Previous   Next

If they were going to add another president to Mount Rushmore, who do you think it should be?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on February 18, 2008

Browse the archives

Photo of Kirk Steinle

“Franklin Roosevelt. He came in at a difficult time and led us out of the Depression and a world war. He certainly did well with what he had to work with.”

Photo of Davi Kramer

“Kennedy is who first comes to mind. I think it’s more because of the things he said and the causes he was active in. His speeches were all so full of inspiration, and I think he had a lot of integrity, even though he had his moments.”

Photo of Jason Gladfelter

“I’d probably go with Wilson. He tried to do an international peace conference that kind of led to the formation of the U.N. I think it was a vision that the world was getting smaller and more interactive and that something had to be done.”

Photo of Denise Wendt

“I think Hillary would deserve it if she wins. I think the election of a woman president would mark an important turning point in our history.”

Comments

jonas 7 years, 3 months ago

Zaphod Breeblebrox. 'Cept that they would have to have enough space for two heads, not just one.

Stephen Prue 7 years, 3 months ago

removal of the four heads from the sacred paha sapa would not be a bad idea. rushmore is a monument to the heroes of manifest destiny.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 3 months ago

It doesn't matter. Just make sure it's the moon and not the mug.

lildos 7 years, 3 months ago

right_thinker (Anonymous) says:

"I think Hillary would deserve it if she wins. I think the election of a woman president would mark an important turning point in our history."

Vertigo, pitching forward, dizzy, sweaty, nauseous:..must lie down.

RT: I must say, I believe for the first time since I started reading these comments, I do agree with you...

Flap Doodle 7 years, 3 months ago

Garfield, the President, not the cat.

BTW,

still

having

a

wonderful

internet

life

.

sourpuss 7 years, 3 months ago

Woodrow Wilson. If we had just listened...

Tom McCune 7 years, 3 months ago

John Hancock, President of the Second Continental Congress (1776) and occasionally styled "President of the United States" at that time.

Samuel Huntington, the first President of the United States in Congress Assembled, under the Articles of Confederation (1781)

mick 7 years, 3 months ago

How about an anti-Mt. Rushmore- for target practice? Line them up in order- Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Cheney.

Tom McCune 7 years, 3 months ago

Multidisciplinary:

If you liked William Henry Harrison, you'd love David Rice Atchison, President for one day. (Arguably)

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/MOPLAatchison.html

BigPrune 7 years, 3 months ago

Abe Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Theodore Roosevelt. Any one of these four.

Tom McCune 7 years, 3 months ago

If not Josiah Bartlet, then Glen Allen Walken

Left_handed 7 years, 3 months ago

Jefferson Davis. We have ignored that part of our history for long enough, right Marion?

dajudge 7 years, 3 months ago

President Gerald Ford, for his outstanding golfing abilities. Fore!!! ouch.... sorry, can I go again?

Mike Blur 7 years, 3 months ago

"Informed (Anonymous) says:

I'm trying to find some article that prompted this OTS question. Anyone?"

Informed, take a look at a calendar that's nearby. Maybe then you'll have the rationale you appear to crave for the OTS.

trollkiller 7 years, 3 months ago

Does anyone read Marion's posts? Me neither.

thebuzzard 7 years, 3 months ago

Marion,

I appreciate your attempt to enlighten everyone on history of the WWI, no matter how hodgepodge it might be. Of course you'll remember that Wilson kept the US out of the war for as long as possible, and that about 1/3 of the US population was of German ancestry, and that it was Wilson alone who opposed the punitive measures of the Treaty and that the US didn't sign it. Perhaps you didn't consider the impact of a one-nation Europe upon the rest of the world, or the consequences of the German High Command ignoring international treaties (sweeping through the low countries).

The Lusitania was not the only passenger ship sunk by UBoats. And don't forget the Zimmerman telegram intercepted in Jan. of 1917. You say the US should have done nothing, or sink ALL ships within a certain zone? So, isolationism or war with everybody; great options.

Today, people want the US to enter situations where people are killed by the thousands, yet you did not want the US to enter WWI even though people were dying by the millions. WWI was a stupid war that flew quickly out of hand. Without the US entry it would have gone on longer. The Treaty, combined with passivity, led to WWII, not the Great War itself. As for Churchill and FDR during WWI: FDR was a non-factor and Churchill was disgraced. Still, thank you for the history, it does shed light on which history fits your argument.

