Obviously we are thinking about the seven brave astronauts who died on Saturday. They gave their lives in the pursuit of knowledge for the betterment of everybody.

Here's a short list probably familiar to everyone..

1. Martin Luther King
2. George Marshall
3. ALbert Einstein
4. Henry David Thoreau
5. Gandhi
6. ALbert Schweitzer..
7. Wilt Chamberlin
8. Madam Curie
9. Eleanor Roosevelt (not Franklin)
10. Woodrow Wilson
11. Susan B. Anthony
12. Wilt Chamberlin
13. Lou Gehrig
14. Medger Evers
15. ??

Sure he's famous for screwing how many women... 10,000... if he's considered signficant in your eyes, I would hate to know how the President rates.

TT

eom

That was my not so subtle attempt to interject alittle humor...
As posted below Wilt had records in two areas. One on the court.. and one off the court.. I was referring to the one off the court.. In his autobiography,Wilt claims to have bedded over 10,000 women.  Do the math.. You have to admit what an amazing feat that is physically and mentally...

That self righteous bitch??





(lol)

Totally tongue and cheek. Not meant seriously..
But you have to be amazed at what that physically would mean?
THis guy played basketball. WHere did he have the energy to screw what an average of 3.6 a day over the course of 10 years?
I think he claimed to have done this many in a shorter period...

You really have to take your hat off and admire the guy for such concentration, determination and staying power... I am positive he will go down as one of the great role models for many young boys..

Some political thoughts...

Jimmy Carter, not as a President but becuase of his unbelievable accomplishments as a Governor before and as a citizen after

Jefferson/Adams/Washington/Madison

Lech Walensa, Nelson Mandella

Yeltsin/Gorbie - Despite all the problems and failings, architected the end of the cold war from inside, with little help from us.

As for Wilt, even Ted Bundy was among the scoring leaders in his field.  A better athlete would be Ali, not just the best but a standout spokesman for his religious convictions as well.

Yeah, Wilt was a great basketball player...& maybe just as prolific at writing fiction!  Or else his nick-name of 'The Stilt' didn't have anything to do with basketball at all?  LOL

There are probably many more, but one that comes to mind is Winston Churchill who did so much to hold British morale together during their darkest days of World War II.

Perhaps he belongs on the list of inspirational followers  ;^)

Catherine the Great... You know where she got her name from?

Sometimes we can get inspiration from those that are not superhuman or mythical in any sense but simply by there dedication and hard work and never giving up..
An example...

Wilma Rudolf..became an olympian track star.. was hit with polio or born with a disfiguring handicapp that had her in leg braces as a child.

Cesar Franck: For any classical music conisours. No genius like Mozart. In fact he did not right anything of significance until the final decade of his life which ended at 68. Instead he dedicated most of his life of teaching others.. It took him a whole lifetime to recover from the exploitation of his father as a child prodigy.. He did not discover his own unique musical voice until in his late 50's. Wonderful inspirational story..

So many out there..Stories of normal human beings rising to the occassion out of some compelling circumstance are most inspirational to me..

From a statesmen standpoint,

I always gravitated to Alexandar Hamilton in the 18th century,
and my favorite is George Marshall who  probably had more impact on this country and the world then any other figure not holding the Presidency or top gov't spot. This man saved Europe after WWII, and sacrificed his personal life and professional ambitions to serve his country.. Not a finer patriot to be found...

the qualify I admired most of the first four is their resilience which I lack.

Like Gandhi before him, Martin Luther King Jr. made the heroic, historic and infinitely wise choice of non-violence which is the most powerful weapon against injustice in a democracy.

Nixon is a much dispised figure.  However, most people, even many of his harshest critics, gave grudging nods to his resilience after the numerous monumental setbacks in his life.

Winston Churchill and FDR are the giants that shaped the modern western democracies.  Without FDR's effort of restoring faith in Capitalism and Market Economy, US won't be ready for the challenge of WWII.

