No------Truman made a very diffcult, in many cases regrettable,but, ultimately, the right decision. Japan started the conflict, thus,they brought upon themselves, a horribly inevitable conclusion. Don't forget the "rape of Nanking",
the Bataan Death march, horrible atrocities in Japanese P.O.W. camps, Pearl Harbor, etc. The saying "you reap what you sow", applies here. & please don't say Japan's actions against the U.S. were justified by the oil embargo !
As with my previous post,this is a very subjective call, based on where you fall on the ideological spectrum. I'm gonna dive right in & list my 5 best & worst in chronological order. Maybe later I'll give my explanations about why I included the following Presidents :
5 Best:
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Abraham Lincoln
Theodore Roosevelt
Franklin Roosevelt
5 Worst :
James Buchannan
Herbert Hoover
Lyndon Johnson
Richard Nixon
George W. Bush
Continuing this even further, It's my personal belief that every President from Lyndon Johnson through George W Bush has been, to one degree or another, a failure. ( Too early to assess Obama.)
So who was the last good President ? I couldn't say it was John Kennedy------incredibly overrated, in my opinon. He had the POTENTIAL for greatness, but his murder makes any kind of assessment nearly impossible. He also had the potential for being impeached; his reckless indiscretions,particularly fucking a babe who had connections to the E. German intelligence service, the Stasi, coulda had potential for him being kicked out of office. Guess JFK was the Tiger Woods of his day;shows you how Addison's disease & numerous drugs plays havoc with one's judgment.
So who was last good Prez, in my opinion ? I'd say Dwight Eisenhower. I'd list the reasons why, but, I'm too lazy. If you don't know, crack open a history book.
Feedback on all this would be most welcome.
Kennedy never would have been impeached... it was a different time and a different atmosphere in Washington; members of both parties had too much respect for the OFFICE of the presidency to take someone down for sexual picadillos. I'd also argue that Kennedy qualifies as one of the top five greatest presidents... not over-rated at all. He started the Peace Corps, prevented WWIII, started the civil rights programs that Johnson finished and got a man on the moon. Yes, he got us into Viet Nam, but we don't know how he would have handled it had he lived.
I'd also suggest that Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter could replace Buchannon and Herbert Hoover as among the worst.
At least I'm glad to see that you didn't have Reagan in the top 5... now THERE was an over-rated president.
It's really too difficult to compare George Washington to George Bush.
IMO the greatest POTUS in my lifetime was Ronald Reagan, followed by Ike, and Teddy Roosevelt. I know that is only three but I truly can't call any of the other truly great.
Naming five of the worst is much easier. Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, Herbert Hoover, Barrack Obama, and a toss up between FDR and GWB as the worst.
I would put Clinton possibly in the top five, Gerald Ford never a snowballs chance in hell, which eliminates him from consideration IMO. George HW might have had a chance to be a very good one at least if the economy hadn't tanked through no fault of the Excutive Branch. JFK should go down as the most overrated POTUS, a case could be made that he almost caused WWIII, not that he prevented it.
Although I thought he lacked the intellectual ability to be a good president and certainly lacked the work ethic I though was needed for the position, and I absolutely shuddered at the though of what it would cost to fund star wars, I was pretty much wrong on every point.
Reagan had certain core principles and he delegated the details to his subordinates. That may be the best way to run that office.
He lowered taxes, his economic polices set the stage for the great bull market of the 90s, and some experts attribute the collapse of the Soviet Union at least in part due to his policies.
And boy could he give a speech.
3 Reasons why :
1. The '83 Beirut Barracks bombing where several hundred U.S. Marines lost their lives. Reagan turns tail & runs, giving "courage" to psychos like Osama Bin Laden & others to formulate plans to strike against U.S. interests.
2. Iran/Contra, aka, " a study in senility". Nuff said.
3. Reagan racks up hude federal deficits in massive arms buildup. Nuff said.
Jimmy Carter may have been a bad president, but still may have been one of the two or three smartest ones, at least of the 20th century.
