You make some good points about Washington, but I see the same things in a different light. It was his reputation for winning the War that propelled him to the Presidency. Then the drive stopped. He allowed the Congress to fight and bicker without becoming involved. No institutions were built up during his administration, although his was the first and the country was still forming its ideals. His policies could be simply summed up as laizzer faire. This attitude was very common with the ruling Virginia gentry at the time. The Virginia Planters were the American Nobles and didn’t care for any government intrusion into their affairs. It was also this attitude that almost allowed the country to split up.

I believe that he didn’t run for a third term because he was old and tired, but would need to research that before I bet on it. Also, if I remember correctly, he was tired of all the bickering and fighting in Congress and between the States.

Teddy Roosevelt only ran for two terms. He initially was the Vice President and it was after McKinley was assassinated that he took over as President. He won on his own in 1904 and retired in 1909; allowing his VP, Taft to take over. Because he disagreed with Taft so strongly that he ran the second time in 1912, splitting the ticket and allowing Wilson to win.

I don’t believe that it was until Madison that there was a push from White settlers into the Indian lands. Up to that point most of the Indians were west of the Allegany’s and north of the Ohio, dating from the British colonial days. These incursions, for the most part were small and usually backed by treaties and payment for the land.

It was during Jackson’s Administration that the Indians east of the Mississippi were forced to move to Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Kansas. Land was bought from Indians that didn’t own it and those that lived there were forced to move. In my earlier post I used the word nepotism. I should have said cronyism. Jackson gave the spoils of office to the Democrats and his backers in particular. Many got quite rich at the people’s expense during his administration.

In Europe, several writers noted the corruption taking place in America. They derided the democratic new country as returning to the feudal system that was declining in Europe. Slavery was either banned or was being banned by European powers yet Jackson made a loud apology for slavery. Jackson influenced Karl Marx that the elite could not be trusted to govern for the people and thus the people must govern themselves.

I wrote this off the top of my head as I remember my history. I think it is fairly accurate but I apologize for any errors and please remember that it is my take. And Sound, I like your writing.

I must strongly disagree with your assessment of Washington.

His strength and force of character, good common sense and sound judgment largely made the Pres office what it is today. It is a tribute to GW that so many of the traditions and SOPs created by him are still in effect and still effective today.

His refusal to get involved in Party politics (which started almost at once when the nation was founded) allowed those first formative years to proceed in a very even handed and non-partisan way. It gave time for party structure to be created that were roughly equal in power and this provide some semblance of choice.

I think more to the point his refusal not only to be a king, but to NOT run for a third term left us the tradition of the peaceful and fairly frequent turnover of power that is one of the minor miracles of our system to this day. Remember no other politician ran for a third term until TR in 1912, and no other successfully ran for a third term until FDR in 1940. Thank god for the 22nd (right?) amendment.

I don’t think any other man could have done half as well as he did being the “first”.

As the Indian removal policy – That was standard American policy from GW till TR – so lump everybody in the country in on that one.

How did Jackson “shame” the country – I can’t think of an incident, but I don’t know everything.

Thanks

Ok, can you name a former General that did make a good President?

Washington’s success was mostly because he was the hero of the revolution. It wasn’t until the next Presidents, Adams and Jefferson that initiatives began to happen.

Jackson? He brought nepotism to a new, previously unseen height. Native Americans were robbed of their land (which was sold for pennies to speculators). He defied the Supreme Court. He shamed America.

Grant? He did nothing to help reconstruction. He allowed carpetbaggers to rob the South. His army brought Native American land theft and treaty breaking to a new level. He was as incompetent as his administration was corrupt.

The next four (or is it five) Presidents that were Civil War Generals were all just as bad and unmemorable.

Eisenhower? Another does nothing and let the world continue to turn President. He warned us about the “Military-Industrial Complex”, which was nice, but said nothing about McCarthy’s witch-hunt. In fact he chose for a Vice-President “I have here on micro-film a list of communist sympathizers” Nixon. After Truman’s policies wore off, America fell into a depression. His interventions into other countries and support for dictatorships won the US a reputation that still remains today.

Dubya? Masquerading as General Disaster, his record speaks for itself.

It depends on the type. Guys like Scott and Clark(“Kerry’s a lieutenant and I’m a general”) that are medals guys don’t work out, but the normal guys do.

The only possible contest would be if Senator John McCain runs and could get a middle of the road Republican (Senator Richard Lugar?) or even a conservative Democrat such as Joe Lieberman as a running mate. To be sure, if Powell is the running mate for McCain, then That will be a shoe in.

If Powell leads the ticket for either the Democrats or Republicans against a moderate, he is a goner. Old Generals have not made good Presidents with the possible exception of Washington. He might have support as a support player but not as the leader. If Jeb Bush, Frist, Trent Lott, or another extreme right wing Republican runs, then Powell would win in a heart beat.

But, anything could happen in the next two years.

Your article looks solid, though. I mentioned it to a couple of friends — including one who just had his name taken off the Republican rolls after 50 years. He said he’d vote for Powell no matter which hat he was wearing. As long as we’d be shed of Bushes/

I did not believe, nor was I amused by,, the speech Powell gave to the UN security council with cartoon drawings of rocket transport trucks, and cassette recordings allegedly of Iraqi generals, urging the strike against the Butcher of Baghdad.

But the scenario you describe certainly seems plausible and even somewhat likely. I’m convinced, pending any serious alternative explanation.