Friday, April 13, 2007

Cancer Politics

They say you should on a subject you know. It just occurred to me that this should be an easy column for me, matching up the issues of political opinion and Cancer. If you know anything about me, you know my political opinions are strong, and I am one of those people who has been diagnosed with Cancer, but I have not – yet – had to pay a heavy cost in dealing with it. It seems to me that one thing Politics and Cancer have in common, is that everyone seems to say they understand what those words mean, but in actual fact most people have a superficial and error-heavy understanding of either, and both topics scare people a little bit if anyone mentions those words in relation to their personal lives. It’s a rare person who is seriously interested in running for elected office, and no one is casual about the possibility of contracting a cancerous condition.

Starting with Cancer, then. There are thirteen major categories of Cancer, and the National Cancer Institute recognizes 204 specific types of cancer. Yet even that list is not comprehensive, as there have been recent discoveries of new forms of cancer, and there are also rare cancers which are often ignored in discussions, such as Pseudomyxoma Peritonei, a free-floating cancer of the abdominal cavity, and more importantly is also ignored in research funding. But that is for another time. The American Cancer Society says that Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States. Half of all men and one third of all women in the United States will develop cancer during their lifetimes.”

Let’s put that another way – if you found out there was between a 33 and 50 percent chance that someday someone would shoot at you with a rifle, would that concern you? Cancer, then, is a scary word, the sort of thing which always gets your attention. This is why, naturally, people begin to wonder about a candidate when the C-word shows up in his or her family. Yet it’s a strange thing. John Edwards and his wife discussed their options when her Breast Cancer returned, and from what I understand they decided together that he should continue his campaign to run for President. Since Elizabeth has battled cancer before, and she is intelligent and appears to be aware of what she is facing now, it seems to me poor courtesy for so many people who are not directly involved with the Edwards to castigate them for this decision. And Fred Thompson is getting some of the same doubts, and he will hear more to come, for his own medical condition, even though his non-Hodgkins Lymphoma was successfully treated and is in remission. It’s as if the man is unacceptable to some folks as a candidate, simply because he has fought the disease and continued in his life. You’d think someone who has battled Cancer would be respected for their fortitude, and judged on the quality of their ability in the area concerned, but in the wacky world of Politics, image is everything for some folks and a person who has endured a challenge and prevailed may still be considered ‘damaged goods’, while a morally bankrupt con artist caught in the act can still be considered a ‘contender’. Something is very wrong there. I noted Edwards and Thompson, because they are the polar opposites to me; I could never consider voting for Edwards and Fred became a favorite for me as soon as he mentioned he might run, but in one way they are the same: Each man deserves to be judged on his qualifications, and anyone who wants to use the Cancer issue against them should be treated as a cur and a blackguard.

And that brings me to Politics. I don’t cheer for politicians as a rule; they are prone to selfish and ego-centric behavior, but we the voters have always had choices available to us, and so we deserve what we get. Oh, I agree that sometimes what shows up in the General Election comes down to a question of avoiding whoever is worse, but that’s why we have primaries. And if all the guys out there do nothing for you, you could always consider running yourself.

OK, the average guy doesn’t have a chance of becoming President, and ordinary people don’t ever seem to show up on the ballot. But before you start playing up the old ‘smoke-filled back room’ theory again, I should remind you that there is a way to get involved yourself, beyond just voting I mean, and beyond working to support someone’s campaign. And it’s simpler than you think. Just show up at your precinct when the polls close, and ask to attend the caucus. Both major parties have one, and that’s where they select the delegates to the state convention, and who help write up the party platform. Ultimately, this process even leads to the selection of the electors from each state for the Presidential campaign, though that part is a longer process. Now, that’s how they do it in Texas so things might be a mite different in other places, but if you want to find out, just ask your local party people how to get involved. You might find local politics more to your liking than the big stage, but whether Republican or Democrat, and also some of the more sane smaller parties, there is always an eager interest in getting people involved, and that includes running as a candidate. Like any project involving a network, you need to start sooner if your goals are bigger, but it can be done.

So why don’t we see more candidates in the primaries? Two reasons, really. Part of it is that the parties have a winnowing process, and by the time the actual primary elections are here, the party has narrowed down the field to the guys they think will be appealing to the average voter in their party. The other reason will make you uncomfortable, or at least it should do that. It’s because we are lazy.

