http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-worst-president-ever-13002
Warren Harding, James Buchanan, Richard Nixon, George Bush, Woodrow Wilson, are among the list of candidates. I don't personally remember any further back than Harry Truman, and my education about past presidents is mostly limited to learning their names, so I can't speak to Harding, Buchanan, and Wilson. I'm cautious about Richard Nixon, and even George Bush just on the grounds that they are recent. Nixon did more damage to the image of the presidency, not so much to the country, but I think the resulting cynicism about the presidential office was inevitable and needed to happen.
In lists of greatness, "worstness", or importance, articles usually include current persons or events. They feel some need to do this, I suspect, because those are the things and persons most people know and have developed strongly held notions about, but history may or may not recognize them in the long term. But current historians, political partisans, and spin jockeys are busy working hard right now at shaping what they want to be the eventual historical record. But when it comes to the worst, I think Bush will always deserve at least an honorable mention. The invasion of Iraq, no matter what or who is responsible for the situation there today, was a bone headed plan, and started an era of conflict that is shaping up to be quite enduring. Who knows how history will eventually see it?
George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, both for the enduring damage they have done to the US and the world.
Quote from: Atheon on June 01, 2015, 06:03:06 AM
George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, both for the enduring damage they have done to the US and the world.
I'll always remember Reagan as an actor from Hollywood, but not a very good actor. My mother thought he was handsome, but I was just a little kid when she told me that, and my reaction back then was, "Is that important for some reason?" (I was really young then).
I remember watching the Republican convention in the early 60s or around then. I think Richard Nixon won the nomination, but there was this vocal support group for Reagan, who at the time was mostly remembered for saying something about winning a thing for a Gipper. So at some point during the convention, one of those well organized "spontaneous demonstrations" broke out where some voice introduced, "The next President of the Great United States of America, Ladies and Gentlemen... Ronald Reagan," and everyone started waving signs and yelling.
OK, so the camera searches out Ronald and Nancy in the audience while everyone is wildly cheering, and catches Ronald sound asleep. I mean he is out like a light, with his head hanging forward and he's really cutting some serious 'zzz's, although it was after 9:00 at night, and he was like 70 years old. So Nancy visibly gives Ronald a poke in the ribs with her elbow, and he wakes up completely startled with a look of, "WTF, Huh?" And you could see Nancy gesturing to him and mouthing the words, "Stand up," while she's trying to get him to clear his mind. So he obediently stands up, and realizes the audience is in a wild frenzy over something, and at least has the good sense to raise his hands in a show of gratitude, although he's still not sure what's happening.
I remember thinking that he looked and acted just like my uncle when he had Alzheimer's. And during his entire presidency, I kept thinking, "This guy is running a depleted brain cells or something." And shortly after his two terms, Nancy announced that he had Alzheimer's, and then I'm thinking, "Well, duh!??" The Regan Presidency was the first time I became acutely aware that some presidents could be handled by "handlers" who are the real sources of power.
Lyndon Johnson. Others are just the followers of the same sort of politics.
For me, GW Bush stands above the rest (or way below, depending upon your frame of reference.). I see his legacy as only becoming worse and worse as time goes by. Buchanan, Reagan, Nixon, and I'm not that sure who to put into 5th place--Pierce, Polk, Harding, Wilson and maybe put Jackson into both camps (best and worst).
The best? The usual--Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson--and maybe Eisenhower, Truman, or Carter.
I really am not sure where to include Obama. He will always be seen as a bell weather type of president--the first black and all. But, what did he accomplish? I have to look at what I expected from him and chuckle at myself. How stupid of me! I expected real change--no, no, I really did! I cannot believe I fooled myself that much or that easily. He is nowhere as progressive as he could have been or should have been. On the other hand, what chance did he really have? First, he was and is a top of the line politician. That means he really has already compromised away any real moral ground he may have had. (All politicians of that caliber have to dance with the devil to get to the positions of power they enjoy.) And the big PLUS, is that he had to buck the inherent racist streak in our society. And the flat out banding together of the Rep. party to simply not allow Obama to do anything--to block everything, no matter the cost to the country. And they did, to great effect for them. So, did he get enough accomplished to stand the test of time? That he faced the worse congress in our history and still got something done enhance the fact he got some things done? I don't know--way too early for me to figure that one out. Would I vote from him again? Yeah. I mean, I would still tell the Electoral College that I wanted them to vote for him.
Oh, and I wanted to put in a special plug for Ford as the worst. He pardoned Nixon. He did it under the guise of not splitting the country apart. What he did show, is that the president and those close to him are special--they don't get punished for any wrong doing. They are above any law the land may have. And that idea has been reinforced since. GW Bush is an obvious war criminal, yet nobody goes there. Nothing will be done officially or even unofficially, about those crimes. And even Obama wants things like the Patriot Act to stay in effect, because it gives the president more power. And I suspect whoever is elected next will have the same stance.
