Ranking the Presidents

[The Shadow]

Just wondered how you would rank the Presidents in office during the time you were born. As an old codger, here goes:

#1 40 Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-89 (Republican) Great
#2 33 Harry S Truman, 1945-53 (Democrat) Buck stops here
#3 34 Dwight David Eisenhower, 1953-61 (Republican) Prosperity
#4 35 John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1961-63 (Democrat) Interupted Hope
#5 36 George Walker Bush, 1989-1993 (Republican) Capable caretaker
#6 37 Gerald Ford Jr , 1974-77 (Republican) Good man,difficult time
#7 43 George W. Bush 2001-08 (Republican) Kept country safe
#8 39 James Earl Carter, 1977-81 (Democrat) Naive, in over head
#9 36 Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-69 (Democrat) US still paying for policies
#10 42 William J. Clinton, 1993- 2001(Democrat) Disgraced presidency
#11 37 Richard Milhous Nixon, 1969-74 (Republican) Paranoic; disgrace

[HarveyWallbangers]

Re: Ranking the Presidents

#1 Ronald Reagan

The next person would be a distant #2.

Clinton and the second Bush were fine. Clinton didn't have many challenges and had a mostly adoring press. Bush had numerous challenges and had a mostly scathing press. I'd give both passing grades--considering their circumstances.

Ford and the first Bush were average, at best.

Carter and Nixon were awful. Carter because of policy. Nixon because of other things.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Truman
Eisenhower
Clinton
Nixon
Bush I
Carter
Ford
Kennedy
Reagan
Johnson
Bush II

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, you're backsliding.

As Harvey said, everybody else is a very distant second to Reagan.

I can already hear the crap from the detractors, but considering what he faced, his success on far and away, the most important issue, security from terrorism, the belated success of the war, and yes, the economy--things would have been so much worse without his tax cuts, George W. Bush would have to be second.

We have another large gap between second and third.

Third: Eisenhower--pretty much by default, as he fostered normalcy and at least didn't lose the fledgling Cold War.

Fourth: Truman--on the plus side, he stood firm against Communist expansion; On the minus side, he fired MacArthur for wanting to be more aggressive against Communism, he opposed McCarthy in seeking and destroying domestic Communists, and he basically was a tax and spend New Dealer.

Fifth: George H. W. Bush--he mopped up Reagan's victory in the Cold War; He won the Gulf War--even though it is arguable that he should have continued to pursue the enemy. He did raise taxes, which basically reflects a weak will in allowing the Dem-controlled Congress to outmaneuver him.

Sixth: Nixon--he terminated the Vietnam War in what seemed to be a positive way--at least he didn't flat out surrender, as his opponents would have. He let a Dem Congress apply tax and spend policies and even price controls--thereby continuing the downward economic trend to the Carter debacle. And then there was Watergate.

Seventh: Clinton--he did preside over the economic boom, even though the dotcom technology and the Republican Congress had much more to do with it than he did. He may have been slick and sleazy, but arguably, the slickness was a positive thing, as it caused Clinton to be more tuned in to political views of the people and to leftist ideologues. Clinton, because of his aide, Jamie Gorelick and her intelligence "wall", was also primarily responsible for 9/11. And then there were ALL those scandals.

Eighth: Ford--he was basically a caretaker who did very little. His dullness and subsequent defeat basically gave us the disaster which was the Carter Administration.

Ninth: Kennedy--he cut taxes, but he also introduced massive new government social programs and intrusive regulations. The worst thing about Kennedy, though, was his pulling the rug from under the Bay of Pigs invasion, thereby giving us Communism 90 miles from our shores still.

Tenth: LBJ--he expanded Kennedy's social and regulatory programs exponentially; He raised taxes, starting the downward spiral that culminated with the Carter mess; And he fought the Vietnam War with one hand tied behind our back.

Eleventh: Carter--the economic horrors he presided over were not entirely his fault--Dem Congresses and presidents back to Kennedy and Johnson were more to blame. The true rottenness of Carter, though, was his reaction to the the stagflation and 20% + interest rates. He preached and practiced "malaise", and he told America we had to settle for being a second-rate power because we couldn't compete with the worldwide Communism Carter idolized.

I'm confident that Obama will fall in between LBJ and Carter. That assumes there will NOT be repeats of 9/11 during his administration. He we do get hit, though, it will be directly attributable to Obam changing the highly successful Bush anti-terrorism plan.

[BallHawk]

If we do get hit, though, it will be directly attributable to Obama changing the highly successful Bush anti-terrorism plan.

You mean the "plan" that prevented attacks on our soil throughout our country's history, Democrats and Republicans alike?

It's not like before Bush our country suffered from routine bombings and chemical terrorism. Bush did his job. The same way Clinton, HW, Reagen, Jimmy, Ford, etc. did theirs.