Let’s start with the numbers. Maybe 90% of the adult population is eligible to register to vote. Maybe 88% of the eligible population, (or 80% of the adult population) actually goes and gets registered. Maybe 56% of the registered voters (or 45% of the adult population) actually goes and votes, and that’s in Presidential years. Maybe 66% of those who will vote in the General Election, also vote in the Primaries (or maybe 30% of the adult population). And maybe 2% of those who vote in the Primaries will work for a candidate or participate in their party’s system (or 0.9% of the adult population). And perhaps 5% of those who work in their party’s system will themselves choose to run for office. That means only somewhere around 0.045% of the adult population will run for office, ever, for all offices, local through national. You’ll get the ambitious, the who-you-know “connected” players, and you’ll get a very few genuinely worthwhile candidates that way. And that is truly unfortunate.

Why don’t more people run? Consider what it costs to run for office. I mentioned a few times that my automatic first choice for President 2008, and to my mind the only person truly qualified for the job at this time, is Condi Rice. The War on Terror is that important, and she alone shows the balance of tactical and strategic thinking which is critical to that need. But Condi won’t run. Why not? She hasn’t said, but I think it’s because Condi knows what a run will take out of her, and I don’t just mean the glaring media attention. A campaign is a full-time job, and yet a candidate is expected to perform their regular responsibilities as well, which you can do as a Governor or a Senator, but which people with real jobs would be hard-pressed to manage. There is also the personal cost, in money, stress, and second-guessing. For instance, I will indelicately submit that Ms. Rice has had a sex life while she served as National Security Advisor and then as Secretary of State. We’ve never heard about it, because even the media of today understands and accepts that this aspect of Ms. Rice’s life is private, and there is no purpose to chasing Ms. Rice’s amorous admirers. That would, unfortunately, change if she declared that she was running for President, because any gentleman companion would be measured as a potential First Husband, and as such privacy would be obliterated on the pretext of the public’s right to know, but in actual fact the hunger to find a hot story would be the real motive. There’s not many people, frankly, who can stand the hot light of such interrogation at every turn, much less manage to bear it with the apparent ease and comfort which we demand of our potential leaders. And even a candidate who loses a race for a significant office, is never really able to go back to being considered a regular guy. The public gets angry because political figures are not ordinary people, but really, we never let them go back to being just regular folk, do we?

I got a small taste of that when I was elected to my Homeowners Association Board of Directors. Small beans, I know, but ever since, a lot of my neighbors make a point of telling me all kinds of things. Some which are important and need to be addressed, some things which really are not something the HOA can control, like the guy who wants me to tell his neighbor to cut his grass a half-inch shorter so the two lawns are the same height, and some things which are just strange. I can only imagine the communications my Congressman gets. Not that it excuses him ignoring the wishes of his constituents on the issues, or that he should be lining his pockets with tax money or lobbyist money (which means the taxpayers would pay in the end, anyway), but there are a lot of duties and burdens to consider. After all, you may leave the office, but you never really get to leave the job, you know?

Just something to think about, the next time someone complains about the kind of candidates we have to choose.

MLP Round 007

Game Scores:

Jefferson at Harding, 28-27 Jefferson
Cleveland at T Roosevelt, 33-29
Grant at McKinley, 37-25
Clinton at GW Bush, 36-24 Dubya
Washington at B Harrison, 35-22 Washington
Lincoln at Polk, 33-32 Lincoln
Reagan at Pierce, 35-18 Reagan
L Johnson at Kennedy, 32-21 JFK
Van Buren at Ford, 35-26 Ford
Monroe at Truman, 32-31 Truman
Buchanan at J Adams, 30-21 J Adams
Eisenhower at Hoover, 30-23 Ike
Jackson at Taylor, 32-30 Jackson
JQ Adams at Madison, 30-25 Quincy
Garfield at Nixon, 30-27 Nixon
Hayes at F Roosevelt, 33-30 FDR
Fillmore at Arthur, 31-26 Fillmore
Taft at GH Bush, 29-28 GH Bush
A Johnson at Carter, 26-20 Carter
W Harrison at Tyler, 28-25 Tyler
Coolidge at Wilson, 25-24 Wilson

4 Presidents remain undefeated, another 5 have one loss, another 3 have one win, and 6 Presidents are winless.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