A toss up between Franklin Pierce and Millard Fillmore.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 01, 2015, 09:39:51 AM
Oh, and I wanted to put in a special plug for Ford as the worst. He pardoned Nixon. He did it under the guise of not splitting the country apart. What he did show, is that the president and those close to him are special--they don't get punished for any wrong doing. They are above any law the land may have. And that idea has been reinforced since. GW Bush is an obvious war criminal, yet nobody goes there. Nothing will be done officially or even unofficially, about those crimes. And even Obama wants things like the Patriot Act to stay in effect, because it gives the president more power. And I suspect whoever is elected next will have the same stance.
When it looked like Nixon was going to be impeached, they got rid of Agnew as a VP. He was coming under investigation for some financial scam. I doubt they wanted that scandal hanging over a new president. It would look bad for the party as a whole, with two Republican presidents back to back, one not even voted in by the public, involved in criminal activity. Ford seemed to have a clean record, but I'm quite sure that Ford being given the VP job was conditional on a pardon for Nixon.
Keep the country from being torn apart? I doubt that very much. It was more likely just a political favor. The country was torn apart and is more so today, long after Ford has been gone.
Quote from: SGOS on June 01, 2015, 11:11:11 AM
When it looked like Nixon was going to be impeached, they got rid of Agnew as a VP. He was coming under investigation for some financial scam. I doubt they wanted that scandal hanging over a new president. It would look bad for the party as a whole, with two Republican presidents back to back, one not even voted in by the public, involved in criminal activity. Ford seemed to have a clean record, but I'm quite sure that Ford being given the VP job was conditional on a pardon for Nixon.
Keep the country from being torn apart? I doubt that very much. It was more likely just a political favor. The country was torn apart and is more so today, long after Ford has been gone.
Oh, no doubt, I quite agree. I just remember seeing a clip of Ford making a speech about pardoning Nixon and why it was for the good of the country and not that Nixon did not do something wrong. And no, Ford was not the first to do something like that; just that this was highly visible and simply added another precedent to keep doing it.
Woodrow Wilson.
He brought us the Income Tax, he brought us the Federal Reserve, he brought the US into World War One (1914-1989) which he had promised to keep us out of, he was a Klansman who continued discriminatory policies, he was quite nasty to Native Americans, and criminalized all dissent against him.
Compared to that, can you honestly say Reagan or Clinton or Bush or Obama really make the cut?
Buchanan (a supremely weak man who did nothing to head off the coming civil war), Grant (in many ways even more of an absentee president than Reagan was, if not allowing then failing to notice the rampant corruption in his administration), Harding (ditto Grant re: corruption), Hoover (oblivious to the growing economic crisis and then paralytic in the face of it), Nixon (for the obvious reasons) and Bush Jr (too many to list) are all well down the bottom of the list, yeah.
There's a case to be made for Bush Jr to be the worst president ever, but it's far too soon to make that judgment. I will go no further than to say that I am confident history will judge his time harshly.
I think Obama will ultimately be seen as better than average, especially considering the opposition he's had by the Other Party. I mean, I thought the partisan witch hunt the GOP conducted against Clinton was appalling, but that was downright collegial compared to the knee-jerk absolutist opposition they have to Obama. But I don't think he's top tier like Jefferson or Lincoln.
Yeah, I could agree with those.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 01, 2015, 08:04:46 PM
Woodrow Wilson.
He brought us the Income Tax, he brought us the Federal Reserve, he brought the US into World War One (1914-1989) which he had promised to keep us out of, he was a Klansman who continued discriminatory policies, he was quite nasty to Native Americans, and criminalized all dissent against him.
Compared to that, can you honestly say Reagan or Clinton or Bush or Obama really make the cut?
If someone like Reagan ran today, he'd be run out of the GOP -- whatever his failings, he did something no Republican does anymore: he sat down and negotiated with Democrats, and when necessary, worked with them, rather than demonizing everything a Democrat says even before it's actually said.
Ron's administrative and political sins were many, but he'd at least talk, and even sometimes compromise. That's better than you can say about almost any big name Republican any more. Even so, he was largely an absentee president, making general pronouncements and platitudes while the real work was done at the Cabinet level. Basically, he was the hood ornament on the limousine of state, not the driver.
I think the George H.W. Bush of 1980 would have made a better president than the George H.W. Bush of 1988 did -- 'voodoo economics' was a perfect description of what came to be known as supply-side or Reaganomics, but after eight years, he was unable to repudiate the economic policies of the administration he himself had served in. So Bush Sr. was more of a disappointing president than a failure of a president, for continuing economic policies that he knew were unworkable.
I think Clinton will be ranked highly for a long time to come -- eight years of peace and prosperity is hard to argue with, and he's the most gifted natural campaigner we've seen in a long time (and I am really looking forward to seeing Big Dog back on the stump next year). And he proved the 1980 George H.W. Bush right -- he raised taxes slightly on the rich, and the economy took off running, because he understood that an economy only works
when the money moves in it, not when it collects in large stagnant pools. Again, not up in the top tier of Jefferson and Lincoln, but a strong second-tier man, arguably in or near the top ten.