If that's a reason to rank Bush as a "decent" president, because he kept us safe, then it's obvious that whomever is making that statement is grasping at straws.

[BallHawk]

Did I mention Warren G. Harding kept our country nice and warm?

[bobblehead]

None other than reagan were worth a shit, and even he had faults.

Everyone pretty much knows I think Gingrich was the greatest leader of my lifetime and he was only speaker of the house.

[sheepshead]

Reagan
Bush II
Ike
Nixon
Truman


Bush I
Clinton
LBJ


JFK
Ford
Carter

I think a few of these guys accomplishments far out weigh their missteps. Clinton is the only one that gets this pass in the press. I, however dont believe his only claim to fame (the economy) had much to do with him or his dimwitted vice president.

[Patler]

What? No one with memories of FDR?

[hoosier]

What? No one with memories of FDR?

I think his omission was politically motivated. If you include FDR and Hoover in this poll, then you have the #1 and dead-assed last in back-to-back presidencies.

[bobblehead]

What? No one with memories of FDR?

I think his omission was politically motivated. If you include FDR and Hoover in this poll, then you have the #1 and dead-assed last in back-to-back presidencies.

Which is dead ass last...I mean I know my opinion, but I'm guessing we differ.

LBJ is dead last in my book. FDR instituted social programs and big gov't, but LBJ raided the SS trust fund and started the trend of not funding liabilities.

[hoosier]

What? No one with memories of FDR?

I think his omission was politically motivated. If you include FDR and Hoover in this poll, then you have the #1 and dead-assed last in back-to-back presidencies.

Which is dead ass last...I mean I know my opinion, but I'm guessing we differ.

LBJ is dead last in my book. FDR instituted social programs and big gov't, but LBJ raided the SS trust fund and started the trend of not funding liabilities.

Your problem is that you can only see history and judge the decisions that historical actors made in the context of your own time and your own prejudices. First, what you take to be an incontrovertible, permanent truth (that "free markets" are more efficient and fairer than "big government") hasn't always been accepted as fact, and moreover it isn't a provable hypothesis in the same way that theories in the natural sciences can be tested and proven or disproven. Your boundless faith in free markets has certainly been fashionable for the last four decades or so, but it's hardly a universal truth. Second, as a good capitalist you should recognize that what FDR and LBJ accomplished--FDRs creation of a stable social security net at a time when many thought that capitalism as a global system was on the verge of destroying itself; and LBJs reduction of the number of Americans living in poverty by 50%--were intended to dispel the then persuasive image of capitalism as a savage, greedy monster. In that sense, FDR and LBJ paved the road for your economic heros (Friedman, Hyeck).

[swede]

I thin I know where Obama will go on the list after his 4-8 years in the White House

Obama's first week:


On January 20, President Obama called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. He also declared his intention to give multiple rights and privileges to homosexual couples.

On January 22, he issued an order announcing his intention to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within one year, but admits he has not figured out how to do that. President Bush had expressed a similar wish, but could find no nations willing to take responsibility for the detainees.

On January 23, President Obama issued an order that authorizes tax dollars for abortions abroad.

Hope has arrived, America.

[sheepshead]

Strap yourself in Swede. It's gets scarier by the day.

[texaspackerbacker]

If we do get hit, though, it will be directly attributable to Obama changing the highly successful Bush anti-terrorism plan.

You mean the "plan" that prevented attacks on our soil throughout our country's history, Democrats and Republicans alike?

It's not like before Bush our country suffered from routine bombings and chemical terrorism. Bush did his job. The same way Clinton, HW, Reagen, Jimmy, Ford, etc. did theirs.

If that's a reason to rank Bush as a "decent" president, because he kept us safe, then it's obvious that whomever is making that statement is grasping at straws.

Are DENYING, BallHawk, that the absolute worst case scenario for this country--about the ONLY thing that could bring down America is multiple repeats of 9/11, possibly with dirty bombs or even nuclear weapons?

Are you DENYING that this issue far surpasses anything else in importance?

Are you DENYING that there was another method proposed--the "police approach" as articulated over and over by John Kerry--and which there seems to be some possibility now that Obama is moving toward?

Are you DENYING that the Jamie Gorelick "Wall"--a Clinton Administration policy--which prevented our intelligence organizations from communicating was the biggest single factor in enabling 9/11?

Are you DENYING that the threat of terrorism serious enough to change the lifestyle of Americans is something brand new in the last decade or two?

And as for "grasping at straws" are you somehow blaming Bush for the current economic mess? Actually it was Bush's policies--most notably tax cutting--that brought us back from 9/11 and gave us prosperity right up until (coincidentally?) the year after the Democrats got control of both houses of Congress.

Can you even imagine the horrors of an Algore presidency in the wake of 9/11?