What should he have done when it was discovered that the USSR was putting nuclear missles in Cuba? Ignored it?
If you've ever read the "Missles of October", or saw the telemovie based on the events, you'd realize that had anyone else been president at the time, it's very likely the missles would have flown.
It's funny, but we have exactly the opposite thought about who was over-rated. I think Reagan was over-rated and Kennedy wasn't, you think just the opposite.
I'm glad to see you would put Clinton in the top five. If not in the top five best, he was certainly one of the top five most intelligent... in fact maybe the MOST intelligent 20th century president.
If it weren't for the fact that he was the consumatte politician. Say what you will about Ronald Reagan, but he had the courage of his convictions and that was the secret to his winning of the Cold War. The Soviets believed he was the man in charge and that he would not rest until we had one.
Clinton would alter his policies according to the latest polls and while that makes for an excellent politcian. It is not the criteria you look for in a leader. Reagan exhibited all the qualities you attribute to JFK, Clinton unfortunately did not.
Clinton was still a very good POTUS, and I do admit to having voted for him in his reelection bid for the exact reason you stated. I wanted a division of power, I did not want the Republicans controlling the White House as well as Congress.
FWIW Obama is also a very, very intelligent man. He also has the very real possibility of going down as the worst POTUS of all time.
Maybe the second worst... NObody will ever surpass G.W.Bush!
did not back Brooksley Born when she attempted to regulate financial deravitives. He also did not handle the aTTACK ON THE US Cole, very well.
Remmember the Enron scandal and other finaniial scandals World Com, TYCO etc. occurred under his watch. President Bush had to clean it up. Want me to go on? Read my other post.
He also disgraced the Presidency. He lied. He is though a smooth talker, but once historians begin to write on the consequences of his policies after his death, his Presidency will not be looked on favorably.
A president who lied??? Who'd have thought it?
Yeah, he lied to congress; about a blowjob... the conservatives finally nailed him after hounding him throughout his presidency, accusing him of every thing they could think of... According to them, he had Vince Foster AND Ron Brown murdered, he was responsible for travelgate and the whitewater consipricy... give me a break! He made a legitimate attempt to kill Bin-Laden and was accused of a "wag the dog" like effort to cover up his affair with Lewinsky.
Enron, World Com and TYCO would have happened no matter who was president at the time, and remember, their crimes may have been DISCOVERED during Clinton's presidency, but they STARTED on Reagan watch.
During any two term presidency, it's easy to point out their mistakes... I could do the same with Reagan, and let's not even get started on G.W.
Think what you want, but 100 years from now, I think history will treat Clinton better than Bush OR Reagan.
eddie, you're are correct, almost. Clinton did lie to Congress, and he also lied to the American people, about Monica lewinski. What really got his balls in a vice is when he perjured himself to a Federal Circuit Court judge in Arkansas, who he appointed by the way, concerning the Paula Jones case. THAT'S why he was impeached by the House of Representatives. He also lost his license to practice law because of that perjury.
Still, it was a guy lying about sex so he wouldn't get in trouble with his wife, pure and simple.
Richard Nixon was VERY intelligent. His paranoia brought him down, not his intelligence. He certainly doesn't deserve to be in the bottom five.
getting us out of Vietnam, (thankfully just before I would have had to go) and opening relationship with the most populous country in the world.
Watergate of course eliminates him from any consideration for greatness, but as you said he was VERY intelligent.
I do believe his decision in pardoning Nixon was the right one for the country. I also like how he dealt with the Maraquez incident.
More importantly, he has been the first and only President to have an actual Energy Policy. The EPA mileage standards were started under his administration. HIs enactment of energy efficency of buildings were all under his admistration. Hoover yea, he had it bad, but he atl least built Hoover Dam.
-- Modified on 12/13/2009 6:20:39 PM
Remember it was a democrat controlled congress during his administration. The only thing he contributed to an Energy Policy was not to veto it.
