The Power of Makeup!

[alphabet soup]

Well, differing views, anyway...

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . I'm loving him even more because this is how mad he gets the Dems   

Anyway, unlike most liberals, I don't take this stuff personally.

 

I'm sure you're a really swell person too.

 

[2B]

The problem with being president is that it takes a few decades to decide how they did. Lincoln has a big monument in Washington and his face on our money. During his presidency, he was villified and attacked relentlessly. He didn't overwhelm anyone at the ballot box. Both elections he won could have gone to someone else with just a little change in the wind or his opponents.

Nixon was treated like a social disease until he died. People/historians are now talking about all of the accomplishments that he did. He's coming up in the rankings. His big crime was being caught protecting his "people" which has probably been done by every president ever elected.

Carter is probably the most moral and decent president we've had in the last 50 years and everything he touched turned to crap. He is generally credited with being useless. He should have started building houses and stayed with it.

Bush wouldn't have been president at all if the Dems would have actually not gone out of their way to find total losers to run against him. He squeeked out minimalist victories despite what I would say were seriously flawed opponents.

 

[greg]

Carter is probably the most moral and decent president we've had in the last 50 years and everything he touched turned to crap. 

Yes, and if we would have followed his energy plan, gas might be about $1/gal. right now, and we wouldn't be beholden to a bunch of dictator regimes, and having to pay for both sides of a war on terror.

 

[unclemick]

Carter and Hoover - en ga neers as President.

I passed on politics (election board) - volunteered to put playground equipment together - would never run for any office.

Great coffee this morning - instead of posting I should be doing the second half of the lawn.

Nah! - I'm letting the neighbors sleep in on Sunday - I'm a sweetie.

heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh

 

[2B]

Yes, and if we would have followed his energy plan, gas might be about $1/gal. right now, and we wouldn't be beholden to a bunch of dictator regimes, and having to pay for both sides of a war on terror.

Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda.....

What did he do? What did he get done and how did the country prosper or lose by the actions? A "proposal" is pretty meaningless in history's evaluation of a president. He had the "bully pulpit" and left little to show for it. Being a one termer also hurt Carter's chances of being a "great" president.

Kennedy is another one that unfortunately didn't have enough time to show what he could do. He was initially blessed for being the "martyred" president. When you look at his record, he had lots of problems and some gains. He didn't stay in office long enough to be really measured.

 

[Scrooge]

Being a one termer also hurt Carter's chances of being a "great" president.

Hm... This raises another question. Where was CFB in the spring of 1979?? 

 

[AltaRed]

Hm... This raises another question. Where was CFB in the spring of 1979?? 

We really don't want to know....do we? That rabbit coulda been anywhere

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Awwww...I was graduating from high school. Lots of witnesses. I did have a nutty cousin named Bugs that lived in that area...

 

[Nords]

Kennedy is another one that unfortunately didn't have enough time to show what he could do.  He was initially blessed for being the "martyred" president.  When you look at his record, he had lots of problems and some gains.  He didn't stay in office long enough to be really measured.

That imperialistic war-mongering drug-abusing womanizer who lied extensively & often to hide his medical problems? With a parent who so manipulated the U.S. stock markets that the government was forced to make him start up the SEC?

Oh, yeah, the one who wrote "Profiles in Courage". Sure, great guy. With a second term he could've made Bill Clinton look like a monk. Sayyyy... now I wonder about their handshake photo...

 

[Scrooge]

With a second term he could've made Bill Clinton look like a monk.  Sayyyy... now I wonder about their handshake photo...

Since you have been reading sci fi since the 1960s is it safe to assume that this is a reference to Tim Powers' "The Anubis Gates"? 

 

[HFWR]

Jimmy Carter "...enacted strong environmental legislation; deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries, bolstered the social security system; and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. In foreign affairs, Carter's accomplishments included the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties, the creation of full diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, and the negotiation of the SALT II Treaty..."

Per Wikipedia

Hate to quote myself...

