Bill Clinton Moves Up To 15th On Historians' Presidential Ranking

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Ha.

The Republicants' tried to ruin his legacy with impeachment. The hunting of the Clintons failed. May the Republicants never be entrusted with power again.

I want that party to be so small you can fit it in your sink.


http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx

[book_worm]

1. do you have the rankings to post? I'd be interested in seeing the list.

not that I don't believe you about Clinton but just to see the overall rankings.

[Homer Wells]

2. I'll drink to that!!!

:toast: :beer: :toast:

K&R!!

[Captain Hilts]

3. He'll keep inching up. Sad thing is all the folks here who fall for the "Clinton fatigue" crap.

I was in polling in the late 90s early 00s and there was NO SUCH THING.

Bubba would have been elected to a 3rd term, could have been Gore or Bush or Gore and Bush.

Approval rating leaving office 70%.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I Don't Think He Will Break Or Should Break In To The Top Ten

But he is definitely in the top third of presidents.

[Captain Hilts]

7. I agree. But I don't think Reagan and JFK belong there either. nt

[CTyankee]

33. Yes, that was such BS. And I wasn't even in polling. I just have a good political sense.

I should, I'm certainly old enough and have seen enough political campaigns stretching waaaay back (don't ask how far!).

[ShortnFiery]

5. I still value Jimmy Carter as higher than him. eom

[Colobo]

44. Carter wasn't as succesful as president.

[Captain Hilts]

48. Good intentions aren't enough. 100 times zero is still zero.

And Carter was just unlucky. Sad, but true.

[Arkana]

61. It's part of why Lyndon Johnson isn't in the top 5.

Vietnam utterly destroyed his legacy.

Presidents are, ultimately, victims of circumstance--whether by their own making (Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Grover Cleveland, Chimpy McCokespoon) or due to factors beyond their control (Herbert Hoover, Martin Van Buren, Ulysses S. Grant).

[SoCalDem]

64. Viet Nam was OUR bug-a-boo..Civil Rights is what the rightwingers

hold against him.. They won't come out and admit it, but with right wingers controling media, the way they do, it's not hard for me to see through their crap.. It's "safe" for them to claim that it was because of Viet Nam, but in their wicked little hearts, it's because he upset their apple-carts, and ushered in phase-two of the Civil war..

[ErinBerin84]

6. yep

Brinkley (sp?) was just saying that he probably rose bc of Clinton global initiative, etc. St. Ronnie is still way too high. Ugh, one of those "too early to judge George W Bush" calls just came in, and the presidential historians were just like "you're right!" G.H.W too high as well.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Most people don't give a damn about the Clinton Global Initiative or know what it's about. nt

[ErinBerin84]

11. wasn't this a survey of presidential historians and not the public?

[ShortnFiery]

14. Yes! One of the guests who controlled the survey expressed REGRET that Brinkley evidently

didn't peruse the guidlelines correctly. Hopefully he won't be asked to participate in the next one. :shrug:

[ErinBerin84]

16. I'm not the biggest fan of Brinkley

I mean,he's ok, but overrated. I was just stating what his "reasoning" was, which I didn't get either.

[Captain Hilts]

47. Yes, and I think that still holds true, but I'm glad you brought that up. I wasn't clear. nt

[ShortnFiery]

12. Brinkley irritates me because he also stated that Carter fell because his views on the Palestinians

Gee, doesn't that hit-on #9 of the Criteria for Historians to judge: Moral Leadership?

[ErinBerin84]

15. yep

I don't really get the logic either....though, I question the logic of a cast of presidential historians that would put Reagan in the top ten....I think he should have fallen a few points this year. Some of the BIG drops, etc, for no reason from year to year seem kind of odd.

[Wetzelbill]

9. His economic growth and job creation should make him a top fiver

He presided over 8 years of peace and prosperity and in a hostile environment. Clinton's legacy is hurt somewhat by signing some of the legislation that started with the House GOP or say the Phil Gramm deregulation bills etc. Overall, Bill Clinton was an extremely successful and popular president, granted he had personal flaws, but from a governing standpoint, he's solid.

[acmavm]

21. AND he was lucky. He came in on the beginning of the dot.com bubble.

You know, the one where everybody said the future of America was to be a 'information/technology based' economy. The IT/Tech world would be the replacement for 'manufacturing'. You know, those jobs that started to fly out of the country what with NAFTA/CAFTA. And now we're struggling to get them back again because we understand now that a nation needs something to 'make and sell' to drive the economy and keep its people fed.

He left under a cloud of scorn because he was too cute by half regarding the definition of 'sex'. But his new 'IT/Tech' driven economy was starting soon to be flying off to distant shores as well. That bubble didn't burst, it exploded with the force of a nuclear warhead. Thence we became a nation who's economy was based on 'service'. Hotel and motel employees, Wal-Mart employees, fast food industry workers (who's jobs were redefined to be in the 'manufacturing' industry). Oh yeah, there were those guys on Wall Street. The ones that Phil and Wendy handed the keys to the economy to which allowed them to determine the rules by which their friends and cronies would rob this country fucking blind.