And I've nothing to add to my comments on Obama and Dumbass.
8 years of peace under Clinton? I guess so, as long as you don't live in the Balkans. Or Sudan. Or Iraq. Or Waco.
Quote from: trdsf on June 04, 2015, 09:02:13 PM
I think Clinton will be ranked highly for a long time to come -- eight years of peace and prosperity is hard to argue with, and he's the most gifted natural campaigner we've seen in a long time (and I am really looking forward to seeing Big Dog back on the stump next year). And he proved the 1980 George H.W. Bush right -- he raised taxes slightly on the rich, and the economy took off running, because he understood that an economy only works when the money moves in it, not when it collects in large stagnant pools. Again, not up in the top tier of Jefferson and Lincoln, but a strong second-tier man, arguably in or near the top ten.
I also think Clinton's stock will rise as time moves along. What's not to like about relative peace and money in the bank????
My vote goes to Dubya for killing the most Americans in war since Vietnam, spending the most money for a war we didn't need, destabilizing the Middle East by eliminating Hussein and a few others. If he had simply sat on Hussein and given the Kurds some freedom and the means to defend themselves, we'd be a long way towards real peace there. You can thank him for every shit thing that occurred since.
Quote from: stromboli on June 05, 2015, 01:29:36 PM
My vote goes to Dubya for killing the most Americans in war since Vietnam, spending the most money for a war we didn't need, destabilizing the Middle East by eliminating Hussein and a few others. If he had simply sat on Hussein and given the Kurds some freedom and the means to defend themselves, we'd be a long way towards real peace there. You can thank him for every shit thing that occurred since.
Clearly, the worst we ever had. I saw a poll the other day that indicated his approval rating is higher than Obama's. If find that in-fucking-credible! The stupidity factor of our country just seems to be growing. Bush (and his entire administration) belong behind bars. Yet the idiot gets to paint his 4th grade pictures, which I guess he will put in his Bush Library with the Run Spot Run books. Disgusted is a much too mild word.
Quote from: trdsf on June 04, 2015, 07:02:48 PM
I think Obama will ultimately be seen as better than average, especially considering the opposition he's had by the Other Party. I mean, I thought the partisan witch hunt the GOP conducted against Clinton was appalling, but that was downright collegial compared to the knee-jerk absolutist opposition they have to Obama. But I don't think he's top tier like Jefferson or Lincoln.
He absolutely shouldn't be rated higher than average I think. Increased surveillance and drone strikes: bad. But he helped end DADT, managed to pass SOME kind of health reform even if it wasn't what we wanted. His main claim to fame is that just his presence showed how completely divorced from reality many conservatives are, and that's even before we factor in religious conservatives and their problems with science that goes against their holy book.
Obama: "Hey guys my name is Barack...."
GOP: "SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM!"
It's gotten to the point that I accuse conservatives of just throwing it out to minorities who are pro-labor, like they did with the Civil Rights movement. It literally has no meaning now.
With all of the great historical examples, anyone arguing "W or Obama" is an underinformed partisan hack.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 06, 2015, 02:43:47 PM
With all of the great historical examples, anyone arguing "W or Obama" is an underinformed partisan hack.
I rank them both about the same grade. Like I said, I give Obama a slight advantage in overall points because the Religious Right lost what little marbles they had left when he was elected.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 05, 2015, 12:30:45 AM
8 years of peace under Clinton? I guess so, as long as you don't live in the Balkans. Or Sudan. Or Iraq. Or Waco.
Unlike Dubya, however, these are not fights that Clinton either started, or lied us into.
The planning for the Waco operation could not have begun in just the three months since Clinton's inauguration; it's something that was in the works for some time and carried forward -- one may legitimately debate the way it was carried out, but the investigations and planning began no later than spring 1992, which is during Bush Sr's term.
The first Iraq war was Bush Sr's doing, and one may argue that failing to complete the job (
i.e., leaving Saddam Hussein in power) was what's at fault there -- that of course opens up the whole question of whether and under what circumstance it's proper to enforce a government change on another country, which is more than messy ethically.
With regard to Sudan, I might remind you that until 9/11, the right wing's main complaint was that Clinton was
too obsessed with Bin Laden, and only afterward and with profound hypocrisy tried to claim that Clinton had ignored him.
And as for the Balkans, it's fair to call that an international failure, not just Clinton's alone.
Fundamentally, I don't think you can compare military actions taken by Clinton with those taken by Bush Jr. (or Sr., for that matter), and there is probably no president in the nation's history (none that come to mind outside of William Harrison--and he only because he died a month into his term) who hasn't had to use the military somewhere. Relatively, and certainly domestically, 'peace and prosperity' is a quite legitimate description of the Clinton presidency.
Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech has always disturbed me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do0x-Egc6oA
The way he defines everything as black and white, good and evil, urgently claiming he needs more nukes when he already has enough to destroy the world a dozen times.