 

[sgeeeee]

Jimmy Carter "...enacted strong environmental legislation; deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries, bolstered the social security system; and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. In foreign affairs, Carter's accomplishments included the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties, the creation of full diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, and the negotiation of the SALT II Treaty..."

Per Wikipedia

All that may be true. But he was and continues to be ineffective at defending himself against the Republican attack machine.

 

[2B]

Hate to quote myself... 

I'm sure you could get a similar list for Franklin Pierce who is generally considered the worst president by most. I personally would like to have more attention paid to James Buchanan for that position. It's interesting both are in that period just before the Civil War.

I don't want to start a battle on individual presidents. I'm sure there's a board somewhere that has them. My point was that time is required from when a president's term ends and their performance becomes free from the vested interests of the people that remember them.

One key fact is that there are very few one term presidents that are in the top half of presidental performers. Plus, Carter and Ford are both pretty much considered safely below average. Even though Bill Clinton had two terms he is right around the middle. Most presidents fall in their "evaluations" as time goes on.

I doubt many people remember what political parties Filmore, Teddy Roosevelt, Hayes, Harding or Jefferson represented. When no one really cares anymore then we can honestly talk about them.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I don't want to start a battle on individual presidents.

Oh come on. We can only go so far on mortgages, inflation, annuities and taking early social security...

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . One key fact is that there are very few one term presidents that are in the top half of presidental performers.  Plus, Carter and Ford are both pretty much considered safely below average.  Even though Bill Clinton had two terms he is right around the middle.  Most presidents fall in their "evaluations" as time goes on. 

I doubt many people remember what political parties Filmore, Teddy Roosevelt, Hayes, Harding or Jefferson represented.  When no one really cares anymore then we can honestly talk about them.

I think the thing you are missing is that your analysis is just that -- your analysis. Either that or the analysis of some biased sources you are reading. Further, that analysis does not seem to support your point that it takes time for us to know the appropriate ranking of a President.

For example, I've never read anyone who believed that Nixon was going to be considered a good President. You seem to think people are changing their minds about the crook. If you are correct, that would support your point, but I just don't see the kind of support for Nixon that you claim in any of the news and analysis sources I follow.

You bring up Carter, but not in a sense that supports your point. Carter was a one term President with fairly low approval ratings. You still think he ranks low. So that would not support your point that it takes time. I think the Wikipedia post supports your point much better since it indicates that while Carter was not terribly popular when he was President, some recognize his significant impact today. But you want to deny this point.

You bring up Ford who never even won an election and couldn't get elected because of poor approval and indicate that he was below average. Again, this does not support your point that it takes time.

You indicate that Clinton was a popular two term President and claim that he will rank sub-standard. Again, that might support your "it takes time" point, but I disagree with your conclusion. Everything I've read recently indicates that Clinton would have won a third term had he been allowed to run and that he could still beat any candidate today.

I actually agree with your point that the way history views Presidential administrations may change over time. But you don't seem to be putting together an argument for that. You seem to be trying to put together an argument to stop blaming Bush for the economy, unsettled mid-East, lack of medical system policy, . . . just in case history book authors bail him out.

 

[2B]

sgeeeee --

I went to what seems to be the most respected source here -- Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

It lists a number of polls.  I'd ignore anything other than scholar or academic polls.  Somehow asking registered voters who were the best presidents is not real useful since a high percentage can't name the current president.

There are other discussions on presidents.  The Wikipedia polls don't address Nixon specifically but there was a lot of positive retrospectives on him around the time of his death.  It's still too soon for his "true" place in history.  There's still too many opinionated ass holes that can't step back.

The same also applies to St. John Kennedy.  He has gone from martyr to lying womanizer.  It's also coming out that Johnson gave Kennedy a lot of undeserved civil rights credit.  Johnson used the Kennedy mourning to ram through bills that would have never been passed without attributing them to JFK.  He greatly expanded the civil rights transition that got rolling under Truman and Eisenhower.

Everybody doesn't always go up.  Some do.  Some don't.

Clinton may have been popular but even liberal academics don't put him high up on the discussions of great presidents.