Yep, Bill was a geat guy.

+

[Wetzelbill]

25. luck plays a big factor

I guess you could say Lincoln was lucky to preside over a Civil War.

Clinton only left with scorn from the Right really, he was in the 60s in popularity as he was being impeached. The definition of sex was agreed upon before he made that statement in the Paula Jones deposition. He was impeached for following an agreed upon definition of sex. You didn't know that?

[acmavm]

39. I know the whole stupid story. It was disingenuous on everyone's part.

He did not have *sex* with that woman? Okay.

That still makes me laugh.

Politicians back then were treating the American public to nothing more than a low-rent side show. And they had the tacky characters to make it 'fascinating'.

[Wetzelbill]

85. yes exactly right

I always thought it was funny that sometime before that that an article came out that Newt Gingrich preferred blowjobs because nobody could accuse him of actually "sleeping" with a woman. Oh no. :)

[Captain Hilts]

45. Theo Roosevelt considered himself unlucky NOT to have a war. FDR wasn't going to make that mistake.

[Wetzelbill]

87. yes

I have heard that several times about TR. I watched a few documentaries on him, he seemed keen on the idea of becoming a war hero in some way, shape or form. War is awful and I respect those who have lived and fought in some harsh conditions, but we put too much of a premium on that one type of heroism. We tend to glorify war too much. I was horrified at how easily people fell in line as we went into an unnecessary war in Iraq. It's not a game, you know? My cousin served in Iraq, if he had died or been permanently maimed because our country went into something we shouldn't have, I doubt I could ever get over it.

[Captain Hilts]

103. I couldn't agree more.

But if you're president, war gives you the greatest stage a performer can have.

It's like a drug.

[blm]

46. dog and pony show while 'fixers' were in Rose Law Firm scrubbing Jackson Stephens' files for Poppy.

.

[blm]

151. Bubble economics. The deregulation craze started before Clinton, but, he continued it..

The internet economy started before Clinton, and history should read that Al Gore had more to do with the forward movement of the internet economy than Clinton.


If Dems want to see a repeat of the Greenspan way then they can keep holding Clinton's leadership on the economy as some sort of glorified example.

[Uben]

10. If you go by his numbers...........

......Clinton was truly one of the finest presidents this country has had! The only spot on his numbers record is the trade deficit, which was a low increase, but an increase just the same. I once had his numbers saved to show repubs just how good he was, but it got lost somewhere between computer changes. I think he will make it to the top ten easily, and most likely to the top five!

[grannie4peace]

13. it was exactly what hillary said-a right-wing conspiracy!

[Baikonour]

17. FDR is third? But I thought he caused the Great Depression!

:eyes:

[GOPBasher]

57. Good point. It's almost as if the Historians don't agree with revisionist history.

The "history" being spewed by right wing propagandists.

[indepat]

109. That the Gipper is number ten indicates these historians have not a clue as to the damage

wrought by his reckless fiscal policies and other RW maladministration. :P

[avaistheone1]

63. Thanks for Rush Lintball revisionist history.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

112. I Think He Was Being Ironic

~

[AllentownJake]

18. W is debuting on the list at a disrespectful 36

Fillmore, Harding, Harrison, Pierce, Johnson, and Buchanan are the only Presidents considered worse.

[Catshrink]

29. Should be he higher? After all, he kept us safe since 9/11.

:sarcasm:

[treestar]

75. Lower than Hoover

I wonder why they think Buchanan was the very worst President - they must have thought that if he'd done better the Civil War might not have come about or been so severe.

[Odin2005]

130. Buchanan was a traitor and belongs at the very bottom.

He pretty much aided the secession of the Southern states.

[Faygo Kid]

19. W. will yet fall to the bottom.

A lot of historians are hesitant to rank him just yet, so he remains in the mid-30s. Low, but not low enough.

[baldguy]

20. The problem with this survey

It refuses to acknowledge the very real thread of fascism running through American politics since WWII, culminating the election of Reagan and the appointment of Bush to the Presidency - and it's detrimental effects of the political system.

[wyldwolf]

22. It also refuses to aknowledge the danger of high fructose corn syrup in out food supply

[baldguy]

27. HFCS doesn't have a direct impact on the relative openness of the American political process.

:eyes:

[sufrommich]

98. lol. nt

[Enthusiast]

23. You are right, baldguy. nt

[AtomicKitten]

24. Stranger things have happened.

In fact, Clinton is about ready to cross a picket line in San Diego and offend the LGBT community in the process: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5043400 but for the most part DU seems fine with it. The disparity in comparative outrage here at DU is as always fascinating.