We Elected A President, Not A Parrot

I am thoroughly disgusted with the rash of upstarts claiming they have a right to vilify and smear the sitting President of the United States, merely because Dubya has declined to obey their whims and (often ill-considered) demands for certain policy and executive decisions. I do not mean just the Speaker of the House, who can find no time to meet with the President on pressing matters of state, but who can and has broken Federal law in order to chat with a state sponsor of terrorism. I do not mean just the Democratic Party, which pledged to the public to be honest, forthright, and to support the troops, but which since their election has performed to a moral standard somewhat below Bluto’s level in the Toga Party during the movie “Animal House”. I do not even mean just the “gotcha” media which has been trying to bring down officials in the Bush Administration ever since he was sworn in, nor the spittle-flecked blogs of the Extreme Left, whose sense of morality is almost as absent as their knowledge of History, Grammar, or personal hygiene. No, here I am talking about ostensible members of the Republican Party, who have become so obsessed with their ego and arrogance that they have forgotten every lesson taught in word and practice by Ronald Reagan.

Let’s begin with John “No Free Speech” McCain, just to get that jackass out of the way. Time was, McCain was a symbol of heroic fortitude in the Vietnam War, a man who represented the courage and sacrifice of the troops, and whose personal integrity was beyond question. That, of course, was before McCain got his panties in a wad because he couldn’t nab the GOP nomination, and he began a trek to accommodation of the Left which has greatly diminished his stature. Over the last several years, Senator McPain has opined that people cannot be trusted to support the candidate of their choice with their own money, and so co-sponsored a “reform” bill which tells the First Amendment that it doesn’t apply to politics. Along those same lines, McJerk floated a few balloons in query as to whether Congress might want to regulate the Internet, especially those pesky political blogs, in order to prevent us from saying the “wrong” sorts of things. McCain, it appears, would have worked to ban such malcontents as Tom Paine and Patrick Henry; their pamphlets would have been just a bit more than he would allow.

But the capper is McCain’s recent opinion regarding Iraq. While McCain is one of the few Republicans willing to stick by the troops, even there he cannot resist trying to place blame on Republicans, including the President. Never mind that such statements play into the hands of the Left, never mind that such statements do nothing to help the average American understand the war’s purpose and justice, much less the difficulty for those who must make the calls which count. McCain is playing for his own name. I do believe he supports the troops, but his refusal to back Bush as well shows that he just does not understand the job he is seeking. A President is not elected to make popular decisions, or to play to the camera, but to do what the country needs. And the responsibility of the President’s party is to support those decisions when they are made. Undercutting the President is undermining the troops, and if John McCain does not understand that, he has no business trying to run for that job himself.

Another absolute moron is Tom Tancredo. Oh yes, I know he’s popular among the ’Draconian Measures Now!’ crowd, but the man is clueless about why his demands never come to fruition. In simple fact, what he wants is impractible, both politically and functionally. But more than that, Tom seems to have confused the difference between being a member of Congress, and being the President of the United States. No, Tom does not have a clue about the fact that he was elected to serve his district, and he chose to be part of a political party which is led by President Bush. Tancredo has every right to suggest options to the President, and while the issue is in debate to voice his mind and heart. However, opposing the President directly, and trying to cut out the legs of federal initiatives, simply because his own plan did not win the decision, is petty and disloyal. Tom Tancredo has made abundantly clear that he is interested only in the welfare and interests of Tom Tancredo. As a result, the attempts by the Bush White House to submit a unified front for specific and effective actions in Immigration Reform and Border Control, a complex issue at the best of times, have been further suborned by a malcontent who thinks he outranks the President.

This, of course, brings me to Tweedledee, Tweedledum, and Tweedleidiot, otherwise known as Representatives Frank Wolf of Virginia, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, and Robert Aderholt of Alabama, who decided that a trip to Syria was a nifty way to spend taxpayer’s money and to thumb their nose at official United States policy. These clueless individuals tried to wave off concern for their trip, by saying that they hoped to influence Syria to accept U.S. policy positions, such as ending support for Hamas and Hezbollah, recognizing Israel, and just maybe not murdering U.S. troops in Iraq. The effect of their visit, in the actual fact, however, was to blur the line between the stupid and the criminal, as Pelosi’s jaunt a few days later showed. It also demonstrated the inability of Congressmen to understand the limits of their duties of office, and the rights and privileges of being a Congressman. The White House alone has the right to send emissaries and envoys, not Congress. And such a trip by these Congressmen should unleash outrage from the taxpayers.