Its just so surreal and out of touch with reality... apparently he is supposed to be the leader of the free world or something... yet he has no restraint whatsoever and gleefully antagonizes his enemy, much to the peril of everyone living on the planet.
I'm not sure if I can truly consider him the worst President of all time, because there were no doubt quite a few terrible Presidents before him that I am not as well acquainted with.
However, if we do have a few more like this guy our chances of survival on a level we are familiar with are very slim indeed.
If we take all the different ways in which a president can be bad, surely George W. Bush has to be the all-around overall worst.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on June 09, 2015, 12:06:50 PM
Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech has always disturbed me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do0x-Egc6oA
The way he defines everything as black and white, good and evil, urgently claiming he needs more nukes when he already has enough to destroy the world a dozen times.
Its just so surreal and out of touch with reality... apparently he is supposed to be the leader of the free world or something... yet he has no restraint whatsoever and gleefully antagonizes his enemy, much to the peril of everyone living on the planet.
I'm not sure if I can truly consider him the worst President of all time, because there were no doubt quite a few terrible Presidents before him that I am not as well acquainted with.
However, if we do have a few more like this guy our chances of survival on a level we are familiar with are very slim indeed.
Sounds like a smarter version of Bush.
Who made W possible? Who set all the precedents W followed?
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 10, 2015, 10:30:29 PM
Who made W possible? Who set all the precedents W followed?
Polk???
Another way in which George W. Bush was the worst president was his selection of Dick Cheney as his running mate. Not only was George W. Bush the worst president in U.S. history, Cheney was the worst vice-president.
Cheney is such a scumbag that he is trying to blame President Obama for the problems in Iraq and just about every other problem that he and Bush created. Both he and Bush should crawl down into a hole together and never come out again.
Quote from: steadfast-atheist on June 11, 2015, 08:28:41 AM
Another way in which George W. Bush was the worst president was his selection of Dick Cheney as his running mate. Not only was George W. Bush the worst president in U.S. history, Cheney was the worst vice-president.
Cheney is such a scumbag that he is trying to blame President Obama for the problems in Iraq and just about every other problem that he and Bush created. Both he and Bush should crawl down into a hole together and never come out again.
And do you know who was in charge of the search committee to select a running mate for Dubya?
Dick Cheney.
QuoteAnd do you know who was in charge of the search committee to select a running mate for Dubya?
Yes I knew that Bush appointed Cheney to screen possible VP candidates. Cheney finally reported back that he couldn't find anybody in the Republican party who would be a suitable running mate. The rest of their conversation isn't clear, but it ended with Cheney himself getting the nod.
Quote from: steadfast-atheist on June 11, 2015, 05:10:11 PM
Yes I knew that Bush appointed Cheney to screen possible VP candidates. Cheney finally reported back that he couldn't find anybody in the Republican party who would be a suitable running mate. The rest of their conversation isn't clear, but it ended with Cheney himself getting the nod.
And that was a bad sign from the beginning (as if there weren't plenty already), that this first decision of a potential presidency he couldn't be bothered to make for himself.
Quote from: trdsf on June 11, 2015, 07:02:15 PM
And that was a bad sign from the beginning (as if there weren't plenty already), that this first decision of a potential presidency he couldn't be bothered to make for himself.
I knew when he traded Sammy Sosa he was not gifted in the stuff upstairs.
What a bunch of under-informed short-sighted partisan hacks. "The most recent guy of the hated other party is the worst president ever." Give me a fucking break.
Bush was the worst.
Nixon was the most crooked.
(And I voted for Nixon twice.)
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 11, 2015, 09:09:31 PM
What a bunch of under-informed short-sighted partisan hacks. "The most recent guy of the hated other party is the worst president ever." Give me a fucking break.
Well, then Jason, pray tell, who is your actual worst. Why?
Just about any Democrat from the 19th century will do..... They did improve somewhat after that.
Gerard
Recent or not, W made some very bad choices. His party has gone quite "berserk" during and after his 'leadership' of it. In the days of W and Cheney, political culture in his party became extremely narrow ideological and closed minded. They made everybody other than them the enemy. That didn't enhance the quality of his Presidency. It didn't do much for his party and US politics in general either. The Reagan days were blissful in comparison.
Gerard
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 11, 2015, 09:09:31 PM
What a bunch of under-informed short-sighted partisan hacks. "The most recent guy of the hated other party is the worst president ever." Give me a fucking break.
"People have opinions different from mine!" The horror.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 11, 2015, 10:01:27 PM
Well, then Jason, pray tell, who is your actual worst. Why?
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 01, 2015, 08:04:46 PM
Woodrow Wilson.
He brought us the Income Tax, he brought us the Federal Reserve, he brought the US into World War One (1914-1989) which he had promised to keep us out of, he was a Klansman who continued discriminatory policies, he was quite nasty to Native Americans, and criminalized all dissent against him.
Compared to that, can you honestly say Reagan or Clinton or Bush or Obama really make the cut?
Furthermore...
