NationStates Jolt Archive

Replace the US President...with one of the past ones from history

I choose:

Theodore Roosevelt

-He actually had environmental policies that werent contradictory or pointless: He believed in nature, not to be overrun, but not to be forbidden either. He believed in conservation, but never tried to play God (Like the Yellowstone Wolf-Deer fiasco). He recognized hunting, but recognized its need for moderation.

-If we involved ourselves internationlly, He could do it competently: If intervention really is a nessecity when some crackpot wants a nuke, then Theodore could competently pull it off, this came with his slightly imperialistic tendencies, but whose perfect?

-He had no toleration for political nonsense: Unlike just about every other president after LIncoln (and some before). He was essentially the first president ever to resolve a strike in favor of the workers by telling the corporations the government was going to keep the company, if they couldn't deal with it.

-He actually knew how to build an international reputation: In fact, he arguably built the first one. The sailing of the great white fleet was world recognized, and it had the dual purpose of empasizing both power and charity (There were gifts at every port).

Ronald Wilson Reagan

but

TR would be a close second.

Ronald Wilson Reagan

but

TR would be a close second.


You beat me to it. I agree on both.

Replace the US President...with one of the past ones from history

I choose:

Theodore Roosevelt

-He actually had environmental policies that werent contradictory or pointless: He believed in nature, not to be overrun, but not to be forbidden either. He believed in conservation, but never tried to play God (Like the Yellowstone Wolf-Deer fiasco). He recognized hunting, but recognized its need for moderation.

-If we involved ourselves internationlly, He could do it competently: If intervention really is a nessecity when some crackpot wants a nuke, then Theodore could competently pull it off, this came with his slightly imperialistic tendencies, but whose perfect?

-He had no toleration for political nonsense: Unlike just about every other president after LIncoln (and some before). He was essentially the first president ever to resolve a strike in favor of the workers by telling the corporations the government was going to keep the company, if they couldn't deal with it.

-He actually knew how to build an international reputation: In fact, he arguably built the first one. The sailing of the great white fleet was world recognized, and it had the dual purpose of empasizing both power and charity (There were gifts at every port).

He came up with minimum wage too, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm with you for Teddy Roosevelt.

Don't you just love Nixon's head in Futurama? I think you should choose Nixon's head. Fo' shizzle.

Maybe TR but I think also his cousin FDR.

willy harrison, hands down

Ronald Wilson Reagan

but

TR would be a close second.
Just a bit different of a valuation from my perspective. I'd prefer TR over Reagan, just by a bit.

Don't you just love Nixon's head in Futurama? I think you should choose Nixon's head. Fo' shizzle.
Nixon's head on Bender's body! There's a politician I can vote for!

Theodore Roosevelt. Without a fucking doubt.

Franklin Pierce. Because he was a party animal.

Theodore Roosevelt. Without a fucking doubt.
Although, there's something to be said for Lincoln. Of course, he'd probably take a pistol to his own head once he got a glimpse of what the country's come to. Maybe Chester Arthur?

Although, there's something to be said for Lincoln.
Lincoln was a racist wanna be dictater.

willy harrison, hands down

He didn't do anything but catch pnemonia and die within a month of getting elected.

He didn't do anything but catch pnemonia and die within a month of getting elected.

true

Lincoln was a racist wanna be dictater.
Almost every white male in 19th century America would qualify as a racist by today's standards. As for being a dictator, I don't see that. The man was in an impossible situation, half the country trying to leave, an army riddled with politics ... he did pretty well, all things considered. The real tragedy is that Booth was a decent shot.

John F. Kennedy

Every President talks about fixing the "oil problem". I think that JFK would actually be crazy enough to do something about it. Frankly, I want a half-insane effort like the Apollo Program again, but not to land men on the moon. I want a single, united effort by the United States to get off of oil, or atleast cut oil consumption in half. I can see how JFK would go about it now- he would set some totally arbitrary deadline, expend huge amounts of money, and get it done through sheer strength of will, expending money for multiple research programs at once, accelerated development in every field, relentless effort towards an insane goal at breakneck speeds. It'd suck resources out of every other government department and rack up a big deficit, but it'd get done.