A big part of the reason why President Bush is not enjoying the glow of poll and media support, is that Dubya is willing to do the heavy lifting, to do what is right rather than what is trendy, to be unpopular if it means getting the job done. The fact that few in his own party are willing to stand by him in the rough spots, speaks not only to why the GOP lost the voters in 2006, but also to just how morally poor the party has become.

I say it again, and mark my words, we will miss George W. Bush after he is gone. Because no one as good as him is waiting to take up the challenge.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

MLP Round 006

Game Scores:

Truman at Jefferson, 34-30 Jefferson
T Roosevelt at Tyler, 31-28 TR
Monroe at Taft, 30-29 Taft
Lincoln at McKinley, 37-33 McKinley
GW Bush at Eisenhower, 37-30 Dubya
Washington at Hoover, 37-23 Washington
Hayes at Polk, 32-29 Polk
Reagan at Cleveland, 37-31 Reagan
Nixon at Kennedy, 32-27 JFK
Pierce at Ford, 35-19 Ford
John Adams at Fillmore, 32-31 J Adams
Quincy Adams at Carter, 32-26 JQA
Grant at B Harrison, 23-22 Grant
W Harrison at Jackson, 28-26 Jackson
Van Buren at Madison, 25-23 Madison
Taylor at Arthur, 31-26 Taylor
Buchanan at F Roosevelt, 33-24 FDR
Wilson at Clinton, 23-21 Clinton
Coolidge at Garfield, 29-27 Garfield
L Johnson at Harding, 27-23 Harding
A Johnson at GH Bush, 28-21 GH Bush

4 Presidents remain undefeated, another 7 have one loss, still another 5 have two losses, another 11 have three losses, 5 have four losses, 4 have 5 losses, and the remaining 6 Presidents are winless.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Silk-Tie America

I was reading through BusinessWeek the other day, and in one of the new issues they are going on about the new crop of MBA students. As I happen to be pursuing the Masters of Business Administration degree myself, I took note and paid close attention. I was a bit dismayed to note how much of the magazine that week was little better than an advertising platform for the high-priced schools, the ones just below that elite status that attracts the best students by reputation. Don’t get me wrong, these are fine schools but I can spot a market ploy quickly enough, and it made me wonder how much I could trust in the stories surrounding the advertisements from the schools.

One thing which struck me in the stories presented, was the focus on two sorts of MBA students; the commuter student who treks thousands of miles in order to go to the “right” school, sometimes leaving family and common sense behind in pursuit of the degree with that certain cachet, and the students who indulge in high-style living in hopes of creating a network which will, they say, be repaid for by bonuses and perks from their future employers. Maybe it’s my Scottish blood speaking, but if I owned a major company and I heard about these wane-be jetsetters, I would be careful to make a list of their names, and instruct my recruiters to under no circumstance hire any of them, as the people who are so quick to spend company money even years before they expect to get it, cannot in my mind be trusted with the responsibility for the company’s success and growth. It may sound harsh, but anyone who figures they deserve the highest pay grades before they have done a single thing to earn them, is a dishonest con artist in my book.

I understand that companies consider the schools which prospective executives attend. And as much as I like the University of Houston at Victoria, I am not confusing it with the Wharton School or Harvard. Even so, when I have my MBA, I shall be qualified for all the nominal duties and responsibilities which that degree portends, and combined with my experience I consider myself a formidable force if my talents are properly utilized. OK, so a lot of business people feel that way, but my point is that a lot of the people who get paid the big bucks do not seem, speaking bluntly, to earn their base salaries, let alone the perks and bonuses. I don’t blame them for having those things – I respect anyone for the ability to succeed in their personal wealth, and would like to be wealthy myself some day. But any competent businessman can tell you that you need to watch your costs, and to make sure you are not wasting money. And boy howdy, there sure seems to be a lot of waste in the executive suites of many companies. How hard is it, for example, to understand that it makes no sense to buy a company like Tribune for around eight billion dollars, when it’s thirteen billion in debt and it’s revenues are in free-fall? How stupid does someone have to be to propose buying TXU with private equity money, and not consider that the Public Utility Commission might have doubts and questions about a gas and electric company hiding information from the public? Some things are counter-intuitive, I know, but a lot of the major action these days smells a lot like gambling. And the guys gambling are doing it with stocks and bonds owned by regular folks, so the average fella is getting all the risk dumped on him. I mean, shouldn’t a decent business school be focusing less on tricks of manipulation, and more on core principles? Shouldn’t a company looking for a top executive consider a track record that has at least as much practical experience as theory? Why is this even a question?