Winston Churchill is the only figure in the 20th Century who could withstand the pressure to seek peace and rally the British public to continue the fight against Nazi Germany in the dark days of Fall 1940 and most of 1941.  Without the heavy loss of Luftwafts suffered in the Battle of Britain and the distraction of the North Africa campaign, I am not sure USSR would prevail eventually in those terrible battles.

Oops, bad mistake, should never use abbeviation for Franklin D Roosevelt.

-- Modified on 2/4/2003 12:26:04 PM

"The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice" by Christopher Hitchens

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/185984054X/qid=1044314386/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/002-4961040-9160869?v=glance&s=books

Sometimes accolodes precede the reality on the ground.

-- Modified on 2/3/2003 3:23:14 PM

-- Modified on 2/3/2003 5:15:07 PM

The Failure of Success

                   Abe Lincoln’s life vividly illustrates the value of perseverance in success:

                       Failed in business at 22.
                       Lost election for legislature at 23.
                       Failed in business at 24
                       Elected to legislature at 25.
                       Sweetheart died at 26.
                       Nervous breakdown at 27.
                       Defeated for Speaker at 29.
                       Defeated for Elector at 31.
                       Defeated for Congress at 34.
                       Elected to Congress at 37.
                       Defeated for Congress at 39.
                       Defeated for Senate at 46.
                       Defeated for Vice President at 47.
                       Defeated for Senate at 49.
                       Elected President of the US at 51.

Ludwig Van Beethoven
Erwin Schroedinger
Marcus Aurelius
Snefru
Ovid
Plato
Stephen Hawking

nothing like the public rejections experienced by Churchill and Nixon, let alone the come back in the 1930s after Polio (people were not as open-minded then) by FDR and the numerous jailings and setbacks by Gandhi against the mighty British Empire.  There is no need to elaborate on the constant threats and the great odds faced by MLK and his fellow civil right activists in the 60s.

Besides the failure of Dardanelles, Churchill suffered greatly in the aftermath of the resignation of Edward VIII (Duke of Windsor) and was practically exiled from the political scene until the dawn of WWII.

Nixon's fail campaign for the California Governorship in 1962 after the narrow, disputed loss of Presidential election and the resignation a decade later were extremely trying on any public figures.

Although there are lots of setbacks in the early war efforts against the South in the Civil War, the US Constitution with its 4 year term for the Presidency gave Lincoln enough time to wait for the Gettysburg victory.  Besides, there were sizable abolition supporters in the Congress (once the South seceded) to cushion the early blows.

Not to trivialize the importance of Lincoln in the Civil war and his determination to hold this country together.  He had great oratory and political skills.  His daring choice of Grant illustrated his good judgments.  But on the personal resilience part, I differ with your accessment.

Since the British parliamentary system could be brought down by a no-confidence vote in any time, Churchill was in a much vulnerable position in the early part of WWII.

It is to the credit of the Founding Fathers of this country and the amazing Constitution that US is the longest continuous democracy in the world.

-- Modified on 2/3/2003 4:30:52 PM

I would say BONO.  Proves that someone can be filthy rich and still have a conscience.  I would also include John Lennon.  He lived for peace, but died a violent death.  George Harrison also inspires me.  His response to the people of Bangladesh (sp) continues to challenge other musicians to make a difference through their music.  BTW, his last album, Brainwashed, is brilliant.

...then I'd have to say Leonardo da Vinci hands down.  No other that I can think of had genius talent in so many things...painter of the Mona Lisa--the first to 'map' the tissue & blood circulation of the human body (had to rob graves & discect cadavers to do it)--an astologer--inventor of many weapons of war, including drawings quite similar to the first helicopters.  No one else was so many hundreds of years ahead of his time.

I mean whether you see him as a mythical, a historical or religious figure, he's definitely lasted longer than any of the others as an inspiritational idol.  