[Adelante]

140. Isn't it, though?

:hi:

[AtomicKitten]

155. indeed

:hi:

[Lyric]

156. Oh, that's nothing new for DU.

DU is quite famous for being unconcerned with things that offend the GLBT community. In fact, I can think of quite a few DU'ers who enjoy nothing more than lecturing us about how we really shouldn't be so upset about stuff like this; it's only policy decisions that matter, after all. Things that actually affect our lives, like DADT, DOMA, etc. Stuff like this...this is just being "tone deaf." Because, you know, high-profile Dem politicians legitimizing homophobia by hanging out with homophobes, well that doesn't contribute to the continuation of homophobia-inspired legislation at all! No connection to be worried about, I'm sure. We should just focus on the ugly legislative fruits of the homophobia tree, rather than the ugly enabling roots.

Or maybe there's just one set of standards for Presidents we like, and another set for ones we don't. I'd have to agree with you, for sure. There's definitely an ironic disparity in comparative outrage around here. Oh yes indeed.

[gblady]

26. I am surprised....

that Johnson is that high....
and Carter is that low.

[Gregorian]

28. That poll is as valuable as a rubber crutch.

What a load of garbage. The idiots who replied to their questionnaire are out of their minds.

I've always thought that Carter got Roved. Americans are so stupid and slow.

And just what does one have to do to be lower than W?

[AZCat]

30. Getting sick and dying within a month of the inauguration...

seems to be considered worse than staying alive for two terms and wreaking havoc across the board for all eight years.

[Still Sensible]

74. I really love Jimmy Carter

his was the first presidential campaign I volunteered to work on, even though my state at the time had no shot of going blue. I admire the work he has done since he left office. His heart has always been in the right place IMO.

That said, it is not hard for me to admit he was a pretty ineffective president. How much was his fault, how much was circumstance, how much was his advisers, that is all debatable.

[Captain Hilts]

93. Well said. nt

[Gabi Hayes]

121. Read "Liberty Under Siege," by Walter Karp for the best single analysis

of what happened to the Carter presidency, and I use "happened to" on purpose.

as important as any factor affecting his term was the turning on him by his OWN party leaders, because of his agenda (mainly energy independence/conservation and the ending of our legalized bribery-based political donation process)

you can start with the Ted Sorensen fiasco.

the second half of Karp's book deals with Reagan's disastrous presidency, which these so-called historians seem so willing to ignore

[TexasObserver]

31. The Reagan and Bush I ratings are absurdly high.

[blm]

37. Reagan, GHWBush, and Clinton continue to benefit for now from the CLOSED BOOKS

that have been protecting all their roles in the secrecy and privilege game set up by the global fascists.

[wyldwolf]

52. blm has seen those closed books

[blm]

62. you want Dems to believe there were no outstanding matters? hmm...BushInc would LOVE that.

BushInc can always count on some Dems unconcerned with secrecy and privilege.

[wyldwolf]

67. you must know some people to have gotten a look at the "books."

[blm]

72. you must need to pretend those matters were concluded....did you SEE conclusive open books?

..

[Clintonista2]

125. LOL

There's a crazy subway guy who I see everyday and is always shouting at people about how the government is out to get him. I've nicknamed him "blm"

[PurityOfEssence]

78. Ding ding ding

Oh, so true.

Reagan at #10 is ridiculous. He was a colossal failure: he tripled the national debt, wasted energy and treasure on his grandstanding fight against the dying Soviet Union, fucked the environment, workers, banking, the poor, Central America, and shepherded in an era of selfishness that plagues us to this day. He was a total disaster. The only thing anyone can say positive about him is that he made us feel "good" about ourselves, and that's dashed because the truth of the matter is he made us feel good about not giving a damn about the rest of the world.

Clinton, although he held the tide of the reactionaries in many ways, caved in on many important issues and steadfastly dragged the party to the right. Still, he was rapaciously curious and worked like a dog, and that counts for a lot.

[sufrommich]

101. Don't forget,Reagan also ignored AIDS/HIV for as long as

he possibly could.As long as it was only killing gays,he was blissfully lukewarm to the rising death statistics.
The only people he made "feel good" about this country were the freepers,the rest of us were mortified.

[Gabi Hayes]

122. read On Bended Knee for the reason he "made" us feel good.

only a supine, complicit MSM made this possible

[Captain Hilts]

49. GHWB actually wasn't a bad prez. Pretty good in some ways. Here's why:

1) He actually reversed some of the nastier trends and policies of the Reagan Admin.
2) Gulf War I diplomacy was BRILLIANT - so good that US taxpayers didn't even have to pay for the war. The Japanese and Saudis did.

The successes of GHWB really highlight the reasons GWB was a TERRIBLE president. There's no better contrast to point this out.

He sucks because of two appointments: Quayle and Thomas. At least Quayle made a really nice concession speech. Thomas is still a total shit.