After the Tzars of Russia fell due to the great war, it was Wilson who pressured the Russian Republican to stay in World War One, enabling Lenin to stage a second revolution creating the Soviet Union. He campaigned for reelection on having kept the US out of war while simultaneously doing everything he could to bring the US into the war and giving direct support to Britain and France. Hell, when the US actually entered that war it was more of a "final step" then a major change in situation. He also was the last US president to use the military against Mexico. He also intervened in Haiti, Panama, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba because he felt that it was his responsibility to "teach South American republics to elect good men." His words.
Although some people consider this debatable, it can very strongly be argued that Wilson's actions in World War One are what led to a western victory instead of a negotiated cease fire and peace. Since Germany had been forced to surrender in order to end the war, this enabled France to impose very harsh terms on Germany which in turn led to the rise of political extremism in Germany and World War Two.
While waging World War One he directly attacked civil liberty by banning criticism through the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act. It was the Espionage Act that was used to threaten Snowden and Manning. One of my harsher criticisms of Obama is his use of the Espionage Act against whistleblowers.
He supported the Prohibition amendment. There is only one good thing that can be said about that: the supporters still had enough respect for the constitution to made an amendment to give new powers to the government, unlike our current drug war. The constitutionality of prohibition is the only good thing that can be said about it, and even that isn't very good. It laid the ground work for our current drug war, too. which is happening without even the benefit of constitutionality. It took another awful president (interestingly enough of the same party) to reverse that awful decision.
By supporting World War One and also the Federal Reserve his policies led directly to the crash of 1921, and less directly for the crash of 1929. Our currency is worth 98% less than it was thanks to this act backed by Wilson, although there are many people who somehow have come to think of this as a good thing. He also supported the amendment that led to the income tax, which is also something where there are many people who somehow have come to think of this as a good thing.
Unlike the current attitude of "you just said something that if I interpret it a certain way could possibly indicate that you once were in the same city as a racist" attacks that dominate modern politics, Wilson was a pretty unabashed racist. His record on civil rights would make the modern social justice warriors blush.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 12, 2015, 09:04:19 PM
Furthermore...
After the Tzars of Russia fell due to the great war, it was Wilson who pressured the Russian Republican to stay in World War One, enabling Lenin to stage a second revolution creating the Soviet Union. He campaigned for reelection on having kept the US out of war while simultaneously doing everything he could to bring the US into the war and giving direct support to Britain and France. Hell, when the US actually entered that war it was more of a "final step" then a major change in situation. He also was the last US president to use the military against Mexico. He also intervened in Haiti, Panama, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba because he felt that it was his responsibility to "teach South American republics to elect good men." His words.
Although some people consider this debatable, it can very strongly be argued that Wilson's actions in World War One are what led to a western victory instead of a negotiated cease fire and peace. Since Germany had been forced to surrender in order to end the war, this enabled France to impose very harsh terms on Germany which in turn led to the rise of political extremism in Germany and World War Two.
While waging World War One he directly attacked civil liberty by banning criticism through the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act. It was the Espionage Act that was used to threaten Snowden and Manning. One of my harsher criticisms of Obama is his use of the Espionage Act against whistleblowers.
He supported the Prohibition amendment. There is only one good thing that can be said about that: the supporters still had enough respect for the constitution to made an amendment to give new powers to the government, unlike our current drug war. The constitutionality of prohibition is the only good thing that can be said about it, and even that isn't very good. It laid the ground work for our current drug war, too. which is happening without even the benefit of constitutionality. It took another awful president (interestingly enough of the same party) to reverse that awful decision.
By supporting World War One and also the Federal Reserve his policies led directly to the crash of 1921, and less directly for the crash of 1929. Our currency is worth 98% less than it was thanks to this act backed by Wilson, although there are many people who somehow have come to think of this as a good thing. He also supported the amendment that led to the income tax, which is also something where there are many people who somehow have come to think of this as a good thing.
Unlike the current attitude of "you just said something that if I interpret it a certain way could possibly indicate that you once were in the same city as a racist" attacks that dominate modern politics, Wilson was a pretty unabashed racist. His record on civil rights would make the modern social justice warriors blush.
Good post. I was never a Wilson fan, and even less so of his wife, who one could say was our first female president. And WWI has a much bigger impact on our latest , misadventures in the Mid East than most people think. I still would say that W/cheney have a real shot of being even worse with the passing of time.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 12, 2015, 10:18:02 PM
Good post. I was never a Wilson fan, and even less so of his wife, who one could say was our first female president. And WWI has a much bigger impact on our latest , misadventures in the Mid East than most people think. I still would say that W/cheney have a real shot of being even worse with the passing of time.
I think that's the main thing, it takes time to be able to stand back and make a clearer judgment. Certainly every president in my lifetime, I've seen both praised and reviled in turns, as well as several recent historical ones.
That said, the case that can be brought against Dubya is a strong one on every front by which one can judge a presidency, and I suspect the analysis will stand up over time that he is a bottom-shelf president.