Look at his life, born to a woman out of wedlock, he escapes death at birth then grows up to be a rabbi who tries to change the Jewish faith from the inside.  He tries to teach peace in the face of Roman occupation and for that his own people turn him over to the Romans to be killed.  

Every major religion recognizes him to some degree - Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism.  (If you don't know the buddhist link, in short, there are stories that Jesus left Nazareth at 13 when he was arranged to be married.  He ended up studying with buddhist priests in India then returned to Israel to teach Buddhist doctrines for which he was killed.)

So I say-
1. Jesus
2. My mom who raised 2 boys without support of their fathers
3. My high school football coach
4.  Henry David Thoreau who most people only think of in regards to nature, but his essays on civil disobedience directly influenced Ghandi and MLK.
5. the British dad at the Barcelona Olympics who jumped onto the track and helped his son cross the finish line after he had pulled his hamstring..

no one else comes close..

Sedona

No doubt about Marshall, perhaps one of the most under-rated public figures of all times.  Rather than one brief contribution, Marshall served his country many times, across many decades.  Every President in his adult life time called him, asked for his help, and he dropped everything and came.  His self-efacing unwillingness to accept any power and focus only on service is matched only by Washington's reluctance to become President, and even Washington gave in.

I agree that he defines the essence of the word "Patriotism" in a way few others do, even the legends of Americanna.

It's the only response that truly personalizes the original question.  

My personal idols are, in order:

1.   My father, who among other things taught me tolerance and the  difference between good and evil.
2.   My grandmother, who taught me what unconditional love is.
3.   Dr. Jonas Salk, who showed the effect that perserverance could have on a life, when applied properly, and for other more personal reasons.
4.   My cousin, a career US Marine officer, who taught me to love my country and democracy despite its shortcomings.
5.   My mother, who taught me how to shop for bargains!

(I just HAD to put in that #5---LOL!)



-- Modified on 2/3/2003 11:53:27 PM

Mine too is a great role model...

Have you told her that?  I don't mean do you think she knows that, I mean have you TOLD her that?  It doesn't matter what time it is when you're reading this, if she's still alive I'd call her right now and tell her.  If you already have, then shag her ass out of bed and tell her again!  It will change your relationship with each other, and the way each of you think about yourselves in ways that can't be explained.

Another came to mind as I read your list.  What about Theodore Roosevelt?  Here was a man who had the courage to follow his beliefs despite the constant obsticles he faced from 'career' politicians (even from within his own party).  He was the take-charge type who at times even exceeded even constitutional authority to achieve results (ie: his intervention in the coal miners strike that would have had disaterous effects on the entire country as coal at that time was as important as gas & electricity today).  He a modernized a weak navy, built the Panama Canal, had the vision to foresee the possibility of war with both Japan & Germany, instituted many social reforms to make life better for the common citizen..was even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for mediating a settlement of the Russo-Japanese War.  Sure, he had his critics but as have all great leaders...but none of their faces are on Mount Rushmore.

and not have it considered be sex. No, I'm not a Dem but just want to give credit to where it's deserved!

was a drug addict in prison going nowhere.Started a family, had to work hard to support us then he invested well (SoCal real estate) and now worth MILLIONS! My hats off to him!

yOU ARE correct.. The Marshall Plan is one of many.. He also was responsible for getting the army prepared for War which it was not, he identified talented officers and made sure they got promoted, such as george Patton and Eisenhower..

It is actually a disgrace that this man has not been given the recognition in the form of a momument or even currency that he deserves...

I think you need to re-consider.. Lincoln's war effort was not popular and until the appointment of Grant, he was very much in danger of being defeated in re-election.. He showed tremendous guts and fortitude to take this country into war.. None of his predessors had the stomach for it. He saved the Union. In terms of crisis, during his life-time he buried everyone of his children except one. His wife was mentally unstable. He suffered from a genetic illness that would have killed him within a year of his murder.. THe fact that he functioned at such a high level is a miracle..

