We can close ...

We will just agree to disagree.

But let me just make this clear ... I am not defending the Indian Removal Act. Nor do I rank Jefferson in the top 5 (mine would be Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Adams & Reagan). I wasn't necessarily arguing "pro" Jackson. That he is a giant on the American historical landscape is fact, whether one thinks him more infamous than famous is subjective. Instead I was arguing against what I perceived to be as the higher standard, in my opinion, that Jackson is held to. And in my experience he his held against that higher standard because his sin as president was against a minority that has since his era come to epitomize the politically correct egg shells we must all walk on when discussing their plight - Native Americans. Technically we can't even say "Indians" anymore, which is illustrative of my point. So I endeavoured to point out other historical figures of note whose "politically incorrect sins" as president have not stained their reputation, such as Washington regarding slavery, or Lincoln regarding women's suffrage & habeus corpus. I thought this a fair and reasonable point of debate, and one I maintain. But while I won't concede the argument (based on that general point), I will concede a salient observation of yours - save the suspension of habeus corpus, Washington & Lincoln did not institute a specific act or policy that further disenfranchised, by the thousands, any particular group or minority (at least not based on their race or ethnicity, to the best of my knowledge). Maintaining an unjust status quo, it must be said, is a lesser sin than its' original institution. I could argue that the Indian Removal Act was the sum of previous "parts." Or in other words, given our Western & South Eastern expansionist policy from George Washington to John Quincy, the removal act was inevitable. At some point some president would have executed an order or act similar to what Jackson did, our population and national interests would have demanded nothing less. But it was him, so his legacy carries the burden, none other. That being said I still am queasy about the idea of judging Jackson as "immoral" given the act was an inevitable event in the course of the American experience; and because (I feel) it is a short jump from condemning Jackson over Indians to condemning Washington over slavery and before you know it no extolled American figure is left with a reputation intact that is worthy of our admiration or respect, or to be taught as such to school children. And as such I oppose his removal from the currency based on his being "unfit" to serve. His 2 terms as president, the reshaping of our political landscape with emphasis on the individual, and his service to our nation as a general in the military overcomes such a claim in my estimation, especially as long as the currently employed "standard" allows for the likes of Woodrow Wilson (not a giant nor a revered American historical figure on anyone's report card). In other words to single him out, primarily based on the Indian removal, while leaving the likes of Wilson in place, smacks of the type of revisionist PC conviction in abstencia I am concerned with. I would be open to his removal if the US congress said they were prepared to overhaul the entire line up to reflect the most popular, revered American figures - then I think Jackson can lose fair and square to other figures based on an overall compilation and popularity ... but so would the Honorable Mr. Chase.

And speaking of being unfit and unpopular, Speaker Pelosi announced yesterday in a press conference that, "We need to pass health care so we can get away from the fog of controversy its in; so we can understand whats in it." Dear Lord. We need to pass it so we can find out what's in it? How does this women find her way to work in the morning? Seriously. This is the most backwards, ignorant, untenable position I have heard in modern politics. At this point I think it only fait to ask, has anybody researched the deleterious effects of botox on the brain? She doesn't want weeks and months for opponents to sift through its' implications and pull it apart. If its such a great bill, why not? Here's a novel idea Nancy - HAVE THE DEBATE BEFORE ITS LAW! I think we've tried this sign the bill first and figure it out later scheme before ... the word GITMO mean anything to you? How's that workin' for ya' babe?