Quote from: trdsf on June 12, 2015, 11:01:53 PM
I think that's the main thing, it takes time to be able to stand back and make a clearer judgment. Certainly every president in my lifetime, I've seen both praised and reviled in turns, as well as several recent historical ones.
That said, the case that can be brought against Dubya is a strong one on every front by which one can judge a presidency, and I suspect the analysis will stand up over time that he is a bottom-shelf president.
Yeah, I think Wilson can see that there is more than enough room at the bottom for both of them. And W/Cheney have more than enough talent to go even deeper.
All presidents are flawed. They are men. And by the time they have enough political clout to run for president, they are tainted by the system (compromised any eithics they may have espoused) before being elected. So, I am mildly surprised that any of them do "good". There is not a single president that has not done something I don't like. And very few that have not done something I do like. So, it is a matter of degree. And W, for me, sinks to the bottom of that scale=huge amounts of don't like and only a tiny amount of do like; Wilson has more do likes, but there is room at the bottom for him, too.
The only Republican I ever voted for was a pro-gay Republican mayor who was running against a looney-right fundie Democratic contender. Local politics can be funny.
Did you know that Martin van Buren (8th President) had Dutch as his mother language? Which makes him the only President that didn't have English as his mother tongue? Not that that made him a better President, but still.....
Gerard
Quote from: Atheon on June 13, 2015, 10:35:18 AM
The only Republican I ever voted for was a pro-gay Republican mayor who was running against a looney-right fundie Democratic contender. Local politics can be funny.
Yeah, we had the same thing happen here back in the late '90s, where the Republican candidate ran to the left of the Democrat, got the endorsement of the local Stonewall and everything. She'd probably still be in the statehouse if we didn't have term limits. I haven't voted for any Republican since the attempted
coup d'etat in 1998 though -- and now we know that all three Republican speakers who sheparded through the impeachment (Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston and Denny Hastert, as well as Witchfinder General Henry Hyde) had their own "little indiscretions", though Hastert's appears more ominous than just getting a little on the side.
Jackson is up there for me - Native American genocide, killing the national bank, initiating an economic crisis, and disobeying the supreme court. About the only positive thing I can think of is his standing up against secession movements in the south.
Of course GW, Reagan, etc are on the list. I don't have a definite ranking.
I think in overall damage, Wilson probably is near the very top, if not the top. That said, Regan did a shitload of harm in his time as well, especially in terms of fucking other countries (particularly Latin American and Middle Eastern) over and recent or not it's hard not to argue that Bush extremely established the Middle East... and the world has been feeling the result of that ever since.
I think Regan and Bush feel much worse because their harm is things that still directly effect us, where as Wilson is almost all after-effect now.
Quote from: platatomi on June 16, 2015, 02:12:33 AM
Jackson is up there for me - Native American genocide, killing the national bank, initiating an economic crisis, and disobeying the supreme court. About the only positive thing I can think of is his standing up against secession movements in the south.
Of course GW, Reagan, etc are on the list. I don't have a definite ranking.
Yeah, I agree with you about Jackson. He was a prince of a fellow. I had to rethink my position on him when I read Trail of Tears.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 16, 2015, 09:15:25 AM
Yeah, I agree with you about Jackson. He was a prince of a fellow. I had to rethink my position on him when I read Trail of Tears.
My eyes were really opened up about Jackson in a college history course I took last year. I am fairly well versed in history and politics, but before we began covering Jackson and the events leading up to the Trail of Tears, I thought I would never learn of a man so despicable and crude.
BTW, how is this guy on our money?
My vote goes to Thomas Jefferson, for nearly losing the War of 1812. /obscure
Quote from: platatomi on June 17, 2015, 02:26:23 AM
My eyes were really opened up about Jackson in a college history course I took last year. I am fairly well versed in history and politics, but before we began covering Jackson and the events leading up to the Trail of Tears, I thought I would never learn of a man so despicable and crude.
BTW, how is this guy on our money?
What money?????
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 17, 2015, 06:26:20 AM
My vote goes to Thomas Jefferson, for nearly losing the War of 1812. /obscure
But, hey--Jackson pull that one out of the fire! Well, at least according to Jackson.............so, the war was over--minor detail of no consequence--kicked those Redcoats back into the sea! Savior of the country--just ask him!
Quote from: platatomi on June 17, 2015, 02:26:23 AM
My eyes were really opened up about Jackson in a college history course I took last year. I am fairly well versed in history and politics, but before we began covering Jackson and the events leading up to the Trail of Tears, I thought I would never learn of a man so despicable and crude.
BTW, how is this guy on our money?
There is actually an active movement to have Jackson taken off the $20 and replaced with a woman of historical note (http://www.womenon20s.org); I think the current leading candidate is Harriet Tubman. Among the reasons they target the $20 is his involvement in organizing the Trail of Tears... and also the fact that he was opposed to paper money.