Historians are almost in universal agreement that he was the greatest president this country has had to date.. The tragedy and irony of his murder at the hands of Confederate sympathizer, is that if he had lived, he had the political skills to ease the reconstruction period and make it less painful for the South to become re-integrated back into the Union. Unfortunately,his successor was not politically skilled and the South paid a heavy price for almost a century as the North took out its revenge..

Again,
for my own part,the ones that I find more inspirational are those that contributed tremendously but did not do it from the position of presidential power, but through influence..

Alexander Hamilton saw the importance of building up the manufacturing capabilities of this country when we were a nation of farmers. He saw the importance of a strong central bank..

He saw the need for a powerful executive.. It is interesting that both him and Ben Franklin are the only two figures on our money that were not presidents..

Agree with you on George. I think he put his money where his mouth was more so then even Lennon.. But his last album does not hold a candle to ALL THings Must Pass.. In all fairness nothing could.  That album is a masterpiece by any standards. No single post beatle album ever came close to this expressive landmark album..

I totally agree. You hit the one person who was probably the most gifted individual in recorded history.. Nobody comes close.
Science, math, Art, with expertise in many subcategories of each...

Actually he really didn't. He did it with an intern, someone who he had authority over, he got caught.. Got Impeached...


Nope.. For my money, Kennedy.. Good god... he fucked so many beautiful women, and did it with his back problems..ANd still is admired today...

TR was a visionary and reformer.  He struck me as a Giuliani who thrived on running against his opponents.  He had 3 major accomplishments in his presidency: 1) project USA as a world power on par with the Europeans, 2) Anti-trust, and 3) Brought the issue of environment and conservation to the national dialogue.  Of the three, I will say that only the last one he could claim major credit.  (I know it would be controversial)

In the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, Philippines, Puerto Rico and Cuba were under the protection and domain of USA.  Since Philippines is outside the domain of Monroe’s Doctrine, USA was committed to be active in the world stage.  Just like British Raj (India) necessitated the Suez Canal, the South Pacific Islands – Hawaii, Guam and Philippines made the Panama Canal a necessity.

The Russo-Japanese War is about the dominance of NE China (Manchuria) and Korea.  With Russian lost their Pacific fleet in Port Arthur (inside China) and its focus constant distracted by the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans, it was quite easy for TR to step forward and made the peace.  Nobel Peace Prize was still in its infancy so the award to TR was used to popularize the award.  (I am very cynical about the politics of Nobel Peace Prize, especially last year’s award to Jimmy Carter)

The most importance events related to Anti-trust in USA are the passing of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the expose of John D. Rockefeller by Ida Tarbell.  Obviously, it took an administration to enforce laws on the book; but the public sentiment very much demanded the action.

His third party candidacy in the 1912 election is one of the overlooked but pivotal events in US history.  Without that action, Woodrow Wilson would not become a president.  Imagine the world without the idea of self-determination (the most revolutionary idea since the French Revolution), the Treaty of Versaille, the 14-points and the League of Nations.

There is currently a revision of McKinley’s presidency.  Don’t know enough about the presidency of William Howard Taft to fairly judge what his response would be in face of WWI.

Unfortunately for TR, his presidency occurred in quieter time.  We would never know how good he could be in face of historic tides.

As far as Eisenhower is concern, I am on the side of George Patton.  If not for Patton’s genius and Marshall’s backing, I don’t think Eisenhower would be a success.  Despite the Yalta agreement, the effect of his conceding Berlin to the Soviets on the battleground emboldened Stalin.

Eisenhower’s presidency was too cautious and aloof.  His anti-colonialism overlooked the long term effect of intervening on the Suez-Canal crisis.  He practically made Nasser an overnight hero to the Arab world and the effect of that in the Middle East is still felt today.  In the later days of his presidency, he was too tired to actively deal with burning issues such as the neglected treatment of Castro after the revolution and the role of US advisors in Vietnam.