He was a believer in seperation of Church and state.

"Whatever one's religion in his private life may be, for the officeholder, nothing takes precedence over his oath to uphold the Constitution and all its parts -- including the First Amendment and the strict separation of church and state."
-- John F. Kennedy, Interview, Look, March 3, 1959, from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

"It is my firm belief that there should be separation of church and state as we understand it in the United States -- that is, that both church and state should be free to operate, without interference from each other in their respective areas of jurisdiction. We live in a liberal, democratic society which embraces wide varieties of belief and disbelief. There is no doubt in my mind that the pluralism which has developed under our Constitution, providing as it does a framework within which diverse opinions can exist side by side and by their interaction enrich the whole, is the most ideal system yet devised by man. I cannot conceive of a set of circumstances which would lead me to a different conclusion."
-- John F. Kennedy, letter to Glenn L. Archer, February 23, 1959, from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

Those were more then just words - the man actually believed in them. Looking at the way America is going with the Religious Right, the country needs someone who recognizes the need for seperation of church and state again.

He was a supporter of minority rights and important social causes, such as those in his "New Frontier" programs which delivered federal funding for education, medical care for the elderly, supported racial integration and civil rights for all, and opposed racial segregation.

In 1962, after the Supreme Court had ordered an end to racial segregation but the people of the southern states were not entirely ready to comply, James Meredith, a black student, tried to enroll at the University of Mississippi but was prevented from doing so by white students. Kennedy responded by sending 400 federal marshals and 3,000 troops to ensure that Meredith could enroll for classes.

That kind of devotion, willingness to take huge political risks and even use force to protect the rights of minorities is something that is needed today when there are so many who are eager and able to violate the rights of minority groups, such as homosexuals amoung others.

true

I'd rather have him as my boss than a president. Three day weekends are cool.

Almost every white male in 19th century America would qualify as a racist by today's standards. As for being a dictator, I don't see that. The man was in an impossible situation, half the country trying to leave, an army riddled with politics ... he did pretty well, all things considered.
He burned the South and doomed nearly all blacks and many whites to a future of poverty.
The real tragedy is that Booth was a decent shot.
Point blank?

He burned the South and doomed nearly all blacks and many whites to a future of poverty.

That was one of the generals that did that, not Lincoln.

That was one of the generals that did that, not Lincoln.
Not just one. Sherman's just the most notorious. They all treated the South like shit and their actions were more than tolerated by Lincoln.

Not just one. Sherman's just the most notorious. They all treated the South like shit and their actions were more than tolerated by Lincoln.
The South got what was coming to it. They deserved harsh punishment and got it. I think he was too tame in his Reconstruction ideas (which were carried out by Johnson)

Not just one. Sherman's just the most notorious. They all treated the South like shit and their actions were more than tolerated by Lincoln.
As people these days are fond of saying, it was a war, and wars require stern measures. It was a war and the South lost. I do think it was a tragedy that Lincoln didn't get to manage Reconstruction because I think that would have made a lot of difference in how the South recovered. But suppose Lincoln had not been elected, or had said, as was recommended, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace." Most blacks and many whites would still have been doomed to slavery and poverty in the Confederacy, there just wouldn't have been as many plantations with soot-stains on them. Could the whole sad episode have been handled differently? Sure. Blaming Lincoln and calling him a wannabe dictator is a cop-out.

The South got what was coming to it. They deserved harsh punishment and got it. I think he was too tame in his Reconstruction ideas (which were carried out by Johnson)
You know one of the major reasons that most black people are poor today is because of what the North, both the Feds and private interests did to the economic stability of the region, right? I fail to see how they did anything wrong.

What would you have had Lincoln and Johnson do, plunge the South into two hundred years of economic instability instead of one-hundred and twenty?

No one's mentioned my personal favorite. Calvin Coolidge was definitely libertarian before it was the cool thing to do.

As people these days are fond of saying, it was a war, and wars require stern measures. It was a war and the South lost. I do think it was a tragedy that Lincoln didn't get to manage Reconstruction because I think that would have made a lot of difference in how the South recovered. But suppose Lincoln had not been elected, or had said, as was recommended, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace." Most blacks and many whites would still have been doomed to slavery and poverty in the Confederacy, there just wouldn't have been as many plantations with soot-stains on them. Could the whole sad episode have been handled differently? Sure. Blaming Lincoln and calling him a wannabe dictator is a cop-out.
The reason I call Lincoln a dictator isn't because of the war, but because of his stifling of descent.