And I disagree that pardoning Nixon was good for the country. It gave the impression that politicians were above the law.
He ended the Vietnam war, why don't the libs like him?
By his actions Nixon disgraced the office of the Presidency and damaged our political system for years. He also made it possible for an idiot peanut farmer to ascend to the office of POTUS with disastrous consequences.
He may not have been a good president, but he might be the second or third most intelligent president of the 20th century.
"Peanut farmer, yes, idiot, not by a long shot...
Posted by fasteddie51, 12/14/2009 3:25:31 AM
He may not have been a good president, but he might be the second or third most intelligent president of the 20th century."
If Intelligence is not used properly it is no smarter than mud.
Carter's innate intelligence aside, his actions are idiotic, counterproductive and at times inflammotory.
Case in point. WW is one of the biggest idiots on this board, he is also quite literate and probably scores quite highly on an IQ test. JohnGalt is another poster, both here and on the GD board who is also undoubtably intelligent, but who is also a functional idiot on many levels.
As far as posters that are not very smart, but make sense anyhow, well you got me on that one. To quote Forrest Gump, "stupid is as stupid does" and my analogy breaks down at that point. lol
Clinton. President Buchanon for not recognizing and taking action before the Civil War; Andrew Johnson because he failed to heal the wounds from the Civil War; and Warren Harding because he did not know what the hell he was doing. He didn't even want to be President but his wife forced him to run. True story. He died though before he could inflict too much damage.
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are on top because of their catatrosphic foreign and defense polices. The number one job of the President is to be Commander-in-Chief and these two failed miserably.
President Jimmy Carter at a speech at Notre Dame University said we had nothing to fear from Communism. Russian tanks thereafter rolled into Afghanistan and Angola. The Somoza regime was overthrown and replaced by an even more repressive regime. He failed to take action in the diaspora of East Timor. The Iranian hostage crisis I place him at fault. More dishearting he allowed our US Armed Froces to run on deferred maintenance. He invested in a B-2 bomber but allowed other defense programs such as air missle and armored tanks to disintergrate. Complacency had been allowed to enter the US ARMY.
Don't get me started on his domestic polices or his "Malaise" speech.
Bill Clinton was horrible because he failed In Somalia. George H.W. Bush and the marines were doing pretty good until Clinton decided to change the mission and hell broke loose.
His biggest failures however were:
(1) Not positioning America in it's proper role after the fall of Communism. During the Clinton Adminstration America lost it's identity. President George H.W. Bush had it right when he proclaimed during the Persian Gulf War; there is now a "New World Order". President Clinton failed to take this mantle of world cooperation as President Bush did during the Gulf War to deal with problems in Afghanistan, Sudan and the diaspora of Rwanda.
(2) Because of one above Terrorist cells were allowed to develop and flourish. Clinton dealt with the bombings of the US Embassies at Kenya and Tanzania by firing tomahawk missiles at a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan and mud huts in Afghanistan, respectively. Bad mistake.
(3) Clinton's worst mistake however was to deal with Al Qaida and other terrorist factions through law enforcement means. The bombings at World Trade Center and Oklahoma City should have been handled by the military. I blame 9-11 directly on Clinton.
(4) Waco Massacre. I think any Presidency that kills innocent children should be impeached. Janet Reno - what an incompetent piece of %^&*.
By the way, President Nixon is one of the bets Presidents America ever had, but that is for a different thread.
-- Modified on 12/13/2009 6:22:48 PM
Clinton's defense policy being bad is open to reasonable debate, but in fact his foreign policy was better than Reagan's and both Bush's. Nixon, a man who I am by no means fond of, may have had the best foreign policy of any president of the 20th century. A good foreign policy must include a large component of diplomacy, something republican presidents have sorely lacked since Nixon.
his walks with Gorbachev were some of the simplest and most profound diplomacy efforts since Roosevelt met with Churchill on a destroyer in the North Atlantic.
