He has eased off, it seems. Or maybe I just pay attention to him less. He would run down the usual list of Teebow-esque nonsense when he was in Orlando.

Whoever gives him that last contract is going to be sorry...

Quite the opposite, actually, he may have been the best president in the 19th century with regard to that issue (understand the “best” in context; not the same as saying he was great). He moved for peace, appointed a Native American to serve as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and tried to inhibit the genocide.

Come on man, that’s your response?

The goal wasn’t to go to war, it was to protect Kuwait. Kuwait is better protected if Iraq never invades. Being unclear on what the response will be to a guy you have spent the last decade arming and supporting, and, in fact, indicating that you are indifferent to an invasion, more or less ensures that invasion will…

Roosevelt had 278 delegates (won 9/12 primaries) entering the convention, LaFollette had 36, Taft 48. It was pretty clear they were going to give it to Taft.

But he did so many really, really terrible things:

Ah, my fault. Didn’t understand your point.

I don’t think we disagree much. I may not have expressed my point well.

Sure. I edited to include him. I don’t think you can whitewash a lot of his poor choices, though. As I said, it’s borderline amazing that he didn’t engage in more bellicose activity during the 50's. It was Kennedy and Johnson (to me, one of the most interesting presidents - his highs were among the highest, and his…

See, this action is not explicable if you believe that the sole purpose of the North was to unify the country (which is something that Lost Causers love to argue). Unity was very much a central concern, and that concern was stressed in the lead up to the war as anti-slavery, pro-union politicians searched for some…

Same reason Jalopnik commenters search for increasingly deviant and violent forms of pornography: more and more difficult to get that high...

As I said below, Grant was not personally corrupt, and his record has been deeply perverted by Lost Cause (pro Confederacy) propagandists. Had Grant’s position on Reconstruction (using the military to suppress the KKK, creating the Justice Department to protect the rights and safety of freed slaves, pushing through…

Absolutely. It was an AWESOME War.

“Ending corruption in Civil Service” is a veeery kind way of describing the internal squabbling in the Republican Party that lead to his nomination, in the first place. It was all spoils system nonsense, and Garfield did a little bit to push back on that while still managing to name a lot of friends to cushy positions.

That’s fair, but the majority of his presidency - and, in fact, his prior political career - was devoted to ridiculous Republican Party internal squabbles - the Spoils System, and such.

Sure, but we didn’t even try. I agree that there is no way to know what would have happened, but that’s because we didn’t say, “Saddam, do not attack Kuwait. We will unleash holy hell on you if you try it.” Maybe he still invades, but the fact that we didn’t say that is troubling. There would have been nothing lost by…

I don’t know, handled Iraq responsibly?

Sure, but it was definitely a door through which our involvement in the region increased. That was really the only point - we jumped into Iran, which then led to the Shah and our propping up of the regime. We also found our way in through Israel.

This is a hobby horse of mine. That reputation - of not being a competent president - is almost entirely propaganda nonsense generated by Lost Causers-people sympathetic and supportive of the Confederacy who have spent every second since Appomattox clouding the reasons for the war and slandering everyone in the North.