Maybe I am too blue-collar for the haute cuisine set, unable to understand why an expensive golf club membership should be necessary for a business plan to be considered, or why someone who wants his mind to be taken seriously, should have to plan on “being seen” at the “right” parties. But I know what makes businesses fail or fly, and this idea that snob appeal should be a critical component in nabbing the attention of a top company, strikes me as a critical flaw.

Monday, April 09, 2007

#^%# Taxes!

Well, I finished working up my taxes, then I did what I always do these days - I took my finished work to my tax preparer anyway.

Why? Wel, in spite of some of my posts, I am not a complete idiot, and where the government is concerned I have learned - through painful experience - to take as few chances as possible. If the blinkin' tax code would stay the same from year to year, I could have confidence that I could learn how they want things. But the Congress of the United States lives - to some degree - to serve other interests than the needs and ideals of the common taxpayer, so every single year they change the rules.




I have more than a sneaking suspicion, that there is not a single person who has been elected to the House or Senate, who has doen his or her own tax preparation in many years. If there were, they would long ago have noted that this ritual of self-disembowelment to satisfy the IRS that we are complyng with their draconian edicts. I'm not blaming the Internal Revenue Service, actually, but those narcissistic mandarins in D.C. who contend that the fairest tax system must be one where everyone is led to worry that they have made a mistake which will cost them, and to miss a few details which could let them get a few bucks back. So we are driven to either deliberately short-change ourselves in the hope of staying out of trouble, or else we pay someone to check our work and get a little bit more of our own money back, but for which we pay a fee.

Withholding from each and every paycheck is not enough, we have to do more paperwork to prove what is already known.

And I do not recall a single politician in the last half-decade, who seriously proposed a bill to change that racket.

Well, that's my rant for today, but I am strangely confident that someone else may share my sentiment.

MLP Round 005

Game Scores:

Washington at GW Bush, 36-34 Dubya
Jefferson at Taft, 32-30 Jefferson
Jackson at T Roosevelt, 33-32 Teddy
Truman at LBJ, 32-21 Truman
A Johnson at Monroe, 30-21 Monroe
McKinley at Hayes, 35-28 McKinley
B Harrison at Lincoln, 37-20 Lincoln
Eisenhower at Wilson, 33-25 Ike
Polk at Buchanan, 34-20 Polk
Tyler at Reagan, 31-25 Reagan
Garfield at Kennedy, 32-24 JFK
Cleveland at Ford, 35-33 Ford
Harding at Nixon, 30-24 Nixon
F Roosevelt, at Fillmore, 31-30 Fillmore
Carter at Van Buren, 25-23 Carter
John Adams at Taylor, 31-30 J Adams
Hoover at Grant, 25-23 Grant
GH Bush at JQ Adams, 31-30 JQA
Madison at Pierce, 27-18 Madison
Arthur at W Harrison, 26-25 Arthur
Clinton at Coolidge, 27-22 Clinton

6 Presidents remain undefeated, another 8 have one loss, still another 6 have two losses, another 10 have three losses, 5 have four losses and the remaining 7 Presidents are winless.

I would remind the readers as well, that this is very early in the season. Some of the top "ranked" Presidents right now, have enjoyed "home" conditions for critical match-ups. But even after today, only 3.4% of the regular season's games have been played, and for every home game early, there will also be an away game later. Some of the results have been interesting, but please do not read too much into early results.

Sunday, April 08, 2007

MLP Round 004

Game Scores:

Wilson at Washington, 36-26 Washington
Jefferson at A Johnson, 31-19 Jefferson
Arthur at Teddy Roosevelt, 33-29 Teddy
Nixon at Truman, 32-28 Truman
Jackson at Reagan, 32-31 Jackson
Monroe at Quincy Adams, 31-27 Monroe
McKinley at Buchanan, 37-20 McKinley
Grant at Dubya Bush, 36-27 Dubya
Hoover at Lincoln, 37-25 Lincoln
Eisenhower at Coolidge, 30-23 Ike
Polk at Filmore, 32-31 Polk
Ford at Tyler, 33-28 Ford
Kennedy at Harding, 30-27 JFK
Hayes at B Harrison, 28-22 Hayes
Taft at L Johnson, 30-21 Taft
Madison at Cleveland, 31-24 Cleveland
W Harrison at John Adams, 30-27 Adams
Taylor at F Roosevelt, 33-26 FDR
Pierce at Carter, 26-19 Carter
Garfield at Clinton, 27-19 Garfield
Van Buren at GH Bush, 28-25 Bush