[Colobo]

53. Very fair assesment. I wish W had resembled his dad a bit more at least.

[Captain Hilts]

54. GHWB's people believed in government. It might not be what you and I would necessarily...

do with government, but they believed it could solve problems and work for people. GWB's people did not believe in government, at all. They put corporate bandits in charge of so many oversight committees, boards, etc. it is criminal. Mine safety being one of them. Then, they completely left important boards - such as the Federal Labor Relations Board - which is supposed to protect federal employees, empty of appointees. The FLRB has something like three of the leading positions EMPTY and no chief counsel for nearly a YEAR. Criminal.

[blm]

65. GHWBush and his cronies believed in GLOBAL FASCISM and CLOSED government.

and he brought around more than a few Dems to help protect his agenda.

[Gabi Hayes]

123. jesus...thank you. WTF is going on around here with the silly idea

that Bush was anything but another in the long line of republican crytpo-fascist war mongerers.

why do you think he pardoned those six guys in the advent of Iran Contra, huh?

he committed treason during his stint as VP, and was complicit in it by pardoning those monsters (the only reason he did so was that they'd have ratted him out in the ensuing investos they were afraid would surface)

[blm]

141. Yet, Gabi, some DUers are now in the position of PRAISING GHWBush as if global terrorism was never

funded and arms and drugs were never supplied to the global terror networks, and hundreds of billions of US dollars were never funneled to powerful cronies. Why do they now downplay his role in the fascist agenda? Because they can't explain why Clinton protected Bush's secrecy and privilege - Clinton's legacy depends on Bush1's legacy.

Those who point this out are often attacked by those who are incapable of refuting the point.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. While the Gulf War execution was brilliant I'm not sure if I see the need for it

So what if Saddam Hussein had invaded and conquered Saudi Arabia? It's not like he wouldn't still sell us their oil. And women fared far better under Saddam than they do under King Abdullah.

[fujiyama]

83. Souter also turned out to be a decent SC pick

I actually think Bush Sr. comes out looking better than Reagan. Reagan was also lucky when he presided...and I suppose we can say we're all lucky because he didn't lead us into a nuclear war. Same thing can be said about Bush Jr.

Bush Sr. also had the sense to call Reagan's economics Voodoo and while the cause and motivation for Desert Storm can be argued, it was fairly successful and his decision not to go into Baghdad looks to be vindicated.

Reagan ranks as one of the most overrated presidents. I'm sick of the Grover Norquist movement to lionize him and put him on everything. I don't know why Reagan or Wilson rank so high. Wilson was a racist ass hat.

[Odin2005]

131. A lot of people during Wilson's time were racist asshats. He was a good president despite his racism

Sure, it tarnishes Wilson as a person, but not the good things he did and the good ideas he had. He was the grandfather of both the UN and economic regulation in the US. It was under him that a progressive income tax was established.

[Occam Bandage]

32. I disagree with Washington and FDR swapping places, and am surprised Teddy is #4. nt

[Captain Hilts]

51. Theo R is our Churchill. Visually memorable, batshit crazy, brilliant, statesman and scholar. nt

[Occam Bandage]

55. He is certainly the most romantic of our Presidents.

[Captain Hilts]

56. Please to explain.

He certainly did have that "Vision thing."

And he gets dap from me for noting that Eleanor Roosevelt was more like himself than any of his own children. And she was. Harry Truman always noted how ER was so much like her uncle.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

34. should be higher. nt

[Arkansas Granny]

35. This survey is even more interesting if you click on some of the individual

categories that they were ranked on, such as Crisis Leadership, International Relations and Economic Management.

[treestar]

82. Yes. Clinton is 3rd on economic management

[blm]

36. His legacy is completely tied up with Poppy Bush's legacy - historians who never bothered to follow

through the congressional reports on IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning, and/or are still denied access to the stonewalled documents, can't conclude ANYTHING about the last 40 years - and anyone who claims they can IS FULL OF SHIT or LYING DELIBERATELY.

[wyldwolf]

38. according to blm

[blm]

40. according to the congressional records and closed books - spin doesn't replace actual documents and

sworn testimony for citizens who care about open government. Those who prefer spin over documentation aren't exactly solid judges of anyone's legacy or anyone's character.

BTW - what do YOU have against OPEN GOVERNMENT? Why do you side with secrecy and privilege of closed government so much, anyway?

Are you COUNTING ON investigative journalists and historians NEVER having access to all the matters Poppy Bush has needed deepsixed over the last 40 plus years?

[wyldwolf]

41. closed books? You've seen them?

[blm]

42. You claiming IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI, CIA drugrunning were dealt with and concluded openly?

.

[wyldwolf]

50. you said "according to closed books." You've seen them?

[blm]

66. Documents stonewalled and hidden, scrutiny shut down and we were told to move on = 'closed books'

or did YOU see those outstanding matters dealt with to YOUR standard of satisfaction as a citizen?

