As a fitting tribute to the most useless, superfluous and (rightfully) under-celebrated of all national holidays, I wish to salute the just-passed "President’s Day" as all these things and much more. While I am aware of the wonderful service that George Washington gave to our country, I am convinced that he would be appalled that a national holiday was established in his honor. As a staunch opponent of aristocracy and entitlement, old George would have been sure to speak out against any national recognition of himself or the Office of the President. While he is not here for anyone to ask, I offer this opinion in light of the fact that our first President was a man who hated the position, both before and, particularly, after he voluntarily stepped aside. He almost gleefully told John Adams (his successor) at the latter’s inauguration: "I am rightfully out and you are rightfully in. Let us see who will be the happier." The man for whom President’s Day was inaugurated was no fan of the office.

President’s Day has become nothing more than a chance for federal (and state and banks and most institutional) employees to sleep in, for stores to run silly commercials for "patriotic" sales and for cable networks to run all-day marathons of CSI or Law and Order. There is also another inane accompaniment for this ridiculous holiday: polls that profess to establish "who was our best President?" Everyone from C-SPAN and the Wall Street Journal to that respected bastion of academic pursuits, Rolling Stone Magazine, has weighed in on this grievous topic. Despite their seeming popularity, the importance of the rationale for such polls continues to elude me.

To me (and it may just be me) it seems a form of mental masturbation to make these sort of frivolous determinations. It is much like polling 1000 people to ask "which was the best war?" (Answer: there are none) or "what is the best flavor of Kool Aid?" (Answer: who cares?). Questions on these sorts of topics are so period and participant-dependent that they are meaningless except to fill up empty newspaper, magazine or web pages and to interest the bored people who might feel compelled to read them. One might also cogently argue that such queries give bloggers (such as moi) subject material to rant and rave about. To these skeptics, I would simply reply: post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

While these polls continue to be resurrected annually (for whatever reason), I propose a new public discussion. To whit: What people (contemporarily or historic) would have been good Presidents had they chosen to run for (or, indeed, been eligible for) the office of President of the United States? To answer my own question (as I am forced to do quite often in my life), I propose the following list:

1. Alexander Hamilton

2. Abigail Adams

3. Benjamin Franklin

4. Thomas Sowell

5. Bill Gates

6. Estes Kefauver

7. Sam Nunn

8. Jack Welch

9. Genghis Kahn

10. Ivan the Terrible

Alright, alright. The last two are partially in jest even though they did have some good ideas. Now that I have had my say, I throw the floor open to other suggestions. Surely, with the irrefutably feckless history of the American electorate (witness, if you will, the records and achievements of our 43 Presidents to date) you can propose some other choices.

With Zachary Taylor, James Buchanan, Millard Fillmore and Franklin Pierce as counterpoints, I am convinced that you can come up with some viable alternatives.