Nixon was reasonably popular and crushed his opponent in the election -- who ever remembers the loser?  The Watergate break-in was totally meaningless to the election and Nixon was never directly tied to it.  His mistake was using the office of the president to disrupt the investigations that ultimately implicated people close to him.

Of course, we shouldn't neglect Hayes.  I notice that on Wikepedia that he's ranked higher that Carter and the Bushs.  We could have a good discussion on that.

From a personal standpoint, don't confuse me with a Bush supporter.  IMHO, he has done somethings right and somethings very wrong.  He is subjected to what I see as absolute hatred by the "left."  The fixation of the "left" on Bush hate will cost them again in the next election.  Unless I missed something, in less than 3 years GWB will retire to his ranch, make speeches for big bucks justifying his debacles and write his memoirs.

I think we've beaten this enough.  Let's move on to Hitler and Nazis.   

 

[unclemick]

Harry Truman - don't need anybody else's opinion - my mind is made up - in my heart I know I'm right.

Plus - guess where I live now.

heh heh heh heh heh heh heh he he

 

[2B]

Harry Truman - don't need anybody else's opinion - my mind is made up - in my heart I know I'm right.

Plus - guess where I live now.

heh heh heh heh heh heh heh he he

Show me!

Any good clothing stores around there?

 

[Mwsinron]

Oh come on.  We can only go so far on mortgages, inflation, annuities and taking early social security...

So I was looking at this excellent annuity the other day and....

 

[sgeeeee]

. . .
I think we've beaten this enough.  Let's move on to Hitler and Nazis.   

And how is it that you think this tabulation of polls makes your point?

Look at the details of those surveys.  I can see why you want to discount the surveys of American voters.  They all seem to argue against the rankings you've been claiming.  For example:

Quinnipiac University poll
A Quinnipiac University poll, taken May 23-30, 2006, asked 1,534 registered American voters to pick the best and worst U.S. President of the last 61 years. [7].

"Thinking about the United States Presidents we have had since World War II – Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Senior, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, which one would you consider the best president?"

Ronald Reagan (28%)
Bill Clinton (25%)
John Kennedy (18%)
Harry Truman (7%)
Dwight Eisenhower (5%)
Jimmy Carter (5%)
Don't Know/No Answer (4%)
George W. Bush (3%)
George H. W. Bush (2%)
Lyndon Johnson (1%)
Richard Nixon (1%)
Gerald Ford (1%)

So registered voters rated Clinton as the best recent President the second highest number of times.  Nixon, Ford and Johnson least often.  Nixon does rank high on the "who is the worst President?" question, although George W. Bush ranks significantly higher on that question.

But if you really believe that the scholar rankings are superior to the popular opinion, look at the two Schlesinger polls taken 14 years apart.  There is very little shift in relative rank of the Presidents between those two polls.  That actually surprises me, but the data just doesn't seem to support any of your positions.  

 

[unclemick]

Even tho my sister works for Goodwill in the PacNW - I prefer Salvation Army.

When I'm rich - maybe Tractor Supply or -- I need to hunt down Stetson hat - rumored to around here somewhere.

heh heh heh - before Jimmy Buffett shirts - I had a thing for Western shirts - haven't had a cowboy hat since I hung up my cap pistols.

 

[samclem]

This "who was the best President" question just doesn't mean very much. Each administration had a completely unique environment--different internal conditions in the economy, different Congress, entirely foreign relations issues. Clearly to rate their "accomplishments" without factoring in these factors is ludicrous, and there's no way to factor them in. Let's poll some youngsters for some equally good match-ups:

- "If Godzilla fought Mothra, who would win?"
- "If a bear fought a tiger, who would win?"
- "Which is faster, a snake or a fish?"

 

[sgeeeee]

. . .
  - "If Godzilla fought Mothra, who would win?"
 . . .

I think we are too close to the Godzilla movies to make this distinction. We need to wait a few decades and let historians decide.

 

[unclemick]

When I was little - I liked Ike - until my Dad took me to one side and explained - he was one of THEM and as a Democratic Ward Committeeman it was best for his kid to remain silent.

Seemed like a nice guy - when I was a kid.

heh heh heh