Do you even HAVE a standard?

[wyldwolf]

69. did someone sneak you in to take a peak at those "books?"

[blm]

70. is someone needing you to pretend all those matters were concluded?

.

[wyldwolf]

79. I knew it! You have friends in high places! How else would you know all this?

[blm]

84. You could try going to National Security Archives instead of getting your info from spin machine

Responsible citizenship cannot be forced.

[wyldwolf]

88. Is that where you went?

[blm]

89. Often - that's why I know what WAS uncovered and what scrutiny was attempted and not allowed

by GHWBush and those invested in protecting him and the powerful involved - even some famous Democrats.

[wyldwolf]

90. they gave you access to closed books there?

[PBS Poll-435]

102. Gotta love preferential treatment

:eyes:

















:rofl:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

113. Respectfully- Both Of You Are Entertaining

But you are both hijacking my thread.

On the bright side you are keeping it bumped.

[wyldwolf]

114. Respectully - this is me calling blm out on hijacking yet another Clinton thread

she has a vast history of it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. I Find Her Entertaining

She reminds me of this old man I knew in the late seventies who believed the communists were behind (everything) that was wrong in America.

She's great though. She's bumping my thread.

[wyldwolf]

116. that she is

I'm not sure many believe that she and Greg Palast are the only people who have seen evidence of this incredible conspiracy Bill Clinton is part of (with the Bushes!)

[blm]

142. Jackson Stephens didn't bring BCCI into this country, either....in YOUR book.

.

[wyldwolf]

152. What book is that? And is Stephens equally entertaining?

[Odin2005]

133. LOL, you always crack me up, Wyld!!!

I think our tin-foiler friend's head is gonna explode! :rofl:

[AJH032]

96. Do you ever stop?

It seems every post of yours is some form of vitriol against Bill Clinton. Surely you must have other thoughts on your mind?

[Captain Hilts]

104. No, they don't. nt

[blm]

118. Do you ever THINK about why Reagan and GHWBush's 'legacies' have been rehabbed?

Maybe some Dems NEVER cared about accountability or their right to open government, but, some of us DO care and you want us to STOP?

[Odin2005]

135. Have you ever quit beating your wife?

That's the level your posts are at, fallacious gobbly-gok full of ad-hominems, red herrings and other such bad reasoning.

[blm]

139. Try refuting what is posted instead of attacking. If Reagan and Bush1 did NOT benefit from Clinton's

protection of their secrecy and privilege on IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning operations then explain their rising rankings and polished legacies.

[Odin2005]

149. The burden of proof is on the person proposing the conspiracy theory.

It is standard operating procedure of conspiracy nuts, woo woos, quacks, and creationists to assume they are right and demand that everyone else prove otherwise.

[blm]

150. Conspiracy theory to you? IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning matters were

ongoing when Clinton took office and continued throughout the 90s. You are welcome to use Clinton's book and share with us how he dealt with those matters in a manner that you found conclusive and satisfying.

And, surely you don't intend to claim that IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning concerns and outstanding matters are as real as creationism?

[Odin2005]

132. That tin-foil hat must be cutting off oxygen to your brain.

Poppy was a decent man who was a brilliant diplomat, though he had an obvious empathy problem with regards to people suffering during his recession he rightly mocked Reaganomics as voodoo.

[blm]

143. Could you post that sentiment in a thread of its own and stick around to defend it?

Maybe those of you who make the time to post personal attacks at me can spend some of that time actually refuting what is posted.

[Faygo Kid]

43. Grant jumped the most: Ten spots, from 33 to 23.

I imagine Grant's rise is due to his commitment to protecting the freed slaves in the South - something neither his predecessor (Johnson) or successor (Hayes) was the least bit interested in doing. I always thought Grant deserved props for that, but in the past, it was actually a negative for him. No more, I am glad to see.

[Zomby Woof]

59. Hayes was hamstrung by the "deal"

Remember, Hayes was the beneficiary of the deal which gave him Florida's electoral votes (yep, Palm Beach County has toyed with TWO elections in our history - they were at the crux of the 1876 controversy) in exchange for ending Reconstruction. Samuel Tilden was the Al Gore of his day - winner of the popular vote, and loser of Florida and the electoral college by dispute. Hayes was called "His Fraudelency" during his term as president.

Since Hayes had to withdraw federal troops to make good on the deal, he couldn't do much to address civil rights. The net effect would have probably been no different under Tilden, which makes Hayes's ascension to the office seem like nothing more than blind Republican power-grabbing (nothing much has changed).