Don't forget the Persian Gulf War was truly a multi-national military force that was fought with the participation of Arab, ASian,even former communist and western countries. I know I was there. This multi-national force could have never coalesced without the ground diplomacy that was conducted from the previous Presidential adminstration. It didn't just happen.
Where President Clinton failed - history will eventually prove me right - is that he did not identify America's role in the post-communistic era. Let me explain:
After the fall of the Berlin wall, there was a power vaccum that was left after the Russians left such countries as Afghanistan, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Somalia et al. Say what you will about the Russians but they kept a tight iron curtain on their empire. When they left, factions within these countries began to fight among themselves for power i.e. the Balkans, Somalia, and Afghanistan et al. In west Africa in countries such as Sierra Leone, civil wars were even fought with weaponry made in the USSR. Clinton did not nothing to stop this upheaval.
President Clinton should have build upon the mantle of the "New World Order" set up by the previous adminstration to address such issues as Somalia, the Balkans, Afghanistan and yes the disapora of Rwanda. Rwanda by the way, President Clinton has acknowledged was his greatest failure. He said it. Because of this power vaccum; factions such as the Taliban were allowed to achieve power and Al Qaida had a training base to develop their terrorist ways.
President Clinton had an opportunity to promote peace in these countries and the invasion of Afghanistan would not have been necessary. Durfur would never have happened etc. Somali pirates wouldn't be plying their trade and disrupting foreign trade.
has a history of "loathing the military" and thinks his intellect can suplant military power.
In several regards we are seeing a repeat unfold today.
5. Teddy Roosevelt
4. Harry Truman
3. James Madison
2. Abraham Lincoln
1. Franklin Roosevelt
5. Andrew Johnson
4. Richard Nixon
3. George W. Bush
2. Herbert Hoover
1. Ronald Reagan
Jimmy Carter is surely one of the worst Presidents to sver serve.
I would replace FDR with Reagen for the best. Yes, libs will go crazy about this but if you want to debate start another thread
Why would libs go crazy about that? FDR was a democrat.
re-read the post. I am replacing one of the most beloved Democratic icons on the "Best" list with the Gipper..
Us libs won't go crazy... you entitled to your opinions no matter how wrong they may be! 
Bill Clinton - Best
Ronald Reagan - worst and still paying.
5 worst :
Abe Lincoln
FDR
George Washington
Teddy Roosevelt
Thomas Jefferson
5 best :
Millard Fillmore
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Warren Harding
Herbert Hoover
You either unintentionally reversed you best and worst, or you're joking, or you're an idiot.
Hiroshima & Nagasaki were necessary,if horrible
decisions for Truman to take. Oakinawa & Iwo Jima inflicted horrendous casualties on both sides. Japan ( despite elements in the govt. & military ),refused to surrender.That's what happened, despite contemporary historical revisionism. An invasion of mainland Japan would have cost a million lives or more.
If you talk to WW2 allied vets who fought in the Pacific theatre & witnessed the horrors of war, there's no ambiguity; they strongly agreed with Truman's decisions on Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
in a prior thread.
And it is inaccurate to say they "refused to surrender" - rather. they initially refused to surrender unconditionally bc they wanted to save the emperor from execution.
Had Truman simply waited a few months they likely would have surrendered.
On the mainland of Japan, they were rallying both children and men, prepared to die if/when American forces invaded. The people of Japan were prepared to continue fighting down to the last man/woman/child standing in defense of the Emporer. Truman made the right decision. You are crazy if you honestly think any human could make such a gut wrenching decision lightly.
No------Truman made a very diffcult, in many cases regrettable,but, ultimately, the right decision. Japan started the conflict, thus,they brought upon themselves, a horribly inevitable conclusion. Don't forget the "rape of Nanking",
the Bataan Death march, horrible atrocities in Japanese P.O.W. camps, Pearl Harbor, etc. The saying "you reap what you sow", applies here. & please don't say Japan's actions against the U.S. were justified by the oil embargo !
we might want to remember that in our current "war on terror". Not that we could identify a target to nuke, but our overall philosophy of waging a limited, gloves on, type of war doesn't seem to have much of an exit strategy at the end of it.
the great majority of those killed do any of those things?
