at 3:13 PM

We need to fix it. Change Teddy’s dumb face in to Ronald Reagan’s.

rdbrewer on August 4, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Reagan, Coolidge, John Adams, and Ike.

BigWillieStyles on August 4, 2012 at 3:21 PM

The environmentalists would be against it wholeheartedly. No question. They’d be protesting, along with OWS drums, rapes, and defecations. There might be some Tea Party opposition, but I don’t think it would be strong because I expect there would be corporations willing to donate and Donald Trump will do a publicity stunt of his donation. I agree Kennedy would be there to placate the mainstream liberals (an oxymoron I suppose) and Reagan for the mainstream conservatives. Washington and Lincoln would remain. Union demands and environmental regulations will raise the initial projected costs. It would be built but will be finished at least a year behind schedule.

hadsil on August 4, 2012 at 3:41 PM

OT
Bayview – you didn’t ask me but many of the little towns to the North, Northeast and Northwest of Houston are lovely. Not sure how far away from Houston you want to be – one of my favorite towns is almost 60 miles Northwest, but there are wonderful places half that distance and even closer. As you travel south of Houston, especially toward Galveston, you get a whole different coastal culture and some people prefer that. You need to go and have a look yourself!

Eren on August 4, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Eren on August 4, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Thanks for your input. I appreciate some starting points to begin my search. I only heard of Woodlands and the part of Spring west of 45. One of the top criteria to consider is crime rate.

bayview on August 4, 2012 at 4:25 PM

C’mon! If you let liberals pick a new face (assuming both sides get to add a new face), you just know the liberals won’t limit themselves to Presidents. They’ve always crossed any line they see because they think it means they are “open minded” when they’re really just destroying everything they come in contact with. But really, they’d just do it annoy Republicans.

The real question is, “What non President would Liberals choose to put on Mount Rushmore?” Hillary? Al Gore? Heck, Kerry or even Harry Reid. No wait, Pelosi!

You all know what I’m saying is true.

MrX on August 4, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3