Though I think Lincoln is over-mythologized (after all, he is the one who picked Andrew Johnson for his VP), I will concede, that had he lived, he probably would have handled Reconstruction far better than his successors, and especially far better than the Radical Republicans, whose zeal to punish the south ranks up there with France's punitive treatment of Germany following WW1. I think Grant honestly tried to follow the conciliatory middle path of Lincoln - protect civil rights, but not be punitive toward southerners, but he was a terrible administrator. Let's face it, he was in over his head as president. He had none of Lincoln's political gifts. Thus, the Radical Republicans, due to the vacuum of leadership, and abetted by the greed and opportunism of the carpetbaggers and scalawags, ran roughshod over both Johnson and Grant, and the promise of Reconstruction died. I am not saying Lincoln would have enacted the equivalent of a Marshall Plan, at least not in scope, but perhaps in intent. We will never know.

[Odin2005]

136. LOL, Palm Beach had a role in the "Corrupt Bargain"?

:rofl:

[Supply Side Jesus]

58. Andrew Jackson waaaay to high

That P.O.S. should be near the bottom with Harding and W

[Clio the Leo]

99. I thought so too.....

.... but if you look at his term with 19th Century eyes, subtract the fact that he sponsored the worst near-genocide in this nation's history, everything else he did was pretty good. That whole mess with the national bank.

Too bad he was a racist mother fucker. (and he and I are like first cousins 8 times removed or something, I can talk about family lol)

[ShadowLiberal]

127. Jackson was extremely popular in his time, even if his policies did blow up in his VP's face

Jackson was VERY popular in his time, had a landslide win each times, and accomplished much of his agenda.

It is true that that some of his policies, like killing the national bank and such, helped cause a serious recession that started soon after he left office and his VP got elected president.

[Arkana]

60. Why the fuck Raygun is rated higher than Lyndon Johnson escapes me.

No President did more for civil rights (pre-Obama) than Johnson. He gave us so many things we take for granted with the Great Society...and Ronnie fucking Raygun is rated higher than him.

[blm]

68. Reagan and GHWBush's true legacies were never allowed to be fully revealed in the 90s.

Were they? And they are STILL being protected.

[TacticalPeek]

71. LBJ should get beaucoup points for Medicare - but never does.

The media control of mass consciousness is awesome to behold.

[Arkana]

76. He added federal funding for education and gave us public broadcasting and NPR

as well.

[Drunken Irishman]

95. He should get points for a lot of things, but he never does.

[Thothmes]

105. May because Reagan didnt get 36,000 American Killed

in Vietnam.

[anonymous171]

134. Vietnam. He destroyed the Democratic party. He was too pro-civil rights for the Dixiecrats,

too pro-war for the college youth and hippies.

[avaistheone1]

73. Reagan and Reaganomics started the economic decline we are now experiencing

What we are seeing is a collapse in our economy that is 25 years in the making. The real blame for our predicament is the entire "government is the enemy" Republican philosophy which was championed by Ronald Reagan and followed to the nth degree by George Bush. The reality is that the financial meltdown we are seeing now is the final verdict on that bankrupt philosophy. The verdict is in -- the Reagan revolution was a stunning failure, and we are now harvesting the fruits of that failure.

Our current problems are the long term result of the destruction of the middle class due to a massive redistribution of wealth which Reagan set in motion. Reagan ran through Congress huge cuts in the top marginal tax rates and simultaneously ran up a huge budget deficit with his love of military contract spending. Having slashed taxes on the wealthy, it was left to the middle class to pay off Reagan's budget deficit. Simultaneously, the government had no money to invest in the type of domestic spending that would have paid dividends for decades to come -- improving teacher pay (which would have recruited better teachers and paid long term dividends in a better educated population), developing our infrastructure (mass transit anyone?), and moving toward some type of universal health care system are just a few examples. If we hadn't gone down the path of trickle down economics, working people wouldn't have collapsed financially so far so fast -- leaving so many foreclosures -- at the first sign of trouble in the economy. That's what started these dominos falling.

It's the final verdict on the complete failure of the Republican philosophy of weak government and unbridled greed by the wealthy. Basically the flip side of the new deal -- which brought growth and prosperity to the middle class for 60 years until the effects of the Reagan revolution starting unraveling the benefits brought by FDR. By the way, don't bother blaming Clinton, whose government did well in spite of what Reagan started (and what Bush finished). The effects of these policies take 20-25 years to fully realize. The kids that are getting a good education when they are 10 are doing well or not 25 years later. The new deal that was pushed through in the 30's brought huge growth in the middle class in the 50's and onward, until the Reagan/Bush policies eventually took their toll by gutting the middle class.

The Republicans fought like hell against the new deal policies that created that middle class - social security, medicare, workers' benefits, college aid. Fortunately, FDR was able to push those social contract policies through and the long-term result was the creation of a middle class our country had never seen before - a large class of people that owned homes, had money to send their kids to college, had comfortable retirements. But now, the Republicans have had the keys to the government in the form of holding the White House for 20 out of the past 28 years, and it's their appointees that have dominated the federal courts, the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, the FCC, the FDA etc. since 1980.