Wilson at least tried to accomplish something big, and saw WWI as an opportunity to put it to use. Today, people cry for a stronger UN; the brainchild of many but brought forth by Wilson. Yes, he screwed up on certain situations, but who hasn't? People expect presidents to be perfect and wield all the power, when they are still human and have little power at hand.

ndmoderate 7 years, 3 months ago

I second the idea of finally finishing the Crazy Horse monument instead.

otto 7 years, 3 months ago

This will never happen anyway. By the time we get a study, waste all the money on bickering and consulatants. Not to mention not have anyone willing to do that much physical labor. Nothing like this will ever be built again.

Korky 7 years, 3 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

The four interviews are indicative of the pathetic understanding of American and world history that most people have!

The only one even close is Kirk with his suggestion of FDR but there are major problems with that as well, what with FDR having run over the Constitution in the manner that he did.

Please inform this history minor exactly what you mean by this comment.

Bladerunner 7 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Haiku_Cuckoo 7 years, 3 months ago

James Polk.

Just because it would be funny to see visitors to Mount Rushmore continuously point to the monument and say "Who is THAT guy?"

Logan5 7 years, 3 months ago

George W. Bush of course. . .

upside down.

Eileen Jones 7 years, 3 months ago

Mount Rushmore is stupid.

But F.D. Roosevelt is one of the greatest presidents. We badly need another one, now.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 3 months ago

snap writes:

Nick's

gonna

wear

off

the

rest

of

his

fingers

.

BTW

,

still

having

a

wonderful

internet

life

.

acg 7 years, 3 months ago

How in the world did dollypawpaw get a comment on such an innocuous thread removed? Let me guess, she figured a way to slip something racist into her post?! Not surprised.

Mt. Rushmore doesn't need another Presidential head on it. That would cost a small fortune and this nation doesn't have a small fortune. Our money is all wrapped up in bombs and crooked politicians right now so this whole thing is a moot point. If I just had to pick a head I'd go with Jed Bartlett, too. He was a great President. :)

fairylight 7 years, 3 months ago

Hilary R. Clinton - First female President of the United States of America! You go girl!

( Right thinker, Breathe! Breathe!) lol

Jcjayhawk1 7 years, 3 months ago

Definitely not Wilson. He approved of the unconstitutional Fed reserve act. (later only to regret it)

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world - no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."-Wilson

It will destroy our economy.

dajudge 7 years, 3 months ago

I thought about it, and I was wrong about President Ford. We should wait a few years, then put up President Chelsea Clinton. Or the twin Presidents Bush.

jonas 7 years, 3 months ago

"It will destroy our economy."

It's sure been a long time coming.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 3 months ago

Kurky vrute-a: "Pleese-a inffurm thees heestury meenur ixectly vhet yuoo meun by thees cumment. Um de hur de hur de hur." Mereeun vreetes: Hmmmm...............thees cuoold teke-a ell dey boot seence-a yuoo hefe-a esked zee qooesshun, I vuoold sooggest thet yuoo teke-a a guud cless in US heestury vheech cufers eruoond 1900-1945 fur sterters! Oone-a ooff zee prublems veet oooor cuoontry is thet su muny hefe-a "meenured" in heestury tu sooch a degree-a thet zeey nu lunger understund it et ell! FDR pleyeeng Poodered Tuest Mun veet zee Cunsteetooshun? Lemmee-a see-a, here-a....................................................... Fur sterters, ieeght ooff FDR's "recufery" prugrems vere-a stroock doon es unconsteetooiunel by zee Soopreme-a Cuoort. Um de hur de hur de hur........................................ Gu here-a: http://vvv.geuceeties. Um gesh dee bork, bork!cum/Pentegun/6315/f... Und here-a; "FDR's Legecy: Tyrunny": http://vvv.vurldnetdeeely. Bork bork bork!cum/noos/erteecl... FDR treeed fur speceeel legeesleshun tu elloo heem tu peck zee Soopremem cuoort! Frum zee ceeteshun: "Frunkleen Delunu Ruusefelt ves getteeng teecked. Bork bork bork! Zee Soopreme-a Cuoort kept declereeng hees Noo Deel legeesleshun unconsteetooshunel. Su FDR deceeded tu chunge-a zee cumpuseeshun ooff zee Cuoort. Um de hur de hur de hur. Oon Febrooery 5, 1937, he-a prupused zee Joodeeciery Reurguneezeshun Beell ooff 1937, freqooently celled zee Cuoort-peckeeng Beell. Vheele-a zee beell conteeened muny prufeesiuns, zee must nutureeuoos oone-a (vheech led tu zee neme-a "Cuoort-peckeeng Beell") vuoold hefe-a ellooed zee Preseedent zee pooer tu eppueent un ixtra Soopreme-a Cuoort Joosteece-a fur ifery seetting Joosteece-a oofer zee ege-a ooff 70½. Presented es a beell tu releeefe-a zee vurklued oon ilderly joodges, zee beell vuoold hefe-a ellooed Preseedent Ruusefelt tu eppueent oone-a joodge-a fur iech seetting joodge-a oofer ege-a 70 und seex munths veet a noo joodge-a veet et leest tee yeers ixpereeence-a. Ruusefelt vuoold zeen hefe-a zee ebeelity tu eppueent seex mure-a Soopreme-a Cuoort joosteeces immedeeetely (presoomebly pussesseeng a joodeeciel pheelusuphy nut husteele-a tu hees egenda), increeseeng zee seeze-a ooff zee cuoort tu 15 members. Um gesh dee bork, bork!" http://vvv.demucreteeccentrel.cum/shooDeea... Noo gu du sume-a humoourk!