Also, I'm not saying the Civil War shouldn't have been fought, I'm not even saying that plantation owners shouldn't have had every piece of their property confiscated and distributed to their former slaves (which was not done, by the way). What I am saying is, they shouldn't have burned the railroads and the cities, and the small, non slave-owning farms, and they shouldn't have persisted to neglect the South for a hundred years.

The South got what was coming to it. They deserved harsh punishment and got it. I think he was too tame in his Reconstruction ideas (which were carried out by Johnson)

Actually, Johnson was wimp who allowed himself to be bullied by Congress. Lincoln's reconstruction was FAR more radical, and would have resulted in a mcuh better off south in the end, for everyone, and forestalled the civil rights campaigns of the 1960s - because they woulldn't have been needed.

I also would love to see old TR back - or failing him, Truman. At least Truman could lead.

Actually, Johnson was wimp who allowed himself to be bullied by Congress. Lincoln's reconstruction was FAR more radical, and would have resulted in a mcuh better off south in the end, for everyone, and forestalled the civil rights campaigns of the 1960s - because they woulldn't have been needed.

I also would love to see old TR back - or failing him, Truman. At least Truman could lead.
Anyone but Truman, FDR, Carter, Nixon, and Buchanon.

Truman ****ed up Korea.

The reason I call Lincoln a dictator isn't because of the war, but because of his stifling of descent.


Unless you're talking about going down mountains, I think the word is dissent...:p

Truman ****ed up Korea.
Thought that was MacArthur.
Unless you're talking about going down mountains, I think the word is dissent...:p Spelling's never been by stong suit.

Anyone but Truman, FDR, Carter, Nixon, and Buchanon.

Truman ****ed up Korea.

No, General MacArthur fucked up Korea. Truman practised a hands-off policy towards the running of the war, feeling the man on the ground was the man to make the decisions. In that, I think he was right, but he chose the wrong man.

The reason I call Lincoln a dictator isn't because of the war, but because of his stifling of descent.

Also, I'm not saying the Civil War shouldn't have been fought, I'm not even saying that plantation owners shouldn't have had every piece of their property confiscated and distributed to their former slaves (which was not done, by the way). What I am saying is, they shouldn't have burned the railroads and the cities, and the small, non slave-owning farms, and they shouldn't have persisted to neglect the South for a hundred years.
Yes, there was the issue of his suspending habeas corpus, and the way Vallandingham was treated, to name just a couple. No worse than some of the civil rights abuses being committed today in the name of saving the country. The difference is, I think, that Lincoln actually did save the country. As for the destruction inflicted on the South, yes, it was deplorable. The Confederates hardly have clean hands, however, they just didn't have the resources to do it on the same scale as the Union (they did manage to destroy the Union whaling fleet, though).

I will grant you, the South should not have been treated as a conquered land. That was the radical Republicans in Congress, who wanted to squeeze the South as hard as they could. I still think Lincoln might have controlled them had he lived but we'll never really know. With all his flaws, and he did have them, I still think he ranks as one of our best Presidents.

Thought that was MacArthur.


It was. He didn't count on the Chinese entering the war when he should have been preparing for it even if he didn't expect it to happen. He also failed to properly equip his troops with appropiate winter gear.

Korea was MacArthur's screwup.

Alot of people seem to agree with Teddy Roosevelt. I really think he is one of the best choices. I also think he could adopt to a modern world pretty well. Im not so sure about lincoln, I respect what he did but depression and a lack of toleration for dissent were only some of his problems. He was the right man for that time, but not so much for this time. I dont think that much of JFK, he could have been great but his obsession with grandeur could have ruined us.

Alot of people seem to agree with Teddy Roosevelt. I really think he is one of the best choices. I also think he could adopt to a modern world pretty well. Im not so sure about lincoln, I respect what he did but depression and a lack of toleration for dissent were only some of his problems. He was the right man for that time, but not so much for this time. I dont think that much of JFK, he could have been great but his obsession with grandeur could have ruined us.
Well, I think had Lincoln served out his second term we might have a different opinion of him, perhaps better, perhaps worse.

