And the winner is....

A recent poll by Gallup put Ronald Reagan at the top of the heap of greatest American presidents. Here's the top 10:

Ronald Reagan -- 19%

Abraham Lincoln -- 14%

Bill Clinton -- 13%

John F. Kennedy -- 11%

George Washington -- 10%

Franklin Roosevelt -- 8%

Barack Obama -- 5%

Theodore Roosevelt -- 3%

Harry Truman -- 3%

George W. Bush -- 2%


As shameless Reagan acolytes, even we were more than a little embarrassed by the fact that our boy bested both Washington and Lincoln.

Sarah Palin took some very undeserved grief for naming Washington as the greatest/most important President as she was entirely correct. "Pedestrian" was the general charge levied at her if we remember correctly. Because, you know, we all get enough Washington in grade school, right? As if an emphasis on the foundations of this nation and the men responsible for it in the 5th grade is evidence of a lack of intellectual rigor. As if cherry trees and crossing the Delaware are but part of an American mythology... if kids these days are even learning about cherry trees and crossing the Delaware.

Without Washington, the President and
the general, none of this happens. None of it. With respect to who is your own greatest president, you are entitled to think otherwise but you would be wrong*.

Recall perhaps the most important thing Washington ever did for this country and indeed for the advancement of democracy was what he did not do: he did not seek a third term, stepping down after his second thus ensuring that Western civilization's grand experiment would not start off with a third world-like President-for-life.



* Needlessly confrontational but confrontational just the same.

Quote of the Day

“We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name – liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.”

This wisdom generated from a man who did not even have a computer in his classroom. How could it be?

Our Generals almost cost us Iraq?

Dude...

In one respect, the actions taken by military opponents of the surge, e.g. "foot-dragging," "slow-rolling" and selective leaking are, unfortunately, all-too-characteristic of U.S. civil-military relations during the last decade and a half. But the picture Mr. Woodward draws is far more troubling. Even after the policy had been laid down, the bulk of the senior U.S. military leadership -- the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, the rest of the Joint Chiefs, and Gen. Abizaid's successor, Adm. William Fallon, actively worked against the implementation of the president's policy.

If Mr. Woodward's account is true, it means that not since Gen. McClellan attempted to sabotage Lincoln's war policy in 1862 has the leadership of the U.S. military so blatantly attempted to undermine a president in the pursuit of his constitutional authority. It should be obvious that such active opposition to a president's policy poses a threat to the health of the civil-military balance in a republic.


More from M.T. Owens fantastic article on Bob Woodward’s “The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008”, here