He ceded the civil right issues to the Democrats despite the enforcement of Brown vs Board of Education.  Just like his lackluster effort in reshaping the sphere of influence in Europe in the battleground immediately after the defeat of the German army and in the Cold War, his lackluster care of the Republican party forced the Progressive NE wing of the party to concede to the conservative SW wing of Barry Goldwater.

JMHO, if Eisenhower got off his high horse and help Richard Nixon won the presidency in 1960, there will be no Southern Strategy and I doubt that the religious right will be as influential as now.


-- Modified on 2/4/2003 1:54:01 PM

FYI, He was not born out of weblock. Mary & Joseph were married.

Reespite my political leaning and affiliation, TR and Eisenhower don’t catch my fancy…

We agree on much about TR, but rather than Guiliani I'd compare him more to a combination of FDR (as many of the latter's reforms were either extentions of, or similar to, what TR's were) & Harry Truman (for his willingness to take a stand in what he believed was right regardless of political opposition, or public opinion).  

I had almost forgotten about #3 on your list, but agree it should be added.  As to your first two, I believe he was the driving force behind both.  They certainly would have come to past at some time...but who can say when or to what degree or effect?  In a sense it comes down to the question of how much of a role the timing of other events any plays in man's leadership.  Would FDR for example, be held in such high regard by so many if not for WWII? There is no doubt our entry into the war helped galavanize the nation, but we were actually still in the last stages of the Great Depression at that time & the war itself spurred tremendous ecomonic recovery..some argue to a greater extent than any FDR himself had done even though he had little effective opposition in Congress.  Not debating the man or what he did, just citing him as an example.

Wilson was IMO not a bad president but more of an idealist than one who was truly effective on the world stage.  His 14 points were virtually ignored by the victorious European leaders, who proceeded to write the various (flawed & self-serving) agreements known commonly as the Versailles Treaty which many historians believe to have played a major part in the causes of World WarII..at least in the rise to power of Hitler & thus Nazi-controlled Germany.  With regard to preventing truly major armed conflicts the Treaty of Versailles did so for only 20yrs, while the Congress of Vienna (despised by so many & certainly not without some justification) did so for five times as long. But had the 14 points been effectively implemented it's also possible the problems in both the Balkans & Middle-East might be less.  Naturally that's all for those who speculate or specialize in revisionist history, for there's no way of knowing what might have been.

The politics of the Nobel Prize?  Sure, no doubt of the effect.  Look at the joint award to Henry Kissenger & his North Vietnamese counterpart (whose names escapes me) for ending that war.  I think TR was more deserving than either those two or Jimmy Carter, even though JC would probably make a great next-door neighbor.


Eisenhower?  I made no mention of him...wouldn't be on my list of candidates for a face on Rushmore.  But I'm trying to keep my comments limited to a historical context, leaving out politics as much as possible.

Hamilton contributed immensly.  Look at the number of countries that still don't have a central banking system comparable to what he set up over two hundred years ago.

I think history shortchanges him a bit because he didn't have a "warm and fuzzy"' personality, just a brilliant mind.  Franklin also had a brilliant mind, but in a more socially acceptable package.  

The more you study that generation in our history, the more you realize what empty suits fill politics today.  And I don't think it's a case of the story getting better in the re-telling.  I think it was a truly unique confluence of time and place that produced such farsighted thinking.  Today people confuse media saavy with intelligence and lack of media saavy with stupidity- both are totally wrong.  

I'm quite sure if Hamilton were alive today, he'd piss-off most of those in Washington, including all of the media who would probably destroy him before he could get anything accomplished.  At the same time, Franklin would probably be schmoozing the media, while making fun of them (without them even realizing it, of course).

If you've ever heard Barbara Boxer or Laretta Sanchez speak without a prepared speech, it's almost painful to think they're in Congress (obviously there are dozens of other examples I could have used too).  I'm afraid we live in a watered-down era.