What we are seeing now -- the bankruptcy of the entire working class and much of the middle class (most middle income people are now in the red on the balance sheet unless they have had substantial inheritance) -- has been a 20-25 year process, in the same way the new deal didn't create a large middle class overnight. Reagan famously claimed that government was the problem. He started in motion two things - 1) tax policies (massive reduction in the top marginal rates) which pushed us toward a huge redistribution in wealth toward the top 5 percent, and 2) massive deregulation, which included gutting antitrust enforcement, which over time led to industry consolidation and the type of monopoly/oligarchy capitalism we enjoyed 100 years ago, when the country had a small aristocracy of wealthy people that owned everything and a huge class of peasants that owned nothing. Again, if you disagree with my basic theory, give me examples from the rest of the world. Let's hear about the prosperous, "government stay out of the way" countries and contrast them with the social democracies of Europe, of Canada, of Australia and New Zealand, of Israel. Be specific.

What caused this was a massive concentration of wealth over 25 years starting with Reagan. The top 1% have 90% of all of the wealth in the United States. True fact. That didn't happen overnight. It started 30 years ago. The "middle class" simply doesn't have enough money to live a middle class lifestyle anymore and that's behind the collapse of the real estate market. It's a much bigger issue than just some subprime loans in recent years.
During the Republican Eisenhower administration of the 50's, when the U.S. saw unprecedented growth, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. That applied to wage income in excess of about $3.5 million dollars per year in todays dollars. It only applied to huge amounts of income - people like Brad Pitt and Lebron James, and Warren Buffett and the like. We needed the money to send World War II vets to college and build our transportation system and it worked.

Those tax rates on the rich were slashed over time, dramatically by Reagan, to where it is now about 38%. During the same time, we cut capital gains taxes (again a tax cut for the rich), and estate taxes (same), and capped the income subject to social security tax (also a tax cut for the wealthy), and we saw a growth in offshore tax loopholes (for the wealthy). All of that has gutted our treasury, and destroyed the middle class.

We are going to have to go back to the policies of the 40's and 50's if we want to rebuild the middle class, who are bankrupt and increasingly unable to afford to educate their children.
Americans love the myth of Reagan. He was an actor who created a character that Americans adore. But his policies gutted the middle class over time. Americans need to get their heads out of the clouds, stop living in fantasy, and face the reality that because of these policies we are now a country with a tiny aristocracy that owns everything and a huge peasant class that owns nothing. Americans' pride was what allowed this to happen. It is time we waked up!

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-110451

[mvd]

77. And Reagan went UP one rank from 2000?

Bush must have even gotten some plant historians for that to be the case.

[liberalsince1968]

81. I can't take this seriously with Reagan in the top 10. I put him on a par with Bush.

[PBS Poll-435]

86. Should be in the top ten

The world liked and respected America under Bill Clinton.

[Captain Hilts]

92. Both Clinton and Taft should be rated MUCH higher as administrators.

I'd always read that Taft was the best.

Clinton was good at government and so was GHWB, actually.

[Captain Hilts]

91. I hate to say it, but I don't think Truman should be so high. He made a lot of his own problems...

he wasn't a good politician, though I respect a lot of the things he did: drop the bomb-tough decision for a guy new in the chair, fully integrating the military - it has actually started under FDR - and the Marshall Plan, firing MacArthur, etc.

[AlCzervik]

94. Was it Reagen throwing the mentally ill on the streets that they like so much and keeps him at #10?

or him never talking about aids?

[sufrommich]

97. Six presidents rated lower than Idiot Bush,unbelievable. nt

[BeyondGeography]

100. Does this mean he plays in one of the New Years Day Presidents Bowl games?

[shaniqua6392]

106. I want the GOP to be so small you can fit it in a toilet.....

AND FLUSH!!!!! :evilgrin:

[Autumn]

117. Good one , I like that

:toast:

[Vattel]

107. Truman should be among the worst:

a mass murderer and war criminal on a scale that makes Bush's war crimes seem trivial by comparison. Carter, on the other hand, has less innocent blood on his hands than almost any President of the 20th or 21st century.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

119. "Truman should be among the worst:a mass murderer and war criminal "

You should start that as a separate post.

The responses would be interesting.

[Odin2005]

137. Oh Ignorant Bullshit.

More civilians would have died if we would of invaded Japan, the A-Bomb saved far more lived then it destroyed. He also kept MacArthur from starting WW3

[Vattel]

144. I see you've bought the standard bullshit line

[Odin2005]

148. I see you've bought the standard bullshit Monday morning quarterbacking line

If I was in Truman's shoes I would of done the same thing. If that makes me a "mass murderer" in the eyes of historically ignorant naive pacifists so be it.