Sorry, I can't revenge rationale at all. You were on better ground with what were taught in school - it was necessary to prevent thousands of American soldiers being killed in an invasion.
So let's say you are right and the bombing of Hiroshima where 140,000 were killed was justified. Now make the case for the bombing of Nagaski 3 days later.
Remember no one could get anywhere Hiroshima to fully assess the damage that quick - the Japanese had no appreciation of the extent of the damage by the time the second bomb was dropped.
You don't think we could have waited just a little bit before we killed 80,000 more infant children, women , and old men?
80,000 lives of those who attacked us is a reasonable exchange to save tens of thousands of American lives. The Japanese had already killed thousands of our soldiers. Why on earth allow more of our own boys to die when two bombs brought a complete end to the conflict without losing one more American life.
Your answer of course will be something along the lines of but those lives lost were innocent. My answer: Japan should have thought of that before they attacked us. End of story.
Not to mention similar atrocities commmitted in other territories conquered by the Japanese ? It cuts both ways.The Japanese created a nightmarish vortex when they started the war & it's no surprise that it ended the hellish way it did. You expected the allies to take a Marquis of Queensbury,white gloved elevated moral
approach against an enemy who committed such barbaric acts ?
War is hell, pal; a cliche, but very true. Your idealism is naive, to say the least.
The list of Japanese war atrocities is a mile long.
Millions of people all over the globe died as a result of WWII, how many more would have died if not for the dropping of the bombs, we will never know. What is for certain is that it ended the war.
Being POTUS even in peacetime is not an easy job. Making decisions that effect millions of people during wartime is not something that many are capable of. I would count you and our current POTUS in that camp.
was justified, what is the justification for the second bomb that was dropped before Japan even had a chance to assess the damage caused by the first and to decide whether to surrender?
but that doesn't make a logical response to my statement... in that case he should have appeared on someone's worst list.
FDR had it easy and played it easy.
He did not go into WW II until it was popular because of Pearl Harbor. Had he rallied people, if he could, and gone in earlier, it would have been easier and less costly to stop.
We don't know how good he was in economics. The country didn't get worse, but he did not have a recovery until the war.
On the other hand, Truman had to do unpopular things because they were right. The Marshall plan is typical Truman. The country was sick of foreign entanglements, and had just spent a fortune bailing out Europe's sorry ass. They were in no mood to spend another fortune.
However HST (No middle name, just an initial), jammed through the Marshall plan.
His other accomplishments were similar in nature.
George Bush has to wait for a rating until emotions calm. Obama is already giving "credit" to the fact that we are returning Iraq to the Iraqis. And not under one of the most viscious dictators in the world.
Everyone in the Clinton administration claimed Saddam was a threat. Everyone in the world claimed he was an evil, oppressive bastard. If someone was able to overthrow him and install a democracy for 4,000 American lives, that would be a wonderful thing.
You can't say JFK prevented WW III. It didn't happen, but he prevented it the same way that Truman, Ike, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Ford, Reagan Clinton, and both Bushes prevented it. They had had problems with the USSR that could have been WW III and they all prevented it
Best:
Thomas Jefferson
Calvin Coolige
Harry Truman
Theodore Roosevelt
Abraham Lincoln
Worst:
Jimmy Carter
Herbert Hoover
Franklin Pierce
FDR
James Buchannon
I think that FDR is perhaps overated, but that was then, and we are still struggling with some of the same issues he delt with (economy tanking) where to draw the geopolitical line...