Speaking as a coin collector myself, I don't like seeing presidents on our money and miss the classic Liberty designs. Certainly it should be the case that no president should be permanently put on a coin until they've been dead for 100 years so that their legacy can be put into full perspective. I don't really have much problem with the "Big Three" (Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln) or FDR, but Kennedy? That was an expression of national trauma, not commemoration of a job well done.
Abe Lincoln for not killing all the vampires like he should have....rat bastard.
More on topic however, the average person doesn't even know who the second president was, and history shows us no matter how bad a president was, in twenty years, "he wasn't that bad"..happens to every president. In 20 years Obama will probably be rated pretty high. Humans kind of have that whackadoodle "it wasn't that bad" thing five or ten years after. I think most everyone had that one job or one chore that was the fucking shit from hell itself, and it sucked the life out of you everyday just to go and you hope if you couldn't hit the lotto at least let someone run you over....and then ten years later you think, meh it wasn't that bad.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 17, 2015, 08:53:35 AM
But, hey--Jackson pull that one out of the fire! Well, at least according to Jackson.............so, the war was over--minor detail of no consequence--kicked those Redcoats back into the sea! Savior of the country--just ask him!
If we go with "minor details" then we have to reckon that officially the war wasn't over until signed peace treaties were in the hands of both parties. That puts the Battle of New Orleans inside the window of the War of 1812.
Live by the minor detail, die by the minor detail.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on June 17, 2015, 06:16:38 PM
If we go with "minor details" then we have to reckon that officially the war wasn't over until signed peace treaties were in the hands of both parties. That puts the Battle of New Orleans inside the window of the War of 1812.
Live by the minor detail, die by the minor detail.
Well, shit, Gawdzilla that is just a minor detail!
Quote from: trdsf on June 17, 2015, 10:52:28 AM
There is actually an active movement to have Jackson taken off the $20 and replaced with a woman of historical note (http://www.womenon20s.org); I think the current leading candidate is Harriet Tubman. Among the reasons they target the $20 is his involvement in organizing the Trail of Tears... and also the fact that he was opposed to paper money.
Speaking as a coin collector myself, I don't like seeing presidents on our money and miss the classic Liberty designs. Certainly it should be the case that no president should be permanently put on a coin until they've been dead for 100 years so that their legacy can be put into full perspective. I don't really have much problem with the "Big Three" (Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln) or FDR, but Kennedy? That was an expression of national trauma, not commemoration of a job well done.
I had heard of the movement to replace him on the $20, it would only be right and long overdue.
I used to dabble in coin and currency collecting, I totally agree. I really like the old designs on paper notes, and the large size fornat. Each new series was a work of art.
Jackson deserves negatives for the Native American genocide, but killing he national bank redeem him somewhat. Not enough, but somewhat.
Here are what I consider, in order the 10 worst.
Wilson, may he rot in Hell.
Truman
McKinley
Polk
Bush Jr.
Kennedy
Reagan
Bush Sr.
Lyndon Johnson
Franklin Roosevelt
For comparison purposes, these are the ones I consider best.
Tyler
Cleveland
VanBuren
Hayes
Arthur
Harding
Washington
Carter
Eisenhower
Coolidge
As a Texas Stater, I find your inclusion of Lyndon Johnson irrationally irritating. Maybe it's just the brainwashing of walking past his statue everyday, but still...
(I am actually not a fan of his foreign policy, or several domestic, but I do respect him immensely for just how... persuasive... of politician he was.)
Quote from: platatomi on June 17, 2015, 10:45:01 PM
I had heard of the movement to replace him on the $20, it would only be right and long overdue.
I used to dabble in coin and currency collecting, I totally agree. I really like the old designs on paper notes, and the large size fornat. Each new series was a work of art.
Apparently, independently of the 'Woman on a $20' campaign, the Treasury is to announce Friday that a woman will be on the $10 by 2020 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/us/portrait-of-a-woman-to-share-space-on-the-dollar-10-bill-with-hamiltons.html?_r=0). Why the $10? It's gone the longest without a security update (not counting the $1, of course, which is just gonna never change). What's not decided yet is who's going on it, and whether Hamilton is to be replaced, or if the run's going to be half Hamilton, half new portrait, or if they put a woman on the front and find some other way to commemorate Hamilton on the back.
Quote from: Shiranu on June 18, 2015, 01:53:34 AM
As a Texas Stater, I find your inclusion of Lyndon Johnson irrationally irritating. Maybe it's just the brainwashing of walking past his statue everyday, but still...
(I am actually not a fan of his foreign policy, or several domestic, but I do respect him immensely for just how... persuasive... of politician he was.)
Johnson was without question the absolute master of power politics, and his idea of subtlety meant using a little sledgehammer instead of a big one. Only one man in Washington was safe from being bullied by him, and that was House Speaker Sam Rayburn.
Thomas Jefferson could have lost the War of 1812 for the US.
Quote from: trdsf on June 18, 2015, 05:07:11 AM
Johnson was without question the absolute master of power politics, and his idea of subtlety meant using a little sledgehammer instead of a big one. Only one man in Washington was safe from being bullied by him, and that was House Speaker Sam Rayburn.