Many people of my political leaning and affiliation (moderate Republicans) admired TR and Eisenhower and used them as example for good presidency.  Since all five persons I listed were political figures, 4 of them being actual or de facto head of state, I thought I would mention Eisenhower as a comparison and illustrate my points.

Truman is another great president.  In my humble opinion, he was a gutsier president than FDR.  The decisions to drop the atomic bombs and relinquish McArthur’s authority are some of the toughest decisions a president faced.

By no means do I claim that my choices are better presidents or leaders than others.  Nixon is a bad president simply because through his action he damaged the Constitution and pushed the cynicism of American public to a pinnacle which we are still suffering from.

With the exception of Gandhi and to a less extent MLK, the men I chose are deeply faulted men - Churchill with his strong held idea of imperialism, FDK with his pseudo anti-Semitism and Nixon’s deep seated paranoia.  All of them faced near impossible odds almost alone by themselves with lots of doubts even among their small group of followers.  Through their sheer determinations and resilience, they overcame those obstacles.

Most of the times, events determined the greatness of a leader.  Just like you said, FDR and Churchill would not be considered one of the greatest if not the start of WWII.  However, there are a few leaders who shaped their own destinies.

Gandhi and MLK came to mind.  Non-violence is a very novel and tough idea to convince vast amount of followers.  The press for the independence of India and the civil right movement had been simmered for a long time.  It was only through the leadership and skill of these two that they came to favorable resolutions.

Reagan is another person who came to mind who shaped his own destiny.  His tough stance against the Soviet Union in face of much ridicule at home and aboard spoke volumes to his secure character.  He could just linger on like Ford and Carter with the resolution of the hostage crisis, but he didn’t.  His role in the reversal of the fortune of USSR and the end of the Cold War will be much debated by historians and others.

Note: Reagan and Truman are used as examples to illustrate my points.  Like you, I try to stay within the historic context and not enter the realm of politics.  However, sometimes I just couldn't help myself.



-- Modified on 2/4/2003 9:31:44 PM

The media and the hell we put candidates through have chased away anyone with any sanity from seeking public office. And too much of a premium is put on eloquence and not substance..

Hamilton would have offended alot of people.. Hell he did in his own time, and it cost him his life..

Its depressing to think that the framers of our constitution and those men who signed the declaration of independence.. anyone of them would have made a worthy leader today... Hard to imagine like you said that so much brilliance, leadership, and forsight existed at one time...

Reespite my political leaning and affiliation, TR and Eisenhower don’t catch my fancy…

You are obviously well versed and well read in history, so I can not challange you here without doing much more preparation. I don't agree with your assessment of TR.. Enforcement of anti-turst laws was critical, to making sure those laws stuck.. I do think he was relevant to our expansion of being a global power..

As far as Eisenhower is concerned... I dispise him not only as a president but as a man... This man owed his career to George Marshall. Yet at the height of the McCarthy Witch hunt hysteria, an hysteria he could have stopped anytime.. not only did he do nothing.. but he sat in silence while McCarthy called George Marshall a traitor... Fuckin Unbelievable... One of the most honorable people this country ever had, and Ike did nothing...
For that alone he should rot in hell!!!! SOme hero...

him one of the candidates in my list.  Great man, yes.  Have a lot of respect for him, yes, but not enough personal traits for me to admire.

As I stated in my response to Greywolf below about TR, most of the men in my list were deeply faulted.

Although the losing of his children were no doubt great blows to him, in the Nineteenth Century, it was not an uncommon occurrence unlike in the modern days.  

The purpose of the establishment of the Republican Party was the abolition of slavery.  The civil war was forced upon Lincoln and he had no choice but declared war.  No country before then, with the possible exception of the split of Roman Empire, allowed large secessions without war.