As to lyndon Johnson, if you put him there, you must put Carter there as well... Would I say that Thodore Roosebelt was a better president than say John Adams, James Madison or James Monroe? While many will credit Washington and Jefferson with crafting the republic or the office of POTUS, these individuals also played key roles in the formation of the presidential policy.... and I note that Truman is absent from your list - He ENDED WWII.... and prevented us from a stalemate much as we found ourselves in Korea and vietnam and are about to find ourselves elsehwere.... dum, dum dahhhhhhh
as to Eisenhower.... yea, the era of segregation, McCarthyism, the start of the VietNam excursion, the soviets gaining a considerable PR lead with their space program and oh so much else... sorry, he was a great general, but a lack luster leader in peace time.
What I find incredibly telling about our system of government is that the country does well, in spite of the rarity of great leaders.... in fact, there are few we would all agree upon, and certainly Washington, Lincoln and few others appear on everyones list.
Perphaps that speaks to the collective greatness of our founding fathers in total.... perhaps.
We are indeed very lucky by our accident of birth.
Worst:
Wilson
Treaty of Versailles which led directly to WWII
Progressive Income tax ,
It’s ironic that he was the last sitting President to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. His whole contribution to the Progressive movement plus his racists/segregationists policies and support for eugenics. They are a good example of his intellectualism overriding common sense.
FDR
Socialization of the U.S.
Carter
Near total lack of leadership. One word “malaise.”
********
Best:
Reagan
Leadership and steadfast courage.
Ended the “malaise”.
Put the final nail in the U.S.S.R’s coffin.
Teed the ball high for the 90’s.
Truman
Courage and selfless determination.
Did the correct things when everyone seemed to hate him and be against him (his popularity was as low as GWB)
Got the human rights ball rolling by desegregating the military (did I mention everyone hated him)
********
Mixed bag
Nixon
Thumbs Ups:
Best Foreign policy President since Madison.
Thumbs Downs:
He killed modern politics as we knew it.
Some really bad domestic policy (wage and price controls)
JFK
Thumbs Ups:
Prevented WWIII (Cuban missile crisis)
Thumbs Downs:
Damn near started WWIII (Cuban missile crisis)
Eisenhower
Thumbs Ups:
Had the balls (or common sense) to enforce degregation of public schools
Thumbs Downs:
Terrible politician
********
Most Honest
Ford
Carter
********
Most Dishonest
Nixon
Clinton
********
Best Populist
Clinton (Maybe Teddy Roosevelt as runner up but he was also secretly a Progressive)
********
Best Politician
LBJ (Runner up FDR)
********
Jury’s out
GWB
But he sure does remind me of Truman.
BHO
Trying to finish what FDR and Wilson started.
am happy to see some thought-out reasons for making them.
5 best: Thomas Jefferson; Ronald Reagan; Theo. Roosevelt; John Adams; William Taft (as USSC judge)
Worst? Jimmy Carter, Franklin (Marx) Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln (for his wholesale slaughter of the US Constitution)
Why was he relected by landslides FOUR times ?
If one wants to go for a conservative, Constitutionalist GOP Prez during the depression,
how about Herbert Hoover ? When he left office in '33, the U.S. suffered its highest unemployment rate at 25 %. Jesus !
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
A little bit of education goes a long way. A peer reviewed bit of research.
And, the memoirs of FDR's Sec. of Tres. (Morgenthau) describing how FDR made unilateral decisions on the value of gold is enough to make any sensible person vomit. FDR laying in bed, playing with his weenie whilst thinking up lucky numbers? FTW!
Elections. How is that related to competence? GWB got elected twice. We elected Carter once, and if we are lucky, His Imperial Majesty The Obamessiah only once. Again, what does intelligence of the electorate have anything to do with presidential competence?
If I had my way, there would be a simple Constitutional intelligence test required of the voting population before they could cast a vote for dog catcher:
1. What kind of government do we have? (If they answer DEMOCRACY, they get kicked in the balls and their right to vote is taken away for 20 years)
2. What is the difference between a Republic (the correct answer to #1) and a Democracy? (Another kick in the balls and their rights are forever rescinded if they can't figure this one out.)