As for JFK ... He wasn't one of my choices. I do like a great deal of what he tried to accomplish in civil rights, and the space program, but ... well, I just haven't studied the man (I was 12 when he died and not really politically conscious).

I actually liked Lyndon Johnson. I know that will get howls of protest from some but with out that damned war, he'd go down as one of the greats, a socially-conscious president from Texas. How often are we going to see that?

And I still like FDR, he led the country through a terrible decade and enacted tremendous social legislation (the Japanese internment is a definite minus for him, though).

Well, I think had Lincoln served out his second term we might have a different opinion of him, perhaps better, perhaps worse.

As for JFK ... He wasn't one of my choices. I do like a great deal of what he tried to accomplish in civil rights, and the space program, but ... well, I just haven't studied the man (I was 12 when he died and not really politically conscious).

I actually liked Lyndon Johnson. I know that will get howls of protest from some but with out that damned war, he'd go down as one of the greats, a socially-conscious president from Texas. How often are we going to see that?

And I still like FDR, he led the country through a terrible decade and enacted tremendous social legislation (the Japanese internment is a definite minus for him, though).


FDR, I think is a situation where the circumstances made the man instead of the man making the circumstances. Meaning: If he had not been a wartime president, he would not have been more than average.

He had somevery progressive policies, but only a couple of them worked, and they failed in their immediate goal, which was to end the depression. Every historian agrees: Twas war that ended the depression. Social Security (and perhaps public energy) were really his only great accomplishments. Also, wasnt he the one who tried to add more justices to the court so as to completely control it? That move nearly cost him his career.

FDR, I think is a situation where the circumstances made the man instead of the man making the circumstances. Meaning: If he had not been a wartime president, he would not have been more than average.

He had somevery progressive policies, but only a couple of them worked, and they failed in their immediate goal, which was to end the depression. Every historian agrees: Twas war that ended the depression. Social Security (and perhaps public energy) were really his only great accomplishments. Also, wasnt he the one who tried to add more justices to the court so as to completely control it? That move nearly cost him his career.
Hmm, maybe so, still, I like him. And yeah, there was the court-packing, I'd forgotten that. I betcha lots of presidents would like that, just never had the stomach to try it. Social Security and electrification aren't to be sneezed at, though. And there were quite a number of public works, highways, dams, such-like. Not to mention the government actually supported the arts wholeheartedly for once. A man for modern times? It would be interesting to hear his thoughts.

Ronald Wilson Reagan

Uh, so he could arm Saddam again?

David Rice Atchison

Replace the U.S. president, period.

Is "none of the above" an option?

I guess, if I had to choose, FDR, but that choice is rather reluctant.

Is "none of the above" an option?

I guess, if I had to choose, FDR, but that choice is rather reluctant.

Same here. Every US president has had their dark side. FDR had his internment camps and capitalism savying Keynesian economics, Truman had the use of the atom bomb, Eisenhower had the '54 Iranian Coup, Kennedy nearly brought us to nuclear Armageddon, LBJ lied got the US stuck in Vietnam and the resulting war crimes, Nixon had Watergate and supported the coup against Salvador Allende, Ford pardoned Nixon, Jimmy Carter didn't do much at all, Reagan nearly brought us to nuclear annihilation again with Star Wars and also had the Iran Contra scandal, Bush Sr. had two children, Clinton threw out leftism in favor of centrism and lied under oath, and now we have Bush Jr.

Just a bit different of a valuation from my perspective. I'd prefer TR over Reagan, just by a bit.

I will never understand Reagan-love. He was an incompetent and disattached figurehead who excelled at projecting a folksy image and that's it. He allowed Congress to spend spend spend, saw a dramatic rise in the disparity between the have and have-nots and was especially active in shady international exploits that hurt America's prestige abroad (that he apparently could not recall any of.)

He also undid much of Carter's attemnpts to make the US less dependent on the Middle East, even going so far as to dismantle a solar power device (already installed and working,) on the Whitehouse. So of course some parties in the ME were accomodating to Reagan...he made sure their pockets continued to be lined.