Korky 7 years, 3 months ago

Oh, I guess I was wrong, FDR was obviously a scumbag. Nice unbiased articles.

thebuzzard 7 years, 3 months ago

Marion, Wilson, according to you, did not possess Clue One. So, give Nobel Foundation a call and ask for the Peace award to be returned. Or perhaps they don't have a clue either. And take away Roosevelt's award as well.

Ok, so replace "all" with "threatening warships". A vague term, very political, and, according to your own definition and recount of the Lusitania, broadly applicable. It doesn't really matter if the Lusitania was carrying war materials, it only matters if the Germans knew...knew... what it was carrying, and they did not. Still, if the Lusitania was considered a ship of war or belligerent for the following reasons: "(1) Armed or capable of being armed within days. (2) Carrying arms for belligerants and therefore a quite legitimate military target." so could any ship in the "Zone". All they had to be was capable of putting a couple of guns on the deck, which they all could have been. The US would be justified in applying "threatening warship" to any ship, and could sink all ships for simply carrying oil, flour, wheat, beer, coffee or anything that could supply troops. "Threatening warships": A vague term and unrealistic of the time. Even today, how many wars would this term start (see Tonkin as you brought up earlier...wasn't that based on threatening warships?)

Taken separately, the Lusitania, the War, and the Zimmerman telegram could all be shed aside. But taken together and in the context of a warring atmosphere they create a tense and threatened situation. Could the US have ignored the telegram? Yes. Could they have afforded to, with its military in a weakened and unprepared state? No. A tough decision to be sure. Perhaps the telegram was written to "look" like a contingent. Would you be willing to toss it aside given the context?

And if the US KNEW the warring European states were weakening and on the verge of collapse, why would the US enter? It should have waited for Europe to enter into chaos, then take control. Or perhaps they knew the German army was superior and stronger, that no allied forces had reached Germany, that Russia quit, and did not know that German supplies were short. Perhaps they also knew how aggressive Germany had been during unification. Perhaps the US made a bad decision, but it was the best one available. Hindsight is 20/20, don't fault those who have to make tough decisions in unprecedented territory.

The list you stated as to the USA's excuses to wage war contains some weary reasons, I'll give you that, but to overlook Germany's aggression in the face of their stated and well-known ambitions would be stupid. As would be to let Europe disintegrate leading to the starvation of millions.

Are you really comparing the EU with a possible united (forced unison at that) Europe of 1920? Are you kidding me??? WWI was not the first European war, you must know that.

thebuzzard 7 years, 3 months ago

Marion (cont)

And the reasoning used to state that WWI caused WWII overlooks the political distress, disagreements, power plays, selfishness and authoritarianism that ran rampant during the Treaty's composition, with only Wilson trying to reform international affairs, which relied prominently on warfare. My choice of Wilson was based on his vision for an international forum to discuss, debate, and problem solve potentially damaging disagreements, arguments, and conflicts. To say he was an idiot is idiocy.

thebuzzard 7 years, 3 months ago

Marion (cont)

And the reasoning used to state that WWI caused WWII overlooks the political distress, disagreements, power plays, selfishness and authoritarianism that ran rampant during the Treaty's composition, with only Wilson trying to reform international affairs, which relied prominently on warfare. The choice of Wilson was based on his vision for an international forum to discuss, debate, and problem solve potentially damaging disagreements, arguments, and conflicts. To say he was an idiot is idiocy.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.