7 Presidents remain undefeated, another 9 have one loss, still another 11 have two losses, another 7 have three losses, and the remaining 8 Presidents are winless. The new Rankings are as follows:

Rankings After Four Rounds (out early)

.1. Washington (4-0) beats Eisenhower, Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson
.2. Jefferson (4-0) beats Pierce, Van Buren, JQ Adams, A Johnson
.3. Teddy Roosevelt (4-0) beats Polk, FDR, J Adams, Arthur
.4. Truman (4-0) beats Garfield, Harding, JFK, Nixon
.5. Monroe (4-0) beats Cleveland, Pierce, Van Buren, JQA
.6. McKinley (4-0) beats W Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore, Buchanan
.7. GW Bush (4-0) beats Buchanan, Hayes, Lincoln, Grant
.8. Lincoln (3-1) beats Coolidge, Wilson, Hoover, loses to GW Bush
.9. Eisenhower (3-1) beats Garfield, Clinton, Coolidge, loses to Washington
.10. Polk (3-1) beats W Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore, loses to T Roosevelt

.11. Reagan (3-1) beats FDR, J Adams, Arthur, loses to Jackson
.12. JFK (3-1) beats A Johnson, Taft, Harding, loses to Truman
.13. Hayes (3-1) beats Wilson, Hoover, B Harrison, loses to GW Bush
.14. Ford (3-1) beats Arthur, Jackson, Tyler, loses to John Adams
.15. Nixon (3-1) beats JQ Adams, A Johnson, Taft, loses to Truman
.16. Cleveland (3-1) beats GHW Bush, Carter, Madison, loses to Monroe
.17. Jackson (2-2) beats Carter, Reagan, loses to Madison, Ford
.18. John Adams (2-2) beats Ford, W Harrison, loses to Reagan, Teddy
.19. Tyler (2-2) beats GHW Bush, Madison, loses to Carter, Ford
.20. Fillmore (2-2) beats Hoover, B Harrison, loses to McKinley, Polk

.21. FDR (2-2) beats W Harrison, Taylor, loses to Reagan, T Roosevelt
.22. Carter (2-2) beats Tyler, Pierce, loses to Jackson, Cleveland
.23. Grant (2-2) beats Clinton, Coolidge, loses to Wilson, GW Bush
.24. Taft (2-2) beats Harding, LBJ, loses to JFK, Nixon
.25. Garfield (2-2) beats Harding, Clinton, loses to Truman, Eisenhower
.26. LBJ (2-2) beats Van Buren, A Johnson, loses to JQ Adams, Taft
.27. GHW Bush (2-2) beats Pierce, Van Buren, loses to Tyler, Cleveland
.28. Madison (1-3), beats Jackson, loses to Arthur, Tyler, Cleveland
.29. Taylor (1-3) beats B Harrison, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR
.30. Wilson (1-3) beats Grant, loses to Hayes, Lincoln, Washington

.31. Arthur (1-3) beats Madison, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.32. Quincy Adams (1-3) beats LBJ, loses to Nixon, Jefferson, Monroe
.33. B Harrison (1-3) beats Buchanan, loses to Taylor, Fillmore, Hayes
.34. Buchanan (1-3) beats Hoover, loses to GW Bush, B Harrison, McKinley
.35. Clinton (0-4) loses to Grant, Washington, Eisenhower, Garfield
.36. Van Buren (0-4) loses to LBJ, Jefferson, Monroe, GH Bush
.37. Harding (0-4) loses to Taft, Truman, Garfield, JFK
.38. W Harrison (0-4) loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR, John Adams
.39. Pierce (0-4) loses to Jefferson, Monroe, GHW Bush, Carter
.40. Coolidge (0-4) loses to Lincoln, Grant, Washington, Eisenhower
.41. A Johnson (0-4) loses to JFK, Nixon, LBJ, Jefferson
.42. Hoover (0-4) loses to Fillmore, Buchanan, Hayes, Lincoln