Reagan sucked and sucked hard.

I would have to take Jimmy Carter. He's intelligent, moral, and diplomatic. Sort of just the opposite of GW. But I imagine that the powers that be would destroy him again like they destroyed him last time and again put in a puppet (or series of puppets) that would allow them to take power and money while giving the unwashed masses emotional issues that they will do nothing about.

Thomas Jefferson.

Just a hypocritical as the rest, but he did do great things.

David Rice Atchison

He was never President. Just because Taylor was sworn in on Monday instead of Sunday doesn't make him so.

Here's my list:
Theodore Roosevelt: A very energetic and popular conservationist who did much to break up momopolies and make the US a world power.

Abraham Lincoln: Led the United States through a terrible war that not only cost the most American lives(over 600,000 total. More than WWII, which, with about 200,000, was the second costliest), but literally pitted brother against brother and father against son. He also had a workable Reconstruction plan that he would have started if he hadn't been murdered just days after the war's end.

Harry S Truman: No, the S does not stand for anything. Sure, he nuked Japan, but look at why he did it:
1. The Japanese military was fanatical. They had a "win at any cost" plan that resulted in their war crimes. They even had plans to drop biological weapons on American cities. Even though the emperor was supposed to be all powerful, the military controlled just about everything. They lied to the Japanese public, saying that the American would "rape their(the Japanese) women, bbq and eat the children"(quote from History Channel) just to win. If you were fighting a bloody war against a fanatical military and it's brainwashed civillian supporters, wouldn't you use a powerful weapon designed, ironically, as a peacemaker? If you knew that this enemy treats those who surrender to it worse than criminals, wouldn't you bomb them to submission?

2. He wasn't exactly prepared for the presidency. Sure, he took over when Italy already surrendered long before and Germany's will to fight was as strong as wet toilet paper, but Japan wasn't exactly going to lose any time soon without some type of superweapon being used. Plus, the Soviets were going to invade soon. Every place they invade, they take.

3. The Korean War was a UN effort(not just US) to stop the spread of Stalinist psuedo-communism. When you have a friendly nation being invaded by an unfriendly oppressive regime led by a madman and supported by another madman, wouldn't you try to protect as many nonmortalenemies as you can? Shit, the Soviets were going nuclear. Wouldn't you be scared at the thought of an enemy prepared to annihilate you at the slightest provocation?

For someone unprepared to become the most powerful (and, if he was president now, most hated. Yes, more hated than Hitler, Stalin, or Osama ever were combined) man in the world at a time when a massive war was being fought, he did pertty well.

Thomas Jefferson.

Just a hypocritical as the rest, but he did do great things.

I have some conflicting feelings about replacing Bush with him.

I think he would be shocked at the current NSA wiretap activities, and have the whole thing returned to its pre-9/11 warrant needing status. He was a firm believer in checks in balances, and the seperation of church and state - all good stuff.

My primary problems with him, aside from the whole obvious slavery aspect of his time, are that I can't see him doing much regarding the poor or the elderly, or doing much to improve national healthcare.

FDR. No question about it.

Reagan by far, with Truman a close second.
But I am going to seriously say that Nixon would be a good choice.
Nxon is a man I have a lot of respect for, and I think he could legitimately do a god job with the war.
People I would not accept:
I still to this day do not understand why Kennedy gets so much love, and he is the second most-overrated President ever.
The most overrated is definitely FDR. The New Deal was a failure, he let himself get tricked by that SOB Stalin, he created the UN, the list goes on and on.

Ronald Wilson Reagan

No one else even comes close! ^.^

Ronald Wilson Reagan

No one else even comes close! ^.^
I lived through Reagan. The myth is what is remembered. The man was totally incompetent. This was the prime example of people voting for the emotion rather than substance. No I take that back, GW is the prime example. Reagan's handlers were the teachers.

Nixon's head on Bender's body! There's a politician I can vote for!


His old body was riddled with Phlebitis.

Nxon is a man I have a lot of respect for, and I think he could legitimately do a god job with the war.

The man was a criminal. After what he's done, he belongs more in a prison then in the White House.