The US Constitution gave Lincoln ample time to achieve his goal. (4 years is a long time in terms of war.)  Except for the fear of not being re-elected, Lincoln had the power and the backing of the Republican Party in Congress to conduct the civil war.  Unlike George McClellan who sought power for power’s sake, Lincoln wanted to do great things with his presidency.  The Union was always stronger than the Confederacy.  That was why Lee had to lead his army into PA.  With the toughness of Grant and Sherman and the superior strength of the Union army and industrial might, given time, the South was doomed.

I personally don’t buy the argument of European recognition would greatly strengthen the hand of Confederacy.  The problem with that argument was that the only great sea powers that could give the South important material support at the time were Britain and France.  France just suffered a humiliated defeat at the hand of Mexico in The Battle of Pueblo.  The British Raj was in its infancy.  After many years of efforts, anti-slavery movement in Britain was still strong.  It would be hard for a British government to support the slave-holding Confederacy.

JMHO, the only major mistake of Lincoln’s presidency was the selection of Andrew Johnson as the Vice President.  I don’t think the gesture to Southerners in 1864 was necessary.  If Lincoln didn’t get assassinated or his Vice President was a Northern abolitionist, the course of this Republic would be greatly different.

Unlike many people, I don’t think a conviction of Andrew Johnson in the impeachment trial would greatly weaken the presidency.  It is extremely difficult to gather 2/3 Senate votes for a conviction (practically require a huge size of the president’s political party to abandon him).  There was enough safe guard built into the Constitution to prevent that from happening often.

After the failure to topple Andrew Johnson, abolitionist lost ground in reshaping the national agenda.  It was a tragedy that the Republican controlled Senate didn’t have the guts to throw Johnson out of office.  With the examples of post WWII Germany and Japan, I believe the South under radical reform would rid most of the Southern racism in a couple of generations.

Okay.. Then.. I think you need to go back and  read more on his early life.. The traits of character are there.. From his integrity and honesty, as well as the intellect that was developed from self-education...

I simply am dumbfounded by your not finding enough to admire in this man personally.. I am more shocked because you are very educated..

Execuse me.. I have a thing for Abe... Only president with the exception of Truman (don't start that one.. I know he has alot of warts) are presidents I admired most not only for how they conducted themselves as presidents, but also for how they conducted themselves as people...

powerful men be they, Gen. MacArthur or the WASP Establishments.

Even though Stephen Ambrose was a great admirer of Eisenhower, his biography on him was a real eye-opener for me.  He has very few scruples when it came to cover his behind.

He loved his immediate reputation too much to do the real hard things in a Presidency.  He asked too many people to do the dirty works for him.

qualities.  He and TR are good hard working people with very good judgments.  

However, there are many good hard working people who overcame their background and succeeded.  Very few people who could prevail over huge setbacks late in their life or have the courage to face impossible odds alone.  Those are just traits that I ranked higher than others.

I know I sound like putting down Lincoln and TR.  I don't.  It is just that in the ranking of personal traits I admired the most, theirs are not my most valued.  Different people have different takes.

Enough about history and different perspectives.  I am sure other members are starting to wonder.

Take care.

-- Modified on 2/5/2003 1:02:31 AM

If TR were in power, we hobbyists wouldn't be around. I read the biographies out on him and though he was quite an amazing person, he was also very conservative to the point of fanatical.

That cautious man sat and did nothing while the man he owed his entire career to (George Marshall), was accused of being a traitor!!! Ike was the only person that could have stopped McCarthy.. No democrat could have done it.. You don't get to be a 5-star General being cautious.. When it came time to face a moral test in one of this nations darkest moments, Ike failed. Period!!! End of Story.

If it was up to him he would have returned all slaves to Africa.

His advisors were far more sympathic to the slaves and were able to convince Lincoln to take a more moderate approach to post civil war reconstruction and treatment of newly freed slaves.

I am not suggesting that Lincoln was not a great man (we share the same birthday so I gotta like him) - but his views were not as idealistic as history remembers him.