[anonymous171]

138. Do you even know what a "war crime" is? nt

[Vattel]

145. Yes, but apparently you don't.

[Mr. Sparkle]

108. Nobody can hold a candle to Bill over the last 60 years.

[Midwestern Democrat]

110. After all these years, I still think the '62 Schlessinger survey remains the

definitive ranking of presidents (up to that time). The rankings in that survey seemed to show a greater grasp of historical perspective. It shocks me that Coolidge, for example, is ranked as highly in this survey as he is - (in the '62 survey, he ranked considerably below Hoover.) The Great Depression hits not eight months after Coolidge leaves office and he's ranked only one spot below Jimmy Carter!

[XemaSab]

111. I call bullshit!

HW ahead of Carter? LIES! :o

[DFW]

120. It already does fit in my toilet.

Close enough.

[mvd]

124. Here are my top and bottom

Top 3:

1. Roosevelt

pros: excellent management of the great depression
cons: new deal politics weren't originally his idea

2. Lincoln

pros: won the Civil War and preserved America; the Emancipation Proclamation
cons: commitment to racial equality is in question

3. Washington

pros: might have been the only one to get the new nation off the ground
cons: handling of Whiskey Rebellion

Worst 3:

1. George W. Bush

cons: everything - started illegal wars, wrecked the economy, had no regard for the Constitution
pros: none

2. James Buchanan

cons: inaction leading up to Civil War; opponent of abolitionists
pros: Mormon crisis ended

3. Ronald Reagan

cons: return to Hoover-style failed policies, and foreign-policy scandals
pros: a nicer version of Bush; though given way too much credit for it, helped precipitate fall of Soviet Union

[Skip Intro]

126. He should be higher on that list. Glad to see he's moving up, tho. nt

[ShadowLiberal]

128. Some of the recent presidents are too high, and some olders one are too low

It seems to me from the list that there's too much of a personal opinion bias in some of these rankings.

I mean Hoover as near the bottom? He failed to get us out of the depression yes, and waited too long to do anything about it, but in reality it was the two presidents before him who had set up the ticking time bomb that exploded in the form of the great depression under Hoover. It's true that Hoover shared the same failed economic philosophy as those who caused the problem, but he wasn't the one who caused it. Basically what I'm saying is that Hoover was a guy who had the horrible luck of inheriting a huge problem that it was too late to really fix by the time he took office.

Also, much as I'd hate to say it, Kennedy is overrated, while he had the big persona that people loved, he just doesn't have the accomplishments to back up where historians rank him consistently. It was Johnson who got the civil rights legislation passed, not Kennedy, yet Johnson is often ranked under Kennedy because of the war in Vietnam dragging Johnson down. Yet the war in Vietnam would have probably dragged Kennedy down in the exact same way had Kennedy served 2 full terms as president.

Reagan of course is overrated in the survey, but getting a fair rating on him is difficult, because lets admit, he's just plain polarizing with how so many still remember him being president. Still, it's probably not a surprise that Reagan doesn't seem to have suffered in that survey from his failed economic policies helping to cause the financial mess we're in now. Bush is obviously getting a lot of the blame for that, with his near bottom ranking.

I also think that historians overrate Jefferson, Jefferson quite frankly does not have the accomplishments to justify being in the top 10 consistently, yet he is because he was a founding father, and historians heavily raise the stock of any president who gets land for the US. What historians often ignore is that Jefferson caused a serious recession in his attempts to avoid war with Britain (a war that was eventually fought in 1812). The only reason why most people forget about Jefferson's incompetence at trying to avoid war to the point of screwing over the economy very badly is because of the Federalists falling apart so badly that they STILL couldn't beat Jefferson's party in what should have been a Federalist year. It would be like McCain winning in 2008 instead of Obama, historians would have forgotten some of Bush's screw ups and decided he couldn't have been 'that' bad if McCain could still win.

[Odin2005]

129. Andrew Jackson and Reagan are WAY too highly ranked.

Jackson shut down the Bank of the US, leading to a fucked up financial system that had financial panics every 20 years, he was the Reagan of his time, undoing economic Hamiltonianism that kept the economy running smoothly. There is was the Trail of Tears.

[busymom]

146. W is 36?

how did he get that high?

[OwnedByFerrets]

147. The ones doing these rankings must not be Middle Class.

[Every Man A King]

153. 15th place for FMLA?

What else positive did he actually accomplish? The Era of Big Government is over? argh...

[Beacool]

154. Congratulations to President Clinton.

:woohoo:

[PresidentObama]

157. Indeed, though I think he deserves to be in the top ten.

And by the way, looks like one poster above who always appears in Clinton threads decided to ruin the fun--again.

They never go away, do they Beacool?

[Beacool]

159. Well, he's inching up the ladder.

Who knows how he'll rate in the future.

As for the same ass-hats, who cares? They are a bore, we got too any other problems to worry about.

Take care, Kerry (I prefer your other nick).

:hi:

[StrongBad]

158. On "International Relations", our old friend W. only ranked better than W.H. Harrison