I still to this day do not understand why Kennedy gets so much love, and he is the second most-overrated President ever.

I refer you to my earlier post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11485198&postcount=17).

Uh, so he could arm Saddam again?
That's why the Iraqi Army was using old Soviet issue equipment like T-72s and T-55s, not to mention AK-47s and MiG-29s. The only western stuff they had in the Gulf War were the French Mirages

I say give Johnson another go. If it hadn't have been for the Vietnam War, that guy would have done great things.

That's why the Iraqi Army was using old Soviet issue equipment like T-72s and T-55s, not to mention AK-47s and MiG-29s. The only western stuff they had in the Gulf War were the French Mirages
I see you still insist on using teal. Well, I guess ya gotta respect a man that sticks to his guns and stands up for what he believes in, even if it is a color.

I see you still insist on using teal. Well, I guess ya gotta respect a man that sticks to his guns and stands up for what he believes in, even if it is a color.
I admittedly suck at sarcasm. Think of it as a reader's aide.

Julius Caesar.

IF they can't get him, I'll settle for Andrew Jackson, for one reason. One way or the other we'd get some resolution about this Supreme Court thing. Although probably not worth it, come to think of it.

Let's stick with Caesar. Greatest US president ever, and the US would rule all of North, Central, and South America, the Carribean, the Middle East, and large bits of Europe and Asia if he hadn't been assassinated.

For proof, I offer the fact that mice are, on average, smaller than a breadbox.

now Andrew Jackson was a dictator if we ever had one.

now Andrew Jackson was a dictator if we ever had one.
He goes on my list of most hated presidents. His actions led to a great economic depression and he was an ass... which is how the democrat party got its animal which is an interesting bit of trivia.

He goes on my list of most hated presidents. His actions led to a great economic depression and he was an ass... which is how the democrat party got its animal which is an interesting bit of trivia.

This being back when the democrats were still on the right...

I'm still not entirely sure how that happened...

Honestly I can't think of an old president I would want back. They would all be sort of outdated by modern standards. I do sort of like Reagan's message, however, I don't like his deficit and such.

How about Bush's dad? Bush's dad was a little bit better. He had a thousand points of light. W doesn't have a light show.

This being back when the democrats were still on the right...

I'm still not entirely sure how that happened...
Who was on the left then? I mean the Whigs were moralists and champions of business, that also sounds pretty right-wing. I just brought up the animal, it is not like republicans have much to be proud of for having one of the fattest animals for their party.

This being back when the democrats were still on the right...

I'm still not entirely sure how that happened...
It's tough to classify any pre-Wilson prez as 'left' or 'right' by modern terms.

Who was on the left then? I mean the Whigs were social conservatives and champions of business, that also sounds right-wing. I just brought up the animal, it is not like republicans have much to be proud of for having one of the fattest animals for their party.

I think there was a while where the Republicans were semi-left.

I think there was a while where the Republicans were semi-left.
But the republicans didn't exist during the time of Jackson. It was the Democrats and the people who hated Jackson and formed the Whigs. Besides, the republicans were just a continuation of the Whigs to some extent as they absorbed most of the Whig party members and such, they just took an anti-slavery stance which appeased their moral voters.

But the republicans didn't exist during the time of Jackson. It was the Democrats and the people who hated Jackson and formed the Whigs. Besides, the republicans were just a continuation of the Whigs to some extent as they absorbed most of the Whig party members and such, they just took an anti-slavery stance which appeased their moral voters.

And let's not get into the free soilers, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists (at least their names make perfectly clear their stance, eh?) and the Bull Moose party...

But the republicans didn't exist during the time of Jackson. It was the Democrats and the people who hated Jackson and formed the Whigs. Besides, the republicans were just a continuation of the Whigs to some extent as they absorbed most of the Whig party members and such, they just took an anti-slavery stance which appeased their moral voters.

And let's not get into the free soilers, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists (at least their names make perfectly clear their stance, eh?) and the Bull Moose party...

And the Know-Nothings, Southern Rights Democrats, Constitutional Union Party, Populists, Socialists, Southern Rights Democrats II, Green Party...