I was anticipating you to say J Edgar Hoover.
Quote from: SGOS on June 18, 2015, 08:06:35 AM
I was anticipating you to say J Edgar Hoover.
Forgot about him. Probably him too -- he had dirt on everyone. S'why no one could ever fire him.
I think Obama is going to be pretty damn close to Bush Jr, but he is not out of office yet so it is unfair to judge him too much. He might spend his last year doing everything right ... and pigs might fly out of my ass.
I think Obama's solid middle of the pack. I had hoped he would have a presidency run with the organization and focus of his '08 campaign, but that wasn't to be. And that he's accomplished anything in the face of the rabid lockstep opposition of the GOP is remarkable -- seriously, they don't even wait for him to finish drawing a breath to start speaking before they denounce what he's going to say. I sometimes think if he said he supported their entire program, they'd suddenly decide they were against all of it.
Quote from: trdsf on June 19, 2015, 04:46:12 AM
I think Obama's solid middle of the pack. I had hoped he would have a presidency run with the organization and focus of his '08 campaign, but that wasn't to be. And that he's accomplished anything in the face of the rabid lockstep opposition of the GOP is remarkable -- seriously, they don't even wait for him to finish drawing a breath to start speaking before they denounce what he's going to say. I sometimes think if he said he supported their entire program, they'd suddenly decide they were against all of it.
Yeah, that's how I see him, as well.
No one said Ambrose Pierce yet?
Quote from: the_antithesis on June 20, 2015, 12:54:26 PM
No one said Ambrose Pierce yet?
Wow! I'd forgotten all about him! He was just horrible--I mean, how could.................wait................who?????
Quote from: the_antithesis on June 20, 2015, 12:54:26 PM
No one said Ambrose Pierce yet?
I think you mean Franklin Pierce? Ambrose Bierce was a (brilliantly snarky) author.
Pierce is way up there. Or way down there. The 1840s and 1850s were not good years for the American presidency -- of the ten worst presidents by aggregate of scholar surveys over the last 60+ years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Scholar_survey_results), all but Polk are down there: Harrison 39th of 43 (a little unfairly I think since he was only president for a month), Tyler 36th, Taylor 34th, Fillmore 38th, Pierce 40th, and Buchanan 42nd. For the curious, the rest of the bottom are Grant at 35th, Dubya at 37th, Andrew Johnson at 41st and Warren Harding at 43rd, but to have gotten six of the ten worst in just a 20 year stretch is pretty... something. The only exception from that run from 1841-1861, James K Polk, is currently ranked 11th.
To an extent, I honestly have to agree with Jason. While I think in most regards Obama is middle of the pack, there are so many just truly horrendous things he has allowed under his administration at best, at worst signed off on, that make me think he is a terrible human being (as a president, as a person I figure he is probably a really wonderful guy).
And I don't know if, all things considered, I can consider someone who has allowed (and encouraged) so many things that I just absolutely morally disagree with middle of the pack. I realize many of them have to do with having his arm twisted by the conservatives, that to stop doing these things would make the good that much harder to pass... but you could say the same thing about any evil empire, that the "good" guys in it were just doing evil things to protect themselves. That isn't a very convincing argument though.
Quote from: trdsf on June 20, 2015, 05:37:18 PM
I think you mean Franklin Pierce? Ambrose Bierce was a (brilliantly snarky) author.
Must be. Don't know why my wires got crossed. I'll need to drink more beer to straighten that out.
Don't think there is any one 'bad' President. I think that there is some good and bad in all of them. Personally, the government as a whole, is a fucked up system in need of repair...and to think that one man or woman could ever come in and clean it all up, is naive.
agree, but the president who killed the most innocent people was Truman. Bush if you include our own people and caused us to be feared and hated by the rest of the world by his stupidity.
I think I'd have to go with Nixon for several reasons, he started the war on drugs, there's the Watergate scandal, and then there's this famous quote of his (which you can tell he truly believes based on his actions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYdJqSG3K6c
Not to mention that I'm pretty sure Nixon's jowls are made entirely out of pure evil
That WAS an interesting quote. I have no idea how he arrived at that.
I had forgotten that statement of Nixon. Yeah--hard to top that one.
If you tried to write a political thriller in which a fictional president did all the stuff Nixon did, you'd never get it published because no one could suspend disbelief long enough to finish reading it. Yes, Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency -- partly in response to the then-new environmental movement, and partly so he could use it to extort "donations" from industries for his '72 re-election campaign. Yes, Nixon normalized relations with China -- not for the sake of the relationship, but to pressure Russia.
I have long thought that the most chilling thing about the Nixon view of the world (or more appropriately, the Nixon-Kissinger view) is how utterly, utterly dehumanizing it is. It wasn't that people were pawns to him/them -- entire nations were pawns, and the citizenry was not worth even the briefest consideration.
Ronald Reagan, hands-down. If it weren't for Reagan, there never would have been the Bush dynasty.
Reagan was also the worst Hollywood actor ever.