And let's not get into the free soilers, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists (at least their names make perfectly clear their stance, eh?) and the Bull Moose party...
The free-soilers are almost a single issue party, sort of like the Know-Nothings and their obsession with keeping the foreigners out, the only thing is that this issue is not a modern issue and probably isn't something we could easily put on a modern political scale. The federalists are probably big government right wingers given their pro-business stances. The Anti-Federalists seem to be libertarians to me as they hate the government in all regards. The Bull Moose party is probably a left wing party given their stances on business regulation and social causes, the modern left wing is in some ways a result of the progressive movement.

I think we need an Anti-Mason candidate in office...

And the Know-Nothings, Southern Rights Democrats, Constitutional Union Party, Populists, Socialists, Southern Rights Democrats II, Green Party...
Know nothings were right wingers, they were big on social conservatism with their fear of foreign ideologies and religions. Southern rights democrats 1 were arguing for slavery and smaller government... in some ways they are similar to libertarians except they don't follow the same moral beliefs of modern libertarians as modern libertarians would be disgusted with slavery, however, at the time slavery was a civil rights issue(for the slave holders, few people really cared about the slaves, even the free soilers really just wanted to reduce the power of the big-planters) and the southern rights democrats were arguing for their right to own slaves, of course, that's just my interpretation. Constitutional Unionists wanted strict adherence to the constitution which is also sort of a libertarian stance. Populists were probably a left wing party as they were fighting for the little man, and they were inclusive partially just because they were weak and needed more political power, many of them still hated blacks. The socialists are definitely left wing. The second wave of southern rights democrats were right, they didn't believe in the government intervention to help slaves out and believed in states rights. The green party is a left wing party.

That is just my take on those parties of course and is open for some differing interpretation.

I think there was a while where the Republicans were semi-left.
And it wasn't long ago in the whole scheme of things. Believe it or not there were moderate Republicans and Democrats just 26 years ago. Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller were both moderate. Jimmy Carter was moderate. The whole thing went haywire with Reagan and talk radio.

The free-soilers are almost a single issue party, sort of like the Know-Nothings and their obsession with keeping the foreigners out, the only thing is that this issue is not a modern issue and probably isn't something we could easily put on a modern political scale. The federalists are probably big government right wingers given their pro-business stances. The Anti-Federalists seem to be libertarians to me as they hate the government in all regards. The Bull Moose party is probably a left wing party given their stances on business regulation and social causes, the modern left wing is in some ways a result of the progressive movement.

Well, the Bull Moose was essentially Republican only Teddy Roosevelt, so semi-left semi-right...

James Polk because I want some more land.

Well, the Bull Moose was essentially Republican only Teddy Roosevelt, so semi-left semi-right...
So? It had labor reforms, women's suffrage, more taxes, and believed in the use of big government to intervene in business. Just look at this article about New Nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Nationalism) does it really look like a right wing philosophy talking about laissez-faire and the evils of big government and such or does it look left talking about protecting labor's interests and intervening in economic affairs? It looks pretty left to me but I am not the only person in the world.

Replace the US President...with one of the past ones from history

I choose:

Theodore Roosevelt

-He actually had environmental policies that werent contradictory or pointless: He believed in nature, not to be overrun, but not to be forbidden either. He believed in conservation, but never tried to play God (Like the Yellowstone Wolf-Deer fiasco). He recognized hunting, but recognized its need for moderation.

-If we involved ourselves internationlly, He could do it competently: If intervention really is a nessecity when some crackpot wants a nuke, then Theodore could competently pull it off, this came with his slightly imperialistic tendencies, but whose perfect?

-He had no toleration for political nonsense: Unlike just about every other president after LIncoln (and some before). He was essentially the first president ever to resolve a strike in favor of the workers by telling the corporations the government was going to keep the company, if they couldn't deal with it.

-He actually knew how to build an international reputation: In fact, he arguably built the first one. The sailing of the great white fleet was world recognized, and it had the dual purpose of empasizing both power and charity (There were gifts at every port).
Good Old Teddy Bear is certainly one option. JFK is another. I think my third option would probably be Calvin Coolige.

I'd vote for Garfield.

He was cool enough to write Latin in one hand and Greek in the other.